Supercarriers versus sea-control ships

Is there merit in the US Navy switching from current supercarrier platforms to more numerous sea-control ships?

No as a replacement strategy: large carriers are more efficient at operating aircraft, while sea-control ships make more sense as additions than substitutes.

Large carriers use hull volume more efficiently because machinery occupies a smaller share of the ship, leaving more room for fuel, ammunition, aircraft, and aviation facilities. A longer deck also improves aircraft operations. Sea-control ships were conceived as additions that could cover lower-end missions, not as direct substitutes for supercarriers. Building a mixed force would require a new production effort and a political case for funding another carrier type. The procurement problem therefore includes carrier scale and the difficulty of persuading Congress to buy complementary platforms.