If they had the same generation compensator that gave the Nike 675 gees a 4.4 mton ship like the Triumphant should, I think, actually have 645 gees. The new compensators appear based on very limited data to be a straight percentage improvement over the old ones. Nike's 1920 PD compensator let her pull 144% the accel of an old-style one. 144% of a Triumphant's 445.1 gees is 645.1.Somtaaw wrote:The RMN's Nike Class at 2.5 Mtons have 50 missile tubes, 64 CM tubes, and 60 PDLCs. Triumphant class Battleships have 76 missile tubes, 44 CM tubes, and 52 PDLCs, all on a hull that's only 50% larger than the Nikes at 4.5 Mtons. If you rearmed the old Triumphants with RMN style off-bore Mk16 missiles, compensators & Beta squared nodes, and RMN/GSN automation (since they're more efficient than the later Republican automation) a Triumphant becomes one hell of a rear-security ship. With similar compensators to the Nike's, I think a Triumphant-II could hit a military max of 625 gravs to the 2.5 MTon Nike's 675.
It'd be a hell of a mean ship, but I don't know that the costs (probably 75+% of a full up SD(P), especially if you fit Keyhole II onto it is worth it. It's not 75% of the combat power and survivability of the full up waller. So it'd be in the same category as the old BBs relative to contemporary designs. It could crush any BC (including Nike) that it could catch but couldn't stand up to full wallers - making it too expensive for it's capabilities).
The only reason Haven used BBs is that they were mostly a sunk cost. They'd built a bunch back when they were primary waller combatants and, like the Royal Navy used it's pre-dreadnaughts in WWI, they were still used once obsolete because they were around and paid for. But it wouldn't make any sense to build new ships of that size and capability for those roles. So I don't see anybody building new BBs.
