I would argue that a CSG has a strike range of ~1000 miles quite easily against opponent vessels with minimal refueling using stand off weapons. That would put it outside the range of most PRC assets with notable exceptions of DF-26, H-6, and perhaps YJ-21. It also puts it outside unrefueled opponent fighter cover and a week+ cruise for SSKs. The primary ISR threat at this range is probably orbital.
That said, a CVN is a huge number of eggs in one basket.
All carrier strategic bombers exceeded that by a big margin. A-6 did too.
Because range is both security and reach into "World island", and that matters against Asiatic land powers.
That's before taking into account rising importance of desperate bloody khornefest called carrier duels. Where reach and range, is among the most decisive.
Conclusion (surprise), in big power competition, strike range is paramount.
Enemy vulnerability matters too - as 1980s shown, extreme range strike capability, apart from primary purpose, was seen as a fine way to bait response (backfires) beyond escort range, right into hands of several barriers of tomcats, hornets and potentially whatever can take off with amraam.
And, vise versa, flankers with their stupid a2a range were breaking the game. They still are, courtesy of superbug decks.
Plus, during our time, any additional shots against hypersonics(which just won't give surface ships second engagement chances) are of vital importance - as early and as far from csg(or 3rd protected asset!) as possible.
Finally, while b-21 is close expectation, so is H-20. Searching the old way may be necessary.
Tldr: carrier(and naval in general) fighter range is just as decisive. Two main naval fighter aircraft roles(timely intercept and escort, aca local air superiority)hinge on range.
=
I am like 80% sure naval NGAD will go all in to getsomething like ~1500 nmi refueled strike range(and potentially 900-1000 unrefuelled/extended cap). +JASSM-XR and SM-6 on top.
www.defensenews.com
www.anduril.com
