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)

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, 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でしべる 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)

Use against Ukraine

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)

Cost

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)

In the article there was a clear misclick, they want to write "between 5 to 10 millions" but they wrongly wrote "between 5 to 210 millions". Schopy1988 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://app.gemoo.com/share/image-annotation/615414933278052352?codeId=v62jjw4pw6bq8&origin=imageurlgenerator&card=615414931432558592

The range 5-210 millions is a typing error, it's confirmed. Schopy1988 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to the author. I'm fine with that. Obviously, $210 million is nonsense, I see no sane decision maker who'd invest $2b to produce 10 missiles. Now we have a confirmation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was a pleasure to re-establish the truth. Schopy1988 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Shopy claims this "Me and Kashmiri agree on the 10M$ estimate, you are the only one disagreeing. So start a discussion in the talk page." That is false since I think the 60 million figure is far more credible than the 10M figure, since the rubbish Kinzhal is cleimed to be 10M. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever compared the specifications of "rubbish" Kinzhal and Zircon?

The operational range of Kinzhal is 2000km, Zircon is 1000km

Kinzhal can reach mach 10, Zircon mach 9

Diameter of Kinzhal is 1,20 meters, Zircon is 0,60 meters

Could you explain why do you think a thinner, slower and with less range missile, should cost six times more than "rubbish" Kinzhal? Schopy1988 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Kinzhal is just a ballistic missile, hence a much simpler design. My main point was that more than one editor disagrees with you. Greglocock (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Greglocock @Schopy1988 I agree with Schopy. You probably have really bad reading comprehension, since the article doesnt talk about Zircon missile at all. I would rather just remove the price parameter completely. F.Alexsandr (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alexsandr, I tried in vain to explain it to him in several rollbacks. Schopy1988 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please edit to avoid plagiarism

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)

Good callout. I've edited the article to reflect that this is a claim from RUSI. Not putting quotes as it's not an exact quotation, but this sufficiently addresses the attribution concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Real weight of the warhead?

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)

Every truly reliable source I've seen (meaning, it meets our reliable source policies and either has adequate editorial standards or provides details about its methodology and sourcing) either states that the warhead weight and yield are unknown, or that they're "speculative" or "estimates." The AIN reference provided further agrees with that, having noted that information is "scarce" about the missile and that Putin's claims are higher than what defense analysts suspect in reality; and it likewise refers to the weight as "estimated." As such, I'm removing the 300-400kg weight section, and the nuclear yield section as being inadequately sourced. If there are in fact multiple sources reporting the real weight of the warhead, and they are *reliable* sources, we can include it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The RUSI reference is also kind of awful. DR Kaushal has clearly misunderstood the paper he references to make the claim that kinetic energy is the best single correlate to AShM lethality against ships (and even further that it scales with the displacement of the target).

The cited paper doesn't claim that position, what it actually claims is that targets that were temporarily incapacitated best correlates to KE and targets that were sunk best correlates to explosive content. I think his mistake relates to skim reading the executive summary, where the temporary incapacitation of a ship is called a "combat kill" in the same fashion that a tank losing a track could be variously described as "mobility killed" or "mission killed", simply indicating that the ship lost the ability to participate in combat until damage control or repairs were completed.

The paper doesn't support the view that KE is the single best correlate for AShM lethality either, because its analysis and model doesn't consider most of the things that are known to correlate. To use the paper's own words, it doesn't consider "points of impact on the ships, type of warhead fuzing, and missile technology" or "types of warships, damage control capabilities of the crews of the ships, countries involved, and ages of the warships hit".

The paper also doesn't support the view that KE scales best for lethality against large ships, because it's incapable of reaching that view. In its own words, the study is inapplicable to ships with a displacement over 5000t. It contains only two ships over 5000t, and only one is a warship (HMS Glamorgan) which it counts as a not-sunk "combat kill", which helps to demonstrate the problems with this designation, since it was only momentarily combat incapable. If one wanted to be particularly critical, the study is incapable of supporting any kind of conclusions about ships at all, since the majority cohort it measures are boats.

Finally, even excluding reasonable questions about methodological massaging, the paper's data is just flat wrong. Even in a cursory reading to write this post, I identified multiple glaring inaccuracies that materially affect the analysis and conclusion in ways that almost certainly completely invalidate it. For example, of the few warships in the study, most have errors in the data they contributed to the study and even then the author just randomly decides to cull data points he doesn't like. Of the 8 warships included 4 are sunk, and of those 3 (75% of the sample) are inaccurately included: The INS Eilat is excluded because it doesn't suit the author. The PNS Khaibar is listed as hit with a single missile, but was actually hit by two. The IRIS Sahand is listed as disabled by a single missile and then sunk by two more, but in reality was disabled by two AShM and then attacked with four ATGMs, two cluster bombs and finally one more AShM before sinking. Only HMS Sheffield appears to be recorded correctly.

I think this section of the paragraph should just be removed. This referencing chain should serve as a cautionary tale about original source validity. Rpeger (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this was meant to be in reply to your comment below in the kinetic energy talk topic. Rpeger (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Kinetic Energy Seems Wrong

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)

The claim was unsourced in the first place, and I've never seen that higher figure independently claimed elsewhere, so I've just removed it from the article. If someone can find a reliable secondary source doing the math on the kinetic energy, great, we could include that.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)