3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

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.

Good. Radars in front of the battlegroup should make it much easier to find... radar emissions go for thousands of kms and are easy to triangulate. Such an emitting system can be the first target... even just Kh-22ms with anti radiation seekers could be used to take those out.

And the funny thing is that it is the speed that makes Zircon effective... it does not matter if it gets detected early... it is its high speed that makes it hard to intercept.

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?

Sprint missiles are large and very very expensive and are designed to intercept non manouvering targets that are travelling at very high speeds. You could spend a small fortune and put them on US ships I guess, but Zircon is smaller and cheaper and fits standard UKSK launch tubes.

Sprint had a range of something like 40km and operated up to about 30km, but it flew so fast it could not use radar to detect the target it needed command guidance and an ablative nose cone to stop it burning up. It also used a nuclear warhead to destroy the target, which would have a negative effect on the radars of your fleet about to face more missiles in the attack.

Acceleration is not really that useful in this regard... just the costs involved in such a weapon let alone its non standard size meaning it wont fit US vertical launch tubes just makes things worse rather than better.

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.

Almost certainly, but I suspect high flying and diving attack will be the preferred option for best range and flight speed.

Very few things are supersonic at low altitude.... Brahmos and Onyx and Yakhont are mach 1.8 weapons at low altitude. They only get to mach 2-2.5 when flying high profile missions.

Remember about detection here a 400-kilometer range scramjet is not going to be flying on the deck most of the time probably only the last moments as the temp will be unreal at sea level due to the density of the air. It will be detected far away due to the height it flies, it's size temp difference it create

The ramjet powered Onyx probably travels 400-500km to its target. The Scramjet powered Zircon probably travels twice as far on the same fuel tank by travelling twice as fast.

A ramjet engine burns fuel at subsonic speed.. the air going into the engine has to be slowed down to subsonic speed before fuel can be added and burned and then blown out the back as thrust.

A Scramjet burns fuel at supersonic speed so the air blasts in and is compressed and fuel is added and burned and it leaves the rear generating thrust.

Ramjets are limited to between mach 4 and mach 5... scramjets have no speed limit.

Zircon will be compatible with UKSK launchers.... on corvettes and all frigates and all destroyers and all cruisers and all carriers new and upgraded... and all subs and it could be put into a standard shipping container and dumped in the sea as a sea mine...

The USA has HABIT of not broadcasting the actual performance of its equipment as said earlier.

Really?

After Desert Storm Abrams tanks were invincible and T-72s and T-80s were junk... even though there were no T-80s in Iraq or Kuwaite.

I would agree the US has a habit of not telling the truth...

Space shuttle does not fly in high density lower atmosphere at mach 12 it would vaporize in 3 seconds.

The Zircon would not fly at mach 8 at low level... probably closer to mach 3 or 4 which is unprecedented speed for that altitude.

Zircon will of course have high and low flight profiles just like previous supersonic missiles the Soviets and Russians use, but there is a huge range and speed penalty involved in flying low to the target...

Space shuttles clearly vapourise when part of their heat shield is removed by damage, but Zircon could easily have ablative materials near hot spots and even pump its liquid fuel through the skin surface where heating occurs to prep the fuel and to cool the surface.

Sprint operates at less than 30km altitude where the atmosphere is thickest. Zircon will likely operate at more than 40km altitude perhaps even higher so friction wont be such an issue except during the terminal dive onto the target.

Azi the equation has to do with friction in the atmosphere in relation to pressure and temp used in aerodynamic design.Please, let's try to be civil. Thank you, Gary, for posting the fact that zircon does not fly at Mach 7 in the lower atmosphere (my point), but at altitude, and that at that height ANYTHING can be visible on radar (depends on what kind and how good) from great distances also sonic turbulence heat signature generated would be substantial. It's not some magic wand that appears and attacks like a cloaked Klingon warship with no defense possible so everyone must throw up our hands and surrender or die. Reminds me of the unsinkable Titanic they use to talk about a lot before 1912. Everything has an Achilles heel, bet on it. Tracking is the hard part, killing it is relatively easy you put something in its way like every other missile or just put more of the same in front of the missile it goes away no big deal as you do not chase a missile from behind so speed not a factor except close up. Sm 6 can intercept ballistic object at a faster speed, so you throw up 25 instead of one against one that can maneuver. Not to say that this missile is worthless far from it I can see a strong reaction to this missile by other countries as it has great potential. My last post here as the subject seems too volatile, and I did not join to argue but to learn. Lastly, The space shuttle would be rubble if it was to fly mach 10 in the lower atmosphere just not possible to take those temps (6800F plus) and tremendous forces that it would be subject to, as it was designed for 3000-degree shallow reentry for short periods, in almost vacuum conditions of 300,000 ft plus please look it up.
Best wishes to all

Ok rrob...how fast Zirkon fly in low atmosphere? Mach 0,2? You know it??? It's clear that a missile at low altitude is a bit slower, but not that too much. Mach 6-7 in low altitude seems not unrealistic. Nobody knows the data for serial produced Zirkon!!! Maybe it will be slowed down a bit, for better accuracy and reliability. Maybe it will be faster (unrealistic). It's now top secret.

This example and equation is copied 1:1 from internet! It has more to do with thermodynamic, because it's based on thermodynamic adiabatic equation!!! You can calculate with these equation the temperature of air heated up, because of hypersonic speed, but not of solid parts. Air is a thermic insulator, for example in a 100 degree Celsius Sauna you will not boil after a minute. So it will take some time to heat parts of the missile to temperature of pressurized air. Friction still occurs and there are more than 1 type of drag. And only the edges will heat up!!! Take a look at the image in my previous post.

And how long will Zirkon travel? Two hours or three??? Less than 5 minutes!!! And it's a one way ticket. Fire, fly and kill!

Why are you discussing things that are already reality? Now, nearly nothing can stop or intercept a Zirkon. I never said that's impossible or in near future will be no countermeasures. But today, NOW the Zirkon missile is superior. There is still a chance today to intercept Zirkon with actual western AD systems, but the chance is very low. And don't think a SM-6 is in seconds after detecting the Zirkon in air to intercept. Even modern AD systems needs time to intercept a target, from tracking, to command, to fire, to fly...

And again and again...Zirkon is NOT a ballistic missile!!! So it's difficult to be intercepted by AD systems for intercepting ballistic targets. Zirkon can make evasive maneuver during flight without loosing much speed.

Azi wrote:Ok rrob...how fast Zirkon fly in low atmosphere? Mach 0,2? You know it??? It's clear that a missile at low altitude is a bit slower, but not that too much. Mach 6-7 in low altitude seems not unrealistic. Nobody knows the data for serial produced Zirkon!!! Maybe it will be slowed down a bit, for better accuracy and reliability. Maybe it will be faster (unrealistic). It's now top secret.

The required energy to keep the speed is proportional to the air density.

The tircon fly at a height where the air density is twenty times less than on sea level.


Means that the missile needs twenty times more power to fly at sea level.

low chance.

But if it dive from 20-30 km altitude then it can hit the target with hypersonic speed .

Em!? That's why it fly a bit slower at low level and range is only 1/3!

Zirkon was tested with Mach 8, 9800 km/h according to some source. I wrote it will have multiple attack modes including flying high at 20-30 km and diving to very low level for the last path. That's the "economic" attack mode, so that the attacker can be in safe distance. Other attack mode is flying low with 1/3 to 1/4 of range and bit less speed, giving the advantage of a sneaky attack. What mode is better? I don't know!

Speed of serial produced Zirkon? I don't know! Some sources say Mach 5-6 other Mach 7. Test was with Mach 8... Let's wait and see ^^

Friction by the way is not 100% of energy to be spent for a missile but the percentage of energy wasted by friction gets higher with density and speed^2, that's correct. No one wrote the opposite ;D

F

Azi wrote:Em!? That's why it fly a bit slower at low level and range is only 1/3!

Zirkon was tested with Mach 8, 9800 km/h according to some source. I wrote it will have multiple attack modes including flying high at 20-30 km and diving to very low level for the last path. That's the "economic" attack mode, so that the attacker can be in safe distance. Other attack mode is flying low with 1/3 to 1/4 of range and bit less speed, giving the advantage of a sneaky attack. What mode is better? I don't know!

Speed of serial produced Zirkon? I don't know! Some sources say Mach 5-6 other Mach 7. Test was with Mach 8... Let's wait and see ^^

Friction by the way is not 100% of energy to be spent for a missile but the percentage of energy wasted by friction gets higher with density and speed^2, that's correct. No one wrote the opposite ;D

Air friction (resistance) has speed^3 relationship.

Singular_Transform wrote:
Air friction (resistance) has speed^3 relationship.

Air resistance, the drag (English is not my native language!) has the equation:

F = rho/2 * cw * A * v^2

rho = density of air
A = surface
v = speed
cw = drag coefficient

The Power is P = F*v

If you mean the Power than you are correct with v^3.

Maybe my English was bad O.o Sorry!

rrob wrote:Friction by the way is not 100% of energy to be spent for a missile Wink but the percentage of energy wasted by friction gets higher with density and speed^

Thus the equation!  A hell of a lot of thrust is required to push a missile to Mach 5 in the thick lower atmosphere soup, no free lunches as they say temp and other requirements go up with any increases in speed. Would take some real high energy fuel just to reach those speeds let alone Mach 7 8 or 9 or whatever and to run continuously for 3 or 4 minutes is asking a lot of any material and probably a lot and I mean a lot of fuel. I posted the Sprint missile speed and temp to give you an idea what the zircon will be dealing with. The sprint had to have an ablative coating to survive that brief 8 second period as airframe reached temps of 6800 degrees even with an efficient conical shape. 6800 degrees melts or destroys just about everything known to man but who knows zircon might be cooled with circulating liquid helium but that also adds weight and bulk that is in real short supply because of fuel requirements and don't forget the scramjet engine, warhead, guidance, steering, battery, and its associated heat protection must be carried too. Zircon won't likely be able to use such an ablative coating like the sprint as it leaves a tracible trail to follow. Temperatures will be spread out a lot more because of a less efficient shape because of propulsion and flight demands Remember all the claims for this missile stealth, Mach 7, maneuverable, 400 km range unstoppable etc.    Also Azi, LOL come on, give us a break, "some source" really now!  Hey "some source,"  says there are death rays from Mars hitting the earth. But would not care to make a bet on it. Reality for some is fantasy for others Proof makes the difference. Would you believe Noth Korea has such a system just because I said  I heard a source? Unlikely right?   Don't like me for my opinion or wise a=s cracks ok, understandable desn' matter to me as I still think you are an ok well-meaning guy. But listen to some of what the other posters have to say and at least consider it  Finally, many a project has made wild claims in the past only to be disproven later. Look back at the PAK FA its first claimed speeds its currently engined model cannot even reach let alone sustain.  Why, because performance data released were based on a projected (AKA WISHFUL) engine performance that was never realized to lived up to the hype. When the first SA10 came out decades ago there was a claim in Soviet war machine book I have of a 2000 mile plus range only later to be proven false. In case some of you think I'm picking o the Russians the same thing happened to the Americans and their lousy ultra expensive patriot missile all sorts of hogwash claimed only to be disproved years later.  Might not be the case here, but forgive me for withholding my belief and acceptance until a little more is proven.
Regards to all

Bla, bla, bla...America is great...bla, bla.

Believe it or not with Zirkon missile. I don't care! What you are doing is simply trolling, nothing more. I gave you some source, you gave a f**k about it, just simply bla, bla. You can discuss about the technology here, but you don't want.

What about Su-57? It will have a better engine, than F-22! So what is about Su-57? What are you writing about? Where are your source?

Last time! I wrote, Zirkon had a TEST with Mach 8 (source TASS 15. April 17). Serial production Zirkon will probably have Mach 5 - 6, better to handle, more economic and better for LOW altitude. And as I posted (by the way you cited nothing!) Zirkon can fly at LOW altitude, not at the speed in 30 km height but still hypersonic. It will have a hypersonic attack mode (yes it's hypersonic) with rduced range 1/3 and a bit slower, but harder to detect. Now the question what is "a little bit"? Don't ask me if you are so interested, ask please the russian designers of the Zirkon. I can't give you the exact specification data for a top secret weapon! That should be clear!? I will wait and see! And yes, I trust russian sources, like I trust us-american sources.

Zirkon is not a Superduperwaffe! But it will be gamechanger in naval warfare, where USA complete dominates now. USA will soon have their own hypersonic cruise missiles, it's part of the "Prompt Gobal Strike" program. Are US hypersonic weapons more realistic to you?

USA pushed in past not in hypersonic weapons, because for Saddam and Gaddafi no hypersonic weapons were needed. Dozens and hundreds of slow Tomahawk were enough. USA prepared for assymetric conflicts, against terroristic attacks in occupied countries (Iraq, Afghanistan etc).

What piss me really off is your galactic "us-american ignorance"! You believe only USA can construct and design great things, but me as a stupid small unworthy european can say...that's wrong! And please don't come with "USA spends 1 trillion US-$ for defense, most money spend is for personnel, staff and employess. You can buy a 60 W light bulb for 1 Million Dollar, but it will not radiate brighter than my 60 W light bulb for 1 Dollar. I hope you understand.

Lets be clear.

Zircon is going to be both an anti ship missile and a land attack missile.

It is jet powered... not rocket powered, so this bullshit about using 30 times more energy at low level is just that.. bullshit.

A rocket powered missile burns fuel at the same rate whether operating at high altitude or low altitude.

A jet powered missile can throttle back at low altitude to prevent fuel being wasted in the early part of its flight.

Spotting the Zircon missile is of no use to a US fleet as the missile changes direction.... which a ballistic target does not.

Zirkon will have a radar and likely IR sensors to detect its targets so it will also see incoming threats and be able to evade them.

Sprint and Standard are not small missiles and could easily be detected 20km before impact... a quick turn to the right 10 degrees followed by a turn 20 degrees back will send the incoming interceptors 10km to the left and then 20km to the right... can they move 20 kms in 2 seconds?

[quoteWhen the first SA10 came out decades ago there was a claim in Soviet war machine book I have of a 2000 mile plus range only later to be proven false.[/quote]

Hahahahaha... think you will find that book is written by the US department of defence which at the time wanted funding for the Patriot missile programme.

The Soviets never mentioned the SA-10 because SA-10 is a US designation for their S-300.

Soviets don't give range figures in miles either... they are all metric.

Any miles figures are translations by westerners.

After stating a still unknown source claiming the widely reported top speed for the F-15 is wrong it is amusing you want to question his sources.

Azi wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
Air friction (resistance) has speed^3 relationship.

Air resistance, the drag (English is not my native language!) has the equation:

F = rho/2 * cw * A * v^2

rho = density of air
A = surface
v = speed
cw = drag coefficient

The Power is P = F*v

If you mean the Power than you are correct with v^3.

Maybe my English was bad O.o Sorry!

Bad on me, I haven't spend time to put together coherently the data / my thoughts.

Anyway, the missile needs 20 times bigger thrust to fly at sea level OR the speed has to drop from 6 to 2 match.

Considering that the scramjet has very narrow working parameters ( speed vs air density ) the zircon either has a very complex , variable intake/ internal geometry scramjet ( I doubt) or it just simply dispose the scramjet after burning its fuel, and fly by the inertia/ gravity.

Actually a scramjet has a very very wide range of working conditions and is one of the few jet designs that don't need a variable intake design.

The intake on the F-16 is largely fixed which means it can't fly faster than Mach 2 because the engine would stall on the high speed air flowing into the engine.

The MiG-29 on the other hand can fly at mach 2.4 because as it approaches mach 2 its intake ramp constricts and reduces the airflow to the engine keeping the airflow subsonic.

A scramjet engine does not need to reduce airflow through the engine at very high speed... high speed air going through the engine wont flame out the combustor section.... the fuel burns at supersonic speed.

At low altitude a scramjet can push much more air through it without having to restrict the airflow so it can generate considerably more thrust and have higher speed airflow through the engine and out the rear of the engine safely.

Singular_Transform wrote:
Anyway, the missile needs 20 times bigger  thrust to fly at sea level OR the speed has to drop from 6 to 2 match.

Considering that the scramjet has very narrow working parameters ( speed vs air density ) the zircon either has a very complex , variable intake/ internal geometry scramjet ( I doubt) or it just simply dispose the scramjet after burning its fuel, and fly by the inertia/ gravity.

If air friction would be strict 100% of energy being spent by engine, you would be right. It's not, but indeed it's very high. Air friction is the biggest "energy barrier" to overcome at high speeds.

By the way...take a look at Kalibr!

The Kalibr missile (with 200 kg warhead) has a march flight speed of Mach 0,8 - 0,9. At a distance 20 km from target away it accelerates to Mach 2,9 causing a lot of trouble for AD systems of the enemy ship. I expect the same for Zirkon at low level flight path! Cruising slight above Mach 2 for the longest part and then accelerating to Mach 6 for the last ~50 km.  It must cruise at supersonic speed for sure, because Scramjet needs supersonic speed to work. At semi-ballistic path it can accelerate like hell to high altitude and then go in for a diving attack, the last km at very low altitude with very high speed or attacking direct from above. Advantage of the semi-ballistic path is 3 times the range as for only low flying.

We have to wait for exact data But not so long, a year or two

Azi wrote:
If air friction would be strict 100% of energy being spent by engine, you would be right. It's not, but indeed it's very high. Air friction is the biggest "energy barrier" to overcome at high speeds.

By the way...take a look at Kalibr!

The Kalibr missile (with 200 kg warhead) has a march flight speed of Mach 0,8 - 0,9. At a distance 20 km from target away it accelerates to Mach 2,9 causing a lot of trouble for AD systems of the enemy ship. I expect the same for Zirkon at low level flight path! Cruising slight above Mach 2 for the longest part and then accelerating to Mach 6 for the last ~50 km.  It must cruise at supersonic speed for sure, because Scramjet needs supersonic speed to work. At semi-ballistic path it can accelerate like hell to high altitude and then go in for a diving attack, the last km at very low altitude with very high speed or attacking direct from above. Advantage of the semi-ballistic path is 3 times the range as for only low flying.

We have to wait for exact data But not so long, a year or two

Due to the square nature the drag become the dominant restriction of any engine.


The calibre is not a good example, that type actually a composition of a jet powered shell and a missile load.So it using two engine to do this trick.


The granit/onix can fly in different altitudes by different speed, but they has variable air intake, and they using ramjet.

And still, it can fly only with 1.5-2 match at sea level, and it can run with full 4 match speed at high altitude.

It is safe to expect that the ziron hasn't got variable air intake OR variable internal geometry, and without that it can not fly with match anything, only with full speed defined by the altitude.


The most probable is that the zircon fly a precisely pre-defined curve as it accelerate, to keep the mass flow constant, and after it flies at the same altitude, and if it reach the target ( or the fuel exhausted) it detach the scramjet, and dive to the target with match six.
Without the scramjet it has quite small radar cross section.

without complex engine it can not bleed out the excess air, and that can overheat /overpressurise the engine.

https://twitter.com/AnatolyVlasov87/status/930341658352345088 CG vid of Zircon (is that config actually confirmed?)
In comments same source suggests 40km height.

Which is definitely an issue for the 'suddenly appears above radar horizon only giving a few seconds response time' since that height has an over 800km radar horizon.

I'd kinda assumed it was doing Mach7 near sea-level -> dangerous as heck.

Singular_Transform wrote:
And still, it can fly only with 1.5-2 match at sea level, and it can run with full 4 match speed at high altitude.

It is safe to expect that the ziron hasn't got variable air intake OR variable internal geometry, and without that it can not fly with match anything, only with full speed defined by the altitude.

No! You forgot something Physics change a bit in supersonic and hypersonic area.

The general drag will increase drastic to Mach 1, but after Mach 1 it fall again. And based on the shape of object it will fall under the value of subsonic area. The result can be heard by everyone, it's the boom of the supersonic barrier. As I said before, only for the formula you are right. But there are many sorts of drag and behaviour is different, depending on cw value in different speed areas (subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic). Hypersonic is again a bit different from supersonic! I do not know if anyone noticed, but shape of planes are different in subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic speed area!?


Here is a example from NASA, but it's easy to find other graphs in the deepths of internet.

The drag coefficient changes from subsonic to supersonic! It depends on speed. So you can't easy say that you need 20 times more energy in lower altitude.

For example the much heavier powered Zirkon would be slower with Mach 2 in lower altitude, than other less powered missile (same weight) that easy exceed Mach 2 in low altitude. For Zirkon it would be no problem to reach easy Mach 4 - 5 in low altitude, reaching far higher Mach numbers in high altitude.

The equations to calculate speed, heat by friction, drag etc are in general very complicated for hypersonic area. It depends on so many factors we simply don't know, like exact shape and cw of Zirkon.

hoom wrote:https://twitter.com/AnatolyVlasov87/status/930341658352345088 CG vid of Zircon (is that config actually confirmed?)
In comments same source suggests 40km height.

Which is definitely an issue for the 'suddenly appears above radar horizon only giving a few seconds response time' since that height has an over 800km radar horizon.

I'd kinda assumed it was doing Mach7 near sea-level -> dangerous as heck.

Mach 7 at sea level is a bit too much

But it will have the ability to fly low and fast (hypersonic). I posted a link somewhere before. I expect something around Mach 4 at low altitude and Mach 6 at high altitude. For economic reasons, accuracy and reliability I personal expect the Zirkon will not fly Mach 7 or above. But higher speeds are possible, the tests showed it.

Azi wrote:
No! You forgot something Physics change a bit in supersonic and hypersonic area.

The general drag will increase drastic to Mach 1, but after Mach 1 it fall again. And based on the shape of object it will fall under the value of subsonic area. The result can be heard by everyone, it's the boom of the supersonic barrier. As I said before, only for the formula you are right. But there are many sorts of drag and behaviour is different, depending on cw value in different speed areas (subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic). Hypersonic is again a bit different from supersonic! I do not know if anyone noticed, but shape of planes are different in subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic speed area!?


Here is a example from NASA, but it's easy to find other graphs in the deepths of internet.

The drag coefficient changes from subsonic to supersonic! It depends on speed. So you can't easy say that you need 20 times more energy in lower altitude.

For example the much heavier powered Zirkon would be slower with Mach 2 in lower altitude, than other less powered missile (same weight) that easy exceed Mach 2 in low altitude. For Zirkon it would be no problem to reach easy Mach 4 - 5 in low altitude, reaching far higher Mach numbers in high altitude.

The equations to calculate speed, heat by friction, drag etc are in general very complicated for hypersonic area. It depends on so many factors we simply don't know, like exact shape and cw of Zirkon.

It is irrelevant for the zircon.

The shown drag is in connection with the wing shape, and as the speed grow above match 1 it will be the same like in subsonic range.

Means that the maximum speed defined by the air drag, and the minimum speed defined by the characteristic of the scramjet.

Means that the zricon can't fly under 2 match regardless of whatever.


And it doesn't address the concerns about the engine temperature/ pressure .

Singular_Transform wrote:

It is irrelevant for the zircon.

The shown drag is in connection with the wing shape, and as the speed grow above match 1 it will be the same like in subsonic range.

Means that the maximum speed defined by the air drag, and the minimum speed defined by the characteristic of the scramjet.

Means that the zricon can't fly under 2 match regardless of whatever.


And it doesn't address the concerns about the engine temperature/ pressure .

Why it's irrelevant for Zirkon? In the equation we have a few variable! It's cw, the speed v and the density. Only the surface A is fix. And cw depends on density of air, speed and of course the shape of object.

Don't forget, cw can be at Mach 2 be 2 to 4 times higher, than at Mach 4 or Mach 6, depending on the aerodynamic shape. Only at really high speeds, above Mach 4 it becomes more or less irrelevant. It's not that direct after Mach 1 it's at subsonic level. It's possible that at hypersonic speed the cw value can be under the value of subsonic speed, normal it's double. And we don't discuss the difference of subsonic and hypersonic, we discuss the difference of Mach 2 vs Mach 4 vs mach 6 etc. So the equation is a bit more complex, than it seems! Just take a look at hypersonic planes and supersonic planes, there is a difference! Both are optimized for their speed area.

It's clear that a Scramjet MUST fly at supersonic speeds, normally above Mach 2 or it simply don't work.

Azi wrote:
Why it's irrelevant for Zirkon? In the equation we have a few variable! It's cw, the speed v and the density. Only the surface A is fix. And cw depends on density of air, speed and of course the shape of object.

Don't forget, cw can be at Mach 2 be 2 to 4 times higher, than at Mach 4 or Mach 6, depending on the aerodynamic shape. Only at really high speeds, above Mach 4 it becomes more or less irrelevant. It's not that direct after Mach 1 it's at subsonic level. It's possible that at hypersonic speed the cw value can be under the value of subsonic speed, normal it's double. And we don't discuss the difference of subsonic and hypersonic, we discuss the difference of Mach 2 vs Mach 4 vs mach 6 etc. So the equation is a bit more complex, than it seems! Just take a look at hypersonic planes and supersonic planes, there is a difference! Both are optimized for their speed area.

It's clear that a Scramjet MUST fly at supersonic speeds, normally above Mach 2 or it simply don't work.

This are is on the borderline of my knowledge, but:
The wing drag is significant in the case if the aircraft has to be capable to fly under match 1.The most significant if the aircraft has straight wings.


If it is intended to fly anyway by supersonic speed then the wing drag will be insignificant.


The zircon never meant to be able to fly under match 1.

In that range a booster accelerating it up to scramjet speed.

But again, say if the wing drag will increase sixfold , it is still insignificant compared to the 36 times higher friction drag at match 6.

Singular_Transform wrote:
This are is on the borderline of my knowledge, but:
The wing drag is significant in the case if the aircraft has to be capable to fly under match 1.The most significant if the aircraft has straight wings.

If it is intended to fly anyway by supersonic speed then the wing drag will be insignificant.

The zircon never meant to be able to fly under match 1.

In that range a booster accelerating it up to scramjet speed.

Again! You are right with drag at high speeds, it goes not only linear in, it goes to square in the equation, with P = F*v going in to triple. So there is a maximum for a Scramjet missile, depending on thrust and aerodynamic.

But...

• But cw changes from Mach 2 to Mach 6, it decreases. In the range above Mach 4 only slightly.
  
• Thrust is much higher in low altitude! You can read it in "Facing the heat barrier - A history of hypersonics".
  
• Heat occurs and is very high at Mach 4 - 6, but the Zirkon is flying only for a few minutes and is not intended to fly for hours over hours. There is a inertia in heat transport, giving enough time for Zirkon not to melt in seconds.
  
• Range is LOWER at LOW altitude. It's only 1/3 from available data. Paying to the effect being in lower altitude with higher density and flying not a ballistic path.
  

So the whole thing is a bit more complex! The drag is higher at low altitude, but also the thrust is higher. The cw coefficient is more comfortable for a hypersonic missile to fly at Mach 3 and above, than at Mach 2. The "whole equation" has not 1 or 2 variable, it has much more.

Of course it need a booster to reach speed over mach 2 for Scramjet ^^

Singular_Transform wrote:But again, say if the wing drag will increase sixfold , it is still insignificant compared to the 36 times higher friction drag at match 6.

If I would say at work that 6 times is insignifcant to 36 times, they would instantly kill me

It's clear that a Scramjet MUST fly at supersonic speeds, normally above Mach 2 or it simply don't work.

Where does that come from?

An I-15 Biplane was used for testing of early ramjets and it succeeded in accelerating the aircraft to about 45km/h faster than the aircraft was able to fly with its normal engine alone... and I can guarantee that the I-15 is not supersonic.
(yes, I realise 45km/h faster is not much to write home about, but with the added weight and added drag of the two new engines and all the piping and extra fuel is is interesting in showing potential...)

Here is an image:



Ramjets and scramjets are more efficient at higher speeds but that does not mean they can't operate at lower speeds.

Zircon is intended to fly at high altitude, but could fly at lower altitudes and at lower speeds... just like the ramjet powered Moskit can fly at higher altitudes at mach 2.5, or at sea level at mach 1.8.

Very few things can fly faster than mach 2 at low altitudes... everything is effected by the thick warm air.

The Zircon flys at mach 7-8 because that is what makes it safe.

With airborne aircraft using radars a US carrier fleet wont be surprised by a sea skimming missile so the two solutions are stealth or fast... The Kh-101 and Kh-102 are stealthy and fly low and the Zircon and Onyx fly fast.. Zircon being three or four times faster than the Onyx it will replace.

Detecting an incoming Zircon at 1,000km means you can turn on all your radars and SAMs, but at mach 8 it will be approaching at 2.5km per second, which means you have 7 minutes before impact.

The simple fact is that in 7 minutes you wont have time to vector an aircraft to anywhere near an interception position unless they are already in the air and already in the right position... and even if they were what are they going to do to a missile passing 20km plus above them at 2.5km/s?

Missiles like sprint or Standard are designed to intercept targets at lower altitudes and ones that follow a relatively fixed ballistic path, so their chances are not great even if dozens are launched at the target...

Zircon will be a very potent weapon.

Azi wrote:

Again! You are right with drag at high speeds, it goes not only linear in, it goes to square in the equation, with P = F*v going in to triple. So there is a maximum for a Scramjet missile, depending on thrust and aerodynamic.

But...

• But cw changes from Mach 2 to Mach 6, it decreases. In the range above Mach 4 only slightly.
  
• Thrust is much higher in low altitude! You can read it in "Facing the heat barrier - A history of hypersonics".
  
• Heat occurs and is very high at Mach 4 - 6, but the Zirkon is flying only for a few minutes and is not intended to fly for hours over hours. There is a inertia in heat transport, giving enough time for Zirkon not to melt in seconds.
  
• Range is LOWER at LOW altitude. It's only 1/3 from available data. Paying to the effect being in lower altitude with higher density and flying not a ballistic path.
  

So the whole thing is a bit more complex! The drag is higher at low altitude, but also the thrust is higher. The cw coefficient is more comfortable for a hypersonic missile to fly at Mach 3 and above, than at Mach 2. The "whole equation" has not 1 or 2 variable, it has much more.

Of course it need a booster to reach speed over mach 2 for Scramjet ^^

Singular_Transform wrote:But again, say if the wing drag will increase sixfold , it is still insignificant compared to the 36 times higher friction drag at match 6.

If I would say at work that 6 times is insignifcant to 36 times, they would instantly kill me

Key elements:

1. high altitude air drag 20 times higher than low altitude air drag
2. Air drag at 6 match 36 times higher than at 1 match
3. The wing drag at match 1 is not significant in the case of the zircon.However it is easy to found out.
If we check the videos of the p-700/800 then we can calculate the ignition speed of the ramjet.If it is higher than match1 then the 700/800 engine doesn't generate enough thrust at low speed to push through the missile the match1.
4 to fly at sea level IF we consider the engine works at maximum power / pressure with 6 match / high altitude then the speed will drop to 2 match .(considering 20 times difference in air density )

GarryB wrote:

Where does that come from?

An I-15 Biplane was used for testing of early ramjets and it succeeded in accelerating the aircraft to about 45km/h faster than the aircraft was able to fly with its normal engine alone... and I can guarantee that the I-15 is not supersonic.
(yes, I realise 45km/h faster is not much to write home about, but with the added weight and added drag of the two new engines and all the piping and extra fuel is is interesting in showing potential...)

Ramjet : the engine has subsonic internal airflow, the compression done by the inertia of the incoming air. it works between 0,5-6 match, optimal speed is around 3.55-4 match. Outside of the optimal speed it become very inefficient.
Scramjet has supersonic internal airflow. upper speed is restricted only by the energy content of the fuel. Works above 2-4 match.

The engine in the SR-71 at its core is a turbojet but it allows air to bypass the turbojet engine.

The turbojet is used to take off and for low speed flight but in flight at speeds faster than mach 2 it has very little air going through the turbojet engine... it is all bypass air acting as a scramjet.

How do you know the new scramjets cannot operate with subsonic airflow as a ramjet?

Ramjets and scramjets will operate at almost any forward speed and are very simple in terms of the number of parts they have.

A rocket motor accelerates them to speed but it does not need to accelerate them to enormous speeds on a very long range weapon.