Was the development of modern naval warfare set in stone?

Was the development of modern naval warfare mostly set in stone, or could it have evolved differently?

It was highly contingent; different wars, treaty timing, capital-ship programs, and carrier development could have produced very different fleets and doctrine.

Modern naval warfare could have developed differently if wars, treaties, and carrier programs had occurred on different schedules. In a counterfactual treaty system beginning in 1930, Britain could already have built G3 and N3 capital ships and moved on to a further generation. Germany would then have to decide whether its historical route back to battleship construction still made sense. Scharnhorst's 11-inch armament is explained here in terms of the guns Germany could supply at the time, a constraint that would matter more against such powerful rivals. Carrier conversions of unfinished Admiral-class hulls introduce another difficulty: prolonged exposure on the building ways could affect the ships' condition. Changes in capital-ship protection and carrier development would in turn alter the problems faced by aircraft designers.