As a military concept an Aircraft Carrier is only a sea airfield, with its oun military protection inside (air defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine,...).
Like on land airfields, is the size of the aircrafts that you want to land and take off what determines the size (lenght) of the airfield. On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.
With the improvements in the aircrafts in the reduction of the needed lenght for the runway, and with the shipbuilding improvements allowing the production of bigger ships, the limitiations that forced the use of specific aircrafts, are mostly a question of the past.
Today this still can limit the use of 45 ton aircrafts like the Su-34, but not the use of 30-35 ton aircrafts.
And this is what the US really hate to see. The US hate to see Russia building Aircraft Carriers that allow the use from sea platforms (aircraft carriers) of aircrafts like the Su-27, the Su-33, the Su-30, the Su-35, the Su-PAK-FA or the MiG-35.
Even the Project 23000 Aircraft Carriers would not allow to Russia to do an operation like this of Syria for the defense of the government of Angola, as example. Without the use of aircrafts over 35 tons and with a safe use of land platforms not always assured, to exclude also the use of the current Russian aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons makes not sense for Russia. Helicopters are significantly weaker and significantly more vulnerable aerial platforms.
Egypt has now the 2 Mistrals, and its Navy is not more powerful than the Navy of Russia.
In the long run, aircraft like the Su-30/35 or the Su-34 equipped with anti-ship weaponry operating from a coastal airbase would be much more cost-efficient than a supercarrier.
A squadron of fighter-bomber aircraft coupled with an Il-78 Midas tanker could deploy – literally anywhere – much faster than an aircraft carrier sailing at 17-20 knots speed, so in this case, building supercarriers that would cost sh*tloads of money would make no sense.
I said yesterday that in case of a naval conflict in the vicinity of Russia, Russia's main objective would be to protect her own waters, which task could be done from mainland airbases with ease. Taking part in occasional expeditionary missions like Syria would require only a small naval air contingent, since most of the aircraft currently used there came to Latakia from mainland bases. The Kuznetsov air squadron's only task there (before they completed their deployment some months ago) was to somewhat supplement/reinforce the air contingent at the Hmeimim airbase.
As you can see, the only reason why Uncle Sam keeps 10 supercarriers plus 8 smaller carriers in his fleet is to support its constantly warfighting land/marine forces around the globe.