Actually, it's called 'MANPRINT' and it is indeed a very deliberate study of human ergonomic efficiencies in specific areas. It is a given that a
scientist or CAD engineer may not have the same mindset about 'what is possible' but increasingly sophisticated pre-build virtual simulation does
help generate later training manuals and such as a function of 'how to do it right the first time'.
That said, the entire CV-21 concept is a joke.
Even with a major switch to commercial-marine grade systems engineering, (of which the electrical grid is just one battle redundant vs. cheaper
switchout) they are still looking at 2100-2500 crew in a world for which we 'gap' more and more every year because we have too few hulls and too
many billets on the big decks.
The old standard for the class, the so-called 'Roosevelt Load' was some 70-75 aircraft. While most carriers today set sail with fewer than 40.
One need only read 'The Carrier Myth'-
To see what a load of bull that is in terms of REAL surge-vice-sustained sortie generation 'off the pointy end' and this was /before/ "From the
Sea, Forward!" defined naval aviation policy as requiring us to go 400nm inland to fight 'littorally'.
This notion is made worse by the fact that, if the 100 million dollar F-35C is built at all, it will be on-deck in similar numbers to the A-6 (single
squadron 'heavy all weather') which means you are seeing more JSF's on that carrier than the entire airwing will actually be allocated.
At the same time, the USN is fighting furiously to take out another 'preorder' on a 20-24 multiyear contract 'Lot IV' for the Ultra Bug because
/that/ 53 million dollar airframe is being underbuilt (to the tune of about 300) at only 448 jets. At a time when the HUG program isn't working and
centerbarrel (plus G restrictions, plus weight restrictions) efforts on the Bug-1 are throwing bad money after good.
The irony being that Bug-2 represents an airframe which is inferior to all it's predecessors in nearly all roles for range and aero performance. An
airframe whose fatigue effects the buzzing wing and toed pylons are not fully understood even now. An airframe for which up to four aircraft PER
SQUADRON are already required to generate sufficient combat tanking to push-up the Bug-1, crippling the Super Horror's own combat capabilities for
the worlds most expensive whale.
'Meanwhile' the A-45CN and A-47 programs are being deliberately downplayed in the hopes of their dying a death of 'just one more generation!'
deliberate neglect. Keeping UCAV technology (for which JPALS is optimized) from from utterly replacing the manned platforms becuase it's a dead cert
that, by 2015, three things will be happening:
1. We will /still/ be fighting bush wars in which the definition of victory is hours not minutes over an infantry patrol some 1,000nm inland.
2. Tactical Ballistic Weapons will all be getting nuclear and/or MARV warheads to target CVSF's from upwards of 1,500nm out.
3. DEWs and Hunting (Turbo) SAM weapons will be making life a continual Russian Roulette gamble on a random-encounter basis with S2A weapons that are
All of which point out that manned jets (which are huge deckprinted) may not even BE the 'way forward'. Certainly not to the extent of justifying a
100,000 ton class supercarrier of which we will be /lucky/ to afford 4 to replace the 8 Nimitz class which will need replacing before 2030.
The weight of the ship in turn largely dictates the nuclear plant. But the latter is a /mess/ (massive investment for huge volumetric waste) in steam
kettle technology for which specialist training and certification as well as port priveleges are mandatory. The use of conventional shafts vice
azipods are another example of legacy-inheritance 'non thinking' as you basically end up paying a massive weight penalty in both structural
carrythru and penetration seal as well as the LENGTH of the drive train itself.
All of which is pure bull because you don't typically need to make turns for more than 7-11 knots to get 20-30 knot WOD going and UCAVs will be so
light (and such excellent lifting body designs) that even this may be 'excessive' with the energy of the new EMALS.
The Island Going Aft is better than nothing but it and the angle deck continue to hog 2/3rds the deck space while the notion that you are going to
shoot-forward brings into question the effect on the deckpark with the aft area taken away from the waist. I also personally question the sea keeping
qualities of a large mass resting on a corner post like that. LOTS of potential for heel-and-roll in a heavy sea and you are just that much farther
aft from a see-to-steer perspective.
Given you /want/ to keep a minimum of three cats available, a much, MUCH, better solution is the STRAC or SWATH layout and dumping the island for a
residual MEMS type enclosure. If you put the elevators amidships and aft and run with twin, _straight_, runways each about 400ft (the size of the
angle deck alone, presently), you can run simultaneous shoot and recover ops with easy wingspan clearance, side to side, while surging to an alpha
launch capability with the entire aft end of the ship available for rapid feed to the JBDs.
You may also (finally) get an ability to routinely bring large C-130 class platforms aboard in the replacement super-whale, URP and COD mission
(theoretically being able to replace entire airwings if not gold/blue crews 'underway' to sustain-forward without leaving a combat area for an
uncertain port of call).
All in a 50-60,000 ton class vessel for which the ability to carry crated UCAVs takes you from a 10-20 plane airwing to 70-100 in a few hours of
knocktogether (much like the WWII class vessels, the smallest of which carried 85-90 airframes while the Essex took this up to 100-120). Because
UCAVs can by made small enough to do this while manned jets cannot.
NOW, added to the 'no fatigue' variable that is UCAV on-station loiter and immediate turn-upon-return, YOU CAN replace the AEF/GSTF as a fully
capable (independent) power projector.
There are other problems, the ESSM are worthless against supersonic threats or aeroballistics. You really need a Sea Light class or better DEW to
handle ALL terminal defense with SM.6 ERAM and OTH midcourse (HAEUAV) on a couple longshot goalkeepers attriting the ASST/ASUW shooters upwards of
400km out. The notion that electronic arrays are 'new' is ludicrous, Big-E had them upon commisioning back in the /60's/. Why you would want to
scream RF from such (large, easily damaged, class-specific) systems when a simple SPS-48 3D and a bunch of satcomms/direct microwave minimasts get you
equal or better connectivty to the CHEAP AND EASY TO LOSE radiators in the CG/DDG classes I will never understand.
That said, it doesn't really matter because, even with the 'facetted' island, the general configuration of the ship remains impractical for
signature control and likely always will be to anyone with an overhead or other ASST (ROTHR) capability to see air ops from inside 400nm. Which of
course agin means that if you want to survive the sighting as much as attack phase of junior's OODA loop, you'd sure as hell better do it with a
'natural' 1,000nm radius (air) platform servicing bubble around the boat..
CVN-21 is likely going to be a stone beach to transit through any of the major canals. Just like the Nimitz before it.
It's 'Lloyds Value', coupled to an airwing ideal that makes no acknowledgement of the need to operate in deep blue (200nm or more offshore) while
projecting inland enables all kinds of mine, autonomous sub and 'special' (SCT) weapons even beyond the ballistic threat. And in turn billows out
the sail on all the support classes necessary to both presweep and close escort the battle deck. And Fleet Train feed it.
If you have one deck and 1-2 escorts, waaaaaaay out there, you can have 2 decks operating on a forward and back or split-axis basis all the more
readily. This also adds to survivability and role flex more than a massive CVSF can achieve.
Again, this is quite possible in a 50-60K ton class which is diesel-electric to about 17-25 knots and built in a civillian yard under competitive bid
for about 1-2 billion dollars (anybody who can do a cruise ship or a VLCC can do a simple carrier). And properly designed, such a vessel should have
no more than 800-900 crew and another 300-400 in the airwing which is ONE THIRD that necessary for todays crew composite.
We just have to rest control away from the HG&U admirals who I swear must be in at least their 90's as they still think in terms of Roosevelt and Big
Sticks rather than TRUE 'presence' (short cruises, lots of hulls, small but expandable airwings) in an SCS or CVS+ class system.