Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.
No they don't.
Taking off with full AB engaged uses the same amount of fuel whether taking off on the ski jump or with a catapult... the difference is that the ski jump adds a vertical component to the lift on takeoff to add vertical as well as forward momentum to the aircraft, while the cat just adds to horizontal speed to allow the wings to provide more lift at takeoff.
There are three takeoff positions on the K... two short ones and one long one... the short ones are perfectly adequate for any and all aircraft on the K to take off with a full fuel load and a full load of air to air weapons... the latter weighing rather less than max payload of the aircraft but none of the aircraft have significant air to ground capability, so a heavy bomb load is not going to be used or needed.
the long takeoff strip allows full payload takeoffs.
Didn't the Soviet develop cats?
Russia can send a few technicians to Brazil if they want to get any ideas. Shouldn't cost much for the budget Russia has outlined.
They worked on a cat system but as it was never put into service they got no experience in its use so they really don't know if it would have been effective or not... and that was more than 30 years ago.
They have said they are developing cats now for new carriers so I suspect they will be EM cats.
it's the poor man's way into CVs though.
It would be as accurate to say that steam or EM cats are the gold plated expensive way to give carriers AWACS.
With loiter time of potato though.
Likely a much more potent dogfighter than either the SH or F-35...
Still ignored from now on
But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.
You don't understand the game do you?
US carriers sit off the shore of the Soviet Union... their job is to murder people so they need strike aircraft that can fly into Soviet airspace and drop nuclear bombs on Soviet citizens to kill them. It has tanker aircraft and fighter planes to support those strike aircraft. the ships in the carrier group are there to protect the carrier. That is what a US carrier group is.
In "peacetime" it is to intimidate smaller countries and do the same thing with conventional bombs.
The Soviet and now Russian carrier is not intended to go to the US and murder Americans... its purpose is to protect Russian shipping by providing air cover, Soviet and Russian ships are intended to fight US carrier groups and to protect SSBNs until they have launched their missiles at the west... therefore the Russian aircraft are dedicated to the air to air role with a much lighter weapon load of AAMs and little or no strike capability. the MiG-29K is fully multirole but will only be used in limited strike missions likely in conventional wars against smaller enemies than the west.
In terms of providing air cover the only advantage of having a cat is enabling refuelling tankers to operate from the Russian carrier and of course the extra vision you get from a fixed wing AWACS or AEW aircraft. that is why the ski jump was chosen over cats... there are no real missions where cats would be needed as air to air payloads are a fraction of strike mission payloads.
With only 12 Granits the K would contribute to an attack but the Kirov and Oscar would be the core of attacks with 20 and 24 missiles each... with upgrades the Kirov will likely have 80 Onyx and the Oscar 72 Onyx missiles... in 10 years time the same number of Zircon hypersonic missiles.
Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.
One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.
See... you don't know what you are talking about... if the doctrine is dead then why?
What has changed?
If the doctrine is dead then why is every new Russian ship equipped with UKSK launchers allowing them to carry Onyx? Kirov has 20 Granits, Oscar has 24... a new modern corvette has 8 modern equivalents in the Onyx or a 2,500km land attack cruise missile. The new boats of the Russian Navy will be able to carry rather more than their big heavy cruisers and large SSGNs could carry and can also carry long range land attack missiles too as an option... but the threat has not changed... the threat is still US carrier groups and NATO ships...