Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.
As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.
I totally agree in all you said.
The standard opening for UK is to buy AC+2dstr and place them in a safe position according to the G air and navy positioning. Retake Egypt and kill the baltic dstr+trnsp.
Besides fom this I think the best location for an allied bomber (UK or US) is in caucasus.