3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

The US will not let Russian ships be located 400 km from Washington" . In the event of war, this ship will not survive for several minutes.

Unless the US wants to start a war there is not a lot they could do about a Russian ship operating off their coastline in international waters.

Such weapon types could be launched fairly quickly and easily if needed...

Even at the height of the Soviet fleet I can't think of a case that a Soviet warship got within 400km of Washington.
Maybe some subs did, maybe.

The Soviet fleet never had land attack missiles able to carry conventional warheads...

The submarine will be detected quickly.

They reportedly operated Akulas in US waters for long periods without being detected...

And detection is not the issue... what are they going to do? Start WWIII because a Russian sub is operating in international waters off the US coast?

IMHO waste of resources. But why to send people of suicidal l mission? not better drones, small, stealthy , long duration with 8 UKSK -M patrolling US coast

A suicidal mission for sure, but like a canary down a mine... if the US attacks your ship it suggests an attack is either underway or about to start... so it is worth it... you could modify an old fishing boat with 2-3 crew and a half dozen missiles with target coordinates already punched in... some radio comms the get them the launch signal and some life vests to jump into the sea after they push the launch buttons.

Give them full internet access and modest daily chores list and it might be a pretty good gig.... international waters so occasionally get the rifle and the RPG out for a bit of target practise to while away the time and just sit 24/7 listening for an order to launch... play the new Metro game while you wait for the order to launch...

In fact you could pack the launch system so that it detaches and sinks to the bottom if the ship is attacked and launches the missiles from the bottom of the sea automatically so even if you sink the boat the missiles still get launched...

But Garry you did well the first calcul. You just typed mach 9 instead of mach 1.

Yeah... I was going to change that but as I put my working out I thought it was obvious I was talking about estimating the speed of sound rather than the speed of Mach 9.... not really a big deal IMHO.

If it were so simple, it would be a much better idea to send 955 to the near coast of the USA or at least 1000 km away. Bulava is much faster to Cirkon.

SSBNs will be hidden well away from the USA and will deliver weapons to US cities... not command centres.

ok very logical but Im not sure why "lightweight" Zircon cannot be used both with UKSK (MRKs) and with shipping containers ( Like 2210 with 2x4Zircons)? IMHO something th at h as range 1000km+ and speed 9Ma is unlikely lightweight

Don't be misled by the range... because of its high flight speed simply operating for a period of time gives long range... a propeller might accelerate a missile to  300km/h, so a fuel supply that will allow the missile to fly for ten hours will give it a range of 3,000km.

That exact same fuel supply might only last for 3 hours in a jet engine but the flight speed might be three times faster at 900km/h, so it has a range of 2,700km but gets there faster... now the ramjet version of the missile might only have enough fuel for 1 hours flight, but it flys at three times faster speed... mach 2.8 or about 3,000km per hour... and flying for an hour... you get 3,000km range... the difference is not in size or in weight but in time of flight because of the different performances from the engines... now we have Zircon which has a scramjet engine and there are few reasons a scramjet engine needs to be bigger than a ramjet engine... but this scramjet engine runs at more than three times faster than the ramjet... mach 9, or 2880m/s... which is... about 10 thousand kms per hour... and being a type of ramjet it generates more energy so it only runs for one sixth of an hour... ten minutes on the fuel the ramjet could use for one hour... but because it is moving so damn fast in ten minutes it is still going to cover a hell of a lot of distance...  ten minutes is 600 seconds and this missile covers just under 3km every second... so 600 times three is 1,800km... well about 1,700km if you allow for the fact that it is 2.88km/s and not 3km/s...

BTW with range 1000km+ no way small ship can control them so either netcenric control or supa intelligent missile with star navigation + multi-spectral homing?

Any aircraft launching them is unlikely to see the target either... I rather suspect target coordinates with a satellite photo of the target will be enough for inertial guidance and imaging terminal homing...

Kalibr-M , which In my IMHO is great tool but for land power projection vide Syria , not relly good for ASh application/

A bigger launch tube means all the big missiles that only fit one of in the standard UKSK will now be loose in the UKSK-M but not loose enough to fit more than one... so if you just keep using them in UKSK-M launchers you are not using them efficiently... you are not using their full capacity.

The old Calibre missiles can be expanded from 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles to 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles... and the anti ship sub sonic and anti ship supersonic and anti submarine weapons can be enlarged with extra range or warhead performance too...

Probably add all sorts of drones and other weapon types too...

there's cheaper, more effective  solution - sea-bed IRBMs ...

You don't get exclusive fishing rights and mineral rights around a sea bed IRBM site...

Put in time shares and sell them to North Koreans and Cubans....

And in international waters any dumb-ass could salvage the missiles.

Put a nice big sign in several languages to say this weapon is booby trapped and if anyone moves it there will be a 5 million degree temperature increase in this general area for a few minutes... but you wont notice a thing...

hoom wrote:

there's cheaper, more effective  solution - sea-bed IRBMs ...

There is a treaty banning that which US hasn't yet withdrawn from.

seriously? Russia already has this weapons. Project Skiff.

Hole wrote:And in international waters any dumb-ass could salvage the missiles.

same way SSBNs right?

GarryB wrote:

The submarine will be detected quickly.

They reportedly operated Akulas in US waters for long periods without being detected...

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/silent-running/
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

GB wrote:
you could modify an old fishing boat with 2-3 crew and a half dozen missiles with target coordinates already punched in... some radio comms the get them the launch signal and some life vests to jump into the sea after they push the launch buttons.

{}

In fact you could pack the launch system so that it detaches and sinks to the bottom if the ship is attacked and launches the missiles from the bottom of the sea automatically so even if you sink the boat the missiles still get launched...

well remove those 2-3 crew and you got... drone

GB wrote:

despicable me wrote: ]ok very logical but Im not sure why "lightweight" Zircon cannot be used both with UKSK (MRKs) and with shipping containers ( Like 2210 with 2x4Zircons)? IMHO something th at h as range 1000km+ and speed 9Ma is unlikely lightweight

Don't be misled by the range... because of its high flight speed simply operating for a period of time gives long range... a propeller might accelerate a missile to  300km/h, so a fuel supply that will allow the missile to fly for ten hours will give it a range of 3,000km.

Are we talking bout Zircon? well, regardless on how it is gonna to work - scramjet marching engine, "tossing by aircraft + booster stage" , the range limits kinetic energy - aerodynamic heating.


In case of ship based Zircon, kinetic energy delivered is function of fuel volume it carries. You cannot have long range, heavy warhead, , high speed and and tiny missile.

At least not in my understanding of physics.

GB wrote:

BTW with range 1000km+ no way small ship can control them so either netcenric control or supa intelligent missile with star navigation + multi-spectral homing?

Any aircraft launching them is unlikely to see the target either... I rather suspect target coordinates with a satellite photo of the target will be enough for inertial guidance and imaging terminal homing...

the funny thing is here - 1,300kms flying 3km/s you need... 7,5 mins to meet US admiral on his fraternal-bed-of-honor command post

GB wrote:

Kalibr-M , which In my IMHO is great tool but for land power projection vide Syria , not really good for ASh application/

A bigger launch tube means all the big missiles that only fit one of in the standard UKSK will now be loose in the UKSK-M but not loose enough to fit more than one... so if you just keep using them in UKSK-M launchers you are not using them efficiently... you are not using their full capacity.

do you suggest there will be 2 coexisting UKSKs on one ship like 22350?

GB wrote:

there's cheaper, more effective  solution - sea-bed IRBMs ...

You don't get exclusive fishing rights and mineral rights around a sea bed IRBM site...
.

would you suggest anybody can just take down US unmanned shuttle, navigation sat or B-21 in unmanned mode?
First things first Skif does exist. For reason I guess.


IMHO most efficient way is not to just drop 'n' forget but constantly pick up, move, drop missile containers. Imagine logistic company moving containers round country so US never knows where they actually are Of course combiners are in 24/7 discrete surveillance by your drones.

Hole wrote:to Gunship: SSBN´s are manned. You just can´t raise them from the seabed. If they didn´t sink before.

B-21, X-37 are unmanned, would you suggest anybody can just take them? ,

3M-22 Zircon first TV image (can't say now correct or not)





https://twitter.com/DnKornev/status/1099656612200005632

George1 wrote:3M-22 Zircon first TV image (can't say now correct or not)





https://twitter.com/DnKornev/status/1099656612200005632

That's CGI.

*Bad CGI.

hoom wrote:*Bad CGI.

... of a X-51

Would it be possible for Cirkon to fly 9M at a low altitude?

Even if it could only manage mach 5 at low altitude it would be unstoppable... no aircraft or missile could fly for very long at that speed at that altitude.

The Russians say they have materials that can withstand 3000 degrees but a dense atmosphere will significantly reduce the range of the missile.

Having a mix of high and low flying threats further complicated the problem of defence...

to GarryB: I doubt that such a sign would deter this geniuses in Washington from trying it.

The people really in control of the US military are not stupid... all their decisions make sense and are perfectly logical... the problem is when you try to map what they say with what they do and is does not make sense... peace and democracy, truth and justice, rights of workers and children, the safety of children in buses or schools and hospitals in Iraq and Syria and Kosovo...

Freedom fighters and dissidents protecting peoples rights get nobel peace prizes... but only if they are activists against China or Russia or Myanmar or North Korea... oil outside of Americas control needs to be brought under US control so Iraq and Syria and Venezuela must be invaded and puppet states imposed, but the Saudi Dictatorship can continue to stone gays to death and ban women from being alone in public without a male relative to accompany them... they care so much about their virtue they will stone to death anyone that does not comply with their rules.

The American leadership... I don't mean trump... I mean the ones with the power.... they are basically .

to Arrow: the whole point of the development of hypersonic weapons is to fly shocking fast at low heights. The speed alone isn´t the big thing about them. Ballistic missiles exist for decades, but for most of the way they fly very high. Until now low-flying cruise (anti-ship) missiles were limited to Mach 2,5 or 3 or sometimes 4 for a few hundred kilometres. The hypersonic missiles are the cure for that problem.

Not strictly true... previously hypersonic weapons were ballistic.... like a mortar bomb... fired into the air and follow a very predictable path to impact... though their might be some minor changes in trajectory so it hits a point target at the end of its flight but totally predicable... once you know its speed by tracking a few points on its trajectory you can plot its flight path with pretty good accuracy and send an interceptor missile ahead on that path to shoot it down... the interceptor does not need to be moving at anything like the speed the target is moving at... just like a tennis racket doesn't need to be moving as fast as the tennis ball it intercepts during a game of tennis.

These hypersonic weapons are not ballistic like a shot fired from a gun... they are powered all the way like cruise missiles or airplanes so they can and will change trajectory and direction and even speed... as they travel they will get lighter as they burn fuel so they will be able to get faster and faster as they approach their target... a rocket like a Scud burns all its fuel on launch and then it just continues up and loses momentum and then falls back down in the direction of the target... a Zircon flys in level flight and can steer and manouver... it has sensors on board and will detect enemy air defence systems and fly around them... when you are covering almost 3km per second a ten degree turn and two seconds later you could be a dozen kms to the left or right of where you would have been if you had not changed course... now that Patriot battery that was tracking you notices the instant you turn but will take a few seconds to see how far you turn and will take a few more seconds to calculate your new projected position and in that time the missile it launched is now heading to where you were going so it needs a course correction to the new place... but in the 5 seconds total that took to detect the shift in trajectory and to calculate how far you turned and to project a new intercept point and pass that new interception point to the intercepting missile... that is 5 seconds... the target missile might have shifted course by 5-10km but it has already moved 15km closer to its target so the interception point has moved back 15km and to the left or right 5-10km... and what if it turns again?

This is not a ballistic missile... it is powered... so minor turns of 5-20 degrees wont slow it down very much at all because it is running its jet engine continuously... when it detects it is being tracked by a Patriot battery it can turn 5 degrees left or right... climb a little... turn 5-10 degrees the other way... increase throttle a bit to speed up... climb above the effective ceiling of Patriot... its intercept range against ballistic targets is something like 15-20km because of their steep trajectory so keeping more than 30km from any Patriot battery radar and it might not have to manouver at all....

well remove those 2-3 crew and you got... drone

With a drone they could send in the CIA to EMP zap it and claim it sailed into US waters so they boarded it for safety reasons...

In case of ship based Zircon, kinetic energy delivered is function of fuel volume it carries. You cannot have long range, heavy warhead, , high speed and and tiny missile.

At least not in my understanding of physics.

The laws of physics are the limits but using different propulsion methods also makes the impossible possible...

For a while supersonic flight was literally impossible because propellers couldn't operate at such speeds so no amount of engine power could get a missile supersonic. Rockets burn out too fast so give high speed but short range. Then came jet engines which gave more speed but early ones were thirsty so range was still not great... but turbofans greatly improved flight range by being more efficient with fuel.

To get speed back however they went to turbojets which were not so efficient as they needed to operate in AB mode which rapidly burned fuel to get the supersonic speed.

Then they went to ramjet which is a simple jet engine that is efficient at supersonic speeds, so the ramjet restored the capacity for high speed without burning a lot of fuel like a turbojet in AB.

Now we have scramjets which opens up much higher speed potential with an engine that is relatively fuel efficient... more so than any rocket to turbojet...

the funny thing is here - 1,300kms flying 3km/s you need... 7,5 mins to meet US admiral on his fraternal-bed-of-honor command post

Zircon is for sinking US carriers, but 7.5 minutes would be perfectly acceptable for hitting targets in Washington or ABM bases in Alaska or Eastern Europe.

Ironically for such targets a nuke warhead would be the payload of choice and as the nuke warhead is likely 1/3rd or less the weight of the conventional warhead the nuke armed Zircon might be faster and longer ranged than the conventionally armed models...

do you suggest there will be 2 coexisting UKSKs on one ship like 22350?

No... I am expecting that the larger UKSK-M... if it exists... will likely be fitted as standard on new build and upgraded ships and subs larger than Destroyer size... which will also allow them to carry S-500 SAMs and other larger more potent weapons. For smaller vessels the existing UKSK weapons will be potent enough... in fact Poliment-Redut missiles of the small, medium and large size that are adapted to fit in packs in the UKSK-M launchers could be adapted to fit in the smaller vessels UKSK launchers too so existing small ships could have their extra SAM launch bins replaced with extra UKSK launch tubes... or the smaller vessels could simply keep their existing weapon arrangements...

would you suggest anybody can just take down US unmanned shuttle, navigation sat or B-21 in unmanned mode?
First things first Skif does exist. For reason I guess.

What I am saying is that artificial Chinese islands in the South China sea is seriously pissing off many countries inside and outside the region... including the US and Australia et al.

Imagine the serious butthurt from the US if Russia started construction of islands off their coast... say 500km off their coast... the salty tears...

IMHO most efficient way is not to just drop 'n' forget but constantly pick up, move, drop missile containers. Imagine logistic company moving containers round country Smile so US never knows where they actually are Of course combiners are in 24/7 discrete surveillance by your drones.

US has a history of robbing sea graves.... check out CIA raising a Golf class sub last century. Things dropped in international waters will get tracked down and recovered... whether it is a sub or a missile or anything like an expendable sonobuoy...

B-21, X-37 are unmanned, would you suggest anybody can just take them? ,

Like that super secret US stealth drone in Iran.... yes... if they could... unmanned things sitting in international waters are fair game...

Solution: put Skiff on the seabed around arctic islands of Russia: Novaja Semlja, Wrangel and so on.

Agree. Somewhere where you can stand guard.

In warfare a minefield is dangerous... but a minefield covered by machine gun fire, sniper fire, and ATGMs is much much more deadly than an unprotected minefield...

Pretty sure Zircon will slow down to Mach 4-4.5 in the terminal phase.

As a cruise missile against moving targets wth powerful ECM means - it needs self-guidance and manueverability. As the missile approaches the target and hits higher air densities it will need to slow down for its seekers to work and to conduct manuevers or correct its flight path. Which it almost certainly will need to do because targetted ships will change bearing and speed as part of evasive manuevers of their own, and of course launch their own ABMs and SAMs

Of course it's possible that it could have an optional additional flight-profile, of literally hitting the target like a meteor at Mach 8-9. Would be good against ships in port or land targets

GarryB wrote: With a drone they could send in the CIA to EMP zap it and claim it sailed into US waters so they boarded it for safety reasons...

And with 2-3 crew you cannot?  yes you can. Kill/drug/bribe

GB wrote: The laws of physics are the limits but using different propulsion methods also makes the impossible possible...
{}Now we have scramjets which opens up much higher speed potential with an engine that is relatively fuel efficient... more so than any rocket to turbojet...

it is not answering my question Im afraid. There are limits of energy density.  Even if you use it with minimal loss you still are restricted. .


Look t so called GZUR, it should be light (1,5tons), small but it is only airborne.. You simply replace booster with aircraft. In case of Zircon you have UKSK so boosters or bigger fuel tanks are needed.

GB wrote:

the funny thing is here - 1,300kms flying 3km/s you need... 7,5 mins to meet US admiral on his fraternal-bed-of-honor command post

{}
Ironically for such targets a nuke warhead would be the payload of choice and as the nuke warhead is likely 1/3rd or less the weight of the conventional warhead the nuke armed Zircon might be faster and longer ranged than the conventionally armed models...

love the idea

GB wrote:

do you suggest there will be 2 coexisting UKSKs on one ship like 22350?

No... I am expecting that the larger UKSK-M... if it exists... will likely be fitted as standard on new build and upgraded ships and subs larger than Destroyer size... which will also allow them to carry S-500 SAMs and other larger more potent weapons. For smaller vessels the existing UKSK weapons will be potent enough... in fact Poliment-Redut missiles of the small, medium and large size that are adapted to fit in packs in the UKSK-M launchers could be adapted to fit in the smaller vessels UKSK launchers too so existing small ships could have their extra SAM launch bins replaced with extra UKSK launch tubes... or the smaller vessels could simply keep their existing weapon arrangements...

Perhaps you 're right but I rather see it s UKSK-M on anything enough big to carry them  22350, CVNs, destroyers ro Orlans, JHusky.  
However MRKs / 22160/22800/21631 will get UKSK with "lightweight" Zircons/calibers .

GB wrote:Imagine the serious butthurt from the US if Russia started construction of islands off their coast... say 500km off their coast... the salty tears...

GREAT trolling but unfortunately little economic/military leverage

GB wrote:

IMHO most efficient way is not to just drop 'n' forget but constantly pick up, move, drop missile containers. Imagine logistic company moving containers round country Smile so US never knows where they actually are Of course combiners are in 24/7 discrete surveillance by your drones.

US has a history of robbing sea graves.... check out CIA raising a Golf class sub last century. Things dropped in international waters will get tracked down and recovered... whether it is a sub or a missile or anything like an expendable sonobuoy...

First of all if you can track such container you can track each and every Russian sub 24/7.  what doesn't seem to be probable.
Secondly your own troops monitor it from distance.  There is no movement of any ships in re you dont see.

After some time you can shuffle locations so even if one tracked enemies got nothing.. consider that a submersible-bagruzin

GB wrote:Like that super secret US stealth drone in Iran.... yes... if they could... unmanned things sitting in international waters are fair game...

Form when Iran is an international air   space?      


@Hole+ @GB

GB wrote:

Solution: put Skiff on the seabed around arctic islands of Russia: Novaja Semlja, Wrangel and so on.

Agree. Somewhere where you can stand guard.

[/quote]

If its no within 12miles then there are still intl waters ... same as elsewhere

flamming_python wrote:Which it almost certainly will need to do because targetted ships will change bearing and speed as part of evasive manuevers of their own, and of course launch their own ABMs and SAMs:

The whole 1000km with 9Ma is 6min? what maneuvers can be done then by 100,000 tons CVN...
last 100km is like 35 seconds, how much does CVN course can change?

Arrow wrote:You do not know how long the Cirkoengine works. Maybe only a few tens of seconds and then it flies without a sliding flight? If it works throughout the flight range it is very dangerous. If not on maneuvers, it will quickly lose energy.

It is not a ballistic or aeroballistic missile, it is an air-breathing cruise missile. That means, no short boost phase to gain speed and altitude to spend afterwards in its descent to target. The engine is intended to last throughout the majority of the flight. The missile will fly and manoeuvre in a certain way or variety of them, the details of which we simply don't know and are not likely to know any time soon. But rest assured, it is dangerous as hell. Amis are still searching for an appropriate target to test their SAMs against 3M54 which is <3 M in the terminal phase, imagine a newer, more sophisticated 9 M missile. Probability of intercept is never zero but in this case and in view of publicly available info it is as close to that value as it gets.

JohninMK wrote:

Russia's 3M22 Zircon hypersonic anti-shipping missile is thought to be close to production. It hits speeds of Mach 8 (9,800 km/h). Range is around 1,000 km. During flight, the missile is totally enveloped by a plasma cloud that absorbs radio waves making it invisible to radar.[/i]

Putin said 9Ma, but we all know Putin lies

Good artwork.

That one is an actual official US X-51 CGI https://media.defense.gov/2010/May/20/2000360693/-1/-1/0/100520-F-9999B-111.JPG