So similar sizes but it indeed seems the advantage is for the USKSK.
But the UKSK launch system is for land attack and anti ship and anti sub weapons... they are working on an upgraded version for large SAMs but AFAIK it is not operational.
Maybe the time was needed to override the civilian casualties lock...
American Navy ships don't have such a thing... or it is automatically on all the time.
Now seriously, a missile like the 3M54 would give little more than 10 seconds to the weapon systems on the ship to detect, get a firing solution and launch before being hit. For their own good, I hope they have improved massively in their reaction time.
This was in the late 1980s and they were crowing about it being a phased array radar that could identify targets by counting the blades in their jet engines to determine what the target was... but mistook and Airbus for an F-14.
More importantly mistook a climbing Airbus for a descending F-14....
ABM on ships like S-500 isn't needed for Russia since they don't have bases around the world to protect them. Their mainland is protected by land based systems which are better positionned and connected to the ground based OTH radars that see better than any ship mounted radar.
Their cruisers will still get them (maybe their new ones not upgraded ones) for their anti satellite capability and anti carrier ballistic weapons like those belonging to China.
In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.
Not really.... the US system includes a range of different systems some of which are very limited as to which missiles they can carry... most of them started out as Standard launch tubes replacing arm launchers but because Standard is very long because it has a solid rocket booster it was a long narrow missile like Tomahawk and harpoon and ASROC so they started combining them in missile tubes but each version has different capabilities.
The Russians have the advantage that the Redut system is shorter so can be located in more places on the ship where the longer UKSK wont fit.
Ideally having a UKSK-M that takes SAMS as well means no more SAM launch tubes and just UKSK-M tubes... but more of them... but it makes sense to still have SAM tubes because for example TOR tubes are small and could be located in shallow areas no other system would fit so you don't waste bigger tubes with little short missiles that barely fill a quarter of their depth.
And ? It can't carry AD weapons. And redut can't carry cruise missiles.
There is no situation where you would not want to carry both you always need attack weapons and you always need SAMs.
US don't use oniks. They don't need to design their VLS to carry a missile they don't use.
The size of their tubes limits their options for future missiles.
Larger calibre tubes means Russia has less tubes but can use bigger higher performing weapons too.
You don't need 200 launch tubes if Zircon is going to get through most of the time.... you do need 200 launch tubes when your standard anti ship missile is Harpoon.
US VLS can pack any missile.
They have a large number of different vertical launch tubes and most can't pack any missile.