Melancholic said: Why are we so sure the other ships are also carriers?
Uh well even the ship in the farthest has a sort of flat surface and the topmost ship with its hull only shown is similar to the center carrier. Inset too is similar to the sides IMO.
I can understand an aircraft carrier being the flagship of a combat fleet, but a group of carriers is just... overkill.
Hell, the central carrier is overkill all by itself. Two control towers on the main deck, each of which looks to have as much deck space as any normal carrier, and another separate launch deck below the main one - this thing looks as if it's easily two to three times the size of any real-world seagoing carrier...
lyy_ddd said:
Don't know the point of aerodynamic design in a world of flying carriers.
Maybe whatever phlebotinum it is that keeps the carriers aloft can't be scaled down to single-man fighter size. Or maybe I'm thinking about it too much.
Hell, the central carrier is overkill all by itself. Two control towers on the main deck, each of which looks to have as much deck space as any normal carrier, and another separate launch deck below the main one - this thing looks as if it's easily two to three times the size of any real-world seagoing carrier...
Maybe whatever phlebotinum it is that keeps the carriers aloft can't be scaled down to single-man fighter size. Or maybe I'm thinking about it too much.
Either that, military budget-cuts, or performance issues. I mean, it might be, that whatever keeps the carrier airborne only allows for relativel slow movement. Something you wouldn't want with small scale fighters designed for dogfighting.
Also, I'm questioning the overkill in the image. All we see is one side. They might very well be up againts impossible odds for all we know.
People calling this overkill need to look at history. Depending on mission requirements you may honestly want two, three, or even four flight decks in one fleet.
