This is interesting:
The UK Royal Navy (RN) is conducting study work to determine how to optimise the planned integration of an amphibious capability element into its Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
The two carriers - the future HM ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales - are dedicated to generating carrier strike operations. However, the size and scale of the 65,000-tonne platforms provides the flexibility to support additional roles.
The British want to the carriers to be able to launch a two-company assault force, which sounds like the ship could hold a battalion in total.
Given that our large amphibious ships are to have a secondary strike aviation role with the ability to operate a small number of F-35s, I wondered if we should eventually replace our amphibious ships with a smaller number of Ford class carriers in order to have a better back-up aviation role, while reducing the number of dedicated strike carriers (because I worry about their survivability in sea control missions) so we can build more ships and subs better able to fight for sea control while not representing a catastrophic loss if sunk in battle.
We would have more Fords in total than we have big deck strike carriers and big-deck amphibious shops combined now, but would have the ability to switch their roles depending on the needs.
The dedicated Ford strike carriers would then have a back-up amphibious role to complement the amphibious Fords with a strike back-up role.
Just a thought. Remember that The Dignified Rant is not a ship designer.