This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
3M22 Zircon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
There are rumours reported in well respected papers. The rumours should be included and reported as rumours.-- Kitchen Knife ( talk) 16:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
© http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3810-analysis-3k22-and-3m22-zircon-the-next-generation-hypersonic-missile-of-the-russian-navy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.57 ( talk) 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The Zircon or 3M22 Tsirkon is a maneuvering[1][2] hypersonic
In April 2017, it was revealed that the Zircon had reached a speed of Mach 8 (6,090 mph; 9,800 km/h; 2.7223 km/s) during a test.[8]
According to the state-owned media, the longest range is 540 nmi (620 mi; 1,000 km) for this purpose a new fuel was created.[9][10][11]
The Zircon will be incorporated into the Kirov-class battlecruiser as the Zircon; each battlecruiser will be equipped with 72[12] (Frigate 8)[13] of the missiles. + avia In flight, the missile is completely covered by the stealth shell, the shell completely absorbs any rays of the radio frequencies.[14][15] A version for export will have range limited to under 300 km in compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)[3]. =400[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.93 ( talk) 17:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I am quite eager to find out how the Russians tricket physics this time - RAM coatings are already at speeds around Mach 2 subject to much friction... At Mach 8, it would simply peel off or glow away. But I am also confident that a country with the GDP of Italy manages to deal with a challenge even the US-stealth-fanboys couldn't solve (and they don't lack the ressources, btw). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.22.239 ( talk) 21:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As suggested by User:Adamgerber80, asking here for a second opinion on whether it is desirable or not to point out the possibly biased source for a not easily verifiable claim of military capabilites? -- Webmgr ( talk) 08:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If the plasma cloud absorbs any radiation, how they want send any commands to the Zircon? -- 2k11m1 ( talk) 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC) i am? sorry? you all lol;) no 100% of body? ? whay not 100% of time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 ( talk) 16:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Zircon does not achieve high enough speeds to achieve any significant cone of plasma. Please cease trying to meme it into reality, it won't happen. Also, haze yourself for reading National Interest and anything by Kyle Mizokami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.19.5 ( talk) 17:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Please don't be lazy. There's no material that can do mach 10 in dense air incl diamond. Second, plasma stealth doesn't exist, plasma is a conductor hence reflects microwaves and also an emitter of radiation! Third yo can't use the initial weight to calculate the kinetic energy. Also the range makes no sense, you want us to believe it has more range than an F-16 while travelling at Mach 10? New fuel? What antimatter? All this is typical Russian wunderwaffen propaganda. They did the same in the past with the GR-1 missile etc. Zircon is just a slightly improved Granit missile. Maybe 10% faster, 10% more range. Russia has 10% the US GDP and a fraction of the R&D potential. Let's be realistic 240B:C010:481:697F:C702:7300:AAA5:401F ( talk) 14:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't do mach 10 near the ground, it would have to do it 10 miles up. And of course a plasma sheathe would make its sensors useless and it wouldn't really know where it was or where its target was. So it would have to slow down before reaching a target. And of course satellites would probably see this thing and give the target ample warning. Of course, Russia is a loud braggart so naturally the information space will be full of goofy things like this article. But all that really affects is wikipedia and stupid pop sci articles, and not reality. Let them brag, just like they bragged about how the Kinzhal was magically immune to air defense Binglederry ( talk) 08:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Scramjets have, in official sources, never been confirmed. Further, at Mach 10, any maneuvering is... difficult. It turns out, that even missiles have G-Force limits. Further, scramjets are somewhat sensitive to such violent changes in airflow.
in therms of plasma stealth... What the heck. This sounds so much like technobabble gobbledygook it's insane. WE CAN DETECT, REENTERING CAPSULES. How the heck is a missile going to evade radar when every RAM on the planet degrades after a small bit of exposure to a pocket lighter, much less superheated gas?
...also, I uh, suspect this might have a problem with being really really easy to spot with thermals.
I propose that we add some language to at least couch the page in "this is a really hmm inducing topic and we don't have much information on it" or something of that nature.
SkynetPR ( talk) 20:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the (thin) plasma layer/sheath around the Zircon flying near maximum speed impedes radar detection is false, and the reference provided quotes a news which is not serious -and i am not one to blindly criticize modern russian medias, often more honest than modern western ones, just here it's not serious. The main problem for hypersonic-flying objects is communication, when they want to send or receive communication signals near plasma frequency: communication antennas on the flying object are much less powerful than radar so attenuation is more of an issue, antennas sending signals to the flying objects will also be usually be much less powerful than AD radars. Also the absorption band from the plasma layer is very narrow, at about 1GHz for speeds about Mach 8-12. AD radars typically use a band of 1GHz to 13GHz -possibly combining various radars, frequencies at which the plasma layer is transparent. In some models attenuation is only very important (on the order of 10dB all around) for flying objects at above 6k/s (near Mach 17) for signals of frequency not far from the plasma frequency, though this should be stated with more precision than i do here -and please check the papers below. But that even is not a problem for AD radar signals for basic detection and tracking, especially when dealing with a cruise missile at low altitude -where line-of-sight may limit detection to below 100km in range. What may be problematic in some cases is identification of the missile, and radar jamming by the missile -but those issues may exist more with ICBMs than "current" hypersonic cruise missiles. Note that signals at a frequency of 300MHz for instance the radar waves will be reflected by the plasma, and the reflected signal will be detected by the radar similarly to signals reflected by the missile's metalic shell itself. The reflection is modified, without making it undetectable -but again such low frequencies are not used by AD radars.
Note also that plasma stealth devices tested on aircrafts create larger plasmas, with greater electron density, which allows them to absorb signals more.
For articles on signal attenuation through plasma layers of hypersonic flying objects, where you will find many interesting details, for instance on attenuation as a function of incidence angle, see eg:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19640001991/downloads/19640001991.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100008938/downloads/20100008938.pdf
https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijap/2017/3049532.pdf
It is clear from all the data provided there that detection of hypersonic cruise missiles like the Kinzhal is relatively easy -the difficulty of interception lie elsewhere. In fact ICBMs like the Trident II flying at much higher speed, Mach 24 in this case, can be followed by radars.
See:
https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2ballisticmissiledefense.pdf
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/12/key-radar-for-identifying-icbm-threats-begins-initial-fielding-mda/
https://rlg.fas.org/garwin-aps.htm
Note finally this important comment in the last ref above: « Technically, intercept within the atmosphere is easier for the defense because the ICBM warheads are highly visible to radar and to optical sensors, because of the very hot "wake" produced by the Mach-23 RV as it enters the atmosphere. » So that even at high hypersonic speed the hot wake just behind the incoming missile make it "highly visible".
Conclusion: the claim that hypersonic missiles cannot be detected by radars is false. Plm203 ( talk) 20:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if you search for this in russian media, they illustrate articales with pictures of the Boeing X-51 WaveRider 92.50.147.30 ( talk) 06:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The missile was used to target Kyiv in 2024, and successfully intercepted by an American-provided "Patriot". пан Бостон-Київський ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The latest edit has modified the cost per unit from 210 to 5 million $. Neither figure is believable, it must be more than their rubbish air launched vodkawaffe hypersonic projectile, which has a claimed price of $10 million. Greglocock ( talk) 02:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This article seems to include at least one line that plagiarizes and perhaps violates copyright. Here is Wikipedia's current text: "Moreover, given that kinetic energy is the single best predictor of lethality against large targets (more so than warhead size), the high speed of missile would seem to make it an optimal vector of attack against larger vessels." Here is RUSI's current text: "Moreover, given that kinetic energy is the single best predictor of lethality against large surface targets (more so than warhead size), the high speed of the Zircon would seem to make it an optimal vector of attack against larger vessels." They are nearly identical, so, although the article cites its source, I believe that it still violates Wikipedia's standards (given, for example, here). I don't have editing priveleges on the article page, so I suggest that someone who does fix this issue somehow (perhaps simply by putting quoted text in quotation marks and stating where it comes from).
2603:7000:3400:69F6:E0ED:5823:5549:B502 ( talk) 05:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Multiple sources reported that the real weight of the warhead is not more than 150 kg with the explosive part of about 40 kg. 176.120.105.231 ( talk) 23:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The statement saying the kinetic energy of the missile is "(≈9 gigajoules, or equal to 2,150 kg TNT explosive energy)" seems quite wrong if one does the math.
KE = 1/2mv2
Where mass is in kg, and v is in m/s.
Average mass of Zircon missile (from the article) is 125kg (~130).
Velocity at ground level terminal phase (target) is about Mach 4.5 (higher pressure at ground slows it down). = 1544m/s
KE = 0.5 * 130 * 15442 = 155,000,000 joules, or 0.155 gigajoules.
Either my math and simple physics is wrong, or the article is wrong. Obviously this is not from a sourced article, but it is basic high school level physics. Ironically, not rocket science. Perhaps whoever calculated it for the values in the article, incorrectly used grams instead of kg.
Theshowmecanuck ( talk) 23:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)