Talk:3M22 Zircon

Brahmos II

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)

Please read WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." —MBlaze Lightning ^T 16:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what that means. Wikipedia does not report rumours as fact but can and does report the fact that there are rumours, again your comprehension seems rather limited. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fifth generation Husky class this is another submarine, not Fourth generation Yasen-class[

© 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)

Sources

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)

IMO, the edit claims that TASS is unreliable which we cannot claim or state. If the capability is alleged than we can add a counter source and the speed referred by that source. Picking and pointing out particular media sources will lead to other issues where some editors might say (for example) pick up one media source, says it is biased against such person. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No need to get into the veracity of the claim. The phrasing "It has been reported" suggests multiple independent reports where the actual reference has only one source to show. --Webmgr (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Webmmgr Did you do a simple google search on what other media sources have claimed before having this discussion here? Here are a few other media sources which state similar numbers ([1],[2]). Then there are western media sources which have claimed a lower number based on analysts ([3],[4],[5]). Now you cannot claim that one media is more WP:RS then the other. This is the reason, I have originally suggested (on my talk page) that one should mention a range of speed (Mach 4-8) based on media reports. I would highly recommend you to do some research before coming here and making an argument that there is only source which makes that claim. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"...one should mention a range of speed" -- I agree, but the article does not: it still lists one speed, supported by one source. --Webmgr (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

plasma cloud and absorbing any radiation

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)

Sekrit vodka technology. You see, if you make stuff up then it can do anything you happen to think of. If you can read the writing on the tablecloth the next day you put it in a wiki article. Much cheaper than doing actual physics.Greglocock (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

pretty obvious that it won't fly on that speed all the time, it might be commanded before it speeds up to penetrate the ship's defence 176.59.146.180 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please for the love of God, don't use Popular Mech and National Interest as Sources. And knock it off with Plasma Stealth

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)

Your position is understandable, however, original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just propaganda

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)

oh, russians LOVE to do propaganda like this on wikipedia, they said this missile could travel at mach 24, US never even achieved mach 6. Also, I love how the russin kids here in the discussion are trying to defend Russia, when clearly they don't possess any knowledge on this topic whatsoever. Guys, just stop talking BS and go to school. Riky bet (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Scramjets, Capabilities, Et All

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)

Plasma layer around hypersonic missiles and their radar detection

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)

Is this a just a scam jet?

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)