3M22 Zircon Hypersonic Cruise Missile

hese images from "armchair enthusiasts" suggest the Zircon has an annular intake at the nose, and is powered by solid fuel. Plausible? wrote:

Big Gaza and where did these drawings come from, whose analyzes are these?
Solid fuel and air oxygen sounds like a solid fuel Ramjet/Scramjet. I've heard of work being done on a solid fuel ramjet

The launch container for UKSK is basically the same for all the missiles that are launched from it and don't really reflect anything. You might say this is Zircon, but it could just as easily be a new supersonic version of Calibre or a long range Otvet anti sub weapon... wrote:

Yes it's about the launcher. Here's the patent. "ethod of supply of working gas to cavities of flying vehicle units and systems and system for realization of this method "
https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2148180C1/en?oq=RU+2148180

hat would not be efficient... it would make more sense to have a smaller lighter solid rocket motor just to get the missile moving and use the scramjet and extra fuel for much better performance. wrote:

But Iskander has a much larger warhead to carry!

That would require a real breakthrough in design and modelling. The scramjets they tested in the 1990s had round intakes mounted on the nose of SA-5 SAMs, but the round inlets didn't offer enough control of the airflow so they went to square intakes. wrote:

Look at available photos of the missile in flight. There are no square inlets, etc. Of course, the picture is so blurry that it's hard to see anything. Until they officially show the missile, only speculation will remain and they will not reveal it soon.

Look at available photos of the missile in flight. There are no square inlets, etc. Of course, the picture is so blurry that it's hard to see anything. Until they officially show the missile, only speculation will remain and they will not reveal it soon.

The only released photos were taken by them and released by them... why would they give away the shape of a working missile when the enemy is desperately trying to work out a useful shape for themselves?

But Iskander has a much larger warhead to carry!

Twice as heavy with half the range, so it should be four times heavier... and it likely isn't.

Link below to the thread on a russian language forum. Not having any Russian language skills I find it difficult to wade thru forums like this using online translators, so usually i just skim for images... which I then post here if sufficiently interesting Laughing wrote:

Thanks to Big Gaza, generally interesting analyzes when it comes to solving the puzzle related to Cirkon.

he only released photos were taken by them and released by them... why would they give away the shape of a working missile when the enemy is desperately trying to work out a useful shape for themselves? wrote:

From the available photos, unfortunately of poor quality, it appears that the projectile is round in shape like standard missiles. So it probably has circular air intakes. All speculation that the Zirkon is shaped like a waverider can be cut short!

When you look at the Su-34s nose from directly above or directly below it looks round, but from the side or the front you can clearly see it is not.

Post 907 from Pod shows it is not round but a rather more complex shape that might be flat underneath with a rectangle air intake...

We see the rocket under rocket power... no afterburner looks like that, so the scramjet likely isn't even operating in those images so that nose shape could just be an aerodynamic fairing that stops birds and crap from entering the engine at low altitude during launch... when the rocket motor is close to burning out the aerodynamic fairing would be jettisoned and the scramjet engine started... which could be any shape.

Looking at the more side on image in post 907 I would guess a flattened oval shape with the underneath having a rectangular intake because it is easier to control the airflow... which is critical to burn fuel at supersonic speeds.

The rossiya 24 channel's model is clearly single stage, similar to the Kh-31 or P-800. Why wouldnt the russians choose a 2 stage design, 1 stage being a large booster, and the other being a scramjet? A 2 stage missile would have longer range.

The inside of a scramjet engine is empty space where air is compressed and fuel added and ignited... the Onyx has a small solid booster to get it up out of the tube and on its way, but only because a ramjet or scramjet probably wont be very efficient at very low to zero speed.

The weight a large heavy solid rocket booster would take away from the fuel you could load into your scramjet which would actually greatly reduce performance rather than improve it.

The purpose of the solid rocket booster is to get it clear of the ship and accelerating upwards... once it has achieved that it makes sense for it to be as small as you could possibly make it so the scramjet could take over and accelerate it to much much higher speeds that it can fly at.

A solid fuel rocket only would be like a Kh-15 or Iskander from a surface launch, so mach 4 to about mach 7 at best with the huge fat powerful rocket motor on the Iskander which simply wont fit in such a slim launch tube.

Trust them... they know what they are doing.

As far as I know...

When it gets to the target area has it already started to slow down so that it can change trajectory to vertical?

Like a Kh-32 or Onyx the Zirkon is powered from start to impact.

Once vertical is it going slow enough to maneuver?

The point of hypersonic weapons is that they are maneuverable, like a Kh-32 can maneuver at M4 the Zirkon can maneuver at M8 (or so)

Do we know if it is radar guided, if so at which phase of its journey?

Radar guided, like Kh-32 or Onyx. Range of the radar is reportedly min. 50km

As I understand it the rocket motor and scramjet get it up to its 'traveling' height, does it then fly on a ballistic trajectory or flat?

Think of it as being an aircraft whose engines are designed to operate only at speeds above 200km/h... so a solid rocket motor is used to accelerate and climb from its launch position where its scramjet can be started to then accelerate and climb and then fly all the way to the target.

It is not a ballistic missile, more of a cruise missile.

Is the 'traveling' height always 30km+?

There would be no value in sea skimming because that would greatly increase fuel burn and reduce top speed which would dramatically reduce range and performance.

Can it change direction during that phase or is it going too fast?

How fast would it need to go before it was too fast to change direction?

Some of the fastest missiles around are the ABM missiles the Russians use in the ABM system around Moscow... missiles that travel much faster than the 3km/s that Zircon can manage, though they are all solid rocket... but even then if it can't manouver then how could it hit an incoming target?

When it gets to the target area has it already started to slow down so that it can change trajectory to vertical?

It is powered all the way, any speed lost will be recovered in the dive to the target...

Once vertical is it going slow enough to maneuver?

Why do you think it needs to slow down to manouver?

When we say manouver... we don't mean performing loops and 90 degree turns...

A ten degree turn to the left... project an intercept point three kilometres in front of you, then turn ten degrees back to where you were headed originally and go another ten degrees to your right... how far apart are those points... before you turned the interception missiles were headed to a point in space... a turn of 10 degrees and that intercept point shifted quite a distance... remember if the interceptor is 5 seconds away from the interception point, turning 10 degrees shifts that interception point, but the interception network has to measure the turn... they don't know how far you have turned and it will take a second or two before they can determine you turned 10 degrees and then stopped turning, so the new interception point has just moved several kilometres, so your missile doesn't get any extra time, so the new intercept point has moved several kilometres but the time it will take your missile to get to the new interception point means it cannot make it, because the interception missile would also lose speed in its turn and it is now 2 seconds from the old interception point... it might not even be capable of turning to the new intercept point but even starting to try will be very frustrating when they detect the incoming missile has now not only returned to its original course but turned a further ten degrees the other direction, so your intercepting missile lost energy starting to turn that it wont even make the original intercept point now because there is not time to turn back, and even if it could the new intercept point is x times 2 because it is headed in a different direction.

But that is just being simple... imagine if the incoming missile continuously flew in a random spiral always changing heading and direction... the interceptors likely wont be based directly at the target so the incoming missiles will not get very close to the launch position of the interceptors and make it a little easier by shortening the times of flight.

If the zircon follows a ballistic trajectory, what makes it different from the iskander, kinzhal, kh-32, etc other than higher speed?

What an amusing comment... you are correct... but you use terrible examples... Iskander and Kinzhal are rocket boosted ramjet powered missiles that are cruise missiles and not ballistic, while the Kh-32 is a liquid fuelled rocket powered cruise missile.

The Tochka is a ballistic rocket, as are Smerch and Uragan and Grad rockets.

It's not a ballistic missile if you think so. A BM, to reach its mach 10 speed, would need to go very high, much higher than 30km.

Being ballistic does not relate to speed or altitude... the space shuttle leaves earths atmosphere but is not ballistic... it is more of a hypersonic glider.

Ballistic means like a thrown rock... you accelerate the object to speed either down the barrel of a gun or in the case of a rocket, a rocket motor that burns for a period only to accelerate and climb and then burns out... then without wings... the ballistic object then follows a predictable...Ballistic... trajectory that can be calculated based on the mass and speed and altitude and flight direction of the object.

These weapons that have been mentioned are powered all the way to the target missiles that do not follow a predictable ballistic flight path.

But otherwise I agree mostly with what you said LSOS.

There are rumors it sheds its air breathing elements during terminal phase. But this is speculation based on interpretations of patent info that may have no relation to zircon.

Sounds unlikely because the scramjet engine running all the way to impact would increase its ability to manuover and maximise its speed at impact.

But highlights the fact that we really don't know much for sure.

The Chinese will not teach a pioneer in hypersonic technologies.

Everything is unknown when it comes to this weapon.
As you already know, I also think that the aerial variant of the 3M22 Zircon missile would probably have the greatest range, because such a variant would not waste fuel on separation from the platform (surface-based launcher or submarine-based) and therefore energy to reach the optimal height and flight speed, although work on such a variant has not been disclosed.

The difference between an air launched and surface launched missile is that the air launched missile is already above the thickest layer of the atmosphere and is already moving forward, but surface launched versions of air launched missiles often have larger solid rocket booster motors that lift them up and accelerate them to speeds that mean they are not starting stationary.

Another factor is the missile is scramjet powered... a rocket runs at full thrust till it burns out, but the thrust of a jet engine can be throttled to give the most push without wasting fuel and is therefore more efficient.

The new missile tech upgrade is based on the fact that hypersonics often use air-breathing technology. To increase fuel efficiency, when the missile reaches hypersonic speed, the air is slowed to below the speed of sound before it enters the engine’s combustion chamber.

Subsonic airflow is necessary for ramjets and turbojets... Zircon uses a scramjet that does not need subsonic airflow through the jet engine section...

Zircon can travel at mach 9 because the airflow going into its engine intakes don't need to be slowed down to subsonic speed for the fuel to be burned... scramjet means supersonic combustion ramjet...

A MiG-31 would fly much faster if the air intakes didn't contract at high speed to reduce the airflow into the engines to keep the airflow through the engines subsonic so the turbofan engines don't flame out or choke on supersonic airflows.

Having the air come in at supersonic speeds and flow through the engines and burn fuel and come out the rear would allow much much higher flight speeds... that is the value of a scramjet... and why it is so ground breaking for high speed flight.