Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Until now, for what has been made known to the public, India has still to choice whether the IAC 2 will be powered by nuclear reactors or by gas turbines.

Having required IAC 2 to have catapults, a nuclear propulsion should be the only viable option, still they seem to be still arguing about it.

French and US could help but they will ask a lot of money specially for the catapults. British and russian's help for nuclear carrier is questionable as they don't have them but russia will ask far less money.

The Russians have developed their own new generation nuclear power plant for very large ships... versions of it have been put on very large icebreakers.

The Russians are also in a similar position to India in having a blank sheet potential in carrier design, so their input would likely be useful.

And Britain pretty much invented all the serious technologies for carrier operations, including the angled flight deck, the mirror landing system, the catapult (steam), and quite a few other technologies besides... there is still plenty Britain could share with India.

I won't be surprised if new icebreaker construction take precedence & CVNs r farther delayed, if not cancelled. Atomflot "needs 6 more", & they r to be built on the same shipyards.

Ice breakers are useful now, and experience operating those NPPs will be valuable for plans for the future use of them in a carrier.

So has whacking it to russia so much deluded your memory or something?

I bow to your superior wisdom... whacking off or masturbating effects memory.

I guess you need to stop spanking the monkey yourself... the Vikrant class is a gas turbine powered carrier... not a nuclear propelled carrier and the fact that it uses American gas turbines for propulsion suggests India went to American for the propulsion...

Their new CVN... note n for nuclear, they will need a nuclear power plant, for which they could go to France or Russia or the US but they certainly wont be building on their own...

Oh again you ignorant child, not saying Russia cannot make anything just that it will take them a god-awful long time to make such things.

Fanboys I swear annoying no matter which side they are on.

Geez daddy, you sound pretty funny calling me a fanboi child when you don't know the difference between a CVN and CV.

Having required IAC 2 to have catapults, a nuclear propulsion should be the only viable option, still they seem to be still arguing about it.

They have been talking about various electric drives as far as I know which separates the propulsion from the screws, by replacing the gearing and transmission.

Very simply what ever the propulsion system is it is connected to a large electric motor that operates as a dynamo that stores electricity in capacitor banks and battery banks. the electric current can then be diverted to electric motors in pods that propel the vessel and also to systems on board that also need power.

Whether it is a gas turbine or a nuclear power plant they generate power which is used and stored...

Separate capacitor banks for Emals should be suffice for normal operations...

They won't go for US help too. Even the best US allies don't have that much help, it's unlikely they give technology to indian for free and india most of the time wants ToT for little money. Politicaly it is also unlikely they chose US.

French help would be the most logical. They would also buy more naval rafales with that.
DCNS already offers a carrier for export so they are ready to help india.

Russian catapults are just drawnings. But there a article on the net saying they showed the Shtorm to indian officials. Who knows what indian said.

India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_India#Nuclear_power  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Nerpa_(K-152)

The lead SSBN of the class, INS Arihant, was quietly commissioned in October 2016. The Arihant, based on the Russian Project 971 Akula I-class nuclear-powered attack submarine design, primarily serves as a technology demonstrator for the rest of the class and a training platform for future submarine crews.
The Aridhaman will purportedly have a more powerful reactor than the 6,000-ton Arihant and also be slightly bigger. ..
the Indian Navy reportedly still plans to induct the second boat of the Arihant-class by 2019. India intents to build at least three more SSBNs of the class. https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/india-to-launch-2nd-strategic-nuclear-sub-by-end-of-2017/

Extrapolating, they can use 2-4 submarine reactors to power a CVN, like the French carrier Charles de Gaulle with 2 Areva K15 pressurised water reactors (PWR), 150 MWt each, the same type the Triomphant-class submarine uses. So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.
I dare say that India needs CVs/Ns more than Russia, at least now, given her geopolitical situation.

In the future, an integral part of such a connection should be a helicopter-carrying ship with a Marine division and an air group on board. Two such ships are planned to be built within the framework of the State Program of Armaments for 2018-2025. Such a [force], with the corresponding logistics forces and ..submarines, will allow solving the overwhelming part of peacetime tasks, including support for Russia's friendly regimes and their policies, and will ensure the deployment of larger forces if necessary. https://iz.ru/665985/aleksei-kupriianov-ilia-kramnik/vremia-vozvrashchatsia

Notice that future CVNs r not needed, even in the Indian Ocean. As I said before, all things considered, sending a RuN CBG there would do more harm than good. The same goes for other less contested areas.
Now read this:

The US Marine Corps (USMC) is in the final stages of preparation for the first operational shipborne embarkation of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the arrival of an advance detachment of aircraft on USS Wasp (LHD-1) on 5 March.
An undisclosed number of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jets from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VFMA) 121 currently stationed in Japan have been deployed to the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship to undertake final preparations ahead of the unit’s first shipborne deployment.
The squadron will join the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) patrolling the Indo-Pacific region in the coming weeks with the ships of Amphibious Squadron 11 that form the Wasp Amphibious Ready Group. This deployment will mark the beginning of the MEU’s transition over to the F-35B from the McDonnell-Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, which has been in service since the mid-1980s.
Having been the first operator to declare initial operating capability for the F-35, the USMC is leading the way in developing and rolling out the capabilities of the fifth-generation fighter, and VFMA 121 has been at the forefront of the corps’ effort to develop the F-35B’s tactical capabilities.
In December 2015 the USMC undertook Exercise ‘Steel Knight’, which was a live-fire wargame that included the F-35B in integrated air and ground operations in an austere environment. This was done to prepare the 1st Marine Division for deployment as the ground combat element of a Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), and the F-35B performed “exceedingly well”, according to the corps. http://www.janes.com/article/78340/usmc-prepares-for-f-35b-maiden-operational-embarkation

Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!

Oh I didn't see the CV-N part I was in a rush at the time, so I am man enough to admit when I made a mistake. That is rare I do that but hey once and while something gets past you

Anybody can make a mistake, and I respect that you are man enough to accept you made a (minor) mistake.

Having said that I am disappointed at how fast the abuse was unleashed because you thought I was being a pro Russian Fanboi or anti Indian...

That said India will not go to Russia, Russia has ZERO experience building CVN's, they may go to Russia if the US turns them down.

India might actually want to be free to use the technology it incorporates in its new carriers... what happens when Trump gives them the green light and they get US reactors and US EMAL cats and all sorts of flash shit and then India decides to do something that pisses off the Americans and all of a sudden all the support disappears and they have to tie the damn thing up in port because they can't support the vessel on their own and despite likely paying more than top dollar for the tech which they will only ever rent they will never be privy to the secrets or properly trained to fully utilise.

What makes you think the US is the centre of the universe in Carrier design?

I would trust the British more than the yanks... even though they get sanction happy a bit too.

The new large ship reactors the Russians have developed are state of the art... India could do rather worse than look in that direction.

Not that imo they need help they already made a normal carrier, it's not to much harder to make a CVN at that point, unless they want the catapult.

Well the obvious differences between a CV and a CVN with cats is the cats and the nuclear power plant... neither of which India would likely be able to master without an enormous investment of money and time.

With a start date of 2025-2030 I really don't see why they couldn't look to Russia for most of the technology they will be needing.

Certainly a much more reliable partner than the US could ever be.

India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.

Yeah... I use a washing machine... doesn't mean I can make one... except the obvious basic go to stream and find rock...

Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!

Time to get out the popcorn... suffocate or drown...???

So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.

Quite true, though regarding the cats I am pretty sure that while they might want Rafales they will want EMALs cats rather than steam cats... AFAIK France has no EMALS option.

GarryB wrote:

Oh I didn't see the CV-N part I was in a rush at the time, so I am man enough to admit when I made a mistake. That is rare I do that but hey once and while something gets past you

Anybody can make a mistake, and I respect that you are man enough to accept you made a (minor) mistake.

Having said that I am disappointed at how fast the abuse was unleashed because you thought I was being a pro Russian Fanboi or anti Indian...

That said India will not go to Russia, Russia has ZERO experience building CVN's, they may go to Russia if the US turns them down.

India might actually want to be free to use the technology it incorporates in its new carriers... what happens when Trump gives them the green light and they get US reactors and US EMAL cats and all sorts of flash shit and then India decides to do something that pisses off the Americans and all of a sudden all the support disappears and they have to tie the damn thing up in port because they can't support the vessel on their own and despite likely paying more than top dollar for the tech which they will only ever rent they will never be privy to the secrets or properly trained to fully utilise.

What makes you think the US is the centre of the universe in Carrier design?

I would trust the British more than the yanks... even though they get sanction happy a bit too.

The new large ship reactors the Russians have developed are state of the art... India could do rather worse than look in that direction.

Not that imo they need help they already made a normal carrier, it's not to much harder to make a CVN at that point, unless they want the catapult.

Well the obvious differences between a CV and a CVN with cats is the cats and the nuclear power plant... neither of which India would likely be able to master without an enormous investment of money and time.

With a start date of 2025-2030 I really don't see why they couldn't look to Russia for most of the technology they will be needing.

Certainly a much more reliable partner than the US could ever be.

India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.

Yeah... I use a washing machine... doesn't mean I can make one... except the obvious basic go to stream and find rock...

Enough said, I'll be watching for news on that. The Russian Navy will do the same!

Time to get out the popcorn... suffocate or drown...???

So, the French could be asked, but no need to ask either the RF or USA for help on that.

Quite true, though regarding the cats I am pretty sure that while they might want Rafales they will want EMALs cats rather than steam cats... AFAIK France has no EMALS option.

As far as i know, France does not produce steam cats.if I a m not mistaken, the steam cats on their only carrier were provided by the US

India now operates 22 nuclear reactors + 1 leased Russian SSN.
Yeah... I use a washing machine... doesn't mean I can make one... except the obvious basic go to stream and find rock...

Well, they already produced a reactor for Arihant SSBN, so the bigger Aridhaman will likely need a more powerful reactor which isn't an insurmountable problem for India. I meant help from RF & USA on reactors isn't needed, not on CATs. But, IMO, the NP isn't that essential for Indian carriers, even with CAT on them- China may reportedly have them on its CV-18 & -19:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/china-finishing-first-domestic-cv-17.html
build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, a report published on 28 February in the Global Times newspaper suggests.
China signals intent to build CVNs:

The state-owned paper quoted an article posted on the website of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) referring to the country’s need to “speed up the process of making technological breakthroughs in nuclear-powered aircraft carriers”.
The Global Times commented that this was “the first time a state-owned Chinese defence company has openly identified nuclear-powered aircraft carriers on its agenda”.
The newspaper article also referred to a speech made in late 2017 by CSIC Chairman Hu Wenming, in which he stated that China was capable of building “any type of aircraft carrier”.
http://www.janes.com/article/78347/china-signals-intent-to-build-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carriers

reading between the lines, they r not ready for them yet (hence the next 2 CVs), but at least they r becoming more transparent!

Quite unlikely, if the public data are true.

The nuclear reactor installed on Arihant is capable of just 73 MW of thermal output.

That means a far far lower actual power output either for mechanical or electrical power.

To make a long story short, India would need at very least to install four indigenous reactors in a 65.000 tons carrier to provide enough power generation capability, in turn escalating dramatically maintenance costs.

It is just Math, and as such it is inescapable: India will have to choose whether to spend ridiculously large sums of money just to power its allegedly indigenously designed CVN with a plethora of indian nuclear reactors, or to save ridiculously huge sums of money employing just a couple of state of the art modern NPP, being there from Russia, France or USA, and making it actually working.

And the beauty of Math is, it kills (in the literal term) always and again whoever dares to defy her.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

As far as i know, France does not produce steam cats.if I a m not mistaken, the steam cats on their only carrier were provided by the US

That's right: the Charles de Gaulle's catapults are merely a shortened version of the same catapults employed by the Nimitz class CVNs.

Peŕrier wrote:
To make a long story short, India would need at very least to install four indigenous reactors in a 65.000 tons carrier to provide enough power generation capability, in turn escalating dramatically maintenance costs.
And the beauty of Math is, it kills (in the literal term) always and again whoever dares to defy her.

Using the same math, if they choose to build a smaller CVN that is = to Charles de Gaulle size, only 2, max 3 reactors, the same 1s powering future Aridhaman class will be needed. Alternately, with only 1-2 EM catapult & a skirump, less power will be needed even on a bigger CVN. The Indians will try to produce their own naval reactors before importing them.

Yes, using the very same math they could just adopt Rafale and build a Charles de Gaulle like carrier, i.e. the smallest carrier available able to employ rhe Rafale.

Anything just a little larger and heavier than Rafale would need a larger carrier.

And that is just the problem of the french: they would like to build a second carrier, but because they would like to have a larger and more flexible one than the present Charles de Gaulle, either they step up the nuclear power plants available to them, increasing management costs, or they give up nuclear propulsion and in turn steam catapults, losing any chance to employ naval Rafale.

Can u clarify, since there r conflicting opinions, how the French economy compares to Russia's? Pl. include references. I found that France's budget/revenue is 3x bigger:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia/Economy

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia/Economy/Budget

If PRC could develop EM catapults for her future CVs, I don't see why France or Russia can't do the same- then NP isn't crucial, whatever their size! The same goes for the steam option- together, the US, UK, India & France had them on dozens of conventional powered CVs long before building CVNs.

We were talking about a future indian carrier, weren't we?

Whoever talked of french, russian or klingon economy? I mean whoever but you.

India simply enough does not have powerful enough NPP to power a 65.000 tons carrier resorting to just two reactors for a single hull, neither has France up to now.

If u bothered to look back, others replied on French Vs RF economy. Regardless, the INS Vishal project has:

Propulsion: Integrated electric propulsion System(IEPS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal
.. gas turbines or diesel generators or both generate three-phase electricity which is then used to power electric motors turning either propellers or waterjet impellors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion

New Delhi, Oct 27: India’s second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which is under development, will not be nuclear-powered as country’s premier nuclear institution, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has said that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor capable enough to propel the 65,000-70,000 tonne vessel. ..An Integrated Electric Propulsion System (IEPS) will replace nuclear reactor in the original plan. The gas turbine-based drive generators will produce electricity, which will rotate motors to give power to the propellers.In a nuclear-powered vessel, the electricity is generated by generators that are run by steam produced by the nuclear reactor.
INS Vishal will have a capacity to house 55 aircraft and will also have the “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) to catapult aircraft off the carrier.
http://www.india.com/news/india/ins-vishal-not-be-nuclear-powered-as-barc-says-15-years-will-be-needed-to-develop-reactor-2571054/

Make sense to me! It'll also be cheaper & won't require nuclear refueling, extra infrastructure & personnel. The Russians may do the same for their CVs. NP icebreakers r different- they need extra power & endurance at sea. Investing in them makes more bang for the buck on the NSR!

You are right, I do not bother at all.

I write about my opinions, and I rebut others' opinions when and if I deem worthy to do so.

I don't care about any possible comparation between russian, nigerian and punics economies when speaking of future indian carriers, sorry.

But I'm talking about the future Russian a/c carriers here, as this thread is intended for, & the other countries' carrier projects (& the economies needed to sustain them) being mentioned by me r purely for comparison purposes. Go to Indian Navy threads to discuss Indian a/c carriers only!
https://www.russiadefence.net/t2068-ins-vikramaditya-ex-admiral-gorshkov-aircraft-carrier
https://www.russiadefence.net/t4856-ins-vikrant-future-indian-aircraft-carriers
Pl. refrain from making derogatory/offending comments, direct/implied character assassinations & lecturing me on any topics here again, as everything u wrote so far had nothing I (& 99% of other members) don't know already. So, leave ur stinky French attitude outside before entering. Thanks in advance!

From what i can see.
STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.
The only real benefit i can see here is more job opportunities opening up.

Anyway, nothings for sure yet.

Also India isn't going to buy a ship that only exists on paper, Russia needs to make at least one Shtorm to convince India, and we all know that ain't gonna happen.
And honestly, IMO i don't expect any real carrier to be built till 2050.

AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.

That's why so many fleets have them Place on ship is pretty scarce, tell me how capable were Su-25 and Su-24 used in Syria? but they did the jobs int it? Rafale and F-18 speed equals the one of F-35B. Payload? have you seen any of carrie based fighter with all nodes with ordnance? me neither

BTW combat radius of F-18 super hornet is 390 miles...F-35B 505 miles


https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.




Of course catapults cost billions and in case of 1 max 2 installations makes no sense whatsoever. Yes time will tell. If you look on the real world outside forum you'll see drones, transport goes vertical or at least STOL. Guess why



Of course US Marines, Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and soon Japanese Navy know nothing about how poor are VSTOL damn they should have read thsi forum and expert's opinion perhaps?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.

That's why so many fleets have them  Place on ship is pretty scarce, tell me how capable were Su-25 and Su-24 used in Syria? but they did the jobs int it?  Rafale and F-18 speed equals the one of F-35B. Payload? have you seen any of carrie based fighter with all nodes with ordnance? me neither

BTW combat radius of F-18 super hornet is 390 miles...F-35B 505 miles


https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.




Of course catapults cost billions and in case of 1 max 2  installations makes no sense whatsoever. Yes time will tell. If you look on the real world outside forum you'll see drones, transport goes vertical or at least STOL. Guess why  



Of course US Marines, Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and soon Japanese Navy know nothing about how poor are VSTOL damn they should have read thsi forum and expert's opinion perhaps?

The broken english makes this hard to read, but i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
And the carriers are already in service.

Yes, F-18 fully loaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL2YkGxzA-M
And, Su-33 fully loaded Air to Air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Dmhzu0mMg

As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.

Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.

Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.
And marines aren't the navy.

AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
And the carriers are already in service.

so countries with 10x smaller budget can afford for normal more expensive carriers? BTW I mentioned F-35B just because of your opinion thas STOL is waste of money.

AlfaT8 wrote:
As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.

1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

F-35B:                   833km
F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
Su-33: ?
Rafale: ?

Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

We both know F-35B can have option to go stealth and neither F-18 nor Su-33 cannot. So they must be invisible right? Or maybe you dont know?

Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.

Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.

Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.

Russian navy can spend 13 billions  USD on first and only like 8 on second CV? +1 billion on EM catapult?  
Russian CVs are not built  not to fight US Navy.  Then for what precisely are to be built for, can you clarify ? Colonial wars like Syria? Or pirates in Somalia?

And marines aren't the navy.

According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
And the carriers are already in service.

so countries with 10x smaller budget can afford for normal more expensive carriers? BTW I mentioned F-35B just because of your opinion thas STOL is waste of money.

Yes, but these carriers aren't gonna be 100kT super-carriers.
Yes it is a waste of money, for Russia, since they need to develop not only a new carrier, but also new aircraft for it and new part/equipment to maintain it.
While they can just make the new carrier and use already developed and matured aircraft.

AlfaT8 wrote:
As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.

1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

F-35B:                   833km
F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
Su-33: ?
Rafale: ?

Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

Is it stealth radius or non-stealth radius, that is the question.
Also it's 933km not 833km.

Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

We both know F-35B can have option to go stealth and neither F-18 nor Su-33 cannot. So they must be invisible right? Or maybe you dont know?

With it's limited internal load, what it can actually do remains to be seen.
As for Stealth, also remains to be seen.

Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.

Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.

1) U.S manufactures love their high prices.
2) Long term, it wont cost as much.

Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.

Russian navy can spend 13 billions  USD on first and only like 8 on second CV? +1 billion on EM catapult?  
Russian CVs are not built  not to fight US Navy.  Then for what precisely are to be built for, can you clarify ? Colonial wars like Syria? Or pirates in Somalia?

Only fools spend so much, Russia isn't the U.S.
To protect Russian Navy from hostile aircraft, and carry lots of long range missiles, plus AWACS.

And marines aren't the navy.

According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!

Right now, they are barely a Navy.

___

The biggest problem with steam cats is the amount of fresh water they need to operate properly...

Another problem is that once they are set that is their setting... so if the person setting it up gets it wrong then the aircraft will either get its undercarriage pulled off or it will land in the water...

It also generates an enormous IR signature during operations, and of course potentially causes problems in cold climates where the steam can freeze.

In comparison, an EM cat does use a lot of power, but can give a smart boost that can be adjusted during a launch to prevent problems.

Rather less IR signature, should be fine with design from the start allowing for cold weather operations.

The technology involved includes useful stuff that can be applied to all sorts of EM weapons and equipment... an EM cat on the moon could be used to cheaply return material back to earth for instance because there is no atmosphere there... so even a gun horizontal along the ground can be used to accelerate things to escape velocity and it will leave the moon and be sent to earth or out into space...

The presence of a cat system means heavier aircraft like AWACS aircraft can be deployed more easily and on smaller vessels if necessary.

F-35B:                   833km
F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
Su-33: ?
Rafale: ?

Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

What sort of state are we talking about... what weapon payload, what flight profile, what is the bring back performance, are they going to have supersonic dashes or strictly all subsonic?

From the economics angle, if France's 3x larger than Russia's & still at a loss of what/when 2nd CV/N to build, how can the latter build just 1, much less 2 or 3, CVNs?  Putin is not Stalin to force his country "to eat grass" but have 2-3 CVNs & all that goes with them! To defend it & its interests abroad, they r not essential. NATO, Japan, Israel & PRC can be deterred with nukes & the latest non-nukes; insurgents in ME, Afghanistan, C. Asia, Africa, & L. America can be dealt with by land based aircraft, ship based helicopters, STOVLs & A/SLCMs. Adm. K & its aiwing didn't make much of a dent in Syria, despite of what Russian propaganda may have implied.