Heuhen, shush. I can talk for myself, and as in this thread are drawings based on purely textual designs, he has the right to question things he finds weird. many of his comments are true, but I cannot change them due to the design following the plans I worked from.
Helo facilities. Is that a telescoping hanger? The helo looks taller than the shortest telescoping section. The ship is large enough to accommodate a full helo hanger extending aft with the launcher roof mounted. Unless the intent is to land a helo for refuel/rearm, but not have an embarked aircraft.
yep, that is an telescoping hangar. I've drawn it as the original plan proposes, although the ship is Spruance size and we know they could fit a much larger hangar on board that. the helicopter might be slightly oversized or the hangar slightly undersized (as it is, the main problem is the lowest aft section, which might be bigger but looks smaller due to the fact that I can only show one pixel steps)
Side anchor vs sonar. The bow sonar dome has a significant cross flare. Your side anchor will hit it on the way down and snag it on the way up. Drop it and keep the bow anchor.
IIRC, regulations do not allow a single anchor. the bow anchor is the primary one, but the backup anchor is fitted on a similar position as it is on the real life Spruance class. while the Spruance has a bit more bow flare then this design seems to have, it should be similar in practise.
Small exhaust macks. Indicates a conventional steam turbine plant.
that is correct, that is what the ship has.
Superstructure following hull lines. Consider trying to walk, sit, or even sleep on a deck at that angle. Keep the decks level and put a step up on the 01 level right at the fwd mack to maintain overhead height.
agreed. but I cannot change this, as this was copied from the plans. keeping that in mind, the Charles F. Adams class has a similar forward superstructure with even worse an angle in it. stepping the main deck has it's own set of problems and angling a part of the superstructure that sees relatively few people might very well be an better step then rebuilding the entire hull shape. keeping that angle on the 2nd superstructure deck, yeah, that puzzles me a bit too, but I can see why it was done.
some of the other studies (which will come soon) already use part of this space
but, on the basic DX this space, similar to the space on top of the bridge deck, was not really required to be used.
An interesting cross your developing here. Sort of like a DDG2 and an FF1052 having a child. Keep fleshing it out. It will be neet to see it develop and the variations you create.
well, I create very little but I will draw out the rest of the notional line of designs as far as I have references for them. to see how this development went, take a look in the first post