3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

GarryB wrote:Plasma is caused by reentry speeds... 7-10km/s. We are only talking about mach 7-8...  no more than about 2.5km/s.

Hardly plasma creating speeds... the S-400 and S-500 probably travel faster than that and they have working nose mounted radar antenna.

Plasma is created at about mach 6 and grows increasingly disruptive to radio comms upwards from there. At mach 8 I believe signals like GPS reception are seriously attenuated.

As for temperature, hypersonic speeds usually generate boundary layer temps of 1,000°C and over. Sufficient to saturate IR sensors.

There is no argument about that the designers has to use same active targeting / midcourse guidance, the question is how and what type?

Side looking sensors can be a good idea.

Anyone got a timetable for Zircon tests untill today?

This combo of Ir/radar seekers on a supersonic high flying missile would make it a nice antiship missile. Is it planned to use them for that role ? I suppose it's a passive radar for SEAD mission. Can it fly at more than 20 km so it outrange airdefence missiles ?

I have actually seen a combined active passive radar antenna... I think it was on the Auspower website...

The active radar range was something like 70km, while the passive radar range was 200km+... with an autopilot to get it within 50km of a naval target such a seeker plus IR sensors would make it a very useful anti ship missile.

A high altitude launch to 240km range would make it a useful anti ship missile too and the heavy 150kg payload would be useful against most ships combined with the kinetic energy of the impact.

As for temperature, hypersonic speeds usually generate boundary layer temps of 1,000°C and over. Sufficient to saturate IR sensors.

A normal old technology cooled thermal imager has its elements cooled with liquid nitrogen to very minus C degrees... in comparison room temperature is very very hot.

The issue for the heat sensor is not the external temperature... flying at mach 3 with external temperatures of over 300 degrees C an IR sensor can still see body heat at about 38 degrees C.

The issue is getting a IR transparent material that can survive the high temperatures of high speed flight.

the Chinese DF21 reentry may use gyro for the last miles down...

Infra red is a bad idea as the missile may be stoped by counter measures easily

Optical image recognition of the target may be a solution , with a on board processor

Ring laser gyros have very good precision and it is over time and not distance so the shorter the flight the more accurate it is.

It comes down to how much the target moves and how accurately the target is located in the first place... with a nuke warhead of course extreme precision is not critical.

Optical guidance is not so effective when it is cloudy and often ship launched decoy rockets of the IR type also deploy a huge smoke screen which covers the target ship and makes it optically invisible.

Teshub wrote:Plasma is created at about mach 6 and grows increasingly disruptive to radio comms upwards from there. At mach 8 I believe signals like GPS reception are seriously attenuated.

As for temperature, hypersonic speeds usually generate boundary layer temps of 1,000°C and over. Sufficient to saturate IR sensors.

Mannnn what surprice .. shocked ..

Yu are dead accurate. It seems America is learning a lot about missiles after receiving a thrashing from 3rd world missile countries. So much accurate
information I have never heard from any western guy. It seems lockheed , Boeing dolts are been forced to sit on desk and study about missiles.

I was talking to a American pilot in 2010 may be before , he did not even know what plasma was. He knew a lot though.
But vow here yu are describing in detail the problems of  super-hypersonic missile in cut out points.

It seems Iran , Pakistan are helping boeing, Lockheed guys gain some traction as to what really is missile technology.
These 2 countries are the most developed /developing their medium range missiles for high intensity conflicts.
I do not believe cia/nsa has enough resources to check mate the Russia missile advances and steal the secrets of Russian industry , because everyone know

russia no longer does any research on any missle it only deals in mass scale production of hypersonic missiles.
The american way might be to steal or follow the russian defence production which is really gearing upto soviet levels. BY spying and stealing from russia production America can try to understand what is the level of russian industry and even understand there have been lot of efforts by Americans but how much they are succesful in understanding russian missiles that is really different matter

sputnik: zirkon update

sputniknews wrote:“The Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile, which is now being tested in Russia, has already reached eight times
the speed of sound and is designed for speeds of up to 12 times the speed of sound. We have also successfully tested the
warheads for the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile,” Leonkov said.

gaurav wrote:sputnik: zirkon update

sputniknews wrote:“The Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile, which is now being tested in Russia, has already reached eight times
the speed of sound and is designed for speeds of up to 12 times the speed of sound. We have also successfully tested the
warheads for the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile,” Leonkov said.

Sound like misreporting again, the mach 8 is probly Zircon's theoretical max, the mach 12 thing sounds more like Sarmat.

AlfaT8 wrote:

gaurav wrote:sputnik: zirkon update

sputniknews wrote:“The Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile, which is now being tested in Russia, has already reached eight times
the speed of sound and is designed for speeds of up to 12 times the speed of sound. We have also successfully tested the
warheads for the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile,” Leonkov said.

Sound like misreporting again, the mach 8 is probly Zircon's theoretical max, the mach 12 thing sounds more like Sarmat.

no, since warheads now for ICBM's are mach 20. So more like mach 20 for Sarmat. 12 Mach is more than likely for Zircon

miketheterrible wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

gaurav wrote:sputnik: zirkon update

sputniknews wrote:“The Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile, which is now being tested in Russia, has already reached eight times
the speed of sound and is designed for speeds of up to 12 times the speed of sound. We have also successfully tested the
warheads for the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile,” Leonkov said.

Sound like misreporting again, the mach 8 is probly Zircon's theoretical max, the mach 12 thing sounds more like Sarmat.

no, since warheads now for ICBM's are mach 20. So more like mach 20 for Sarmat. 12 Mach is more than likely for Zircon

If that true then Zircon is a bloody monster.
Although since we are on the subject, i have been wondering that since Sarmat's warheads are maneuvering wont they lose considerable speed Gliding?

Not a huge amount... they are falling too.

Most of them will be airburst and not need to actually reach the ground anyway...

7km/s is a pretty average reentry speed... which is about mach 22... mach 12 is just under 4km/s... which the Triump and late model S-300s can intercept already... assuming it flys straight.

Note with most ballistic targets manovuering reduces speed, but fro Zircon it is a powered aircraft so it wont lose that much speed if any during turns, and could recover lost speed...

Alfat8 wrote:Sound like misreporting again, the mach 8 is probly Zircon's theoretical max, the mach 12 thing sounds more like Sarmat.

GarryB wrote:7km/s is a pretty average reentry speed... which is about mach 22... mach 12 is just under 4km/s... which the Triump and late model S-300s can intercept already... assuming it flys straight.

I think you are correct. When we discussed about RS-24 (RS 26 not under discussion) we used to say mach 12 for warheads . I do not know what  ICBM warheads flight profile is but I think most of Russian missiles(other countries do not have these type of missiles) they slow before they come in contact.
I believe the ICBM warheads strike their targets at mach no 5 -8 far lower than 7-8 km /sec speeds at which they separate.

Ironically slowing of speeds before hitting targets
is due acquiring of target ,
last stage tracking ,
sensitive warheads,
imaging(radar ,pre determined flight paths do not require radar, thermal to detect targets, they conduct approximate hitting at target only useful for icbm..)

I am quite sure that previously warheads used to decrease their speeds before hitting their targets but with the new advances of re-targeting , multi targeting "on the fly mode" I am not sure what is the exact speed of warheads.

miketheterrible wrote:no, since warheads now for ICBM's are mach 20. So more like mach 20 for Sarmat. 12 Mach is more than likely for Zircon

On teh whole I agree with the notion that ICBM warheads decrease their speeds to mach 5 to 6 before hitting their targets. Suppose the ICBM warheads have to by pass anti missile then they will by pass/conduct evasive manuevres at like 400kms  to 800 kms distance from the targets not 4 -10 kms distance from target.

As far as production is concerned RS-24 and Bulava and under full production where as RS-26 and sarmat are delayed due to (Russia U.S  reset in 2017).
Russia has recently made some excuses to Trump admin for mass production of RS24 and bulava. and is deliberately delaying rs-26 and sarmat due to (detente and may be economic partnership programs with U.S)

G

Today heavy missile, with normal rocket propulsion, can reach easy very high speeds. Best examples are ICBM with their very fast warheads. But...but, but they have all a ballistic path, easy to detect and despite high speeds not very complicated to destroy. Ballistic means no propulsion in the mid and end phase of flying path, like a bullet of a gun.

Zirkon is NOT a ballistic missile, it's a hypersonic cruise missile! Flying low, with course correction and around 8500 km/h. So if a big ship detects a Zirkon 100 km away it will have around 40 sec to react and 100 km is very very optimistic, because it's flying low and the missile is small with a low RCS (radar cross section). So if AD systems on enemy ships are not ready (normally it takes a few minutes to ready systems) the ship is 100 % lost! If the enemy ship is aware of the attack it will be very very hard to destroy the Zirkon. In reality an enemy ship will have serious problems to spot an incoming Zirkon attack and have enough time to react. An attack would be not carried out by simply 1 Zirkon, the enemy ship would face a few more, so no time to destroy all incoming Zirkon with Phalanx CIWS for example on Burkes.

So in reality it would be like this...
A russian sub can fire a Zirkon 400 km away. The enemy ship will spot the Zirkon 20 or 50 km away, giving maybe not enough time to countermeasure with AD missile. Enemy ship can use a close-in weapons system, but the speed makes it difficult to hit more than 1 missile. If a salvo of Zirkon comes in... That's really dangerous!

By the way...Zirkon with the scramjet engine will be the basic for new russian air to air missiles, but that's music of future. Of course much smaller, Zirkon is a big missile. Like MBDA meteor missile with ramjet engine today.

Please compare these information with the AGM-84 Harpoon with speed of 865 km/h or Tomahwak with 880 km/h. Russia has traditional very good anti ship weapons. The BrahMos has NOW a speed of ~3500 km/h and a range of 400 km, with sea skimming ability and declassifies every western anti ship missile. Advantage of western anti ship weapons is the pure number in stocks.

Well it depends on how you define "game-changer" right?
Do you mean just ' considerably scarier than previous missiles'? Do you mean scary enough to change your entire approach in dealing with it?
Do you mean 1% chance of stopping it? 2%? 5, 26, 27, 28 and so on?
A vague definition of game changer risks assuming the Zircon as a magical weapon. It is not, because nothing is.

It's most likely just going to be a formidable missile, better than bhramos, yakhont granit etc(and these are scary missiles). You know, just like how Su-57 is better than Su-35, 30/27, mig-35 etc?

Tingsay wrote:Well it depends on how you define "game-changer" right?
Do you mean just ' considerably scarier than previous missiles'? Do you mean scary enough to change your entire approach in dealing with it?
Do you mean 1% chance of stopping it? 2%? 5, 26, 27, 28 and so on?
A vague definition of game changer risks assuming the Zircon as a magical weapon. It is not, because nothing is.

It's most likely just going to be a formidable missile, better than bhramos, yakhont granit etc(and these are scary missile). You know, just like how Su-57 is better than Su-35, 30/27, mig-35 etc.

Exact!

Game changer in the sense that it stops being chess and starts being snakes and ladders.... with all snakes and no ladders.

Zircon is unlikely to operate at very low altitude due to the dense air there.

At very high altitude... ie above 30km altitude is where it will be operating.... which wont be new for the US Navy as the Kh-22M operates at 40km altitude in its high flight profile mode to evade Phoenix missiles and STANDARD SAMs.

Having the scramjet motor burning all the way means higher energy and the ability to manouver without losing speed.

Very simply if you consider the problems of intercepting something moving at mach 8.... means the missile covers 2.5km per second.

Even if you detect the target very early on and have plenty of time to make interception calculations and launch your interceptors what happens if the incoming target turns 5 degrees. This would shift the interception point several kilometres almost instantly... in fact it wont be for a few seconds before you realise it has changed course and what the actual change is... in those 3-4 seconds it has moved up to 10km closer and the interception point might have moved 5km in one direction or another... that extra 5km means it might take your interceptor missiles an extra 2 seconds to turn and move that distance to intercept meaning a new intercept point needs to be recalculated and perhaps the missiles already in the air can't make the interception point at the right time... they might not be able to wait long enough for the target to get there or might not make it in time. Remember being 1 second away means a 2.5km miss... even a nuke warhead would not get you an assured kill.

Another factor is that the kinetic force of a missile hitting the target at 2.5km/s means even if it was made of aluminium it is going to hit with the force of a freight train... in fact the best warhead would be iron chunks with a small 20kg HE bursting charge to spread them sideways on impact.... momentum blasting them through the structure of the target they hit. Add some magnesium chunks to start fires and it would be devastating.

T

GarryB wrote:Zircon is unlikely to operate at very low altitude due to the dense air there.

At very high altitude... ie above 30km altitude is where it will be operating.... which wont be new for the US Navy as the Kh-22M operates at 40km altitude in its high flight profile mode to evade Phoenix missiles and STANDARD SAMs.

Not all the way, that's right! But BrahMos is a sea skimming cruise missile, flying at a height of 5 meters towards the target. Ok, that's only a attack option, attack from above is also possible.

I await for the Zirkon for the last path to be like BrahMos flying at very low altitude, not the whole path because of air friction and the loose of range. I think Zirkon will have multiple attack options.

rrob wrote: They already have a low tech solution in place. Seriously I kid you not they have blimps with L88 airborne radars tethered to small fast boats positioned far ahead of the bigger ships feeding and extending radar coverage up to 370 miles further out from the edge of the formation which in itself covers a piece of ocean that is quite large not counting awacs making the surface or air approach a tough deal.  The current sm 6 missile can easily reach out 200 miles and touch something if you have a clear radar picture.  I guess you can get a sub to shoot the cheapo blimps if you can get close enough and have lots of time and ammo. They probably have a lot of spares in any case.  Please don't believe everything the pentagon shovels out and take things with a grain of salt, as they still say our nuclear subs can dive to a maximum of 300 feet and have a max speed of 13 knots and that they retired the sr71 without a replacement. Again I 'd like your opinion on a 100 g mach 10 or possibly a faster version of the sprint missile that could be used for the defense against high speed missiles like zircon?  As the sprint missile itself is about 2000 mph faster than the zircon, I would think it is possible to have a workable solution no?
Best wishes

About radar...

All radar detection range data given are for a RCS of 1 sqm!!! Zirkon will have less, like BrahMos and other anti ship missile. It's more in the range of 0,1 to 0,01 sqm, so the detection range is reduced. Another question is the radar band used, longer wavelength means less accuracy, shorter means it can countered by LO (stealth) techniques. Ok, Zirkon will be very hot due to friction so stealth coating makes no sense!

And again the difference is not only speed, the Zirkon is not a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile will loose drastic kinetic energy after a course correction. A Zirkon will maintain the same speed and the same kinetic energy after dozens of course corrections. That's the main difference between Scarmjet and ordinary rocket propulsion. A normal rocket burns the whole initial fuel in short time, you can't say stop take the rest for later (they are some exceptions, but I know none used in army stocks worldwide). That's why big rockets have sometimes many stages.

A

Zirkon will have multiple attack modes!

It is therefore believed to be a winged cruise missile with a lift-generating center body. A booster stage with solid-fuel engines accelerates it to a supersonic speed, at which point the scramjet motor of the second stage takes over. Its range is estimated to be from 135 to 270 nautical miles at low level, and up to 400 nautical miles in a semi-ballistic trajectory.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-04-25/russia-and-india-test-hypersonic-and-supersonic-missiles

And please I don't wanna see this bullshit again, like the whole missile will heat to 6500 degree. Only at the edges, a few squaremillimeter, the heat will be high. And by the way, the problem is solved, because Zirkon is not a illusion it was tested a few times! Reentry of space shuttle or space capsules is with Mach 20 or higher, the heat shield heats up 1500 degree Celsius, don't forget.

And that fast missiles are a problem is not my fiction!

Travelling at a speed that can reach to between 3,800mph to 4,600mph, the missiles will be able to evade the air defence systems of the new 60,000-tonne naval carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, which are currently under construction.

The Royal Navy’s current Sea Ceptor missile system can only shoot down missiles travelling up to 2,300mph.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-navy-new-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-not-stop-russia-zircon-missiles-hypersonic-a7651781.html

S

rrob wrote:Space shuttle does not fly in high density lower atmosphere at mach 12 it would vaporize in 3 seconds.  Not saying what the temp would be for the entire zircon missile because of variations of shape ad aspects but it has got to be outrageous.  The 6800 temp is from an actual six-second flight by a mach 10 missile. Thermodynamic laws do remain constant for both Russia and America.  Actual results would be nice to help clear the air, not rhetoric and some propaganda clips that show a missile for a few seconds.  I'm sure there is a great missile here but wild speculation and data of absolutes spouted by amateurs and fanboys that "just know" because of some posting u tube clips or worse "news organizations" not in the actual program or with no degree at least in the fields associated with if not directly involved do little to convince skeptics or provide enlightenment  
 an actual "test"
Here.
T2T1=(P2P1)γ−1γ
T2T1=(P2P1)γ−1γ


γ=75
γ=75
Employ the stagnation pressure expression to get:

P2P1=P1+12ρv2P1=1+12ρv2/P1
P2P1=P1+12ρv2P1=1+12ρv2/P1
Put these together to get:

T2T1=(1+12ρv2/P1)2/
T2/T1≈(293+200)/293≈1.7T2/T1≈(293+200)/293≈1.7. I get this in the above expression by plugging in a velocity of 2000mph.
Figure it out. then we can talk

Please post no equations you simply don't understand! Don't copy from internet and simple post it.

As I wrote before the temperature occurs only at surface of the edges of missile and not the whole missile. I expect for Mach 6 -7 2500 - 3000 degree Celsius. With the use of ceramics and a cooling system (standard for fast missiles!) it's no problem! And again, the Zirkon is no science fiction, it's reality and it flew with Mach 8! Like your Sprint Missile with Mach 10...it is reality.

Here for example the temperature of a hypersonic vehicle. You can see easy that high temperatures only occurs at the edges of the object.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/X-43A_%28Hyper_-_X%29_Mach_7_computational_fluid_dynamic_%28CFD%29.jpg/1200px-X-43A_%28Hyper_-_X%29_Mach_7_computational_fluid_dynamic_%28CFD%29.jpg

Space Shuttle evaporates in 3 seconds is bullshit by thew way! But let's focus on hypersonic missile.