Would Britain sacrifice Hood under the Washington treaty system to build four F3s instead of two, assuming successful 15-inch/50 guns and no Nelson and Rodney?
Short answerFour F3s would not justify losing Hood, but six replacing Tiger, Renown, Repulse, and Hood could be worthwhile, particularly if Hood could become a carrier.
NotesThe proposal would trade Hood for two additional F3s, giving Britain four in total instead of building Nelson and Rodney with 16-inch guns. That exchange is rejected because Hood remains too valuable as a status asset and a 32-knot capital ship. A more credible bargain would replace Tiger, Renown, Repulse, and Hood with six fully armored F3s, with Hood replaced last. Construction between 1922 and 1930 would keep capital-ship yards and skills active. Hood could also be converted into an aircraft carrier under the treaty provisions. The reduction from Hood's 32 knots to the F3's roughly 28 knots remains a sacrifice, but six replacement ships offer enough capability to justify it. Giving up Hood for only four F3s while abandoning 16-inch guns would risk appearing to retreat from Britain's naval policy.