yep, that one is completely unnecessary, the carriers should be less effective a bit against ground based units, but playing with the setting, and losing badly since you forget to set them into naval, or to return them into fighters is just bad. In midway, the Japanese lost an hour or two for swapping, not a month or two.
The issue here is that Carriers did have a variety of aircraft available to them, i.e. dive bombers, torpedo bombers, fighters etc., and did historically get caught with the wrong type of aircraft on deck with disasterous results for the Japanese as was the case at Midway.
The multiple modes for Carriers were requested quite a while ago, from memory about 10 years ago, and has been a part of the game ever since which allows players to play with the right mix of Carriers for fleet actions in the Pacific where one either needs to balance their task forces with the right balance of CAP and Tactical mode, or risk everything in Tactical mode and so on. Without these modes it plays out much differently, and at one time when we didn't have modes, there is less of that cat and mouse, risk and reward feel in game.
On land, it is not much different as players appropriately manage this with the different air unit types available to them, i.e. balancing a front with Fighters as well as Tactical Bombers and so on.
From a game play point of view, I would argue it is not so much a matter of how long it took Carrier decks to swap out Torpedo Bombers for Fighters, but rather without these modes, you'd lose an entire layer of Carrier combat tension in the Pacific and especially so as the ebb and flow of battles range from attacks to defensive actions as the war progresses.