You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. The only thing we have to "replace" Phoenix is AMRAAM (the AIM-7 sorta replacement), which has about a third the range. The "no good reason" for the loss of the Phoenix was a brain-dead "peace in our time" attitude that cut military spending to the bone and transferred the money into social programs. In other words, it was the belief of the Clinton administration that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the major threat to carriers (that the F-14/AIM-54 was designed to protect against, i.e., massed bomber or strike aircraft with large numbers of anti-shipping missiles) no longer existed.
In objective numbers, the results is that our carrier groups are now about eight to nine times as vulnerable to such attacks as they were in the past (i.e., there are a number of strategies available to our opponents which could kill a carrier now, which would not have worked during the Reagan years). On the plus side, however, our surface area defenses have improved somewhat (the SM2 block IV / AEGIS ) over the years, in spite of dangerous cutbacks there as well (insufficient funding for the SM3). But our carriers are still far more vulnerable than they should be.