What's an A-16? I assume this is just a simple typo, and A-6 is what was really meant?
Yes, it was a typo- the linked article mentioned A-6 Intruder replacement.
The charts and article are interesting and do a good job at demonstrating the retreat from long range carrier aviation. The 1956 airwing chart (Skyraider, Banshee, Fury, Skywarrior) is likely a little weighted with the Skywarrior upping the average quite a bit. It did bring a lot of range/payload, but only a handfull were aboard at any one time. It should be noted (and the artilce does) that a major focus of the Postwar/Supercarrier was longer range nuclear strike- so the airwing reflected that with designs such as the Savage, A-3, Vigilante, A-4, A-6. This range advantage later payed off well for conventional strike.
I do agree that the abandonment of long range strike with no A-6 replacement (A-12 cancelled), and dedicated tankers, has undermined the value of the supercarrier. An A-6 replacement with long range would have been better suited for Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like to see the KS-3 Viking brought out of the boneyard and upgraded as has been mulled.