Those as you drew them are not exactly deck edge lifts to me. Those appear to be inboard center-line lifts as I see them. I know that it is a confused terminology thing when applied. Let me explain why I see that way. When I read someone write deck edge lift, that means to me the edge of the flight deck perimeter along the outside of the hull
. That's strictly on me for not making sure I understood what you meant by deck edge lift. I still want to try to convince you to look at the possible different solution of moving those lifts as drawn to the outside perimeter of the flight deck. Can I quote again my reasons why?
3. The flight deck should be as clear of wind breaks and physical obstructions as possible. The carrier operating tempo and its defense depend on the speediness of how fast it can launch and recover aircraft. There are three ways to do this currently, one called CATOBAR (catapult assisted take off back arrested recovery) and RTOBAR (rolling [ski jump] take off barrier arrested recovery) and vertical take off arrested or vertical landing. All of them require unimpeded and open recovery runs with vertical landing being the most dangerous on a cluttered deck because of the downdraft and downwash. Vertical landings are uniquely dangerous in that there is a sideways slip component as the helicopter or the jump-jet tries to slip into its assigned landing spot on a moving ship. That is why many vertical landers (helicopters) use a cable winch recovery assist to haul down onto their deck spots. Jump-jets can't do that, which is why you don't see jump jets operate off the back of frigates.
Anything that clutters a take off/trap run, even if it is a man standing in the wrong place at the wrong time is a giant error in judgment that leads to at best a delay in the operating tempo or to assorted disasters like plane on plane collisions or roller-skating or a crashed bolter or just a warmed up plane sucking that man into its engine (or setting him or something else) on fire. All of this has happened. The result is that there are rather firm and hard rules for how you design (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers. If you look at the French Charles de Gaulle or an American Nimitz, those rules are very plain to see
That means to me a manmade hole in the flight deck that interferes with cross feed operations is an idea that I urge you to reconsider.
Then get rid of the island (wind baffle and collision hazard) and use a navigation bridge about 1/3 back from the prow to PORT.
Why put the lifts at the outside perimeter, you might ask?
This solution allows the lifts and the bays into which they open to act as cargo transfer aids as well as plane elevators. The advantages so conferred translate into a ventilated open hanger that disallows confinement of conflagrations and explosions as well as easy cross transfer from carrier to escort and supply ship.
I also urge you to reconsider that island arrangement. It does nothing for navigation and air group control as positioned and could be actually a fly on hazard for planes trying to land on a cross wind deck.
Sorry all the aircraft aboard are of Canard design.
My bad. I should pay better attention.
Can I suggest something about canard aircraft anyway? The USN really believes in nose point and single thrust line. That for them means firm 2-d unified tail control. Those are pusher propeller driven 1-d nose control and 1-d tail control aircraft of the pre fly by wire era as I think you drew them. Canards do not work too well under those established limited conditions. Nose wander sets in and it cycles and augments in precession. Dutch roll it is called and it is a pilot killer.