I agree, that the article is an intresting read. While not arguing against the authors conclusion, that carrier groups may have outlived their time, id like to mention though, that nations, whose military is technologically up to date, are most likely also in possession of nuclear weapons, or can produce them very fast, if the need arises. In other words, the very reason, why a war between two such nations is very unlikely can be summarized with MAD.
But i fully agree with the author, that carrier groups are no longer cost effective for todays military challenges. Modern armies drift more and more into "the less manpower, more high tech" direction, mostly because the precision, range and destructive potential of available weaponsystems has dramatically increased over the last century. Nowadays you don't even have to leave your office to operate a military drone on the other side of the planet.
In other words (and as every Civ I player nows), a large amount of troops contentrated in one area just makes a juicy target for todays weapons. This is the reason why modern military work in smaller, specialized, well equipped and supported units. If we transfer that view to the navy that would mean smaller, but a larger amount of highly mobile fleets. That way you could control larger areas for the same money. After all, you fight mostly pirates or countries who are far lower on the technological scale.
And if something big and nasty comes your way, you have the option to withdraw and meet up with other groups (because you are likely faster than the opposition) and/or launch missile/drone strikes from the nearest capable military base.