It all depends on the potential targets for the F.3. In most cases it would be Warsaw Pact strike planes such as Su-20, Su-25 and Su-24, and of course, Tu-22M. I don’t think high-altitude performance would needed against such targets. MiG-25RB might be a different situation.

Damage to a USAF F-15 after been hit by a ‘friendly’ AIM-9 Sidewinder.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]259611[/ATTACH]

All fighter jets usually go bingo after 150 miles supersonic flight surely – unless you’re carrying 11 tons of internal fuel like the Su-35?

Y

es, because one interceptor network around Moscow is the same as locations in Alaska, Eastern Europe, and all across the world on Aegis cruisers.

This has to be one of the most willfully ignorant positions of all time.

Notice I didn’t say US ballistic missile forces, but US nuclear forces combined which includes cruise missiles and B61 gravity bombs dropped by tactical aircraft. As it happens, Russia probably has a greater number of anti-ballistic missiles in service S-300V, S-400 and S-500 coming online – not sure how effective the first 2 missiles are against US ICBMs. But the Russian air-defence missile forces certainly has the massive advantage when fighting against nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and gravity dropped nukes. The US air-defences don’t really compare against Russia’s entire collection of SAMs – Russia has thousands of them.

See Madrat’s post.

You were actually referring to this post? Ok.

The hypersonic missile is tactically irrelevant on any scale beyond small niche work. You’re honestly going to lob one missile per sortie while the enemy is dropping a dozen glide bombs with precision per sortie. It makes about as much sense as their giant land-based cruise missiles being launched at Syria from within Russia. Sure they are big and scary, but they did virtually nothing in effect.

Launching ballistic missiles from supersonic aircraft – it was already done 60 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Virgo

As a SEAD weapon against ground based systems its much the same story. A THAAD or Patriot battery is a sitting duck and compared to the cost of the SAMs this thing is dirt cheap

In which case you could consider the S-300,S-400 and S-500 as sitting ducks as well? An air-launched version of the MGM-140 ATACMS could do the trick – dirt cheap as well.

But what kind of flying platform can carry such weapon(Kinzhal) in well equipped western countries?

That’s not a relevant point – other countries possess other means of attacking naval forces – maybe they don’t need Kinzhal.

And to follow up, how many western countries has SM-3 type of missiles for intercept?

Do you even need SM-3, maybe SM-2 or Aster is good enough? That was my original question?

Here in Norway…

Perhaps even RIM-162 ESSM as fitted on Norwegian naval frigates could prove effective?

It was offered to Finland in 1992.

MiG-31 for Finland, wow! I knew that the MiG-29 was offered to the Finns in the 1990s

OP criteria of course didn’t specify export requirement, only that it’s in service…
This rules out F-20, which was available for export and even ordered but didn’t enter service.

Well it’s an irrelevant criteria – F-20 was avaialble to buy in the 1980s – MiG-31 wasn’t.