Blitzo, your diagram of naval nuclear propulsion is a nuclear submarine system. USN nuclear surface ships all run directly from the reduction gearing.

who needs evidence when one has faith. commie carriers can’t launch planes at MTOW. global warming is a hoax. all faith-based.

The Brits wrote the book on carriers with several innovations that make modern carriers possible. And the US Navy with its extensive experience of operating nuclear surface ships were right there with what it meant to operate an electric ship. The PLAN will have to demonstrate that they CAN operate an electric ship and so far there is little evidence that they are pursuing the line of thinking.

Let me know when they get there.

Wrong, USN nuclear ships are steam ships, not electric. Steam is used wherever possible in ship operations

If some “pirates” started planting mines in busy international shipping lanes. PLAN won’t have to do anything. USN or more likely JSDMF will rush to clear the mines.

I respectfully disagree, because you yourself has shown how a ski jump launch fighters at full load.

I think the problem is you are looking at this on a categorical scale, that is to say, catapults=power projection, and ski jump=ASW and air defence.

It is actually more of a continuous spectrum in power projection capability partially determined by whether a carrier is ski jump or CATOBAR, but arguably more influenced by the navy’s own doctrine.

For instance, the liaoning will be used in a more USN style manner than the kuznetsov was for the soviet navy, even though both are technically the same class of ship.

Just because you can launch a fully loaded fighter doesn’t mean you can launch a large strike package in a timely manner consisting of EW, tanker, AEW aircraft, that’s necessary to overwhelm enemy’s defenses. and more importantly to maintain that high tempo of operation over an extend period of time. American style imperial carriers can have four aircraft in ready to launch positions vs two on Liaoning. unless someone can figure out how to have two ski jumps on a reasonable size ship. now when it comes to recovering a large number of aircraft, USN can cram the landed aircraft forward leaving the landing strip clear. Liaoning have far less space forward due to the curve part of the ski ramp. I think these are the operational advantages of a cat equipped large carrier, which may be important to some navy. Inability to launch MTOW has nothing to do with it, no matter how many time that lie has been repeated.
I have my hypothesis why PLAN decided to operate the Liaoning according the USN doctrine rather than the Soviet doctrine, even though the operational requirements of PLAN is clearly still very different from the USN at this time. I’ll post that later.

I wouldn’t say cat launch is inherently superior to ski jump. cat launch is certainly not the “gold standard” (you are not one of those gold bullion hoarder are you Roovialk?) It depends on your operational requirements. For small sea control aviation carriers, whose mainly mission is ASW and limited air defense, ski jump is the logical choice without the cost and complexity of cat system. Soviets designed the Kiev and Kuznetsov classes mainly to defend SSBN bastions. The Russian aviation ships are essentially sea control ship combined with the armaments of missile cruiser in one hull. Ski jump is also the logical choice for their operational requirements. Large American strike carriers on the other hand are instruments of global imperialism. The typical missions of American carriers in today’s environment follow the pattern of aggressions against smaller weaker nations such as Iraq and Libya. For that kind of power projection operations, large cat equipped carriers are essential in order to generate large strike packages and sustain sortie rate. Without the heavies anti-ship batteries of Russian aviation ships, American style carriers also need the cat to quickly launch large anti-shipping strike package.

Having observed the Su33 and Su25UTG operate from the carrier Kuznetsov I have no illusions about that class of aircraft’s limitations Especially the Su25UTG with its non-afterburning engines. However sacrifices will have to be made somewhere and that will most likely be in the amount of fuel carried by aircraft using ramp type takeoffs. Weapons loads or fuel: You cannot have both using the ramp.

Based on what? other than your biased opinion.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224280[/ATTACH]