3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Older MARVs didn't have scramjets or ramjets for manouvering... have you never heard of a side thruster rocket motor?

It allows the object to pull rather extreme manouvers... with enormous drag...

It allows for minor course corrections, not changes in direction.

A spacecraft can use its thrusters to sychronise its orbit with another craft in a similar orbit, not change the direction of its orbit.


It is very difficult to change the direction in which an extremely fast moving object is going, though making minor adjustments is easy, I find it hard to believe that a MARV could perform the maneuvers necessary to escape the maximum course correction of an ABM missile.

ABM interceptors do not maneuver all the way to the target. That is why we have kinetic kill as a concept. The Avangard can
rapidly change its trajectory by hundreds of kilometers in the horizontal plane. Its inertia is clearly not some anchor around its
neck. And ABM interceptors are also subject to inertia. The idea that they have some innate advantage over the MARV warheads
is not apparent at all. This is the same sort of magic thinking we have with AA missiles that are supposed to always have
the advantage. No they don't.

ahmedfire wrote:

Arrow wrote:Can the scramjet engine operate at an altitude of around 30km? Is there not enough oxygen at this altitude?

X-43A has reached more than this altitude.I read before scramjet engine can theoretically operate at up to 75 km.

It was designed to cruise at 30 km. That means a specific choice of lifting body design. Even if scramjets can operate at 75 km that
does not mean that an aerofoil can be found for those altitudes. The atmospheric density drops off exponentially with altitude and
the e-folding factor gets smaller as well. If it can be about 10 km in the troposphere, it will fall to under 5 km in the upper mesosphere.
Essentially you need rocket propulsion at those altitudes. Re-entry gliders are not cruising at 75 km, they fall to thicker layers
of the atmosphere.

Can the scramjet engine operate at an altitude of around 30km? Is there not enough oxygen at this altitude?

The speed it is operating at it scoops up an enormous volume of atmosphere... for a human with our tiny lungs we would not be able to suck in and blow out enough volumes of atmosphere to recover enough O2 to survive, but jet engines operate with enormous volumes of the atmosphere with easily plenty enough to burn fuel.

Scramjets can actually operate at much much higher altitudes than 30km. and the thinner colder air at higher altitudes actually makes them more efficient and powerful at higher altitudes.

It was designed to cruise at 30 km. That means a specific choice of lifting body design. Even if scramjets can operate at 75 km that
does not mean that an aerofoil can be found for those altitudes. The atmospheric density drops off exponentially with altitude and
the e-folding factor gets smaller as well. If it can be about 10 km in the troposphere, it will fall to under 5 km in the upper mesosphere.
Essentially you need rocket propulsion at those altitudes. Re-entry gliders are not cruising at 75 km, they fall to thicker layers
of the atmosphere.

The Kh-32 operates at 40km altitude, and while it is rocket powered it is a winged missile that operates at half the speed of Zircon that does not use lifting body aerodynamics even though at mach 5 it could use a lifting body design.

This suggests that a Zircon could easily operate at higher altitudes too... can I ask where the 30km altitude number came from for Zircon?

There are solid benefits for it to operate at higher altitudes... Kh-32 was designed to operate at 40km altitude to prevent interception by Phoenix AAMs and Standard naval SAMs.... essentially the US Navy without the SM-6 could just watch the missile approach and then dive down on their ships unable to do anything about it because their radars can't point directly up and when the missile is approaching their SM-2 missiles can't reach targets that high and nor can their F-14 launched Phoenix AAMs either.

I would expect Zircon operating in the 40-60km altitude range would make them much harder to intercept too while reducing drag.... with a scramjet motor they don't need to slow the airflow through the engine down so thrust could be enormous... even at such altitudes.

Arrow wrote:Can you use aerodynamic steering at these altitudes? The atmosphere is very thin. How can the Zircon perform complex maneuvers in such a thin atmosphere? Wetkore thrust on the engine nozzle.

Very high speed means you create a lot of lift and also means a high g turn is not necessarily a tight one. The maneuverability of such missiles is not destined to "dodge" anything but to ruin the calculation of interception points and the kinematics of interceptors, since at those speeds a few degrees deviation mean many tens of km of difference between what your AD calculated and where the missile actually is going to be. Remember, kinematics is the real issue here.

LMFS wrote:

Arrow wrote:Can you use aerodynamic steering at these altitudes? The atmosphere is very thin. How can the Zircon perform complex maneuvers in such a thin atmosphere? Wetkore thrust on the engine nozzle.

Very high speed means you create a lot of lift and also means a high g turn is not necessarily a tight one. The maneuverability of such missiles is not destined to "dodge" anything but to ruin the calculation of interception points and the kinematics of interceptors, since at those speeds a few degrees deviation mean many tens of km of difference between what your AD calculated and where the missile actually is going to be. Remember, kinematics is the real issue here.

There have been non-ballistic warheads since the 1970s in both the USA and USSR. The new generation of glider warheads (e.g. Avanagard) is
not a tweak on this, it is a whole new realm. The degree of deviation from ballistic flight by these gliders is huge but considering that
they are surrounded by plasma during a critical part of their descent they are unlikely to have guidance systems that use external inputs
to actively avoid ABMs. Randomizing their trajectories is more than enough to totally defeat any ABM. No ABM system has the
energy reserve to chase glider warheads. At the high altitudes in question, it would need to have rocket propulsion and thrusters that
are as powerful as the main propulsion unit.

Kinetic kill is stone cold dead. That leaves nuclear ABM warheads as the "solution". But EMP is not an ace in the hole. The magnetic
field induced currents need to be controlled with a proper design of the electronics. These days the available supercomputer systems
enable to simulate all sorts of EMP conditions and to modify the design of nuclear bomb triggering mechanisms accordingly. If any
country can do this, it is Russia. Fundamental science and mathematics have value.

Can you use aerodynamic steering at these altitudes? The atmosphere is very thin. How can the Zircon perform complex maneuvers in such a thin atmosphere? Wetkore thrust on the engine nozzle.

How do you think the US Space shuttle manouvers inside the atmosphere?

It uses small rockets to spin around 180 degrees to point its main engines backwards and fires its main engines for a few seconds to slow down to below orbital speeds and then uses small rockets to rotate back to pointing forward with the correct nose up attitude for the re-entry...

It essentially uses entire body braking with a high angle of attack in the upper atmosphere to slow down from enormous speeds to much slower speeds where it can land like a conventional aircraft... big heavy conventional aircraft with low lift so steep landing, but still aerodynamic.

The Zircon uses a jet engine and flys all the way to the target... a cruise missile is more like a bomber than an artillery projectile...

They could use fins for control and for stabilisation, but such things also create drag, but they could just as easily use TVC engine nozzles on the scramjet motor that provides thrust.

Very high speed means you create a lot of lift and also means a high g turn is not necessarily a tight one. The maneuverability of such missiles is not destined to "dodge" anything but to ruin the calculation of interception points and the kinematics of interceptors, since at those speeds a few degrees deviation mean many tens of km of difference between what your AD calculated and where the missile actually is going to be. Remember, kinematics is the real issue here.

Exactly... the speed makes it like a bullet... it is not that a bullet is manouverable but it is often moving too fast to dodge.

A (rifle) bullet fired from 1km away means you have at least 3-4 seconds to get out of the way... but the problem is that when it hits you it will still be moving at hundreds of metres per second... to fast to see and not enough time to see and physically moved out of the way of... so generally if you see the muzzle flash... yes, I know, unlikely, but if you see the muzzle flash and know it is coming the best way to evade is to move if you were still or stop moving if you were moving... if you were still then remaining still makes you and easier target for them to hit... but then they might have anticipated you saw the shot and therefore aimed for the ground at your feet assuming you see the shot fired and you dive to the ground to avoid being hit.

If you were walking at a steady pace and see the shot then if the shooter is a good shot they likely would have allowed for the speed you were walking at so if you stop walking the round would be aimed to hit you several metres in front of where you are where you will be when the round arrives.

Obviously if you are walking directly towards or away from the shooter then one or two steps to either side and you should avoid being hit.

Obviously if the projectile can shift its trajectory even only by a few degrees all the way to you then you need to get to cover because it should be able to compensate for any move you do make faster than you can respond to the changes.

As KVS points out above when the speeds are very high then the problems increase... imagine the incoming target is a tennis ball and the interceptor is a tennis racket.

The tennis ball is not particularly fast although it can move rather quick, while the reach of the tennis racket is limited by the arm length of the player.

The enemy will likely know where the opposition player is before they launch the tennis ball and what their reach is, but the game of tennis is designed so that most of the time a player has some chance of reaching the ball to intercept it and return it... the rules of serves and the height of the net and size of the courts and the in areas of a tennis court makes scoring aces on your serve rather harder, but not impossible.

In the real world the speed and distances involved magnify the interception problems immensely... a surface to air interceptor racket like an S-400 moves at eye watering speeds, and the eyes of the player are enormously powerful and can observe enormous volumes of air space from near ground level out to space and beyond... but the problem when talking about very fast moving targets and very fast moving interceptors is that the other player can fake a shot so you think it will be fast and it ends up being a rather slow lob... with a tennis racket you can wait a second for the ball to arrive, though if it is an ace and you think it will be slower and it zips through there is not much you can do.

Very simply if you have an air defence battery sitting in the path of a mach 10 missile there is no trajectory to calculate... it is flying in a level path like an aircraft... in comparison a ballistic missile has a flight path like an artillery shell so it is much faster but predictable... you can work out the target area it will land in and you know it is not going to do a lot of manouvering because that would burn up its speed and actually make it easier to intercept.

A Zircon is an aircraft and it will be flying waypoints and might climb or descend and change direction at any time.

Unlike most normal aircraft however this thing is covering 3.2km of distance every second... so say it is flying level and straight at 30km altitude at 3.2km/s... if it remains flying straight and level it is an easier target to hit, though certainly not an actually easy target... remember S-400 can hit targets moving at 4.8km/s so it can actually cope with a straight flying target like this though it is ballistic or predictable targets that fly at that speed that it can intercept.

The location of the Zircon is established and its flight path can be estimated so you look along that path for an S-400 battery and you get them to power up and prepare to launch... calculating an intercept point is easy as long as the target maintains speed and altitude and does not make any flight changes... so for example say the S-400 calculates an intercept point that is 200km away from the S-400 battery north of its position... the speed and performance of the S-400 missile to be fired is known so the interception location is the distance at which a launched S-400 missile will get to that interception position at the same time the Zircon target does... from that location the S-400 missile will take X number of seconds to reach the intercept point... so when the Zircon reaches a position where its X number of seconds to reach the same intercept point equals the S-400s missiles X position the S-400 missile is launched, so then we have these two objects rapidly closing in on each other at enormous speeds... but the Zircon is not stupid... it detects the radar signals that are being used to track it and it realises that the territory it is flying over... there are S-400 batteries there, so just then it decides to pull a 40g turn to the left for a few seconds... it sounds like a hard turn... and it is but it will only be a few degrees angle because at that speed g force turns are magnified immensely... the ground systems will detect and change in trajectory and their computers will be shifting the interception point in real time but the interception point will continue to shift until the Zircon stops turning, so the S-400 will receive new interception points continuously... the speeds it is travelling at they can't afford to wait to see how far off course the Zircon is turning... the Zircon stops turning but the interception location has now shifted 50km.... well the S-400 is moving fast but it is not moving at 3.2km/s like the Zircon is so the extra 50km might take an extra 20 seconds to reach... remember the interception point is the four dimensional coordinates of the two objects in space and time... it is not good enough for your interceptor missile to reach the same interception point that the target is going to occupy if it gets there 1 second after the target... 1 second late means you miss by 3.2km... even a small 2KT nuclear warhead wont get you a kill with such a miss distance, and what if it is 10km or 20km miss.

Most importantly the Zircon can not just turn randomly... it can climb or even slow down... if it does not turn or climb or dive it can slow down and your interceptor will get to the point of interception too early... it is a missile... it can't stop and wait for a second or two while the target catches up...


S-400 is rocket powered so it has fixed acceleration and while it can manouver it has limited energy... after the missile is half way to the target interception point the Zircon might turn and then turn back the other way leaving the interception missile 100km away from the new interception point with not enough speed or energy to turn to get to that interception point by the time the Zircon missile blows past.

It is not impossible to intercept but you definitely need to develop a strategy with coordination and lots of missiles and for now perhaps nuclear warheads... getting a missile to an intercept point and then turning the missile to head directly at the incoming target and detonating a nuke as their paths are about to cross would be the likely goal.

The thing is that in the near future the S-600 and S-700 will likely be scramjet powered air defence missiles with flight speeds of mach 10 to mach 20... and of course lasers and directed energy weapons where the intercepting material is moving at light speeds starts to become worth the enormous costs...

GarryB wrote:
Very simply if you have an air defence battery sitting in the path of a mach 10 missile there is no trajectory to calculate... it is flying in a level path like an aircraft... in comparison a ballistic missile has a flight path like an artillery shell so it is much faster but predictable... you can work out the target area it will land in and you know it is not going to do a lot of manouvering because that would burn up its speed and actually make it easier to intercept.

The specific impulse of the fuel on a rocket engine is maybe three times less than that of a ramjet, I don't know with scramjets but in any case an air breathing cruise missile that can not only have much more range and recover speed after maneouvering but actually spend its budget of energy in a much better way since it keeps a more or less constant speed. That means additional difficulties for the interceptors in the form of strongly increased kinematic needs.

GarryB wrote:

Can the scramjet engine operate at an altitude of around 30km? Is there not enough oxygen at this altitude?

The speed it is operating at it scoops up an enormous volume of atmosphere... for a human with our tiny lungs we would not be able to suck in and blow out enough volumes of atmosphere to recover enough O2 to survive, but jet engines operate with enormous volumes of the atmosphere with easily plenty enough to burn fuel.

Scramjets can actually operate at much much higher altitudes than 30km. and the thinner colder air at higher altitudes actually makes them more efficient and powerful at higher altitudes.

It was designed to cruise at 30 km. That means a specific choice of lifting body design. Even if scramjets can operate at 75 km that
does not mean that an aerofoil can be found for those altitudes. The atmospheric density drops off exponentially with altitude and
the e-folding factor gets smaller as well. If it can be about 10 km in the troposphere, it will fall to under 5 km in the upper mesosphere.
Essentially you need rocket propulsion at those altitudes. Re-entry gliders are not cruising at 75 km, they fall to thicker layers
of the atmosphere.

The Kh-32 operates at 40km altitude, and while it is rocket powered it is a winged missile that operates at half the speed of Zircon that does not use lifting body aerodynamics even though at mach 5 it could use a lifting body design.

This suggests that a Zircon could easily operate at higher altitudes too... can I ask where the 30km altitude number came from for Zircon?

I was referring to the X-47A.

There are solid benefits for it to operate at higher altitudes... Kh-32 was designed to operate at 40km altitude to prevent interception by Phoenix AAMs and Standard naval SAMs.... essentially the US Navy without the SM-6 could just watch the missile approach and then dive down on their ships unable to do anything about it because their radars can't point directly up and when the missile is approaching their SM-2 missiles can't reach targets that high and nor can their F-14 launched Phoenix AAMs either.

I would expect Zircon operating in the 40-60km altitude range would make them much harder to intercept too while reducing drag.... with a scramjet motor they don't need to slow the airflow through the engine down so thrust could be enormous... even at such altitudes.

The difference between 30 km and 40 km is vastly smaller than between 30 km and 75 km. There are no aircraft of any sort that
can operate at 75 km regardless of their propulsion units. At 75 km they are flying as rockets and get a small boost from using
lifting body shape coupled with high speed.

Both the space shuttle and Avangard gliders fall like rocks as they maneuver in the upper atmosphere. They are by no means
cruising. Any functionality they have as aircraft starts to kick in in the stratosphere. And it is marginal until they get to the
tropopause altitudes.

To give you an idea how thin the atmosphere is above 80 km, it is now composed primarily of rocketry associated elements.
This includes exhaust gases and ablated and burned up rocket stages. We are talking about a few atoms and molecules
per cubic centimeters. There is no "air" there.

Using speed to compensate for decrease in air density is not an unbounded parameter regime. You enter a rocket
propulsion mode with frictional drag instead of getting any sort of important lift. Operating at 40 km is still within
the stratosphere. There are not going to be variants that operate at 60 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)

For regular wings, lift is proportional to density. Ignoring serious issues like boundary layer thickness and separation at
higher altitudes, this means that to maintain lift one would have to increase the flight speed as the square root of
the inverse the air density. So going from 10 km to 50 km we have a density attenuation factor = exp(-40/7) = 0.0033
which would imply (making invalid assumptions about application of the same formula up to 50 km) that the flight speed
would need to increase by by a factor of 17.

If some sort of cruise missile operates at 40 km, then it is not using a regular flight regime but a forced rocket-like
propulsion regime. None of the wings on cruise missiles can function properly at 40 km. The U-2 had a ceiling of
under 25 km as did the M-55 due to the fact that the airfoil boundary layer thickness grows as the inverse of the density.
The wings used by these aircraft were optimized to operate at those altitudes and you simply cannot redesign them
to operate at 40 km. And the fact that NASA's Helios flew at 30 km does not contradict this. It was an ultralight
which, based on the wing shape, used a balloon trick to get loft by using solar heating to reduce the air density inside
the wing. Of course Wiki will not tell you this. Compare the wings of the U-2 to the Helios. The ones on the Helios
look like something from the 1930s with their sectional profile.

Looking at the Kh-32, it looks like a hybrid ballistic missile with some control surfaces for lift and maneuvering. It is
using its speed to "cruise" and not aerodynamic lift. The range being under 1000 km is telling.

kvs wrote:Looking at the Kh-32, it looks like a hybrid ballistic missile with some control surfaces for lift and maneuvering.    It is
using its speed to "cruise" and not aerodynamic lift.   The range being under 1000 km is telling.  

It's intended range of use is between 600-1000km, but it's max range is not sub 1000km.

There is no conclusive evidence for this. Russia has never officially said how Tsirkon works. Do you think it could be rocket propulsion with some new breakthrough fuel?

The Kh-32 is a rocket powered anti ship missile, and has a range of about 800km and a top speed of about mach 4.5.

It is about twice the weight of Onyx, though Onyx travels at about mach 2 at low altitude with scramjet propulsion and probably a range of about 600km.

Zircon has a range of over 1,000km and a speed of mach 9+...

Both the space shuttle and Avangard gliders fall like rocks as they maneuver in the upper atmosphere. They are by no means
cruising. Any functionality they have as aircraft starts to kick in in the stratosphere. And it is marginal until they get to the
tropopause altitudes.

Wasn't suggesting they could loop the loop as soon as they left space, but their design is to glide to land, and as a giant air brake when it enters the atmosphere so that parachutes are not needed...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:Looking at the Kh-32, it looks like a hybrid ballistic missile with some control surfaces for lift and maneuvering.    It is
using its speed to "cruise" and not aerodynamic lift.   The range being under 1000 km is telling.  

It's intended range of use is between 600-1000km, but it's max range is not sub 1000km.

So then, give a number. Bet that it can do 5,000 km....

GarryB but all the time they test the missile at only 450 km. We are waiting for the test for over 1000 km

When you are designing a new car you don't start with 10,000km range drives across deserts... you make sure things work and its navigation system works and its terminal guidance works and it can manouver in flight during the test to evade various air defence systems you might pretend are on the way to the target.

You make sure it launches cleanly and reliably.

Checking its max reach is only important when you pretty much have done all the other tests and are now researching its performance envelope.

LMFS wrote:The maneuverability of such missiles is not destined to "dodge" anything but to ruin the calculation of interception points and the kinematics of interceptors, since at those speeds a few degrees deviation mean many tens of km of difference between what your AD calculated and where the missile actually is going to be.

In that case Maneuverability is not the correct word here, because maneuverability is defined as the ability to change the speed and flight direction of a missile. Obviously at hypersonic speed a cruise missile will not be able to carry out terminal manoeuvre.

As far as interception of hyper sonic missiles is concerned the U.S has already created several prototypes of Directed Energy Weapons, some of which are entering limited production. For example the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System or XN-1 LaWS. In the interim, we have AD systems like the Oerlikon 35/1000 Revolver Gun, which fires the Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition.

The state of the art AHEAD projectile is programmed by a muzzle based electromagnetic inductor, which sets an electronic timer to activate and separate the projectile into 152 heavy tungsten metal spin-stabilized sub-projectiles (3.3 gram each), forming a lethal cone shaped metal cloud, placed ahead of the incoming hypersonic missile in its flight path.

RTN wrote:

LMFS wrote:The maneuverability of such missiles is not destined to "dodge" anything but to ruin the calculation of interception points and the kinematics of interceptors, since at those speeds a few degrees deviation mean many tens of km of difference between what your AD calculated and where the missile actually is going to be.

In that case Maneuverability is not the correct word here, because maneuverability is defined as the ability to change the speed and flight direction of a missile. Obviously at hypersonic speed a cruise missile will not be able to carry out terminal manoeuvre.

As far as interception of hyper sonic missiles is concerned the U.S has already created several prototypes of Directed Energy Weapons, some of which are entering limited production. For example the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System or XN-1 LaWS. In the interim, we have AD systems like the Oerlikon 35/1000 Revolver Gun, which fires the Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition.

The state of the art AHEAD projectile is programmed by a muzzle based electromagnetic inductor, which sets an electronic timer to activate and separate the projectile into 152 heavy tungsten metal spin-stabilized sub-projectiles (3.3 gram each), forming a lethal cone shaped metal cloud, placed ahead of the incoming hypersonic missile in its flight path.

LMAO, then what is the correct word then? Dodginess? The hypersonic missile changes its flight and direction in order to avoid interception.

Also, you love to prattle on about Western weaponry, you literally write like a brochure from them, tell me, if you think hypersonic missiles cannot do terminal maneuvers, what do you think about this video?



Obviously, great and wise MBDA surely can make pop-up sea-skimming hypersonic missile. You'll be writing its praises in brochure speak soon enough.

x_54_u43 wrote: The hypersonic missile changes its flight and direction in order to avoid interception.

Show me the math for this. Clearly you can't because you don't have any.

x_54_u43 wrote: Also, you love to prattle on about Western weaponry, you literally write like a brochure from them, tell me, if you think hypersonic missiles cannot do terminal maneuvers, what do you think about this video?

The one sharing MBDA's marketing video is you not me.

Isos wrote: Hypersonic missiles need to move some 3-4° to make it hopeless for AD to intercept it. And the more degrees it add to its correction of path the harder it will be to destroy it.

I get that. Therefore, I had mentioned that in the near future hyper sonic missiles will be engaged by DEW and as of now they will be engaged by electromagnetic rounds fired by AD systems like the Oerlikon 35/1000 Revolver Gun.

Isos wrote:Short range guns are good but they cover a small area and can't defend against a swarm attack.

A swarm attack will also be confined to a small area. Moreover, you do realize how expensive it is to launch several swarm attacks with hypersonic weapons, don't you. Barring the US and China how many countries can afford that?

Isos wrote:Moreover even if they hit the missile it will still fly in the direction of the target and will probably hit it.

It won't. Even a Gatling gun can rip open a hypersonic cruise missile

Isos wrote:Tracking a hypersonic target with their small radar will be almost impossible. And at close range radars have dead zones.

The tracking part will be taken care of by JSTAR and AWACS that are part of NATO's C4ISR architecture. They will pass on this information to the AD systems like Oerlikon 35/1000 which can then engage the hostile hypersonic missile.