Shipbucket

Still recommend conventional, nuclear can be a right pain

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards

Good point, but as a fast carrier escort wouldn't it be slightly better for it to be nuclear or CONAS.

CG or CGN depending on the powersource.
This is neither a large cruiser or a battlecruiser since it isn't designed to perform their respective missions.
It's not a cruiser killer, a scout or a mean to control the enemies battleline.

_________________
“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.

Yeah, but look at the size of that thing! Also the mission for any number of ships has had to change in the advent of carriers. Only one ship was built during the missle era so far that is even close to a battlecruiser are the Kirovs. I think that you could in a modern conflict between superpowers, use a battlecruiser in an anti-carrier task force or as stated before as a fast heavy escort for carriers.

Well it's slightly better than before, but it still needs a lot of work.
You are correct. A dedicated AAW ship wouldn't have an MRLS battery, but for a ship this size, I can see it being added for limited anti-ship and shore bombardment missions.
The only way to get better is to practice. Large hulls require a lot of detail work, which is why we recommend that people start on smaller ships.*
Nuclear powered ships only require a pathway to get down to the reactor core for refueling and replacement, and some small ship service gas turbines or diesels to provide back up power, and hotel loads when the reactor is off.

*Smaller ships do present a challenge all their own in that you have to keep from overloading it with details but keep everything that needs to be there on the drawing.
You have already stated that the primary mission of these ships is anti-air, not anti-surface. I suggest you read up on the Project 1144 (Kirov) class ships, before you start using them as a basis for calling these ships 'Battlecruisers.' For the record It's not the semantics that get to me (I really don't care what you call them), but for sanity's sake be consistent as to what the mission of the ship is.

PS - Size doesn't mean squat when it comes to names - the Zumwalts are classed as destroyers. They have 6" guns, and displace more than most WW2 cruisers. Hull form and mission do help determine the classification. I would even go so far as to way that the last real non-Russian cruiser anywhere in the world is Almirante Grau.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Ok about the fact that the ship could be head of an anti-carrier task force I say that if you are going to attack carriers without a large carrier, then you will need a ship with heavy air defense weaponry. And that is where my ship comes in. If I wanted it to be anti-surface, I would have given it 8 inch guns and harpoons.