The longer the takeoff run, the more speed at the exit of the ski jump. This is why there is an extra takeoff point to port further back. It isn't often seen in use in these videos and others but I suspect that is on purpose, as most discussion in th west is based on the merits and otherwise of the forward launch positions. Aircraft using the aft launch point can probably lift off with a larger fuel or ordnance load, though still not as much as with catapult assistance.
The original Soviet plan was to build two Kuznetzovs before switching production to the larger Ulyanovsk class CVN, which was intended to have two steam catapults in the waist position. It is logical to assume that 'cats' would have been retrofitted to the first two ships in the late nineties, and that the existing fleet of SU-33s (and possibly the Mig-29Ks) may well have been designed from the start to have stressed airframes for catapult launching (as they have no nose tow bar they would presumably use the wire bridle method), requiring only to be fitted with the spools for the wire bridles. Otherwise the USSR would have had by the middle of the 90s three CVs unable to cross deck with each other, operating different types of aircraft with different launch methods. All available pictures of the Ulyanovsk design show the ski jump retained at the bow, for launching ready alert fighters presumably, but a closer look at the profile of the bow shows the ski jump not to be integral as in the Kuznetzov design, possibly allowing for the later removal and replacement by another pair of steam catapults.
Knowing where the USSR was heading may give a little insight as to where the PLAN may choose to go also.
The original Soviet plan was to build two Kuznetzovs before switching production to the larger Ulyanovsk class CVN, which was intended to have two steam catapults in the waist position. It is logical to assume that 'cats' would have been retrofitted to the first two ships in the late nineties, and that the existing fleet of SU-33s (and possibly the Mig-29Ks) may well have been designed from the start to have stressed airframes for catapult launching (as they have no nose tow bar they would presumably use the wire bridle method), requiring only to be fitted with the spools for the wire bridles. Otherwise the USSR would have had by the middle of the 90s three CVs unable to cross deck with each other, operating different types of aircraft with different launch methods. All available pictures of the Ulyanovsk design show the ski jump retained at the bow, for launching ready alert fighters presumably, but a closer look at the profile of the bow shows the ski jump not to be integral as in the Kuznetzov design, possibly allowing for the later removal and replacement by another pair of steam catapults.
Knowing where the USSR was heading may give a little insight as to where the PLAN may choose to go also.
