Pretty misleading to go by numbers of ships rather than tonnage.
Not misleading at all. You cannot divide a larger tonnage vessel to go to two separate places. The British ruled the world BECAUSE of their navy. Neglecting the ability to project force (carriers are the best way to do that) is dangerous.
USS Independence CV-62 1992-1994
Not really. First, no matter how big and versatile a ship is, it can only be in one place at a time. Second, comparing tonnage is an apples and oranges comparison. USS Wyoming (BB 32, launched in 1912) and her sisters displaced 26,000 tons; an Aegis cruiser (the largest surface warfare ships at this point other than the carriers) displaces only 9,530 tons and the later Nimitz class ships displace about ten times that fully loaded.
Comparing ships is a better measure because comparing tonnage of navies from such different technological eras is difficult. And Lord knows going from a near 600 ship Navy to 279 ships in less than twenty years is a bad deal no matter how capable the ships are.
Even more misleading when you don't take technology into account. Modern ships are faster and accurate at longer ranges; I like big honkin' guns as much as any red-blooded American, but if I want to put a load of hurt in the bad guy's shorts at long range, give me a cruiser loaded with Tomahawks over a battleship.