"The 1 Reason Navy Aircraft Carriers Could Lose a...." Topic

…. Battle to Russia or China.

"The U.S. Navy's carrier air wings lack the range to win in battle with Chinese and Russian forces, according to one new study.

The Navy's nine front-line wings "lack the range, endurance, survivability and specialization to carry out the operational concepts needed to defeat great-power militaries," the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments warned in its December 2018 report "Regaining the High Ground at Sea."

The Navy possesses 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, but makes do with nine wings, as at least one carrier is always in deep maintenance. The Navy's goal is for six carriers to be able to deploy within 30 days of a crisis, with another joining them within 90 days…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Naval avaiation can utilize stand-off ordnance like anyone else. What this article seems to miss is that a CBG doesn't really operate in isolation, and any insertion inside the (growing) threat envelope of hostile A2/AD weapons will be preceded/accompanied by other platforms designed to clear the way.

But sure, it's a dangerous business and the other guy gets a vote, too.

I think the new unmanned tanker that Boeing will be delivering to the navy should address this to some extent.

Yep, retired the F-14s, cancelled the A-12s, A-6s are now gone, and the Super Hornet isn't, so……..

The MQ-25 + F-35C + LRASM combo will go quite a ways to fixing that capability gap.

…in a few years. Still better than never.

A2AD has rendered traditional non-stealthy platforms – and even some stealthy ones -obsolete by elevating the threat environment and reducing their survivability, so we must adapt accordingly. This changes how we conduct operations requiring operating from longer ranges and employing longer ranges weapons. Only until we sufficiently suppress the A2AD capabilities can we employ traditional assets with impunity.