To be fair, Zirkon won't be a first cruise missile on SRF. There's no strict obligation to be air breathing, only to have a distinctive powered cruise phase, which Zirkon apparently does have.
Yes exactly, I don't think any official Russian sources which could know about Zircon's propulsion. Explicitly said the Zircon was scramjet powered. Only that it was a hypersonic cruise missile. That it is, as it flies a flattened cruise trajectory, is maneuverable and is hypersonic throughout the entire cruise phase.
LOL
The seeker depicted here looks surprisingly similar to one on the Ukrainian R-360 missile.
No, the position was that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. Claim that Zircon is not an air-breather is extraordinary, and therefore required more evidence than "someone thought something from poor-quality photo".
It's not merely similar; it's identical up to the position of individual elements. Something very fishy is going on there.
I kinda doubt that Ukrainean engineers would not recognize their own antenna, so this is highly likely deliberate misleading. Probably to make their reconstruction more believable for commoners.
IMHO the claim that the Russians had a combat-ready scramjet vehicle in service years ago is the extraordinary claim that was never well supported by evidence.
Probably the lightest SRF space rockets are the closest match.
IIRC they've been tracked at M6, slowing to M5, then doing a high dive down and reaching M7 at impact. So they're not burning the entire distance.
Doesn't need to burn that long. Once it's up to speed something like that can glide for a long time. A "cigarette" grain can burn for a relatively long time but doesn't produce a lot of thrust. Could be one (or two) motors get it to speed, and the final motor just stretches out the slowdown.
Very difficult to calculate because it is not a true ballistic missile. Depends on burn rate and impulse of second stage fuel and whether it is multi-pulse. It could be that the second stage is dual pulse and the second pulse fires near the end of the flight.
https://www.twz.com/sea/russias-zircon-may-not-be-a-hypersonic-cruise-missile-after-all
Well stated. I think the problem is folks asking others to prove the negative. If it is claimed to be scramjet powered, first substantiate that with hard evidence before refuting alternative theories or evidence from Ukraine.
I agree with this. Additionally, the claim that Tsirkon was scramjet powered became more extraordinary over time, it required believing that the Russians had developed an operational scramjet (the nuclear fusion of aero-propulsion) and then used it for only a single application.
Must admit, the arguments in favor of solid-fuel rocket (maybe multiple pulse) became persuasive.
I should have this picture on a hotkey. Just because it's circular doesn't mean it's limited. Is it limited compared to a winged glide vehicle? Probably. But it definitely doesn't have to be as limited as a MARV. Also it's much more space efficient in a cell. Lots of wasted space with a winged glider. Flight profile of a "circular" boost-glider, over half a century ago (and it flew most of it at an altitude under 130k feet):
Agreed. Liquid fuel would likely be better for a rocket that needs to throttle. And agreed that long term storage of liquid rocket fuels are an immense pain.
Maybe someone finally found a use for gel fuel?
Because it's extremely wrong in so many cases, and is utterly biased in it's analysis as ever.
Maybe but so were the original claims and artistry based on an analysis of debris.
If we use the simplified ballistic missile calculation model I previously created—referencing the numerical values used for the Iskander—the range is approximately 600–700 km, excluding the cruise engine. Note that this model tends to slightly overestimate the range.
I don’t see issues with original claims? I don’t think Russian media ever said that 3M22 is air breather. They’ve just used placeholder graphics as at the time of reports looks of the missile were secret.
The quoted speed of Mach 8-10 was also wrong, aside from the completely wrong imagery (below). The claimed warhead weight was also completely wrong and the range has been determined to be more like 700km since. So it was all wrong really. Basically the brochure issued for the Zircon was ironically a better fit for ROK's Hycore missile - at least the warhead weight and range are correct as well as the general shape, even if the speed is still off.
The issue is this: if the 3M22 is not air-breathing, then it is unlikely to be a cruise missile; instead, it would have to be a quasi-ballistic missile with a maximum speed of at least 3–4 km/s—at least such a speed would be required for it to fly over 1,000 km, much like the Kh‑47M2 missile. That is because, for a traditional rocket engine, it is not necessarily worthwhile to maintain a long-duration sustainer thrust, and there are also stringent requirements for propellant processing technology. On the other hand, if Ukrainian observations indicate that its maximum speed is only about Mach 6.8, that would actually suggest that the 3M22 is a cruise missile, just not necessarily with a top speed of Mach 8–9; otherwise, the apparent conflict between speed and range would be hard to explain. Moreover, a high‑speed air‑breathing cruise missile is not alien technology for Russia—its P‑700 and P‑800 are both supersonic, air‑breathing cruise missiles, albeit not yet at hypersonic speeds. It is entirely possible for Russia to achieve hypersonic speeds on a similar configuration through technological innovation.
