We discussed this already: CVNs have nothing to do in the high Arctic, with other assets to defend approaches to Russia from that vector can do it better & safer. Their A-50/100s, Il-38s & Tu-142s can provide better radar coverage there than any organic AEWC/AWACS deck asset- no need to launch them at all, unlike the ASW/SAR/ice recon helos.
Correction: US CVNs might have nothing to do with the Arctic... With icebreakers making the north sea route viable they will want to base their CVNs with the northern fleet or the pacific fleet or both so operations in arctic conditions will be normal and necessary... there will be a lot of commercial traffic moving through there... which of course will make Greenpeace squeal because it will be killing polar bears of some such crap, but it will be mostly Russian territorial waters which they will want a military presence and will be used to transit from Pacific to Atlantic or back fairly quickly giving them access to most of the planet most efficiently.
The US can put pressure on Panama or Egypt to block the relevant canals but they can't stop the Russians using the NSR...
A large CVN is a lot more stable in heavy seas than an amphibian; fixed wings can CATOBAR on it up to certain sea/wind state/speeds, while an amphibian will be marooned in the same weather. More argument to use rotary wings for those missions!
Helicopter operations are severely restricted in conditions of high cross winds... for fixed wing aircraft the carrier could simply turn in to the wind and use the high winds to its advantage.
Well, the Ka-102 is now being developed:
At 36 metres long they might as well use the 40 metre long Mi-26 which is already operational... and with much greater lifting capacity...
Why discard a very successful concept that can outdo the CH-47 & help Mi-26s? Also this 1 is interesting, although slower (speed isn't essential for it), it would be able to lift more than a tilt-rotor (a variant of it is also possible
Did you even read the chart at the end showing potential performance?
Payloads were 2 tons... an Mi-17 can already do better than that, and while it is slower speed is irrelevant to an AWACS platform... carrying lots of electronics and lots of fuel is what is important.
If an AWACS & COD variants r built, they won't need the CAT at all.
Better invest time $ in them than in steam or EMALS catapults that may not work as required, causing losses of aircraft & crews.
All those blades and engines will create more problems than they solve and will likely kill more crew and pilots than conventional aircraft using CATs... even if EMALS fails the Russians have excellent ejection seats. The Yak-38 probably has the record for most aircraft lost in non combat situations but didn't lose very many pilots because of its excellent crew evacuation systems...
EM cats offer much better performance and would actually be safer than steam cats... with steam cats you set the pressure and fire... a small plane with a light weapon load and a light fuel load will have a light setting and a big heavy aircraft with full payload and fuel will have a very high setting... get the setting wrong and the small light plane gets its nose wheel ripped off as it is taking off or the big heavy plane lands directly into the water because it did not get enough of a boost from the cat system to get airborne.
An EM cat system can sense resistance from its load and increase power or decrease power in a fraction of a second to prevent a problem... you could have it so that it adapts as the aircraft takes off so you might only have to set the type of aircraft being launched and it will do the rest which is always better than having someone work it out and make a choice that cannot be changed during launch.
As I have mentioned the technologies that need to be developed for EM cats will be very useful and will have broad uses across the field of military and civilian products.
Their new nuclear powered space tug could use an EM catapult to launch the rendered down parts of satellites down into a steep reentry path to burn them up in the atmosphere to get rid of space junk for instance. With control it could launch smaller satellites into different higher orbits or to approach the ISS to be captured and taken on board for reuse or study... from the moon a large flat area could have a large EM cat build where you could put material to be sent back to earth with electricity from solar panels or nuclear power instead of hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuels which could otherwise be used for supporting life on the base for breathing and drinking... without an atmosphere to slow it down if you accelerate horizontally an object to escape velocity it will continue horizontally but as the moon curves away from it it will continue out into space... cheap and simple transport...
As with everything, there r trade offs. IMO Russia won't gain much & will loo$e more by having CATOBAR on her future CVN/TAKRs.
The technology will be useful in a range of fields, and the benefit of having fixed wing reliable and stable AWACS will make any surface action group much much safer and better able to defend itself which will save rather more money in the long run.
Most of the time... ie during peace time it is hard to justify launching missiles at any air or sea blip on a radar... being able to scan for groups of things and to send aircraft to rapidly and conclusively investigate makes the commander of the surface fleets job much much easier and much less stressful.
Unlike US cruiser commanders, Russian ones wont get medals for shooting down Iranian airbus aircraft from Iranian territorial waters... so being able to launch an aircraft to have a look and be certain instead of barking out radio orders on the wrong frequencies and leaving it till the last second and then launching a missile to shoot the perceived threat down only to find out it was not what you thought it was can be eliminated... sounds worth it to me.
With new long range scramjet powered missiles they could put half a dozen missiles slightly bigger than the R-37M on their AWACS platform with double the flight speed and double the range of the current missiles to engage enemy AWACS and inflight refuelling tankers too along with a dozen 9M100 missiles to shoot down any missiles fired at it...