The words 'problem' and 'issue' are often interchangeably used even though they have different contexts. So am trying to be fair. There are no problems with the jump deck method to launch airplanes. However, there are major
ISSUES that translates to tactical limitations.
Airplanes needs aerodynamic forces over their flight controls surfaces to take flight, we all know that. Ideally, the airplane would stand still and let wind speed of a couple hundreds km/h lift them off the ground and this would make zero runway length, but this ideal situation could never happen unless God intervenes.
So we use the next best method: propulsion + runway. Propulsion move the airplane down the runway which would create those required aerodynamic forces over its flight controls surfaces. Now comes the tricky parts. The quicker the airplane gain speed, the shorter the runway used, which mean the sooner it is airborne.
The first issue is weight, specifically additional weight like pilot(s) and other stuff. We call them 'load'. The greater the load, or the higher the weight, the greater the propulsion force and longer runway required.
The second issue is runway length, or that we cannot have unlimited runway, not even on land. Runway requires even terrain. First, we look for real estate that is fairly flat, then we build the runway on top to be flat enough. So even though we can build a flat runway, we still want terrain that are initially flat enough for us to make an airbase. The result is that we cannot have unlimited runway.
Now we combine the two issues together.
A fixed runway length must service multiple types of airplanes. That mean the pilots of these different airplanes must know how to takeoff with different loads within a limited runway length. Usually, most runways are of sufficient length to handle most airplanes. And that all airplanes have sufficient propulsion power to handle different loads. So on land, the 'propulsion + runway' issues are %99.999 no problemo.
But at sea, the 'propulsion + runway' issues are %100 major problemo.
Using the Nimitz class aircraft carrier as reference. The ship is 1,000 ft long but the runway is only 300 ft long. Or 1/3 the ship's deck length.
We can see the four catapults and their runways above. Each catapult launch length is roughly 1/3 of the ship's deck.
Can any fighter takeoff
ON ITS OWN POWER within that 300 ft? Yes, but its load will be so small that the fighter might as well tactically useless. Or not so good in combat. It will have to balance fuel versus weapons in the total takeoff load calculus, meaning more fuel to have range mean less weapons, or more weapons means less fuel. Adding the jump deck give the airplane some additional aerodynamics forces at the end when the airplane leave the deck, but the 'propulsion + runway' issues still affects that fuel vs weapons calculus.
The power of the catapult plus the airplane's own propulsion create those aerodynamics forces in 300 ft similar to that of the land runway of 2,500 ft. This combined power allows any airplane to takeoff with its desired combat load of fuel and weapons. In other words, no compromises. Not only that, the catapult system can recalibrate its launch or 'pull' force to accommodate a greater variety of platforms. The jump deck cannot do that. The weapons load difference between the catapult and jump deck can be as much as %50 for the same airplane.
The US tested the jump deck method and decided to hate it.
This interesting photo shows an F-14A Tomcat taking off from a ramp, raised nine degrees, during "ski-jump" feasibility tests.
theaviationgeekclub.com
The US is committed to the catapult whether it is the tried-and-trued steam powered or the latest electromagnetic method. We are committed because we want our fighters to fight with everything the jets are capable of carrying, and that commitment paid off since WW II. Every country that even
THOUGHT about taking on the US Navy thought again and backed off because they knew they would face the full (not half) wrath of the F-14 or F-18 or A-6. No one can operate the aircraft carrier like we do.
All the chatter from the PDF Chinese camp about how much problems the US have with our EMALS are just childish petty jealousy. The US Navy is the biggest dick on the oceans.
