EM cats are a bad idea for a Russian carrier IMHO. The Americans have spent years and mucho $ on it and still can't get it to work reliably on the Ford class, plus I have read that an EM cat sends out a strong radio signal with each launch, bad if you are trying to hide. Why try to solve these problems on what will likely be a one off ship? Steam is a much more practical.
The Russians and Soviets never had a fully operational steam powered catapult system, so developing either is going to be a long expensive process. If steam is so wonderful why hasn't the current British carrier got steam cats... they know how they work...
I would suggest what you have read regarding EM cats sending out strong radio signal is the US EM cat... there is such a thing as shielding...
If they can perfect an effective and capable EM cat then it could be adapted to the Kuznetsov for use as well as on lighter helicopter carriers to allow the launch of MALE or HALE UAVs...
The technology would be useful from things like high speed trains and all electric vehicles.
Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.
Actually what they have been clear about is that all their ships need to be multirole, which means UKSK launchers for everyone.
The primary purpose of their fixed wing carriers however is not power projection, but aircover for any surface fleet anywhere in the world.
???... somethings odd here.
Probably a fisheye lens that distorts the bow to make it look short in the top picture... the lower image shows it being much longer...
the noise of it being launched would be detected by subs- sound travels through ship's haul & water better & faster than air.
Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?
As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...
Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.
You are confusing the Russians with America... the Russians see an aircraft rather differently than the US sees aircraft... for the American Navy a carrier group is a group of ships supporting a carrier that carries around aircraft that deliver air strikes against enemy ground and air and sea surface threats.
For the Russians the aircraft are a layer of defence for the ships... land attack strikes and sea surface strikes will be mostly ship and sub launched... the aircraft are there to deal with enemy aircraft and missiles that try to attack the Russian ships and even then they are more early warning as a large volume attack will require a lot of ship based SAMs as well as AAMs to stop.
And it also demonstrates clearly that Russians have no clue about designing carriers, they seem to think that it makes sense to invest time and money into developing catapults only to build a ship around ski-ramp with catapults as an afterthought
Actually that suits their method of operation... their fighter aircraft don't and wont need cat launches even with full fuel and air to air weapons, so the cats are only for the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft...
They get the best of both worlds... fast launch operations with a skijump, and heavy long range AWACS aircraft via cats.
And those ski-ramps only use like 30% of deck length for launching aircraft, it's like they are trying on purpose to be as least efficient as possible
WTF else would they use it for... a nice vege garden so they can have fresh vegies on longer voyages?
To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft
The deck shown is not an operational set up.... for fucks sake there is a helicopter sitting on the side of the fucking ski jump...
Lets assume Russian has 1 CVN with 70ktons/ So what you want to strike (assuming you got 40-50 fighters) ? 3 world country?
Better question... in what alternate reality has Russia become the US... ground strikes will generally consist of cruise missile attacks if that.
but you dont want to strike US CSGs? well then you focus on own fleet defense or I am wrong?
One converted Oscar with 72 Zircon missiles will deal with any US carrier groups...
Yes there was Syria where they lost a fighter jet because they failed to properly calculate fuel consumption
No, they lost two jets because the arrester gear system failed and they could not be recovered to land by the time they worked out the problem could not be fixed right away.
They want to have everything in one package again without thinking wether they need it or not
Reactor, reasonable size, two catapults, flat deck, that's all there is to it
Brilliant... take away the ski jump and reduce their aircraft launch rate by 80% for no advantage at all.
The only aircraft that need cat launch are the AWACS planes and the inflight refuelling plane based on the same airframe.
All the other aircraft can take off from the ramp while any other aircraft could be landing at the same time... if there are no other aircraft landing at the same time they can launch four aircraft at a time from the Ski Jump, but you think they should get rid of their ability to rapidly get fighters in the air so they can launch their AWACS platform over the bow... their AWACS aircraft is fucking useless taking off all the time... the whole point of making it heavy (with fuel) is so you launch it once and leave it up there for 6 hours doing its job... after 6 hours you might send up an inflight refuelling aircraft to top it up again so it can stay there for another 6 hours... which means on average you will be using the EM cats once every 6 hours... the ski jump and angled landing deck on the other hand will be continuously used to launch and recover all the other aircraft... but if you had your way it would take 5 times longer to launch aircraft because without a ski jump you could only launch 2 aircraft at a time and when they were being launched one of the cat positions would cover the angled deck landing run so you can't land aircraft but you can only launch 2 at a time, or land one at a time... what a bad carrier designer you would make.
[quote]Don't go stuffing weapons that are supposed to be on escorts and ski-ramps that are not needed with catapults[/qutoe]
The carrier is multi role and requires UKSK launchers and probably UKSK-M launchers.
The only aircraft that need cats are AWACS and they will only be carrying about 4, and refuelling aircraft, that might be 4 more... compared with perhaps 60 other planes that use the ski jump to operate from the carrier.
USA, French, Chinese figured this out already,I doubt Russians have some secret elusive knowledge about carriers that magically eluded everyone else
There you go.... AMERICAN DOES IT THIS WAY... RUSSIA IS STUPID TO TRY AND DO IT ANY OTHER WAY...
But guess what... Russian fighters are just that... they are fighters, so they don't need heavy air to ground ordinance loads, the Su-33 can't even carry external fuel tanks... they don't need cat assisted launches, but what they do benefit from is ski jump launches because they have the raw engine power to benefit from running up a ramp for a jump in to the air. A big heavy overloaded truck on the other hand does not benefit from a ramp launch so the cats make more sense oriented via the angled landing deck.
It is not a big deal on a Russian carrier because only the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft need cat launches 90% of aircraft launches will be fighters via the ramp and the design with the path around the island it is even better because aircraft can be prepared for launch on the deck ready to go so launches via the ramp will be very very fast.