That has been a question of debate around here. Brazil and the needs for her carrier for example. I think Russia wants to have a little more influence in the world militarily than they have. Every major power has the 3:1 ratio or at least 2:1 as they go about building new ones to get back to 3:1. Russia wanted this option but couldn't afford to keep them. That is why they only have Admiral K as a token show of force. Her performance as a vessle has been made a mockery of by the international naval community.
I remeber driving past Everett in Washington and seeing three carriers tied up in 2000.
Operating carriers is expensive business. US operates them because it lacks bases for staging USAF assets throughout the globe in its own perception of areas of operation. A carrier allows US ground forces to have a small airforce operating anywhere in the World.
Russis, even during its USSR days never claimed this need.
Moreover, its naval doctrine relies of tactics which make carriers very risky to operate. There has been, as I'm sure you are aware, an ongoing debate about the viability of the carrier, particularly a large one, in the face of missile technology developments since the 60s.
Russians see a carrier as another part of a task force with different kind of weapon systems, i.e. the aircraft. Currently due to budgetry restraints it is unable to put a taskforce together for long cruises, nor does it have a need to do so (as was the case with the US carriers in 2000). However the AK does short cruises and conducts training, including a fairly extensive one in the Barents Sea in 2004 that I am aware of.
US Navy is not spending big on deployments either. Although it is the time of the year when many crews are on leave, so not indicative of normal annual deployments, currently only 36% of its ships are underway, and this includes
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Persian Gulf
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - Atlantic Ocean
DDE is providing support for USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Dubuque (LPD 8), USS Comstock (LSD 45).
The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group, comprised of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7 and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14, returned to San Diego Nov. 21 following a 12 day quarterly sustainment training under the Navy’s Fleet Response Training Plan (FRTP).
When people say 'carrier' they often leave out the other part of its operational title 'task force'. A carrier does not go to seal alone. It certainly does not operate alone tacticaly. When a carrier goes on operational deployment it comes with other vessels (8+), so of the 86 on deployment, 40 would be operating as parts of the CTF/CSG.
Given this, any country that invests in a carrier, even a small one, also invests in its support vessels....quite an investment for most economies and navies.
Russia has the capability to support AK in 'blue water', but is there a need?
I also have my doubts about carrier survival if facing long range land based missile threats, but it seems to me this capability is not available to most threat areas as yet.
