You understanding of the decoy launchers wasn’t correct, the illustration (13) clearly points to the decoy launchers.
The pointer shows 2 x PK-2 decoys launchers on the deck edges.
You can have a better view of those in the pic below.

Ah, I see, so the side illustration marking is wrong then. So, these are the PK-2 launchers then I presume. Thanks for resolving this.

What exactly is the Oniks missile doing upon launch? Looks quite complicated..

I presume this might be the low (lo-lo) altitude flight profile mode. After the initial launch, the missile assumes correct attitude using thrusters, the cap is released and the full booster power is activated to bring the missile up to cruise speed after which the ramjet stage should take over. But, just guessing here..

Not that many.. The first F-14D production aircraft was delivered in 1990, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Still, the F-14D was experiencing software and subsystem integration problems, which have delayed deployment of the aircraft to late 1994.

The Bush administration recommended terminating the (new-built) F-14D program in its FY90/91 Budget Revision and recommended an F-14A/B upgrade program instead. Up to 200 Tomcats should have been upgraded.. Two years later the upgrade was cancelled after 18 F-14As were rebuilt. The last F-14D was delivered in 1993.

The F-14D with AN/APG-71 was a waste of money in the end since the primary F-14 mission (bomber/cruise missile interception with Phoenix missiles) suddenly disappeared and they didn’t integrate even the A2G modes which would have been useful in the Tomcat’s later mission as a long range strike platform till the Super Hornets became available in numbers. I guess that’s why it was easy to stop further F-14D procurement.

Although IMHO, the fully featured F-14D (equipped for A2G from the outset, i.e. A2G radar modes, PTID, targeting pod support, etc.) would have been a superior asset compared with the Super Hornet due to its better speed and range, though it would probably lose out on the economical side and growth potential.

Peter the Great has the rear Kinzhal battery set up, never got the front one.

Yeah, thought as much because it’s obvious from the photos, but was puzzled with all the references still mentioning these as being installed. There’s even a photo on the Tor wiki claiming to be an SA-N-9 launch from the bow, but the location is obviously ahead of where the SA-N-9 bow silos would have been.

Does anybody know if there’s a good reference somewhere on the exact weapons fit of the Kirov class members?

For instance, I keep seeing mentioned that e.g. Kalinin/Nakhimov and Andropov/Pyotr Velikiy (and even Lazarev/Frunze sometimes) have the SA-N-9 launchers installed in place of the SS-N-14 Silex launchers (there’s even a photo on Wiki of a supposed firing of one, but the location definitely looks off). But, all I see are these flat panels where these launchers should be installed (kind of like the rear deck empty panels on Frunze and Kalinin/Nakhimov apparently) and an apparent empty spot on the tower where I suppose the radar unit should go.

So, am I correct in assuming that none of the units ever had the front SA-N-9 set installed (plus that only Pyotr Velikiy had the rear set installed)? If not, where are the missiles and the front radar unit (e.g. like the one clearly visible on the rear superstructure of Pyotr Velikiy)? Thanks.

And don’t forget that US left Taliban hanging(CIA war funding), once the Soviet left Afganistan. Same ****, different times.

Say what? Is it so hard to read a bit about the Afghanistan war before repeating such nonsense lines from the Internet.

First of all, the Taliban were in a way a product of Saudi-financed radical religious schools and Pakistani ISI as all the US (and Saudi) funds were channeled by the ISI to the parties they favored since they had their own agenda of controlling Afghanistan (which again was at least partly a consequence of Daoud’s Pashtunistan policies). Once the Soviets left (1990), the US lost interest and when the Soviets finally cut off all aid to Najibullah (1992) and his regime was quickly defeated, the ISI continued to support first Hekmatyar’s forces against the new government spearheaded by Massoud (who was also trained by ISI before the Soviets came, but wanted an independent Afghanistan) leading to a devastating civil war and when his forces failed to take over the country, they switched their support to Taliban (1994) which then gradually took control of most of Afghanistan (with only Massoud remaining against them).

Back on topic, the regime has entered the Al-Assad neighborhood of West Aleppo as well and heavy fighting seems to be in progress together with Russian CAS.

First part true, second part not so much. Al-Nusra came out of AQI just like Da’ish. They were trained by and sheltered the Khorasan group who were straight up Al Qaeda terrorists tied to leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ideological break between Al Qaeda and AQI led to Al-Nusra rejecting the control of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The two groups even fought each other in Syria. Al-Nusra is/was more of an offshoot of Al Qaeda in terms of beliefs, Daesh came out of AQI with it’s far more violent ideology and toward treatment of Shiite and those Sunni that do not support them. But terrorists they are whatever their current name.

IIRC, they fought because AQI moved to Syria and demanded allegiance to al-Baghdadi and many groups switched sides to what became IS, so Al-Nusra had to fight for survival. One major difference between them might also be that AFAIK they have no published goals outside Syria (at least for now) and most of their key personnel are locals.

In all of this discussion about exactly at what weight the Su-33 or MiG-29K can take off from Kuznetsov, nobody seems to factor in the unique ‘holdback’ system used.

What’s there to factor in exactly? There is an allowed maximum take off weight for both aircraft (which probably depends on some parameters such as temperature, winds, ship speed, etc.) off the Kuznetsov that is being inquired about. Obviously, the flight deck physical parameters (take off lengths, ski jump, etc.) are already inherently present in those numbers.

The aircraft does not begin its takeoff run from a standing start – like a Sea Harrier – but is held back by retractable ‘fingers’ that rise from the deck in front of the main wheels.The engines are run up to full power and when at full thrust, the ‘fingers’ retract, immediately releasing the aircraft up the ski ramp.
I’m no engineer or aerodynamicist, but the kinetic energy built up during that holdback and run up must be quite significant – and when combined with the ‘extra’ force provided by the ski jump, clearly adds to takeoff thrust available – over and above that provided by just the aircrafts engines alone???
Can anyone comment on the amount of kinetic energy added by such a sytem ???

The Sea Harrier doesn’t have afterburners and such twin-engine thrust so brakes are probably just barely enough until the take-off thrust is achieved (plus it vectors off part of its thrust during takeoff as well). So, these holds and the ski-jump on Kuznetsov are more of a necessity to be able to launch these aircraft with any useful loads rather than an additional feature.

But, we’d probably need the flight manuals for such information in detail.