Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

At least it would be better to use it as LHA than scrap it, in that hypothetical turn of events. Naval history is full of examples of older ships modified for use in other roles different form their original 1s.

Any carrier group can only move at the speed of its slowest member and for most conventionally powered ships 16-18 knots would allow them to get there without having to refuel on the way... Remember Russia cannot just turn up at any port for refuelling... US sanctions and bullying and EU bullying would see to that...

Rushing at 30 knots for 4,000 nautical miles and then having to stop and wait for refuelling tankers to catch up or just arrive and refuel and then continue to their destination is not a great solution either.

Generally if Russia is sending a task force somewhere there is a lot of planning and preparation needed... The US took 6 months in Kuwaite to build up forces before starting desert storm and the British took a while to get ready including commandeering civilian ships as troop ships that needed modification before going to the Falklands too.

Personally I would like to see a more serious upgrade of the Kuznetsov in 10-15 years time when it needs another upgrade, where they can replace the boilers (which were part of the design because at some stage they were expecting to develop steam cats) with nuke propulsion and electric drive pods.... which would transform the ship by greatly boosting available electricity levels, and free up a huge amount of space... no boilers, no enormous heavy drive shafts or reduction and gearing systems for propulsion.

Perhaps even an EMALS system to test... they could connect it to the cable arrester gear so it manages that as well and becomes fully digital... a landing aircraft could generate electricity to slow down the aircraft...

And of course new weapons and systems etc etc could be added too.

..replace the boilers ..with nuke propulsion..

They had to cut a big hole in the bottom of the icebreaker Lenin to replace a faulty reactor; I don't think they would do it on the Adm K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Nuclear_accidents
https://helion-ltd.ru/unloading-nuclear-installation/

It would cost too much $ & time & is not worth the trouble.
If a CVN & its CBG goes to S. America, it'll be very vulnerable to new US LR AShMs. Better to send SSGNs, CGNs & DDGs armed with SAMs, AShMs & LACMs; CAPs can be done from Cuban, Nicaraguan &/ Venezulan AFBs. The USN can afford to forward deploy a mid-age CVN in Japan & lose it to PRC, RF or NK, knowing it will still have 10 other CVNs + 1-2 older CVs kept in reserve; the VMF doesn't have that luxury.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..replace the boilers ..with nuke propulsion..

They had to cut a big hole in the bottom of the icebreaker Lenin to replace a faulty reactor; I don't think they would do it on the Adm K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Nuclear_accidents
https://helion-ltd.ru/unloading-nuclear-installation/

It would cost too much $ & time & is not worth the trouble.
If a CVN & its CBG goes to S. America, it'll be very vulnerable to new US LR AShMs. Better to send SSGNs, CGNs & DDGs armed with SAMs, AShMs & LACMs; CAPs can be done from Cuban, Nicaraguan &/ Venezulan AFBs. The USN can afford to forward deploy a mid-age CVN in Japan & lose it to PRC, RF or NK, knowing it will still have 10 other CVNs + 1-2 older CVs kept in reserve; the VMF doesn't have that luxury.  

Repowering of a 30 years old carrier on nuclear power is too expensive and simply silly business! Nobody, nowhere has done such thing in last 60 years of nuclear propulsion in shipbuilding1

Nuclear power plants have previously been built into vessels from the design stage, but new more modern nuclear power plants are becoming smaller and more modular and could be placed almost anywhere you want in an all electric design because it is just basically a battery, so you could locate it any where you like... whereas with existing designs it was generally directly connected to the transmission and gearing attached to the end of some rather long and heavy shafts attached to propellers at the rear of the ship... not very flexible at all.

With new engine pods and electrical drive, you could put the NPP anywhere you wanted... the only connection to the engine pods would be power cables...

Don't forget the radiation shielding that takes more space & weighs more, safety devices, & extra personnel that needs berthing, supplies, food, & fresh water. Putting a submarine size NPPs on a TAKR will repeat the Ch.D Gaulle CVN saga, in the best case. U can buy an SSK, FFG or DDG for the coast of such an upgrade with very little benefit.

Don't forget the radiation shielding that takes more space & weighs more, safety devices,

Radiation shielding and safety devices would be part of the design of a NPP.

& extra personnel that needs berthing, supplies, food, & fresh water.

Nuclear power means desalination plants for the fresh water thing, and a nuclear power plant would be largely automated... compared with a combined steam boiler gas turbine system currently used I would say a NPP would use rather less people and free up an enormous amount of space on the ship.

Putting a submarine size NPPs on a TAKR will repeat the Ch.D Gaulle CVN saga, in the best case. U can buy an SSK, FFG or DDG for the coast of such an upgrade with very little benefit.

They are developing new generation NPPs, getting to test one this decade would be valuable and has the potential to seriously upgrade the capabilities of the ship... look at all the weapons removed from the Kiev class ship they sold to India... they completely replaced the propulsion system too...

GarryB wrote:Nuclear power plants have previously been built into vessels from the design stage, but new more modern nuclear power plants are becoming smaller and more modular and could be placed almost anywhere you want in an all electric design because it is just basically a battery, so you could locate it any where you like... whereas with existing designs it was generally directly connected to the transmission and gearing attached to the end of some rather long and heavy shafts attached to propellers at the rear of the ship... not very flexible at all.

With new engine pods and electrical drive, you could put the NPP anywhere you wanted... the only connection to the engine pods would be power cables...

your understanding on how to build a nuclear-powered ship needs work.

you cannot just take a reactor and stick it in there, you would need to redesign the whole interior of the vessel and in the case of this carrier simply too expensive, not feasible and not worth it.

It's nothing like plugging in a battery, only in fantasy land is what you're stating possible, no offense.

..you cannot just take a reactor and stick it in there, you would need to redesign the whole interior of the vessel and in the case of this carrier simply too expensive, not feasible and not worth it.

Exactly! The new boilers they spend $ & time installing may not even be compatible with any NPP. Taking them out or modifying them & along with other ship systems & structure would prolong the refit for at least few more years & waste $ needed for other projects.
If they wait till the next yard period & install an NPP then, how long will the ship have before its decommissioning? Either way, it's not worth it, otherwise China would have considered doing it with the CV-16 &/ CV-17.

your understanding on how to build a nuclear-powered ship needs work.

you cannot just take a reactor and stick it in there, you would need to redesign the whole interior of the vessel and in the case of this carrier simply too expensive, not feasible and not worth it.

It's nothing like plugging in a battery, only in fantasy land is what you're stating possible, no offense.

Yah.... you get it... that is the fucking point of an all electric drive system... the location of the batteries is cosmetic and not functional in the design... you put them where it suits... normally on an electronic device it is where the weight is centred so that effect where the batteries are located but these batteries wont get changed very often, so even if you have to put the ship in dry dock and drop them out of the bottom that would be fine...

The existing ship has pipes to carry steam and fuel and cables to carry power, but for the drive mechanism it is like a car... most have it in the front or the back because that is a convenient place to put it... over the front wheels driving the drive shaft for all wheel drive cars via the transmission so the gears can regulate the speed the wheels go... but with all electric drive you don't need a transmission... one electric motor on each wheel and another electric motor attached to a gas turbine engine which can be very small and compact and very efficient at running a dynamo to generate electricity... the generator could be in the front or the back or anywhere you like... the entire bottom of the car can be batteries because batteries are heavy and that gives it a low centre of gravity so it is less likely to roll when you play up driving it.

You could put a tiny NPP under the seats of the car... there is no shaft drive, there is no gearbox... there is no direct mechanical connection between the power plant and the propulser... whether it is ten screw propellers or 4 tires on a car... the connection is a power cable running from the power management system and from the power management system to the NPP and the batteries and any other power source you might have on board like a gas turbine generator or diesel generator gear... that deliver power via their own generators.

Exactly! The new boilers they spend $ & time installing may not even be compatible with any NPP. Taking them out or modifying them & along with other ship systems & structure would prolong the refit for at least few more years & waste $ needed for other projects.

Perhaps you haven't read what I have been saying properly, I clearly stated this should be done in the next refit in the late 2020s or early 2030s, when the CVN are getting their finalisation in designs and are likely laid down to start manufacture... it is a chance to test new technology before the real thing is set in stone.

Removing the boilers and turbines and the enormous propeller shafts and even the fuel tanks for said propulsion units should free up an enormous amount of space for all sorts of things... a really big job but also a huge opportunity to seriously upgrade the old girl.

If they wait till the next yard period & install an NPP then, how long will the ship have before its decommissioning? Either way, it's not worth it, otherwise China would have considered doing it with the CV-16 &/ CV-17.

What makes you think China has a NPP suitable for the job... they still buy Russian civilian nuclear reactors... how many large powerful marine NPPs do they have to play with?

A big ship can remain operational for half a century or more... and she started building in the 1980s... there is plenty of scope there for upgrades and improvements... the Gorshkov was ten years older than the Kuznetsov and got a serious upgrade and is now in the Indian Navy...

Again you are wrong that isn't how it works Garry. Live with it, The Russians looked into doing that and said it wasn't worth it at all with how much redesign work they would need to do.

You can try and type allllll you want but that doesn't make you any more right than before, nor am I going to sit here and argue because you want to believe that's possible.

You cannot taker a Reactor stick it in the Kurz and connect it like a battery PERIOD.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Again you are wrong that isn't how it works Garry. Live with it, The Russians looked into doing that and said it wasn't worth it at all with how much redesign work they would need to do.

You can try and type allllll you want but that doesn't make you any more right than before, nor am I going to sit here and argue because you want to believe that's possible.

You cannot taker a Reactor stick it in the Kurz and connect it like a battery PERIOD.

Well, I do not believe it could not be done, just it is probably not worth and would cost more time and money than starting with a new hull.

Opening the hull of Kuz and removing the whole propulsion system plus shafts etc would require years of work, before even starting to think about the new propulsion system and fitting out.

In this time, if you have an available shipyard with a big drydock you can build a new hull for a modern nuclear carrier where all the internal spaces are optimized for the dedicated propulsion systems and for modern electrical and weapon systems.

Kuznetov can remain a very useful ship even after commissioning 2 modern nuclear powered carriers, especially, but not only for training.

@Garry B... earlier, you`ve mentioned batteries, obviously as a power source for IPS. Still, there were never real combat ship, except submarines, running on batteries. There were always some generators, powered by steam engine, steam turbines, GTs, or diesels. Batteries existed, but only for emergency lighting, if ever. Electrical propulsion by E-motors is good, for there is no need for long and weighty, and never watertight propeller shafts and tunnels with bearings. Also, E-prop doesn`t need reduction gears.. And... it is still heavier than classical shafting.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Again you are wrong that isn't how it works Garry. Live with it, The Russians looked into doing that and said it wasn't worth it at all with how much redesign work they would need to do.

You can try and type allllll you want but that doesn't make you any more right than before, nor am I going to sit here and argue because you want to believe that's possible.

You cannot taker a Reactor stick it in the Kurz and connect it like a battery PERIOD.

Well, I do not believe it could not be done, just it is probably not worth and would cost more time and money than starting with a new hull.

Opening the hull of Kuz and removing the whole propulsion system plus shafts etc would require years of work, before even starting to think about the new propulsion system and fitting out.

In this time, if you have an available shipyard with a big drydock you can build a new hull for a modern nuclear carrier where all the internal spaces are optimized for the dedicated propulsion systems and for modern electrical and weapon systems.

Kuznetov can remain a very useful ship even after commissioning 2 modern nuclear powered carriers, especially, but not only for training.

Ofc it could be done, with efford and bunch of money. I am personally however not fond of such idea.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Again you are wrong that isn't how it works Garry. Live with it, The Russians looked into doing that and said it wasn't worth it at all with how much redesign work they would need to do.

You can try and type allllll you want but that doesn't make you any more right than before, nor am I going to sit here and argue because you want to believe that's possible.

You cannot taker a Reactor stick it in the Kurz and connect it like a battery PERIOD.

Well, I do not believe it could not be done, just it is probably not worth and would cost more time and money than starting with a new hull.

Opening the hull of Kuz and removing the whole propulsion system plus shafts etc would require years of work, before even starting to think about the new propulsion system and fitting out.

In this time, if you have an available shipyard with a big drydock you can build a new hull for a modern nuclear carrier where all the internal spaces are optimized for the dedicated propulsion systems and for modern electrical and weapon systems.

Kuznetov can remain a very useful ship even after commissioning 2 modern nuclear powered carriers, especially, but not only for training.

Never said it couldn't be done just that it wouldn't work like anything Garry described. You can't just take a reactor stick it in there and expect it to work you need to redesign the hull around it and the other systems.

It could be done but it will not happen, To expensive and not worth it the russians looked at the idea and ruled it out.

For USSR/Russia, only NP icebreakers+1 cargo ice ship were/r economically justified for the civilian use.
NP TAKRs r still being considered, but the 1 conventional powered they have is still fine- it's not going to cross the ocean & conduct ops for 6-8-9 months like the USN CVNs do. It's the naval equivalent of a trainer/light attack fighter, since they mostly use it for training, show & occasional combat.
Therefore, putting NPP as the main prop. system isn't feasible at all.
Even if it was, they don't have enough big dry docks to have it there for extra months or years.

You cannot taker a Reactor stick it in the Kurz and connect it like a battery PERIOD.

Of course... brand new all electric drives must use the same old conventional power plant layout ships and subs have always previously used... that is why they call it a new design because it is the same as they always did it.

What you are saying is that something that previously used mains power to operate... like a TV for example... could never be adapted and redesigned and be powered by a battery.

I mean those huge cathode ray tubes were enormous so when you replace that with a 20mm thick flat LCD screen that only uses a fraction of the power in a fraction of the volume the old CRT screens took there is no opportunity to reuse or even redesign... it must be done this way by order of you.

Yeah right.

The new nuclear power generation systems are rather compact and rather powerful... but no... a laser system can have a 1 megawatt NPP to power it that fits on a truck but after you pull out enormous propeller shafts and boilers and gas turbines there is no room in a 50K ton plus ship for something the size of a truck or 20 of them all over the place... nah... the idea of compact power generation is insane... modular design... that is communism...

Opening the hull of Kuz and removing the whole propulsion system plus shafts etc would require years of work, before even starting to think about the new propulsion system and fitting out.

They pretty much completely replaced the propulsion system of the Gorshkov for the Indians didn't they?

@Garry B... earlier, you`ve mentioned batteries, obviously as a power source for IPS. Still, there were never real combat ship, except submarines, running on batteries. There were always some generators, powered by steam engine, steam turbines, GTs, or diesels. Batteries existed, but only for emergency lighting, if ever.

Would you not agree that there is a minor difference between a lead acid battery that lasts a day or two and then needs to be recharged by some powerful energy source like a diesel engine, and a nuclear battery that puts out enormous energy for 20 years without requiring refuelling?

Never said it couldn't be done just that it wouldn't work like anything Garry described. You can't just take a reactor stick it in there and expect it to work you need to redesign the hull around it and the other systems.

They could just use it as a test bed for new technology they are going to use with their new CVNs... it is not like the Kuznetsovs current propulsion system sets the bar very high.

Think of it as converting a conventional car to an electric car... take off the axles and take out the main engine and transmission and fuel tank and drive shaft and replace the wheels and wheel hubs with new wheels and wheel hubs... the new wheel hubs containing electric motors to drive the wheels... put a small gas turbine engine in the front engine bay with a dynamo to generate electricity directly and fill the boot up with batteries to charge with the GT running while also powering the wheels.

Power cables from the Gas Turbine to a power management system also in the front engine bay that would look half empty still, and then power cables from the power management system to the batteries and each electric motor in the wheels... it is not rocket science...

Obviously on a 50K ton carrier you could have a dozen NPP located around the place... sometimes you might have them all running but most times just a few. Have a few gas turbine systems for emergency power for a fast start up or to leave port immediately on emergency power...

Even if it was, they don't have enough big dry docks to have it there for extra months or years.

They are talking about nuclear powered 20K ton destroyers... I think they will need more big dry docks whether they get carriers or not...

NP TAKRs r still being considered, but the 1 conventional powered they have is still fine- it's not going to cross the ocean & conduct ops for 6-8-9 months like the USN CVNs do.

It doesn't because it probably couldn't... they are not currently in a real position to support such an operation, but in 10 years time they might...

Once again you are spouting off pointless crap I never mentioned, room? when I ever say they could not find the room for it? IF they wanted to do that sure they would chance are find a spot to put it.

Also power requirements when did I mention that?. Never that's when.

However again your ignorance is showing, The Kuz is not made for a Nuclear Reactor they would need to re-wire, redo most of the ship internally for that to work a nuclear powered ship aree a lot more complex then you understand. You clearly know jack shit about the construction of nuclear ships, so do yourself a favor and stop while your ahead. Because you are starting to embarrass yourself.

They can't just put the reactor in there and plug it in, that's not how it works, the reactor would need to be integrated with the entire ship for safety reasons, power reasons, The electronics on the kuz aren't designed for that, they would need to swamp out most of the wires, circuits etc.

BTW stop doing that crap where you start ranting about stuff I never said to try and prove your point. do that again, I am going to an Admin. If you want to remark about something I said sure, but you need to stop trying to manipulate my words and you do it a lot.

Also yes they did but that took years. They had to redesign the entire ship inside and out and had huge costs and time delays, the fact you are trying to use that as an example when it goes against what your saying is odd.

Again Garry they COULD but they won't and aren't going to. The dam Russian navy looked at that option and ruled it out already no one here is SAYING it cannot be done, just that it won't be done.

Now be a grown up and drop it, your wrong now move on.

The Kuz is not made for a Nuclear Reactor they would need to re-wire, redo most of the ship internally for that to work a nuclear powered ship aree a lot more complex then you understand. You clearly know jack shit about the construction of nuclear ships, so do yourself a favor and stop while your ahead. Because you are starting to embarrass yourself.

Have you been around a lot of loud gunfire recently and you are feeling a bit thick... I am not talking about making the ship nuclear powered in the conventional traditional sense... that would still involve shafts and transmissions and gears and the nuclear power plant would need to be placed in a very specific location, which in the case of the Kuznetsov being a non nuclear powered carrier might not be convenient or even possible.

I am talking about converting it to an all electric design using multiple NPPs to provide the power supply... there are no Russian or Soviet nuclear powered subs or ships with just one reactor... they are all using more than one reactor, so this was never going to be strip out the boilers and gas turbines and pop in a single NPP.

They can't just put the reactor in there and plug it in, that's not how it works, the reactor would need to be integrated with the entire ship for safety reasons, power reasons, The electronics on the kuz aren't designed for that, they would need to swamp out most of the wires, circuits etc.

Of course because the old electrics were designed for A positive, and nuclear powered electricity is O negative... but all of the electrical cables and sensors and systems need to be replaced anyway... most of that shit is probably older than you....

BTW stop doing that crap where you start ranting about stuff I never said to try and prove your point. do that again, I am going to an Admin. If you want to remark about something I said sure, but you need to stop trying to manipulate my words and you do it a lot.

You are not the only person I am replying to, but if I suggest you are saying something you are not how about be a man and just clearly state as such, I am not a mind reader but when you make some claims or comments it suggests certain things... if I spell those things out and they are not what you mean, how about instead of crying like a little girl or running to daddy, you just say that is not what you meant and perhaps be a bit more clear about what you really did mean.

Also yes they did but that took years. They had to redesign the entire ship inside and out and had huge costs and time delays, the fact you are trying to use that as an example when it goes against what your saying is odd.

In terms of global reach the Kuznetsov is much better than nothing, but could also use some serious improvements.... nuclear propulsion being one, and seeing as how it is very likely their new build CVs... whether they are tiny shitty little helicopter carriers like GD wants or decent bigger more useful platforms like the Russian Navy has said it wants, it is pretty certain they will be nuclear powered... so why not test them out on a ship that by the time they start ripping the guts out of wont be hugely useful for very much because the new carriers will be totally different except in the sense that they also carry aircraft.

Put some EMALS test cats on there too...

Again Garry they COULD but they won't and aren't going to. The dam Russian navy looked at that option and ruled it out already no one here is SAYING it cannot be done, just that it won't be done.

Now you admit they looked at doing what you say is impossible????

They listened to a blabbering idiot moron like me who has no idea and they actually considered it...

But all this pointless crap I am spouting that is embarrassing me... they thought it was worth investigating...

Now be a grown up and drop it, your wrong now move on.

But if I am ignorant and am happy to embarrass myself, does that not suggest I am not an adult...

I didn't realise this was your website and this thread about the Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was not for discussing said vessel... this really is embarrassing.

But if you said they considered converting it to nuclear propulsion how about you give us more specifics... were they looking at converting it to an all electric drive with nuclear power generation systems located throughout the ship... I mean if they remove the Granits... that would actually be an ideal place to put one or two NPP modules because it must already be seriously firewalled and separated from the rest of the ship and it is not close to the aircraft hangar so there is no chance for using the space for extra aircraft embarked.

Or were they just planning to rip out the old drivetrain and power systems and drop in a NPP and connect it up to the screws?

Show us all how grown up you are and how you can have an adult mature conversation... even to us children.

Okay again did I ever say it was impossible? I said the way your describing wouldn't work but it could be done.

They did look into turning the Kuz into a nuclear power carrier but that was dropped when they found how expensive and complex the process would be. I also never denied the Russians looked into it now did I? no I did not.

If you want to be manipulative with words do not reply to me alright, it's that simple. Also, I am very clear on what I say, don't start insulting me because I called you out. Because Garry I that is against your forum rules.

I must have told you over 30 times not to do that but you still do it and do not listen. I get tired of repeating myself with you, so if I need to have an admin tell you to cut it out after I tell you dozens of times to quit it I will.

Twisting my words to fit your narrative, grow up.

Putting multiple mini NPPs will compromise the damage control.
If there's flooding, fire, &/ explosion in any of those compartments, NPPs & their wiring/piping there may be taken out & affect the power to other vital compartments & systems.
For testing EMALS, it can be done on a special converted barge or old ship. They could also choose a site on shore with strong winds & build a test facility on it for a lot le$$.
There's a reason the USN didn't put it on an old CV 1st; instead they now have the USS Ford that they hope will test & use it.

Garry I understand your reasons, but I was thinking: if they replace the boilers and overhaul the whole propulsion system and the electrical systems during this refit (similar to part of what they did to the carrier for the Indians), without touching the granits, but maybe only adding pantsir, they will have a working ship that is effective for their needs.

Indeed, but putting Al-41 engines into Su-35s at the same time improves the performance of the Su-35, but also allows operational experience and extra production of an engine they might otherwise make rather fewer examples of, and it allows more testing and problem solving while potentially greatly improving the potential performance of the ship.

The Granits pretty much have to go because they don't make them any more, but it is rather likely they will put three Onyx missiles in each Granit tube and have 36 Onyx missiles instead of 12 Granits... it is actually likely they might put Zircons in there considering the delay of getting it back into the water.

The last Akula class SSBN is a testing vessel for Bulava, the first Lada class SSK is going to be testing all manner of new technologies and weapons and sensors... they really don't need a world wide intervention naval force now or in the next 10-15 years, which is just as well because they only have cold war larger ships and the K which is not ideal for international operations even in perfect working order.

They have an opportunity to greatly increase the performance of the K by adding NPPs, and converting its electrical system to make it far more modern than it was ever actually intended to be... but they will learn a lot, and problems will probably teach them more than the things that go smooth.

They are developing new NPPs of an enormous range of different types including for large ships and also for individual laser systems on trucks and engines for cruise missiles... operational testing platform for NPPs and for EMALs perhaps... why not?

Why should they occupy a drydock for that when they could use it to build a new nuclear carrier and keep kuz for training or secondary carrier in the form that will be from the end of current overhaul?

If their new destroyers are going to be 20K ton they are going to need quite a number of new dry docks anyway... whether they are in shipyards or are floating dry docks... how about starting by building some of those... they don't all need to hold 80K tons... they could have some 50K ton ones too for two destroyers at a time... it could have a destroyer and a Kirov...

Next overhaul in 8/10 years could be only to keep it operative and update electronics, etc without spending too much in an old hull

If they are going to continue to not spend money on it, it will end up being a training carrier of no practical use... so why not turn it into a testing carrier for testing new technologies and new aircraft and new systems...

I agree with using Kuz instead as test bed for electromagnetic catapult systems.
The additional energy requirements could be provided by a dedicated aero gas turbine derivative generator

It would have a real effect on the performance of the carrier to be able to operate heavier aircraft or existing aircraft at max weights... or even UAVs that would normally struggle to get airborne because they were designed for long land based runways... with low thrust propulsion for very long range low speed cruise having a cat means no rocket boosters needed or anything exotic or single use...

Okay again did I ever say it was impossible? I said the way your describing wouldn't work but it could be done.

So then you are saying it would work but shouldn't be done then surely?

They did look into turning the Kuz into a nuclear power carrier but that was dropped when they found how expensive and complex the process would be. I also never denied the Russians looked into it now did I? no I did not.

But they looked at changing it from existing propulsion to the same thing but with a NPP providing the energy, which is not what I am suggesting.

I think my conversion of a car to an electric car example shows it best.

I appreciate it wont be easy... the chassis on a standard car supports the axles so when you remove the axles you need to find some way of attaching the wheels with their built in motors so they fit in the wheel arches but are attached to the car chassis.

Of course a bonus is that if you mount them like the front wheel of a bicycle then you could turn the wheels... all of them 360 degrees... parking made easy and likely at the push of a button... but then they already have that, but this way you could get into parking spaces only slightly bigger than your cars length and get out just as easily and quickly...

If you want to be manipulative with words do not reply to me alright, it's that simple. Also, I am very clear on what I say, don't start insulting me because I called you out.

Well you are obviously wrong, if you were clear there would be no problem. Call me out any time you like, if you don't I have no idea what you are thinking or meaning most of the time, but make it informative instead of insulting like I am at the moment with you.

Twisting my words to fit your narrative, grow up.

You call it twisting your words, but the way you are stating your opinions is what I am repeating back to you... it is how I am currently interpreting what you say... by all means if I am wrong then go ahead and tell me so I can understand WTF you were trying to say, but don't bullshit me about twisting your words.

It is a very normal test of logic to take what someone says and put it in a different context to check its logic.

The obvious example would be that American official... called Crapper or Clapper or something that said Russians are genetically disposed to be bad.

A good test for the logic of this statement would be to reverse it... Americans are genetically disposed to be bad... so all I then have to do is find one American that is not bad and the logic is false... but you are complaining that I am putting words in his mouth that he didn't say... first of all it is a logic test... I am disagreeing with him because he clearly hates all Russians, not because of this little logic test I am using to see if what he says makes any sense logically.

But whatever... go tell teacher... I might even get a cut in my allowance...

Putting multiple mini NPPs will compromise the damage control.

Will increase redundancy... besides they have a policy of putting more than one NPP on their subs so having more than one is not just normal it is likely.

If there's flooding, fire, &/ explosion in any of those compartments, NPPs & their wiring/piping there may be taken out & affect the power to other vital compartments & systems.

Would expect most of the NPPs to have auto shut down controls, and a fire is unlikely to be a problem for a NPP that would have a core operating at rather higher temperatures anyway...

They could simply rig all the sealed compartments around the NPP with nitrogen tanks and suffocate any fire that might be present.

For testing EMALS, it can be done on a special converted barge or old ship. They could also choose a site on shore with strong winds & build a test facility on it for a lot le$$.

Or they could learn to install one on a real ship and learn the problems and advantages of operating real aircraft in real conditions with them...

There's a reason the USN didn't put it on an old CV 1st; instead they now have the USS Ford that they hope will test & use it.

It is not working yet which makes it an aircraft transport barge... Zumwalt has also been criticised for trying to introduce too many new technologies at once, making problem solving vastly more difficult because is the system working normally but the problems are created by the things around it not working properly etc etc.

It is not working yet which makes it an aircraft transport barge...

NP self-propelled & the most expensive in the world! It could also be used as an LHA & command ship. But, in ur opinion, reversing the argument, is it worth it to replace faulty EMALS (if they r found to be as such) on it with steam catapults?
Do u want Russia wasting $Ms+ time & potentially scrapping/damaging the Adm K. before its time?

1) No CV will pass via Bosporus . Besides there is no need for CV in Black Sea
 It's TAKR, not CV. Kiev & Adm. K left the Black Sea before.
2) Why would you assume Kuz is gonna break? You might not be up to date - Kuz is in refurbishing to extend life for 20 years. Power plant && gears inclusive
Better be safe than sorry. Russians r known to do sloppy work/maintenance more often than not.