Look at the effectiveness of Azerbaijan in targeting Armenian forces.
Better to look at the destruction of drones in Syria by Russian forces... for which they are developing simpler and cheaper options to engage drones more efficiently and effectively.
The SM-6 missile is too weak to fight Zircon.
In its current form I would agree but it is their best choice to develop a solution from and a reasonable starting point for use against air breathing hypersonic weapons and ballistic weapons launched from IRBMs.
It is a missile with a velocity of only 3.5M and a ceiling of about 30km. Zircon is likely to fly at altitudes over 30 km, so it will be elusive all the way. Only in the terminal phase there are minimal chances. The US currently has no missiles that can intercept 3M22.
Nobody does, but you don't need the speed to chase down a target... these missiles are heading towards the ships... all you need to do is put shrapnel in the path of one of these missiles at the time when they are passing the intercept point... a tennis ball can be moving quite fast but the tennis racket just needs to be in the right place at the right time moving in the right direction to intercept and return the ball over the net.
The frigate 22350 or smaller ships will sink everything within a radius of over 1000km if armed with 3M22. even an aircraft carrier. The era of aircraft carriers is almost over.
Frigates and corvettes don't have the endurance to operate for long periods away from home waters and away from land based air power... and would be totally useless trying to support the two new helicopter landing carriers they are building.... they could sink carriers but barely carry enough SAMs to defend themselves let alone a Helicopter carrier.
The purpose of a navy is not to sink US carriers, the purpose of a Russian carrier is to support Russian naval operations away from Russian waters... the carriers are there to provide early warning of attacks and to allow attacks to be blunted well away from the carrier group itself.
If you want to sink an enemy carrier send a Yasen or Oscar II.
They can only be used against poorly advanced opponents.
They will be used against everybody... they are vastly more valuable than an ICBM that sits in its silo waiting to be used for WWIII, they will be part of the force structure as it travels around the place making things safer and more effective...
Interesting why they shoot Zircon all the time at about 500km?
Just a test. Make sure it works before putting it into service and then start challenging it by trying to hit defended targets and improve it (and your defences).
Yasens can hunt and sink Carriers and other ships but it is pretty useless to support ships being attacked by enemy airpower based on land or at sea.
In fact, the only surface group capable of fighting an enemy at 1000 km and beyond, based in their own means, is a carrier battle group. Any other surface vessel is not even potentially capable of detecting a potential aggressor before it gets in range to launch and keep it away.
Exactly... it makes carriers more critical not obsolete...
How do they get, unnoticed, to the positions from where to attack from 10 different directions, by teleporting?
Coming from different directions is not that hard... in fact with 5 separate fleets I would expect coming from more than one direction will be much easier than coming from two or more...
How would they safely operate in radar silence? This is not possible for surface fleets without airborne radars as discussed, and active radar allows for significant OTH detection of their signatures by opponents.
The modern replacement for Legenda should allow them to determine the location of the targeted carrier group... the radar emissions from the AWACS platform alone should be detectable at enormous ranges...
(Tsirkon surface carriers do not pop up in the middle of the sea but come from somewhere and go somewhere)
With Yasen... yes they could, but with a 10,000 missile Harpoon and Tomahawk attack that would be needed to start sinking Russian carrier group ships they are going to need a lot of launch platforms with lots of communications and coordination...
and add their ca. 500 km radar horizon to that. It is a stretch for the AWACS group onboard, limits the time on station a bit and reduces the amount of directions around itself the CBG can keep under control, but it is doable in principle.
Why do you think they could only keep one AWACS aircraft airborne at any one time... and why do you assume just one carrier?
Against an eventual battle group approaching Russian shores Kinzhal is the best, safest and fastest solution.
Of course. I have never suggested Russian carriers for the purpose of fighting the US in WWIII type scenarios.... that would be a terrible waste of resources, but would also be their best chance of having ships surviving, though I would expect in WWIII like scenarios any Russian carrier groups would be called back to help defend the motherland.
That is not correct. F-18 has more or less range depending on payload, EFTs, IFR etc., so that value above needs to be explained. And you have to add the range of the AShMs they carry to their own combat radius. The result is that they can easily attack targets way beyond 1000 km, and that capability is only improving with Block's III CFTs, MQ-25 and LRASM.
Very true but works both ways... a US carrier attacking mainland Russia has F-18s with inflight refuelling going in and coming back with 900km range JDAM ER or whatever they call their weapons... the point is that a MiG-31 with Kinzhal can reach 2,700km... but it can reach that distance very very fast and the first 700km will be covered in about 13 minutes by the MiG flying at mach 2.8, while the remaining 2,000km will be covered at much much higher speeds...
This means ANY CG asset stays within reach of weapons like Tsirkon and DF-21. And then there's Kinzhal.
Kinzhal will be the primary weapon used for the job I suspect... though they might be busy taking out Japanese ships in the Pacific to start with...
Hyping up as much as it can, then sticking an Iskander onto a MiG-31 and calling it hypersonic,
Iskander is already mach 7 in the ground launched version and was designed to manouver and use tricks to get past SAMs, so the ground launched model was already hypersonic and manouvering... the air launched model benefits from being launched at high altitude and high speed and becomes an even more capable weapon on the cheap... it is actually brilliant.
modifying an Onyx to fly a bit further and faster and calling it hypersonic.
Bunch of cheapskates in power
Yes... what bastards... developing potent capable weapons quickly and cheaply... think of the shareholders...
What they need is a faster Onyx... it already did the job. This new weapon uses scramjet propulsion (ramjet is not capable of getting much above mach 7 or so)... so fundamentally it is new.