Part of the discussion was on the topic of reducing the power of the main power plant (GPU) of a promising domestic “super-aircraft carrier” required to achieve high speed, and, as a consequence, the costs of this power plant. The work of the designers of the multi-purpose aircraft carrier Project 23000E "Storm" (E - "export") in this direction is also mentioned.

Some features of the organization of the flight deck of the project proposed by the developers of the Krylov State Scientific Center were also noted - in particular, 34 technical positions on the flight deck were mentioned that allow refueling, suspension of aircraft weapons and pre-flight check (race) of aircraft engines, and another 10 deck positions on in which aircraft that have already been refueled and have undergone pre-flight engine checks could wait their turn for takeoff without interfering with takeoff and landing operations.

It was noted that in the drawings and model of the ship there were signs of the presence of four catapults, designated in the accompanying materials as (sample accompanying leaflet) “electromagnetic boosters” (2 units).

It's time to talk about them

The head of the advanced ship design department of the FSUE Krylov State Scientific Center, Vladimir Pepelyaev, in an interview published on March 21, 2017 by the Intefax news agency, noted:

"The ship has four launch positions and, accordingly, four launch tracks - two short and two long. The type of launch is springboard and mixed springboard-ejection. Short and long tracks provide take-off of aircraft with different combat loads. When deciding on the creation and installation on on board a ship with an electromagnetic (or conventional) acceleration device, it is possible to bring the take-off weights of aircraft to match the full combat load, including in designed tropical conditions."

I'll talk about tropical conditions a little later.

In the detailed drawing of the flight deck there are five launch tracks, but there are still six starting positions (according to the number of positions equipped with restraint devices):

From the first, second, third and fourth starting positions, aircraft can take off to the ski-jump in the forward part of the flight deck (the third and fourth starting positions are for ski-jump take-off only). The starting track from the fourth position goes into the track from the second starting position (merges with it). From the fifth and sixth starting positions, the planes take off to the springboard on the landing deck.

If the Interfax agency correspondent understood Vladimir Pepelyaev correctly, the developers provide for the possibility of installing both electromagnetic and conventional steam catapults, if the decision to create them and install them on the ship is made. It is worth noting that the length of the catapult tracks is only about 35 meters. These are devices for additional additional acceleration aircraft launching on the thrust of their own engines to the ski-jumps, much less bulky than American catapults with a 94.5-meter acceleration track, accelerating aircraft to speeds of more than 140 knots (more than 259.3 km/h).

I am, of course, interested in the possibility of refusing to install catapults of any type on an aircraft carrier, and the savings on this. After all, the savings in the absence of catapults are undeniable. Firstly in R&D and production. Secondly, on operating costs.

The American steam catapult C-13 mod 2 weighs 500 tons, occupies 1100 m3 of volume under the flight deck, has a “locomotive” efficiency of 6%, and requires constant monitoring of its condition by maintenance personnel, including from the inside. As well as periodic maintenance and repair:

Each of the US aircraft carrier's four steam catapults is ready for use an average of 74% of the time. At least one of the catapults, of course, is ready for operation almost 100% of the total service time of the aircraft carrier.

The high labor intensity of maintenance (a huge number of man-hours of manual labor and the large number of personnel involved) of steam catapults was one of the reasons that prompted the US Navy to initiate the development of the EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) electromagnetic catapult for Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers. Potential advantages of the EMALS electromagnetic catapult over the steam C-13 mod 2:

Less labor costs during maintenance, which will reduce the number of service personnel by 35 people;

Greater power, which in the future will make it possible to launch aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of up to 100 thousand pounds (45359 kg);

The ratio of peak acceleration to average acceleration has been optimized, which will reduce the load on the airframe of an ejected aircraft and will allow the launch of a UAV with a take-off weight of 1150 kg (due to the relatively larger range of changes in the force applied to the ejected aircraft during one launch cycle, the aircraft airframe experiences significant undesirable loads. Such loads reduce the fatigue life of manned aircraft. The steam catapults used by the US Navy today are not suitable for launching UAVs with a take-off weight of only a few tons);

The total mass of the catapult equipment is reduced from 500 to 225 tons, the volume occupied inside the ship from 1100 m3 to 425 m3 (do not forget to multiply everything by four), the efficiency increases from 6 to 70%.

I write about the potential benefits because EMALS has not yet demonstrated the required level of reliability.

There is no price advantage. The contract for the production of the first electromagnetic catapult, installed in the summer of 2010 at a stand in the city of Leichorst, cost the American military department $537 million. EMALS is expensive but extremely high-tech.

Intermediate output:

“Launch catapults are bulky, expensive and complex devices that require constant operability. Even a single case of failure at the take-off stage leads to an aircraft crash.”- the opinion of the Beriev TANTK aircraft designers published in this.

So why do domestic aircraft designers “they didn’t engage in ejection launches, foaming at the mouth to prove that catapults would worsen the flight performance of aircraft, increase the accident rate, would explode themselves, would freeze in the North, and in general, would not be needed during takeoff even for the twin-engine turboprop Yak-44.”(A.S. Pavlov, “The Birth and Death of the Seventh Aircraft Carrier,” chapter “Catapult”) and continue to deny the need for catapults these days?

Explanation in the take-off characteristics of domestic carrier-based fighters:

Source: Efim Gordon "Mikoyan MiG-29", Midland Publishing, 2008 p. 115

MiG-29K (9-31) springboard and afterburner thrust 2x8800 kgf (p. 115):

Take-off distance 105 meters, permissible take-off weight 17700 kg (normal for 9-31)
Take-off distance 195 meters, permissible take-off weight 22400 kg (maximum for 9-31)

There is more detailed information on the Su-33.

Source: Andrey Fomin "Su-33. The ship's epic" Moscow, 2003, pp. 77, 78, 99

Tests of the Su-27K on the Tbilisi aircraft carrier (1989), ski-jump and afterburner thrust 2x12800 kgf:

Take-off distance is 105 meters, there is no wind above the deck (the ship is stationary), permissible take-off weight is 28,000 kg
Take-off distance 105 meters, wind speed above the deck (ship speed) 7 knots, permissible take-off weight 29900 kg
Take-off distance 195 meters, wind speed above the deck (ship speed) 15 knots, permissible take-off weight 32200 kg

28000 kg - the main refueling option, 5350 kg of fuel, maximum ammunition load for air-to-air missiles (10 missiles)
29900 kg - full fuel supply 9500 kg, 2 R-27E missiles and 2 R-73 missiles
32200 kg - total fuel supply 9500 kg, maximum ammunition load for air-to-air missiles (10 missiles)

By the way, you should not assume that carrier-based fighters do NOT need wind over deck (WOD) during ejection launch from American aircraft carriers with masses close to maximum. As noted in F/A-18E/F Catapult Minimum End Airspeed Testing (pdf) on page 74:

The WOD for C13-1 catapult launch at maximum gross weight was 19 knots.

Translated into Russian, when the F/A-18E/F was launched from the C-13 Mod 1 catapult (today installed on four Nimitz aircraft. Starting with the Abraham Lincoln, C-13 Mod 2 were installed) with a maximum take-off weight of 29937 kg ( 66,000 lb) minimum wind speed above deck 19 knots.

By the way, the F/A-18E takes off at a take-off weight of more than 58 thousand pounds (26308 kg) with the engines running in afterburner, and the altitude drawdown after leaving the deck at maximum take-off weight reaches 10 feet (3.05 m) (p. iv).

No less wind speed above the deck is desirable when landing American carrier-based fighters on an aerofinisher. Those interested can familiarize themselves with the document EFFECT OF WIND OVER DECK CONDITIONS ON AIRCRAFT APPROACH SPEEDS FOR CARRIER LANDINGS (pdf) dated September 1, 1991 and note that all wind over deck values ​​mentioned in the tables were in the range of 22-34 knots, the vast majority in the range of 25 -31 knots.

By the way, an interesting question is why two steam catapults were needed on the TAKR project 1143.7 (dismantled on the slipway in 1992), because the developers of the Yak-44 stated that it was created as a carrier-based RLDN ski-jump take-off aircraft. Catapults on the landing deck of the Project 1143.7 TAKR were needed: "To improve the time characteristics of group take-off of fighter aircraft of an air group"(A. Fomin, p. 116) After all, when using a nose springboard on the TAKR project 1143.7, it could be possible to take off from only three starting positions. In this case, the fighter occupying the second starting position would interfere with the takeoff of the fighter from the third starting position. When using two catapults, take off from four positions. On the 23000E project, this problem was solved by introducing additional starting positions and a second springboard.

And finally, I would like to turn to another source with an assessment of the springboard take-off capabilities of the Su-33 carrier-based fighter. This time it is a scan of an article from the Chinese specialized press assessing the take-off capabilities of the Su-33, and its English translation (link). I will give only one page of the Chinese article (the rest can be viewed at the link):

In short (as it is written on the English-language forum, “for the lazy”), then with an afterburner thrust of 2x12800 kgf and a wind speed above the deck of 25 knots (which is more or less the standard speed a CVBG operates at) the Su-33 and J-15 are capable take off from a springboard with a take-off weight of 32800 kg from all starting positions. Increasing the take-off distance from 110 to 195 meters is equivalent to increasing the wind above the deck by 25 knots, i.e. with a take-off weight of 32800 kg, the Su-33/J-15 is capable of taking off from launch position No. 3 with zero wind speed above the deck. Such take-off capabilities are very close to those provided by a conventional steam catapult. If the engine thrust is increased to 2x14000 kgf, then the “takeoff performance” will be higher than when using a steam catapult.

A number of design configurations of the Su-33/J-15 are also given:

1.
Take-off weight: 26000 kg
Fuel: 5700 kg
Combat load: 4 R-73 + 4 R-77
Flight range: about 1900 km
Flight time: 2 hours 31 minutes
Combat radius: 660 km
Patrol time at the line 250 km from the aircraft carrier is 1 hour 10 minutes.

2.
Take-off weight: 27000 kg
Fuel: 6300 kg
Combat load: 4 R-73 + 2 R-77 + 1 X-65E
Flight range: 2100 km
Flight time: 2 hours 50 minutes
Combat radius: 710 km.

3.
Takeoff weight: 30500 kg
Fuel: 9300 kg
Combat load: 4 R-73 + 8 R-77
Flight range: 3000 km
Flight time: 4 hours 23 minutes
Combat radius: 1280 km
Patrol time at the line 400 km from the aircraft carrier is 2 hours 30 minutes.

4.
Takeoff weight: 30500 kg
Fuel: 5700 kg
Combat load: 22 x 250 kg bombs
Flight range: 1700 km
Flight time: 2 hours 3 minutes
Combat radius: 700 km

5.
Takeoff weight: 31900 kg
Fuel: 9300 kg
Combat load: 4 R-73 + 2 R-77 + 4 X-31P
Flight range: 3000 km
Flight time: 4 hours 40 minutes
Combat radius: 1220 km

6.
Takeoff weight: 31400 kg
Fuel: 9300 kg
Combat load: 4 R-73 + 2 KAB-500L + 1 KAB-1500L + 1 container laser target designation station
Flight range: 2900 km
Flight time: 4 hours 2 minutes
Combat radius: 1250 km

Main characteristics of the Su-33/J-15:

Length: 21.94 m
Wingspan: 14.7 m
Height: 5.93 m
Wing area: 62 m2
Empty weight: 18400 kg
Standard fuel capacity: 5700 kg
Maximum internal volume of fuel tanks: 9300 kg
Maximum take-off weight: 32800 kg
Take-off speed: 240-302 km/h (ground runway)
Maximum landing weight: 26600 kg
Normal landing weight: 23300 kg
Landing speed: 220-260 km/h (ground runway)
Maximum flight altitude: 17000 m
Maximum speed: Mach = 2.13
Maximum climb speed: 325 m/sec
Maximum operational overload: 8g/-3G
Hardpoints: 12
Maximum load on suspension units: 8000/6500 kg
Folded width: 7.8 m
Engines: 2 x AL-31F-3
Maximum thrust: maximum non-afterburning 2 x 7600 kgf, maximum afterburning 2 x 12800 kgf

At zero wind, takeoff from positions No. 1 and 2 (run 110 m) is carried out with a constant climb with a take-off weight of up to 27,000 kg. With a take-off weight of 28,200 kg and zero wind above the deck, there is an inflection in the trajectory and a drop in height to 22.4 meters (the lowest point of the trajectory) above sea level. With a 145 meter takeoff distance, the Su-33/J-15 is capable of taking off at zero wind speed above the deck with a takeoff weight of 32,800 kg and a drawdown to a height of 20 meters above sea level (see picture above).

From position No. 3 (take-off distance 195 m) and zero wind speed, the Su-33/J-15 is capable of taking off with a take-off weight of up to 35,000 kg without a drop in altitude after leaving the ski-jump (landing speed 179 km/h), and with a take-off weight 38000 kg with a drop in height to 20.2 meters (the lowest point of the trajectory) above sea level.

The 95 meter take-off distance still satisfies safety requirements, and can be used as a minimum take-off distance (this indicator is interesting to us primarily because in the 23000E project the take-off distance from positions No. 1 and No. 2 of the "Storm" is, according to my estimates, about 95 meters) .

Chinese authors were not too lazy to describe “special cases”. According to their calculations, with a headwind of 25 knots, the Su-33/J-15 can take off from launch position No. 3 (take-off distance 195 m) on one running engine without a drop in altitude with a take-off weight of up to 22,300 kg, and with a drawdown in altitude of no less than 20 meters above sea level with a take-off weight of up to 23,500 kg. By the way, A. Fomin in “Su-33. The Ship Epic” mentioned a case of a successful take-off of a Su-33 without turning on the afterburner (the total thrust of the two engines was no more than 2 × 7670 kgf), in which the speed of the aircraft when leaving the springboard was only 105 km/ h.

It takes about 50 carrier takeoffs and landings for a pilot to complete the training course.

Initial training begins under the conditions specified for a single-engine takeoff. First 10 flights: aircraft take-off weight 22300 kg, starting position No. 3, wind above the deck of at least 25 knots, without external suspensions. 3500 kg of fuel, of which 2500 kg can be used to simulate a 55 minute flight over a range of 800 km, or one take-off, 4 touch-and-go approaches, and one arresting arrester landing.

Training flights:

Takeoff is not allowed in the absence of wind from the first two starting positions. With a wind speed above the deck of 25 knots and takeoff from positions No. 1 and 2, the takeoff weight limit is 28,100 kg (in the Russian Navy it is 28,000 kg). From position No. 3 and no wind above the deck, takeoff weight is also limited to 28,000 kg. With a wind above the deck of 25 knots, takeoff weight is not limited when launching from position No. 3.

All of the above convinces me personally that catapults are not really needed for a promising domestic aircraft carrier, especially considering that the T-50 aircraft with “second stage engines” must have a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one even at maximum takeoff weight.

However, taking into account the presence in the naval aviation of the Russian Navy of such carrier-based aircraft as the MiG-29K/KUB and the possible emergence of domestic carrier-based UAVs, the take-off thrust-to-weight ratio of which at maximum take-off weight will be closer to the take-off thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29K/KUB than to the take-off thrust-to-weight ratio of the T -50 with “second stage engines”, I don’t think it’s correct that the developers of the Project 23000E aircraft carrier reduced the take-off run distances at launch from positions No. 1 and No. 2 from 110 to ~95 meters and No. 5 and No. 6 to 105 m (at a lower vanishing angle from the springboard).

In my humble opinion, on the aircraft carrier project proposed by the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Krylov State Scientific Center", it is necessary to apply the same minimum take-off distance that was once chosen for tropical conditions in which the service of the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant, designed with our and Italian help, was expected - namely 145 meters.

This involves increasing the maximum length of the aircraft carrier from 330 to 380 meters (why are they embarrassed? The developers already designed the widest aircraft carrier in the world, with a maximum hull width at the waterline of 42 meters, a flight deck of 85 meters - let it be the longest) and with slightly sharper contours, an increase in displacement of only a few thousand tons.

The maximum length is 380 meters, corresponding to the length of the ship at the waterline of ~355 meters.

λ = L/B = 355/42 = 8.45

This is even somewhat less than that of the Sovremenny-class destroyer (λ = 8.53), see the previously mentioned RF patent “Surface single-hull displacement high-speed vessel” in which some parameters of the Sovremenny hull are mentioned.

I don’t know what the characteristic values ​​of the overall completeness coefficient (δ) are for Monocline-type hulls, so I’ll use the range typical for high-speed battleships of World War II (0.57–0.63).

Well, 355x42x11x0.57 = 93486 tons, 355x42x11x0.63 = 103326 tons

Even with the values ​​of the overall completeness coefficient characteristic of high-speed battleships, the displacement value for a 380-meter aircraft carrier will be in the range of 93.5-103.4 thousand tons.

In this case, the take-off distance from starting positions No. 1 and No. 2 will increase to 145 meters, positions No. 3 and No. 4 to 200 meters, and from positions No. 5 and No. 6 (when moved 50 meters aft along the axis of the landing deck) to 155 meters.

Positions No. 1 and No. 2, of course, should be shifted somewhat to the starboard side of the ship in order to be able to use launch position No. 2 without interference for landing operations.

You can also enter a launch track for turboprop aircraft as a continuation to the stern of the launch track from position No. 3. Turboprop aircraft do not need holding devices since the thrust of their engines, at a constant speed of rotation of the propellers, can vary within a wide range (even inversely) due to propeller pitch control. The length of such a starting track can be up to 270 meters.

However, corridors and compartments for catapults with 35-meter tracks under the flight deck should be left on the aircraft carrier just in case, as well as reserve rooms for the personnel called upon to service these catapults.

I believe that increasing the maximum length of the Project 23000E aircraft carrier from 330 to 380 meters will cost much less than the development, installation and operation of electromagnetic catapults with a 35-meter track on aircraft carriers of this project throughout their approximately half-century life cycle.

And the MiG-29K/KUB, like the MiG-35S, of course needs a VK-10M turbofan engine with a thrust of 10,000 kgf.

Aircraft carriers, which arose during the First World War as auxiliary ships called upon
provide air support for fleets, by the beginning of World War II they had become
the main striking force in battles at sea. And today ships of this class are the basis
surface component of the fleets of leading maritime powers. Since the birth of aircraft carriers
There was a continuous search to create and improve the takeoff and landing systems of these ships, without which the use of aviation from the decks of aircraft carriers would have been impossible or extremely difficult.
The military-political situation in the world remains very complex and tense, Russia
possessing a huge territory and reserves of natural resources, including offshore
zone of seas and oceans, carries out large-scale work on the exploration of these resources and their development.
Today, the issue of returning the Russian Armed Forces and Navy to the regions of the far north and the Arctic has become increasingly urgent, to protect against potential threats and maintain stability in these regions. No less urgent is the task of the presence of the Russian Navy in other areas of the world. The resumption and deployment of the aircraft carrier construction program in Russia was announced in 2003, at the first international naval show in St. Petersburg. Over the past years, a rationale has been developed for the need to have such ships as part of a balanced domestic Navy, their optimal number, basing and support system.
The aircraft carrier construction program was reported to the President of the Russian Federation and approved. What
Regarding the start of the program, it is stated that it can start no earlier than 2018
year. Currently, a detailed study of the appearance of future aircraft carriers and composition is underway.
their air wing. In itself, the revival of the Russian fleet and especially the design and construction of such high-tech ships as aircraft carriers is a huge school for Russian military and engineering thought. To be an effective tool of deterrence and military-political expansion, an aircraft carrier must have real combat capabilities and qualities.
In the series of articles offered to readers of the Aviapanorama magazine on the history and development of aircraft carrier takeoff and landing systems, the difficult and thorny path of scientific and technological progress in this area will be clearly shown. The story will be told about the successful titanic work of Soviet engineers and designers, who were forced to create takeoff and landing systems from scratch in the 1980s - steam catapults and arresting devices, for the first Soviet full-fledged aircraft carriers.

STEAM CATAPULT AT THE NITKA SURVEY GROUND.

CHRONICLE OF THE SOVIET CATAPULT

It can be stated with regret that by the beginning of the war the USSR Navy had only five mounted Ks, three of which were German-made. The new KOR-2 naval reconnaissance aircraft also arrived at the Black Sea Fleet belatedly - only in the summer of 1942. The critical situation on the fronts, including the Black Sea, forced us to abandon the ejection of naval reconnaissance aircraft - the launch equipment also had to be dismantled. However, by mid-1943, a decision was made to modernize the catapults and launch trolleys on the Molotov and Voroshilov cruisers for the KOR-2 GS and fighters. The modernization was unjustifiably delayed and was completed only by the beginning of 1945. The bet was made, among other things, on one of the best fighters of World War II - the English Spitfire - up to 10 copies were assembled in the Black Sea Fleet, although in real launches from aboard the cruiser " Molotov" only one participated.

The further fate of KOR-2 reconnaissance aircraft and ejection equipment on ships was doomed by the results of their use in various theaters of military operations in 1941-1945. These results did not justify the costs and sacrifices incurred in developing this technique. Here is a list of these “achievements”. On June 30, 1942, while patrolling the waters of the Poti naval base (Caucasian coast), KOR-2 crews dropped 4 PLAB-100 bombs in the area of ​​the noticed periscope trail - the result is unknown. In 1943, two KOR-2 crews were sent to the Arctic to patrol the area of ​​Dikson Island, where German submarine activity was noted. Loitering in the vicinity of this archipelago in 12 flights did not produce any results. There is an occasional case of the Baltic Fleet using the KOR-2, which arrived the day before from an aircraft factory in Krasnoyarsk, to successfully rescue the crew of an Il-2 attack aircraft shot down over the Gulf of Finland in July 1944.

The country's naval aviation command came to the conclusion that the ship-based KOR-2 reconnaissance aircraft, with their limited range, did not fulfill their task - their functions were completely replaced by shore-based aircraft with their new capabilities. The final point in this issue was the appearance of shipborne radar stations - ship patrol aircraft turned out to be unnecessary. Soon, the catapults were dismantled on all artillery ships operating and under construction - a sad result of pre-war progress in this area.

The further path of progress of carrier-based aviation in our country must be considered against the background of foreign post-war experience in the development of ejection systems for carrier-based aircraft. It is appropriate to recall that during this period the US Navy was experiencing a serious systemic technological crisis in its aircraft carrier fleet: those built in the period 1940-1945. 24 Essex-class aircraft carriers required urgent replacement of obsolete pneumatic-hydraulic catapults (PHCs), which had reached the limit of their modernization resource. An attempt to replace them with powder gas generators was doomed - the SCB-27C modernization plan was in jeopardy. Once again, salvation came from the shores of the Old World - K. Mitchell in 1950 found a revolutionary technical solution to this problem - he invented a steam catapult.

The ten-year shipbuilding program of the USSR, adopted through the efforts of the Navy Commander-in-Chief, Fleet Admiral N. Kuznetsov, back in 1946, despite the disappointing results of naval aviation in the Great Patriotic War, included the design and construction of light aircraft carriers. The program provided for the creation in 1956-1957. a ground-based experimental and training complex for training flight personnel, testing the systems of the takeoff and landing complex and new aviation equipment. Only 20 years later, in 1975, the implementation of these plans began with the trip of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet S. Gorshkov, and the Commander of Navy Aviation, General A. Mironenko, overseas, during which they got acquainted with the test center for takeoff and landing systems in Lakehurst and visited on board the training aircraft carrier Lexington (USA). It was during this business trip that the highest ranks of the country's Navy first saw ejection launches of aircraft using a steam catapult, which 25 years ago saved the US aircraft carrier fleet from a systemic disaster. This marked the beginning of the creation of a training complex with a testing base in our country. By decree of the USSR Government of April 30, 1976, it was decided to create a ground-based test aviation training complex (UTK NITKA). The future complex was assigned the role of a testing center for new aircraft and takeoff and landing systems, as well as a simulator for carrier-based aircraft pilots. The choice of the construction site for the Saki airfield was determined by the proximity of the Black Sea and the “wind rose”. The initiator of this project was the deputy. Commander of Navy Aviation, Colonel-General A. Tomashevsky, who included work on NITKE in the 1975 draft Resolution on the creation of the TAKR pr. 1153. The main designer of the TAKR, Nevsky PKB and NPO Proletarsky Zavod, were instructed to begin designing aero arresters and a steam catapult for ships new class. Despite the fact that they started talking about building aircraft carriers, the syndrome of fear of the catapult, as of something inaccessible to our science and industry, remained.

In the original project, the “land-based aircraft carrier” consisted of three main blocks. The BS-1 block, consisting of a technological steam catapult (later referred to as an “acceleration device”) and premises for three arresting devices, served for scientific and testing purposes. In the literature, due to its external similarity in plan, this block is sometimes referred to as the “Hammer”, and the systems placed on it were united by a common functional term - the “Svetlana-Mayak” complex. The assignment of positions for the three finishers was distributed as follows: the test finisher S-2 (S-2N) was mounted in the first position, the emergency barrier finisher S-23 was placed in the second position, and the third position was allocated for placing the safety finisher. The BS-1 complex also made it possible to test various designs of catch nets - an emergency barrier for emergency landings. On block BS-3 it was planned to place a developed version of the S1-M steam catapult for launching promising aircraft towards the sea. The first commander of the NITKA training ground was lucky enough to be a submariner of the Northern Fleet, captain 1st rank Deberdeev Eduard Nurovich.

The further fate of this important facility was most negatively affected by the intrigues and contradictions between the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the command of the Navy: Deputy. Chief of the General Staff for Naval Affairs, Admiral N. Amelko (former deputy of S. Gorshkov) - an irreconcilable opponent of the construction of full-size aircraft carriers, on the one hand, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral S. Gorshkov, on the other. And the ban on work on a catapult launch aircraft called into question the very presence of a catapult at the complex, and only a simple juggling of terms (the S-1 bow catapult was renamed “acceleration device”) saved the very idea of ​​​​creating a domestic catapult and kept hope alive among the employees of the Central Research Institute of Marine Engineering (TsNIISM, Leningrad) under the leadership of chief designer Anatoly Andreevich Bulgakov, who ultimately created the first domestic steam catapult for the NITKA test site.

WHICH WAY TO GO: CATAPULT OR SPRINGBOARD?

Despite the abundance of polemical materials in the media on the topic “Catapult or springboard? Pros and cons,” participants in these discussions do not come to a clear conclusion. Undoubtedly, the authors of such publications often express subjective opinions, being captive of their own preferences. When the intensity of passions among domestic experts reaches the level of “springboard versus catapult,” I would like to remind you that such a formulation of the question inevitably required an answer in two aspects: historical and technical. We will try not to impose one-sided, unconvincing conclusions on our readers - we will let you draw them yourself, relying on documents and press materials.

Let us recall the dramatic development of events surrounding the development in our country of a carrier-based catapult-launched fighter. At the beginning of 1980, the chief designer of the OKB named after. Yakovlev was assured by the Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov that “the creation of a new SKVP (short take-off and vertical landing aircraft), superior to all existing and promising foreign fighters, is close to completion.” This was followed by fateful decisions, one of which also affected the concept of the TAVKR project 1143.5. Deputy The Chief of the General Staff, Admiral N. Amelko, blocked the initiatives of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral S. Gorshkov, to increase the displacement of the future ship and bring the composition of the air group to 52 aircraft. Enough has been written about the unseemly activities of Admiral N. Amelko in opposition to Admiral S. Gorshkov, for example, in the memoirs of the senior builder of the 705th order (NITKA), later the senior builder of the 106th order (TAVKR “Varyag”) Aleksey Ivanovich Seredin.

The General Staff directive, signed by D. Ustinov, spoke about the reorientation of the air group of the projected “five” under the attack aircraft and the abandonment of ejection launch. At this time, the team of the department of takeoff and landing systems (ATS) of the Central Research Institute of Marine Engineering, under the leadership of chief designer A. Bulgakov, successfully solved the problems of designing and testing individual components of the first domestic steam catapult and a pulley-hydraulic aerofinisher. The author of these lines - a senior researcher at the VPS department - could tell a lot about those dramatic moments in the development of such important systems, about the atmosphere in A. Bulgakov’s team in this situation and a full set of “kind words” addressed to the “evil genius” of domestic aircraft carrier construction - Admiral N. Amelko.

Domestic carrier-based aviation came to springboard takeoff in its own thorny way. Rejecting the speculation of some “experts” about some kind of dead end or failure that domestic designers and design bureaus allegedly suffered in creating a steam catapult, let us remember that the attempt to use foreign experience in ski-jump takeoff was initially aimed at implementing the STOL mode of deck-based VTOL aircraft. At this stage, the springboard takeoff was not even considered as an alternative to the catapult, and the very formulation of the problem in such a wording would have been incorrect: the question “catapult or springboard” did not even arise - these types of takeoff solved too different problems.

By 1983, the heads of the OKB named after. Sukhoi and OKB im. Mikoyan, it became clear that they would not create ejection launch aircraft in the shortest possible time, and the Su-27K and MiG-29K aircraft could win a ticket to the deck of Project 1143.5 only by starting from a springboard, for which this right still had to be proven at UTK NITKA. This was directly stated by the General Designer of the OKB named after. Sukhoi M. Simonov to Navy Commander-in-Chief S. Gorshkov during his visit to the NITKA training ground in 1983 after V. Pugachev’s spectacular demonstration of the Su-27K’s capabilities: “My plane doesn’t need a catapult.” The opportunistic nature of this statement is quite obvious.

The prospect of using a catapult launch still remained on board the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk (Project 1143.7), which had yet to be laid down at the end of 1988. Years later, when the sword of Damocles of the alternative “catapult or springboard” was raised over Ulyanovsk, Admiral S Gorshkov said bitterly: “If we don’t install a catapult on the “seven”, history will not forgive us for this.”. In a conversation with the author of these lines, senior builder of the aircraft carrier (order 107) P.S. Gerasimov noted with alarm the harmfulness of this approach: “If the catapults are eliminated on this order, in return I will have to load 2000 tons of ballast on board the ship.” This is a brief background to the question “Catapult or springboard?”

However, the conceptual confusion with the formation of the appearance of a promising aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy has not put an end to these disputes to this day. In a new, affirmative sound, this dilemma, as it turned out, has a compromise solution - “catapult and springboard” - this is exactly the option that was proposed at the International Naval Show 2013 (St. Petersburg). In the exposition of the State Scientific Center “Central Research Institute named after. Krylov" presented a project for a promising aircraft carrier, the take-off and landing complex of which included two ski jumps and four catapults, two of them located in front of the low ski jump. The last aspect of the presented project deserves special consideration: such an unusual combination of take-off systems will obviously make it possible to more fully use the advantages of the springboard with a reduction in the take-off distance due to the additional thrust of the catapult associated with the springboard. It should be expected that the launching aircraft will be able to take off with the maximum permissible overload of the front landing gear while refueling with fuel and weapons. The proposed option is radically different from the flight organization scheme for the Kuznetsov TAVKR. Instead of three launch positions from a springboard, the proposed version has four gas-reflective shields (GDS), which allows you to have four starting positions for the bow springboard (two long and two short), or four for launching from a catapult, two of which - shortened - start to the side bow springboard. All this indicates that domestic shipbuilders are not abandoning the concept of ejection launch, which is supported by the possible “seaming” of the fifth-generation fighter T-50. There is no doubt that the catapult on a promising aircraft carrier will work on new physical principles - it will become electromagnetic, for which a considerable amount of testing will have to be performed not only on large-scale laboratory models, but also on full-size experimental models in test conditions. The nature and degree of complexity of these works can be judged by the history of the creation and field tests at the NITKA test site of the first Soviet catapult, which we present in the next section of this article. This description is also based on the memoirs of the chief designer of the domestic catapult and arresting officers A.A. Bulgakov (JSC Proletarsky Plant, St. Petersburg).

To be continued

Part V. Catapult or springboard?

A traditional aircraft can take off from the deck in two ways - using a catapult (steam or electromagnetic, the appearance of which is a matter of the very near future) and using the free take-off method - from a springboard. There is no third option yet. These two methods have both advantages and disadvantages, and, accordingly, opponents and supporters.

An aircraft carrier with catapults never appeared in the Soviet Navy. There are several reasons for this – both purely technical and “political”. On the one hand, the Proletarsky Plant, which was entrusted with the creation of steam catapults, did not fully cope with the task, to put it mildly. We had to solve the problem associated with boring the cylinders, their sealing and lubrication systems, heating the catapult in winter, etc. After much ordeal, only one prototype was assembled at the ground-based aviation test and training complex - NITKA (gradually the abbreviation of this unique structure became the proper name - "Nitka"), which was built in the village. Novo-Fedorovka, Saki district in Crimea. Its construction began in 1977. The facility was considered particularly important, and the progress of work on it was personally supervised by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. However, not a single plane from the “booster”, as the catapult was called in the technical documentation, ever took off...

Instead, all attention was refocused on ensuring aircraft takeoff from a ski-jump, which was considered a more successful (and most importantly, incomparably simpler and cheaper) alternative to a catapult. An order was received to stop all work on the creation of a steam catapult. There are different opinions about the reasons for such a controversial decision. In particular, they talked about cost savings, time lags in the development of a full-fledged catapult, and even a conscious desire to prevent a serious redistribution of financial flows in the structure of military expenditures that had developed in favor of the army in the event of the appearance of classic aircraft carriers.

An important role here, apparently, was played by the statement of the heads of the OKB named after. BY. Sukhoi and OKB im. A.I. Mikoyan, who assured that even in the absence of catapults, their aircraft - deck-based versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, which have a high thrust-to-weight ratio - will be able to be successfully operated from a ski jump. In fact, the decision to use a springboard for take-off of aircraft with a classical aerodynamic design was unique in its own way - in the West, only VTOL aircraft flew from a springboard.

At first glance, the springboard really has enormous advantages - it is cheap, does not require a steam-generating installation, maintenance and repair, useful volumes are saved, and, ultimately, weight, and therefore the displacement and cost of the ship itself.

However, all these advantages of the springboard pale in comparison with its disadvantages. The first and most important advantage of a catapult is its lower threshold of sensitivity to take-off conditions. Roughly speaking, an aircraft carrier with a catapult can continue to carry out takeoff operations under more stringent parameters of pitching, wind, waves, etc. (within certain limits, of course) than a ship equipped with a springboard.

The second most important advantage of a catapult is a higher rate of launch of aircraft. Let us assume that a situation has arisen in which it is necessary to lift the maximum number of fighters into the air in the shortest possible time. The American aircraft carrier can maintain a rate of launching aircraft into the air from its four steam catapults of approximately one aircraft every 15 seconds. "Kuznetsov" has only three launch positions, and from two nose planes the aircraft can take off not with full take-off weight (!). With a full combat load, fighters from the Kuznetsov can only launch from a single position, located significantly aft of the midships - that is, the plane must in this case scatter almost across the entire flight deck! The launch rate during a springboard takeoff slows down by at least two times compared to an ejection launch.

We must not forget that launching from a springboard imposes high demands on the aircraft’s thrust-to-weight ratio: the engines are put into “full afterburner” (or “extreme afterburner”) mode before the start of the takeoff run, which leads to premature exhaustion of their service life and increased fuel consumption. In addition, the slower rate of ascent of an air group into the air dictates a longer wait at the assembly point, which also leads to excessive fuel consumption, a decrease in combat radius, etc.

Thus, if we want to build a normal aircraft carrier, and not an “undersized” type of “Giuseppe Garibaldi” or “Prince of Asturias”, it is necessary to create a catapult for it.

In this regard, the question of designing a more promising electromagnetic catapult than a steam catapult is very relevant. It should be noted that work on creating such a device began in our country back in the 1980s, much earlier than in the USA. Then at the Institute of High Temperatures of the Academy of Sciences (IVTAN) together with TsAGI. Professor N.E. Zhukovsky and OKB A.I. Mikoyan, as part of the Shampoo research project (which lasted almost 15 years), research and experimental work was carried out on a system of electromagnetic take-off and landing of aircraft, intended for promising aircraft-carrying ships, as well as for mobile ground-based airfields.

It should be taken into account that such equipment is classified as energy-intensive, which means that an aircraft carrier equipped with such a catapult (as well as an electromagnetic landing device) must have significantly more powerful electric generators, which makes it easier to switch to an all-electric power plant. Let us recall that the first large surface combatant with full electric propulsion - the EM D-32 Daring (total displacement 8010 tons) - was introduced into the British fleet on November 10, 2008. By 2012, it is planned to transfer five more such ships to the British Navy. And the French engineers of the THALES corporation have come close to creating an electric aircraft carrier. By the way, it was their creations that the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotsky, became very interested in, who visited the campaign stand at the international exhibition of naval equipment EURONAVAL-2008.

Steam catapult

V-1 launch catapult

Launch catapult- a device for launching aircraft from a small platform, ship or vessel. This type of flight deck is typical for all aircraft carriers armed with short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft, except for the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier of the Russian fleet (which does not have a steam catapult). Due to the fact that the length of the flight deck is not enough to reach takeoff speed, aircraft are accelerated by using a steam catapult. To ensure that a group of aircraft can take off in a short time, up to four catapults can be installed on an aircraft carrier. To protect personnel and equipment from the hot exhaust, jet stream reflectors are raised behind the launching aircraft, which deflect the jet upward.

Catapult for launching V-1

The catapult was a massive steel structure 49 m long (acceleration path length 45 m) and was assembled from 9 sections. The inclination of the catapult to the horizon is 6°. On the upper side there were guides along which the projectile moved during acceleration. Inside the catapult, a pipe with a diameter of 292 mm ran along its entire length, acting as a steam engine cylinder. A piston moved freely in the pipe, which before launch was engaged with a yoke located on the lower part of the projectile fuselage. The piston was driven by pressure (57 bar) of the vapor-gas mixture supplied to the cylinder from a special reactor in which concentrated hydrogen peroxide decomposed under the influence of potassium permanganate. The front end of the cylinder was open and after the projectile left the catapult, the piston flew out of the cylinder and was already unhooked from the projectile in flight. The catapult gave the projectile an initial speed of about 250 km/h. Acceleration time is about 1 second.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Steam catapult” is in other dictionaries:

This term has other meanings, see Catapult (meanings). Modern reconstruction of the catapult Catapult (Greek ... Wikipedia

take-off catapult Encyclopedia "Aviation"

take-off catapult- Steam take-off catapult. take-off catapult (Latin catapulta, from Greek katapéltes, from katá from top to bottom, down to, against and pállo throwing, throwing) a device for launching an aircraft by forced acceleration... ... Encyclopedia "Aviation"

Catapult Catapult throwing machine Ejection seat device for rescuing a pilot from an aircraft Launch catapult a device for launching aircraft from a small platform, ship or vessel ... Wikipedia

- (Latin catapulta, from Greek katap(é)ltes, from kat(á) from top to bottom, down to, against and p(á)llo throw, throw) a device for launching an aircraft by forcing them to accelerate over a short section of the path. Used on aircraft carriers... ... Encyclopedia of technology

This article or section needs revision. Please improve the article in accordance with the rules for writing articles... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Galileo. Galileo Genre popular science entertainment program Director(s) Kirill Gavrilov, Elena Kaliberda Editor(s) Dmitry Samorodov Production Television format (... Wikipedia

Electromagnetic catapult EMALS.
For the past 45 years, the US Navy has used steam catapults to launch aircraft from the decks of aircraft carriers. Modern steam catapults S-13 mod. 2, which are equipped with Nimitz-type AVMAs, are capable of launching aircraft every 60 s. When four catapults are used simultaneously, aircraft can take off from an aircraft carrier every 20 seconds.
The design of modern steam catapults is very reliable. Each of the four catapults simultaneously engaged in flight operations is ready for use an average of 74% of the total time. When operating only one of the four catapults, its readiness for operation is about 100%. Operating experience shows the high reliability and safety of steam catapults - in the 90s of the last century, over a ten-year period, 800 thousand aircraft were launched from aircraft carriers and only 30 serious breakdowns were recorded. However, only one of them led to the loss of the aircraft.
However, despite such tangible advantages, steam catapults have a number of serious disadvantages.
Modern steam catapults perform 70 million ft/lbs of work (equal to the work of lifting one pound by one foot) to launch one airplane. This limits the aircraft's maximum ejection weight to approximately 70,000 lb (31,751 kg). In addition to this, the force impulse applied to the catapult increases at low loads, making it difficult to launch lighter types of aircraft. In fact, steam catapults are not suitable for launching modern UAVs.
Due to the relatively larger range of changes in the force applied to the ejected aircraft during one launch cycle, the aircraft airframe experiences significant unwanted loads. Such loads reduce the fatigue life (time before fatigue failure) of manned aircraft and require significant strengthening of the UAV airframe structure.
The inability to launch a UAV from the deck of an aircraft carrier can be a serious disadvantage. The high dynamics of development of information technology and the development of more compact high-precision weapons create the preconditions for a technological breakthrough that will facilitate the creation of a new generation of UAVs that will be widely used in the Navy and gradually replace manned vehicles long before the expiration of the planned service life of the Nimitz-type AVMA. There is no doubt that a very attractive prospect for the US military-political leadership is the conduct of combat operations that eliminate the risk of death or capture of the crews of downed aircraft. To eliminate the above shortcomings, within the framework of the CVN-21 program, technologies are being developed to create a new generation catapult - an electromagnetic catapult.
The EMC control system allows you to control the force, which will reduce the negative impact of the load on the aircraft airframe, thereby increasing the service life and reducing the cost of operating the aircraft.
The potential advantages of the EMC relative to the steam catapult are as follows:
- lower labor costs during maintenance, which will allow an estimated reduction in the number of service personnel by 35 people;
- greater power, which allows you to launch heavier aircraft;
- the ratio of peak and average acceleration has been optimized, which will reduce the load on the UAV airframe.
In December 1999, two contracts were signed to demonstrate and confirm the EMALS concept - with General Atomics for $60 million and with Northrop-Grumman for $62 million. In 2003, both companies presented a full-scale prototype of an electromagnetic catapult, demonstrating its technical characteristics and capabilities. As a result, for the full-scale development of the catapult in 2005-2009
The General Atomics company was selected, with which in June 2009 a contract worth $537 million was signed for the production of the first EHR, and in the summer of 2010 it was tested at a stand in Leichorst. Until February 2011, 3,600 tests were carried out under loads from 4,536 to 45,359 kg, and in the summer, test launches of the F-18 Hornet carrier-based multi-role fighter, the E-2 Hawkeye carrier-based AWACS aircraft and the S carrier-based military transport aircraft were carried out. -2 "Greyhound".
In order to eject an aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier, an EMK linear electric motor with a power of 100,000 hp. With. converts 1.35 MW of continuously supplied power into 60 MW of pulsed power (2 s). The generated current during the last 6 m of the EMC shuttle's stroke stops it without the help of a hydraulic brake and returns it to the starting position. The energy storage system is recharged between starts. The EMC also ensures the landing of aircraft, with only the polarity changing.
The main advantages of the EMC in comparison with a steam catapult are low weight and size characteristics and high efficiency. Comparative characteristics of electromagnetic and steam catapults are given in table. 1. In addition, the EHR has higher reliability, short preparation time and a high degree of automation, which leads to an increase in the number of aircraft sorties by 25%.
Full-scale production of the EMC is planned to begin in 2012-2013, and installation on aircraft carriers - from 2013-2014.
Several other advanced technologies will be used in the next-generation Gerald Ford-type AVMA project. Unlike those discussed earlier, they can also be implemented on Nimitz-type AVMAs.