Why an asymmetric Washington Treaty counterfactual fails

Could Britain have accepted a Washington settlement that let the United States build extra 45,000-ton ships and sent a second Hood to Australia?

Only with reciprocal British rights, and Australia would still need a costly new support infrastructure for an Admiral-class ship.

The scenario is politically implausible unless Britain receives comparable construction rights in the negotiated bargain. Australia would then need the means to base and maintain an Admiral-class battlecruiser. The ship would demand expensive new docks and support facilities, not merely a transfer of ownership. Treaty counterfactuals must account for diplomatic exchange and the shore system behind a fleet.