I heard from a very un-reliable source (youtube) that the Su-33 was unable to take off from the Kuznetsov with a full combat load, because the runway was too short for such a heavy plane... Given that it doesn't use a catapault to take off (and it is rather large for a fighter) , this seemed a distinct possibility but I found out that it was just a myth with a quick browse of google... There were some pictures of the Su-33 on deck loaded with some R-60's, Vympels and fuel tanks... Nevertheless it raises an interesting question... Are there any weight limitations for the Su-33 when operating from a carrier, as opposed to off a runway...
Beware of propaganda - if I was using the Su-33 from my carriers I wouldn't want people thinking it couldn't take off fully loaded. so I'd make sure that there were lots of pictures of fully-armed planes sitting around on deck. Until you actually see a picture (or video) of the plane taking off with a full load, remain sceptical. That being said, youtube has all the caveats that apply to Wikipedia, but more so. I have no useful information for you on this topic, I'm just reminding you to be a sceptic!
Yes, the though crossed my mind that they might be wooden repilcas!! But unfortunately I wouldn't be able to spot the difference if they were But in a balance of probabilties, even the Russian navy is more reliable than youtube (just slightly)
There are weight limits for many aircraft during carrier operations - mainly for landing though. F-14 could not land back on a carrier with a full load of 6 Phoenix - hence why they usually carried only 4 and a pair Sparrows. With all 6 Phoenix on board the landing speed was too high for the arrestor wires and the sink rate would have possibly damaged the undercarriage. A-7 among others couldn't land on a carrier with a full load of bombs (although, like F-14) it could take off with that load.
Caught something on one of the new(er) US carriers (Ronald Reagan I think) where an advantage for over previous carriers was that aircraft landing on it didn't have to jettison any unused ordinance. I took this to imply that on any other carrier, that weight would prevent the plane from landing safely probably from breaking a cable. (which on the Reagan would be bad since she only has three cables compared to conventional four) That and wouldn't it reduce the risk of an explosion in the event of a crash if there were no explosives (internal fuel tanks and other aircraft with full tanks aside) being brought in?
Not so much explosives, since bombs etc. have to travel a certain distance before becoming armed - (and it's relatively hard to set off explosives from a crash), as the fuel in missiles - unfortunately missiles (Phoenix especially) are considerably more expensive than bombs - which was why F-14 only used four at a time from carriers.
Harder, but not impossible even with modern electronics if one really wanted to (don't ask) Us safety officer blew himself to bits with a dud LAW round (varient used for live-fire exercises that uses a smaller warhead) When he used it as a hammer it set of the pizoelectric detonator. But yeah, bombs would be harder to set off
