Designing the Royal Navy and US Navy without naval treaties

If you controlled the Royal Navy or US Navy from 1919 to 1949 in a world without naval treaties, what would you build?

The proposals favor different combinations of capital ships, carriers, cruisers, and destroyers, backed by dockyard investment and continuing political support.

Removing naval treaties would leave Congress, the Treasury, and industrial capacity in place. The competing proposals therefore depend on different assumptions about funding and the fleets' future duties. American alternatives include more Lexington hulls, carrier conversions, stronger cruisers, faster battleships, and new destroyer designs. British alternatives share an interest in completing the G3s but differ over carrier conversions, battlecruisers, and later capital-ship arrangements. Other priorities include better-protected County-class cruisers, small scouting carriers, larger docks, and sustained shipyard employment. Overseas repair facilities and a modern merchant fleet would support Britain's worldwide commitments. Plans become less predictable after the mid-1920s because rival navies would react to one another's construction choices.