f so, then they do not have to hide Cirkon's appearance.
They don't have to do anything.
The US equivalent does not exist and at the moment the US really does not have a successful reliable hypersonic manouvering weapon like the Zircon... showing the real missile will immediately show the Americans the shape that works... why help them?
Anyway, the USA in its X-51 also used it.
The Space shuttle is much faster than Zircon... the point is that different shapes require different levels of propulsion... they could make a brick hypersonic simply by attaching a minuteman rocket to the back of it, but it does not make it an effective weapon because the shape of the brick is not efficient and aerodynamic and will rapidly slow down... or actually shatter at such speeds.
The Zircon uses a shape that allows the scramjet motor they are using to maintain speeds and altitudes not attained by air breathing jets before... and there is no advantage to Russia to reveal that shape or design any time soon.
So I don't know what they would find out if Russia presented Cirkon's appearance?
When the US revealed the shape for the US Space shuttle they revealed a design that could be made at that time that that level of technology and materials... they spent over 2 billion dollars refining the shape specifically for the use as a glider. The Soviets could then adapt the design to their needs without spending 5 years and 2 billion dollars working out a useful design shape for that job... which happened to be very similar but not the same.
When the Soviets revealed a mach 3 fighter in the form of the MiG-25 and the US needed an equivalent really quickly... the US came up with a copy... the F-15... same layout and general planform. What the west didn't realise is that the MiG-25 was an interceptor and not a fighter, but that is another discussion.
At the end of WWII the Soviets found they had no four engined strategic bombers... they were leaders in bomber technology before the war, they had several four engined bombers like the old 1933 TB-3 and the more modern Pe-8, but there was no funding or development of any four engined bombers during the war because that is not what they needed. The end of the war arrives and they need a new four engined bomber and three land on their territory... what do you think they will do?
More important are the materials it is made of, the details of the propulsion, etc.
Of course they are important, but with the wrong shape even the best materials and propulsion mean nothing... you can make an An-2 out of heat resistant Aluminium alloy and fit a scramjet motor but it will never break the sound barrier...
The US had no problems showing the X-51 and Russia still has a problem to even publish the appearance.
Because they are behind in the technology, the design of this particular weapon is not secret but how many other missiles do they have they don't mention?
Obviously if they had other missiles that worked we would hear about them and be told the Zircon is a copy of them, but that does not mean that better shapes have not been tested in the US or elsewhere.
Probably since the X-51 was a test vehicle and a poor performer that was soon abandoned, while Zirkon is a cutting-edge weapon system with impressive performance unmatched by any other AShMs and which will soon enter service and give Russia a huge qualitative edge.
Good enough reason you reckon?
A huge factor is that Zircon is a weapon designed to fit into a launch system that is currently being deployed now. X-51 was a test vehicle.
Once it has cleared its tests any ship or sub using UKSK launch tubes being new or upgraded old, and carry and use this weapon against land and sea targets.
Talk about a force multiplier.