Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "IJN Akagi - Guide 286" video.

I have read that the triple flight deck arrangement was considered for the Lexingtons as well. Consider it pure luck that the Lexingtons ended up built as they were. The USN was so short of money that three-decked Lexingtons may not have been rebuilt as Akagi was, and entered the war in that obsolete configuration.
46
@gregorywright4918 Lexington's forward flight deck was squared up in 37. I don't think Sara had it's forward deck squared up until early 42. The last of the old BBs to be rebuilt were the New Mexicos in 1930-31. The Tennessees and Colorados received minimal updates, until damage from December 7th offered an excuse to rebuild some of them. Yorktown, Enterprise and Wasp were built with money from an industrial recovery program, as they required all new steel, all new machinery, and the work was contracted to private yards. That money would probably have not been available to modernize existing ships in Navy Yards, because modernizations would not require as much new material, so would not do as much to get industry moving again.
4
@usssouthdakota5541 Renown was with Ark Royal, in Force H. Repulse was with KGV in the channel south of Iceland. The way I see it is Tovey know how vulnerable Hood was, and Repulse was even more vulnerable, so the two forces were formed of one strong ship (KGV or PoW) and one weak ship (Hood or Repulse). PoW, still working up, was the weaker of the two KGVs, so was paired with the stronger of the two obsolete battlecruisers, Hood. To directly answer your question, if Repulse had been placed with PoW, there would have been no doubt which was the weaker ship, so I would have expected PoW to lead the attack. PoW would probably have lasted longer than Hood, but surviving the engagement is another question. iirc, Bismark initially concentrated on Hood, allowing PoW to close to "decisive" range undamaged. With PoW leading, it would have been taking fire longer and would have been more damaged by the time it entered "decisive" range of under 16,000 yards.
2
@RedXlV you and Ian asked the same question. It was probably a matter of economics. Kaga was much farther along, with more sunk cost, so it was probably felt the conversion would cost less. I wonder if the Japanese estimates were as optimistic as the estimates for the Lexingtons? Somewhere in my notes I have the original swag that, iirc, Admiral Moffett, was spreading when the question of converting the ships first came up. What Congress originally authorized was a good deal more. Then I saw newspaper reports of at least one, maybe two, supplements Congress passed to increase funding for the ships.
1
@RedXlV from what I have read, the path of military aggression was still being debated at that time. Kaga had been built up enough to launch. I have read a US newspaper report about her launching, with the note that she will be scrapped due to the treaty. The second pair of Amagis had been laid down in November and December of 21, so there would have hardly been more than the keel and part of the bottom of the hull riveted together when the treaty was signed in Feb 22.
1