a) you regarded it not as an aircraft carrier with missiles, but as a
cruiser with a large air complement for long range target acquisition

b) you needed a sea-control, surface warfare type platform

Thus, the CSGN is very similar in role to the reactivated BBs, and
would now likely be white elephants.  They might have been useful in
situations like the Persian Gulf tanker war, where the ability to
carry a fairly large complement of armed helicopters was useful.
However, it took carrier aviation secure the air superiority that
would make such a ship effective, so it isn't a realistic carrier
replacement.

and the current Russian carrier with its SS

There might be a useful role for UCAV control capabilities on
land-attack ships like DD-21, akin to the fighter control
capabilities of earlier escorts.

Not saying it works in practice, but I don't think the idea can be
dismissed as easily as it was in the original post.

1) The French have been operating aircraft carriers since 1927, and
continuously since the end of WWII.  They've got plenty of experience.

2) The Soviets/Russians did not "start off in conservative ways" or "start
small".  They built their primary surface combatants as aircraft-carrying
ships at a time when they had no experience with carriers.  As a result,
their primary surface combatants were terribly inefficient and largely
useless.  A "conservative" approach would have been to build a small
trials-type carrier to gain experience, prior to making a major investment
in aircraft-carrying surface combatants.  Had they done this, their
investment in real warships would have produced a much better return.

In practice, these and the various other hybrid carrier designs faced the major
problem of the vulnerbility of the aviation fuel and thinly protected flight
areas to hostile gunfire. The various cruiser actions off Guadal Canal were
replete with fires in the seaplane handling areas; more planes would just make
the problem worse. Since planes will get bigger and heavier, the restricted
size of the smaller operational flight deck will merely serve to reduce the
hybrid's operational life span.

Were the Soviet designs of cruisers with improved local air support a useful
design in the armour limited missile era? I have no idea. I like them from a
utility standpoint, but I doubt they were more cost-effective than splitting
the functions between two hulls. Though it would probably help the USN to have
VTOL fighters operating should fleet carrier be damaged, but fortunately the US
could count on allies supplying those useful missions.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...            

That makes it look like they built

To arm a carrier with ASMs and area SAMs implies

The only

The cost of the US style CTOL carrier is such that many nations gave away
conventional carrier operations as the cost of replacing WW2 ex-RN
carriers with modern CTOL carriers.  Canada, Australia, Argentina, The
Netherlands and India all got out of CTOL ops and either gave away
carrier aviation or moved to VSTOL ops.

Not every nation can afford the US style answer to carrier operations.

Some seek other answers such as VSTOL, others just reorient their
capabilities and specialties into other areas.

Regards