Using treaty leverage to build a larger carrier fleet

Why did Britain not convert more surviving battlecruiser hulls into aircraft carriers?

Leadership did not press the strategic case, though Britain could have used its global commitments to seek more carrier tonnage and convert suitable large hulls.

David Beatty's strategic vision is criticized for failing to press harder for carrier allowances at the naval treaty. If cruiser and battleship ratios were fixed while Britain still had worldwide trade routes to protect, extra carrier tonnage could be presented as a necessary offset. The proposed approach would convert G3s, Admiral-class hulls, and any other suitable large ships rather than surrender them unused. Carrier numbers would then become part of Britain's answer to oceanic commitments rather than an experimental adjunct to the battle line. This remains a hindsight argument because interwar leaders did not possess later wartime proof of the carrier's central role.