The same report said the weapon could enter service with Russian Navy coastal defense units.<\/p>\n
The Zmeevik missile solves the problem of equipping surface warships with weapons capable of attacking aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups,\u00a0notes<\/a>\u00a0military expert Vasily Dandikin in Gazeta.ru.<\/p>\n He states that while existing submarine-launched and shore-based anti-ship missiles are effective within engagement ranges under 1,000 kilometers, operations in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans need longer-range systems to deter enemy warships from getting in range to launch cruise-missile strikes.<\/p>\n The Zmeevik\u2019s development was spurred by the United States\u2019 own hypersonic weapons program, as\u00a0noted<\/a>\u00a0by Alexei Leonkov in a Radio 1 interview. Leonkov, chief editor of the Arsenal of the Fatherland military magazine, said that while the US may have built hypersonic weapons that can reach Mach 5 speeds, they still fly mostly on a ballistic trajectory, unlike Russian hypersonics such as the Zmeevik, which feature maneuverability to evade air defenses.<\/p>\n Dandikin notes accordingly that the advent of hypersonic weapons has changed the Russian Navy\u2019s research priorities from submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to hypersonic weapons such as the Zmeevik.<\/p>\n While carrier battlegroups feature heavily armed warships for fleet air defense, these ships are still potentially vulnerable to missile attacks. Naval News\u00a0notes<\/a>\u00a0the recent sinking of the\u00a0Moskva<\/em>\u00a0cruiser as a case in point. Despite the\u00a0Moskva<\/em>\u00a0having long-range air defense radars and layered anti-air defenses, Ukraine still managed to sink the cruiser using Neptune shore-based anti-ship missiles.<\/p>\n This huge loss undoubtedly had a profound impact on the Russian Navy, which may have highlighted the vulnerability of its large surface combatants against shore-based missile attacks. At the same time, it may have also demonstrated the potential vulnerabilities of US warships to such weapons.<\/p>\n To be sure, the\u00a0Moskva<\/em>\u00a0has less advanced defenses than US warships, which means that it could be \u2013 and was \u2013 sunk by an anti-ship missile derived from an existing Soviet-era design. To successfully engage US carrier battlegroups, Russia needs a much more advanced missile.<\/p>\n Should the Zmeevik enter service relatively soon, it may be a potent deterrent against the US and allied naval freedom of action, as the US has not yet developed an effective defense against hypersonic weapons, notes Naval News.<\/p>\n The Zmeevik may become a key asset in Russia\u2019s naval bastion defense strategy, which the NATO Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Center of Excellence (CJOS COE)\u00a0describes<\/a>\u00a0as consisting of a geographically and horizontally layered defense.<\/p>\n The same source notes that a bastion defense features an outer area with sea denial as its primary objective and an inner space that aims for sea control. As such, deploying shore-based missiles like the Zmeevik would increase Russia\u2019s weapons range and expand its anti-access\/area denial (A2\/AD) blanket within the semi-enclosed waters of the Baltic and North Seas and in the Sea of Okhotsk and Kuril Islands in the Pacific.<\/p>\n However, the Zmeevik may turn out to be vaporware, despite the bold claims being made about its capabilities by Russian military experts. The 1945 military news site\u00a0notes<\/a>\u00a0numerous issues that raise questions about the integrity of Russian claims about the Zmeevik.<\/p>\n First, there have been no verified Zmeevik launch tests, even though the weapon has long been in development, the 1945 report says. This does not mean that a prototype test launch has never occurred, as the former Soviet Union and today\u2019s Russia were and are anti-ship missile technology pioneers.<\/p>\n Second, it is unclear how Russia will integrate the Zmeevik with other systems. Because it is an over-the-horizon missile, it needs integration with maritime reconnaissance aircraft, drones and satellites for effective targeting.<\/p>\n Third, it is unknown how far Russia has actually come with the Zmeevik\u2019s development. Until a successful Zmeevik missile test is verified, reports about the new weapon may be propaganda or disinformation to confuse US and allied defense planners.<\/p>\n Western analysts may dismiss Russian claims about the Zmeevik as empty saber-rattling until the weapon is proven to work, including in the next standoff or engagement between Russia and the West.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Moskva-Russia-Warship-April-14-2022.webp\")