Oh goodness, where to begin. Well, for one thing forget similtaneous launches and recoveries. Assume you want to recover on the landing area that runs from the port side aft while launching from the other "runway" for lack of a better term. Wind over the deck considerations will make this impossible. With the current design you can steer a heading that puts the wind down the angle deck that does not prevent launching from the bow cats. This will not be possible with Jeff's imaginary design. The crosswind component will be too great. Splitting the difference by placing the wind on the bow will make recovery unsafe. This design also limits you to only two cats, compared to four on modern USN designs. Assuming you could finagle the winds to allow recoveries while launching, only one cat will be available compared to two on USN designs. The flight deck of a Nimitz is much more flexible than this one. Jeffs deck looks suspicioiusly like the design of the cancelled USS United States. United States was cancelled in favor of the Forrestal class, to our great fortune.
Jeff talks about the advantage of the aft superstructure in terms of turbulence, then places all the weaponry forward with their radars, etc, thus creating a huge eddy at the ship's bow. Nice.
The centerline elevator configuration was dropped decades ago because centerline elevators eat into precious hanger space. This is why every carrier since the 1950's has had deck edge elevators. The only reason the Essex class had two centerline elevators and one deck edge elevator was to keep that class narrow enough to fit through the Panama Canal ( and this explains why the sole deck edge elevator amidships to port folded flat against the side of the ship, otherwise it would foul the sides of the locks ). Early design proposals for the Essex class in the late 1930's included deck edge elevators port and starboard. Later angle deck conversions of Essex class carriers brought this original design feature to fruition.
Placing the armament in one area forward leaves much of the ship vulnerable to attack. Better to place sponsons at the corners with RAM and ESSM as on a Nimitz.
Last, a typical big container ship has exactly the wrong powerplant for a carrier. These ships are designed to operate on regular scheduled routes at a specific speed necessary to meet published schedules for their customers. Most make 25-27 knots( while a Nimitz and her escorts all make well over 40kts ). That is about the only speed they make. The single diesel engines used are typically four decks tall and run at one rpm. The shaft is turned at engine speed, there are no reduction gears. Slowing the engine down from cruise speed is not as simple as one might imagine. These engines make at most only 105 rpm. They won't turn much slower. Reversing the engine entails stopping the engine. Once stopped a crew member must climb the engine and reverse a gear on the cam shaft, taking several minutes to do. Only then can the engine be restarted in the opposite direction. These are not flexible power plants required of combat ships, and there is no redundancy. One engine, one shaft, one rudder. Damage one and the ship is DIW.
