Your answers for EMALS power are all there, the centrifugal flywheels store 2-3x the required energy of a launch. they go from 9000 RPM down to 7000 RPM, then then are spun up by motors for the next launch. Its pretty efficient and quite clever IMHO. How much time in between launches? The math is easy. 4 min? you need 2MWh gen set for this. Not that big, 20 % loss? 2.4MWh 40% 2.8MWh.
Most of the time for the Russians the time between cat launches is probably going to average more than 30 minutes.... when they haven't got a fixed wing AWACS platform airborne they can operate Ka-31s to avoid sneak attacks. but most of the time they will have an AWACS platform flying around the place and probably an inflight refuelling aircraft based on the same aircraft design to top the AWACS aircraft up when needed, and also any fighters airborne at that time.
Otherwise the use of the cats will actually be pretty rare... bombing missions these days might include two FAB-500 bombs and external fuel tanks and some self defence AAMs... so maybe 3-4 tons at the very most for the MiGs... rather less for the Flankers because they can't even carry external fuel tanks so a couple of AAMs and some FAB-500s or perhaps GROM glide bombs maybe...
Russia did not see the need for strike aircraft in the past, that has changed with Syria. You can launch fighters with STOBAR but fuel and payloads suffer.
Why would you think that? A few strikes against terrorist forces from 10km altitude with dumb bombs is not really comparable to US strike carriers.
With Su-57s a few Grom type glide bombs will be fine...
Why would the French carrier experience not influence Russia? Russia has the same fiscal constraints France does and De Gaulle can surge to 100 sorties/day which is a *hitload of firepower. De Gaulle is way more capable then the UK's trash barges.
Because they don't use their naval aircraft the same way the Russians do so their lessons are not as relevant.
France and the US and to an extent Britain also have a world wide network of friendly ports and countries that cooperate and don't ban them from their ports when Washington tells them to, so the Russians need to be more self sufficient.... there will be no cavalry to come to the rescue.
Russia simply does not have the near term capability to build a large supercarrier. For them to exit the decade with 4 small carriers with 8-12 fighters, would be the best possible outcome and a real quantum leap in capability for the RuN
Four small carriers would probably cost more than two big ones.
And with small ones they would need a minimum of two per surface action group so even with all four out of port and in service they would still only have two "carrier groups".
Not that I think they would be trying to do two things in different places at once...
You can launch fighters with STOBAR but fuel and payloads suffer.
The aircraft your AWACS is based on can also be aboard in a cargo/inflight refuelling type so fighters can take off with full (fighter) loads and reduced fuel and then top up after take off. Most fighter loads are nothing like max payloads anyway.
For STOVL it is instead the landing that take time and put heavy weight limitations, hence british experiments with rolling landing.
STOBAR is best most of the time even with VSTOL fighters because the short takeoff increases the fuel and payload capacity and the landing is quicker and a VSTOL should be able to reduce its landing speeds to very low levels making it much easier too.
I never said there was a prob with sortie generation, the only issues are perhaps payload, needing very high thrust planes, (BS IMHO)
The thing is that the Russians use their carriers to provide fighter cover for their surface ships so planes with high thrust are what they have....
There are about four takeoff spots on the Kuznetsov including a waist launch position that allows any plane they currently embark to take off at max weight...
There is even the possibility of using JATO bottles when you need super high payload missions.
Not really. On the Kuznetsov at each launch position there is a large door that opens up behind the launching aircraft to prevent its jet wash effecting other aircraft or crew on the deck... Rockets are volatile and messy and you would need too many of them and they are not reusable and actually quite expensive.
For Russian carriers if they make their new ones bigger they wont need cats for fighters anyway.
I agree conventional planes with STOBAR are better then VTOL planes. I doubt the 23900 will be long enough to be a useful STOBAR carrier. After all its 85M shorter then Kuz.
The 23900 is a helicopter landing carrier and putting fighters on it would be stupid. Building an extra one to make it a fighter carrier like a mini DeGaulle doesn't make sense either... this ship will be 10K tons lighter than the DeGaulle and it wouldn't make sense without an AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft which would not be compatible with a skijump or a cat that small.
The 23900 is for carrying naval infantry and their armour and some helicopters to get them ashore... they are not aircraft carriers.
As for EMALs the math is clear, you do not need a huge electrical capacity to operate it.
Needs to be reliable though... I would think an AWACS platform that is also amphibious so if it can't take off with a cat it can be lowered into the water from a crane and take off from the water and recover on the water if needed...
In the 1980s there was a lot of talk about gas turbines in main battle tanks... because big diesel engines in the 1,500-2,500hp range are huge and heavy. Gas Turbines are much smaller and lighter, but as used in the T-80 and Abrams tanks when they are the primary power source for the tank they are horribly fuel intensive because tanks are enormously heavy and rarely drive at a constant cruise speed on a nice flat paved road. Normally they go from a stationary position to another stationary position 200m away at max acceleration... moving from cover to cover...
The next gen MBT the Russians are talking about will be a twin chassis vehicle with a 3,000 hp gas turbine engine but electric drive for both sections.
New ships will likely be the same with gas turbines that generate the electricity used to power the ship... perhaps with a few smaller backup diesel generators, but GTs are small compact and powerful... used to power a screw itself or a wheel they are not so fuel efficient, but connected to an electric motor generating power and optimum speed gets excellent fuel efficiency.
Obviously for a fixed wing Russian aircraft carrier they want a nuclear power plant.
For a helicopter carrier high speed is not critical... you need all your other support vessels in place before any landing begins anyway....