Ramjet technology is now outdated .
Ramjet propulsion is perfectly sensible for vehicles that operate at speeds of between mach 1.5 up to about mach 5-6 or so. They are relatively cheap and simple with few moving parts and no expensive exotic materials required.
The much vaunted european AAM the Meteor uses ramjet propulsion... is that obsolete?
Why are they developing a Ramjet-based missile with a speed of only 4-6M when they already have a Cirkon missile with a revolutionary scramjet drive with parameters much better than 9M speed. Gzur is a step back.
Gzur started a decade ago and is intended presumably to replace a missile that was withdrawn from service quite some time ago. Gzur does not have to be better than everything else... it just need to do what is required and as a short range attack missile for strategic cruise missile carrier aircraft the performance figures listed actually sound ideal. 6m means it fits in the internal weapon bays of both the Backfire and Bear, and you could fit two in end to end in each weapon bay on the Blackjack.... so the Bear can carry 6 internally and the Backfire can carry 6 internally and the Blackjack could carry up to 24 internally.
Its purpose is to accelerate ahead of the aircraft and take down threats... whether they are major airfields or SAM sites or HQs or comm centres on the flight path of the strategic strike aircraft... one use could be to launch them into the centre of a group of American F-22s on their way to intercept the bombers... a nice airburst inside that group would take them out fairly easily...
They have already developed a new propulsion system so they can be used in hypersonic missiles fired from bombers.
The presumed purpose of the Gzur I is a penetration missile... something that can destroy any defences that might be left from when the ICBMs and SLBMs hit a few hours ago... it wont need to move at mach 10... mach 6 would be impossible to stop anyway.
let's wait for the speed of the tests to be announced and if it's more than mach 6 is definitely a scramjet.
That would be a good indicator. It might be a ramjet with more energetic fuel like the Mach 2.5 Onyx going up to mach 5 with the high energy fuel they are talking about...
Doh..... I mean to say Kh-47M2 Kinzhal but cut n paste from the wrong folder and was in too much of a hurry to notice...
Ahh, that makes more sense, but I think Kinzhal is too fat to be carried internally on the rotary launchers for the three large Tupolevs...
Kh-59 is a smaller and probably cheaper counterpart to the huge kh-101 and a tu-22M can carry a big amount with special pylons. It is a weapon that may be needed for new conflicts that start like fires all over the world.
The Kh-59 entered service in the 1980s and is ancient and subsonic and in no way related to the Kh-101... the original reporting name was AS-13. An improved datalink led to the AS-18 variant, but this missile is essentially a TV guided missile where the TV view of the target is sent back to the launch aircraft so the weapon operator can move the targeting cursor onto the target and send the attack command to hit specific targets from stand off ranges.
AFAIK the only aircraft intended to operate it was initially the Su-24 but it has been seen on later Sukhois like the Su-34 and Su-35 and Su-30 families.
There is no point to use hypersonic missiles in low intensity conflicts like in Syria or ukraine. They will be much more expensive than kh-59 which is more than enough against any target in modern conflicts.
Very high speed weapons make sense in situations with enemy air defences, so in Syria and the Ukraine a hypersonic weapon does make sense but often slower weapons could also be used. BTW a scramjet is brand new technology but there is no evidence it needs expensive exotic materials to work properly... a scramjet is a ramjet which means no spinning blades or shafts for propellers... the actual design is pretty straight forward and should be quite cheap and simple to make once the design is perfected of course.
But against land tarets with no air defence or system not desin to deal with cruise missike kh-59 is the best option.
It would depend on the target of course, but one large factor regarding the conflict in Syria is the fact that it is a testing ground... so I think it is possible they might use some exotic weapons...
As Dino mentioned there are already subsonic weapons being developed for the strategic cruise missile carrying aircraft already... this is a SRAM...
This is real bleeding edge science, and it will take some time to adapt them (probably a decade), but when it becomes ubiquitous don't be surprised if we see Hypersonic equivalents of MANPADs like Verba and ATGMs like Kornet.
The improved fuel performance could be applied to scramjet engines as well as rocket motors...
Or simple groundless random technoblabla, capable to generate advertisement revenue on a bait and click false news site.
Well I doubt Scramjets could operate at mach 9 or faster with petrol as a fuel....
I remember reading that. We don't know if the breakthrough is already present in missiles like Khynzal or will be in future missiles.
Kinzhal appears to be an air launched Iskander so perhaps not yet...
I would expect in their efforts to find higher energy fuel for mach 10 plus speeds with scramjets has led them to explore fuel additive options perhaps?
The COMBUSTION SPEED means the time required to burn all fuel.
EXHAUST SPEED means the average speed of molecules in the exhaust of the rocket.
Well it is a bit confusing... if you are talking rocket fuel then combustion speed is obviously supersonic, but in a ramjet or scramjet then combustion speed revolves around the speed at which the air can flow through the hot section of the engine where the fuel is added and burned.
With a ramjet the airflow needs to be subsonic for the fuel to burn, with a scramjet the airflow can be supersonic.
Obviously the exhaust speed is strongly effected by whether it is a ramjet or scramjet, because subsonic burning in the combustion chamber limits the exhaust velocity, whereas air coming in the front of the engine at mach 5 and then fuel is added and burned means it will be leaving much faster than if it had to be slowed down to subsonic speeds before fuel was added and burned...
The nanoblabla particle increase the speed of combustion, it will not increase the speed of the exhaust or the speed of the missile.
Increasing the speed of combustion for any propellent increases pressure faster and leads to airflow moving faster through an engine... which by definition increases thrust and the speed of the object being propelled.
The Challenger space shuttle explosion is a nice example of the suddenly increased combustion speed.
Instead of few minutes the propellant in the main tank combusted in few seconds.
And if that propulsion could be directed through the proper nozzles it would have received an enormous boost in thrust for a very short period.
They are not putting copper nanoparticles into the fuel of missiles to make their fuel tanks explode by the way.
That is the same result that you can expect from a rocket engine if the combustion happens five times faster.
You can't just apply these numbers willy nilly... you can't just add copper nano particles into grad rockets and suddenly have 1,000km range 122mm rockets, but for missiles already designed to operate at very high speeds then higher octane fuel is going to improve performance... or break their motors... we are assuming the rocket or jet motors are adjusted for the new fuel and that the result will be significantly better performance.
Just give it up lmao! lol1 Razz You were dead wrong with your laughable unfounded assertion that his research was click-bait designed by a random website. Wink Keep doubling down on your turd-sandwich, all your going to do is get these posts thrown in to the talking bollocks thread.
No need to be rude... dude... it is important for everyone to think about these things for ourselves and not just accept claims made by researchers. But then we should not also assume all researchers are lying to us either... a bit of scepticism is healthy...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Keep doubling down on your turd-sandwich, all your going to do is get these posts thrown in to the talking bollocks thread. 
Isos
