I've heard it said that Izumo can't handle F-35Bs but could they use a STOVL drone if one were to be made for carrier operations?
They could in theory operate both.
They will not operate the former.
There's a question about muh melting deck with F35B, they'd suffer limitations because no >ramp and likely dozens of support/maintenance issues that would need to be addressed first.
And yeah, there's a good number of fixed wing drones that can be launched on the back of DDs and FGs.
>>29469015
When you look at it, them japanese destroyer isn't that much smaller than nimitz class (and it's a conventional CODAG propulsion instead of a nuclear ones)
Is this the biggest flat top ship outside of the nimitz class?
>>29469192
QE-class will be 100 feet longer once it launches.
>>29469192
Charles de Gaulle is also significantly bigger, not just longer but beamier with more room to park and move aircraft.
The picture there is a little deceptive; Izumo is only about 5% longer than the angled flight deck of Nimitz and not a lot wider.
>>29469192
It's the tonnage and the bulk of the ship which is different
But yea, the US massively overpays for their fleet carriers
>>29469035
No.
You need a specialized deck to be able to withstand the temperature of STVOL jets.
>>29469727
no you don't
>>29469741
Yes you do.
>>29469741
You need a special coating. Its not hard though, the Soviets modified Leningrad for the Yak-38 flight tests.
Its a bit sad that you used to be able to go from a WWII type straight decked carrier to pic related, but now days navies (Japan with their DDHs, and Australia with their LHDs) talk up how difficult it would be to modify a large heli carrier to operate VTOL jets.
Why would one want's to take away Japan's most important ASW assets against potential enemies with large submarine fleets?
>>29469767
>>29469727
>>29469798
HMS Hermes did it just fine without the treated deck.
Maintenance costs decrease over time with the coating and the chance of debris damaging aircraft / aircrew. But by no means is it a requirement, and if you're doing rolling take-off and landing it is a non issue.
also the USMC already showed that asides from paint and increased deck wear, the F35B would not 'melt' the deck like some were worried about.
ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot co.uk/2012/05/does-it-melt-decks-or-not.html
>>29469941
AV-8 and F-35 have different method to go VTOL. Them Harriers use 4 small nozzles to generate lift, while F-35 outright bend the nozzle (real vectoring), so I'd imagine the latter would be harsher to the tarmac compared to the former
>>29469798
If their elevators and hangars are not sized to fit the F-35, then they physically cannot operate it
>>29470073
F35B has a lift fan and wing posts in addition to the engine that produce roughly half the lift.
however these use cool air rather than engine exhaust like the harriers 4 nozzles.
The difference isn't nearly as big as people thought it would be - hence only a minor change to landing spots. Not a completely new deck like some would have you believe.
>>29470073
It's a problem over sustained operations, not individual launches
So maybe they just have to spray water on it to keep its temperature from getting too hot
>>29469941
It might depend on what material they make the deck out of.
>>29469015
Depends on the specifics.
>>29472287
>Depends on the specifics.
Like what sort of aircraft from what sort of ship ?
Maybe the OP gave those specifics you fucking cock womble.
