How easily could a helicopter carrier be converted into a fixed-wing

>>33295209
>by buying F35s

>>33295209
You'd have to re-enforce the deck for jets and repeated carrier ops, but aside from that not much.

So to answer the unasked question yes Japan could make their carriers fixed wing capable, it would cost a few billion but they can do it.

>>33295209
>helicopter carrier
Pic unrelated, right? Because these two are clearly harmless (helicopter) destroyers

File: F35B USS Wasp.jpg (525KB, 2880x1920px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 2880x1920px

>>33295209
1) Reinforce the flight deck and insulate areas underneath flight deck to cope with the additional heat. Possibly other changes to support jet ops vs rotory ops.

2) Acquire a STOVL fighter. In Japan's case the F-35B.

>>33295209
Add an electromagnetic catapult. Done. F-35s for days.

File: NO GO NO GO GO AROUND GO AROUND.jpg (293KB, 799x3524px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 799x3524px

>>33295393
>NO STEP

>>33295209
Fly small planes like the Hawk or that Korean bird. With rocket assist, might not even need catapults or ramps. Done.

>>33295209
It would probably be easier just getting F-35B's.

>>33295209

A generalist answer to a generalist question won't give you a good answer.

It really depends on the actual aircraft carrier and if you are fitting catapults and what technology they use(steam or electric) which all come with their own massive issues of having to fit catapults and their support systems like steam piping and oil fires, although this wouldn't be recommend if you are doing a conversion.

Beyond what has already been said about flight deck and insulate areas underneath flight deck, there's still also the requirements for a new traffic control system (new deck lighting / radar / software), in addition extra bunkerage for crew, stores and extended armoured shelters for munitions, maintance bays... the list goes on there's loads of things that would require modifications, but that would depend on the ship itself.

Carrier operations are complex. Really, really complex. Lots of things interworking with each other.

That imagine is a photoshop by the way.

>>33295752
*image

File: China-CV-16-Liaoning-aircraft-carrier-pla-navy-J-15-flying-shark-takeoff-2-933x432.jpg (137KB, 933x432px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 933x432px

>>33295752
How complex can it really be if China's already getting the hang of it?

Are other navies embarrassed to have ramps for flight decks?

>>33295863

Because they've been putting time and effort into it.

We're yet to see how effective they are under a combat op.

>>33295910

If this is a serious question, why would they be embarrassed?

>>33295209
Japan already has all the parts needed to convert them into a fixed-wing carried. They are secretly stored.

Just like they did before, when they built light cruisers only on the name but had already stored heavy cruiser's turrets and other parts needed.

>>33295863
>How complex can it really be if China's already getting the hang of it?

China is not exactly Zimbabwe-tier, anon. A lot has changed in the past 30 years.

>>33296225

Ramps are objectively inferior to flat decks.

>>33295863
Because the US and Britain have actual war time experience with using them and continuous usage since. One reason Russia never went carrier crazy is needs. China is trying to work out the bugs for carrier ops because of their long term needs/plans. Carrier ops are complicated.

>>33296425

They're not objectively inferior. They offer different capabilities which their own advantages and disadvantages.

Things aren't as simplistic as you believe.

>>33296954
>which
*with

>>33296954

The advantages they offer over flat-tops do not exist. The disadvantages are numerous. They are objectively inferior.

Let me guess - you're British.

>>33296793
'vince... no wait 'lusty... no wait Ark...
Yeah there is a bit of an issue operational readiness.

One day we'll have...

F.35 when ?

Structurally you would need amjor rework for cats and arresting gear. you wild also be limited on space and length, probably wouldn't work for any non vstol a/c used in the last 30 years. Brazil still uses A-4's so they would still work but you have to have cat slings. Our Wasp class carries are only about 840 ft in length, the Foch (French) was sold to Brazil and is now the Sao Paoulo is about 860 ft long. <- AO1(AW) 6 yrs on CVN 69

>>33295229

you can't even greentext you newfaggot omfg

>>33295239
>it would cost a few billion but they can do it.
Why not just buy a new carrier at that point?

>>33297831
Time if I had to guess.

It takes a lot less time (assuming the team isnt retarded) to convert and upgrade existing assets than it does to build new ones.

I'm talking 10-15 years vs 3-5 in dry dock.

>>33297487
>Says the guy with reddit spacing
>says same guy who took a F35 answer seriously and not as a meme
Pls return to plebbit

>>33295229
He's not wrong... (if he meant B's)

>>33295293
Underrated post

File: NO STEP.png (450KB, 412x635px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 412x635px

>>33295393
I couldn't help myself.

>>33295910
No, because ramps let you launch harriers at near maximum weight capacity.

>>33300101
So do steam catapults...

>>33297133

No, you are quite wrong on this and advise you to revise your opinion. Don't have such a simplistic view point. What you are saying is exactly the same as calling something the "best gun", it doesn't mean anything.

>>33300138

Actually you'll find they don't/can't launch at full weight and will launch at partial, but will be refueled upto full by a tanker or buddy.