Military Review

Electromagnetic catapult for the Russian aircraft carrier

83
In recent years, the topic of building a new Russian aircraft carrier has been regularly raised, but so far there has been no further talk. From time to time various news, although the military’s plans do not yet provide funding for the construction of a ship with aviation group. The other day, the ITAR-TASS news agency published an interview with the Director General of the Nevsky Design Bureau Sergey Vlasov, from which it became known about new work in the direction of creating a promising aircraft carrier.


Electromagnetic catapult for the Russian aircraft carrier


The ITAR-TASS correspondent and the head of the Nevsky PKB spoke about the future of domestic and foreign aircraft carriers, and also touched on a number of important topics. Perhaps the most interesting point of the interview is the statement by S. Vlasov that a certain domestic organization is already engaged in research on the subject of an electromagnetic catapult for promising aircraft carriers. The general director of Nevsky PKB did not specify who was involved in the promising project, nor did he disclose any details of these works.

S. Vlasov noted that promising domestic aircraft carriers are likely to need a catapult to launch aircraft. In addition, the appropriate aircraft will be needed. The exact appearance of the aircraft carrier and the aircraft for it has not yet been determined, but work is already underway in the field of electromagnetic catapults. How long it will take to implement this project is not yet completely clear. As international experience shows, the creation of an electromagnetic catapult is quite a challenge. For example, American engineers have created and upgraded such a system for more than ten years.

The general director of Nevsky PKB also noted the low reliability of promising systems. With all its advantages, as follows from open sources, electromagnetic catapults are still losing steam in reliability by almost two orders of magnitude. Electromagnetic systems are not yet very reliable, which is why the number of critical failures for a certain number of work cycles is still too large.

From the words of S. Vlasov, it also follows that at present only an electromagnetic catapult for aircraft carriers is being developed in our country. Steam systems of a similar purpose are not of interest to domestic scientists and designers. The head of the Nevsky PKB explained this with some features of the steam catapults. Such systems need a nuclear power plant of the ship, which produces steam for them. As for the electromagnetic system, it is easier, more compact and smoothly accelerates the aircraft, and its characteristics can be adjusted depending on the weight of the aircraft.

According to S. Vlasov, the use of catapults may not have a serious impact on the appearance of a promising aircraft carrier. As an example, he cited American ships, each of which carries four catapults: two on the nose and two on the corner deck. A promising domestic aircraft carrier can save a springboard in the nose of the flight deck, as well as get two catapults per corner.

The head of the Nevsky PKB believes that it is too early to talk about the cost of the finished electromagnetic catapult of the Russian design. Such a system consists of several components (the actual catapult, high-voltage equipment, generators, etc.), which makes it difficult to estimate its final cost. In addition, the number of ships may affect the price of the system. The larger the series will have, the less the cost of each catapult.

If the topic of an electromagnetic catapult is further developed, then, according to S. Vlasov, one of the Russian ground-based simulators can become a platform for testing such equipment. Appropriate equipment can be installed and tested on the NITKA complex in the Crimea or in Yeisk.

Despite the fact that the construction of a new domestic aircraft carrier is still a matter of a sufficiently distant future, reports of work on an electromagnetic catapult for such ships look very curious. This means that defense enterprises are already engaged in various studies that in the future will help create a project of a ship with an aviation group on board.

It should be noted that the work on the creation of a catapult is in a sense a continuation of projects that were created in the eighties. The aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, which was never completed, was supposed to be equipped with steam catapults. Thanks to these systems, the ship could provide several types of aircraft. The fact is that the take-off springboard used earlier can only be used by aircraft with high thrust-to-weight ratio, and this imposes a restriction on the composition of the aircraft’s aviation group. Carriers with catapults are less demanding from this point of view.

Foreign experience, primarily American, clearly shows the advantages of using catapults. Over the past decades, steam systems of this class have been actively used on US Navy ships and provide them with greater flexibility of use.

The newest American project in the field of catapults for aircraft carriers is the electromagnetic system EMALS, created for the ship USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). It is alleged that the catapults of this system will allow the aircraft of the ship to carry out at least 160 sorties per day instead of 120 sorties for aircraft carriers with a steam catapult. This should accordingly affect the effectiveness of the combat work of both the aircraft carrier itself and the carrier strike group to which it belongs.

Earlier this year, there were reports of similar development for the authorship of Chinese experts. Foreign media reported that China built a ground-based test facility equipped with a prototype of a promising electromagnetic catapult. Details of the Chinese project are unknown. The length of the experienced catapult is estimated to be 120-150 meters with a length of electromagnetic guides about 100 meters.

Thus, the leading countries of the world, intending to develop their carrier fleet, are going to abandon obsolete steam catapults, switching to the use of electromagnetic. The advantages of the new systems over the old ones are obvious and are no longer in doubt. However, the creation of an electromagnetic catapult is quite a challenge, since this unit consumes a huge amount of electricity and therefore requires a special approach to the creation of the ship’s power systems.

Theoretically, an aircraft carrier with a steam or electromagnetic catapult can be equipped with a steam-turbine power plant, but it will not allow systems to be brought to the required level. The expected effect can be achieved only with the use of a nuclear power plant, which is clearly shown by the American experience. It is too early to talk about the appearance of a promising Russian aircraft carrier, but we can already assume that the electromagnetic catapult under development, if it comes to practical use, will be used on a ship with a nuclear power plant.

However, all this is only speculation. The development of a new Russian aircraft carrier has not yet begun, and so far there is no exact information on which systems will be used on it. It should be recognized that information on the creation of an electromagnetic catapult may be evidence that some preliminary work is being carried out on aircraft carrier topics. Such preliminary research and development will help shape the technical requirements and appearance of a promising aircraft carrier, whose construction will begin in the future.


On the materials of the sites:
http://itar-tass.com/
http://lenta.ru/
http://ria.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
http://www.newsru.com/
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. saag
    saag April 23 2014 07: 55
    +11
    Let's. a promising business, and not even in terms of an aircraft carrier, but as a means of launching from the lunar surface
    1. Baikal
      Baikal April 23 2014 12: 01
      +2
      Catapult is wonderful, of course.
      And what is bad about variate 1143.5 with tramplin like "Kuznetsov"?
      1. Pimply
        Pimply April 23 2014 12: 05
        +24
        Quote: Baikal
        And what's wrong with the 1143.5 version with a trampoline like "Kuznetsov"?

        The fact that the aircraft is forced to take off by itself, which means it spends more fuel and carries less combat load
        1. Baikal
          Baikal April 23 2014 12: 13
          +5
          Thank. Yes, I read on the topic.
          The bet on replacing full-fledged steam catapults with a springboard made it difficult for takeoff and landing operations (due to the presence of only one direction for launch) and the inability to operate with heavy aircraft like AWACS. As a result, the capabilities of TAKR for over-horizon detection were limited to AWACS helicopters, which had a small radius of action.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. patsantre
          patsantre April 23 2014 14: 47
          +8
          And it can’t base aircraft with low thrust ratio, such as AWACS.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 24 2014 17: 09
            -2
            and faith doesn’t let them run with RATO?
            C-130 from the aircraft carrier even took off without it.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre April 24 2014 21: 30
              0
              What is RATO?
              With such questions, it’s not for me; So ask why.
        3. crazyrom
          crazyrom April 23 2014 22: 52
          +2
          Afterburner fuel consumption, depending on the size of the aircraft (instant or sous) - 12-17 kg / s. How many seconds does take-off last? 10-15? Well, there’s a lot of combat radius or load that you can run into 200kg of fuel, knowing that they only have a few (3-5) tons of fuel.
          1. Realist1989
            Realist1989 April 23 2014 23: 36
            0
            Well, I read that there are still restrictions on take-off weight with 1 and 2 take-off positions (120 meters if I'm not mistaken). Those. fuel loading is not complete. And this, coupled with the consumption of afterburner on takeoff, gives a noticeable decrease in radius. Although of course it would be interesting to know more or less accurate data on the combat radii of the Su-33 and MiG-29K aircraft at their launches from different positions of Kuzi or Vikramaditya ...
        4. FID
          FID April 24 2014 10: 56
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          The fact that the aircraft is forced to take off by itself, which means it spends more fuel and carries less combat load

          Let me slightly object. Take-off both there and there afterburner, what kind of fuel economy are we talking about? But the REDUCTION of the takeoff distance, i.e. a decrease in the runway and, consequently, an increase in the number of runways - yes ...
      2. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 23 2014 15: 05
        +3
        Quote: Baikal
        Catapult is wonderful, of course.
        And what is bad about variate 1143.5 with tramplin like "Kuznetsov"?

        The fact that it is impossible to launch an AWACS aircraft from a springboard. And at the present time, an aircraft carrier group, without such aircraft, is becoming a castrate.
      3. CRASHBULLET
        CRASHBULLET April 23 2014 17: 30
        +4
        Due to the fact that the planes at the start, burn a lot of fuel on the afterburner to take off, the payload is reduced, the radius of action is the same.
      4. Duke
        Duke April 24 2014 17: 19
        +2
        Quote: Baikal
        And what's wrong with the 1143.5 version with a trampoline like "Kuznetsov"?

        Including the inability to use AWACS aircraft.
        Now we use Helicopter AWACS - Ka-31
        The Ka-31 helicopter (an 503 product, according to NATO's Helix-B codification) is a radar patrol helicopter designed for the needs of the USSR Navy. A long-range radar detection helicopter was developed on the basis of the existing Ka-29 naval transport and combat helicopter. The helicopter can be based both on ships of various classes and on land.
        All ships capable of taking on board the Ka-31 and Ka-27 helicopters can serve as the Ka-29 helicopter base. The helicopter can be used in the ground version for solving air defense tasks of ground forces. To date, this helicopter has no world analogues.
        Main characteristics of Ka-31:
        Dimensions:
        - diameter of the main screw - 15,9 m,
        - length - 11,6 m;
        - height - 5,5 m;
        - width - 3,8 m;
        Weight, maximum take-off - 12.500 kg;
        Engine type - 2 gas turbine engine TV3-117ВК, power 2х1660 kW;
        Cruising speed - 220 km / h;
        Maximum speed - 255 km / h;
        Practical range - 680 km;
        Flight Duration - 2 hours 30 minutes;
        Practical ceiling - 5000 m;
        Crew - 3 person.
  2. samoletil18
    samoletil18 April 23 2014 08: 36
    +7
    There will be no excess. Technological and design support should be carried out ahead of time, and not when the fried rooster begins its activity. This is currently the need for Russia to build ships the size of a destroyer, and when escort and support will be possible, and aircraft carriers can focus. On smaller ships and vessels, we will restore personnel - there will be aircraft carriers, but with catapults it’s better.
    People approve!
    1. Very old
      Very old April 23 2014 09: 54
      +5
      So the opponents of the AUG received clarification
      The dispute on the forum was = about nothing
      Works up fig
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 April 23 2014 22: 21
        0
        Quote: Very old
        Works up fig
        Exactly!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. umah
    umah April 23 2014 08: 51
    +5
    There is evidence that the EM catapult to disperse 15-ton aircraft was designed in the 70-80-s. And it was not stationary, but rolling. And I admit that this was not the only project, for sure such work was entrusted to several institutes. In light of this, it is amazing how many difficulties this causes for Americans.
  4. shurup
    shurup April 23 2014 09: 05
    +8
    I think that catapults and ground workers would not refuse. This would significantly save fuel in the tanks, usually spent on take-off at full load. Steam is not suitable for them, but an electrical substation is usually at hand. With the help of ground workers, further, you can work out the marine version.
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 April 23 2014 10: 43
      +4
      Quote: shurup
      Steam is not suitable for them, but an electrical substation is usually at hand.

      There is an electrical substation, only the cost of such a launch will cost much more than a normal take-off. Power station should be own. The same Americans calculated that the impulse when starting the aircraft should be about 120 mJ, and the currently available EM catapult produces no more than 90-99 mJ. The system of flywheel rotors will add momentum, so "everything is not so simple" (tm) laughing . The problem is quite complicated;
  5. tchoni
    tchoni April 23 2014 09: 27
    0
    Yes, the topic is good. The steam catapult is very vulnerable, difficult to manufacture and maintain. It’s good if an alternative appears to her ... But, wait and see, what these works will turn into.
  6. Mehanik-54
    Mehanik-54 April 23 2014 10: 09
    -1
    10 years on the catapult, 10 on the new plane, 10 on the manufacture of an aircraft carrier. And after 30 years, everything will be on paper. And even more will turn a blind eye to this matter.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 10: 18
      +10
      Quote: Mehanik-54
      10 years on the catapult, 10 on the new plane, 10 on the manufacture of an aircraft carrier.

      What these processes can go in parallel, but not sequentially, can not be assumed?
      1. saag
        saag April 23 2014 10: 21
        0
        it’s impossible, because there is not so much money, there are free frames and it’s not clear how the catapult will look to build the rest under it
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 10: 59
          +7
          Quote: saag
          it’s impossible, because there is not so much money,

          And who told you this, if not a secret? Can you tell me, on the basis of what data do you declare that there is no money for this?
          Quote: saag
          frames free and in general it is not clear how the catapult will look to build the rest under it

          Aircraft under the catapult are not created :))) Americans lay their aircraft carrier long before the readiness of electromagnetic catapults.
          1. saag
            saag April 23 2014 12: 02
            -3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And who told you this, if not a secret? Can you tell me, on the basis of what data do you declare that there is no money for this?

            If they are, what can the destroyer not build? All corvettes with boats are only visible, and an aircraft carrier is a very expensive business.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Americans lay their aircraft carrier long before the readiness of electromagnetic catapults.

            Do you offer to do copying?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 12: 17
              +4
              Quote: saag
              If they are, what can the destroyer not build?

              Do you seriously believe that this is because there is not enough money? :))))
              It's not about money, it's about technology. We and "Gorshkov" are stuck for this very reason - building a box is not a problem, the problem is in bringing to a series of promising weapons and equipment. "Polyment-Redut", artillery ... he had a lot of problems.
              Quote: saag
              Do you offer to do copying?

              What does it mean - copying? If I say that two times two is four, does this mean that I copy the United States because they say the same thing?
              The point is that the creation of any complex system (and of the same destroyer) requires a lot of parallel work in order to get everything necessary for the construction and equipment of the built ship by the planned date. When someone starts to run out of schedule, it turns out "Gorshkov".
              1. saag
                saag April 23 2014 13: 00
                -4
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The issue is not about money, but about technology.

                Technology is not born of enthusiasm, since the Phoenicians invented money, everything around them revolves
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 13: 38
                  +8
                  Quote: saag
                  Technology is not born of enthusiasm, since the Phoenicians invented money, everything around them revolves

                  The minus was not put by me, but in my opinion - it is well deserved. The problem is that the defense industry has not been funded for too long, now there is money, the government is shouting "I buy the FSE !!" rushed to order weapons and suddenly ... it turned out that the developers are barely alive. Of course, now that money has appeared, things will go smoothly, although not immediately.
                  In 1912-1915, the shipbuilding of the Russian Empire built huge battleships of the "Empress Maria" type with a displacement of 23 thousand tons in three years (Maria) and even less (2 years and 11 months - Ekaterina). But then - the revolution, devastation, shipbuilding did not receive orders. 15 years have passed - and the unfortunate "Hurricanes", patrol boats of 500 tons, were building for 5 years. Because skilled workers fled, because allied enterprises died quietly, etc. etc. We still have all this. And wait, that like this - bang - they gave money and everything will not be necessary. There is money - but the scientific, design and production bases are far from being in the best condition, and it takes time to restore all this
              2. saag
                saag April 23 2014 13: 02
                -4
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The point is that the creation of any complex system (and the same destroyer) requires a lot of parallel work in order to get everything necessary for the construction and equipment of the built ship by the planned time

                Take, for example, a conventional power plant of a new model, how you will parallelly design foundations under it, even if its dimensions are not known
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 13: 40
                  +7
                  Quote: saag
                  Take, for example, a conventional power plant of a new model, how you will parallelly design foundations under it, even if its dimensions are not known

                  A new sample, is it your way, according to the pike command and my desire?
                  TK is taken for a new power plant and it reads "dimensions such and such, weight - such and such" from here we proceed
                  I repeat, this is how ships are built from the time of King Pea ALL the countries of the world
                  1. teron
                    teron April 23 2014 14: 03
                    +1
                    The problem, in the first place, is conceptual in nature: the state power and the military have not yet decided which fleet they need and for what purposes.

                    What are you breaking spears? This is from a neighboring branch. They have not yet decided - maybe they will not build anything larger than destroyers, and they don’t know which and when.
                  2. ssergn
                    ssergn April 23 2014 15: 09
                    0
                    Andrey, in order to ask such questions, you need to at least design something yourself, at least at the university (this is your opponent). And you are absolutely right.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 24 2014 08: 36
                      +2
                      Quote: ssergn
                      Andrey, in order to ask such questions, you need to at least design something yourself, at least at a university

                      I would say that for this you need to have not a higher education, but at least a secondary imagination laughing
                    2. The comment was deleted.
          2. xtur
            xtur April 23 2014 18: 37
            0
            > The Americans are laying down their aircraft carrier long before the electromagnetic catapults are ready.

            at the moment, two years before commissioning, the EM catapult is twice as reliable as the steam catapult. and this is after 8 or 10 years of development.
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 April 23 2014 23: 16
              0
              only how to apply steam in the north?
      2. ssergn
        ssergn April 23 2014 15: 05
        0
        Yes, why do you need a brain to think laughing
  7. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 23 2014 10: 15
    +1
    Fine! It remains only to build an aircraft carrier under it laughing
  8. Figvam
    Figvam April 23 2014 10: 23
    0
    Would live to see our new aircraft carrier.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 23 2014 10: 36
    0
    Please tell me why it is believed that for steam catapults nuclear power plants are required? Is this myth or truth? How then did non-nuclear American aircraft carriers work with steam catapults before the Nimitz? Maybe it would not be worth chasing electromagnetic catapults as a new fashionable nonsense, but using something that has already proven its effectiveness and that can be developed faster and cheaper - steam catapults? EMNIP, not proud Chinese are going to install steam ones on the aircraft carriers under construction now, although they are working on electromagnetic ones too ...
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 23 2014 12: 04
      +1
      1) steam generator. In the case of nuclear power plants, steam is obtained as a result of the operation of the reactor; it is known to generate heat. And for other control systems, steam generators are needed. This place is on the ship.

      2) mass of the aircraft. The F-11 Tiger weighed 9650 kg with curb weight, the F-14D Super Tomcat weighed 26632 kg, the F / A-18E weighed 21 320 kg. To shoot vehicles of such mass with the right speed at the right pace, p.1 is needed

      3) electromagnetic catapults are not nonsense but a promising direction. And what, is someone rushing us? Until even the concept of a future aircraft carrier has been formed.
      1. Realist1989
        Realist1989 April 23 2014 12: 34
        0
        Thanks for the clarification on items 1 and 2. As for clause 3, to be honest, we should have hurried, but knowing about the state of the Russian shipyards, of course this "should" does not mean anything in fact.
        As for the concept of the future aircraft carrier, I must admit that I simply do not understand what kind of bicycle this ("all-medium!") New one is needed by the RF Ministry of Defense, if they are not satisfied with the concepts of the existing American or not built Soviet nuclear aircraft carrier. Of course, the Ulyanovsk project needs to be finalized. But no more than, IMHO, by 25-30% - in fact, there you just need to remove the anti-ship missile and rearrange the bow, expand the hangar, instead of a springboard, put 2 catapults. It all just lies on the surface, and I don't understand why it is necessary to do everything from scratch ...
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 23 2014 13: 30
          +3
          The US Navy uses the concept of carrier strike assault. The main strength of which is the 1 or 2 aircraft carrier wing. Correspondingly, all the other members of the group are imprisoned for the task of ensuring the operation of the wing, built around the wing. On modern Berks, for example, launchers of anti-ship missiles are dismantled. What for? If the blow to the ships is still inflicted by airplanes.

          Our fleet has never had such a concept. Unique missile anti-ship systems have been developed for him. P-500, P-700, P-1000, Caliber, X-22, X-31. All of them are supersonic, maneuverable, have a large warhead power. The battle with the AUG was conceived as a volley of missiles from various carriers. Accordingly, the entire fleet was built around this salvo. Ships received their own air defense, anti-aircraft defense, because they were forced to defend themselves, even aircraft carriers had strike systems.
          And now we can continue to develop the theme of supersonic anti-ship missiles, making them longer-range, more powerful and "smarter" and build carriers for them.
          Or go to the US concept - start building a "Russian Nimitz".
          Accordingly, aircraft carriers are needed different. The wing should then complement, rather than duplicate, the functions of a ship’s group.

          If you collect Orlan, several Atlantians, the Chabanenko-type APC, the division of Anteyev and Yasenei, then why are drums deck aircraft? Such a group needs reconnaissance, target designation, electronic warfare and air defense at a distance of 300-600 km. Is it logical?
          And if you build a "Russian Nimitz", then why would he need Eagles, Atlantes and Antaeus with Ash? Therefore, the concept of US aircraft carriers does not suit. Our fleet needs to be altered for them.

          And this strange phrase simply meant that the future aircraft carrier could receive a modern weapons system, for example, the hypothetical S-500F and the same "Caliber"
          1. teron
            teron April 23 2014 14: 06
            +1
            And this strange phrase simply meant that the future aircraft carrier could receive a modern weapons system, for example, the hypothetical S-500F and the same "Caliber"

            Well, again, we want everything at once in one building.
          2. Realist1989
            Realist1989 April 23 2014 14: 30
            +1
            Quote: abc_alex
            If you collect Orlan, several Atlantians, and a Chabanenko-type armored vehicle, an Anteyev and Yasenei division, in a KUG, then why do you need attack deck aircraft? Such a group needs reconnaissance, target designation, electronic warfare and air defense at a distance of 300-600 km. Is it logical?

            Not logical. Well, missiles cannot be more effective than aircraft, at least because of the one-time use, and also because of the range. No range of anti-ship missiles can be compared with the "aircraft radius + anti-ship missile range" range. And the range of the air defense missile system also cannot be compared with the radius of air defense provided by aircraft. By the way, missiles also need target designation, and it is desirable that the target designator is not 100% suicide bomber. Or are there any illusions that the AUG will allow cruisers and nuclear submarines to reach 300-500 km? And if we talk about increasing the range of anti-ship missiles up to indicators that are acceptable for combating AUG - and this means much more than 1000 km, then how to ensure stable target designation? The aircraft carrier's air group has AWACS aircraft for these purposes, but what will cruisers and destroyers with anti-ship missiles have? About strike aircraft - now all modern combat aircraft are multipurpose, which means that there is no need to place strike aircraft separately on an aircraft carrier.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa April 23 2014 22: 37
              +1
              Quote: Realist1989
              Or are there any illusions that the AUG will let cruisers and nuclear submarines go to 300-500 km to itself?

              In peacetime, our commanders took photographs of the United States Air Force Aviation units in parts through a re-scope: they were too close to them, they didn’t completely put 300m into the lens. It’s hard to say what will happen in the military, but ours will try. Shaded fodder corners are most promising, but to catch up ... low-noise speed will not allow this. The nasal KU 45 +/- 45 will be scratched by KPUGs, AVPUG, Virginia ... It is difficult, but we will try.
              Quote: Realist1989
              How to ensure stable target designation? The aircraft carrier's aircraft group has AWACS aircraft for these purposes, but what will cruisers and destroyers with anti-ship missiles have?
              Hopefully there will be stealth UAVs that can accomplish this task. Or you will have to sacrifice one anti-ship missile "flock". But what about D shooting if the rest of the "flock" follows a low trajectory? All around the problem ...
              1. Realist1989
                Realist1989 April 23 2014 23: 41
                0
                And it’s easier to solve problems when armed with aircraft carriers with catapults and multipurpose fighters — there are reconnaissance, target designation, and the necessary D.
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex April 24 2014 12: 08
              0
              And you read carefully. I say that you need to choose one thing: either attack planes and NKs providing their work, or strike NKs and planes ensuring their work.
              But if we "sew" nimitz "with a harsh thread to our ships, it turns out that both of them perform the same function.

              Missiles are quite effective, since the P-700 carrier can be at a distance of up to 600 km from the target, using data from a satellite targeting system. By itself, it will be hidden behind the horizon from the means of the AUG itself.

              A carrier-based aircraft anti-ship missile carrier is forced to approach the target much closer. On average, 150 km. If we take a hockey deck AWACS as a standard, it turns out that the aircraft must pass at least 300 km in the field of its confident detection. For, for example, a Su-35 going near the ground, this is at least 10 minutes of flight. Think for yourself how much the plane will be suitable for disposability in this case.


              As for the "won't let you in", then you will see how the AUG unfolds. It's not a bunch of ships in one place, it's an ellipse stretched out towards the enemy. At the same time, the aircraft carrier is at the perigee of the ellipse, and the detection zone of all AUG assets is extended towards the apogee.
              A group of nuclear submarines, having the necessary level of situational awareness (knowing the route), can approach the aircraft carrier from the back. Judge for yourself, nuclear submarine 688I SSN 772 "Greenville" (built in 1995) detects nuclear submarine 688 "Los Angeles" (built in 1978) at a distance of 10 to 35 km. And the modern "Virginia" (SSN 774, built in 2004) at a distance of only 1 to 4 km. So if we are talking about sonar means, then they will approach both 200 and 100 km without any problems.
              1. Realist1989
                Realist1989 April 24 2014 13: 20
                0
                Quote: abc_alex
                Missiles are quite effective, since the P-700 carrier can be at a distance of up to 600 km from the target, using data from a satellite targeting system. By itself, it will be hidden behind the horizon from the means of the AUG itself.

                Oh well, seriously? =))) And what is interesting to hide the ship from Hokai? =))))
                Quote: abc_alex
                And the carrier-based carrier rocket RCC is forced to approach the target much closer. On average at 150 km.

                Well, actually at 250-300 km. already.
                Quote: abc_alex
                688I SSN 772 Greenville submarines (1995 year of construction) detects 688 submarines of Los Angeles (1978 year of construction) at a distance from 10 to 35 km. And the modern Virginia (SSN 774, 2004 of the year of construction) at a distance of only from 1 to 4 km. So if we are talking about sonar, then on 200 and 100 km will approach without any problems.

                And anti-submarine helicopters (in the long run tiltrotoplanes) with UDC and frigates / destroyers will therefore sit and wait until the nuclear submarines approach these same 200 km? =)))
                Quote: abc_alex
                you need to choose one thing: either strike aircraft and NKs providing their work, or strike NKs and planes ensuring their work.

                Yes it is not necessary, now combat aircraft are multifunctional, and the same MiG-29K and Su-35S have almost the same range of weapons. Although, of course, if it is possible to fully implement the combat radius and load (through the ejection launch), then it is desirable to have both a heavy aircraft and a light one. But to abandon the striking properties of an aircraft carrier, appealing to the presence of mastadon-shaped, outdated anti-ship missiles of the Granita type, is unreasonable.
            3. Bobik012
              Bobik012 23 August 2017 14: 13
              0
              There is an illusion that an aircraft carrier strike group with an opposing group of missile strike cruisers will not be able to do anything. The United States is preparing for the last war, which was won by aircraft carriers and could (if there was a worthy adversary) repeat the fate of the Japanese, who built battleships. Sea-based attack aircraft are not capable of breaking through the air defense of a serious naval group. Even a couple of aircraft carriers can’t lift more than a dozen aircraft at once (really). A dozen hornets is a task for a single cruiser, and not at all a question for a ship group. Taking into account the characteristics of American anti-ship air-based missiles (about bombs, I think, in principle, this is not the case), not a single aircraft will even have time to launch it. Another thing is a volley of long-range anti-ship missiles in the number of pieces of 50-ty. Their flight range is comparable to the radius of carrier-based aviation, and protection from them is much more difficult. So the strike aircraft carrier is applicable only against the Papuans without air defense. But the support aircraft carrier doesn’t really hurt. With AWACS aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, tankers, etc. Well, a couple of links of fighters to finish off the Hornets (or meet them at distant approaches). By the way, he will very much need a catapult. But ... In Syria, Kuznetsov practiced the actions of an attack aircraft carrier, i.e. Our strategists do not really believe in the reality of the battle of squadrons in the vast expanses of the sea, and the aircraft carrier, if any, will be a shock. The point of view of the Chinese and the Indian is completely unknown. If you don’t understand something, correct the amateur
          3. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa April 23 2014 22: 02
            +2
            Quote: abc_alex
            If you collect Orlan, several Atlantians, the Chabanenko-type APC, the Anteev and Yasenei division in the KUG

            Alexey! No need to engage in tactics of the Navy, there is someone to do this, take my word for it.
            Then, atomic boats are organizationally reduced to DIVISIONS, but not divisions.
            In 3's, KUGi NK will never include nuclear boats. Why? Yes, because the boats are controlled by the coastal checkpoint. There was an attempt at the time to transfer this function to the 5 CP. But even that control went through the coastal ADD transmitters, and, as far as I know, the DPL. Nuclear-powered vehicles remained under the control of the KP SF.
            Quote: abc_alex
            Why do we need strike deck aircraft?

            The question, of course, is interesting! Well, for example, in order to increase the range of the same X-31M to 800-1000km.
            Quote: abc_alex
            Such a group needs reconnaissance, target designation, electronic warfare and air defense at a distance of 300-600 km.

            Exactly! And all this is done by amers aircraft carrier aircraft. And who will do this with us if Liana and YES (Tu-95RTs) are cut? (underwater Stirlitz? on a vertical take-off and deep diving ekranoplan?)
            Quote: abc_alex
            if you build a "Russian Nimitz" then why would he need Eagles, Atlantes and Antaeus with Ash?

            Open, at least, Wiki and look at the typical composition of the AUG User. But for this we will need them - neither more nor less!
          4. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 23 2014 22: 09
            +1
            Quote: abc_alex
            Such a group needs reconnaissance, target designation, electronic warfare and air defense at a distance of 300-600 km. Is it logical?

            In fact, there are persistent rumors that modern rockets fly one and a half to two thousand kilometers.
            Quote: abc_alex
            And if you build a "Russian Nimitz", then why would he need Eagles

            And they were built as an escort for "Ulyanovsk".
        2. Matthew
          Matthew April 23 2014 15: 39
          0
          for the Northern Fleet, it is more than undesirable to remove the springboard
      2. Realist1989
        Realist1989 April 23 2014 14: 38
        0
        And another question - how big are these steam generators, do you have an hour of information on this? I’m just saying that is it possible to install such a steam generator and catapult instead of anti-ship missiles on Kuznetsovo’s bow ... sorry, if the question is really amateurish, I’d really like to make a full-fledged combat unit out of Kuznetsov, what is now ...
        1. Professor
          Professor April 23 2014 15: 34
          0
          Quote: Realist1989
          And another question - how big are these steam generators, do you have an hour of information on this? I’m just saying that is it possible to install such a steam generator and catapult instead of anti-ship missiles on Kuznetsovo’s bow ... sorry, if the question is really amateurish, I’d really like to make a full-fledged combat unit out of Kuznetsov, what is now ...

          I repeat, you cannot make enough steam with fuel oil, you need a reactor. Reactors are not large, for example, on nuclear submarines. However, such gravitsaps are not applicable to Kuz. hi
          1. Realist1989
            Realist1989 April 23 2014 16: 12
            0
            Those. it’s unrealistic to install catapults on Kuzyu’s nuclear power plant and 2-3 catapults in general, and is this ship hopeless?
            1. ar-ren
              ar-ren April 23 2014 18: 39
              +1
              Quote: Realist1989
              Those. it’s unrealistic to install catapults on Kuzyu’s nuclear power plant and 2-3 catapults in general, and is this ship hopeless?


              Steam catapults were operated on non-nuclear aircraft carriers, count to 2009 of the year. This is me about USS CV-53 Kitty Hawk.

              So, you can stick it on Kuzyu and just catapults, I allow it! :)))

              UPD. By the way, you can do so.
              1. Instead of steam turbine units, supply gas turbine units, similar to those that are installed on the HMS Qeene Elizabeth. They
              a) they will haw straight fuel oil.
              b) they will spend on the same path in 3 (two) times less fuel.
              2. And leave the steam generator boilers purely for the operation of the steam catapult.
              1. Realist1989
                Realist1989 April 23 2014 20: 43
                0
                Thanks for the info =)))
              2. rezident
                rezident April 23 2014 21: 23
                0
                Dreadnought early XX had a gas turbine installation ??? Fear God.
        2. Bobik012
          Bobik012 23 August 2017 14: 28
          0
          Quote: Realist1989
          And another question - how big are these steam generators, do you have an hour of information on this? I’m just saying that is it possible to install such a steam generator and catapult instead of anti-ship missiles on Kuznetsovo’s bow ... sorry, if the question is really amateurish, I’d really like to make a full-fledged combat unit out of Kuznetsov, what is now ...

          IMHO a fully operational combat unit. When meeting with Nimitz one on one, I would not bet on the American. Kuznetsov has funds against him, but Nimitz, without an escort, is a vessel very defenseless against missiles. Another thing is that he does not swim without an escort. Duc and Kuznetsov in a balanced group will look good: shock rockets + fighters for air cover
      3. Matthew
        Matthew April 23 2014 15: 38
        0
        And point 4 - the steam catapult cannot be operated in polar conditions. freezes.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Professor
      Professor April 23 2014 15: 31
      0
      Quote: Realist1989
      Please tell me, why is it believed that atomic power plants are necessary for steam catapults? Is this a myth or a truth?

      Elementaryly, up to 80% of the steam generated by the reactor goes to the catapult. Fuel oil does not make so much steam.
      1. skiff-xnumx
        skiff-xnumx April 23 2014 17: 31
        0
        You can do it, but the ship will lose its course for sure.
        1. ar-ren
          ar-ren April 23 2014 18: 44
          +1
          If you replace steam turbines with gas turbines, you won’t lose. Gas turbines haw oil directly, they do not need steam. And the boilers will provide purely and only catapult.
          1. Realist1989
            Realist1989 April 25 2014 18: 23
            0
            Those. Can gas turbines be installed in addition to existing steam turbines? Don't you have to dismantle steam turbines to install gas turbines?
    3. Dry_T-50
      Dry_T-50 April 24 2014 19: 25
      -1
      A stationary aircraft carrier is extremely vulnerable. With the combination "steam catapult + non-nuclear SU", there is not enough steam for both aircraft and aircraft carrier, i.e. the ship must defend itself with ONLY one tactic: with the help of the air defense system or with the help of aviation.
  11. washi
    washi April 23 2014 11: 38
    0
    Quote: Realist1989
    Maybe it would not be worth it to chase after electromagnetic catapults, as for new fashionable nonsense, but use something that has already proved its effectiveness and that can be developed faster and cheaper - steam catapults?

    At low temperatures (our climate) it is not possible to use steam (icing)
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 23 2014 11: 40
      0
      This is a myth that is not clear why it is deeply embedded on the Internet.
      1. mpa945
        mpa945 April 23 2014 12: 18
        -2
        It is difficult to argue with an opponent who draws information on the Internet.
        Experience in service in the SF or Pacific Fleet?
        Or in Poti?
        1. Realist1989
          Realist1989 April 23 2014 13: 10
          +2
          Is anyone asking to argue? Instead of poking, service experience would be better answered essentially, if you have something to say. And do you have any problems about the Internet?
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 23 2014 13: 53
            0
            It’s just that the Internet can’t crack ice.
            By the way, a drilling rig that sank in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk apparently used the same data.
            And turned over as a result of icing.
            To this and experience of service.
            1. Realist1989
              Realist1989 April 23 2014 14: 09
              0
              Why break ice? With a catapult heated to a tremendous temperature? And you don't have to break the ice off the springboard? How was it supposed to cope in the north with the Kuznetsov springboard and the Ulyanovsk catapults?
              1. Assistant
                Assistant April 23 2014 22: 56
                0
                Why crack ice?


                Well, it’s theoretically possible to work out the heating of the catapult (it’s hot itself). But a cloud of steam rising up from the bow of the ship, going against the wind, will envelop the entire hull with more or less intensity.
                It is much more difficult to clear the ice from the landing deck, because there the area is large, the coating is thick enough, it should be as uniform as possible and also cleared of ice evenly. Oh well, let her and all the cables of the aerofinisher clear (although a dispute on this issue is possible). Not in this case.
                How will you clear the add-in and all antennas from ice?
                Although, if you attach a floating distillery to the back ...
                1. ar-ren
                  ar-ren April 23 2014 23: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Assistant
                  How will you clear the add-in and all antennas from ice?


                  I remind you that one of the two products of kerosene combustion in an airplane engine is water. The second is carbon dioxide. The exit of water with steam through the leaks of the catapult tape is not comparable with the exit of water from working aircraft engines.
                2. Realist1989
                  Realist1989 April 23 2014 23: 42
                  0
                  And what is being cleared today at Kuz?
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2014 14: 09
              +3
              Quote: mpa945
              By the way, the drilling that sank in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk apparently used the same data

              Is it by any chance about the "Kola" speech?
              The platform was towed by the icebreaker "Magadan" and the tugboat "Neftegaz-55" - "Kolskaya" was moved from the western coast of Kamchatka to Sakhalin.
              In the process of towing, the vessels passed an area with a strong storm. The waves destroyed two air tanks of the drilling rig, ITAR-TASS reports. Water began to flow into them, the pumps for pumping it out worked at their limit. The storm also damaged the towing cable from the Magadan icebreaker. When the caravan was 200 km northeast of the Sakhalin Cape Terpeniya, the drillers sent a distress signal, the State Maritime Rescue Coordination Center of Russia said.

              December, towing through at least a seven-point storm, damage from the waves ... What does all this have to do with the aircraft carrier’s steam catapult?
              1. mpa945
                mpa945 April 23 2014 14: 51
                0
                It is related to icing.
                In these climatic conditions, it is present. And not on a clear frosty day in a quiet sea.
                Any rollover is a consequence of the loss of stability. The icy rigs of the rig clearly did not add stability.

                Why break ice? With a catapult heated to a tremendous temperature? And you don't have to break the ice off the springboard? How was it supposed to cope in the north with the Kuznetsov springboard and the Ulyanovsk catapults?


                From a catapult - unnecessarily. But the moving parts on the deck will not live long.
                Ice is cleaved from the springboard, and icing (thin layer) does not affect anything. Not a car; wheel grip on take-off is not critical. The landing zone is much more important.
                1. Realist1989
                  Realist1989 April 23 2014 15: 02
                  0
                  Quote: mpa945
                  But the moving parts on the deck will not live long.

                  Well, the moving parts, and not particularly expensive, probably, on the scale of operation of a nuclear aircraft carrier, and it should not be difficult to replace them. And what’s the problem with them, breaking ice if it’s not a problem to break off the springboard?
                  And what was planned to be done on the "Ulyanovsk" with catapults in this case?
                  1. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 23 2014 16: 06
                    +1
                    Assume even that are not expensive. But if it’s broken, don’t take off. But there is no other weapon. Still on airplanes. While changing something and can fly.
                    The catapult hovers and itself adds ice in the "right" place.
                    From the springboard, thin ice (from atmospheric precipitation) does not need to be broken (interrupt flights). On take-off, ice does not interfere. Interferes with landing.
                    And what was planned to be done on the "Ulyanovsk" with catapults in this case?

                    Springboard and left. PC only on the corner. And that, it seems to me, was done for the Mediterranean squadron.
                    Not logical. Well, missiles cannot be more effective than aircraft, at least because of the one-time use, and also because of the range. No range of anti-ship missiles can be compared with the "aircraft radius + anti-ship missile range" range. And the range of the air defense missile system also cannot be compared with the radius of air defense provided by aircraft. By the way, missiles also need target designation, and it is desirable that the target designator is not 100% suicide bomber. Or are there any illusions that the AUG will allow cruisers and nuclear submarines to reach 300-500 km? And if we talk about increasing the range of anti-ship missiles up to indicators that are acceptable for combating AUG - and this means much more than 1000 km, then how to ensure stable target designation? The aircraft carrier's air group has AWACS aircraft for these purposes, but what will cruisers and destroyers with anti-ship missiles have? About strike aircraft - now all modern combat aircraft are multipurpose, which means that there is no need to place strike aircraft separately on an aircraft carrier.

                    Life is not such a categorical thing as the brochures of mattresses. Everything is far from unambiguous, and especially in high latitudes.
                    And the choice of what and how to build in the Union was not stupid.
      2. turanchox
        turanchox April 23 2014 15: 31
        0
        Can you tell me what kind of literature?
        1. Realist1989
          Realist1989 April 23 2014 15: 59
          0
          If you are talking about the page that I posted, then this is "Evgeny Sholkov. Was there a catapult? // Aerospace review. 2012."
  12. Ordinary stock
    Ordinary stock April 23 2014 12: 07
    +4
    It is unlikely that aircraft carriers are a priority task today. But any innovative R&D moves science and industry forward. Moreover, electromagnetic "launchers" are by definition a problem with many applications.
  13. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 23 2014 13: 26
    0
    The matter starts to move from a dead center - not so long ago they said that the production of aerofinishers was ready, now they began to engage in a catapult, and the general parameters of the ship announced in the media have recently more or less "settled down." All this means only one thing, after all, the aircraft carrier But you will have to wait for a very long time, before the 2nd half of the 20's you can not even dream. These are only the first steps, but as they say, the path of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
  14. goose
    goose April 23 2014 13: 38
    +1
    Quote: Baikal
    The catapult is great, of course. And what's wrong with the 1143.5 version with a trampoline like "Kuznetsov"?

    And even with such a take-off, the loads are large, which imposes additional requirements on the aircraft. A fighter will take off, but a transporter or AWACS - no.
  15. goose
    goose April 23 2014 13: 51
    0
    Quote: Realist1989
    Please tell me why it is believed that for steam catapults nuclear power plants are required? Is this myth or truth? How then did non-nuclear American aircraft carriers work with steam catapults before the Nimitz? Maybe it would not be worth chasing electromagnetic catapults as a new fashionable nonsense, but using something that has already proven its effectiveness and that can be developed faster and cheaper - steam catapults? EMNIP, not proud Chinese are going to install steam ones on the aircraft carriers under construction now, although they are working on electromagnetic ones too ...


    This is because there is no more efficient use of a nuclear reactor than heating. Nuclear reactors are capable of producing a huge amount of steam for a long time, and provide massive aircraft lift using catapults. Forrestols were not capable of this. They are capable of lifting only small groups of aircraft into the air. For example, to repel a missile attack, he will have time to raise no more than 8 -12 aircraft. Nimitz will be able to at least 2 times more.
  16. lpd1
    lpd1 April 23 2014 13: 53
    +1
    Electromagnetic "slingshots" are an urgent need for launching heavy electronic warfare aircraft, which have a significant range and duration of flight. Such a "trick" will greatly lengthen the arms of the AUG smile
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 23 2014 14: 11
      0
      Steam catapults on nuclear aircraft carriers cope with this need.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 23 2014 15: 07
        +1
        Offer to stagnate?
        1. Realist1989
          Realist1989 April 23 2014 23: 51
          0
          This is just the optimal solution. Sometimes, in order to perform a task with acceptable efficiency, it is not necessary to chase the latest prodigies. Maybe the parallel is not very correct, but still: in order to have a normal connection, you do not need to create a new super-smartphone. Also here - the existing deck aircraft are quite efficiently launched from steam catapults. I am not against electromagnetic ones, just their creation in Russia seems to be a very distant prospect - even more distant than the very construction of aircraft carriers. Thus, I definitely consider it unreasonable to connect the construction of aircraft carriers with an electromagnetic catapult.
  17. DanSabaka
    DanSabaka April 23 2014 15: 48
    0
    research, of course, is a useful thing and it is necessary to conduct them .... but so far there is no concept of the use of the Navy and their development in the Russian Federation ... it is not clear whether Russia will need aircraft carriers, especially nuclear aircraft carriers ....
  18. Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 23 2014 16: 21
    0
    Quote: mpa945
    The catapult hovers and itself adds ice in the "right" place.

    In what "right place"?
    "It should be reminded to these experts that the bed (chute) of a steam catapult with two shafts of power cylinders placed in it, before the start of flights, is heated to 180-200 degrees C using a standard heating system. The covers located above the chute are equipped with reliable thermal insulation that does not save , completely from heat leakage - the temperature on the outer surface of the covers reaches 50 degrees C. When the AUG approaches the combat zone, there is an emergency heating mode by supplying reduced pressure steam to the power cylinders for 8 hours. Information about the elongation of each from the trunks of the power cylinders by 110-115 mm with a track length of 90 m. Regular heating of the chute is performed within 24 hours with the help of steam heaters of the heating system, which by the way was mentioned above by expert D. Erofeev, who called its development "ordeal", along the way reproaching the collective of "Proletarskiy Zavod": "I had to solve the problem ... of heating the catapult in winter her time. " Obviously, a respected expert should know that the gutter heating system is standard, not some whim of the TsNIISM team in an attempt to expand the functionality of the catapult in winter, and especially in the Arctic. Regardless of the ambient temperature, such heating is a prerequisite for the normal operation of the steam engine. Without such heating, it is difficult to imagine the modes of thermal cycling of the power cylinders at starts - from 20 to 240 degrees C with an interval of 60 seconds.
    A few words about the dynamics of the interaction of the units of the steam engine during start-up. Computer 3D modeling could help a wide range of readers to understand these processes. Each of the power cylinder barrels forms a continuous slot in the upper part for the leash to pass, transmitting the force from the corresponding piston to the shuttle (pulling shoe). To seal the volume of the power cylinders behind the piston when steam is supplied, a sealing tape with a section of 20x40 mm made of special spring steel is used. A special stacker shoe takes the tape out of the slot between the protrusion above the cylinder and a special cover on it, and after passing the horseshoe puts the tape into the slot. The walls of the power cylinders are made of variable thickness: thicker in the lower part and thinner in the area of ​​the slot. When pressure is applied to the cylinders (60 kg / cm2), the inner diameter of the cylinder increases due to deformation of its geometry - this ensures the self-sealing of the slot. It remains to add that these processes last 2,5-3,0 s. at a speed of 70 m / s. After the aircraft leash leaves the shuttle, the shuttle-piston group returns to the starting point. At this point, the starting valve is closed, and the exhaust steam through the check valve enters the regeneration system and is partially discharged overboard - up to 600 kg. The hover over the catapult track observed during launches is a visualization of the remnants of heated steam from the depressurized cylinder cavity at a temperature of 200-240 degrees C. The heating system maintains readiness for the next launch at a temperature. The "icing" problem is clearly a far-fetched homework by some experts. "
    Evgeny Sholkov. Was there a catapult? // Aerospace review. 2012.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 23 2014 16: 31
      -1
      Each of the trunks of the power cylinders forms in the upper part a continuous slot for the passage of the leash, transmitting force from the corresponding piston to the shuttle (pulling shoe). To seal the volume of the power cylinders behind the piston during steam supply, a sealing tape with a cross section of 20x40 mm made of special spring steel is used. A special shoe-stacker performs the output of the tape from the gap between the protrusion above the cylinder and a special cover on it, and after passing the horseshoe puts the tape into the slot


      Your expert answered everything himself. It is here that it is critical and does not heat up
      1. Realist1989
        Realist1989 April 23 2014 17: 07
        0
        Something is not indicated there that does not heat up, or that it freezes. Explain in more detail plz ...
        1. mpa945
          mpa945 April 23 2014 17: 20
          +1
          Your expert describes
          "It should be reminded to these experts that the bed (chute) of a steam catapult with two shafts of power cylinders placed in it is heated up to 180-200 degrees C before the start of flights with the help of a standard heating system. The covers located above the chute are equipped with reliable thermal insulation that does not save completely from heat leakage - the temperature on the outer surface of the covers reaches 50 degrees C. When the AUG approaches the combat zone, there is an emergency heating mode by supplying reduced pressure steam to the power cylinders for 8 hours. from the barrels of the power cylinders by 110-115 mm with a track length of 90 m.Random heating of the chute is performed within 24 hours using steam heaters of the heating system,

          That is, steam is not supplied to the "cold pipe" because the temperature expansion ...
          But ... this is just by itself ... And no one argues with that.
          Without such a warm-up, it is difficult to imagine the regimes of thermal cycling of power cylinders during starts - from 20 to 240 degrees

          And what I do not heat up to you above brought and highlighted.
          I would also like to note that it is not the "impossibility" of application that is relevant, but low reliability in these conditions.
          1. Realist1989
            Realist1989 April 23 2014 17: 52
            0
            I see, thanks.
  19. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 23 2014 17: 53
    +1
    Quote from the article "Perhaps the most interesting moment of the interview is S. Vlasov's statement that a certain domestic organization is already engaged in research on the subject of electromagnetic catapult for promising aircraft carriers. The general director of the Nevsky Design Bureau did not specify who exactly was engaged in a promising project, nor did he disclose no details of these works ..... "
    It seemed to me that the most interesting moment of the interview was the one where Sergey Vlasov complained that the Sudprom of the Russian Federation still does not have a TTZ for the development and construction of an aircraft carrier. T.O. all work on the EM catapult can end in nothing due to the lack of demand for it, even if they can bring the catapult to mind. Those. again the cart in front of the horse?
    And on the other hand, without a catapult, a full-fledged aircraft carrier will not work. This SU and MIGn can do without it, and the AWACS and U and similar slow-moving aircraft without a catapult are unlikely to take off, as shown in the figure in the article. Vicious circle however
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 23 2014 18: 00
      +1
      Moreover, Su and MiG do without it at the cost of reducing the combat radius and load.
    2. mpa945
      mpa945 April 23 2014 18: 03
      0
      Until recently, we did not have a military doctrine. All threats are a terrorist danger.
      Until they formulate the above ... Only then comes the turn for programs for the development of military construction.
  20. ar-ren
    ar-ren April 23 2014 18: 11
    +1
    The author is clearly not familiar with the essence of the issue, since he makes statements that
    Theoretically, an aircraft carrier with a steam or electromagnetic catapult can be equipped with a steam turbine power plant, however, it will not allow bringing the characteristics of the systems to the required level. The expected effect can only be achieved using a nuclear power plant, as the American experience clearly shows.


    In reality, a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier was preferable due to the fact that the reactor generates a huge amount of excess steam, which could be sent to steam catapults. In addition, the problem of steam catapults is an unusually low efficiency comparable to a steam locomotive: 1-3%. Roughly speaking, in order to give 38 MJ energy to an airplane on takeoff, it is necessary to spend 1200-3800 MJ on steam generation. In addition, the steam catapult must be heated up for 24 hours before the start of flights, and at least in emergency mode, for 8 hours, which adds energy loss.

    Therefore, yes, a steam catapult aircraft carrier needs a reactor.

    Unlike a steam catapult, EMALS has a monstrous efficiency of the order of 90%, and it does not need to be heated. When launching an aircraft with 38 MJ energy, it will be necessary to expend 42 MJ energy. This is a kilogram of kerosene or fuel oil! A little more than a liter.
  21. Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 23 2014 18: 13
    0
    I read somewhere in English that, in addition to the difficulties in creating the energy storage devices needed for electromagnetic catapults, the problem lies in the complex software. And this is an even more problematic issue for Russia than power plants or drives ...
  22. Karaul
    Karaul April 23 2014 18: 13
    0
    Sevmash seemed to be proclaiming on an initiative basis the development of two types of aircraft carriers, of a different class and price. So that when we need aircraft carriers, all plans and drawings are ready
    I found the link http://twower.livejournal.com/1206733.html
    1. rezident
      rezident April 24 2014 00: 07
      0
      Reactors must first be prepared, and this is sort of a minautom. Or you will have to do it like on Kuznetsovo where steam is heated in a conventional fuel oil boiler for an accelerated move.
  23. ar-ren
    ar-ren April 23 2014 18: 31
    +1
    Quote: Realist1989
    I read somewhere in English that, in addition to difficulties in creating the energy storage devices necessary for electromagnetic catapults, the problem is sophisticated software. And this is an even more problematic issue for Russia than power plants or drives ...


    In Russia, a huge number of talented programmers.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 23 2014 20: 44
      0
      Well, it’s already easier =)))
  24. ankir13
    ankir13 April 23 2014 21: 21
    -1
    And what about the Russian ekranoplans? Remember Lun at least. 600 km / h above the water in 2 meters. 8 -16 anti-ship missiles above the board. Killer of carrier groups! And everything is not so expensive, the groups are angry!
  25. ankir13
    ankir13 April 23 2014 21: 22
    0
    Cheap and very angry!
  26. ankir13
    ankir13 April 23 2014 21: 23
    0
    Something did not work out. This phrase is final.
  27. ankir13
    ankir13 April 23 2014 21: 27
    -1
    And what about the Russian ekranoplans? 600km / h above water2-3meter.8-16cr. Remember Lun at least. The killer of carrier groups. Cheap and angry
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 23 2014 21: 47
      0
      >> 600km / h above water 2-3 meters. 8-16 pcr

      As a weapon - scales! The work of one moon can be replaced by 3 universal aircraft such as F / A-18E / F, Rafale, etc. But the planes have speed beyond 2000 km / h and invisibility, while the ekranoplan has 600 km / h and it glows like a Christmas tree.

      But in the role of transport - it’s quite cool. But you need to make a large ekranoplan, similar to the American Pelican.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 24 2014 12: 22
        0
        Seriously?
        And if we calculate: 1 Lun - 6 Mosquitoes is the total mass of warheads in 1800 kg of which 900 kg are explosives.
        3 F-18 is EMNIP 6 Harpoon with a total mass of warheads 900 kg.

        Will replace? :)

        To shine, then the Lun shines, only now, who will shine on it? For funds on ships, it is beyond the horizon. And in the case of air radars, there is no difference.
  28. rezident
    rezident April 23 2014 21: 29
    0
    I am for the electromagnetic installation. In those days, they did not dare to dream about it, but now the welder can fit in the palm of his hand.
  29. Psyx
    Psyx April 23 2014 23: 14
    -2
    The steam catapult has another huge minus ... the impossibility of its use in the northern latitudes. When the catapult operates in low temperature conditions, there will be many problems with steam condensation and freezing of the mechanisms of that carrier’s deck. It will be necessary to create a completely pressurized system ... which seems to me a rather complicated and costly thing.
  30. voldemar_k
    voldemar_k April 24 2014 01: 43
    0
    And sho such nonsense is so difficult to do?
    Although there will be problems, for example, with the exposure of electronics and the crew of the aircraft to an ultrahigh-power magnetic field. So it’s dangerous to solve this problem on the forehead, but you can think of some little things in which the devil is known, though the catapult will be a little longer, meters on the 10.
    What an incredible amount of money. Here are the people dough cut! It’s a pity that engineers will only fall into nuts.
  31. abc_alex
    abc_alex April 24 2014 11: 34
    0
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    The question, of course, is interesting! Well, for example, in order to increase the range of the same X-31M to 800-1000km.



    And I do not mind. Only then should you base not just fighters, but heavy fighters, such as the Su-35. So that 25-30 aircraft wing machines could, even taking into account the losses, launch in less than a hundred missiles in one raid. EMNIP is precisely such an amount that is considered sufficient for guaranteed penetration of ABM PRO, right? Then tell me, why should NK carry Granites and other supersonic anti-ship missiles with 7 tons each?
    Indeed, if roughly 150 km is for X-31 with AGSN + 900 km of flight = 1050 km, to reach the launch distance of the anti-ship missiles, ships need to go as a minimum 400 km. This is how many hours? Well, and what is the likelihood that the USA AUG will remain at the point of the first attack? I think low.

    And there will be a high probability that the attacking wave of dryers will bring a response of a commensurate number "on the tail". And here it will be necessary to fight back, for which it is much better to have at least more S-300F missiles. No?

    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    Exactly! And all this is done by amers aircraft carrier aircraft. And who will do this with us if Liana and YES (Tu-95RTs) are cut? (underwater Stirlitz? on a vertical take-off and deep diving ekranoplan?)


    Did I cancel somewhere AWACS carrier-based aircraft? I said that if our fleet continues to rely on supersonic anti-ship missiles, the Russian "prowlers" and "hokai" will be much more important to it than "superhornets". And then light fighters are needed, like the MiG-29K, they will simply fit more into the ship.

    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    Open, at least, Wiki and look at the typical composition of the AUG User. But for this we will need them - neither more nor less!


    I already wrote above that I see no reason to duplicate the shock functions of an air wing with NK missiles. Youssers, as you might have noticed yourself, are now dismantling PU Harpunov from Berkov. Since it already dawned on them that, with the range of the wing in the 1000 km of anti-ship missiles on the NK, it was simply an unnecessary load.

    Quote: Dart2027
    In fact, there are persistent rumors that modern rockets fly one and a half to two thousand kilometers.


    And then they fly. Only what?
    Subsonic type tomahawk? I'm talking about supersonic anti-ship missiles with AGSNs capable of hitting a ship not of the Libyan Jamacher, but of the US Navy, equipped with an advanced air defense / missile defense system. But they have somehow not got along well with ranges beyond 1000 km.

    Quote: Dart2027
    And they were built as an escort for "Ulyanovsk".


    ????? Especially if you consider that Ulyanovsk began to be designed in 1984, and Orlanov was almost 20 years earlier. And in 1974 "Kirov" was founded :)
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 24 2014 23: 18
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      Especially if you consider that Ulyanovsk began to be designed in 1984, and Orlanov was almost 20 years earlier. And in 1974 "Kirov" was laid

      The construction of such giants is a very time-consuming and long process. The cruisers themselves turned out to be not the same, but you also want to adjust the deadlines for their delivery to the aircraft carrier? They built what they were ready to build at the moment, but to bring it together failed.
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. ar-ren
    ar-ren April 24 2014 21: 26
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    Then tell me, why should NK carry Granites and other supersonic anti-ship missiles with 7 tons each?


    No reason! Therefore, the Armed Forces of the United States Navy AUG escort squadrons are being removed from Arly Berkov.
  34. ALEK7SANDR
    ALEK7SANDR April 25 2014 16: 56
    -1
    it is necessary not only new good catapults but also the aircraft carrier already under su 34 to do.
  35. Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 25 2014 22: 18
    0
    I apologize for a certain offtopic and probably a stupid question, but ... is it possible to combine both the catapult and the springboard in the starting position? I mean, is it possible to place a springboard after the catapult, will it interfere with the plane launched by the catapult, or not? To such a question I was led by a picture of the concept of an aircraft carrier from the Krylov Central Research Institute, where there are 2 springboards with 4 take-off positions and 4 catapults along these positions. If this is possible, and does not interfere with one another, then this is an excellent find - in the event of catapult failure, the ship will be able to launch aircraft from springboards. Here is the picture:
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 25 2014 23: 07
      0
      Catapults have astonishing reliability. Somewhere I saw numbers something like 16 bounce on 240 thousand launches.

      The springboard itself is inconvenient due to the inability to store aircraft on the tank of the ship.

      Therefore, the Americans, the most powerful professionals in the field of naval aviation, do not set springboards not only on aircraft carriers, but also on their UDC. UDC also do not have catapults, if that.
  36. Bosk
    Bosk April 27 2014 21: 00
    0
    Interestingly, did they try to develop a powder catapult?, I certainly understand that the "cannon" version has its own problems ... but it seems to me that they can be solved today, again, it seems like a gain in weight and dimensions wakes up ...
  37. Tishka
    Tishka 7 October 2014 12: 38
    0
    The minus of the springboard is that for takeoff, the aircraft carrier must go against the wind at full speed, which is not optimal, and not always possible, let's say near the coastline to launch 50 aircraft! So, the springboard has its limitations, a catapult, in this regard is more preferable. as well as powder accelerators, work on which were carried out both before the Great Patriotic War and after it, the start of the aircraft from the guides was supposed. like a missile launch, without the use of airfields, the whole problem was the weight of the aircraft, and the acceleration that a person can withstand. at the time of such acceleration, then the powder blocks were reset. At Techno 2014, an aircraft carrier project was presented, if I am not mistaken, St. Petersburg development, so. it seems that development in this direction is underway, and it all depends on the Ministry of Defense, which must make a decision, they need it. or not, in the light of the development of the Navy! So, the matter is small, understanding the concept of development and the functions that maritime aviation should perform.
  38. gvozdan
    gvozdan 13 January 2015 16: 07
    0
    There are several questions about the types of take-off:

    1) Are there options for combined take-off using both a catapult and a springboard, while the scale of the first and second could be reduced and it is possible to take advantage of both and try to get rid of the shortcomings of both. I just never saw a discussion of such an option.

    2) If the lack of a springboard take-off boils down to a ban on DLRO aircraft, why not have only one catapult exclusively for DLRO. They are usually aboard 4 pcs. Really one catapult can not cope?
    One catapult is not 2 and 4, mass and energy consumption will not be so critical.

    3) Problems with uncontrollability at the initial stage of flight after leaving the springboard are not solved by engines with UVT ??

    4) Does anyone have an idea why the path from electromagnets (EM catapults) can not be replaced, for example, with a powerful electric motor and cable? Indeed, in fact, it is one and the same, only simpler and more compact.

    It is very interesting to hear the opinion of experts.