Why Russian Aircraft Carrier Doesn't Have Catapult

in today’s episode, we will be discussing why Russian aircraft carrier works quite differently than that of others’, in which they don’t have a catapult system. If you are curious of the answer, do not go anywhere and stay tuned.
Aircrafts usually utilize the long and wide runway to accumulate the speed they need in order to take off safely. Hence, in a relatively small-sized aircraft carrier, there has to be a mechanism in which an aircraft can depart harmlessly in such short runway. Here is where the catapult system comes into play. The catapult system is one of the most important tools an aircraft relies on in the event of takeoffs and landings, because instead of distance, the mechanism laid out in a catapult system allows an aircraft to accumulate enough speed in order to soar from the carrier.
So, if catapult is such an essential tool for an aircraft carrier, why the Russian doesn’t have it?
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/

[@dennisw64]

No catapult means that the Russian naval fighters have to take off with a lower weight. That means they have less fuel, and smaller weapons loads than their USN counterparts. This also applies to the Chinese carriers.

[@sultanhusnoo8552]

also taking off with after-burner, burning big fuel reserves before being in the air. also, limited types of planes that can take off from the carrier.

[@jamesnguyen7069]

because they did not pay for the catapult patents

[@Ghosy01]

It also applies to british ones. american carriers are the exception not the norm.

[@Foxtrot_India]

So they take off with less fuel and get refuelled mid air without compensating payload thanks to the powerful engines they got (each with 135-145 kN thrust vs 95 kN on F-18E/F)

[@nikko-kun643]

I read that US uses catapult system using steam. Since mostly us carriers are nuclear powered.

[@tonk4967]

With a total military budget of around 60 billion dollars, I can't imagine the Russians would use 1/6th of that to build 1 ship.

[@jamesnguyen7069]

didnt pay patents

[@jaykilbourne1110]

That's only in USD. Convert it to Rubles and the calculate what they can buy in-house with it, and you have a budget that has purchasing power only just behind China's.

[@Lena-vw6ye]

Thank you for making this video. Very interesting comparison and outlooks for the aircraft's future developments.

[@nick4506]

it's not an aircraft carrier. its an aircraft-carrying cruiser. important distinction because it won't be allowed through the straights of turkey otherwise, and idk if they could argue its a cruiser if it had catapults.

[@themc.kennyshow6585]

Exactly bro. Just like how the Japanese have `Helicopter-destroyers` * wink wink*.

[@JohnSmith-rn5tb]

The elastic bands kept breaking on prior carrier,so they went w/ sloping situation instead this time!!

[@pentiumschild]

USA has much more experience in aircraft carrier develop and producing due to small small ground borders. USSR does not needed in this type of warships up to 1970-s. All current needs was realized by ships with helicopters onboard. But when the first Russian aircraft carrier was in development the primary question about steam catapult launch system was is how it will work in case of ice storm and at winter. Because the Russian is Northern country.

[@sultanhusnoo8552]

yups, russia is surrounded by countries it regularly bullies, it was more important to have a huge internal railway system to carry land forces all over its territory. US is surrounded by sea, hence to carry its whole army by sea whenever it was going to war anywhere in the world.

[@pentiumschild]

@@sultanhusnoo8552 Most of the countries that attaked Russia are on the western side. Historically, the naval fights in which Russia participated took place on the Black Sea with Turkey as the enemy and on the Baltic Sea with Sweden as the enemy. There are only a couple of exceptions. Archipelago Expeditions at Mediterranean sea at Russian-Turkish wars to free Greece from Turkish slavery at 1769, 1806, 1828. And during Russian-Japan war at 1905 at Japan sea.

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

a STOVL aircraft carrier can also serve as a STOBAR carrier . . . all you need to do is add a series of triple redundant arrestor wires in the rear most stern section flight deck of a STOVL aircraft carrier . . . thus making it able to operate naval carrier borne CTOL fighter jets such as the HAL Tejas Mk2N maritime multi role fighter . . . for e.g. a fleet of three brand new next generation Queen Elizabeth II class bioFuelCell2^ i-SMARTHYBRId® powered 68,390 ton (76,090 ton loaded) stealth (STOVL) aircraft carrier . . . incorporated with a milder 10.0° deg angled ski jump in the foremost bow section of the STOVL flight deck . . .

[@harrybuik9763]

My uncle from Russia 🇷🇺 is a very fit man for an 88 year old, he is a rower together with his 57 oaps from the care home ,the 12,000 of them 👍 keep in time with the big brum just like spartucus, 👍 they get angry when the admaral goes water skiing ⛷ twice a month lol

[@abrahamdozer6273]

"Why Russian Aircraft Carrier Doesn't Have Catapult" The Glorious Patriotic Motherland Rubber Band Faktory can't make one that big.

[@ChandranPrema123]

Well this is the same case for Aircraft Carriers of China,India and Russia(If it ever leaves the dock)

[@lxjilyfe]

wait until china's 003 launched in a few months

[@MouffakAbdelhak]

China's 003 super carrier has 3 electromagnatic catapults

[@apsgeneralstudies5673]

And the brits,spainish and Italians too.

[@lazerbeamAndCo]

@@MouffakAbdelhak and again, electromagnetic catapult system doesn't exist(it exist but it's the same case as laser weapons, they can't figure out how' just like the China's 'Type 003 Supercarrier'.

[@peter238]

Chinese aircraft carriers are always patrolling without issues.

[@MidlandTexan]

Aircraft carriers typically sail into the wind at a speed to aid the aircraft departing safely.

[@ajittitude]

India Enquiry into Accidental Firiпg of Missile into Pakistan has revealed this 😂😂😂 The Indian army has completed the enquiry in the case of Accidental firing of missile into pakistan.They found that it was a Bengali Commanding Officer,Who after completing the maintenance work said oodi baba... itna time ho gya ... cholo lonch korte hai"... His junior officer misunderstood the word lonch (i.e.lunch) and pressed the launch button ...

[@realShikha885]

Funny😂

[@Praktical_]

😂

[@Foxtrot_India]

Yo funny boi nuclear capable cruise missiles won't launch just by pressing a button

[@maxwelljacobs2715]

Did they ever fix the giant hole in the deck

[@melgross]

People might notice that nowhere in the video did they give the reason why they don’t have catapults. There was nothing in the video of actual interest, though the mass of the ship is between three and five thousand tons less than seen elsewhere. I imagine the reasons would be, cost, complexity and that they have the bank of missiles just to the right of the flight deck.

[@aloh5613]

Why the British used to use catapults but don't anymore ... 1, The airframe of the planes last longer than catapult launched aircraft. 2, If an aircraft carriers get a bomb land on its deck. It will damage the catapult system, making it totally unusable. Resulting in the aircraft carrier spending month in a Dock preforming repair... If a bomb lands on an aircraft carriers that do not use catapults. The ship can sail to the nearest port. Weld a sheet of steel over the top of the damage. Then sail back out to sea after just a few days 😉

[@ThatCarGuy]

"Why the British used to use catapults but don't anymore ..." The UK wanted to use EMALS but couldn't power it and due to cost. Catapults offer much better sortie rates, usually over 2 times. "The decision to convert Prince of Wales to CATOBAR was reviewed after the projected costs rose to around double the original estimate. On 10 May 2012, the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, announced in Parliament that the government had decided to revert to its predecessor's plans to purchase the F-35B rather than the F-35C, and to complete both aircraft carriers with ski-jumps in the STOVL configuration" "1, The airframe of the planes last longer than catapult launched aircraft. " They also carry less fuel and munitions leading to reduced capability. "2, If an aircraft carriers get a bomb land on its deck. It will damage the catapult system, making it totally unusable. Resulting in the aircraft carrier spending month in a Dock preforming repair..." Carriers with catapults like the Nimitz class have 4 catapults, meaning you would need to take out all 4, whereas on a Ski jump if you take out the ski jump the entire carrier is down, and needs to then have it's super structure rebuilt as the ski jump is weight bearing, which would be out just as long as a catapult if not longer as it's the actual superstructure of the ship. Nothing is perfect, everything has it's pros and cons.

[@nick4506]

I think if you get to the point where bombs are landing on the deck its already over. I think its just copium for having to use less armed planes.

[@Ar1AnX1x]

but do they need to be expecting that kind of damage unless they're in a situation like the World War 2 U.S vs Japan all out war situation when Japan's Air Force and U.S Navy were trying to wipe each other off with heavy numbers, don't they have a defense system that protects them in a case of a couple of aircrafts trying to bomb them?

[@jamesnguyen7069]

because the british dont wanna pay the patent fees

[@Then.72]

@@jamesnguyen7069 the British invented steam CATOBAR , angled flight deck and Optical Landing System then STOVL

[@sbrenner2561]

I think the ramp is a giveaway...

[@FormulaTunes]

I was thinking why the Kuznetsov don't have catapult

[@ThatEnglishGent]

Very nice video though whoever wrote the script for this video made a number of grammer errors. Normally don't see that issue on this channel but this one seems to be the exception.

[@lingth]

a aircraft carrier with a catapult is called a CATOBAR, catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery. other than American carriers only the French carrier, Charles De Gaulle is the only other carrier with CATOBAR, because it's not easy to do so.. Maybe until the Chinese's Type 003 carrier comes to service.. rumored to be a CATOBAR carrier also.

[@petemiller2598]

You were right, the chinese carrier was just shown this week (a year after your comment) and it is indeed CATOBAR! Good prediction.

[@melgross]

Interestingly, though it has electric catapults, none of which work yet, like the USA at first with the electric catapults and elevators, though they now do work, it isn’t nuclear powered. When I first heard that I was surprised.

[@Markkilleen.]

It's lucky to have a working engine never mind a catapult.

[@sultanhusnoo8552]

the whole ship is a fire-hazard :D :D

[@jamesnguyen7069]

cant pay the patents

[@ThatCarGuy]

Since they can't afford it. There is no reason not to use a catapult either steam or electric. The amount of sortie difference is staggering.

[@jjanderson1884]

But but but their tanks have a catapult!

[@iancurtis1152]

Bungee cord?🤔😁

[@shaunmaloney2940]

I swear that ski jump looks dumb.

[@P4Tri0t420]

1:55 and BRITISH

[@Crypto_prod35]

In Soviet Russia, plane launch airacraft carrier

[@JamesMcGillis]

The Russian aircraft carrier is a "lemon". They sold an older model to China, which had to completely rebuild it. Use of an afterburner on take-off limits aircraft range. Because the ship engines are unreliable, tugboats accompany the Russian wherever it sails.

[@danemozhetbit]

That wessel, what was called a tugboat by news agencies based on a single sat picture, was actually a oil tanker. Ship is not nuclear powered/ It need fuel. And you just spreading fake based meme here ;)

[@RR-us2kp]

All aircraft use afterburner when taking off from carriers. Including US super hornets. Don't talk about stuff you don't know

[@petemiller2598]

It seems like the Russian aircraft carrier is docked for repairs more often than it is operational, honestly.

[@hardyanpajero69]

👍😎🍺🍩🚢

[@The_Eristoff]

No technology. No aircraft for.

[@mambofox4333]

The answer is because they are bad. And why do you insist on reading the script word for word when you know damn well there are typos that sound idiotic.

[@BoleDaPole]

" the russian" lol.

[@featheredmusic]

Its cheaper

[@migmit]

So, no explanation. Great.

[@mikaseppanen1632]

I Thought That Ship Was Going to Scrap Yard... Shit,, That All of Russian Army... Poor Perfomnce... We In Finland Stay Awake..As our President Said...)

[@fj1659]

In fackt the USN never Faced an equal enemy since ww2. And even back than the US outproduced their enemys. US Supercarriers are Real beasts on the oceans but Idk how usefull they realy are in a War against an equal opponent. I hope the USN never have to Face such an enemy, because this would mean a lot of death around the World.

[@lazerbeamAndCo]

wow, you have the mindset of a 16YO fatherless goth.

[@mohandarifi7204]

Supersonic missiles can take them out, you don't need the biggest, you need the latest technology and tactics

[@fj1659]

@@lazerbeamAndCo sry you got me wrong because i edit the Text and delet an important "never" without noticeing it xD

[@MouffakAbdelhak]

Russia has the catapult technology wich the USSR used on the Ulyanovisk project

[@djgenius626]

Why Russian Air crafts carriers doesn't have a catapult. Answer: Because it was made in China

[@redosorio5278]

Because it was made from Soviet era not china.

[@ChandranPrema123]

Wow that might be the reason why That Aircraft Carrier never leaves the Dock lol

[@ayushingole1837]

No !

[@apsgeneralstudies5673]

@@ChandranPrema123 Your knowledge is lame.

[@jagatbarman7579]

First view

[@Vendell_23]

Because they can't afford one

[@huytran588]

this is a worst explaination ever. simply because russian don't have catapult is 1: they have 12 vertical launch p700 missiles underneath a runway. 2: their warships have to swim in a cold environment and catapult does not seem work reliable. 3: their theory is much different than us, they focus on submarine and ballistic missiles efficiency more and finally their navy is a close to shore navy where their aircraft can take off anywhere in asia and eu.

[@olebull9714]

👍😂😂😂🤣🤣

[@icmi5974]

Becouse they dont have technology

[@KondorDCS]

Simpler, cheaper and doesn't need expensive maintenance like a catapult? But I guess this is too complicated for some.

[@bcf1237]

It also prevents aircraft from being able to fly with significantly much more load. More load more fuel, extending the carrier fleet's projection range significantly. That and the ability to field AWACS by catapults.

[@KondorDCS]

@@bcf1237 True, but since Russia has no need to project it's terror around the world like the US does....they don't need carrier launched planes to fly far.

[@Horizon301.]

@@bcf1237 it does expert less stress on aircraft though and it’s much cheaper. For the UK, it was a no brainer to go with the ramp.

[@ThatCarGuy]

@@Horizon301. It's sortie rate is also much lower. Russia is just a poor nation and can't afford it. The QE class was also supposed to have a catapult but they couln't power it since they weren't nuclear and didn't produce enough power. "The Navy designed CVN-78 to increase the sortie generation capability of embarked aircraft to 160 sorties per day (12-hour fly day) and to surge to 270 sorties per day (24-hour fly day) as compared to the CVN-68 Nimitz class sortie generation rate demonstration of 120 sorties per day/240 sorties for 24-hour surge. QE class: "The maximum sortie rate is 110 joint combat aircraft sorties in 24 hours."

[@Horizon301.]

@@ThatCarGuy I’m pretty sure it’s still on the cards in the future, it’s just not something they want to rely on for their entire fleet, and it would be for other aircraft, not the F-35. Ultimately we made 2 aircraft carriers for the price of one. The US with the Ford essentially did the same with the Nimitz and 2 is better than 1. Cost would have been an issue had they gone nuclear also and personally I see no need for it if you have the proper support in place. I’m also impressed at how it’s rolled out, seems much more trouble free compared to other recent additions from the UK and US

[@HowdyMcPickles]

A hunk of junk lmao

[@ExUSSailor]

I think it's lack of a functioning engineering plant is a bigger concern for the Russkies right now.

[@jamesnguyen7069]

usa owns the patents.... russia doesnt wanna pay...

[@RR-us2kp]

Doubt china paid for their new carrier catapults

[@fanaticcoder3320]

Patents are only valid for 20 years. Nobody patents military technology; it just makes it easier for your adversary to copy it. Even if your enemies copy the patent, you cannot do anything.

[@fanaticcoder3320]

@@RR-us2kp Nothing with patens or technical stuffs. It's all about maintenance & having a bigger powerplant.

[@bartiboguesunset3167]

One carrier against a fleet of NATO carriers should the west be concerned

[@RR-us2kp]

Yes they should. Russia has a lot of nuclear submarines which is their version of primary naval combatant.

[@ericnawamusic]

why need catapult when you have warcrimes. what fun :D

[@apsgeneralstudies5673]

Sorry but your knowledge is lame . West is the biggest war criminal .

[@ThatCarGuy]

@@apsgeneralstudies5673 "Joined Aug 23, 2020" These Putler bots are out in full force. Russia getting it's ass kicked has Putler working them overtime.

[@user-fd4il6pi9i]

@@ThatCarGuy You bomb middle east delusional kid

[@bcf1237]

Cope slope cope slope, yes that includes the Bri'ish.

[@8788luigi]

This is already trashed.