N_a_B, as ever I bow to your superior knowledge/understanding but in my defence I was meaning the position in general - as far as I remember older generation carriers were much further forward.
CVN78 has similar, for similar reasons.
I hadn't realised the Ford's 60' x 30' island was moved 140' back and 3' outboard, it doesn't look very different in photos I've seen. The flag bridge was also removed to a lower deck to help shrink the island. At 555 tonnes it weighs less that the 680 of the forward island of the UK carriers.
Bing, I agree the trunking and machinery separation were the main reason but other advantages have been argued for. More optimal postion for both navigation and FLYCO, separation of the radars reducing mutual interference and blindspots, command and control redundancy i.e. the ship could remain operational following the loss of one island without resorting to operating from below the flightdeck. I agree this has to be set against loss of deckspace on a CVN.
I never understood what those "benefits' might be. From my time in the (real) Ark Royal I recollect that the ability for the Navigator to step off the bridge and into Flyco (and vice versa) to discuss navigation and FLYPRO issues was vital. How the hell they manage in QE I can't imagine.
Reminds me of a conversation I had on Lusty standing in the relatively small space between the Captain's chair and FLYCO. I was told the then Captain appreciated being so close during intensive operations. My interlocutor (not the Captain) was of the opinion the separation (on the new carriers) might need revisiting come the first major refit.