Not really, since the Brave concept specifically says, that the sections will not only be constructed in a modular way, but that they are also aimed on variable roles, depending on customer demands! That's what you still deny, since you want to say that a design concept is fixed, or that only a vessel with a dock could be used for amphibious operations, which both is not the case as discussed earlier.
1) The helicopter hangar, or landing spots are available in both cases
2) The vehicle deck is already available, or conceptualized by DCNS for the Brave as well
3) The only change needed, is the addition of the well deck with ballast tanks, like in the Mistral, so diverting the available techs and systems into the Brave aft section only (IF a customer would require it!)
At no point have I said only a vessel with a dock can be used for amphibious operations. That would be silly. See LST's. I did say that a ship like the Doorman JSS is not intended for (i.e. "its purpose is not") amphibious assault. It is your claim that JSS Doorman can easily be fitted with a dock. My point remains that that is a gross underestimation of the differences between an Enforcer LPD (which is designed as such) and a purpose designed JSS that is not part of the Enforcer family of dock landing ships, which come with greater or lesser aviation capabilities.
As regards Brave, its length can be varied by insertion of an extra chunk of a hull in the middle part, which is were the fuel bunkers are in this as well as most other modern AORs. This modularity is no different than that which you see in the Sigma class ships by Damen. Further there is space in the rear for vehicle parking, or other purposes. This is essentially an reconfigurable area where mission modules can be put. Please see how that is done in modern warships e.g. Stanflex Absalon, F-125, LCS.
You point 1 is irrelevant to the discussion. You point 2 was never disputed but your point 3 is. Note that in the pic that you drew in, you completely ignored the different propulsion types of Mistral BCS (podded, electric) and Brave (traditional prop and shaft). Also ignored are the locations of stacks/exhausts, which are indicative of the location of the main engine compartments. If you stick a dock in the rear section of Brave, where exactly do its 2 engine rooms go? Note that the compartments housing the marine diesels in Cantabria AOR run up to waterline level.
Further, as you can see, the main vehicle deck in Mistral BPC runs about halfway that ship (not just the stern section), in order to accommodate a ramp from the main vehicle deck down to the loading area one deck lower,
forward of the well deck, whose floor yet another deck lower. This you've not taken into account for your Brave drawing: how would vehicles move from the vehicle deck to the craft in the dock? And if the dock is there merely to transport landing craft, how will vehicles be loaded onto them? From the ramp in the hull side shown on some of the concept pics? And if that is unfeasible, what good is having a transport dock?
Also, do you think lowering the stern would be safe on this type of ship, considering e.g. the midship fuel bunkerage? As the Cantabria cross section shows, such bunkers run almost up to the main deck, which is a rather different situation than that inside the Mistral BPC, whose 'ballast et reservoirs' pretty much do not reach higher than waterline level. You are suggesting 0 impact on stability, which I find unlikely. Plus, do you really want to risk your resupply ship, on which your taskforce depends, doing that close to hostile shore?
I would like to see a direct source quote supporting the claim "the Brave concept specifically says, that the sections will not only be constructed in a modular way, but that they are also aimed on variable roles, depending on customer demands"
Mistral - Nouveaux Transports de Chalands de Débarquement (NTCD) - Pictures
Similar for Spanish Navantia BPE, illustrating engine room location
