@hawkeye10,
Not until you posted it. But I agree that we are making bad choices regarding the aircraft that we put on carriers.
Up through the 1991 Iraq war, we had A-6 Intruders on our carriers. These planes could bomb targets 1,000 miles away from the carrier without refueling (and further yet if we refueled them).
They started to wear out in the mid 1990s so we took them off the carriers without replacing them with anything similar. Since then, our carriers have been much less capable.
You may have heard about the unmanned aircraft that we are possibly developing for our carriers. They will have enough range to be a replacement for the old A-6 Intruders. Congress is insisting that these unmanned aircraft have stealth capability and a bomb load similar to a typical fighter. However, the Navy sees this as a threat to manned aviation, and is fighting tooth and nail to strip this unmanned plane of stealth and to prevent it from carrying a significant bomb load.
Congress is fighting hard for their version of the plane though, because they want our carriers to be able to launch land attacks from beyond the range of shore defenses. It's too soon to tell which side will win.
I don't agree with the article's suggestion that submarines and long-range bombers be used to simply clear out a safe region for the carriers to attack. If the Navy succeeds in sabotaging the land attack capabilities of the carriers, the carriers can be put to good use interdicting enemy shipping far from enemy shores. The bombers should be attacking enemy targets directly instead of trying to clear a path for carriers to do the same thing. Our submarines should be focused on clearing the seas of enemy submarines.