Russian Navy "On Verge of Collapse"

Again, these are claims by some based on the info that the community as a whole has. It’s based on what the missile is capable of doing on paper. A cruise missile is more difficult to shoot down than a ballistic missile because it doesn’t fly in a straight line. On paper and in tests this missile has flown at Mach 6 and at maximum speed of Mach 8, in comparison to the US Tomahawk which has a maximum speed of roughly 600mph? Very big difference.
The Patriot isn’t fast enough to shoot it down (Mach 4) and the Zircon is maneuverable just as the bottom of your article states it has the potential of being (if the Russians aren’t bluffing of course). On paper the US ships don’t have anything that will shoot it down. One must also remember that during the Cold War the Soviets had entire squadrons of planes (24 if memory serves me right) armed with Granite missiles tasked with hitting carrier groups, they would be accompanied by subs (2) each armed with an additional 24 granite missiles also waiting for the order.... In the worst case scenario one could expect that as many as 50-60 Zircon missiles would be fired at a carrier group and these missiles with the help of satellites would communicate with each other to make sure the same target isn’t hit twice (again on paper). 1 missile is enough to render a ship crippled if not sunk.... Cost per missile? 1-2 million US. 60 missiles is 60 missiles even if a dozen are a shot down.

Russia has created an 'unstoppable' 4,600mph missile

 

All of the technical information may well be true but that doesn't mean that carriers are obsolete by any means. Indeed carriers have been and are used for a lot more than fighting Russia. I can't even recall a single time we've used carriers against Russia. If we got into a conflict with someone equipped with missiles of that nature it would have a significant impact on how the carriers would conduct operations but that is a long way from being "obsolete". The people making that claim either don't know what the word means or don't know what they are talking about or are in the propaganda business. All three is a distinct possibility.

 

For Option 3: More specifically, in the propaganda business for a country which lacks the capability to build and deploy its own modern carrier fleet. In other words, a case of "We don't need ____, because our new weapon can destroy _____ with impunity. Hence _____ is obsolete. Do svidaniya, comrades!".

 

My friend I cannot argue with the above. Perhaps the the term “absolete” was intended for the use against Russia perhaps even China (which too is now working on similar projects). Even without these missile tho, I couldn’t imagine what carrier groups would do against these countries simply because of size and proximity but that’s another matter all together.

I have recently read that these missile like the new Kalibre can be placed on virtually any platform (a cargo ship for example) and would never be detected until lunch. Absolete or not, the Zircon missile is a game changer.

Glad you are still here btw

 

The Russian Navy’s priority after WW2 was to locate and destroy carrier groups with a combination of land based missiles, aircraft and submarines... Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union (or any other nation) could match the US Navy ship for ship. Much easier and cheaper to create a missile that can sink a vessel.

 

Even during the cold war carrier strikes vs the Soviet mainland would have been risky. That said they would still have been useful in sea control and ASW work. Other possibilities exist. The Chinese military has advanced to the point that carrier raids would also be risky IMO. Again that doesn't mean that carriers are "obsolete" just like battleships weren't "obsolete" at the end of WWII. They were still useful although arguably they were no longer cost effective to build and after a point no longer cost effective to operate.

 

Yes, but this makes carriers obsolete because?

 

Indeed the Soviets realized that there was no reasonable way they could launch overt military operations against powers very far from their homeland so they didn't bother to try. If war broke out the important are to them was Europe and there they didn't need a fleet. All their fleet had to do was protect the Soviet home land. And if both sides started throwing nukes fleets weren't going to be of that much impact after the first exchange either. When WWII ended the West pretty much had a monopoly on naval power and it would have been prohibitively expensive to even think about trying to overcome that especially when there was no real need.

 

As I had wrote above, “absolete” was perhaps referred to against countries which have these missiles (or types) specifically Russia and China. Carrier groups are still very effective against smaller countries with no such tech Egypt for example. But if these missile were to be sold to other countries...

 

I still fail to see how this has made carriers "absolete". You are confusing "absolete" with "no longer able to operate with near-impunity". This may or may not be true, depending on how truthful Russian state media is being about the new missile (given all the pomp over the SS-N-32 during its rather miserable testing program, I have my doubts over the authenticity of the reporting on this new anti-shipping missile). "absolete" does not mean "no longer able to operate with near-impunity", and vice-versa.

As an aside, I can't think of a single technology that made a weapons system obsolete. Obsolescent yes, obsolete no. There's a difference and its an important one.

 

I’m puzzled as to what “rather miserable testing program” you are referring to? The Bullava has undergone 24 test launches 16 of which are considered successful.

SS-N-32 "Bulava" | Missile Threat

What is your definition of miserable? As for absolete... I can not imagine that admirals would operate carrier groups in range of the Zircon missile... Simply doesn’t seem logical. Again this is all on paper but seems to me that the best defense against such a missile is to stay out of its range? This can be the case against coastal defenses but staying out of range of aircraft capable of launching these missiles hundreds of miles away becomes more problematic... Against submarines even more so. This has nothing to do with Russian state media. When such missiles are tested they are observed by satellites from other nations especially the US using its sophisticated AWACS system... At Mach 6-8 the US ships have no defense against (again on paper).

 

The Soviet BS is getting pretty deep...

 

The SS-N-32 was claimed to be "operational" in various capacities and a "game changer" in Russian state media since c.2008. It was not until 2013 that the missile was deemed acceptable enough to be put into limited service on the lead boat of the Dolgorukiy class. Until 2013 the failure rate was ~50%. Hardly a success; in fact that is rather miserable. Point is this: don't believe the Russian state media until something is proven.

Here's one metric: when the designer resigns in disgrace. Russian Bulava missile designer quits after failed tests

But you can't stay out of range, as per your latest message this will be on every platform the Russian navy fields. So clearly the only solution is to scrap the entire US carrier fleet?

"When such missiles are tested". Yes......I do not believe pablum from Russian state media. When this missile is tested extensively, validated by outside sources, and deployed in quantity, then I'll believe it. Right now its a paper project -- big difference.

The idea of a hypersonic anti-shipping missile is by no means new. What about the Soviet AS-4 -- a Mach 4+ missile deployed 55 years ago? This was hardly a game changer. What about the 1980-vintage Mach 5 AS-16? Or the 1984 SS-N-22? The US did not declare their carriers obsolete in 1962, 1980, or 1984. Why would they now?

 

Don't forget Electronic warfare...that can jam and even create ghost targets...energy weapons and energy shields still a little ways away but very much being worked on...this missile may well be one of the last of its kind.
Russia are leaders in helicopter and (civilian) missile/rocket technology im surprised they are having problems...

 

All of the corks have been fixed. Since 2013, the missile has had a fantastic success rate. It is now operational and is more capable than any current ICMB outside of Russia.

Every country has shortcomings when testing new weapons. What’s important is how quickly these shortcomings are fixed. The US seems to currently be having a lot of issues with the F35 for example. A 1.5 trillion dollar project...

Rightfully so. Since his departure much has changed in a better direction.

I think a more logical solution would be not go to war with Russia or China who has now developed the DF26.

China's DF-26 Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile: What Does the Pentagon Really Think?

But it has been tested and varified which is why other countries such as Britain and the US are taking notice. Both are aware of this missiles test results. So are all of us after numerous reports from multiple countries. These aren’t just reports solely based on what Russia says.

The missile you are referring to are ICBMs at least the SS-N-22 is. I believe the R16 is what you may be referring to not the AS16? If so that missile too was an ICBM. A Hypersonic anti ship missile is in fact a new idea. These are cruise missiles and cruise missile are the most difficult to shoot down. They fly below radar and change trajectory... There is no country to date that has an operational hypersonic anti ship cruise missile... Again, the US Tomahawk travels at roughly 600mph. The Zircon would be approximately x10 that. This fact alone should not be over looked.

Why should the US declare carriers absolete?

 

I agree. I just don’t think they are having problems as some seem to think. The S400 is considered by many to be the best SAM out to date and if the new S500 which will be operational in a few years is going to be as capable as the S400 Russian skies will be secured (until something newer comes along of course )

 

“Soviet”? Soviet Union ceased to exist in 91’...

Considering that it’s 2017 care to clarify?

 

The name changed in 1991, however, the old habits did not.

 

You miss my point -- which was about "hype". The F-35 has been hyped for years -- which is why I never believe US military distributed "news" either. The SS-N-32 was (and still is) a much hyped weapon system which has so far failed to live up to that potential -- the same as the F-35.

What's so special about the DF-26 when there are many comparable IRBMs out there?

This has nothing to do with the current discussion, nor is anyone proposing that we go to war with anyone -- the West is not "out to get you". This is a discussion of how 1 new missile does not make the aircraft carrier obsolete.

Countries "take notice" of any new weapon. This does not mean it makes the aircraft carrier obsolete.

Oh my. Where do we begin....?

The SS-N-22 is an anti-ship missile. Soviet/Russian name Kh-41, 3M80, or P-270 Moskit. Deployed in 1983, maximum speed of Mach 3 and capable of 9+g evasive maneuvering. Suitable for launch from surface ships, aircraft and submarines.

The AS-16 is an anti-ship missile. Soviet/Russian name Kh-15 / RKV-17 / X-15. Deployed in 1980, maximum speed of Mach 5. Suitable for launch from large Tupolev bombers. The R16 was a Soviet ICBM. Nothing to do with the AS-16 what-so-ever.

The AS-4 is an anti-ship missile. Soviet/Russian name Kh-22. Deployed in 1962 (!), maximum speed of up to Mach 6 depending on variant. Suitable for launch from the Tu95. In fact, Russia has deployed a new version of this (Kh-32) last year.

The hypersonic cruise missile is not a new idea. This goes back to at least the 1970s. Look at the history of Soviet missilery. BUT, note that the "hypersonic" moniker is just more hype -- speed isn't the critical factor, its what the missile can do while at that speed. A missile which can move solely in a straight line at Mach 5+ is rather easy to defeat, as reflecting by the fact that Mach 20+ ICBM MIRVs can be defeated with some degree of certainty.

The Tomahawk is irrelevant here as the Tomahawk is not currently intended for anti-shipping operations. You'd be best to compare to a directly comparable US anti-ship missile, which would be the Harpoon. But still -- paper comparisons are irrelevant in general unless your sources are industry papers, classified documentations, and/or closed-door thinktanks (not open source internet sites).

And I have to ask: why the fixation on the Zircon? Why not the Brahmos-2?

They shouldn't, which is what I've been saying for several posts now. The hypersonic anti ship missile will make the aircraft carrier obsolete in the same manner in which the VA-111 Shkval has made the US submarine fleet obsolete......