I've heard it said that Izumo can't handle F-35Bs but

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.

File: 336887.jpg (659KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1920x1200px

>>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?

File: 1441741141357.jpg (976KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 3000x2400px

>>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

File: BELIZE_90_23.jpg (449KB, 1794x1175px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1794x1175px

>>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.

File: 1440438292831.jpg (215KB, 1500x988px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1500x988px

>>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.