Thanks for the analysis on the Kuznetsov, Parsifal, but the Kievs were different ships and yes, I do believe it is futile to compare them directly with Western carriers as you have done, as their carrier element was in support of their main function, which neither the Melbourne, nor the Invincibles or US carriers' roles were, so not the same at all. Admiral Gorshkov wanted 'aviation cruisers',with heavy anti-ship and anti-submarine weaponry against NATO threats. There was no equivalent in Western navies of these ships. As for the fundamentals, what specifically are you referring to, because the ships certainly met the requirements of the service.
Yes, you miscounted the rotary element, and I also got a couple of details wrong, the ships could carry 12 Yak-38 single seaters and two 2-seaters, which were not combat capable, along with their complement of helicopters. Their aircraft count was the same as the Invincibles - and they had a formidable weapon load. Also, the Yak-38 entered service aboard the Kiev in 1976, four years before the Sea Harrier, not two, becoming the first fixed wing VTOL service aircraft to embark aboard ships. They did suffer a high accident rate in service, but its ejection sequence was fully automatic; with engine failure (the Yaks had three engines), the ejection seat would fire automatically, so in-service casualties from lost aircraft were very low. On entry into service, the Yaks were limited to VTOL operations, and werent cleared for rolling take-offs, which effectively doubled their load carrying capability, until 1979. Their performance however was still underwhelming, as in warm weather they were unable to carry even a basic load and during trials in Afghanistan they were found to be unable to fly in the high temperatures! Odd that the ships spent much time in the Med, then! The Yak-38 was designed as a simple V/STOL attack platform and structurally was designed to be as light as possible, therefore could only have a limited capability; it was only ever intended as being a support type to the ships it operated from and the intent was always that a far more capable replacement was to be introduced. The Yak-41/141 programme ran out of funding on the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Regarding the Kiev's reliability, I have read similar from Western reports, and yes, this appears to have been an issue that plagues large Russian ships, although there might be a propaganda element in play here, too. It is not uncommon for Western analysts to play down the capabilities of Soviet equipment; the Russians certainly did it about the West. As for Yak-38s (Yak-41s never entered service) 'intercepting' F-14s; they weren't interceptors, they did not have search radar and could only carry short range IR missiles, so the term 'intercept' might have been a little of a stretch to describe what the Yaks were doing. If there were US carrier assets in the area, it would not have been unusual for the Russians to have launched their aircraft, but the Yak-38's primarly role is as an attack aircraft. I suspect your 'source' has been indulging in a little propagandistic licence. In a Russian language account I have on the Kievs, the Yak-38 is described as a Sturmovik, clearly not a fighter, then. That's a bit like the insistence that the Russians made that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25! It was designed to carry IR missiles for attacking helicopters, AWACS and support aircraft, but not fighters. Therefore it was designed as part of the ships' overall surface attack role.
Despite these things however, their roles were clear; as I have pointed out, they were designed as a strike vessel in support of submarines, which, yes, they would have been a beacon for the presense of submarines, but this was in a defensive role, where there would have been other surface vessels, too, so not such a big issue as you might have made out. Their main weapon was the P-500 cruise missile, which in large numbers against any surface fleet would have been devastating. Like I said, just one hit was required to take out a carrier.
Taking the concept of the Kievs further, their design meant that their defined role was close to the Sea Control Ship concept that Zumwalt proposed; the use of VTOL aircraft on a small platform (the Invincibles were designed around the same premise, an ASW aircraft carrier), only the Kievs took the definition further by being armed with a formidable array of weaponry, so, they were ahead of their time, as I pointed out earlier, despite their vices. Despite your hubris regarding these ships, Parsifal, you cannot deny they were heavily armed and effective ships in the role they were designed for. In a combat situation, you cannot rest on the fact that the enemy's ships might be a little unreliable! Hubris is a dangerous thing, and although I have not spent time in the navy, what I can say from years of reading histories is that you can never underestimate the Russians.
Here is an account of the ships' warload; there were minor differences between the ships - this is Kiev's: 4 x 2 P-500 supersonic cruise missle launchers with 16 + reloads, 1 x twin anti-submarine guided rocket launcher, 10 x 533mm torpedo launchers in two banks of 5 trainable mounts in either beam, 2 x 12 barrel unguided anti-submarine rocket launchers, 2 twin 76mm gun turrets. Defensive armament comprises 2 x 2 Storm-M long range SAM launchers, 2 Osa VLS short range SAM launchers, 8 x six barrel AK-630 CWIS guns (these are the little 'daleks' the Russians loaded aboard their ships -well ahead of the West in installing such defensive measures), the ships also had flare dispensers. And then there are its aircraft, the Yak-38s were capable of carrying tactical nuclear bombs and although one prototype did trial fire anti-ship guided missiles, I'm not sure if the service Yak-38 had this capability. They could carry bombs, either 2 x 500 or 4 x 250kg bombs, four unguided rocket packs and 2 x twin cannon pods, as well as 4 IR AAMs. The Ka-25 helicopters were capable of carrying torpedoes.