Tyyr wrote:The thing with these big ships is that they get a uniform support along their length from the water. There aren't any real point loads imposed in terms of support that would cause issues with something like a bridge. Something like the H45 also has a nice little immunity to most sea conditions as something it's size would just cut right through most waves outside of the most extreme variety that would be occurring in waters it would rarely, if ever, have reason to traverse. It all adds up to the real problems with something this size being in terms of propulsion and securing the metal to build it.
I do like seeing what looks like 12" to 15" guns as a secondary armament though, that's amusing.
Uhhh... I would suggest it would be like a bridge. Ships flex like anything else. Too much flexing and ships will split seams and break supports. There are many cases of ships having these issues. Especially small ones like destroyers and cruisers due to their designers wanting to achieve the highest speed on the lightest displacement. One example off of the top of my head would be the HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous. They were called light battlecruisers (or large light cruisers). They were built so light that one particular storm caused buckling in their forecastle, popped rivets and seams opened up etc.
The USN's supercarrier's flight deck design is a source of strength. It's also classified, so one knows how the USN did it.
Yeah size matters in a rough sea. Carriers will gently rock and back and put you to sleep where as on the destroyers you are walking on the bulkheads. So if a carrier has an issue
, then you wouldn't want to be a on a smaller ship.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"