An Alaska-class conversion would be nearly a fleet carrier

Would Independence-class carriers have been better if based on Alaska-class cruiser hulls?

They would become much larger near-fleet carriers, gaining capability but losing the economy and commonality that made a light conversion useful.

An Alaska hull was about 246 meters long, already approaching the roughly 266-meter length quoted for a short-bow Essex before adding carrier structures. Its conversion would therefore produce something much closer to a fleet carrier than an Independence-style light carrier. The original large cruisers are described as costing roughly three quarters as much as an Iowa to operate, undermining the economy expected from a smaller warship. A three-ship carrier class would also lack Essex commonality and could offer less scope for later modernization. Conversion might keep these hulls useful after the war, but running and crew costs would restrict potential buyers. France is suggested as a possible exception because it needed to rebuild fleet-carrier aviation and might value nearly new ships, especially if construction alongside Midway allowed stronger flight decks.