Ha Ha!! You really get serious, don't you?!?!
Not to worry, Your comments don't bother me.
1. If the drawing is somewhat to scale, as opposed to a conceptual drawing (looks like a Shipbucket drawing which implies scale), the triple turrets look to be about 100 ft wide, by eye. That's ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... ginormous! Is there something that compels that width?
Exactly the reaction you just gave, what a cool Factor!!!2. I have a problem with rail guns as a main weapon and just as a weapon, in general. A rail gun is a kinetic energy transfer weapon. If you hit you kill (maybe - see below) but if you miss there's no points for a near miss - nothing happens. By contrast, a 16" BB shell gets a LOT of points for a near miss or even a moderately far miss.
Consider a rail projectile that hits the ground a few feet from, say, a tank. On a relative basis, the ground is soft and offers no significant resistance to convert the kinetic energy into work. The round buries itself in the ground and you get a puff of dust. There is no shrapnel. Shoot a rifle bullet into the ground and you'll see the concept. A BB shell that misses by a few feet probably destroys the tank outright and, if not, flips it over into the air several times as it's scooping out a 50 ft diameter crater.
Consider the effect of a hyper velocity projectile on a ship. Given today's extremely thin skinned ships, it's likely the projectile will pass straight through the ship, again, without converting a significant portion of the kinetic energy to work (damage). Again, consider the example of a rifle bullet hitting a sheet of paper. It makes a tiny hole as it passes through but otherwise does no damage. Considering that Japanese BB main gun shells were reported to have passed straight through the South Dakota, I strongly suspect that a rail projectile will pass straight through a modern ship without even noticing it's there!
Don't give up on the Rail Gun just yet!!
The Hypervelocity Projectile is a smart munition (meaning guided) designed to exit existing guns at much higher speeds than the 40 nautical miles of conventional rounds. (in excess of about 1,000 meters per second)
The electromagnetic railgun using the same hypervelocity round, could hit targets at ranges of 50-110 nautical miles away with pinpoint accuracy.
At that velocity, many types of targets could be destroyed through the sheer energy of impact, without requiring an explosive warhead. I agree that there are times when a hunk of metal will go through thin items, but with that kind of energy, when it hits something solid, like an engine, the energy tends to be released. Various kinds of dirt will react differently, but there will still be some damage if the guidance fails.
However, the Navy will have Hypervelocity Projectiles that will carry a guided warhead capable of delivering diverse effects depending on the mission. Imagine a 20” shell, traveling at Mach 5, with a range of 100 miles, hitting a target with pinpoint accuracy and enough explosive to level a city block? What a mind blower!!
3. What is the purpose of the "up to four" F-35's (I assume F-35B models)? On a tiny flight deck, the take off would be, essentially, vertical and the aircraft would be unable to take off with any significant fuel or weapons load due to weight. So, what useful function would 4 lightly loaded F-35s with little fuel, fill? The aircraft consume a massive amount of space both flight deck space and internal hangar, fuel storage, maintenance shops, spare parts, berthing, etc. Is it worth all that for four lightly armed, short range aircraft?
If I had my way, F-14s would be made again for the Navy. However, since I'm not in charge, I'll point out that Many aircraft were less than impressive when introduced. The First F-18's weren't universally liked, but they've mutated into a somewhat decent Navy jet. I have faith the F-35 will get better as well.
Why have them? BB's usually carry Marines. Why not let them bring their toys? Personally, if I were the Captain, I'd have air cover whenever I was vulnerable. In foreign ports, transiting narrow areas, going by Iran. If you aren't in the open ocean, you could be hit with small boats or hand held missiles. Imagine how fast a threat would be neutralized if a couple of jets were constantly circling momma bear. Besides, it's more cool factor..4. 300 VLS! Packed around the center mass of the ship? Missiles generally aim for center mass. 300 VLS are going to make for some stunning fireworks displays when hit!
The Iowas had Tomahawks and Harpoons in the center area. The Zumwalts have them along the edge fore and aft. It's thought that this reduces the ship’s vulnerability to a single hit. Besides, If you're gonna get hit, you're gonna get hit. It won't make much difference if you blow up in the middle or just right of center. The Hull would have some armor, Carriers are built with decent armor. But really, one torpedo will ruin your whole day. That's why you have a screen of smaller ships.5. Does the ship have any close in AAW defensive weapons? I assume you have ESSM in the VLS but do you have any RAM/SeaRAM/CIWS? Incoming missiles ALWAYS get through! Some kind of close in defense would seem desirable.
Again, I went in the direction of the Zumwalt. It has, RIM-66 Standard Missile, RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), BGM-109 Tomahawk, RUM-139 VL-ASROC, 155 mm Advanced Gun System, and (2) Mk 46 30 mm gun (GDLS) for close in defence. However, I have yet to see a photo with the 30mm guns installed.
SeaRAM and or CIWS can certainly be added, but I wasn't too worried about that side of things as they come and go during refits.