Shipbucket

A battlecruiser is like a battleship just with cruiser scale armor and increased speed.
Also why RAM and not sea RAM?
Why should I take away the Harpoons.
Below deck hangar.

Oh wow, I can't believe someone is actually using my old crap battlecruiser from forever ago lol.

Dude your ship has a beautiful hull and I believe that it is awesome

Complete sentences make me happy, so please use them.
Ok, so what does mean in the missile era? You've just given a fine 1920's definition, but a 1920s definition is no longer valid.
The Mk-49 GMLS that is meant when I say RAM over SeaRAM, is prefered because it offers 21 missiles on the launcher rather than the 11 for the SeaRAM mount.
That's pink, so update, not remove. Not that removing the Harpoons would be a bad idea- it would help with any top-weight issues that might crop up.
Below deck hangers tend to not work all that well. Witness what happened to the hangers on the Virginia Class cruisers.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Ok but why not sea ram. I mean sure less missles but it is self contained.
I think I will remove the harpoon mounts and instead put the harpoons in the VLS
I think that a fine mission and description for a modern battlecruiser would be similar to the use of an Alaska.
Which is that it is a fast air defense escort for carriers. That is why I gave it so many VLS, phalanx, 5in mounts, and why I used a double 5 in of my own design instead of maybe using the stealth 8 in.

SeaRAM is designed for ships that doesn't have the sensors to guide RAM. You should have plenty of sensors so you don't need SeaRAM. If I'm not mistaken SeaRAM is more expensive than the standard RAM launcher due to the extra electronics and in this case it will decrease your capabilities.

Except that wasn't the Alaska's mission. The Alaska was designed to counter enemy cruisers and commerce raiders. When they failed to materialize they were turned into AA escorts. Not because they were good at it, but because the were fast enough to keep up with the carriers and because they were available

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I know that was not the mission. But I never said it was. I said that the mission for MY battlecruiser would be similar to the USE of the Alaskas.
About the sea ram. Really? I never knew they were more expensive. If so then I will for sure put normal RAM on the ship.
I was thinking about using a Nimitz type CIWS setup with both missles and phalanx.

But then you don't need a battlecruiser or a large cruiser.
If AAW is your focus then you need to get rid of most of the guns since they don't do much for you air defence, quite the contrary in fact.
The weight saved should then be relocated towards better sensors and possibly helicopter facilities.
Same with the MLRS.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

What in hell does Phalanx have to do with protecting a carrier? Or even 5/54 for that matter?

I will be deleting the bean guns but I will keep the Double 5 in mounts and the MLRS.