Missiles seem the most obvious weapon for a saturation attack, but we have little idea how effective the filters of missile defence will be. I bet on a lower than expected missile performance in warfare because they have the most complex technology integration to outsmart the much less sophisticated countermeasures, except for interceptor missiles. From the start we might find all navies underarmed and overdefended in a way - last time we had that situation, it was resolved by ramming in the
.
Torpedoes run a path that offers them more resistance to countermeasures, a reason why submarines don't rely on saturation attacks to the same degree as surface ships. Current developments in torpedoes opt for supercavitation and range, partly dropping the old wire guidance that made it very hard to fool their algorithms. Naval mines are torpedoes in place. The problem with torpedoes is their still short range in comparison to surface detection capability, forcing ships under water or light torpedoes with even shorter range on flying assets.
If you get a torpedo platform in place (SSK are slow!) to have a carrier group or part of it within range, you can significantly reduce its capabilities by blowing part of the hulls away and flooding them. That reduces the targeting problem to an object with much reduced speed and a more proximate to calculate position. Much calculation has been done on missile saturation attacks, but I'm not sure about that gamble. It somehow always requires to shoot maximum missiles in one volley against a substantial opponent - all missiles - and after being effectively disarmed, you hope for the best.
There must be trick to enhance missile performance. Either the enemy doesn't detect them (as hostile) and countermeasures are mostly or totally not enacted or the enemy provides targeting assistance by signals he doesn't consider to conceal. Stealth can be achieved by stealthy construction and by jamming. Targeting assistance can be enhanced knowledge about enemy ship characteristics, resulting in much improved algorithms for targeting solutions that will be harder to fool. Knowing these characteristics requires to get close with measurement equipment. Espionage can try that any time or manned/unmanned flight can get as close as possible with a sensor array to find out.
But an effective mining of certain waters denies movement within a timeframe of availability, depending on the sophistication and defence of the field. Instead of sinking a carrier, just don't have it anywhere near where it can hurt you. The Falklands War showed that even this approach can lead to surprising solutions for the invasion fleet. Surprise might be the best summary of what will happen. A lot of great minds will devote their brain power to targeting and countermeasure problems and the outcome may be hard to predict, depending on sophistication and cunning. If explosives get near a carrier it's surprisingly easy to sink now because its length, the largest dimension, is 2-3 times that of a frigate and thus you only need 2-3 times more explosives to sink a 100,000 dwt ship than a 5,000 dwt ship. Strange world of the cube root!
