(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?

There are certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours. 
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?

So the point that a ship which also carries aircraft is not an aircraft carrier is moot. Glad we can agree on that. 

What is the primary mission of the U.S. Navy as compared to the primary mission of China, Russia, the UK and France? Here it is for the U.S. Navy:

“The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.”

Since the waning days of the WWII, America has committed itself to maintaining freedom of navigation of the seas. Whether it wants to admit it or not, the global community relies on U.S. Naval power to protect their interests, which in turn, protects ours. This is why we need so many ships which are capable of projecting power without launching nuclear missiles.

I highly suggest going to Amazon and reading the first nine pages of The Accidental Superpower by Peter Zeihan. It gives insight to the nexus of this mission and the reasoning behind it.

---