I am sure that the UK once intended to do that with Sea Wolf fitted to RFAs but controlled from warships.
Anyway - back to the carrier topic, recent weeks have seen some interesting events. On 19 June, the Russian were reported to have been exercising the sea denial tactics:
Russia nuclear-powered submarines launch missiles in Barents Sea drills
June 19 (Reuters) - Nuclear-powered submarines of Russia's Northern Fleet launched cruise missiles at sea targets as part of exercises in the Barents Sea, Russian news agencies reported on Wednesday, citing the fleet's news service.
"The nuclear submarine missile cruisers ... of Northern Fleet carried out practical missile firing at sea targets in the Barents Sea," the TASS news agency reported, citing the statement from fleet.
The Severodvinsk and the Orel nuclear-powered submarines fired Kalibr and Granit cruise missiles a distance of about 170 km (106 miles) at a target simulating a detachment of landing ships of a mock enemy, the Interfax news agency reported.
However,
the firings have taken place in waters close to Russia, with Russian fighters aircraft nearby. The submarine firing anti ship cruise missiles in the Norwegian Sea, GIUK gap, or beyond would face huge problems:
1. NATO tracks all Russian submarines.
2. NATO has strong ASW forces - including shipborne (including carrierborne) ASW helicopters that act on conjunction with surface warships with long range sonar and coordinated with NATO submarines and MPA.
3. Any attempt to use aircraft against helicopters or MPA will result in a quick response from the carrier's jets.
4. As submarines have limited means to detect targets at long range, the cruise missiles will depend on targeting platforms - possibly aircraft. In the Cold War dealing with Bears performing this role was a job for carrier based aircraft, and the primary role for the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier. It was the need for ASW helicopters operations around the the clock, and to deal with the Bears doing reconnaissance and targeting, that kept the Royal Navy in the carrier game and led to the Invincible class CVS/Sea King/Sea Harrier combination.
5. Back in the 1970s it was expected that the fighters (certainly the USN F-14 Tomcat, less so the Sea Harrier FRS1 with only Sidewinder) would be able to splashed missiles. Not so long ago a USN F/A-18E/F Super Hornet proved this in the Red Sea, and an Israeli F-35I did so not too long before that. The increased missile load and sensor capabilities of today's aircraft means they can counter a salvo of missiles.
6. A submarine cannot control the airspace, and therefore a group of submarines cannot perform a sea control role in the same way as a carrier group.
7. It is interesting that the quoted Russian news article referred to a target simulating a detachment of landing ships of a mock enemy. This actually reminds us of the need for sea control, and the need for carriers to protect amphibious forces. Submarine launched anti ship missiles do not provide an anti carrier argument, they provide more justification for the carrier and carrier group.
On the other side of the World, the US Navy seems to have quietly developed a very long range air to air missile:
AIM-174 Super Hornet-Launched Variant Of SM-6 Missile Breaks Cover In Hawaii - The War Zone
The SM-6 is also ‘networked’ with the ability to receive critical data from an array of platforms that can provide remote targeting that is not organic to the missile’s launch platform. In this sense, it would be able to exploit the various benefits of the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept, or NIFC-CA, which is increasingly bringing together the complementary capabilities of platforms such as the F-35 stealth fighter, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar plane, Aegis-equipped warships, and weapons like the SM-6. For example, this architecture should allow a Super Hornet to use the AIM-174B to engage targets that are beyond the range of its own radar as well as target sets that it cannot otherwise handle, like ballistic missiles.
As an air-to-air weapon, the AIM-174B would provide the Super Hornet with the ability to engage a wide variety of aerial threats at distances of over hundreds of miles, a significant advantage over the current AIM-120 AMRAAM and likely also beyond the range of the still-in-development AIM-260 JATM. Air launch at speed and altitude by a fighter means it will have significantly greater range and enhanced kinematics over the surface-launched variant, although it does not have the booster that the standard SM-6 utilizes. The surface-launched SM-6’s range is currently thought to be around 230 miles, but this depends on many factors, including the mode in which it is being used.
Such a long-range missile would be a huge advantage considering China is now fielding its own very long-range air-to-air missiles. Using AIM-174B against airborne early warning, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, aerial refueling, and bomber/cruise missile carrier aircraft at extreme ranges would be a major enhancement in the Navy’s air combat capabilities and a huge threat to these lumbering enemy aircraft. This would be one key way the U.S. could help counter a portion of China’s looming anti-access infrastructure...
It is already operational.
U.S. Navy Confirms SM-6 Air Launched Configuration Is ‘Operationally Deployed’ - Naval News
I suspect that there is a clever person at the US Naval Post Graduate School working on mathematical methods and software to determine the optimal balance between fighters with very long range AAMs, and ones carrying the maximum number of Sidewinder/AMRAAM for magazine depth.
Before you ask, yes I have copied and pasted from
Late 1970s US Congress Report - The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW - both then and today) on another site. We are once again in an era of state versus state hostility, contested seas and maritime airspace, and as the Houthis show, conventional and hybrid capabilities in the hands of state sponsored proxies.