With the new multi-keel design the deck at the stern is so broad that angled deck is not needed anymore IMHO.
It still uses an angled deck, but with less angle so the angled deck is much longer.
The purpose of the angled deck is to allow aircraft to land continuously even while aircraft are set up on the launch positions and are prepared for take off.
If you look at the model on your post (number 560) you can clearly see that the gray and blue plane right up the front ready in the front two takeoff positions (yellow lines showing their take off paths).
Just behind them on the deck is a gray aircraft with wings folded but it is surrounded by a yellow oval which indicates an aircraft lift, of which there are three including one right at the rear of the carrier deck.
Behind the front aircraft lift and to the left is the third takeoff position... you can identify them because they have gray rectangles on the deck where there is a blast deflector which can be raised to allow the aircraft in that position to run at full AB without damaging any aircraft or personnel behind them.
Note the left aircraft in the front takeoff position you can see the blast reflectors are up and you can see the red painted underside of that deflector.
You can also see a blue aircraft in the process of landing on the angled deck and various aircraft parked around the place, including one on each of the aircraft lifts.
You can clearly see that the rear launch position is partially on the landing strip but narrowly avoids the deck lift slightly in front of it.
The funny small rectangular shapes that look like a large rectangle with a small rectangle added on between the aircraft lifts and the main structure in line and behind the right front aircraft take off position are probably ammunition lifts.
This would allow to have an excellent opportunity to increase the reliability of the carrier in case of arresting gear malfunction and operational tempo since two landing decks would be available:
Arrester gear malfunction is unusual and not worth redesigning a whole carrier for.
Superstructure would need to be taken to the centreline of the carrier but that would be only good for stability, due to pitch motion it would probably need to be placed close to the CG but if taken backwards it could allow to have a more usable deck, with the center lane full of planes getting ready for TO (actually the whole space in front of the superstructure could be equipped with deflectors for TO as already discussed)
You never see a land based aircraft tower in the middle of landing air strips and you wont see a carrier tower in the same place.
The only modern change for towers is the split of the ships tower and the aircraft control tower...
OK then why only US is building large CVNs? because money dont matter!
Their income depends on their empire, so they need the tools of empire to keep the little ones in line... when they lose the herd they lose the farm.
No, thy dotn you do.
You are the one wanting a supersonic 5th gen STOVL fighter...
you might prefer eve 12 of them. Ru Navy too. But in reality realm money is in tight supply. Navy already is cured form 90ktson Storm, now they are mumbling about 70ktons. Likely will be happy with 40ktons too.
The Ru Navy never expressed any interest in a 90 K ton Storm class carrier.... that was an offering from a design bureau that has never made a CVN.
The Ru Navy has said the Kuznetsov is slightly too small and they want something a little bigger in the 70K tons range Max weight.
Thanks for the info! Do you happen to know why this was not implemented? Now maybe automatic landing control can help but from what I know, classical landing on an angled deck is notoriously difficult to master for pilots. And in terms using space, forces the superstructure starboard and reduces the area for parking and TO positions.
Landing on a carrier in the middle of an ocean with the deck heaving up and down has and is and will always be difficult... they used to land straight and it wasn't any easier and if you screwed it up you risked running into other aircraft on the deck and making a real mess of things.
An angled deck design means you have your little corner of the deck to yourself so if you miss the cable you can fly through and come around and have another go.
I don't understand why you find fault with such a clever design.
Look how the deck is essentially symmetrical both sides of Y axis.
The extra space on deck is better used for parking of aircraft than adding the enormous complication of two landing runs... they already have three take off runs...
Imagine arresting gear fails when you have a wave of aircraft returning to the carrier, they would not be able to land and could (as it happened in Syria) crash in the sea.
Yeah... imagining the arresting gear fails is like imagining the carrier hits a mine and sinks... so make it a hovercraft...
1) Difficulty of the landing
It is precisely the angled landing that is challenging, because it combines motions on three axes at a time (moving left while approaching) unlike a bi-dimensional landing on a straight deck. Such approach is very complex to time properly and can only be done with instrumentation. Straight landing on the contrary would be much easier to master and therefore would reduce the time to form naval pilots and the amount of hours to keep them fit.
What are you talking about?
You line up with the runway for landing... you don't land in a circle... you land in a straight line.... whether that is parallel to the deck of the ship or angled to the deck of the ship... the tried and trusted mirror system makes landing fairly straight forward... and the angled deck is no harder than a straight deck landing.
2) Length of landing trajectories.
Aircraft take the arresting cables and then are stopped relatively fast, in roughly 100 m. You can look at landing videos to see that the landing deck is not used up completely. But in any case you can calculate the length lost, knowing the angle of decks in carriers is between 5 and 10º, you would lose less than 2% in length by making the landing lane completely straight
The length used for a cable landing depends on whether the aircraft caught the first, second, third, or fourth cable... if you get the fourth cable the aircraft uses almost all of the angled deck length to stop. Having extra length in this case means nothing at all, unless you want to use longer cables.
3) Landing space free of obstacles.
This would depend of course on how close you place aircraft and other obstacles on the deck. But you can look the parking positions on this and other designs and will see that aircraft land quite close to parked ones. I imagine this changes depending on sea state but cannot say what is acceptable and what is not in what conditions. In any case in the proposal clearance could be made according to situation too.
The purpose of an angled deck is to allow for missing the cables... or indeed crashing in a big fireball, but not having parked aircraft or people traffic in the way...
Push the burning wreck off the deck and hose it down and next aircraft...
Not quite parallel but definitely much straighter than any other post-war carrier designs until the Harrier ships.
One landing strip with a slight angle, and a bow to allow rolling takeoffs... that is just normal.
AWACS could be done probably to TO in ca. 200 m run with ski jump, but tankers are going to be crucial in the future and they will demand catapults I think.
AWACS and tanker aircraft are practically transports and transports wont like ski jumps... too much weight.... too much g force at too much weight will just break them.
If you are going to have cats for a tanker when why not use them for AWACS too?
Tidier and more effective layout may be possible.
They used to use straight decks because the old propeller driven aircraft could get airborne in that distance... though sometimes only with a good head of steam into the wind.
Jet aircraft simply didn't have any chance of getting airborne or more importantly landing in such a small area so cable arresting gear and steam cats were developed.
With cable arresting gear you only needed a fraction of the length of the deck to land or follow through and come around again, so an angled deck was used because it isolated the area of the deck used up for landing and freed up the rest of the space for parking and preparing aircraft for take off or weapon loading.
The only exception is VTOL aircraft like Harrier types and helicopters... where rolling landings and rolling takeoffs allow operating at heavier weights easier, which improves aircraft performance.
It has its issues like proximity to the arrestor gear & lift location but I think fixable on a cleansheet design.
With cats the longer takeoff runs become redundant... it would be better to use the extra space for parking aircraft...
In my view one of the main design issues on aircraft carriers is to reduce the risk of accident, the probability of accident in the operation of the aircrafts on board. In the operation of Syria, this was just the main flaw of the service of the Project 11435 A Kutznetsov. In war time, danger situations are forced, the estress in the operations is far bigger, and as consequence the probability of accident increases.
The situation in Syria was unusual and was a result of them never operating at such a tempo before. The problem will have been dealt with by now so trying to redesign the whole carrier to reduce the problems is a waste of time.
Changing the landing run to the full length of the deck is not enough to allow landing without cable arrester gear, so why bother?
Why two landing decks ? If they plan ~40 jets plus the rest helicoptets, 1 is enough. In case of malfunction, you can only replace the arresting cables. And they have 4 or 5 of them for one runway.
Cables break in normal operation... but of course not all the time. If they break all the time then that is a problem with the arrester gear itself... without arrester gear all cables will break first time every time... arrester gear is like the gears in a car that allow it to operate at different speeds... without it you would either have serious problems starting off or going up hill because of the high fixed gear ratio that allows you go travel on high ways efficiently, or you can start off easy, but can't drive much faster than 50km/h without the engine roaring at 12 thousand revs.
K isn't a reliable exemple. It was the fault of old equipment. Which is also weired since it has many wires, so all of them became unusable when the mig 29k landed ?
If the arrester gear is not working then all of the cables will snap when caught because there is no gearing to give them give... they are not elastic bands.