Tactical wings could be rolled into the Army to support ground missions, as they were intended
This is a clear illustration of how simplistic the author's view was in the article. It sounds easy to say that the bombers go to the USN and tactical assets go to the Army.
But wait, what exactly is a srategic or tactical asset? In Operation Anaconda, I saw B-52s directly supporting ground troops. B-1s were there as well. In OIF, F-15Es and F-16Cs were dropping PGMs on preplanned targets in Iraq during "Shock and Awe". Anymore, "strategic" or "tactical" is much more defined by assigned mission, rather than airframe.
Possibly even more problematic is the question of who would get tanker, airlift, C2, and ISR aircraft. Who gets the AWACS? Who gets the tankers? If a C-17 is carrying paratroopers, I guess that the Army could lay claim to it, but how about if it were carrying B-52 parts to Diego Garcia?
If we were to divide up our Air Force assets among the Army and Navy, how would we ensure that they could achieve the proper mass of force against an enemy to be effective? Who would publish the Air Tasking Order? The Navy can do it, but would the Army's newly acquired air assets be on it?
All of this is to make the point that a separate Air Force isn't just some unnecessary appendage of our military with a role that can be easily absorbed by our other services.
Fact is that the Navy already has nuclear and flight experience. The USAF has no experience with ships so your argument is not valid.