Despite appearances, Japan insists Izumo is not an aircraft carrier

The Asahi Shimbun, Japan ^ | January 07, 2014 | KUNIICHI TANIDA

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Vince Ferrer]

And the Liaoning is a floating casino.

[Talisker]

LOL...

[JoeProBono]

[Talisker]

I wonder if the Izumo's "helicopters" are going to look anything like these... after all, VTOL, HELO, at this point, what difference does it make?

Although I must say, for the record, I think Japan should arm itself to the teeth, given that it has such a friendly neighbor and all.

[tcrlaf]

“is simply a destroyer capable of carrying helicopters.”

Hmmmm.......

[Talisker]

I’m gonna ask the NSA for the records of where you get all your great images so fast. You’ve been ahead of the curve for years! : )

[null and void]

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, it’s a swan...

[JoeProBono]

[Talisker]

LOL!

[GeronL]

helicopters are aircraft too

so are F-35’s

That big ship with a flat top, wink wink, not an aircraft carrier, nudge nudge

[DakotaGator]

IIRC since WWII Japan limits itself by through Article 9 of its Constitution to having only defensive capabilities. For its navy, the JMSDF, Japan maintains that its warships be no greater than destroyers because of their antisubmarine nature, a defensive function.. So every large warship of the JMSDF is designated a destroyer whether it looks like a cruiser, a helicopter carrier, or whatever.

Think of it as Japan's naval equivalent of the Meiji Restoration abolished samurai carrying their outlawed swords as canes.

[catbertz]

It looks like the perfect size for a drone carrier to my untrained eye. Build a quick ramp, and pack it full of drones armed to the teeth. Small, fast and cheap. I’ll take twenty of those please.

[JoeProBono]

[catbertz]

I can hear that song from apocalypse now in the background.

[catbertz]

And I’m dreaming of the fighter drone variety, even though I know they’re almost as big as a regular fighter.

[staytrue]

I don’t think this thing can handle aircraft.

The F35 is a vertical landing but not a vertical take off plane.

When taking off for a mission, the f35 is loaded with fuel and weapons and needs at least a little bit of runway. Plus taking off is harder than landing much as jumping off a 3 foot ledge is easier than jumping up to a 3 foot ledge power wise.

The f35 can vertically land and take off, but take off can only be done with very limited fuel and armament package with very little military potential.

[Cheapskate]

In the words of Austin Powers “That’s a man baby!”

[fella]

I wonder how hard it would be to put a cantilever deck and some catapults on that destroyer.