Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

The whole concept of AWACs is evolving. Its very likely rather then the Hawkeye concept, there will be drones which are much lighter and they will just act as radar antennas. These will transmit telemetry back to the ship where the sector radar operators and computers will work to identify and cataogize threats. This can provide much greater coverage at a fraction of the operating cost. It will not need catapults. Its possible they will install CATs to increase payload of the planes.

It is possible, but I have yet to see any drones with anything like the 360 degree radar and endurance of a naval AWACS aircraft...

Oh that system, its a type of STOBAR catapult.

If it is a catapult then wouldn't it be CATOBAR?

It wouldn't make sense to put emails on this ship and the Russians do not have functional EMALS catapults.

Why would it not make sense?  ...assuming you meant EMALs and not emails... I believe they already get those....

The Kuznetsov would benefit from being able to operate a fixed wing AWACS aircraft and inflight refuelling aircraft...

It's based on a STOBAR system with tweaks

What does that even mean?

It's not a purpose-built catapult system but a makeshift system similar to the Indian carrier they did, it's based on that concept, there is no proper term for it.

You mean it is an accidentally arrived at catapult system that doesn't change anything at all?

Carrier launch systems need to be designed as the ship is being designed, they are not about to go back and waste time and money developing a catapult system for this ship, so they are borrowing on data from the conversion project they did for India to make a STOBAR type system for the Kuz. Which makes far more sense.

The much smaller modified Kiev class CV the Russians sold the Indians didn't have any catapults... built in or bolted on.

the Vikramaditya is a STOBAR....

Of course it is, because it does not have any catapult system to be a CATOBAR.

The Kuznetsov was a STOBAR, but now it seems they are fitting experimental catapults to it.

STOBAR stands for: Short Take Off (no catapult, but a ski-jump ramp). But Assisted Landing (by use of the arrester system). Again, there is no any catapult. Clearer now!?

He knows, you know, I know.

We are however talking about the new catapult system being fitted to the Kuznetsov as part of the upgrade... new meaning not the ski jump that was previously fitted, but something new.

SS is trying to say it is still a STOBAR.... short take off but arrested landing... ie rolling takeoff and cable and hook landing, but as Tsavo points out with cat launch capability it becomes a hybrid STOBAR CATOBAR... likely STOBAR for fighters and CATOBAR for AWACS and inflight refuelling tankers...

They do not have EMALS they never bothered to design one, the best thing they developed was a steam-based catapult for that carrier they never finished.

I think your information is a little out of date.... check out post 842 on the previous page... they have designed some sort of system to assist takeoffs from carriers... they developed it for India and are applying it to the K.

They are rather vague as to what it is and how it works... I rather doubt it is EMALS which they are also working on BTW, and it likely wont be a steam powered system... no point reinventing the wheel...

You will notice they never used the term Catapult but "Device".

Catapult is a western term, why would they use that term... we really don't even know what it is yet... for all we know it might be a bouncy castle used to get an extra bounce in the air at the end of the ramp.

It's not CATOBAR there is no barrier etc, hence why I said there is no name for it.

What barrier are you talking about?

Carriers haven't needed barriers since the invention of the angled deck rendered them unnecessary... a landing plane goes to full power so if it misses the cable or the cable breaks it can go around and have another go.

Barriers were used on straight deck aircraft carrying ships so landing aircraft that missed the cable didn't plough into aircraft being prepared at the front of the ship for launch. As I said the angled deck design rendered that unnecessary. Modern aircraft are way to heavy for any barrier that could be set up for landings and taken down for takeoffs to stop them without damaging them beyond repair.

It's like a one-off thing for the Kuz.

The article also said it was for the smaller ship Russia sold to India... which means it can be used on ships with ski jumps... pretty handy potential way to get catapult performance with an existing design... be interesting to see what it is.

It might have some means of assisted take-off but it would be a properly built catapult, as that would require ripping off the deck and reading the entire top half of the ship.

A proper catapult like American and French ones?   As opposed to improper ones like the one currently not working on the Ford class CVN?

A cheap simple add on system to get heavier aircraft airborne from aircraft carriers is a much better thing that something that needs to be designed into the ship...

Then they need to spend much time testing the systems etc, they don't want to waste such time.

They currently have two land based carrier simulators... they built one for themselves when they couldn't access the main one in the Crimea... but now they could access both I expect.

They likely started working on this system  when they were offering India an upgraded Gorshkov as a faster alternative to a domestically made aircraft carrier.... so they could have been working on this for over a decade... if not longer if it was an old soviet idea perhaps...

Often ideas that didn't work before become more viable now with newer technology and equipment.

They are borrowing technical ideas from that project for the system they want to introduce on the Kuz. This does not mean they are copying the idea 100 percent but taking elements of it for the project, geez do you need to be spoon feed things for real.

Not exactly... they were developing a catapult like system for smaller carriers like the converted kiev class ship they sold to India to allow larger heavier fixed wing aircraft to operate from smaller ships. They developed it for India, but are now applying it as a test for the Kuznetsov because it is in upgrade...

What they have actually achieved will be interesting to see but a simple compact modular catapult system that allows heavier aircraft to operate from a ski ramp equipped smaller carrier... if it works... would make both carriers Cat Assisted Takeoff But Arrested Recovery... CATOBAR... which you have said is not possible without first copying a US steam cat and then toiling away for 50 years developing an EM equivalent...

How about we wait to find out what they are talking about...

marcellogo wrote:Actual CATOBAR catapults are steam powered so you cannot add them to an existing ship without rebuilding it almost completely.

For small drones however one can use a makeshift one, using counterweight, compressed air or black powder like the ones that were used on cruisers and battleships during WWII for launching seaplanes.
The mess with Ford EMALS as originated by the fact that steam catapults have strong difficulties with drones launch as they gave a quite violent, immediate stroke instead of the progressive one that would be needed.

So would you say the Ford class is not CATOBAR because of EMALS? CATOBAR is  - Catapult Assisted Takeoff But Arrested Recovery. There is no specification of how the catapult is powered. The first catapults on carriers were actually hydraulic. You can power catapults with compressed air as well or even internal combustion would be a possible option. The idea behind EMALS is not to accomodate drones, you can introduce more advanced valving to better control the launch. EMALS is a recognition that ships are becoming more electric intensive and linear motors are vastly more efficient then steam catapults. They can also afford better control so you can actually add more energy to a plane with less shock then a steam capatpult. (I am sure you can improve steam catapults to do the same thing but EMALS has a HUGE efficiency advantage) another major + is better resistance to battle damage.

Isos wrote:EMALs are not yet in service if I'm not wrong so he is right, they are all steam catapults.

USS Gerald Ford is commissioned and EMALS has been certified.

They can also afford better control so you can actually add more energy to a plane with less shock then a steam capatpult. (I am sure you can improve steam catapults to do the same thing but EMALS has a HUGE efficiency advantage) another major + is better resistance to battle damage.

An EMALS cat is also fully controlled. With a steam cat you set the aircraft type and the fuel weight and payload and any extra settings for different loadouts... with the wrong settings for an aircraft you might pull its nose carriage off, or it just might not get enough boost to get airborne.... or you might rupture a fuel tank or wing pylon with too many gs acceleration.

With a fully computer controlled EMALS system as it starts to launch the aircraft it can monitor acceleration and increase or decrease it depending on the way the load moves.

EMALs are not yet in service if I'm not wrong so he is right, they are all steam catapults.

Whether it is currently true or not, there is nothing in CATOBAR that requires steam cat launch... it is not SCATOBAR... and if you are familiar with the English language you will know why....   (edit... do not look up scat on the internet... it is another word for poo or shit and the pages that come up from such a search are NSFW and are also disturbing...)

Catapults come in many varieties... many light Russian drones use cats on the back of trucks or hand held systems that use elastic bands to launch.

It has been found in very cold areas the elastic does not continue to be useful, so compressed gas systems that can be topped up with pressure from a compressor are more useful in colder areas.

There are systems that use momentum... where very large disks of enormous weight are spun up to high speed and some of that momentum is used for moving the vehicle.

Have seen it used on buses where it takes a lot of energy in busy city areas stopping and starting all the time so in the background these momentum wheels are used for braking where the slowing down of the bus is used to speed up these wheels... these wheels take the energy of braking and then to pull away the bus can take momentum off the spinning wheels to help accelerate faster using less engine power and putting out less of a big cloud of diesel smoke.

A momentum system could be used to help launch aircraft too.

Isos wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Isos wrote:EMALs are not yet in service if I'm not wrong so he is right, they are all steam catapults.

USS Gerald Ford is commissioned and EMALS has been certified.

But it sill doesn't have its f-35 as planned so the carrier is still not as operational as intended.

That is an F-35 issue not a Ford issue (and yes it has many issues) the USN has lots of F-18E/Fs it can deploy if needed.

GarryB wrote:

An EMALS cat is also fully controlled. With a steam cat you set the aircraft type and the fuel weight and payload and any extra settings for different loadouts... with the wrong settings for an aircraft you might pull its nose carriage off, or it just might not get enough boost to get airborne.... or you might rupture a fuel tank or wing pylon with too many gs acceleration.

Its possible to improve the valving of the steam cats to gain much better control of the launch. They probably considered this, but EMALS offered more advantages in the longer run. Since they are working on similar system for EM guns they probably had a good understanding that it could be done.

Isos wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Isos wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Isos wrote:EMALs are not yet in service if I'm not wrong so he is right, they are all steam catapults.

USS Gerald Ford is commissioned and EMALS has been certified.

But it sill doesn't have its f-35 as planned so the carrier is still not as operational as intended.

That is an F-35 issue not a Ford issue (and yes it has many issues) the USN has lots of F-18E/Fs it can deploy if needed.

It's an issue with the maintance software use onboard of the carrier.

The point of the carrier is to use f-35, not f-18.

According to the plan most of us on this board will be dead before the USS Gerald Ford retires. Although I suspect within about 15-20 years the obsolence of super carriers will be even more obvious then it is now.

Until some banana republic hits a Carrier with a hypersonic missile, the US will persist in this madness.

Nimitz are enough if they just wanted to keep the f-18.

USA does not build carriers for any specific plane. They are 50 year projects. All Nimitz class will operate F-35C and the Ford class will all operate the F18 E/F.

According to the plan most of us on this board will be dead before the Gerald Ford is retired. But I think in 15 to 20 years the obsolecence of super carriers will be even more apparent. However until some 3rd world country hits a carrier with a hypersonic missile I expect the US to persist in this madness.

Isos wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

mnztr wrote:However until some 3rd world country hits a carrier with a hypersonic missile I expect the US to persist in this madness.

Good.  Lets hope so.  Every dollar the stupid Muricanz invest in their floating Maginot line is (a) one more dollar borrowed, and (b) one less dollar available for effective power projection.

I have no doubt that current trends towards AI, hypersonic weapons, and distributed sensor networks will render these flat-top turkeys to be liabilities in peer-power conflicts.  The age of the carrier is over, just as happened to the great armoured battleships of yesteryear.

And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

So US carriers will be quite safe.

It does not, but bigger ships are bigger targets and the CVN is central to the entire US force projection structure. Russia tends to not do this unless invited. But yes any ships will be at huge risk to these weapons