AU Siagria

[Andrzej1]

Third variant of the Cruiser, the biggest and the most powerful of all three designs. Bow lenghtened, stern lenght is the same as in the design 1. Number of exocets now brought up to 12 (four at the "C" position, eight on the quarterdeck).

[Andrzej1]

Personally I would start by thinking through the history of your ship ?

When was it built, when is it depicted and has it been rebuilt in the image shown ?

This then could give you the date systems where added to the ship (and any taken off), I'm saying this as this hull looks early (as do 6") and the much later missiles radars, so it looks like a rebuild to me ? If it is then maybe think what would come off to fit the missiles etc ?

Yes, that's an important question. At first I was drawing this ship as part of my alternate world (in my childhood I have "invented" my own paralel world like Westeros or another, but with the technology of the mid-20th century), but then I realised that I am not skilled enough to design ships "from zero", so now I am thinking that the cruiser will be part of the future Polish AU, which will be lighter than making the whole imaginary planet
As for the purpose of the ship - well, I thought that it's purpose is to provide anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-submarine protection for the fast carrier groups, to provide NGS for the coastal landing operations and to fight with enemy ships, of course The year is approximately 1973, but I have chosen the GW25 hull because it's large enough to place weapons, magasines and stores for such number of tasks. 6 inch guns were chosen because I think they are much better for the NGS and the CQ than the 4.5in guns.

[acelanceloet]

I think you are now getting to the point where the hull cannot take its own weight trough the waves. if an hull is lengthened, the beam must be made a bit bigger as well (for stability) but the depth of the hull must be increased as well (for strength). note that the depth is something else then the draft, depth is from the keel to main (strength) deck, draft is from waterline to keel.

you also reach the point here again where the forward engine room is literally almost a 100 meters from the propellers, something not impossible but not recommended either

[Andrzej1]

I think you are now getting to the point where the hull cannot take its own weight trough the waves. if an hull is lengthened, the beam must be made a bit bigger as well (for stability) but the depth of the hull must be increased as well (for strength). note that the depth is something else then the draft, depth is from the keel to main (strength) deck, draft is from waterline to keel.

you also reach the point here again where the forward engine room is literally almost a 100 meters from the propellers, something not impossible but not recommended either

I nave increased the hull depth, but I think that the cruiser became something like Kirov-class battlecruiser - the displacement must be 25-30 thousand tons. In addition, this ship will have too big draft for the Baltic sea, so I think that the second variant with the original GW25 hull will be better

[JSB]

It has many big systems, 6" auto twins, Sea Dart x 2, Limbo, Exocets x 12, Sea Wolf x2, 40mm x2, TTs and lots of big radars.
All of this has weight and space (and COST !) you are not talking about a small ship, even HMS Bristol at 7000t only had a 1/3 of that list so 21,000+t isn't a bad guess.

[Dmitri97]

No helicopter? Or at least provisions for a landing spot? You bring up the Kirov as a comparable warship and the Kirov carried both helicopters and ASW weapons. Maybe with a possible rearrangement of the aft area you could fit in a hangar for at the very least 2 helicopters? Possibly place the sea dart behind it? With guidance radars on the roof of the hangar? (Provided the hangar is strong enough to support it)