Actually the Iowa class was the future of the USN battle cruiser. 5 knots faster than the "Fast Battleship" classes (North Carolina, South Dakota and the never built Montana classes were all 27 knots) it was a a battle cruiser, but in the school of "G3" design. The Iowas were not a balanced design, unlike the Montanas, and they were clearly built to accompany the fast carrier force (i.e. the Scouting Force). The fact the BB-61 class was arguably the best overall battleship design of all time, with exceptional protection and God's Own 16" rifle, obscures this, but the data makes it pretty clear.
I have never really understood why the USN was, after the Lexingtons were cancelled, absolutely allergic to the term "battle cruiser", but it was (the example being the Alaska class being called CB ( Cruiser, Big), which was, frankly not even good grammar much less a proper descriptive instead of the closer to the truth BC).
I think the aversion to "Battle Cruiser" is a direct product of having seen the concept fail at Jutland, and also Dogger Bank, with the RN losing BCs despite having speed and hitting power. I suspect the
Lexington-class were sacrificed upon that sober altar. I assume the USN thought funding for something better would come rather than engage in the refit to purpose dance. And indeed, I have mentally regarded the Iowa as the USN Battle Cruiser. But also the last of her kind given how the BB was now a dead end, in its place the fast BB was both, but fast enough to be relevant.
Without the maturity of airpower as we transition from 1000 to 2000 HP power, the
Montana-class would be the necessary capstone to fight the decisive fleet battle. Minus WW2 they would be our last BB and swiftly overtaken in the next decade. I think the unfortunate
Alaska was an unfortunate dead end on the way to a BC with Cruiser roots, and oddly in contradiction to the weak protection issue I propose killed
Lexington. But as distant hunter transitioning to CV escort, a role better taken by Iowa, it is not wholly illogical. On the dark side of alternatives the
Alaskas might have crowded out the
Iowas. My logic is that without the G3 line being built, the USN is not pressed for speed,
Alaska fits the bill "cheaper", is NOT a BB, and fills a niche with the
Montana pushed forward to create a new standard battle line and so on. And I know such butterflying annoys you, so I do not offer the notion lightly. This time after Treaties, as air power matures and absent the motivator of PH leaves me with a murky set of dead ends and carry forwards that fight the last war in philosophy. Now I backtrack to unravel that muck. Part of me wants to tank the WNT and let the
Lexingtons show the way to Iowa, the other BBs growing towards
Montana from the 1920
SoDaks, a far better line by late 1930s even if some dogs are built in between but aging out.