Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
According to Wikipedia.
Changed line(s) 1,4 (click to see context) from:
In RealLife wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a MasterOfNone that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of ''Akagi'' and ''Kaga''. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' in the wake of losses at the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Battle of Midway.]] The naysayers turned out to be right: ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from ''Kaga'' and ''Akagi'' after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far. The sole modern attempt to revive this concept is the Russian "aircraft cruiser" ''Admiral Kuznetsov'', and even that had its antiship missiles removed in a refit.
I should point that it was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers reliable standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to toward the enemy, which seriously negate any standoff they may hope to have. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike was launched in time - having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
I should point that it was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers reliable standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to toward the enemy, which seriously negate any standoff they may hope to have. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike was launched in time - having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
to:
In RealLife wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a MasterOfNone that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of ''Akagi'' and ''Kaga''. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' in the wake of losses at the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Battle of Midway.]] The naysayers turned out to be right: ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941.1942. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from ''Kaga'' and ''Akagi'' after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far. The sole modern attempt to revive this concept is the Russian "aircraft cruiser" ''Admiral Kuznetsov'', and even that had its antiship missiles removed in a refit.
I should point that it It was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers reliable standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill reconnaissance was still flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to toward the enemy, which seriously negate any standoff they may hope to have. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike was launched in time - having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
I should point that it was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers RELIABLE standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to RUN TOWARD THE ENEMY. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike WAS launched in time, having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
to:
I should point that it was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers RELIABLE reliable standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to RUN TOWARD THE ENEMY. toward the enemy, which seriously negate any standoff they may hope to have. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike WAS was launched in time, time - having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
I should point that it was NOT obvious in 1920s - when 8-inch armed carriers were designed - because the capabilities and radius of planes weren't sufficient yet to allow carriers RELIABLE standoff capabilities. Fast carriers were supposed to operate with cruisers/battlecruisers vanguard; the probability of them being dragged in surface action was significant (radars weren't invented yet, and aviation reconnaisance wasstill flawed). Also, carriers were - and still is - dependent on wind directions. They need to run into the wind to safely launch or land planes. And if the wind is from enemy directions, carriers are forced to RUN TOWARD THE ENEMY. In 1920s, when planes were short-legged, launch operations slow and time-consuming, and planes payload could not ensure the destruction of the enemy even if strike WAS launched in time, having heavy guns on carrier was a good way to ensure her survival.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst'', and that was due in no small part to her captain's incompetence. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of actively evading capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
to:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier '''two''' carriers lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst'', and that was due in no small part to her captain's incompetence. incompetence, and the admittedly undersized ''Gambier Bay'' caught by surprise at close range by overwhelming Japanese assault. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of the former's fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of actively evading capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst''. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of actively evading capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
to:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst''.''Scharnhorst'', and that was due in no small part to her captain's incompetence. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of actively evading capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst''. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of active, alert capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
to:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst''. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating the vulnerability of active, alert actively evading capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
In RealLife wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a MasterOfNone that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of ''Akagi'' and ''Kaga''. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' in the wake of losses at the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Battle of Midway.]] The naysayers turned out to be right: ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from ''Kaga'' and ''Akagi'' after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far.
to:
In RealLife wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a MasterOfNone that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of ''Akagi'' and ''Kaga''. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' in the wake of losses at the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Battle of Midway.]] The naysayers turned out to be right: ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from ''Kaga'' and ''Akagi'' after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far.
far. The sole modern attempt to revive this concept is the Russian "aircraft cruiser" ''Admiral Kuznetsov'', and even that had its antiship missiles removed in a refit.
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of ''Prince of Wales'', ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
to:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, carrier. There has been but a grand total of '''one''' carrier lost to surface action, namely ''Glorious'' to the German battlecruisers ''Gneisau'' and ''Scharnhorst''. In all other cases, the advantage has squarely gone to aviation, with the fates of fellow Brits ''Prince of Wales'', Wales'' and ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship the vulnerability of active, alert capital ships - as opposed to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor - to air attack and the Japanese ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers.a competent carrier task force. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of ''Prince of Wales'', ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
to:
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of ''Prince of Wales'', ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.concept.
Perhaps the final point to remember is that, unlike the tried-and-true wet navies of today, the SpaceNavy is entirely uncharted territory. Since nothing of the sort has yet been attempted, much less proven, it's easier to devise hypothetical rules and ships to function within said rules than it is to work within the more rigid limitations of reality.
Perhaps the final point to remember is that, unlike the tried-and-true wet navies of today, the SpaceNavy is entirely uncharted territory. Since nothing of the sort has yet been attempted, much less proven, it's easier to devise hypothetical rules and ships to function within said rules than it is to work within the more rigid limitations of reality.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
In RealLife wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a MasterOfNone that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS ''Lexington'' and ''Saratoga'' had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of ''Akagi'' and ''Kaga''. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' in the wake of losses at the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Battle of Midway.]] The naysayers turned out to be right: ''Ise'' and ''Hyuga'' were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from ''Kaga'' and ''Akagi'' after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far.
[[RealityIsUnrealistic It is worth noting]] that RealLife examples of this trope largely predate RealLife examples of dedicated aircraft carriers. Many early experiments in launching and recovering airplanes from warships involved cruisers and battleships, and the first aircraft carrier to launch a wartime air raid, the British HMS ''Furious'', began life as a battlecruiser and went through [[EarlyInstallmentWeirdness various intermediary designs]] where she retained some of her main battery along with a flight deck. They wouldn't settle on the flush-deck carrier design modern viewers would recognize until the postwar period.
In space, however, this model is less silly than it might appear. A trio of points: First, given how planets move through space and the need for at least rudimentary slingshot orbits, trajectories are actually fairly predictable in time and space, therefore, combat is likely to be very short range, though you could send a bunch of missiles hurtling down this space "lane". Although fightercraft are less useful in a traditional role, they can bring weapons (e.g. missiles) closer, in under the target's point-defense range, and at this point in time we can't conceive of a spacecraft that could take a missile and keep fighting, but if we could take the missile out early, the most it could do could be irradiate the ship, and you ''can'' armor against that. You can actually make an argument for almost any weapon in space, though for kinetics you'd need a propellant that doesn't need outside air, and be willing to live with the fact that you're putting hyper-lethal debris ''somewhere'', especially immediate if you're fighting in near-orbit. Thirdly, DeflectorShields could help mitigate some of the carrier's vulnerabilities, especially if physical ArmorIsUseless such that pure battleships don't have superior durability after all.
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of ''Prince of Wales'', ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
[[RealityIsUnrealistic It is worth noting]] that RealLife examples of this trope largely predate RealLife examples of dedicated aircraft carriers. Many early experiments in launching and recovering airplanes from warships involved cruisers and battleships, and the first aircraft carrier to launch a wartime air raid, the British HMS ''Furious'', began life as a battlecruiser and went through [[EarlyInstallmentWeirdness various intermediary designs]] where she retained some of her main battery along with a flight deck. They wouldn't settle on the flush-deck carrier design modern viewers would recognize until the postwar period.
In space, however, this model is less silly than it might appear. A trio of points: First, given how planets move through space and the need for at least rudimentary slingshot orbits, trajectories are actually fairly predictable in time and space, therefore, combat is likely to be very short range, though you could send a bunch of missiles hurtling down this space "lane". Although fightercraft are less useful in a traditional role, they can bring weapons (e.g. missiles) closer, in under the target's point-defense range, and at this point in time we can't conceive of a spacecraft that could take a missile and keep fighting, but if we could take the missile out early, the most it could do could be irradiate the ship, and you ''can'' armor against that. You can actually make an argument for almost any weapon in space, though for kinetics you'd need a propellant that doesn't need outside air, and be willing to live with the fact that you're putting hyper-lethal debris ''somewhere'', especially immediate if you're fighting in near-orbit. Thirdly, DeflectorShields could help mitigate some of the carrier's vulnerabilities, especially if physical ArmorIsUseless such that pure battleships don't have superior durability after all.
Furthermore, depending on the FasterThanLightTravel system used by the work, the carrier strike group system used in RealLife may not work. In RealLife, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of ''Prince of Wales'', ''Repulse'' demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and ''Yamato'' providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of NoWarpingZone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with {{Alpha Strike}}s, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept.
