Actually trying to assault the British Isles from the CONUS springboard has been discussed extensively on this board. The outcome is not positive. That said RN carrier doctrine versus the USN in 1941? Yeah you thought losses at Midway were bad, the British have much better fighter control. The Americans conversely do not even have the good planes they had in 1942 just the bad ones.
Fletcher or Fitch vs. Tovey or Somerville? I'll take Coral Sea vs. what happened off Sri Lanka. I'll even stack USNAS against RNFAA 1940, too, and tally the results. The RN gets slaughtered. Not hyperbole, RTL results indicate negative RN outcomes. Especially if Midway is invoked.
I think the point that is being missed is the USN as constituted was quite capable of cutting the supply lines of any would be invader of the CONUS in the 1930s.
The USN weakness was both sides of the submarine warfare coin in 1940. Fix US torpedoes and that goes away on the submarine side. Atlantic geography dictates submarine warfare. Without UK occupied and ASW asset based Iceland early, it becomes a virtual certainty that with US LANTflt boats and working torpedoes, the UK starts off in immediate trouble and stays there. Nothing they do or try will help overcome their geographic disadvantage vis a vis the US. First, South America, either through political pressure or by active measures is cut off from Europe. Then the subs go to work off Western Europe. They just have to use flow strategy and let the geography work in their favor.
Then, once again, using South Atlantic geography against her, the UK loses India. Expect US naval operations off western Africa early.
I think the main problem here is the fragile jingoism of a lot of US posters. You do not want the US to lose but you cannot be bothered to research how it might win? The thing is the US can defend itself, even in a rather stretched scenario where the mighty Commonwealth launches a mechanised invasion it can likely defend itself well enough. Look at how the US Army was being built up as a result of the war in Europe of OTL when the prospect of a British Empire invasion was nil and the prospect of the Germans crossing an ocean controlled by the RN was nil.
The US army deployed was about 90 divisions. That's paltry. It was principally a naval/air war the US waged. The OP postulates a condition where even more so, the US would wage a naval/air war. Britain as an Island group is highly vulnerable to such an attack profile geographically. I give the UK about 30% chance in such a scenario. I remind some posters that I am not a jingoist American, and that I am well versed in what the shortcomings of the US war machine were in WW II.
Defence of US soil is possible and it is doable, inroads could be made but while that would hurt the US has strength in depth that it did not have in previous decades at least in part due to efforts to deliberate kick start the economy by the Roosevelt administration. A lot of this stuff was OTL seen as boondoggles before the war but would prove even more useful in the event of this envisaged war.
The secret airbase complexes in New England and in Michigan were the Hoover Administration. The US was nervous about the UK right until FDR was elected.
The US counterstroke then need not be launched at great cost and greater risk of failure after even waiting till 1948 against England itself. Rather the counterstroke would be aimed at the Empire, far in places from the US but equally far from the British, drawing out ships and men and planes where they can be overcome at more favourable loss rates.
Look at the US Warplan. Eliminate Canada, then move against the British offshore and in the Caribbean. If the UK does not negotiate at that juncture, then RED looks a lot like ORANGE from then on. Subs and bombers. It gets dirty.
Look at the motivations of this Glory Hunter (OP definition) British Government. To defeat it you strike at the glory and such a government that loses control of the Empire would fall.
Look at MAHAN. Destroy the RN and its over. Expect raids on the British shore establishment and attacks on the British merchant marine. After that, the Empire breaks up. (As it did.)
The US was exceptional by World War 2 in the effort their intelligence services and decision making organs put in towards understanding the psychology of the foe. They employed psychologists equipped with the best data intelligence gathering could provide to make due assessments. Which is what I would expect them to do here.
Please read "Those Marvelous Tin Fish". I would not claim the US military intelligence services (with some notable exceptions) were all that sharp.
And that is how the US wins at least cost to the US people. It might not seem cheap in absolute terms but far less expensive than the go straight at the UK plans being proposed here.
You win a naval war by siege. (Blockade). In a globalist sense that means one denies an island nation the use of the sea. Destroy their merchant fleet and starve them. That means the US will go straight for the jugular, and that means the UK is defeated in the UK via maritime blockade.