Clearly some random folks on internet forums know more about naval strategy than people who are actually trained for it.
You guys should hire on as defense consultants.
Indeed, although there probably is enough experience from some members here to have this discussion seriously.
I think the point that often (or rather, almost always) is missed by civilians (especially politicians) is that there is a big difference between how a weapons system looks on paper and how it functions in the real world. Warfare isn't a game of Top Trumps: missile system X may have a maximum range of Ynm, but in reality the effective range will depend on many other factors such as launch height/speed, weather, radar propagation, target aspect, tactics employed etc. There's also the operator factor - you can have the best weapons systems available but with no idea how to employ them they won't be as effective as lesser systems operated by somebody who knows what they are doing. Also bear in mind that just because one country might have a large number of aircraft available to attack a carrier, how many of those are actually serviceable and available for a strike? Even if they could muster a large number of aircraft, do they have the experience and C2 to put together and co-ordinate a complex large scale strike? It is a lot more complicated than just jumping in your jets with some anti-ship missiles and heading towards the carrier task group at full throttle.
In this case, it's also worth noting that naval aviation and maritime air-power isn't simply a case of taking an aircraft and flying it off a ship - which itself is considerably more challenging than doing so from an airfield ashore for a multitude of reasons - but also requires a whole different understanding of how to employ those aircraft as part of a composite maritime force, and if it was that simple we'd let the air force do it. In the RN we've been operating aircraft at sea for over 100 years, but moving back to a full sized carrier with more aircraft and an additional gap between the old CVS and new carriers there's a lot of work going on to relearn lost skills and work out how we're actually going to use the things.
There's also another factor - logistics. Yes, you've got your shiny new jet on your shiny new carrier. Maybe you've built up the experience to operate that jet effectively from said carrier and you've developed the tactics and doctrine to have a credible carrier strike capability, but can you actually keep that ship supported across the globe with a reliable logistics chain? If not, having a carrier which can't operate more than a few weeks from a friendly port isn't really all that useful. A fleet of supply ships and the capability to conduct replenishment at sea (much more difficult than most non-naval types appreciate) are essential. You've also then got the question of maintaining aircraft in a small hangar with no space and everything that isn't tied down moving around. Navy aircraft engineers don't have the luxury of ordering in spare parts quickly or all the resources they need at their disposal and are often required to manufacture spares locally or repair things that if land based would be scrapped.
In conclusion, whilst carriers are a useful and relevant asset to have in a balanced fleet and add a huge capability with respect to power projection, by themselves they aren't the be all and the end all of maritime power. Even if you do have one, to actually make it useful you need to know how to use it from the deck crews to the pilot flying the aircraft to the command and control structure in the ops room, and effectiveness of any asset in reality goes far beyond the 'Top Trumps' stats you might find on the internet. You then need to back it up with logistics to allow it to operate away from home in order to actually project that power.
It really is potentially a case of "all the gear no idea"!
Anyway, back to the desert without a ship in sight
