The idea with take off via a ramp is that you follow a semi-ballistic flight profile to reduce drag and improve acceleration. If necessary you sink to near ground/sea level to accelerate in ground effect. As the T/W and wing loading of Harrier and Su-33 are similar at take off I would expect Su-33 to have a somewhat higher lift off speed.When lauching by ramp, Harrier pilots preset the nozzle control lever to 45 degrees but begin the roll with the nozzles aft for maximum acceleration. Whe they reach the ramp the nozzles are rotated to 45 degrees to provide additional lift through the transition to wingborne flight. Aircraft like the SU-33 and Mig-29K do not have rotating nozzles, instead relying on the high thrust levels of their engines at the high angle of attack produced by leaving the ramp. Raw thrust does the job, in effect.
The least best way of getting a jet off the deck of a carrier is a flat deck takeoff roll. As the article above states the Harriers need 750ft of an 800 ft deck and even then it's a struggle at full load. The next best way to get off the deck is the Ramp, because it gets you off the deck and climbing before you have reached flying speed (130+ knots), aircraft leaving the deck after 450ft at around 80 knots (SU-33s too). The best way to leave the deck is by catapult, full load of fuel and ordnance in 300ft at full flying speed (130+ knots). As a full length catapult takes up less deck space than that needed for a ramp takeoff roll and the complexity of a cat is mostly contained in those parts of the cat other than the double slotted cylinder, the costs (manufacturing and maintenance) of a cat remain broadly the same whatever the stroke length (100ft or 300ft for example) then if you are fitting a cat you may as well go the whole hog and fit a full length one. I don't see what advantage can be gained by fitting a short cat to a ramp because the aircraft's own engine can accelerate it up the ramp to the required exit speed without any catapult assistance and with much less complications. Unless you are planning to launch gliders off a ramp there is simply no need for and no advantage to a cat/ramp combination.
A combined ramp with cat that delivers the aircraft at full load at an adequate speed will need less deck real estate than an adequate cat or ramp. The angle reached by the ramp will be somewhat smaller, the cat needs less energy. It is no doubt possible to produce a steam cat for incorporation in the ramp but I think no one has wanted to try it, and quite right too. For the EM cat there is no trouble at all.
Conclusion: The combined cat/ramp saves deck real estate and work respotting, so perhaps in the size of the flight deck crew. It probably also saves costs and weight.
Addition: As for trading height for speed: if you leave the ramp at 80 kts, that's just more than 40 m/sec. That gives you a kinetic energy of more than 800 * mass kgm * m^2 / s^2. If you win a height of 5 meters you win 5 *g * mass, nearly 50 kgm * m^2 / s^2. So the loss of kinetic energy due to the climb due to the ramp is about 5% of the kinetic energy you have at leaving the ramp, a loss of speed of about 2.5%. The time you win for acceleration in the air compensates for that richly.
Last edited: