Turning the ISD II into a super carrier

[Stormbringer]

Ktisune, in many ways the Lexington and Saratoga are the exceptions that prove the rule. They were not really conversions but rather redesigns of partially completed ships. That's why they were effective carriers, they were designed as such.

I don't know of an instance in which a rebuild of an existing ship has produced an effective ship. And the Japanese conversions in particular were terribly ships, they were compromised in nearly every important way.

[Darth Wong]

(to be honest, I've never entirely understood why spacecraft are assumed to be more analogous to sea vessels than land vehicles)

I think it is the 'pounding the beach' mentality, to be honest. Spacecraft have to carry troops, protect a task force, carry planes and landing gear, I don't see how they can be anything but ship analogous ... although I would be highly interested in hearing some reasons to the contrary.

EDIT :: Changed counter to contrary.

Aircraft can also support troops, carry men and material and even vehicles to the war zone, etc.

[Kitsune]

Ktisune, in many ways the Lexington and Saratoga are the exceptions that prove the rule. They were not really conversions but rather redesigns of partially completed ships. That's why they were effective carriers, they were designed as such.

I don't know of an instance in which a rebuild of an existing ship has produced an effective ship. And the Japanese conversions in particular were terribly ships, they were compromised in nearly every important way.

The Japanese had problems with not understanding the explosive and fire potenial of Petrol. The US had more open hangers and better damage control. Otherwise, the Akagi, Kaga, and Shinano are all considered pretty good ships. Please note that i am refering to the rebuilt Akagi and Kaga, not their original carrier configurations. Some of their purpose built carriers were not all that good either. Compare to the Akagi and Kaga against Taiho for abilities and size. The Taiho would have been slightly better but not by a huge margin. The Taiho is considered by at least some to be their best design. Also, compare the Shinano against the US Midway class and the sates on the Japanese carriers are surprisingly close.

[Stormbringer]

The Japanese had problems with not understanding the explosive and fire potenial of Petrol. The US had more open hangers and better damage control.

The former is a matter of the navy involved, I agree. But the latter was also good design and planning as well.

Otherwise, the Akagi, Kaga, and Shinano are all considered pretty good ships. Please note that i am refering to the rebuilt Akagi and Kaga, not their original carrier configurations.

True. But you can't really discount the fact that they were mediocre carriers at best prior to their second rebuild. The fact that it took tries to produce an acceptable carrier isn't a recommendation for the whole business. And even afterwards the Akagi and Kaga were not the best carrier out there, Lex and Sara were both better ships.

Some of their purpose built carriers were not all that good either. Compare to the Akagi and Kaga against Taiho for abilities and size. The Taiho would have been slightly better but not by a huge margin. The Taiho is considered by at least some to be their best design.

After their second rebuild they were indeed servicable ships. However they were supposedly a bitch for operations and weren't the easiest ships to fly on or off either. Not to mention some stability and habitability issue.

Also, compare the Shinano against the US Midway class and the sates on the Japanese carriers are surprisingly close.

True. But I've seen more than a few people suggest that what ever the theoretical stats, in practice she never would be able to effectively deliver them.