Given that it also is designed to defend itself with SAMs (roughly equivalent to the Sea Sparrow), it'll be a feat to get close enough to use a Paveway, and a Harpoon simply doesn't have enough uumph to do much, at least if it doesn't hit something explosive like a magazine or a bunch of avgas (why, oh why did we get rid of the TASM?).
I seem to remember that the WWII-era PacFlt didn't think the Japanese capable of using aircraft carriers effectively. I only hope that the current PacFlt doesn't make the same mistake.
You're far too easily impressed--there is more to a warship than a collection of statistics. Those missiles are one salvo only. 30 aircraft? Sheesh. Better to just buy another few hundred SU-27s.
Given that it also is designed to defend itself with SAMs (roughly equivalent to the Sea Sparrow), it'll be a feat to get close enough to use a Paveway, and a Harpoon simply doesn't have enough uumph to do much, at least if it doesn't hit something explosive like a magazine or a bunch of avgas (why, oh why did we get rid of the TASM?).
First, an aircraft carrier is not much beyond being a floating JP fuel farm and bomb magazine. One Harpoon will make a very bad mess, especially with the latest warhead (adapted from the Kormoran warhead, designed to ignite massive CONFLAGs).
Second, the SAMs have their limits. It took more than one weapon to take down a WW2 carrier; a salvo of HARMs to take out the fire controls, followed by Skipper/Paveway-armed strikers.
As for why we got rid of TASM: it never worked as advertised. It was too easy to kill on arrival in the search box, and its search pattern was too small.
I seem to remember that the WWII-era PacFlt didn't think the Japanese capable of using aircraft carriers effectively. I only hope that the current PacFlt doesn't make the same mistake.
Actually, the WWII-era PacFlt had a healthy respect for Japanese NAVAIR. However, China has HUGE problems with its Navy--tacking on a carrier is a very bad idea for a fleet that has no area air defense.