3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

Hypersonic missiles (like Zircon) will probably replace supersonic missiles (like Yakhont) completely. Why will the military use supersonic missiles when they have access to hypersonic missiles.

However, long range subsonic missiles (like Kalibr) will probably not be replaced.

Sujoy wrote:Hypersonic missiles (like Zircon) will probably replace supersonic missiles (like Yakhont) completely. Why will the military use supersonic missiles when they have access to hypersonic missiles.

However, long range subsonic missiles (like Kalibr) will probably not be replaced.

This is not impossible, although it should be emphasized that there are no anti-ship coastal missile complexes in the West, such as the 3K55 "Bastion". But if the Russians have already announced that they are working on a terrestrial variant of the "Zircon" missile, which may or may not happen (time will tell), then that means that the future will be hypersonic for coastal systems as well. I am sure that the vast majority of submarines will be re-equipped with hypersonic missiles, compared to supersonic ones, while that (at least initially) might be a smaller number on surface warships. Project submarines 885M, 949AM, probably 971M, 22350 frigates and "Admiral Nakhimov". Of course, the modernized ships of the 1155 "Fregat" project will also be able to carry these missiles. There have already been stories that these missiles will be on small missile ships as well or 21631 "Buyan-M" and 22800 "Karakurt".
As for cruise missiles, I do not rule out the possibility that technology will advance so much that they will also become hypersonic.

I believe that not all Onyx will be replaced, as there were talks of upgrading Onyx by improving speed, range and guidance. They will still be present in the mix that ships and subs are carrying, as you won't be needing to use Zircon for every target. Also Bastion proved very successful in hitting ground targets. As a very capable and cheaper solution i can see it being used along with Zircon.Zircon will be deployed most often in high priority areas such as Northern and Pacific fleet that are part of world ocean. Small internal seas like Baltic, won't need Zircon as there are barely any serious war ships deployed there.

Just before the impact.

caveat emptor wrote:I believe that not all Onyx will be replaced, as there were talks of upgrading Onyx by improving speed, range and guidance. They will still be present in the mix that ships and subs are carrying, as you won't be needing to use Zircon for every target. Also Bastion proved very successful in hitting ground targets. As a very capable and cheaper solution i can see it being used along with Zircon.Zircon will be deployed most often in high priority areas such as Northern and Pacific fleet that are part of world ocean. Small internal seas like Baltic, won't need Zircon as there are barely any serious war ships deployed there.

What makes you think Onyx will be cheaper than Zircon once Zircon enters mass production?
I kind of doubt it.

Not every anti ship missile needs to be a Zircon because not every ship they will be wanting to sink will be defended or even aware it is under attack.

Onyx missiles have been in production for some time and they likely have large numbers of them in stock... it was also the basis for the export Yakhont and Brahmos missiles.

Traditionally they don't scrap anything that is still useful and with its land attack capacity intact even hitting isolated first tier targets the Onyx would be effective most of the time.

Hell US troops in the Middle East are vulnerable to ballistic missile attack, so I would expect they are likely not better protected against supersonic vertically diving missiles either... in fact a few Onyx missiles coming in vertically to take out Patriot missile radars or the radars of Aster and the next wave of missiles will be attacking blind SAMs systems...

Russia probably has more attack missiles than the west has SAMs... not something you can say in reverse...

Zircon is essentially Onyx with improved materials for higher speed flight and revised aerodynamic shape and the replacement of the ramjet motor with a scramjet and new more energetic fuel.

Reportedly the new fuel doubles the speed performance of the Onyx and also doubles the flight range which in itself is impressive... mach 5 and 800km flight range has been mentioned...

I suspect Onyx will continue in production even just for export as Yakhonts... but you can't just put scramjet motors in Onyx and get mach 10 flight speed... it would likely destroy itself trying to get that fast.... in the same way a modern turbofan jet engine put into an Me 262 would not make it supersonic because it would probably break first.

Zircon is essentially Onyx with improved materials for higher speed flight and revised aerodynamic shape and the replacement of the ramjet motor with a scramjet and new more energetic fuel.

That's why they will just stop producing oniks... Zirkon isn't any more expensive to make since it has the same engine with no moving parts and same type of fuel but does better.

For export they can just put limitations on it and sell it for use from the same launchers.

GarryB wrote:I suspect Onyx will continue in production even just for export as Yakhonts... but you can't just put scramjet motors in Onyx and get mach 10 flight speed... it would likely destroy itself trying to get that fast.... in the same way a modern turbofan jet engine put into an Me 262 would not make it supersonic because it would probably break first.

I think, taking lessons from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Russia will make massive investments in developing cruise missiles that can hit moving targets, regardless of how fast targets like MBTs, Ships, IFVs are traveling.

Brimstone apparently can hit moving targets even if they are traveling at high speed and the Predator drone can apparently do the same with the hellfire missile. However, there is no way to independently prove these claims. Most Western weapons do not work as effectively on the battlefield as they are advertised.

Brimstone is an ATGM, Predator is a drone. What has this to do with cruise missiles?

Hole wrote:Brimstone is an ATGM, Predator is a drone. What has this to do with cruise missiles?

Er.....Brimstone is a cruise missile that can be air launched from fighters and drones or sea launched from ships. I wrote, Predator drones uses the Hellfire missiles to hit moving targets.

Sujoy I have a strong suspicion that article 305 missile will be used by MALE and HALE UAVs in the not too distant future. It is looking to be an incredible though expensive missile and would fit that niche I bet.

That's why they will just stop producing oniks... Zirkon isn't any more expensive to make since it has the same engine with no moving parts and same type of fuel but does better.

We don't know enough to be sure about anything.

The new fuel might be very expensive or hard to source, the materials the Zircon is made from would need to be rather more heat resistent than the bits that make the Onyx, so it likely wont be the same price, but the performance is obviously also much better and shifting Onyx production to Zircon production should lead to the costs going down.

The fact that they use the same launch tube is a serious bonus because in many cases I suspect either weapon would do a good job.

For export they can just put limitations on it and sell it for use from the same launchers.

For export Yakhont is already a potent missile western navies would have problems dealing with... the material Zircon is made out of and its actual physical shape is a secret the Russians will want to keep to themselves for as long as they can... a physical shape that is low drag at mach 10 would be useful for all sorts of weapons including AAMs and SAMs and other weapons too... hell even an anti tank rocket scramjet weapon flying at mach 10 which is double the 1.5km per second of most modern APFSDS rounds... put a 5kg metal dart core down the body of the missile and launch it so that at 10-30km it is flying at mach 10 or 3km/s and it is going to do serious damage to any armoured vehicle it hits...

I think, taking lessons from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Russia will make massive investments in developing cruise missiles that can hit moving targets, regardless of how fast targets like MBTs, Ships, IFVs are traveling.

Cruise missiles?

Kh-59M missiles are optically guided... as are TV guided Kh-29T missiles and the laser guided Kh-29L... all of which can hit and kill moving targets.

TV, Radar, IIR, SALH, and manually guided missiles can all hit moving targets...

Brimstone apparently can hit moving targets even if they are traveling at high speed

Brimstone is an active radar homing version of Hellfire... the Russian equivalents in the form of Vihkr and Ataka and Khrisantema and Kornet and Hermes and LMUR can all hit moving targets...

and the Predator drone can apparently do the same with the hellfire missile.

We have seen video footage of Russian drones using Kornet against moving targets... Hinds, Hips, Havocs, Hokums can all hit moving targets with ATGMs... it is not a new trick.

However, there is no way to independently prove these claims.

Such claims are not that big a deal... even Russian tanks can hit moving targets with their guns and also with tank gun launched missiles.

It is only weapons guided purely by sat nav that can only hit fixed coordinates. Russian cruise missiles have terminal homing seekers so when they arrive in the vicinity of the target via GLONASS they can look at the target location and see the target and identify a part of the target to hit... you can't use them against tanks because launching them from 3,000km away and flying at 600-700km/h most of the way means they take hours to get to the target area by which time the tanks would be gone... and even if they weren't 400kg of HE is too much to waste on a single tank.

If they want to hit a train they can use the Kh-59M with TV guidance and datalink so the guy in the launch aircraft can see a video image of what the missile sees and target the train from 100km away... of the bridge the train is approaching or half on at the time.

Er.....Brimstone is a cruise missile that can be air launched from fighters and drones or sea launched from ships.

Brimstone is a British version of Hellfire ATGM.

It uses radar... the closest Russian equivalent is probably LMUR which is IIR guided.

Sujoy I have a strong suspicion that article 305 missile will be used by MALE and HALE UAVs in the not too distant future. It is looking to be an incredible though expensive missile

With new QWIP based sensors the IIR sensor in the missile might not be that expensive and might become quite affordable over time if they make a lot of them... they are making them for their armoured vehicles and new rifle sights and optics on all sorts of air, sea, and land based platforms.

TMA1 wrote:Sujoy I have a strong suspicion that article 305 missile will be used by MALE and HALE UAVs in the not too distant future. It is looking to be an incredible though expensive missile and would fit that niche I bet.

Possible. I suspect Article 305 will be used by helos as well as UAVs.

I don't take them seriously. Not because they are bad or anything but often the Russians will use different explosions/impacts from different missiles. There is good reason for it. Event the impact could share a lot about the missile and how to potentially knock it out.

That's just my opinion on things at least.

Another factor is that the physical shape of the Zircon is secret because the west don't know how to make them work efficiently at high speeds and these missiles have a flght range of 1,500km which means sustained flight at mach 10... getting the shape right is just as important as getting the scramjet motor running long enough to do the job so it is very much not in their interests to show the external shape of the Zircon missile.

I saw these on the russian paralay forum and if you translate it and read their reasonings it seems very probable that they have found out what zircon looks like. It obviously isnt definitive but I am pretty sure they got it right. The style of scramjet intakes reminds me of a DARPA scramjet missile design I've seen before.

TMA1 wrote:
I saw these on the russian paralay forum and if you translate it and read their reasonings it seems very probable that they have found out what zircon looks like. It obviously isnt definitive but I am pretty sure they got it right. The style of scramjet intakes reminds me of a DARPA scramjet missile design I've seen before.

Being so many years inactive I forgot that the paralay forum exists. They indeed have very good stuff. But it is impossible to read the descriptions on the second picture.

A variation >>

That's why they will just stop producing oniks... Zirkon isn't any more expensive to make since it has the same engine with no moving parts and same type of fuel but does better.

For export they can just put limitations on it and sell it for use from the same launchers.

The shape of the nose and design of the scramjet motor on the Zircon they will want to keep secret for as long as possible and the formula for the new more powerful fuel will also likely be a secret... I would expect they will continue to make Onyx and its old fuel and sell it as Yakhont or Brahmos for export to countries that don't need anything better.

For their own use Onyx is still useful against a range of targets and would be useful anyway because it is already paid for... a few new Zircons to take down major radar and damage ships could be followed up by dozens of slower Onyx missiles that can destroy launchers or against naval targets finish off already damaged ships... or hit lessor ships that don't need Zircons to take down.

I think, taking lessons from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Russia will make massive investments in developing cruise missiles that can hit moving targets, regardless of how fast targets like MBTs, Ships, IFVs are traveling.

You are confusing terms... a cruise missile is a strategic weapon and never used against moving targets.

A cruise missile is something like a Kh-555 or a Kh-101, which have warheads of 400-600kgs of conventional HE that are intended for hitting buildings or structures like bridges or power stations or HQs or Comms centres.

What you are talking about is a tactical missile like LMUR or Kh-59MK or even Kh-29 or the new Kh-38 and Hermes missiles.

And they have developed a range of such weapons already.

Brimstone apparently can hit moving targets even if they are traveling at high speed and the Predator drone can apparently do the same with the hellfire missile. However, there is no way to independently prove these claims. Most Western weapons do not work as effectively on the battlefield as they are advertised.

Brimstone and Hellfire are just ATGMs, the former based on the latter with extended ranges that are hard to believe to be honest.

LMUR is a missile with double the range of Hellfire and an IIR seeker with a datalink back to the launch platform that allows the operator to steer the missile and find a target and then lock it so it attacks the target on its own whether it is moving or not.

The ATAKA and Khrisantema and Vikhr all perform the same function as Hellfire and LMUR and Hermes and a few other short range tactical weapons also perform similar missions over medium distances... LMUR reportedly out to about 35km in some versions and Hermes to 100km in some models too.

Hermes should have a range of seeker and guidance options to allow stationary and moving targets to be hit effectively enough but when being launched from drones the Kornet or Ataka are cheap and simple and accurate and powerful.

Every Russian artillery piece has a laser guided round that it can fire to hit precise and moving targets and new EO guided versions are becoming available too.

The production of the IIR seeker on LMUR suggests they have sensors in mass production at an affordable price and adding such seekers to other weapons just makes them more useful.

In the 1980s they had the Kh-59 and Kh-59M which are identified by HATO as AS-13 and AS-18 missiles which are TV guided using a communication pod. AS-13 has a range of about 40km and AS-18 a range of about 120km and it uses a communications pod mounted on the aircraft to send and receive a tv signal via a datalink so the missile flies towards the target using a rocket motor (AS-13) or a turbojet engine (AS-18) and sends back the view ahead it sees with its TV seeker... the crew in the plane looks at the video image and as it approaches the target the operator moves the targeting crosshairs onto the target and pushes an engagement button after which the missile homes in on the designated target and hits it all by itself.

It can hit land and sea based targets that are moving or stationary.

They have shown a whole new range of bombs and missiles and rockets for drones and light aircraft to carry where guidance means even a 20kg bomb could take out a tank with a direct hit to the turret roof or engine deck...

Er.....Brimstone is a cruise missile that can be air launched from fighters and drones or sea launched from ships

Brimstone is not a cruise missile... at best it is a very very light tactical missile... it is the size and weight of a Hellfire ATGM and is rather lighter than a tactical attack missile like a Kh-25 or a Maverick missile.

The Kh-38 effectively has a 250kg bomb as a payload on a rocket powered missile... the Kh-25 has a 90kg warhead on a 10-40km range missile (depending on the version).

Brimstone has a warhead of about 6kgs which is rather lighter than the warhead on the Hellfire and much lighter than Hermes or LMUR.

Brimstone is an ATGM that is intended to hit a range of battlefield targets, but at 50kgs it is a similar weight to the Ataka and Khrisantema missiles and has a similar warhead weight.

Without any other proof I would think its supposed range is from a high altitude supersonic launch...

I saw these on the russian paralay forum and if you translate it and read their reasonings it seems very probable that they have found out what zircon looks like. It obviously isnt definitive but I am pretty sure they got it right. The style of scramjet intakes reminds me of a DARPA scramjet missile design I've seen before.

Interesting in the sense that the scramjet engine is in the nose and blasts engine exhaust over the control fins but in a sense would protect the body of the missile from the very high speed airflow of flying at 3km/s.

The problem I have is that it is a two stage missile and does not appear to use a combined rocket scramjet design of the Onyx, but also the round nose mounted intakes suggests an older design or a ground breaking technology breakthrough because most scramjet intakes are rectangles as they are easier to control and calculate and control air flows...

Just looking at the drawing Mir posted it looks to me like the solid rocket section is too big, and with those grid fins it looks to me like the Calibr missiles used for the anti sub missile model... the 91ER2.

Not convinced.

The fact that it is not shaped like a waverider does not mean it does not have square or rectangular air intake geometry.

This might all be disinformation to lead the US and the west who are desperately trying to get their own hypersonic missiles operational or at least just working properly up a dead end path.

The Russian system works... I don't want to know what it looks like because that would help the west.