Signature/Trademark Aspects of My Designs

A common theme of all my ships of between 2002 and 2013 (except for my "improved" Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) notional ship drawing) can be seen:

- Conical/Semi-Conical Radar Array -- Located atop the Bridge, I posit that a multi band, multifunction set of planar faces be situated on either fixed, but preferably resilient, rotating shafts so that damaged radar faces can be swiveled into play, or so that beams can be dwelled in search, track, guidance, or deception modes. Different panels would effectively be different radar types, the heavier ones at the lower end of the stack, the ligther ones being those that need greater Height of Eye (HOE) to the horizon. This actually could be called "BS", especially back in 2002. But, back then, I was semi-paranoid that my -1065 and my over-criticism of the DDG-51 might lead to my being told to remove my drawings due to some copyright attack. So, in a hurry, I schemed up a new design and in a month created 6 sheets of details for the CGHID-1165, which is the paper origin of the CGHID-1298, which preceded the CGHID-1065 II.)

- Bridge -- large, over-spaced, area, and large bridge wings: this is useful for midshipman training and observer space without crowding the Bridge Team/Watch Section

- CIC & Flag CIC (TOEC) -- Tactical Engagement Center/Operational Engagement Center. The use of a Flag CIC is obvious. The ability to have redundancy and a larger Composite Tactical control structure makes things easier for some operations.

(Not all of the units in the class need to have a Flag/Tactical CIC/TEC/OEC suite, but if, say, 40 ships of the class were built, it might be wise to pre-plan to configure 1 out of every 3 to 5 to be tactical lead units, or squadron leaders. This allowance of space would mean potential upgrade paths for the remainder of the ships, and these upgrades could diverge from other ships in the class. For budgetary reasons, rationales are made for ship-class-flight design, procurement, maintenance, basically life cycle matters. But, there are times when even out of 25 sister ships, there can be 2 flights and many sub-variations - especially if more than one builder is involved and if the production cycle span 15 years. If the hulls can take pounding for 30 years, then over build them and make them able to be retrofitted cheaply, easily, and quickly, with the least amount of hull cutting.)

- Vertical Data Trunks

- Wide Port/Starboard Longitudinal Passageways

- Transverse/Athwartships Passageways

- Above Deck boat Bays/Boat Houses -- Obviously, keeping the boats out of weather has many advantages. The standard disagreements will be the added cost of weight, structure, and stability issues.

- Twin Hangar Bays with Mission Module/Container Module-- Since 2002 I had been doing this. I will not say I was being copied in the later years, because I have seen in real life various DDGs/CGs/AEs, and other ships carrying 15' trailer containers and other modules for various reasons, some just for plain storage, generally for EOD (Explosive Ordnance Details) storage. But, for my ships after my CGLW-1065, I decided to increase the clear height of the Hangar Bays and make them separated more like in the FFG-7 class, but then dispensed with the centerline passageway and instead used sliding fire walls and above that, mate by railing and locking systems a container that would house the helo crew. I think it happened partly by mistake, when I realized in the -1065 I did not leave enough have enough space for the Air Detachment. They ended up in tight slivers of space on outboard of the VLS, and forward of the Hangar Bay. I have this personal issue with berthing personnel next to launchers and silos and magazines. On submarines, it cannot be helped. But, on surface ships, with no pressing war in hand, more creative routes could have been pursued in many ships. I have been criticized, rebuked, and told that the launchers are safe to sleep next to. I assumed that already, but prefer to keep personnel on the non-live side of the bulkhead.