It might not have been a bad option, if it had been announced earlier, to do a tie-in with Australia directly, on the Arleigh Burke derived AWD design. A combined purchase would lower unit costs, since each nation could buy four ships each.

An alternative option, depending on Aussie-Taiwan relations, would be to simply offer them the CEAFAR radar, which would not be too far off Aegis. The Aussies could integrate the radar on a suitable size ship, possibly even just a new build Cheng Kung frigate (Perry class frigates). They would be big enough to carry the system, and suitable command and control facilities, and the necessary weapons. Taiwan certainly has enough experience with the design, and it would be a relatively straightforward project. They should be able to fit a 48 cell VLS fore, and probably a 16 cell amidships, which would be more than enough for the mission.

Okay, it’s maybe not exactly what they want, but the CEAFAR-Cheng Kung option certainly would be doable, and not have the political repurcusions of Aegis. Even better, as part of the deal, perhaps they could even buy some Collins class subs, giving them an excellent capability boost. Four Collins class subs, and four air defence destroyers would be better than they seem to be heading for!

I cannot see a CEAFAR Aegis equivilant being a simple radar. As far as that project has got thus far is a proposal for a small frigate radar for the ANZAC’s. That is a very long way away from a BMD tracking and engaging large DDG system. If it was really that simple the Australians probably would have done it instead of procuring Aegis.;)

Austin, details on Soviet smaller CVs are sparse. In 1985-1986 Severnoye PKB prepared two projects of 12000 ton CVs: monohull “Merkury” and cat and trimarane “Delfin”. They were to carry up to 12 Yak-41. As the ship length for all versions was 150-180m, CATOBAR for them was never considered. The designs were cancelled with the cancellation of Yak-41.
Actually, if Yakovlev finds a customer, the Yak-41 program may be revived quite quickly, on the same schedule as MiG-29K, for instance.

Now that is a viable design (unlike Garrys 100m trimaran), a classic example of the V/STOL carrier.

What did the Kidd class ships mainly do?

Persian Gulf IIRC.

Don’t forget these:diablo:

Isnt the Yak-41 project dead?;)

Western aircraft carriers would not be viable if they were the size of a small ship like a frigate. This is because of the requirement for a rear mounted angled landing deck and front and side positioned launch positions for simultaneous takeoff and landing operations. Of course The Russians must copy such a design so a ship just over 100m is not possible… it must be a helicopter cruiser or carry Harriers, some here have claimed despite the fact that the original source of the information claims 30 fixed wing and rotary air group for the carrier and the fact that the Russians don’t have any Harriers in service…
I suggested a catamaran layout with perhaps two or even maybe three hulls (trimaran) with catapaults so one hull is used for takeoffs and one is for landing with the tower in between. That would mean a vessel of much shorter length… say 150m could be effectively used for operations. EM Cats would allow heavier aircraft like AEW aircraft to be carried too.

Why? Because western carriers must be 200+m long? And it must mimic western design?
With a double or even triple hull it could easily reduce the length and size of the vessel, which need not be huge if it is only carrying 30 aircraft.
These vessels will not start production till at least 2015… they will likely be building tankers for the next decade as that is what the dock was built for in the first place. Jonesy has mentioned 20,000t carrier designs designed to be cheap to buy and operate. There would be a market for a small carrier able to carry 30 aircraft each that might operate in pairs to offer better coverage and protection for a fleet.

No becouse your little dream is utterly impractical. Just go and do a little research and see how large Russian carriers have been thus far.:rolleyes:

Now you think the Russians are going to build 100m long trimaran carriers- your funny.:D So where are you going to have the hangar deck? the deck lifts? Not too mention that such a small flight deck would be ridiculously dangerous.

Well, many in Taiwan have been calling for Independence or at least the right to join the United Nations. Which, could start a armed conflict! So, I am not so sure antagonizing China is a overriding issue. As Taiwan does so on a almost a daily basis……………I do agree that Taiwan has no interest or need in Aircraft
Carriers.

But it is an issue for US. They frequently tell the Taiwanese to stop being provocative and have made very strong hints that they would not support a Taiwanese declaration of independence.

Although they may also be doing so for the benefit of their readers, as the mention of multi-billion dollar Russian arms buys are going to sound more awe-inspiring then some strange Chinese named aircraft/ship most of their readers can’t even pronounce.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one plawolf.

The ships they “sacrificed” were going to have to be decommissioned anyway. If Burkes are approved by the time they are commissioned the Knoxes would have to be taken out of service too.

HULL NUMBERS. My point was that the over all size of the ROCN seems to be decreasing and I would suspect that any Aegis DDG would result in 4 new vessels replacing the eight existing Knoxs.

Any Aegis ship is going to require US approval as it is the US who builds the Aegis system. The difficulty the ROCN’s SSK program has had just goes to show how unlikely it is that any country other than the US will supply such vessels to Taiwan.