Yeah, I gotta join in with Erik here: while it is impressive as a drawing, the design has major flaws to the point of being impossible.
- I really think that the double size elevator is not a great idea. the bigger the hole in the side of the hull, the bigger the stress concentration and added reinforcements around it.
- There seems to be little increase in hull depth compared to the nimitz, and most of that increase is below the waterline. In other words, the freeboard is the same, the hangar is no higher above the water then on the nimitz, so when the ship is moving trough waves you will have water much closer to your hull openings and elevators. The increased beam adds to this issue as well, getting water on your elevators and sponsons at much lower angles.
- The relative reduction in hull depth also means the ship's shape is less strong then that of the nimitz, requiring an heavier construction (even when scaled). So if this ship is 200% the displacement of the nimitz, and let's assume 25% of the nimitzes displacement was the steel of the hull, this hull will not weigh 50% of the nimitzes displacement but significantly more, possibly even 75%. In other words: you get an much larger ship but you don't get as much additional usable displacement, if you do not increase the hull depth so the L/D is at least equal to that of the nimitz.
- All your elevators but one are on one side of the ship. This is something that is normally avoided in carrier design, while it doesn't have to be 50-50, right now only a 6th of the elevators (if the double size one counts double) that is on the port side.
- The forwardmost elevator is so close to the catapult that it will not be in use when that catapult is in use. There is no way to reach the waist cataputs from any elevator without blocking the landing runway. The weapon elevators interfere with the hangar proper and the midship elevators are very close together. In other words: I think the elevator arrangement right now makes this ships flight deck far less efficient and fast compared to the nimitz's, even though you got 2 additional catapults and a lot of space that would suggest something more optimal was the goal.
- Are you sure the duplication of the radars makes sense?
- I really doubt the VLS would be placed that high up. It will be a nightmare to reload and maintain, dropped boosters WILL land on the flight deck, misfires are pretty likely to take out one or more of your primary sensor systems and it adds tons of topweight and weight to one side of your ship.
- I don't think this arrangement would be used for the SPY-1 radars, even if SPY-1 radars were to be used.
- as I think Erik pointed out, your are missing directors for most if not all of the missiles in your VLS.
- The location of the phalanx makes that none of your Mk 29's has an better then 90-100 degree firing angle between the phalanx and the sponson aft of it. Speaking of the Mk 29's, if you have that much VLS, why would you even have them?
- The very wide bow and relatively low freeboard, makes that near the anchors, the hull angles out at a very horizontal angle. This means that in waves there will be considerable slamming. In addition, just aft of there, you added sponsons, making that fat bow even wider. I would be worried about structural damage there from impacts, let alone the vibrations and noise going trough the ship due to these impacts.
Most of these comments are fixable (and I think I already pointed many of them out on the discord) but it will take some more work to get this to something workable.
Btw, keep an good look at the shadows. Some parts have shadows, but the superstructure and masts do not, and the shadows go in multiple different directions. The shape of the SPY-1 Array also doesn't fit between the side and top view, both show different angles and arrangements. In addition, I think several parts do not line up properly between side and top view, such as the sponsons, aft of the superstructure, elevators etc.
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.