Thread 64175677

Can someone explain to me how the Zircon works? I know it's "hypersonic" but in what way, is it a ballistic with HGV? is it airbreathing high alt cruise missile with scram jet? Is it just a rocket assisted maneuvering warhead? How does it actually work?

I see this posted everywhere but is this not just an American prototype test bed?

>>64175677 (OP)
what part of "glide vehicle" do you not understand?

>>64175677 (OP)
ask ONI
>>64175681
it is

>>64175677 (OP)
>is it airbreathing high alt cruise missile with scram jet?
It's this.

>>64175687
It's not a glide vehicle, it's a cruise missile.

>>64175677 (OP)
It's Russian lies, masses and masses of Russian lies surrounding a bog standard cruise missile. Just like Oreshnik is just a ballistic missiles surrounded by jeet hype and Russian lies.

>>64175677 (OP)
>Can someone explain to me how the Zircon works?
No.
This information has not been made publically available. Experts have made a wide variety of guesses over the years but they are just guesses.

>>64175760
So in true russian style it is almost definitely total vapourware

>>64175744
>scram jet
Ram jet* It's a shitty copy of Boeing's Hlyfly, without the dual mode ramjet.

>>64175677 (OP)
Yes, it's a cruise missile that goes very fast, can't be intercepted by any western AA so it's pretty much gonna kill any aircraft carrier with impunity

>>64175826
As you can see, it's a Boeing Hlyfly copy, and Russia even built a copy of Boeing's Hlyfly to test and copy further. Same as China's Lingyun-1 Hyfly copy.
https://www.twz.com/sea/our-best-look-at-russias-shadowy-zircon-hypersonic-missile
https://thedefensepost.com/2018/05/21/china-lingyun-1-hypersonic-missile-revealed/

>>64175869
ahh so its probably something like this and not the waverider. I also remember watching some russian doc on youtube about their radar testing facility where they have mock ups of b2's and missiles and even MIRV decoys. Can't find it now, but I think this is the same place.

Its just a solid fuel ballistic missile with a warhead that can maneuver once it drops to 4500-5000kmph. Goes hypersonic in space then yadda yadda, nothing special. Like khinzal

>>64175902
yeah that star, anyone remember that channel on youtube?

>>64175913
>Mach 4
That sounds very interceptable

>>64175913
Kinzhal is an Iskander variant, Zircon is straight up vaporware

it's functionally an oniks with a scramjet over a ramjet; it looks similar. it even fits the same launching systems. as for its operation, it functions like any other hypersonic cruise missile. a rocket booster gets it up to speed and then the scramjet takes over (booster is discarded). it has to climb and follow a quasi-ballistic trajectory to reach hypersonic speeds as the air is too thick to achieve them down low. it'll then dive on the target terminal where the air pressure slows it down to around mach 4 (which is also needed for accurate targeting; the plasma sheathe doesn't allow it to receive emissions). i'm sure it utilizes ins to get to the target area and then switches on an active radar once it's slowed down. the reported top speed of mach ~9 will be right for medium altitude.

i wouldn't say it's a better missile than its sibling, oniks, rather it serves a different purpose. it'd be used on time-sensitive targets that need to be hit quickly. since oniks can fly low-altitude all the way to the target and isn't much slower in terminal, it'll likely be harder to defend against.

>>64175760
so basically it doesn't exist
>>64175849
ok, cool. may we see it?

>>64175677 (OP)
It's another case of typical russian military gear: Overpromised and underdelivered.

>>64176027
It's literally in the OP image, did you turn off image diplay?

It's a flying T-14 Armata platform. HATO is doomed.

>>64176117
That doesn't look like it's going hypersonic to me

>>64175849
What is leading a shot? Modern missile defense systems predict trajectory. Muh hypersonics aren’t particularly maneuverable and have the heat signature of the bloody sun

>>64176580
The SM-6 in the form of the AIM-174B alone has shown it's able to outmaneuver fighters and countermeasures on the level of or if not exceeding AMRAAMS

>>64175849
Russians are experts at killing aircraft carriers...

>>64177851
Yes but normally it takes them like 30-40 years of using it as a floating gay rape barge that you don't clean. They can't really kill one with missiles.

>>64175677 (OP)
Here is how zircon works

>>64177851
>Russians are experts at killing aircraft carriers...

Silence

>>64175677 (OP)
>explain to me how the Zircon works
Comrade, when the ass is in the ass all is understood.

Your ass is not in the ass.

>>64175902
so what's the key difference between dual-combustion ramjet like this and the waverider ?

>>64184702
waverider has demostrated powered flight

>>64185102
so does zircon, a bonus point is it even has combat record

>>64185889
sure thing bro

>>64184702
there's not much practical difference between dual-combustion of hyfly and dual-mode of x-51 waverider. both can operate at supersonic and hypersonic velocities. dual-combustion uses a couple of different intakes on the same engine to achieve supersonic or hypersonic velocities; dual-mode uses both subsonic and supersonic airflow in the same engine from the single intake.

zircon will use one of these methods. ukraine has tracked them at around mach 7.5, which is similar in speed to the claimed mach 8 from some russian sources, so there's consistency.

>>64181676
>USS Gambier Bay
yamato didn't achieve any direct hit on her though

>>64188168
You are thinking of the straddle of the white plains which still disabled the ship and then permanently kicked it off the front lines for the rest of the war due to the damage sustained. The gambier bay was directly shot and sunk by the yamato and her entourage from close range.

>>64185889
just like zircon, my homemade cardboard drone has also demonstrated powered flight, is it hypersonic now?
>bonus point is it even has a combat record
no it doesn't lmao, thirdies and overreaching their fantasies, name a better duo.

>>64177904
where's this from ?

>>64190704
The literal livestream of spaceX, America is so far ahead that they can livestream their megalo founded projects from space

>>64188749
ukraine has tracked them numerous times and they're consistent with a hypersonic cruise missile. hypersonic mid-course of mach 7.5 and high supersonic terminal approach of mach 4.5.

this is consistent with the reported testing numbers prior to their combat use.

>>64194283
So zircon is a reconfigured oniks.
Would terminal high hypersonic (> Mach 7) possible for a true optimized scramjet HCM design ?

>>64194283
>>64186399
>ukraine has tracked them at around mach 7.5
>ukraine has tracked them numerous times
Proof?

>they're consistent with a hypersonic cruise missile.
No, they're consistent with a SRBM. HCMs are designed to cruise at mach 7 until impact at relatively low altitudes.

>hypersonic mid-course of mach 7.5 and high supersonic terminal approach of mach 4.5.
That would imply they run out of propellent and are unpowered during their terminal phase, which means they're not a HCM, and more in line with a standard SRBM.

>this is consistent with the reported testing numbers prior to their combat use.
I thought they claimed mach 9-13?

>>64190704
https://youtu.be/mDyK2ANmM3M?t=529

>>64194295
yeah, it'll be an oniks mod. they would have done this for cost saving measures due to utilizing the same launching platforms and existing cells, along with manufacturing. it'll have a reconfigured nosecone for hypersonic velocities and a similar axissymmetrical intake configuration utilizing a dual-mode scramjet engine. they will have lightened its warhead for more fuel capacity, and ukraine said they did this (down to 100-150 kg. from 300 kg. of oniks).

for hypersonic terminal velocities, you just need a higher mid-course velocity; any maneuvering will be a velocity tax. on a dive, mach ~10 at mid-altitude will get mach ~6 terminal; mach ~13 will get ~8. low-altitude air is thick, so it slows hypersonic stuff down quickly, even with a running engine. the one issue is that you'll need to rely on ins for guidance due to the plasma sheath, so accuracy will be less and it really won't be able to hit a point target (say a warship or small structure). this is more useful for nuclear warheads since hypersonic terminal speeds are generally out of the scope of current interceptors and ins is good enough for area targets. the proposed air-launched version will go a bit faster if dropped from a higher-altitude, so they'll use more energetic maneuvers to bleed its velocity down to high supersonic.

>>64194295
>terminal high hypersonic
no scramjet is designed for flight below 30k feet so it won't ever be reaching these speeds in terminal

>>64194283
sure thing bro

>>64186399
>>64194283
>>64194374
So, from what I can gather, Zircon is boosted to 130k+ ft where it, then, cruises at up to mach 5.5 using its engine (which, could still just be a ramjet working in the upper limit of its curve where it would be highly inefficient. (Ukraine's claiming it's scramjet powered, though)), then while still under power, dives to a velocity of around mach 7 - using up what's left of its propellent, and finally slowing down to around mach 4.5 until impact, in its terminal phase in the thicker, lower atmosphere as it's unpowered at that point. It also has shit accuracy, and able to be intercepted by PATRIOT. Most likely PAC-3, or PAC-3 MSE that has intercepted Zircon multiple times. It seems to follow what the US calls a pile-driver trajectory, and is used by the Hera target test missile when testing the PATRIOT against targets with a velocity of around mach 8.1-8.45 (see pic, and DTIC document).

>Hera and Storm Target Test Missiles:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA288602.pdf

>Ukrainian sources talking about Zircon's speed, alt, range, and accuracy:
https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/russia-uses-hypersonic-zircon-missile-in-kyiv-attack-first-in-over-six-months-50467123.html
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/the_zm22_zircon_missile_hypersonic_and_superior_to_the_kinzhal_speeds_and_engine_details_revealed-9959.html

>>64194532
See: >>64194592
Zircon is only mach 5.5 cruise at 130k ft, and mach 7.5 during a diving pile driver trajectory until it rapidly loses energy to high supersonic speeds in terminal phase.
>The one issue is that you'll need to rely on ins for guidance due to the plasma sheath
Plasma sheath black out is only really an issue for blunt body objects like the space shuttle and manned capsules, and even then it can be minimized by putting the antenna as far aft as possible, and using a satellite as a relay ala SpaceX using Starlink as a relay for Starship and putting the antennas on the rear. Fuck it, I'll just copy/pasta what I wrote last time:
It's highly dependent on altitude, shape, antenna location and power, TPS design, temperature, etc. Oxygen doesn't start dissociation until Mach 7-10, and nitrogen around Mach 13 at ~150k ft alt. Then shape comes into play, a sharp, wedge type design is going to have a smaller boundary layer which will have a thinner, weaker ion density meaning a weak plasma layer at velocities above Mach 10 and alts below 150k ft. Then you start getting into TPS materials ablating and off-gassing, adding ionized material into your boundary layer making a denser ion layer and a stronger plasma. Also, shaping as to allow "windows" in the boundary layer around your antenna where plasma won't affect your antenna uplink, or placing your antenna as far back as you can to get away from the worst ion conditions which are always up front. Then, frequency and power are another way to push through that plasma layer. Only blunt body objects like the space shuttle and Mercury/Gemini type return capsules really have to worry about plasma blocking out comms, and even then it's not for too long. There was no plasma sheath that enveloped the X-15 at Mach 6.7, the X-43A at Mach 7 and 9, and HTV-2 at Mach 20 causing comms blackouts.

>>64194629
Sources, if you want to read them, or not.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100008938/downloads/20100008938.pdf
https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/RTO-EN-AVT-116/EN-AVT-116-03.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100000028/downloads/20100000028.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA430330.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA496640.pdf

>>64194592
>>64194629
>>64194641
Good posts, thanks anon. I always enjoy it when people point out the difference between actual hypersanics and thirdie-tier "ACHKSHUALLY it's not technically a ballistic missile :^)" hypersanics.

>>64194374
>Proof?
ukrainian news articles. which will be working under wartime principles like everyone does, but their information is useful and if it's consistent with other sources, then there's confidence in reliability.
>No, they're consistent with a SRBM. HCMs are designed to cruise at mach 7 until impact at relatively low altitudes.
every single hypersonic cruise missile is going to have supersonic terminal approach if they want to hit the target with a conventional warhead. you can't rely on emissions or optical guidance with a plasma sheath. any actual hypersonic terminal approach if desired is going to be mostly retained energy from mid-course. the air pressure is too thick down low to attain sustained hypersonic velocities at cruise and ablation is going to quickly destroy the munition if it keeps on trying to push through it; this is why you won't see a hypersonic cruise missile flying mid-course at low altitude like traditional subsonic and supersonic munitions. and yeah, they do behave like aeroballistic missiles, though mid-course can be flatter for similar munition mass as scramjets are more efficient than rockets.
>I thought they claimed mach 9-13?
they claimed mach 8 from an actual test.

>>64194641
Once a a while quality post, bravo anon
One question, do you current hypersonic program like HAWC, HACM or waverider can maintain their terminal approach speed above hypersonic threshold, or something better like Mach 6 ?

>>64194769
See: >>64194629
Plasma sheaths aren't going to be much of a problem. And a steep pull down (filled over and pull down to keep positive Gs on the airframe, just like all CMs do, and just like the HTV-2 did) will keep the velocities in the hypersonic range at impact without spending too much time within the thicker lower atmosphere, and it will keep total BTU input low as the angle is steep, and the time spent in the higher dynamic pressure areas of the atmosphere will be short. Just like an ICBM's RV does. You will be able to use radar as a terminal seeker as the plasma sheath is going to be extremely weak, and you can use magnetic windows, chemical injection, or aerodynamic shaping to nullify what is there - if any. Or an optical seeker behind a sapphire window like the mach 8 THAAD and Arrow interceptors do, or use an actively cooled window like the mach 10 HEDI KITE did. This is all old hat shit that has been working for decades, or has been tested and proven to work.
>they claimed mach 8 from an actual test.
Pretty sure Putin said mach 9. Got a source?
>>64194791
From what I gather, HACM cruises at mach 7, and should be able to stay above mach 5 in its terminal phase.

>>64194835
PART II

>>64194835
>Or an optical seeker behind a sapphire window like the mach 8 THAAD and Arrow interceptors do
The little blue window is a slab of sapphire covering an IR sensor. THAAD and Arrow use almost the same exact sensor window. I have papers on them somewhere, I'll try to find to show, if someone wants them. Just ask, as I really don't feel like digging them out for nothing.

>>64194836
>>64194835
Just post the original doc, resolution too small

>>64194870
Here: https://www.twz.com/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds
Also, stop being a phonefag, or just open in new tab, and delete the "m."
>>64194857
THAAD seeker in high mach wind tunnel for testing.

>>64194881
THAAD seeker hypersonic sled test.

>>64194835
>or use an actively cooled window like the mach 10 HEDI KITE did.
>Report on HEDI:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA210006.pdf

>>HEDI KITE tests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmKsO7QJvz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGTZhpsv6U

>Report on HEDI's cryogenically cooled seeker window:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA386555.pdf

>Cryogenic cooling of the HEDI KITE seeker.
Go to 25 minute mark and watch to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDCzpAuWM1w

>>64194898
Close up of HEDI's cryo cooled seeker window.

>>64194907
HEDI infograph

>>64194909
HEDI was a modified Sprint that took the HOE KKV, shrunk it, added a cryogenically cooled seeker window, and added it to the Sprint to make it a hit-to-kill interceptor.

>>64194913
Advance Interceptor Technology (AIT) interceptor that was getting research right after HEDI, but before THAAD. All the HEDI and ATI research went into THAAD and Israel's Arrow-2/3.

>>64194857
>>64194885
How about sm-3/6 ?

>>64194957
AIT seeker head test design.
>>64194931
What about them?

>>64194835
>You will be able to use radar as a terminal seeker as the plasma sheath is going to be extremely weak, and you can use magnetic windows, chemical injection, or aerodynamic shaping to nullify what is there - if any.
You're retarded. Plasma generation is highly dependent on air density, shit that works in space won't work at 50k feet and shit that works there won't work at sea level.

>>64195000
>>64194629
>>64194641
Educate yourself.

>>64195010
>>64195000
You're retarded. None of this shit is feasible for terminal guidance at sea level without slowing down.

>>64195024
>at sea level
Why would you need guidance at sea level, you retarded fuck? You already impacted the ground. What a fucking idiot you are. Last reply, as you're obviously too stupid to converse with intelligently, and all you're looking to do is argue.

>>64195033
>Why would you need guidance at sea level
Where do you think ground targets are, you cocksucking vatnigger?

>>64194870
>Just post the original doc, resolution too small

Remove the m at the end of the image name or switch to browse in desktop mode.

>>64175921
>that star
tvZvezda
they used to have an program named Opyжeйкa, idk where their channel is.
search results also bring up FK Crvena zvezda, an unrelated football club located in Belgrade

>>64194552
Not if you aint fast enough

>>64176315
cause the cap will pop off during boost phase

>>64175677 (OP)
there are two types of hypersonic
the iskander type that is hypersonic at apogee and its basicly supersonic at terminal
and the ones like kinkinkinzaaaalllllalalal and zircon which are hypersonic at terminal phase
they absolutely cant hit jack shit on moving targets obviously
think of them like the supercavitating torpedoes
they rely on the target not turning at all at the predestined area of attack

>>64201864
iskander is a SRBM
SRBM, or any BM of any kind are not classified as hypersonic missile
also, pretty sure kinzhal slow down to high supersonic in terminal phase

>>64194532
what about the range ? Can a HCM be able to achieve ICBM, or at least MRBM-class range ?
Otherwise, what's the point of it, since current subsonic cruise missiles has been able to hit target at MRBM-class range for half a century by now

>>64175942
except oniks has been causing quite a lot of problems for ukraine ads

>>64211108
>oniks
Aside from the meme use with the dud missiles i didnt think they have launched any

>>64211209
Nah they did use quite a bit, even if it’s hitting residential buildings.
Patriot certainly can intercept them, but shaheed saturation attack didn’t help

>>64208373
>Can a HCM be able to achieve ICBM, or at least MRBM-class range ?
Yeah. HACM has an acknowledged range of 1900km.

>Otherwise, what's the point of it, since current subsonic cruise missiles has been able to hit target at MRBM-class range for half a century by now
The point is that it goes SANIC FAST while retaining the maneuverability, flexibility and precision of a cruise missile. Think of it this way: if you pick up a Tomahawk from 100km out you have ~400 seconds to intercept it. If you pick up a HACM from 100km out you have ~18 seconds to intercept it.

>>64186399
>dual-mode
Wasn’t waverider a scramjet design ?

>>64219846
Yeah, and needed a booster rocket from an ATACMS to get it up to mach 4+ for the scramjet to light off.

>>64198302
Did they get banned or something ? Can’t find it anymore

>>64175797
Not what they claim it is (hypersonic anti ship), but it still approaches the target at high supersonic.