I meant you don't need a carrier for that.
You do if the enemy is not located near a friendly country that will let you fly aircraft there to operate from.
We saw that cheap Su-25 do the job better than any hornet or F22 out there. That's not an argument for having a supercarrier of 100Kt.
Actually it is... an Su-25 could certainly do a great job, but an Su-33 could defend itself and do the bombing, and operating from an aircraft carrier can operate from 2/3rds of the Earths surface without needing landing permission from any other country.
I also said you need to have a decent airforce and air defence to find the carrier and protect against Hornets. Of course a lonely A-50 will be destroyed but if you have pak fa and su 35 to protect him it will have the time to find the carrier. 30 min after antiship missiles will be scaning for it. They would need to destroy the A50 before it sent the localization of the carrier to be safe, that's just impossible. You will also need to sacrifice some figters too but then if you manage to sink the carrier it was worth the sacrifices.
PAK FA and Su-35 wont protect an emitting A-50U from Standard SAMs fired from long range.
I am not suggesting a carrier is invincible but it is generally very well protected... many people view it as some giant barge that can be used for target practise, but it is more comparable to an airfield... ie it is defended and can contribute to both defence and attack operations with the forces it operates with.
US AWACS also scan the sky and Mig-31 were made to destroy them at safe distance of escort while hornets will need to come close to Su-35 and Pak fa. If the carrier loose its 4 awacs it is in big trouble. Russia has the best air defence network in the world while without awacs detection range against antiship missiles will be just 40km for aegis.
Any fighter in the air has excellent look down capability. Even if all the Hawkeyes are shot down or can't be used, an F-18 or F-35 could still use their radar to detect incoming anti ship missiles and pass that target information to the ships of the carrier group.
Carriers are good when they are used for naval battles in the open ocean. But they are useless against modern forces like Russia or China because on one US carrier you have like the equivalent of a big modern army so if they loose it, it will have more impact than the loses they make to the potential enemy.
A carrier will be very valuable during peace time and small wars. During big wars they still have significant value in that they are aircraft plus significant ship based air defences. I would argue that the air defences on a US carrier group are better than those in a NATO land formation, with fully integrated missiles and aircraft working together to fend off potential enemy attacks and to support attacks into enemy territory.
However in the middle of the ocean, if you have one of them then you control the airspace and have the best picture possible of who is where and that's possible because of the AWACS. That's a huge power-up unless if it is sink by a SSN then you will feel stupid.
they also have that power near the majority of the countries on this planet... the exceptions being Russia and China.... and when they induct the S-400 fully, India and Turkey.
As mentioned, CATOBAR w/o long range missiles can't go to/from the Black Sea unlike the Adm.K, so I expect many, if not all their future carriers to have them as well. Besides, this will add extra firepower given the shortage of escort ships in 4 widely separated fleets.
All of their new ships will have UKSK launchers... not necessarily that many... maybe only 2 or 4, for 16-32 missiles.... that will be useful for anti submarine use at the very least, but it will also likely have S-500 missiles too for anti satellite use which means they are not just aircraft carriers.
I don't think Yak-141 design will need to be radically changed & could probably used a stopgap till a new type of STOVL is built.
The Yak-141 was a very ordinary aircraft... even early model MiG-29Ks were better in terms of top speed, range, cost, payload weight, payload options, manouverability, and several other factors.
VSTOL aircraft are a total waste of money and time.
The main purpose of the VSTOL model of the F-35 is to allow western aircraft to fly with expensive munitions and then land with them without having to dump them before landing.
For the Russians the primary weapons carried by their carrier aircraft will be AAMs which are not that heavy and therefore likely to be able to be returned to carrier if not used, and cheap dumb bombs which could easily be dumped if not used on a mission because they are cheap dumb bombs.
The fact that they are as effective as the expensive bombs just makes them more useful.
Besides, this will add extra firepower given the shortage of escort ships in 4 widely separated fleets.
Only two fleets are likely to actually operate carriers... the northern fleet and the pacific fleet.
All new Russian ships from corvette upwards in size will have the Sigma battle management and C4ISTAR system, so support ships wont be a huge problem once they get their destroyer sized vessels into production.
I would hope they produce their new cruisers at the same time they start producing their carriers...
IMO, option 2 would be best in the long run.
They have developed new compact nuclear power plants for ships designed to operate for decades without refuelling... it is refuelling that makes them expensive, so these units should be rather cheaper.
As they are making their larger vessels nuclear powered too it would make sense to make their carriers nukes as well... this would free up space for more aircraft, more fuel for aircraft operations and more space for munitions for those aircraft to deliver meaning faster transit times to areas that need attention and better combat persistence once it arrives in situ.
Carriers are not cheap.... if you want cheap then don't bother with carriers.
They don't have to be gold plated expensive like western carriers, but they add more value than they take away from a naval grouping of ships.
Janes and sputnik like sensational stuff and most of their sources are shipyards and ship designers... ie marketing people, not the people actually doing the buying.
If the Russian Navy decides it wants super carriers with deep strike capability then these designs make sense, but if they wanted little carriers they could have scrapped the K in the 1990s and done to the Gorshkov what they did for India for themselves.
It is pretty clear to me that a redesigned Kuznetsov sized carrier makes the most sense... take out the huge Granits and fit UKSKs for Zircons, and mount S-500 systems as well as other air defence missiles, and modify the rest of the carrier to have EM Cats and state of the art radar and sensors and PAK FA aircraft or a light 5th gen fighter variant that is not VSTOL and they will have a winner they could probably sell to a few countries too.
As a flag ship it could monitor underwater, the sea surface, land, air, and space... a real tough nut to crack.