I agree, but remember looks can be deceiving…The Crusader’s baby brother, the A-7, seemed to carry a lot.
(Not to mention the Starfighter in NATO service).

I see there is a new book on the type, it might answer your question.

good idea.
so looking at hardpoints

A-7:
6 hard points on the wing. All 6 seem to be wet points, and also able to carry large loads
2 hard points on the fueselage (side) for sidewinders

F-8:
4 hard points on the wing. 2 seem to be wet
4 hard points on the fueselage for sidewinders

XF8U:
based on models
4 hard points on the wing
4 on the fueselage

A good number of threads you make are just trying to flame and bring out subjective opinions of others, seemingly to create arguments from that. You either lack maturity or you’re just trying to create tension and drama.

nope. aside from you, and oblig, going about that holier than thou attitude, everyone here is not arguing about anything.
ironic that the guy complaining about drama, is the one creating drama.

Aviation cruisers made sense – somewhat – for naval strategy and operational concept Soviet Navy had. It would have been pointless for Soviets to counter US carrier hegemony with carrier force of their own, instead they built an asymmetric, essentially defensive concept of heavy, long-range antiship missiles to counter US carriers long range striking power. Since those missiles were bulky, they needed large ships to carry them and when you have large warships around, it is not a bad idea to have some of them carry aircraft for defence, AEW and ASW duties. However, the main combat a/c – Yak-38 – was disappointing and AEW was limited to relatively weak helicopters of the era. And of course the ships themselves weren’t (and aren’t) so great, with serious propulsion issues.

Nowadays with miniaturization of technology there is less need for huge cruisers carrying gigantanormous missiles around. As we have seen, a corvette-sized vessel can carry warload of supersonic AShM’s nearly as powerful as those Bazalts and Granits of old. So that’s one raison d’être for those ships gone. Tactically, surface combatant and aircraft carrier need to be treated differently and it is a conundrum for commander of a squadron if one of his ships combines both roles. I don’t see any meaningful role for an ‘aviation cruiser’ in todays environment. It is better to build a dedicated carrier and put your missiles on combatants and escorts. Open question is, whether there is place for ‘command cruiser’ type combatant, which has size & height for very powerful AEW and AAW radars, or whether it is better to have those capabilities on carrier too, if you have one.

thanks for the good explanation of you two.
it would seem the Soviet and RF did the right thing not to continue the Yak-141 (limitations back then, and concept of its intended carrier no longer viable today).
sad though, really liked the design.

Can the MiG-29K & Su-33 really lift those loads off a carrier?

I’d like to know what loads they can each lift off a carrier.

good point, what are the typical mig-29k loads for the kuznetsov in Syria?

also wasn’t the fighters supposed to be for fleet defense anyways while the cruisers and destroyers would use their missiles to attack ground targets