Well, I think one can reasonably advance the argument that this carrier is so big that she cannot efficiently operate all of the aircraft that she could theoretically carry. Spending weight on a heavier gun armament would be worse than building a right-size carrier, but the hull is presumably already built. If some of the hangar space is not useful, one might consider more guns (even if we can say they would have been useless in retrospect). As I recall, the Midways carried more F4U-scale aircraft than were really efficiently operable before the angled deck (and before larger aircraft reduced the total number carried). Not saying your line of thinking is incorrect, just something I was pondering.

YES,
you understand that this (early 1920s designed) design is ultimately TOO BIG for its era (1920s-late 1930s, even 1940s U.K needs !!!).
In the Best (U.K) case, it is a Hood battlecruiser-hull converted into carrier during 1920s (the U.K counterpart of the U.S Lex/Sara & the japanese Kaga/Akagi), no bigger !!!

Well Mike that is an interesting viewpoint. However HMS Incomparable had she been built would have been 1000 feet long. That is only the next step up from Hood 1920 at 860 feet . That's just the way the trend towards larger ships was evolving. We went from Agamemnon 1906 443 feet to Hood in 14 years. It was only the Washington treaty and lack of cash that killed these, the G3s and N3s off. My line of thinking is the best thing to do with a discredited battle cruiser is turn it into a carrier and at least make some use of the hull, which is what I have done. As the Hoods built as carriers do you mean these.