I couldn't think of any major war after WWI, in which the interoperability is the key to US military success.We have to remember that US relies heavily on interoperability of its allied nations
Not necessarily, if you are talking about conflict and combat. The argument for fielding more ship is on the presumption that ships themselves are the best and only counters against enemy ships. This is not the case, with long range missiles (especially the kinds that are great at penetrating enemy air defense), either land based or airborne, ships are not necessarily the best and only counter against enemy ships.China has to field against JMSDF, South Korea, RAN and India
CV16/17 equipped with J-35 will take care of these, because only the Izumo's are F-35 Capable. And Japan is too close to hide from PLAAF and Strategic Rocket Force.plus other smaller nations like Philippines are also In the US camp
USN can field 6-7 Carriers in the Pacific now because Royal Navy has 2 Carriers for Arctic and Mediterranean
JMSDF has
2 x Izumi
2 x Hyuga
3 x Osumi
8-10 AEGIS/BMD DDG
CV16/17 equipped with J-35 will take care of these with help of Strategic missile force, because only the Izumo's are F-35 Capable. Not even mentioning type 003.RAN
2 x LHD
3 x AEGIS
South Korea
2 x LHD
+1 Carrier soon
6 x AEGIS/BMD
and maybe we leave India out of it as it cant even handle Pakistan yet
China should aim for
6 x ARG + 6 x CSG
but in reality 8 x ARG and 8 x CSG of which are 6 x CVN with full strength of 48 x J35 each
The need of PLAN ships are for entirely different reasons. This is not the 20th century any more. Today, you don't need ship parity to counter enemy ships. However, it doesn't mean ships are not needed.