In comparison an F-16 has 9 external hardwired carrying points (missiles, bombs and external fuel).
So if the Americans can get many fighters in the air before carrier destruction... that would be a major problem... jamming issues aside. Note in air to air terms, that US Sidewinder missiles have a tiny range eg 22 miles. And US Sparrow missiles are 20 to 80km - again nothing special.
You are talking about the US and Russian fleets meeting in the middle of an ocean... and you talk about F-16s and Sparrows?
US antiship missiles like HARM and SHrike again don't have great ranges (90 and 40 ish miles), so America must look to use shipborne missiles vs the Ru fleet. Similar situation with Penguin and Harpoon.. range is nowhere near Russian max ranges. Thats not a criticism of America BTW. Its an intelligent use of resources because why have a massive range against modest opponents like Iraq and Somalia etc.
The important figures are not the ranges of missiles or types of missiles, but the number of ships and aircraft and their capacity to carry missiles.
Having 5 of the latest super dooper corvettes and 3 new Frigates means nothing if they carry 32-48 SAMs each... 8 x 50 is 400 at most... being generous with my rounding... when the US has cruisers with 150+ missiles per boat and over 50 of them the missiles don't need to be great... and in fact they don't even need to be launched all at once to try to overwhelm.... they could fire one at a time.
Now you might argue that the more potent Russia Anti Ship missiles have a much better chance for a kill, and that is probably very true, but with about 12 fixed wing carrier groups and probably another 12 carriers for their marines with Harrier jump jets they will likely not run out of planes before Russia runs out of missiles and planes.
Obviously the US is sensitive to loses, but they can use all sorts of tactics to improve their chances and minimise loses.
Perhaps if you want a serious discussion you would be better to start by listing current US and Russian platforms with a general outline of their weapons and capabilities... and in doing that you might realise the situation you are suggesting.
Does anyone know the probably success rate of S-400 and similar vs US air to surface and ship to ship missiles?
It doesn't matter because Russia does not have any naval S-400s in service.... the only old ships they have with long range SAMs are the Slava and Kirov class cruisers and they are S-300F missiles or Rif as they are called... they have a range of 90km. The new upgraded Rif-M fitted upgrade the Kirovs has a range of about 120-150km which is no better than the S-350 Redut missiles going on their Corvettes and Frigates.
The S-350 is an amazing missile... very very capable and it will be an excellent replacement on land for the old S-300 batteries and a great way to boost numbers of missiles for mass attacks, but it is only part of the S-400 battery as a measure to boost numbers of missiles because TOR was too expensive to have in every battery.
TOR is now more affordable and very capable...
Does anyone know how many missiles the US and Ru airforce and fleets would muster?
The US would likely carry 50-100 times more missiles on 20-30 times more ships and it is just numbers pulled from my ass... it could be worse.
How would a modernised Kirov fare vs a single US carrier?
One on one the Kirov would likely kick its ass... though the carrier would likely just turn and run away before it gets to Granit range.
The Kirov would have the equivalent of the S-300 air defence system which could basically shoot down all the US planes and helicopters, and its other missiles could deal with anti ship missiles launched in its direction while the Granits would sink the carrier.
A US carrier with proper AEGIS support on the other hand would be much better defended and would not need to run away immediately... but still might and just use fighter aircraft range to fight at arms length. In which case the carrier can sit back and launch aircraft to launch missiles at the Kirov till the Kirov runs out of missiles and eventually it will sink it or it will run away too.
Without such details it boils down to "US is a lot bigger" vs "pound for pound Russia is better because of its missiles". Which doesn't really get us any further.
Any further than what? The US is the global bully and needs a big navy... and it is huge... but not state of the art any more and has many failings they need to start to address. Russia just needs to put the new ships they have developed and tested into mass production and get some new destroyers and cruisers and a new CVN design going.
Those ships barely can fight with their subsonic missiles, add to that, missiles are cheap compared to those ships. Plus as soon as those US vessels enter Russian waters, guess what Russia's SSK's would do? US can't even find them with their Poseidon's.
I think the point of the discussion was that it was in the middle of an ocean.... taking away the key feature of Russias defensive fleet and giving most advantage to the US invasion fleet of aggression.
In the middle of the pacific with only ships, US navy wins easily even if they get some ships destroyed.
And that is the problem, when the fight is in the middle of the ocean a small defensive force is always going to be at a disadvantage to a carnivore predator like the US Navy that kills democracy and freedom around the globe.
A better scenario is to use the two fleets as intended... a US Naval invasion of Russia... the US would have the advantage of picking a target and engaging just one Russian fleet for all their navy to attack at once but I still don't think they could do it.
The approach and preparations would be spotted and MiG-31Ks can move very fast from location to location.
With the support of ground based air power and resources the Russian fleet would likely lose some ships and subs but it would be nothing like the number of ships the US would lose...
So if you want a scenario where Russia has proven superiority over the US Navy then as a force defending the homeland would be your best bet.
It would be a struggle because the numbers are overwhelmingly in favour of the US still, but adding ground based missiles and aircraft makes those numbers mostly cannon fodder...
You guys think Russia would go one on one in middle of ocean? Lol.
And even if they did both sides know it would escalate to WWIII and any remaining forces heading home will arrive to ashes.
Anyway, if they decided to, Russia's long range Khinzals would be enough to sink large portion of US Navy before the Russian ships even get there.
In the middle of the ocean they wouldn't reach. In self defence at home, which is what they were intended for they would do as you say...
Iskander is in mass production and I would say Kinzhal is likely in mass production too... the US would probably run out of ships before the Russians ran out of them.
Then there are Zircons which would do the rest. Tomahawks are overpriced and rather pathetic in their performance in both land and sea.
Zircons are not in service, but then the Tomahawks were withdrawn from naval use so they likely don't have a lot of them either.
What use is long range asm against 50 SSNs that can appear anywhere?
After they lose their surface fleet what are SSNs going to do?
The few Russian vessels that can carry the Khinzals and Zircons would be targeted first by the US force, thats like 50 fighters against every vessel.
Kinzhal is carried by MiG-31Ks.
Alot of maybe and perhaps. Today they do not have 10 Yasen or even 10 active Akulas (with or without new missiles).
And if your adding Tupolevs you might just add P-3s and P-8s also then. (114+98)
It is not going to happen... Russia has no reason to fight the US Navy, and even if they did it is never gathered in one place for it to ever happen.
Which again has a Russian incumbent official stating that they do not take the advice of so many well intentioned advisers of staying in Russia and not messing up with the big boys...
Obviously the west would love Russia to remain within its land borders... hell ... they complain when Russia moves troops within its own borders like recently on the border of Ukraine in response to Kievs moves and indeed to the Russian Far North and Far East.
But it is in Russias interests to expand its ability to project its interests anywhere on the globe and that is best done by its navy.
Yes individually they are the best of the best, but numbers and additional capabilities matter
They are still just Corvettes and Frigates, but if they continue with their work and get their destroyers and cruisers and CVNs to the same high standard then they are going to have a very impressive Navy.... it is never going to be huge in numbers, but they have a lot more ships to build yet.