I’m sorry….but your arguments make no sense……..ALL necessary functions can be combined in a single island….this has been the choice for over 60 years…….an aircraft carrier should have maximum unencumbered deck space devoted to aviation……..by its very nature a carrier will be vulnerable to damage……..its the trade off for efficiency in aircraft operations…….and until the US Navy or Marine National adopt this “two island” concept, I’ll stand by my argument for a single one. Sorry if my not accepting your viewpoint offends you, but I’m actuly quit flattered that my opinion means so much to you.

Nobody said all necessary functions can’t be combined into one island. That is not the point. The point is that both the BEA and the Thales teams have put forward designs which split the island and the ‘ship’ and ‘air’ control functions. Perhaps you should also compare the number and location of the aircraft lifts on these proposals with e.g. US designs. Remember, the designs currently put forward for UK design are a lot smaller than US carrier.

The only arguments you provided in favor of the single structure are: a) maximum deck space available to AC (which is a poor argument because you can have 2 smaller islands which together take up as much space as 1 single large island leaving the same amount of available deckspace for AC) and b) it’s always been done that way therefor it must be optimal (which is a poor argument because if it has always been the case that there was only a single island structure then how would you know it was optimal: you can’t know how well or poor a double structure would function).

The fact is these proposals have split islands. I doubt these companies would make such a proposal without carefull study and simulation. I trust they are better engineers than I am. Hawkdrivero5, is there any particular reason for us to assume your shipdesign expertise and qualifications ar eany better than theirs?

I doubt you ever see any offical reports pointing to Type-730 and French Samos its just like the lavi-J-10 connection. As with latter its not direct copy as it is based on/modified with chinese equipment and while software and other aspects as you suggested are from France. As for the gatling gun, china should be capable of reverse engineering Gau-8/A 30mm on its own if france were transfer what it had.

Added also it doesnt rule out the fact china could very well gotten those system pre sanction just like the french compact, if i recall correctly devolopment of type 730 is more than decade old.

Unlikely. SATAN and SAMOS were developed to prototype only. Never any full production. For production, mounts would be made in US then shipped to France, just as is the case now with Goalkeeper. So, France has no gun/mount production-technology to transfer.

Now, if it were me developing a CIWS that my own navy didn’t want and for which I had yet to find a customer, I would want to keep my development costs down. So, I would opt to LEASE rather than BUY one or two gun mounts for the prototypes and testing. The GE 30mm gatling gunmount comes with places where sensors can be bolted on (see closeups of identical Goalkeeper gunmount) and controls would be of to some remote workstation anyway rather than on the mount. The gunmount would be returned after testing was completed.

Does anybody know whether the French owned the mounts used for SAMOS and SATAN? Because if not, then they couldn’t have transfered a unit to China for reverse engineering without anybody noticing. And even if it they did own it, I think the US would protest shipping it’s stuff to China. Assuming the French would even want to ship US-made stuff to China,which could have adverse consequences not likely to occur if french-made stuff were shipped.

My theory remains that the French at most COULD have provided software, testdata and engineering asistance. UNLIKE with LAVI, I have NOT EVER heard or read anything by anybody in relevant business or government that would indicate that the french assisted the Chinese in developing their CIWS.

What sources/information/references can you present that would support your THEORY that China obtained any help from France in develping the Type 730? Without any evidence (and to make it easy for you I use that term loosely, in the broadest possible sense of the word) to support the theory why would anyone accept it as true? And mind you, I’m not expecting to find French or Chinese ‘official reports’. I’ll accept articles from industry publications (e.g. Janes) or think tanks (e.g. RAND) too. Even less than that.
I don’t want you opinion, I want a convincing and substantiated case supporting your theory.

…and your theory is perfectly accurate. The early ‘big-panel’ SPY-1 systems had quite hideous energy requirements and had large power/machinery spaces immediately behind the panels that utterly precluded a masthead mount. As it was plainly obvious that elevation was desired to push back horizoning and lessen the effects from multipath you ended up with the kind of tall superstructures that the CGN-9 USS Long Beach kicked off and for identical reasons.

Hey Jonesy, long time not hear! Ah yes, USS Long Beach! That’s another good ship to compare to with USS Virginia.

Spain’s Aegis Destroyer (Frigate?) has a lower silhouette than either the American or Japanese Aegis Destroyers. Is that one of the reasons that Australia seems to be leaning towards than design for there upcoming AWD Destroyers????

Well, Arleigh Burkes already look a lot better than Ticonderogas, from the perspective of height and such. IIRC, F100 employs a different type SPY than Arleigh Burke, so perhaps it is smaller and lighter, allowing for a reduced superstructure relative to Arleigh Burke. But if you then compare with the IZAR designed Nansen clas ships building for Normay, you see the fixed phased arrays are again smaller and have moved from superstructure to (still rather fat) main mast. The F124 variant with AEGIS instead of current APAR that was offered to Australia has yet smaller phased arrays, mounted on the same mast that normally carries APAR. I’m sticking to my theory that the superstructure size of the ships mentioned at the beginning of this thread is a function of the young ‘age’ of their AEGIS systems. Same thing really for Chinese 052C: as the chinese master the technology, you will see the arrays shrink in size and being mounted higher up, on masts rather than in superstructure, and subsequenty being installed also on smaller vessels.

In India’s case I would have to agree. She needs to move away from second hand Carriers like the ex-Hermes. To new built ships like the future ADS Carriers. But, more importantly she has the resources to do so…….countries like Brazil mite not have that luxury 🙁 On the other hand small VTOL Carriers like Spain’s “Principe de Asturias” offer alot of bang for the buck as we American say :rolleyes: I wouldn’t be surprised to see more and more of them in another 10-15 years 😀

If Brazil is smart, they will develop close contacts with India and eventually acquire an ADS derivative to replace current ex-French carrier. It would increased the ADS production run and lower unit cost. Same reason there is talk of future French 2nd carrier being based on future UK carrier. Heck, if they really wanted to get back in the carrier game, even the Australians or the Koreans might benefit from cooperating with India on ADS.

TWO islands are a waste……..one is perfectly adequate……..

If you’ld bothered to look at some of the imagery on Beedal’s website instead of just repeating your opinion in spite of reasonable explanations of why the island IS split, then you’ld have see that it is NOT a wast of deckspace. The islands take up just as much deckspace as a single island (which, as you can see from the artistry, would be much larger). Splitting the island has the advantage mentioned wrt the locations of funnels and airducts to and from the engine rooms. Also, a twin island improves airflow over the deck. Finally, it allows for seperations of ship control (forward isle) and flight control (aft island) while building in redundancy (each island could take over functions from the other if that where hit). Therefor, it is NOT a waste of space.

As pointed out before, age certainly does not seem to stop the IN from operating ships. The logic of my proposal is – why not have one really old ship (viraat), one relatively old ship (Invincible) for near-shore blue water ops, while the Gorshkov and ADS can project effective force in the greater IOR.

My point exactly, the Invincible should not be considered a great long term investment, but i can see her do a decent job near shore at least for another 15 years or so.

Manpower should be one of india’s greatest strengths (there a whole bunch of decently qualified youngsters looking for jobs in India). India probbly churns out more engineers than any other country, many of these guys are often frustrated because of unemployment. grads from other fields are even more hard pressed to find jobs. india has a huge population, but it’s manpower age population forms a high content of this large number. In terms of being able to handle more carrier groups, pilots, maintenance crews etc I don’t see any country better suited for the job. Yes, it will cost more but I have always felt that with its increasingly booming economy, India underspends on Defence matters in a big way.

Agreed that 3 carriers in service might mean 1 in refit and 2 operational. But that is a pretty good scenario for the next few years, IN would be quite happy. Again, I agree that Indian defence procurement progrms seem to take forever, but I choose to be optimistic. Who knows, they may actually get the ADS rolling by 2012-2015.

As regards wasting resources on refitting the Viraat for Mig 29K ops since it is already too old, perhaps they can refit the relatively newer Invincible for the same? The Mig 29K does not seem to be any bigger than the Harrier in size, esp. with folding wings. So if the Invincible could carry a few of these, it could surely cause plenty of problems for potential threats in India’s neighborhood.

Sure, nothing good is ever easy. 😉 But, if there is not a technical obstacle which makes Invincible operations for the IN impractical, i feel the IN should definitely go for it.

Just my humble opinion.

In the long run, it is wiser for India to invest in the capability to design and build ships like the ADS than to keep acquiring used ships from elsewehere that have limited usefull service life and questionable suitability for the intended role. Without the capability to produce ADS, the problem is only shifted 15-20 years in time and what is there to replace Invincibles then if not ADS. So, ADS is a must for India. At this point acquiring one or more Invicibles would just detract from ADS and suck up money and other resources that are better spent on ADS and fleet modernization.