A treaty system allowing slow capital-ship construction

What if the 1930 London treaty allowed slow, continuing capital-ship construction?

It could retain industrial capacity and leave treaty powers with more modern fleets, but the result depends on the exact permitted build rate.

The effect depends on the precise building formula, including the interval and allocation among treaty powers. A two-year, four-year or five-year cycle would produce very different totals, especially if Britain and the United States retained larger allowances than Japan, France and Italy. Any continuing programme would nevertheless keep yards, design teams and heavy-warship skills alive through the construction holiday. Britain and France would enter the next war with more capital ships less than ten years old, while France's historical Dunkerque construction provides a partial example of that modernization. German expansion programmes such as Plan Z would then face larger and younger treaty fleets as well as Germany's own industrial limits. The main result is continuity of capacity rather than merely a few extra hulls.