Lockheed, Pentagon reach $4 billion deal for more F-35 jets

[SvenSvensonov]

Helicopter destroyers do not have the necessary flight deck that can support VTOL planes.

Neither did the USS Wasp (LHD-1) prior to having its flight deck reinforced to withstand the rigors of a VTOL launch, the Izumo Cass and the small Hyuga Class can undergo the same modifications as the Wasp. Japan's helicopter destroyers are the same in their role as the US Navy's new American Class LHAs and if those have been designed with reinforced flight decks then so too could the Izumo have been, and if not it can be done at a later date.

 

[Superboy]

Hey, Japan can build ICBMs and nukes for all I care. The UN is a nobody these days Power comes from the barrel of a gun - Mao Tse Dong.

 

[Aepsilons]

Times are changing and so too is the Japanese Constitution. @Nihonjin1051 could better explain the new changes than I could, but I would venture a guess that the Japanese Constitution no longer forbids the use of fixed-wing aircraft from ships, just building ships called aircraft carriers. So long as they label their ships "Helicopter destroyer" or build them as LPH or LPD designations they can skirt their own constitutional restrictions.

This is a "Helicopter destroyer".

 

[Oldman1]

Helicopter destroyers do not have the necessary flight deck that can support VTOL planes.

How so? Looks like something an F35 can takeoff from.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Hey, Japan can build ICBMs and nukes for all I care. The UN is a nobody these days Power comes from the barrel of a gun - Mao Tse Dong.

Technically Japan has both nukes and ICBMs, they are a nuclear latent nation which means that they have the means, but not the will to build such weapons. The Epsilon rocket used for satellite launching by Japan can be converted into a ballistic missile in a similar way old ballistic missiles (such as the US Redstone) are converted into space launch vehicles. As for nuclear weapons, Japan has the capability to build them if necessary.

How so? Looks like something an F35 can takeoff from.

Remember that while the F-35 can take off from such a vessel, doing so safely and without damage to the vessel is a different story. Older US vessels such as the Iwo Jima Class and old Wasp Classes lacked the necessary reinforcements and damage-proofing to withstand the rigors of a VTOL launch. Not an issue for Japan or the US as we can modify our vessels.

 

[Oldman1]

Technically Japan has both nukes and ICBMs, they are a nuclear latent nation which means that they have the means, but not the will to build such weapons. The Epsilon rocket used for satellite launching by Japan can be converted into a ballistic missile in a similar way old ballistic missiles (such as the US Redstone) are converted into space launch vehicles. As for nuclear weapons, Japan has the capability to build them if necessary.



Remember that while the F-35 can take off from such a vessel, doing so safely and without damage to the vessel is a different story. Older US vessels such as the Iwo Jima Class and old Wasp Classes lacked the necessary reinforcements and damage-proofing to withstand the rigors of a VTOL launch. Not an issue for Japan or the US as we can modify our vessels.

Don't know much about Japan's helicopter destroyers and what they did to it, but is it possible that they already made their ship capable of carrying such aircraft besides helos for the future?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Don't know much about Japan's helicopter destroyers and what they did to it, but is it possible that they already made their ship capable of carrying such aircraft besides helos for the future?

From the ground up the Izumo-class was designed with the intention of launching the F-35 and V-22, both are air-frames that put out a lot of heat and can damage an unguarded flight deck. The Hyuga class would require modifications though. Also the US America class is undergoing modification due to an unexpectedly large heat output from the V-22.

 

[libertad]

People said the same thing about the development of the M1 Abrams in the late seventies and early eighties but look at it now. One of the best tanks in the world with an amazing combat record.

I remember "60 Minutes" trashing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as a death trap that wouldn't last long on a battlefield.

We have only fought insurgencies post WW2 so none of our equipment since has really been tested. But hey...the MIC is always willing to take our $$ and build stuff we can gawk at.

 

[Oldman1]

We have only fought insurgencies post WW2 so none of our equipment since has really been tested. But hey...the MIC is always willing to take our $$ and build stuff we can gawk at.

We fought conventional wars post WW2 multiple times besides insurgencies. Don't know where you got that idea from.

 

[A.M.]

what a beautiful looking plane.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

We have only fought insurgencies post WW2 so none of our equipment since has really been tested. But hey...the MIC is always willing to take our $$ and build stuff we can gawk at.

I guess every weapon system on this planet is untested since I guess there have been no "real" wars since WW2.

 

[Superboy]

I guess every weapon system on this planet is untested since I guess there have been no "real" wars since WW2.

Ukraine has a pretty big war.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Ukraine has a pretty big war.

Yes, the Buk anti-aircraft missile works fine.

 

[Superboy]

Yes, the Buk anti-aircraft missile works fine.

F-16 were shot down over Serbia by 1960s SA-6. F-35 could be shot down by Buk M2 / M3 and SA-22 Greyhound which Syria has and which have phased array radars.

 

[libertad]

We fought conventional wars post WW2 multiple times besides insurgencies. Don't know where you got that idea from.

Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Kosovo? Afghanistan? None of these countries had an airforce or navy. There was no challenge there.. We could have dusted off WW2 aircrafts and still won the air, and naval battles.