That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.
When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.
Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.
It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.
I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.
Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.
Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.
Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.
Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.
Where do I start ?
I think I'll skip over how a CSG or any ship defends itself from an air attack. It involves three to four layers of defense.
You are aware that air to air missiles have it's limits, they can't be used if the target is to close, that's when you have to use your guns and get up close and personal aka dog fight.
If the Navy and Air Force believed that the day of fighters having guns/cannons and being involved in dog fights was history, then the Navy's "Top Gun" and the Air Force "Red Flag" would have been eliminated. (I sure hope the Obama White House doesn't see this post.)
But something I'm an expert at, NSFS. You said >"We still have naval gunfire capabilities"< We have very little naval gunfire capabilities. Today the U.S. Navy only has one naval gun capable of providing Naval Shore Gunfire Support, the 5"/54. We no longer have 16", 8", 6" and the 5"/38 guns.
Naval gun fire is a completely diffrent ball game compared to land artillery. Naval guns are huge rifles that have a flat projectory, a high velocity with a high kenetic energy. Even the dispertion of the naval projectile fragmentaion is competely diffrent than an artillery projectile.
It's also a very complex procedure for calling in a NSFS mission comapred to artillery. It's complex for the NGF spotter on shore and even more complex for the sailors on the ship.
During the Vietnam War, the naval 5"38 gun that was found on Gearing class destroyers, all gun cruisers and Iowa class battleships were excellent for providing NSFS. With the 38 cal. barrel they were able to hit targets on reverse slopes of hills and mountains.
During the Vietnam War when the newer DD's were on the gun line they had the 5"/54 guns. ( the only gun that is found on our destroyers and cruisers today) They were automatic and could fire a lot of savos in a minute. But because they had a 54 cal. barrel they couldn't hit some targets on reverse slopes and because the 5"/54 gun was fed from a magazine, if during a fire mission you all of a sudden found that you needed to switch over from a VT fuse to a FD fuse or needed a WP round instead of a HE round, the gun magazine on the ship had to be removed and reloaded with what you needed, a 20 minute process if I remember correctly.
I remember one incident when we had a Adams class DD on the gun line that had the 5"/54. Our FAC asked me to mark a target with WP for a close air support mission. It took almost 30 minutes before I could mark that target. Way to long ! Jets today have an extremely short loiter time over the battlefield.
As for the Iowa class BB's. If you ever personaly wittnes one of these excellent weapons platforms fire it's 16" guns you would be in awe. And if you were on shore and were able to see what a 2.750 lb. AP round or 2,000 lb HE round does, you aren't going to say the Iowa class BB's are obsolete.
During my days the 16" gun was able to hit a barrel with a 2.750 pound round from 24 miles away. By the late 1980's the 16" gun was evolving with rocket assist and giving them a 100 mile range and precion guided rounds and they were even playing around with the idea of using them for ASW (anti submarine warfare) I guess you can figure out what they were thinking of.
In just one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordance on target than an entire carrier air wing could in 24 hours. And night time, fog, low clouds, rain, etc. doesn't stop naval guns from accomplishing their mission like it does for aircraft.
As for the Marine grunts on shore, precision ordance are useless when your dealing with area targets like enemy troops in the open.
After Vietnam during the 1970's when the Democrats were in the process of dismantling our military all 6" and 8" cruisers were decomissioned. The U.S. Marines only had naval 5" gun destroyers to rely on for NSFS and all of the Gearing class DD's were being decommisioned.
1981 and Reagan becomes POTUS and discovers our military is in worse shape than we were told.
The original idea was to reactivate all of the 8" gun cruisers. Secretary of the Navy John Leyman said lets go for the whole enchalada and reactivate all four of the Iowa class BB's and at the same time we wouild also be filling the carrier gap that the Navy was experiancing and our Marines will have real NSFS that they don't have at this time. I think the Soviets feared the Iowa class BB's more than our carriers.
After the Cold War Congress passed a law that all four Iowa's were to be kept in a high state of readiness in our naval reserve fleet so they could be called back to service during an emergency. That these Iowa's were to remain in the reserve fleet untill a new naval ship that is armed with a gun that would be capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. That gun was the 155 MM naval gun that Obama killed.
Back track: President Clinton ignored Congress and decided to turn all of the Iowa class BB's in to meuseums. Then he ordered that all of the spare 16" barrels for the Iowa's be cut up and sold for scrap. No spare barrels, the Iowa's are useless. Congress reaction to Clinton breaking the law ? We can't impeach him a second time.
As you may remember, the Iowas were probably one of the most feared weapons platforms on the surface of the Earth. Besides it's nine 16" guns and it's twenty 5"/38 guns it also carried eight Tomahawk SSCM (Nuke Capable) and more than enough Harpoon anti-ship missiles. And it also had UAV's (droanes)
With the Iowa's 12" armor belt, they were unsinkable because there is no weapon that can penterate 12" of armor plating. If an Iowa were to be hit by a anti-ship cruise missile you send a sailor over the side with a bucket of paint and a paint brush.
Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.