Way cheaper a CATAPULT??? affraid Have you idea how much space, horsepower, project complexity and maintenance a catapult system imply
They invested in an EMALS system for the last decade or more... money invested in an electrical catapult system like this is useful in a variety of areas in new technology... it will be vastly more useful than getting a supersonic fighter plane to hover above the ground or sea.
A conventional one I mean because the EMALS are like the Phoenix described by Mozart: That there it exist everyone here say, where is it no one know.
Hypersonic missiles were expensive and complex and will require powerful fuels and maintenance too, but they are also worth the investment because scramjet technology will be useful in a lot of areas too... including artillery ammunition and even Surface to Air Missiles and Air to Air Missiles.
Seriously , what problem everyone seems to have with STOBAR and Sky jumps?
In this particular case the ship in question is much much much too small for ski jumps to work... most of the deck will have aircraft sitting on it most of the time because there wont be enough space under the deck to store all those aircraft that are visible in the picture shown.
Operationally some of those aircraft will be stored below deck but some will always have to remain above deck because there simply wont be room for it all to go below deck. Having to swap aircraft so aircraft needing maintenance in the hangar would be a mind numbing game of Tetris to shift other aircraft around to allow it... one of the other problems of really small carriers.
Problem with slow planes someone say?
HAVE YOU ALL FORGOT THIS PLANE???
Problem for heavy planes... slow planes get airborne at lower speeds and are not the problem.
An An-2 could operate from the K without problems and land without cables, but a Yak-44 could not take off and would probably struggle to land too because of its weight.
If it could do it 30 years ago, with no particular arrangement, anything will do it now.
Above all an AEW plane that have not to carry any payload except the radar.
AEW will be carrying as much fuel as possible and wont be light. The Su-25 is a light combat air support aircraft... without armour and without a combat load it is a relatively light aircraft that was only ever used as a trainer aircraft for practising landing and takeoffs on carriers. The standard fighter was the Su-33 which did not have a two seat version. MiG-29KR is single and twin seat convertable... you could make all your MiGs twin seat planes if you wanted, so the Su-25 is now redundant.
Said so, STOBAR carriers with same displacement are actually in service, so why reinvent the wheel?
This plan for a ship is much smaller than the K and short take off is not an option so cats make flight possible instead.
As the ships get smaller the landing stretch can't be reduced so the takeoff run has to be made shorter instead and the only way to make that work is with cats.
The Ford class carrier has EMAL cats... they just don't work. We don't know why... The Russians and Chinese have been working on the problems for a while, I have no reason to think they can't make it work...
my dog need go to a walk NOW)
Hahahaha... I know that look...
Ideally both Krylov and Nevskoe could cooperate to have a carrier based on Krylov's 60 kT medium proposal with semicatamaran hull and electromechanical catapults. The propulsion would be proportionally much cheaper than Storm since, apart from the hull design advantages, it would not be fully nuclear but CONAG, and the proportion air wing / displacement is simply in another league compared to current designs. If Nevskoe has achieved advances in automation that could be applied too, VMF would have IMHO the by far best carrier concept at disposal.
The new reactors they are making for their new ships remain fuelled for 30 years, so in terms of operation and time out of service being refuelled or whatever, these new reactors should be very low operational costs, but likely not cheap to buy.
They might think the lower maintenance and extra power from a bigger reactor might be worth it... especially if it can be split into two separate systems to improve resistance to battle damage.
Ground launched V1 rockets used steam freaking catapults. It's old technology. I don't see why it has to cost an absolute fortune to build or run. Steam is also a natural with nuclear powered ships.
Super conducting magnets, power banks, and sophisticated electrical systems as well as plasma based systems will be more value in developing and investing in that steam based systems of yesteryear.
An EMALS system has already been in the works for quite some time and was planned for use on future carriers... why dump that because the Americans fucked up their programme. If that is the case then dump the Gorshkov Frigates because of the LCS disaster, and don't even think about laying down any Zumwalts... which might become a euphemism where Zumwalt means chocolate logs.
But yeah I agree about the ski jumps. They are underrated. But since Russia had one and the US didn't for the last 30 years , it's been drummed into everyone that ski jumps are useless
On a tiny carrier like this they are useless because a fighter like a MiG-29KR with light fuel and no external weapons probably couldn't get airborne on such a small ship even with ski jumps... it needs a catapult system to get airborne.
On a better sized ship like a 50-80K ton ship the skijump would mean you could rapidly launch your fighters with an air to air load and full fuel because they have a high power to weight ratio and you can sail into the wind at speed to help them... with a ski jump and if they have vectored thrust jet engines they should be able to get airborne easily... it will be the AWACS aircraft that need the cats or a big plane like an Su-33 or Su-57 with a strike load that needs cat launches, but the ski jump will still be useful.
Rather than starting a carrier from scratch, what Russia can do is buy carriers from China. By the 2030s China will be fielding at least 10 carriers. By then, China will have the capacity to build carriers for Russian navy.
Russia has plenty of time to decide what sort of carrier they want and what aircraft will operate from it. The number of carriers china will be operating is not important for Russia. Russia will likely complete the two helicopter carriers and probably follow them up with two more so it can base two in the northern fleet and two in the pacific fleet, but in terms of full sized fixed wing carriers they probably only need about 2 CVNs.
Anyone wanting to actually check the influence of thrust in this type of take-off can use an online skyjump simulator and see for themselves what difference a couple tf per engine do.
Part of its influence is to angle the aircraft in a nose up attitude so the engines provide both forward thrust and lift at the same time.
A modern fighter with full thrust vectoring could probably mimic that, but the ski jump also adds an upward component to movement... a jump in fact that TVC engines can't really match.
As you can imagine for a big heavy low thrust to weight ratio aircraft like an AWACS platform having to climb an angle slows the aircraft down which is the opposite of what you want to do when trying to take off with forward speed.
In Russia purpose of the carrier is little more than to clog the pier, it did little other than that
Yeah thanks for that opinion Vann... the purpose of a carrier is to perform air defence roles beyond the range of Russian land based air power.... most people can appreciate that, except you it seems.
All previous Russian plans involved another version of Kuznetsov
The thing is that there are Russian plans and Russian plans.
Companies that make ships can come up with all sorts of querky plans and ideas and show them in drawing or even model form, but things like hearing that the Russian military is working on EMALS cats and also on a naval version of the Su-57 suggest otherwise don't they?
After their evaluation of the Kuznetsov in Syria they stated they wanted something bigger with more planes and more endurance and more storage... but I understand in your ears it means either all carriers are obsolete and Russia just needs lots of corvettes, or tiny ships with VSTOL fighters are the solution... even though they never have been before.