To be honest, no one is looking at losing the well over four thousand people that go with an aircraft carrier to a single missile conducting a lame WW2 reenactment these days. We are incredibly more risk averse than we were as societies even a short while ago. You can have more than one carrier, but, at $13 billion a piece (not including air wing) for the same price, the enemy can have about 10,000 anti ship missiles. Anti ship missiles are getting ever more technologically advanced and can come from beneath the surface, from trucks, from inside caves, containers hidden among others in container parks, farmyards, on civilian vessels, or be launched from much cheaper aircraft than the B-1B. Even the US does not randomly invade places, therefore the USN will have to enter areas where the enemy can predict them to be to have the desired effects. Then there is the potential casualty exchange ratio - how many missile trucks or 40' ISO containers would you have to blow up to equal the value of losing a CVN? The USN of course knows all this and does not intend to conduct opposed landings against peer opponents (hence all of the investment in LCAC, Osprey, ridiculous hydrofoil IFVs and implausible over the horizon strategies). Okinawa 2 is not going to happen.
Well, if ASMs are the end all be all, why doesn't the UK have a brace of those and dispense with the Royal Navy? What's that? You still need to project power? Well, then how are you going to do that with some Container Mounted ASMs?
For an ASM to hit it has to have targeting data. To get that you need sensors. To use those you usually need to emit radiation, some can be passive. Weapons and weapon systems are a game of rock-scissors-paper set of measure/countermeasure. Remember when everyone was pointing to Iraq having heavily defended airspace? Aircraft were useless right?
I think you're over simplifying things in the same vein of "The Japanese Bombed Pearl Harbor, what use are ships against aircraft?".
Edited by rmgill, 04 July 2018 - 1313 PM.