Why do all aircraft carriers have an island? The early converted merchant vessels like Argus and Langley didn't bother. You see quite a few designs in the interwar period without them too - Hosho, Ryujo, Shoho, the first configurations of the Amagi-conversions - and even during the war the British converted carriers like Audacity do without. The United States-class of supercarriers designed after WWII was going to have no island either, but they got cancelled and all modern aviation ships have an island on the starboard side.
Why is this? What's the advantage of the island and disadvantage of the flush-deck.
>>29470502
They quickly found with early flattops that it was too hard to manage without an above-deck bridge. Hell, even Argus had a retractable pilot house in the middle of the deck.
Plus, it provides space for flight deck controllers to survey the deck and manage aircraft.
>>29470502
The same reason air control towers exist.
Because the admirals insist on having a bridge
>>29470636
What was true in the 50's and 60's is not really true today, since you can just have cameras/electronics keeping track of planes/personnel for you
>>29470815
Air control towers aren't right on the runway
>>29470868
There isn't room on a carrier to have the tower half a mile away from the runway.
>>29470886
You don't need a tower, just need a couple cameras on poles.
>>29470971
That just sounds like extra points of failure.
>>29470971
You underestimate the need for people to actually see what the fuck is going on with their eyes.
>>29470502
a new "look at me I'm smarter then the DOD!" thread.
truly a valuable contribution to the board
>>29470850
cameras and electronics are still no substitute for a pair of eyes. The current tower congifuration was also made in a time when camera's and electronics were shit, if not nonexistant.
>>29470502
People tried flattops and well they sucked dicks.