• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Are aircraft carriers too vulnerable?

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
The fate of the carrier rests on the effectiveness of such systems.
When has it not?
Well, arguably early carriers faced relatively low chances of detection at the distances they functioned from... and when they could be detected at long range it was usually by another carrier (at least in the Pacific). Of course, interception and anti-aircraft guns were still very important (and even showed superiority over torpedo bomber attacks).

In any case, they were benefiting from the second as well as the third option.

As for the first option... I remember reading an American simulation which showed that having widely spaced carrier (where only one was likely to be found and hit at a time) would've been much more effective for the Japanese... if Japan had built more smaller carriers or organised their carriers into forward and rear divisions... Midway might've been different. This may well be the case even if the smaller carriers were individually much more vulnerable and were also less efficient due to their smaller volume (i.e. fewer aircraft per ton of displacement).
 

Dilandu

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
17
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
IMHO, but the good way to increase the survivability of the carriers would be to have many cheap, unmanned decoy boats with radar repeaters, capable of simulating the carrier & escort ships return signatures (ideally infrared too, but here would be more technical problems...). You could both confuse the enemy where your carrier really is (by simulating the fake carrier groups), and what signature exactly is your carrier (by putting decoy ships into carrier order).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426
The fate of the carrier rests on the effectiveness of such systems.
When has it not?
Well, arguably early carriers faced relatively low chances of detection at the distances they functioned from... and when they could be detected at long range it was usually by another carrier (at least in the Pacific). Of course, interception and anti-aircraft guns were still very important (and even showed superiority over torpedo bomber attacks).

In any case, they were benefiting from the second as well as the third option.

As for the first option... I remember reading an American simulation which showed that having widely spaced carrier (where only one was likely to be found and hit at a time) would've been much more effective for the Japanese... if Japan had built more smaller carriers or organised their carriers into forward and rear divisions... Midway might've been different. This may well be the case even if the smaller carriers were individually much more vulnerable and were also less efficient due to their smaller volume (i.e. fewer aircraft per ton of displacement).

And during the Cold War when the USSR had satellite tracking, Bear BAMS, and things like Oscars, Backfire/AS-4/15, etc. etc. etc.? I'd argue, if anything, carriers are LESS vulnerable today because of the greater ability of the CVBG to deal with the other guys "eyes".
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
131
Reaction score
28
In the middle of the Pacific under EMCON, sure. But in the Taiwan Strait while conducting air ops? That's a whole different ball game, especially if hostilities have not commenced and you can not target their OTHR and other ISR assets, and once you start air ops AWACS has a chance at spotting you. Remember that your F/A-18s don't have long legs, nor the tanker support they used to have, that means those carriers are going to have to come in closer and have less room to hide.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Tanks can be attacked by anti tank missiles and artillery from outside their attack range, surface to air missile and radar batteries can be attacked by cruise and hypersonic missile from outside their attack range, submarines can be attacked by helicopter and maritime surveillance plane outside their attack range. So far none of them are obsolete. Because there isn't anything that can do their job just as well.
All of the weapon systems you list have different signatures, different detection probabilities, and many of them are much cheaper (and thus can be decentralised). Submarines even seem to have be gaining an advantage over acquisition systems in recent decades (although UUVs will likely change this).

Nevertheless, there are constant improvements being made to the quality of acquisition systems and guided weapons.

The result is that all of these targets are under increasing pressure... and there are three types of solution they can employ:
- Overwhelming numbers (i.e. only going up against smaller or less well-equipped enemy forces, or otherwise, presenting more targets than your enemy can effectively attack)
- Increasing stealth (i.e. increasing the probability of getting the first shot)
- Active defenses (i.e. shooting down the guided weapons)

Of these possible approaches the fleet carrier only has the last option. This means investing a lot in missile interceptors, and probably in nuclear powered ships equipped with direct energy weapons. The fate of the carrier rests on the effectiveness of such systems.
Yes, those I mentioned have different signature, detection probabilites and price from the carrier. But their detection and engagement range is much shorter than a carrier, their active defensive system is worse than a carrier, and weapons used to attack them are also much cheaper than weapons used to attack the carrier. For example: tank are cheaper and more numerous than carrier but RPG, Mines, AGM, Artillery are much cheaper and numerous than ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles and a tank also have much short engage range than a carrier and weaker defensive suite. So the same argument about carrier vulnerability can also be made about a tank. So far none say tank are obsolete. On the other hand, OTHR are big and have huge signature, they don't have any form of stealth or camouflage, they aren't cheap, they are not used in overwhelming number, they have every disadvantage of a carrier with the added disadvantage of not able to move. So far, none say OTHRs are obsolete.

In the middle of the Pacific under EMCON, sure. But in the Taiwan Strait while conducting air ops? That's a whole different ball game, especially if hostilities have not commenced and you can not target their OTHR and other ISR assets, and once you start air ops AWACS has a chance at spotting you. Remember that your F/A-18s don't have long legs, nor the tanker support they used to have, that means those carriers are going to have to come in closer and have less room to hide.
Is there any reason that huge OTHR with their fixed location can't be attacked?.
1.PNG
MQ-25 tanker can increase F-35C range by 52% from 600 nm to 912 nm (1689 km)
JASSM-XR range: 1000 miles (1609 km)
HSWC range: 3000 km?
So the carrier can attack fixed targets from 3298 km with stealth cruise missiles and 4689 km with hypersonic glider.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
111
Why would you need to target opposition assets prior to commencement of hostilities? I believe that there are a wad of action states for any ship in that region so if they happened to be approached they would act. The cat and mouse game of attack and defence has gone on for thousands of years and will continue, the balance changes slightly from time to time is all.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
And during the Cold War when the USSR had satellite tracking, Bear BAMS, and things like Oscars, Backfire/AS-4/15, etc. etc. etc.? I'd argue, if anything, carriers are LESS vulnerable today because of the greater ability of the CVBG to deal with the other guys "eyes".
I wouldn't disagree that there were some points towards the end of the Cold War where carriers were perhaps more vulnerable. However, this does suggest that their position was already a bit marginal - and I suspect that China would be several times more effective at tracking CVBGs today than the Soviets were in the 1980s... more satellites, better satellites, modern drones...

So far, none say OTHRs are obsolete.
Well actually... if we look at what we know of late Soviet doctrine - they would have expended considerable effort to take out AWACs and early warning radar systems... given the number of escorts assigned it is pretty clear that any forward position AWACs would have been lost (even assuming the Su-27 is a highly inferior aircraft and assuming they hadn't finished developing weapons like the KS-172...)

Over the horizon radars would have been hit by cruise missiles and powerful anti-radiation missiles... and most of the ones in Europe would have likely been lost on day one.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426
And during the Cold War when the USSR had satellite tracking, Bear BAMS, and things like Oscars, Backfire/AS-4/15, etc. etc. etc.? I'd argue, if anything, carriers are LESS vulnerable today because of the greater ability of the CVBG to deal with the other guys "eyes".
I wouldn't disagree that there were some points towards the end of the Cold War where carriers were perhaps more vulnerable. However, this does suggest that their position was already a bit marginal - and I suspect that China would be several times more effective at tracking CVBGs today than the Soviets were in the 1980s... more satellites, better satellites, modern drones...
And the US is far better equipped to deal with those now than they were. Let's not forget that SM-3 satellite kill was a software change, that took a measly six weeks to both invent and implement.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
At speed from Mach 8- Mach 9, Zircon can cover 1000 km in 5.5-6 minutes, in the same time Nimitz can travel 5.6 km, so if your only guidance method is INS, you will miss a slow moving target.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a560811.pdf "The addition of the heuristic algorithm reduced a flight's calculated distance error from 120m to 40m from the designated target. The researchers coupled the algorithm with GPS or radar technology to initial and aid the navigation algorithm. At various points during the munition's flight they would cut off tracking and estimate the accuracy of the munition's landing. In a forty-second flight, 10s and 20s availability of aiding demonstrated little difference in error as both were approximately 35m off target. No noticeable difference was observed when experimentation took place with 100 sensor arrays rather than ten."

Apologies for being gone for a week but I believe the length of the Nimitz is like a little over 300 meters in length for its size. Regarding multiple sources I can pull out randomly from the web showing the accuracy of INS, atleast this aircraft carrier wont be safe from a zircon missile.

Plasma covered object can still transmit radio wave with frequency higher than the value blocked by the plasma shield, but I can remember very clearly that, in our previous discussion we did discuss the possibility, I said this:
Oh I remember that part correctly but what about using this www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/ 30km is just the flight ceiling of the missile and another fun fact about the zircon is that its range is estimated to be over 1000km meaning do not be too shocked to see an range or speeds to increase after the missile is developed and put into service.

Whatever. Like talking to the wall.
I believe he has 2 accounts at f-16.net being either GarryA or mig-31BM and the possibility of having an account called moon_light at key forum pub before it was brought done because the similarity of this user is way too close to those user accounts. I heard one user cracked a joke of being worried that another thread was going to get turned into a bottomless pit and sadly this might happen again.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a560811.pdf "The addition of the heuristic algorithm reduced a flight's calculated distance error from 120m to 40m from the designated target. The researchers coupled the algorithm with GPS or radar technology to initial and aid the navigation algorithm. At various points during the munition's flight they would cut off tracking and estimate the accuracy of the munition's landing. In a forty-second flight, 10s and 20s availability of aiding demonstrated little difference in error as both were approximately 35m off target. No noticeable difference was observed when experimentation took place with 100 sensor arrays rather than ten."

Apologies for being gone for a week but I believe the length of the Nimitz is like a little over 300 meters in length for its size. Regarding multiple sources I can pull out randomly from the web showing the accuracy of INS, atleast this aircraft carrier wont be safe from a zircon missile.
It is written very clear: they used GPS and radar to aid navigation. If plasma shield can absorb enemy radar wave, it will block GPS communication and the radar sensor on the missile. The problem with INS isn't CEP but it can't follow moving target by itself.


Oh I remember that part correctly but what about using this www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/ 30km is just the flight ceiling of the missile and another fun fact about the zircon is that its range is estimated to be over 1000km meaning do not be too shocked to see an range or speeds to increase after the missile is developed and put into service.
We used that too. The temperature still isn't enough for the plasma shield to affect fire control radar. Then you have the silly idea that a Zircon reaching Mach 9 while at altitude of 30 km will be able to do the same thing at sea level.

I believe he has 2 accounts at f-16.net being either GarryA or mig-31BM and the possibility of having an account called moon_light at key forum pub before it was brought done because the similarity of this user is way too close to those user accounts. I heard one user cracked a joke of being worried that another thread was going to get turned into a bottomless pit and sadly this might happen again.
Cry me a river. Is this how you react?. Cry bully every time your silly comments get criticisms?. Grow a spine !.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
It is written very clear: they used GPS and radar to aid navigation. If plasma shield can absorb enemy radar wave, it will block GPS communication and the radar sensor on the missile. The problem with INS isn't CEP but it can't follow moving target by itself.
We used that too. The temperature still isn't enough for the plasma shield to affect fire control radar. Then you have the silly idea that a Zircon reaching Mach 9 while at altitude of 30 km will be able to do the same thing at sea level.

And they made it very clear in that quote that they cut off tracking to get something like 35 meters off target for a 40 second flight and if mach 9 is estimated at about 3km/s that would be a covered 120km range without GPS assistance. A Nimitz moves like at a crazy fast velocity of 56km/h correct? Thats like moving 5.6kms from your original position to somewhere else in 6 minutes but a zircon for a full 1000km use will have to cover 333.333 seconds would be like 5 in a half minutes. The plasma shield is dependent on altitudes and velocity and those 2 things affect the plasma property which is why I brought up that atmospheric calculator source http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/. So 30km is max flight ceiling in altitude, mach 9 speed and Zircon is said to be 8-10 meters in length so put 9 meters instead. Scroll down to computed altitude and velocity section below you get 3,895 Kelvin, I go look at your chart and I am mostly eyeing the 4000 kelvin section and seems I am still able to get at least a 1ghz transmission signal. There are even satellite radars that can work in the ku-band so maybe I can go to 5,500 kelvin so even at a 1km descending altitude I get 4,844 kelvin(photonic communication will be presentable in the future). Although right now this is assuming that the Zircon missiles range and speed do not change later on.

Cry me a river. Is this how you react?. Cry bully every time your silly comments get criticisms?. Grow a spine !.
I love to reminisce of the past. This reaction right here must mean I am correct with my assumption. Your not even confirming or denying it so I must be correct.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
And they made it very clear in that quote that they cut off tracking to get something like 35 meters off target for a 40 second flight and if mach 9 is estimated at about 3km/s that would be a covered 120km range without GPS assistance. A Nimitz moves like at a crazy fast velocity of 56km/h correct? Thats like moving 5.6kms from your original position to somewhere else in 6 minutes but a zircon for a full 1000km use will have to cover 333.333 seconds would be like 5 in a half minutes. The plasma shield is dependent on altitudes and velocity and those 2 things affect the plasma property which is why I brought up that atmospheric calculator source http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/. So 30km is max flight ceiling in altitude, mach 9 speed and Zircon is said to be 8-10 meters in length so put 9 meters instead. Scroll down to computed altitude and velocity section below you get 3,895 Kelvin, I go look at your chart and I am mostly eyeing the 4000 kelvin section and seems I am still able to get at least a 1ghz transmission signal. There are even satellite radars that can work in the ku-band so maybe I can go to 5,500 kelvin so even at a 1km descending altitude I get 4,844 kelvin(photonic communication will be presentable in the future). Although right now this is assuming that the Zircon missiles range and speed do not change later on.
Their target doesn't move. A carrier can move. Plasma shield on Zircon isn't created by some devices, it is created by friction, so you can't turn it on for only 40 seconds of flight. You will have it on for the whole 333 seconds, so using INS, your miss distance is 33 m + 5.6 km. At 4000 Kelvin, plasma shield can block frequency 1 Ghz and lower but SPY-1 operates at S band: 2-4 Ghz, APG-81 and APG-79 operate at X band: 8-12 Ghz, SPY-6 operates at S/X band: 2-4 Ghz and 8-12 Ghz, SPY-3 operates at 8-12 Ghz, MPQ-53 operates at C band: 4-8 Ghz, AIM-120 and SM-6 seeker operates in I/J band: 8-20 Ghz. All of them are higher than 1 Ghz, so the plasma shield is useless. Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 30 km altitude doesn't mean it can do the same at 1 km altitude, it is insane to think that reduce your altitude by 30 times will have no impact on speed.




I love to reminisce of the past. This reaction right here must mean I am correct with my assumption. Your not even confirming or denying it so I must be correct.
I am Mig-31bm on Keypublishing and Eloise on F-16.net, you have already asked me before and I already confirmed it. You love to moan and victimizing yourself. When your account group got banned in F-16.net you cried about that on every single post on Keypublishing. They did this and that, they bullied me. Get over it. If you don't want any criticism why are you on the internet?.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Their target doesn't move. A carrier can move. Plasma shield on Zircon isn't created by some devices, it is created by friction, so you can't turn it on for only 40 seconds of flight. You will have it on for the whole 333 seconds, so using INS, your miss distance is 33 m + 5.6 km. At 4000 Kelvin, plasma shield can block frequency 1 Ghz and lower but SPY-1 operates at S band: 2-4 Ghz, APG-81 and APG-79 operate at X band: 8-12 Ghz, SPY-6 operates at S/X band: 2-4 Ghz and 8-12 Ghz, SPY-3 operates at 8-12 Ghz, MPQ-53 operates at C band: 4-8 Ghz, AIM-120 and SM-6 seeker operates in I/J band: 8-20 Ghz. All of them are higher than 1 Ghz, so the plasma shield is useless. Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 30 km altitude doesn't mean it can do the same at 1 km altitude, it is insane to think that reduce your altitude by 30 times will have no impact on speed.

Carriers can move but they can also stay in place at sea or at a coast. Plasma generators were presented on their supersonic missiles(I can provide a source for you if your interested?) before but we are all getting the idea that it is friction instead because of the estimated speeds and altitudes. Did you also seem to forget that I have presented higher frequencies than firecontrol radars that can still communicate with the missile even if it absorbs firecontrol frequencies that higher frequencies than those can still be transmitted to update targeting info for this missile? Your also making assumptions that hypersonic speeds at one altitude cant be done at a another altitude without any provided sources(why am I not surprised).

I am Mig-31bm on Keypublishing and Eloise on F-16.net, you have already asked me before and I already confirmed it. You love to moan and victimizing yourself. When your account group got banned in F-16.net you cried about that on every single post on Keypublishing. They are this and that and they bullied me. Get over it. If you don't want any criticism why are you on the internet?.
I was just cracking a joke. And if you have not confirmed to have those accounts I thought it would be a great idea to give you some friends with similar interests.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
752
Reaction score
89
No real skin in this argument but it’s extremely clear that hypersonic (or supersonic or subsonic) performance for any almost anything I can remotely think of would be significantly impacted by altitude for various extremely obvious reasons including air density/ friction, heat generated related to materials, propulsion efficiency, impact on required range, payload to range performance, etc etc.
More than a bit absurd to suggest otherwise.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Carriers can move but they can also stay in place at sea or at a coast. Plasma generators were presented on their supersonic missiles(I can provide a source for you if your interested?) before but we are all getting the idea that it is friction instead because of the estimated speeds and altitudes. Did you also seem to forget that I have presented higher frequencies than firecontrol radars that can still communicate with the missile even if it absorbs firecontrol frequencies that higher frequencies than those can still be transmitted to update targeting info for this missile? Your also making assumptions that hypersonic speeds at one altitude cant be done at a another altitude without any provided sources(why am I not surprised).
But carrier can move, your stealth coat is bad if your missile misses as soon as your enemy moves.
To this point, we can forget the mystical plasma generator device because it was never put in production. If such device really work we won't see Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57 with conventional stealth techniques on them and I have presented to you the operating frequency of many fire control radar and missiles seekers, they are all above 1 Ghz so the friction plasma coat on Zircon won't affect any of them.
Kaiserd has pointed it out, I don't need a source to say "Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 30 km altitude doesn't mean it can do the same at 1 km altitude" because the reason is obvious: air density and friction.
No real skin in this argument but it’s extremely clear that hypersonic (or supersonic or subsonic) performance for any almost anything I can remotely think of would be significantly impacted by altitude for various extremely obvious reasons including air density/ friction, heat generated related to materials, propulsion efficiency, impact on required range, payload to range performance, etc etc.
More than a bit absurd to suggest otherwise.
I'm so glad to have someone with common sense
 
Last edited:

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
94
A stealth cloak that can become a giant sign saying "here I am" is just not worth the cost.
And plasma is subject to being induced to radiate radio.
Something that glows across spectrum isn't stealth either.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
111
I concur, the CEP of this thread is, pointlessness. If you go to war it is with the equipment you have, if you are concerned about vulnerability to scratches and damaged paintwork you leave everything in home port and treat it like a precious thing wrapped in cotton wool. "Someone can shoot at our tanks?, well, don't use them then".
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
But carrier can move, your stealth coat is bad if your missile misses as soon as your enemy moves.
The missile can still get periodic updates from a satellite to adjust its course.

To this point, we can forget the mystical plasma generator device because it was never put in production. If such device really work we won't see Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57 with conventional stealth techniques on them
Your seriously putting missiles and aircrafts in the same category? https://vestnik-rm.ru/news/oborona-i-bezopasnost/garantirovannoe-yadernoe-unichtozhenie-meteorit-n-sterli-by-zapad-v-pyl?utm_source=warfiles.ru

"At the same time, Soviet designers provided measures to reduce visibility. So, on board was a special generator that created a plasma cloud, made the Meteorite invisible to enemy radars and allowed to deliver a thermonuclear warhead to the target.

Work on the ground version was discontinued after the conclusion of the INF Treaty with the United States. The refinement of the marine and air variant also ceased by the beginning of the 90s."


The plasma generator option is just a suggestion. Maybe they made the size and use more convenient to now actually work. Nuclear propulsion engines and scramjets when they 1st came out had no use but maybe in the future they will have a usage. Same-thing for plasma, even airborne lasers.

and I have presented to you the operating frequency of many fire control radar and missiles seekers, they are all above 1 Ghz so the friction plasma coat on Zircon won't affect any of them.
So you don't think 4,844 kelvin is not above 1 ghz?

Kaiserd has pointed it out, I don't need a source to say "Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 30 km altitude doesn't mean it can do the same at 1 km altitude" because the reason is obvious: air density and friction.
For ballistic missiles this would be considered a problem but I would not put ballistic missiles in the same category as air-breathing scramjet missiles.


"The trend favors the offense. The longstanding and current investments in fleet kinetic and electronic defense against incoming launch platform or inbound anti-ship missiles will remain necessary but increasingly insufficient. A sea-skimming, Mach 6, ZIRCON anti-ship missile, breaking the radar horizon at 15nm from a surface target, would impact the ship in approximately 15 seconds. With these short reaction times the likelihood of a navy surface ship detecting and destroying the incoming missile is low."
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
The missile can still get periodic updates from a satellite to adjust its course.
I am talking about the case when the plasma shield can block radar wave, it will block communication. But at 4000 Kelvin, most fire control radar are not affected by your plasma shield. GLONASS communication is from 1.18 -1.6 GHz, so it will be affected by the shield before fire control radar are affected



Your seriously putting missiles and aircrafts in the same category? https://vestnik-rm.ru/news/oborona-i-bezopasnost/garantirovannoe-yadernoe-unichtozhenie-meteorit-n-sterli-by-zapad-v-pyl?utm_source=warfiles.ru

"At the same time, Soviet designers provided measures to reduce visibility. So, on board was a special generator that created a plasma cloud, made the Meteorite invisible to enemy radars and allowed to deliver a thermonuclear warhead to the target.

Work on the ground version was discontinued after the conclusion of the INF Treaty with the United States. The refinement of the marine and air variant also ceased by the beginning of the 90s."


The plasma generator option is just a suggestion. Maybe they made the size and use more convenient to now actually work. Nuclear propulsion engines and scramjets when they 1st came out had no use but maybe in the future they will have a usage. Same-thing for plasma, even airborne lasers.
If the plasma cloud generator is small enough to be on a missile then it is small enough to be carried by a fighter. If the plasma cloud can be generated quick enough before it is dissipated due to hypersonic speed, then it must be doable on a subsonic missile or aircraft. So far, we have no production stealth plasma generator on any aircraft or missile, Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57 all use very conventional stealth techniques. There is no reason to believe stealth by plasma generator is practical. Whereas, airborne laser weapons were successfully tested on many prototypes such as YAL-1, NKC-135A. Scramjet engine was successfully tested on many prototypes such as X-43, X-51, Hyshot.



So you don't think 4,844 kelvin is not above 1 ghz?
For ballistic missiles this would be considered a problem but I would not put ballistic missiles in the same category as air-breathing scramjet missiles.


"The trend favors the offense. The longstanding and current investments in fleet kinetic and electronic defense against incoming launch platform or inbound anti-ship missiles will remain necessary but increasingly insufficient. A sea-skimming, Mach 6, ZIRCON anti-ship missile, breaking the radar horizon at 15nm from a surface target, would impact the ship in approximately 15 seconds. With these short reaction times the likelihood of a navy surface ship detecting and destroying the incoming missile is low."
You can only reach 4844 kelvin if you bring the Zircon from 30 km altitude down to 1 km altitude and still maintaining Mach 9 speed. Air density at 1 km altitude is 1.16 kg/m3, air density at 30 km altitude is 0.018 kg/m2. So by reducing altitude 30 times, you increase drag by 64 times and you are telling me that will has no impact on Zircon top speed?
1.PNG
1.PNG
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
38
Reaction score
5
You know if you really want to consider the most likeliest scenario in its entirety where a carrier is preemptively attacked, any carrier within the SW Pacific AOR is going to get burned due to the overwhelming force that China has built up in the region. But you also have to consider at the same time, you're going to see the full mobilization of the United States military and the fury of God descend upon China to neutralize it, which will open the door for additional naval task forces to enter the region on high alert.

I highly doubt the United States would allow a CAG to be attacked without a very disproportional response. Publicly, the PLA does believe they can get away with such an attack without a harsh US response.. which is kind of foolish. We'll just have to wait and see how it happens, especially if China can't persuade Taiwan to formally re-join the mainland.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
I am talking about the case when the plasma shield can block radar wave, it will block communication. But at 4000 Kelvin, most fire control radar are not affected by your plasma shield. GLONASS communication is from 1.18 -1.6 GHz, so it will be affected by the shield before fire control radar are affected
This sounds like a satellite that can use ku-band in communications. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/luch5a.html

If the plasma cloud generator is small enough to be on a missile then it is small enough to be carried by a fighter. If the plasma cloud can be generated quick enough before it is dissipated due to hypersonic speed, then it must be doable on a subsonic missile or aircraft. So far, we have no production stealth plasma generator on any aircraft or missile, Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57 all use very conventional stealth techniques. There is no reason to believe stealth by plasma generator is practical. Whereas, airborne laser weapons were successfully tested on many prototypes such as YAL-1, NKC-135A. Scramjet engine was successfully tested on many prototypes such as X-43, X-51, Hyshot.
Yes scramjets and nuclear propulsion was thought impractical but yet they are now being fielded instead of when they were 1st introduced before. Missiles are not that wide bodied like wing span related to be completely covered just look at the diameter of a missile compared to the fuselage and wings. It would sound pretty inconvenient for example sticking generators on wide wings.

You can only reach 4844 kelvin if you bring the Zircon from 30 km altitude down to 1 km altitude and still maintaining Mach 9 speed. Air density at 1 km altitude is 1.16 kg/m3, air density at 30 km altitude is 0.018 kg/m2. So by reducing altitude 30 times, you increase drag by 64 times and you are telling me that will has no impact on Zircon top speed?
The zircon has that flat faced sled appearance compared to a round nozzle appearance a missile usually has probably aerodynamically designed to deal with air density whole lot better. For what reason do you think that scramjets have the capabilities to fly at lower altitudes than a ballistic missile? Your showing me more drag for air density while a scramjet is designed specifically to fly at low altitudes than compared to a ballistic missile.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
This sounds like a satellite that can use ku-band in communications. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/luch5a.html
Unnecessary when the plasma shield can only cover 1 GHz.

Yes scramjets and nuclear propulsion was thought impractical but yet they are now being fielded instead of when they were 1st introduced before. Missiles are not that wide bodied like wing span related to be completely covered just look at the diameter of a missile compared to the fuselage and wings. It would sound pretty inconvenient for example sticking generators on wide wings.
Scramjet are not thought to be impractical, and they were tested.
No plasma generator was ever tested on any missile or aircraft, no stealth plasma generator was ever put in production despite 55 years since it was introduced. The idea is laughing stock at this point.


The zircon has that flat faced sled appearance compared to a round nozzle appearance a missile usually has probably aerodynamically designed to deal with air density whole lot better. For what reason do you think that scramjets have the capabilities to fly at lower altitudes than a ballistic missile? Your showing me more drag for air density while a scramjet is designed specifically to fly at low altitudes than compared to a ballistic missile.
It doesn't matter what shape Zircon has, the drag it has to face at an altitude of 1 km is always 64 times bigger than the drag it has to face at altitude of 30 km. That will impact the top speed. Ballistic missile can have very high speed because once they are propelled outside the atmosphere there isn't any drag on them. Ballistic missile can't fly at low altitude because once the motor burn out, there isn't anything to sustain their speed to counter the tremendous drag force. Scramjet missile can fly at lower altitude than ballistic missile because it has an engine. But that doesn't mean scramjet missile can have the same speed at any altitude. Except for radio wave and light, anything inside atmosphere will have their top speed limited by air friction-drag, that including scramjet missile
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Unnecessary when the plasma shield can only cover 1 GHz.
So what do you think about satellites that use ku-band frequencies for communications? Is ku-band above 1ghz? Maybe a satellite using FICs can go higher perhaps?


"RTI is conducting research in integrated photonic boards for microwave components which is to be applied in new generation radar systems and radio communications solutions. Microwave photonics technology provides our products with new capabilities which are difficult or impossible to implement using only traditional microwave circuits. This technology opens up a multitude of new opportunities in how to design new information and communication systems."


Scramjet are not thought to be impractical, and they were tested.
No plasma generator was ever tested on any missile or aircraft, no stealth plasma generator was ever put in production despite 55 years since it was introduced. The idea is laughing stock at this point.
Were scramjet missiles immediately put into service after the kholod project or did it take 30 years to apply them to military use? Lets say the Burevestnik becomes operational in 2025 one can say it took 60 years to implement. The missile source has shown it was put, if something was impractical to use before doesn't really mean a conclusion is drawn yet. I am only offering this idea because it was done before like a missile utilizing nuclear propulsion but I am not like you to draw conclusions on things because of past failures.

It doesn't matter what shape Zircon has, the drag it has to face at an altitude of 1 km is always 64 times bigger than the drag it has to face at altitude of 30 km. That will impact the top speed. Ballistic missile can have very high speed because once they are propelled outside the atmosphere there isn't any drag on them. Ballistic missile can't fly at low altitude because once the motor burn out, there isn't anything to sustain their speed to counter the tremendous drag force. Scramjet missile can fly at lower altitude than ballistic missile because it has an engine. But that doesn't mean scramjet missile can have the same speed at any altitude. Except for radio wave and light, anything inside atmosphere will have their top speed limited by air friction-drag, that including scramjet missile
Wait your saying ballistic missiles do not have engines? Am I actually seeing this text you put here correctly? So are you also actually admitting that scramjets can handle drag more better than ballistic missiles? Can you explain why the zircon cannot handle 1km besides 30km? Your offering atmospheric air density causing more drag at lower altitudes but you actually do not know if the missile can handle such drags since your not its designer correct? I like you because not a dull moment goes by with these kinds of posts.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
So what do you think about satellites that use ku-band frequencies for communications? Is ku-band above 1ghz? Maybe a satellite using FICs can go higher perhaps?


"RTI is conducting research in integrated photonic boards for microwave components which is to be applied in new generation radar systems and radio communications solutions. Microwave photonics technology provides our products with new capabilities which are difficult or impossible to implement using only traditional microwave circuits. This technology opens up a multitude of new opportunities in how to design new information and communication systems."
Ku -band is 12-18 GHz, so it is above 1 GHz. But unnecessary, because even current communication at 1.5-1.8 Ghz and like I show you earlier most radars operate at frequencies higher than 1 GHz.

Were scramjet missiles immediately put into service after the kholod project or did it take 30 years to apply them to military use? Lets say the Burevestnik becomes operational in 2025 one can say it took 60 years to implement. The missile source has shown it was put, if something was impractical to use before doesn't really mean a conclusion is drawn yet. I am only offering this idea because it was done before like a missile utilizing nuclear propulsion but I am not like you to draw conclusions on things because of past failures.
Scramjet are not immediately put into service, but it has test, it has prototype, there is not even a prototype for stealth generator on any fighter aircraft or missile. Burevestnik isn't the first nuclear powered missile, the first of its kind is project Pluto. Unlike the mystical stealth plasma generator, here we can see the photo of the first ramjet nuclear engine. I draw conclusion on what possible base on what they have shown. I don't know if plasma stealth will be possbile in a hundred year, but today, stealth plasma generator is as realistic as teleportation.



Wait your saying ballistic missiles do not have engines? Am I actually seeing this text you put here correctly? So are you also actually admitting that scramjets can handle drag more better than ballistic missiles? Can you explain why the zircon cannot handle 1km besides 30km? Your offering atmospheric air density causing more drag at lower altitudes but you actually do not know if the missile can handle such drags since your not its designer correct? I like you because not a dull moment goes by with these kinds of posts.
I didn't say ballistic missile don't have engine. I said, ballistic missile has nothing to sustain their speed in the atmosphere once the rocket motor burns out. Pay attention to the diagram, the post boost vehicle has no engine. This isn't a problem for them because post boost vehicle will be out of the atmosphere once the motor burn out. So they face no drag, so they can keep very high speed for very long time.
1.PNG
Missile and aircraft flying inside earth atmosphere doesn't have that luxury, they have to generate thrust to counter the drag at high speed so that they can sustain their speed. But that doesn't mean you can have the same velocity at all altitude because missile and aircraft alike reach maximum velocity when thrust equal drag. When you increase drag in 64 times that equal point will be reached sooner and limit your top speed. This is extremely obvious that you don't need to be the designer to know. If I tell you, the F1 race car is slower if it has to drag 100 tons behind, no one will disagree because that is too obvious. This is the same case.
For instance SR-71 at 26 km altitude can reach Mach 3.3 but when altitude is reduced to 1 km, then the top speed reduced to Mach 0.7
tMPff.png
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Ku -band is 12-18 GHz, so it is above 1 GHz. But unnecessary, because even current communication at 1.5-1.8 Ghz and like I show you earlier most radars operate at frequencies higher than 1 GHz.
But the Luch 5a uses ku-band channels and even uses those channels to communicate with rocket launches. Technically speaking this satellite can still be able to communicate with the zircon missile if the zircon missile just happens to absorb firecontrol frequencies.

Scramjet are not immediately put into service, but it has test, it has prototype, there is not even a prototype for stealth generator on any fighter aircraft or missile. Burevestnik isn't the first nuclear powered missile, the first of its kind is project Pluto
I think you are forgetting why I said nuclear ramjets that were introduced in the 1960s will find its way to be re-introduced at a more modern time for better use. I mean just look at the size of the reactor you are showing me in the 1960s and than look at some images on the internet of the burevestnik. One was carried by a train and the other is carried by a wheeled platform.

Unlike the mystical stealth plasma generator, here we can see the photo of the first ramjet nuclear engine. I draw conclusion on what possible base on what they have shown. I don't know if plasma stealth will be possbile in a hundred year, but today, stealth plasma generator is as realistic as teleportation.
Please provided sources why you think plasma generators will no longer have a usage if there are other military projects of the past that were deemed impossible seem to have been significantly improved over time.

I didn't say ballistic missile don't have engine. I said, ballistic missile has nothing to sustain their speed in the atmosphere once the rocket motor burns out.
I am pretty sure you changed your edit. My fault for not screenshotting it.

Pay attention to the diagram, the post boost vehicle has no engine. This isn't a problem for them because post boost vehicle will be out of the atmosphere once the motor burn out. So they face no drag, so they can keep very high speed for very long time.
So what makes you think that a scramjet operates the same way? It seems to me that scramjet missiles has a better time dealing with drag if they are designed to fly at way lower altitudes than ballistic missiles. Also it seems the Zircon is said to have 2 stages. So there is a possibility that the 1st stage of its flight reaches the max flight ceiling while the 2nd stage kicks in to keep the sustained flight using its motor.

Missile and aircraft flying inside earth atmosphere doesn't have that luxury, they have to generate thrust to counter the drag at high speed so that they can sustain their speed. But that doesn't mean you can have the same velocity at all altitude because missile and aircraft alike reach maximum velocity when thrust equal drag. When you increase drag in 64 times that equal point will be reached sooner and limit your top speed. This is extremely obvious that you don't need to be the designer to know. If I tell you, the F1 race car is slower if it has to drag 100 tons behind, no one will disagree because that is too obvious. This is the same case.
For instance SR-71 at 26 km altitude can reach Mach 3.3 but when altitude is reduced to 1 km, then the top speed reduced to Mach 0.7
I still see that you think scramjet missiles are the same as ballistic missiles although my concern is what if that F-1 car is hooked up with Sarmat missile engines? I like the 3 stage burnout image of an ICBM but sources tell me that the 1st stage is designed to put the Zircon into supersonic speeds(supposedly it is used to make the missile reach the flight ceiling) before the 2nd stage or in other words scramjet kicks in. And even the IL-76 demonstration at the maks 2019 airshow shows a testing drone where they say the 1st stage is to get the missile to mach 3-4 before letting the engine kick in. Even wikipedia is simply telling me that ramjets(scramjets same process but at higher speeds) has a continuous combustion process meaning the engine just keeps on going. A simple image demonstration is showing me mach 1 speeds going in, gets mixed with the fuel from the fuel injectors, goes through a flame holder, than the fuel explodes or combusts greater speeds than the airflow speeds that went in(I guess that's why they call it air breathable). I absolutely guarantee this sounds more fuel efficient than a ballistic missile only using fuel for combustion and thrust like for mach 8, while the other missile thanks to its 1st stage already has high airflow going in lets say mach 4 getting mixed with fuel while the fuel requirements are to just add enough to get it going from mach 4 to 8 while a ballistic missile has is only using just fuel to go from mach 0 to 8. I am even getting alot of sources that ramjets are more fuel efficient. Some SRBMs shown have like a 1000km range and the Zircon is around the same range and more than likely they both have the same speeds. SRBMs mostly show me to only have single stage engines, while the Zircon and some scramjet designs show me 1st and 2nd stages. Zircon because of a lower altitude flight ceiling where some SRBMs show me 200km flight ceiling tells me Zircon has to face more drag. Scramjets look aerodynamically different than a ballistic missile and if the Zircon had the same 1st stage engines as a SRBM it would not even cross that 1000km distance because of drag. But luckily there are certain engines that tend to be way more fuel efficient with the need to use more fuel against drag and has a completely different appearance from ballistic missiles.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
But the Luch 5a uses ku-band channels and even uses those channels to communicate with rocket launches. Technically speaking this satellite can still be able to communicate with the zircon missile if the zircon missile just happens to absorb firecontrol frequencies.
There are fire control radars in Ku-band as well such as KuRFS, Meteor seeker, ASELSAN.
Anyway it doesn't matter because Zircon's plasma shield won't block frequency higher than 1 GHz.
And keep in mind that the chart only shows blackout frequency, this blackout could be caused by either the plasma shield absorbing radio wave or reflecting it.


I think you are forgetting why I said nuclear ramjets that were introduced in the 1960s will find its way to be re-introduced at a more modern time for better use. I mean just look at the size of the reactor you are showing me in the 1960s and than look at some images on the internet of the burevestnik. One was carried by a train and the other is carried by a wheeled platform.
Pluto is supersonic, Burevestnik is subsonic. Secondly, at least nuclear powered missile has some prototypes and tests. There is no prototype of stealth plasma generator on any fighter aircraft, and it is still not in production despite being an idea for over 55 years. It is not used on any of the recent weapons introduced by Russia such as Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57.


Please provided sources why you think plasma generators will no longer have a usage if there are other military projects of the past that were deemed impossible seem to have been significantly improved over time.
Don't you know the most basic rule of any discussion?. The burden of proof lie with the one who made the claim, not with the one to disprove it. If you want to say plasma generator is practical and it is used on Zircon, then you have to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove your positive statement.
Watch this video.




I am pretty sure you changed your edit. My fault for not screenshotting it.
Stop victimized yourself, how can I edit your post?. Read your quotation of what I wrote.



So what makes you think that a scramjet operates the same way? It seems to me that scramjet missiles has a better time dealing with drag if they are designed to fly at way lower altitudes than ballistic missiles. Also it seems the Zircon is said to have 2 stages. So there is a possibility that the 1st stage of its flight reaches the max flight ceiling while the 2nd stage kicks in to keep the sustained flight using its motor.
I still see that you think scramjet missiles are the same as ballistic missiles although my concern is what if that F-1 car is hooked up with Sarmat missile engines? I like the 3 stage burnout image of an ICBM but sources tell me that the 1st stage is designed to put the Zircon into supersonic speeds(supposedly it is used to make the missile reach the flight ceiling) before the 2nd stage or in other words scramjet kicks in. And even the IL-76 demonstration at the maks 2019 airshow shows a testing drone where they say the 1st stage is to get the missile to mach 3-4 before letting the engine kick in. Even wikipedia is simply telling me that ramjets(scramjets same process but at higher speeds) has a continuous combustion process meaning the engine just keeps on going. A simple image demonstration is showing me mach 1 speeds going in, gets mixed with the fuel from the fuel injectors, goes through a flame holder, than the fuel explodes or combusts greater speeds than the airflow speeds that went in(I guess that's why they call it air breathable). I absolutely guarantee this sounds more fuel efficient than a ballistic missile only using fuel for combustion and thrust like for mach 8, while the other missile thanks to its 1st stage already has high airflow going in lets say mach 4 getting mixed with fuel while the fuel requirements are to just add enough to get it going from mach 4 to 8 while a ballistic missile has is only using just fuel to go from mach 0 to 8. I am even getting alot of sources that ramjets are more fuel efficient. Some SRBMs shown have like a 1000km range and the Zircon is around the same range and more than likely they both have the same speeds. SRBMs mostly show me to only have single stage engines, while the Zircon and some scramjet designs show me 1st and 2nd stages. Zircon because of a lower altitude flight ceiling where some SRBMs show me 200km flight ceiling tells me Zircon has to face more drag. Scramjets look aerodynamically different than a ballistic missile and if the Zircon had the same 1st stage engines as a SRBM it would not even cross that 1000km distance because of drag. But luckily there are certain engines that tend to be way more fuel efficient with the need to use more fuel against drag and has a completely different appearance from ballistic missiles.
I don't think scramjet missile operates the same way as ballistic missiles, and I have explained to you why scramjet, ramjet, turbojet, turbofan missile all fly at lower altitude than ballistic missiles.
Scramjet and ramjet missiles have 2 stages, because their engine can't operate from a standstill or subsonic. They need a flow of air into their inlet to generate thrust, but they don't have turbine fan to drag air in like a turbojet or turbofan engine. But that doesn't mean air friction will have no impact on them. It doesn't matter that Zircon has different appearance and drag from a SRBM, because I didn't compare it with a SRBM. A Zircon at 1 km altitude will have to face drag 64 times higher than if it flies 30 km altitude. We are not comparing Zircon to SRBM, we are comparing a Zircon at 1 km altitude to a Zircon at 30 km altitude. If you want an analogy, this is the equivalent of having 2 F-1 car of the same kind, one with nothing behind and one has to tow a 100 tons locomotive behind, and you are suggesting that the two cars will reach the same top speed because F-1 car deal with drag very well and it has different shape from a bus. That how you sound to everyone.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
There are fire control radars in Ku-band as well such as KuRFS, Meteor seeker, ASELSAN.
Yes, but it is very important for radars to track a target before launching a missile to do the rest of the work.

Anyway it doesn't matter because Zircon's plasma shield won't block frequency higher than 1 GHz.
Being around 5000 kelvin I certainly do think frequencies above 1ghz are being absorbed according to your chart. Looking at the GLL Igla projects some sizes and speeds truely astonish me.

And keep in mind that the chart only shows blackout frequency, this blackout could be caused by either the plasma shield absorbing radio wave or reflecting it.
And I remember the source provided with the graph of them stating they have started to lose communication with the space shuttle because of its speeds re-entering the atmosphere because of the heat.
"For a given sheath temperature, the frequencies above the curve will propagate to and from the spacecraft, whereas the frequencies below the line will not. For sheath temperatures of 10,000 to 12,000 K, we see that a frequency in excess of 350 GHz would be needed for direct Shuttle communication with the ground at the time of maximum heating."

Pluto is supersonic, Burevestnik is subsonic.
Burevestnik has a ramjet, what speeds are ramjets? Also Project Pluto has never been launched they have only turned on the engines. The oh we do not want a nuclear fallout seems like a feasible excuse but comparing both missiles in terms of size makes me say what was the purpose of creating project pluto's engine if it was too damn big to be used on the missile of a body anyways?

Secondly, at least nuclear powered missile has some prototypes and tests. There is no prototype of stealth plasma generator on any fighter aircraft, and it is still not in production despite being an idea for over 55 years. It is not used on any of the recent weapons introduced by Russia such as Okhotnik, Kh-50 and Su-57.
Power requirements is also one of the reasons. Also why even bother bringing up aircrafts for this discussion? Have you looked at the wingspan or size of an aircraft? or better yet even bother to know all the electronic equipment an aircraft carries in comparison to a missile? Lets not compare apples and oranges even though they are both fruits or using plasma generators for that matter.

Don't you know the most basic rule of any discussion?. The burden of proof lie with the one who made the claim, not with the one to disprove it. If you want to say plasma generator is practical and it is used on Zircon, then you have to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove your positive statement.
Watch this video.
What have you disapproved your own credibility perhaps? Like drawing conclusions to things you do not know about which always gets repeatedly shown here? I mean it would not hurt you to go research something before hand than go provide an answer. I have never said that a plasma generator on a missile is either practical or impractical. You are the only one that says it is in which I respond for proof and that really upsets you.

"The Scientific and Production Association of Mechanical Engineering (NPO Mash) has unveiled a unique plasma gun that made the 3M25 Meteorite strategic supersonic cruise missile invisible to enemy radars and anti-aircraft systems. At the time of exposure to enemy radar, Meteorite created a cloud of ionized gas impenetrable for radar radiation around itself. Unique guns will be transferred to Russian universities over the next year as training aids for future engineers and designers in the design of hypersonic aircraft."
"As NPO Mash told Izvestia, negotiations are currently underway for the transfer of unique products with the leadership of the Moscow Aviation Institute and the State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman, Baltic State Technical University "Voenmekh" named after D.F. Ustinov and Ural State University. B.N. Yeltsin."


Although the article later says its better to use hypersonic speeds it seems research and development is still ongoing to what you have drawn a conclusion on to never work. Its like technology does wonders from the past to the present looking back than forward.

Stop victimized yourself, how can I edit your post?. Read your quotation of what I wrote.
Well luckily for you I have no idea yet on this forum if quotes from before that later got changed also appear different from the user quoting your text. Although it looks like I wont be bored anyways from all this amusement.

I don't think scramjet missile operates the same way as ballistic missiles, and I have explained to you why scramjet, ramjet, turbojet, turbofan missile all fly at lower altitude than ballistic missiles.
Scramjet and ramjet missiles have 2 stages, because their engine can't operate from a standstill or subsonic. They need a flow of air into their inlet to generate thrust, but they don't have turbine fan to drag air in like a turbojet or turbofan engine. But that doesn't mean air friction will have no impact on them
Are you very sure about this? right now I am simply looking at a turbojet and ramjet diagram showing me air going in to both missiles. But turbojets are only limited to subsonic compression. Scramjets can drag in a whole lot more airflow without the need of using a compressor through the inlets and that airflow (supersonic) will stay in a consistent flow because the combustion can go at higher speeds,

It doesn't matter that Zircon has different appearance and drag from a SRBM, because I didn't compare it with a SRBM. A Zircon at 1 km altitude will have to face drag 64 times higher than if it flies 30 km altitude. We are not comparing Zircon to SRBM, we are comparing a Zircon at 1 km altitude to a Zircon at 30 km altitude. If you want an analogy, this is the equivalent of having 2 F-1 car of the same kind, one with nothing behind and one has to tow a 100 tons locomotive behind, and you are suggesting that the two cars will reach the same top speed because F-1 car deal with drag very well and it has different shape from a bus. That how you sound to everyone.
You brought up an ICBM I brought up a ballistic missile that seems to atleast be closer in estimated speeds and ranges like an SRBM but whatever. Also aerodynamic appearance is actually pretty important I am sure a hypersonic aircraft has different design requirements that make it less stealthy than a steath aircraft.

http://www.orbitalvector.com/Orbital Travel/Scramjets/Scramjets.htm

"This was the method used in both NASA X-43's and Hyshot's test flights of a scramjet engine. NASA's test had the X-43 test vehicle attached to a Pegasus rocket booster ferried up to altitude on the wing of a B-52. The rocket detached and shot up to the edge of space. The X-43 then detached from the booster for a descent that would push it to the hypersonic speeds needed to activate the scramjet engine. Unfortunately the test resulted in an uncontrolled descent and crash without a confirmed firing of its scramjet engine. The exact cause is still being investigated. Hyshot's missile was much more successful. The missile shot up to an altitude of 35km, sheddings its first stage and unleashing its scramjet payload for descent. Upon descent, the second stage achieved a velocity of Mach 7.6 and scramjet engine ignition was confirmed."

Now we all know that the 1st stage of a scramjet is to get it to the max flight ceiling. And if we go look back at the trajectories of ballistic missiles all their flight ceilings seem to show that half the distance has been crossed. But that's not all here is my most very favorite part and that is you bringing up the ICBM example where all 3 stages are used to get to the flight ceiling and that the ballistic missile does not have to fight that much drag to have a constant speed when re-entering the atmosphere. That part is true but your comparison of bring it up that a scramjet cant maintain constant hypersonic speeds at low altitudes is wrong because there is another stage that kicks in when it reaches its max flight ceiling while ballistic missiles do not get another stage after entering the max flight ceiling.


"For a scramjet, the kinetic energy of the free stream air entering the scramjet engine is large comparable to the energy released by the reaction of the oxygen content of the air with a fuel (say hydrogen). Thus the heat released from combustion at Mach 2.5 is around 10% of the total enthalpy of the working fluid. Depending on the fuel, the kinetic energy of the air and the potential combustion heat release will be equal at around Mach 8. Thus the design of a scramjet engine is as much about minimizing drag as maximizing thrust."

the 2nd stage kicks in simply does not slow down when it descends
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Yes, but it is very important for radars to track a target before launching a missile to do the rest of the work.
Among 3 example I gave you, 2 of them are fire control radar.

Being around 5000 kelvin I certainly do think frequencies above 1ghz are being absorbed according to your chart. Looking at the GLL Igla projects some sizes and speeds truely astonish me.
Around 5000 Kelvin is only reached if it can maintain Mach 9 at 1 km but reduce altitude by 30 times-drag increase by 64 times and maintain the same top speed is impossible. So no, the plasma shield won't be effective to any frequency higher than 1 Ghz.


And I remember the source provided with the graph of them stating they have started to lose communication with the space shuttle because of its speeds re-entering the atmosphere because of the heat.
"For a given sheath temperature, the frequencies above the curve will propagate to and from the spacecraft, whereas the frequencies below the line will not. For sheath temperatures of 10,000 to 12,000 K, we see that a frequency in excess of 350 GHz would be needed for direct Shuttle communication with the ground at the time of maximum heating."
Yes, the heat creates the plasma sheath, this sheath block communication. But you don't know if the plasma sheath blocks communication by absorbing radio wave or reflect them



Burevestnik has a ramjet, what speeds are ramjets? Also Project Pluto has never been launched they have only turned on the engines. The oh we do not want a nuclear fallout seems like a feasible excuse but comparing both missiles in terms of size makes me say what was the purpose of creating project pluto's engine if it was too damn big to be used on the missile of a body anyways?
Burevestnik doesn't have a ramjet engine, and it has a pair of thin high aspect ratio wing clearly not intended for supersonic travel.
Check Pluto project on Google
article.jpg






Power requirements is also one of the reasons. Also why even bother bringing up aircrafts for this discussion? Have you looked at the wingspan or size of an aircraft? or better yet even bother to know all the electronic equipment an aircraft carries in comparison to a missile? Lets not compare apples and oranges even though they are both fruits or using plasma generators for that matter.
An aircraft is big and it can carry a bigger power source than a missile, and because aircraft travel slower, you will need to generate less amount of plasma cloud before they get dissipated. Despite that, Okhotnik and Su-57 don't have any stealth plasma generator. Why did I bring up aircraft? because just a decade ago, we listen to the zealot Russian fanboys declare the plasma generator will make Russian aircraft stealthy to all frequencies, from all directions and it will make American physical stealth obsolete everywhere. A few years later, they became the laughing stock of everyone. And now, here we are, listening to you declare the same thing about plasma generator on missiles.





What have you disapproved your own credibility perhaps? Like drawing conclusions to things you do not know about which always gets repeatedly shown here? I mean it would not hurt you to go research something before hand than go provide an answer. I have never said that a plasma generator on a missile is either practical or impractical. You are the only one that says it is in which I respond for proof and that really upsets you.

"The Scientific and Production Association of Mechanical Engineering (NPO Mash) has unveiled a unique plasma gun that made the 3M25 Meteorite strategic supersonic cruise missile invisible to enemy radars and anti-aircraft systems. At the time of exposure to enemy radar, Meteorite created a cloud of ionized gas impenetrable for radar radiation around itself. Unique guns will be transferred to Russian universities over the next year as training aids for future engineers and designers in the design of hypersonic aircraft."
"As NPO Mash told Izvestia, negotiations are currently underway for the transfer of unique products with the leadership of the Moscow Aviation Institute and the State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman, Baltic State Technical University "Voenmekh" named after D.F. Ustinov and Ural State University. B.N. Yeltsin."


Although the article later says its better to use hypersonic speeds it seems research and development is still ongoing to what you have drawn a conclusion on to never work. Its like technology does wonders from the past to the present looking back than forward.
You haven't provided any proof that plasma generator on missiles is practical. I said they are impractical because there isn't any working prototype anywhere, there isn't any missiles or aircraft with plasma generator in production. And I don't need another propaganda article about plasma generator on some missiles, I have read a fair share of articles about stealth plasma generator on Mig-1.44, and we all see how it ended up. Note to you, Russian isn't the only one who studies plasma stealth, USA did too and we all see how they abandon it. If such thing was practical then we won't see the two superpower ignore it and goes for physical stealth.
0001472526_0002.gifkempster oxcart 2.png



Well luckily for you I have no idea yet on this forum if quotes from before that later got changed also appear different from the user quoting your text. Although it looks like I wont be bored anyways from all this amusement.
Don't lie, the quotation will not change once you already post it. You can ask the moderator or test it yourself. Change your previous post, adding random letters abcdxys or color and we shall see if my quotation of you post change.



Are you very sure about this? right now I am simply looking at a turbojet and ramjet diagram showing me air going in to both missiles. But turbojets are only limited to subsonic compression. Scramjets can drag in a whole lot more airflow without the need of using a compressor through the inlets and that airflow (supersonic) will stay in a consistent flow because the combustion can go at higher speeds,
You brought up an ICBM I brought up a ballistic missile that seems to atleast be closer in estimated speeds and ranges like an SRBM but whatever. Also aerodynamic appearance is actually pretty important I am sure a hypersonic aircraft has different design requirements that make it less stealthy than a steath aircraft.

http://www.orbitalvector.com/Orbital Travel/Scramjets/Scramjets.htm

"This was the method used in both NASA X-43's and Hyshot's test flights of a scramjet engine. NASA's test had the X-43 test vehicle attached to a Pegasus rocket booster ferried up to altitude on the wing of a B-52. The rocket detached and shot up to the edge of space. The X-43 then detached from the booster for a descent that would push it to the hypersonic speeds needed to activate the scramjet engine. Unfortunately the test resulted in an uncontrolled descent and crash without a confirmed firing of its scramjet engine. The exact cause is still being investigated. Hyshot's missile was much more successful. The missile shot up to an altitude of 35km, sheddings its first stage and unleashing its scramjet payload for descent. Upon descent, the second stage achieved a velocity of Mach 7.6 and scramjet engine ignition was confirmed."

Now we all know that the 1st stage of a scramjet is to get it to the max flight ceiling. And if we go look back at the trajectories of ballistic missiles all their flight ceilings seem to show that half the distance has been crossed. But that's not all here is my most very favorite part and that is you bringing up the ICBM example where all 3 stages are used to get to the flight ceiling and that the ballistic missile does not have to fight that much drag to have a constant speed when re-entering the atmosphere. That part is true but your comparison of bring it up that a scramjet cant maintain constant hypersonic speeds at low altitudes is wrong because there is another stage that kicks in when it reaches its max flight ceiling while ballistic missiles do not get another stage after entering the max flight ceiling.


"For a scramjet, the kinetic energy of the free stream air entering the scramjet engine is large comparable to the energy released by the reaction of the oxygen content of the air with a fuel (say hydrogen). Thus the heat released from combustion at Mach 2.5 is around 10% of the total enthalpy of the working fluid. Depending on the fuel, the kinetic energy of the air and the potential combustion heat release will be equal at around Mach 8. Thus the design of a scramjet engine is as much about minimizing drag as maximizing thrust."

When the 2nd stage kicks in simply does not slow down when it descends
I'm 100% sure about what I said.
Ramjet and sramjet engine can't draw air into their inlet by their own from a standstill. They need a rocket booster to propelled them to speed. Then their inlet will compress the air and make the engine operate. That why all scramjet and ramjet missiles have rocket booster. Turbojet and Turbofan engine can draw air into the inlet even if you chained the aircraft up and stop it from moving. I didn't bring up ICBM, I only explain the difference between ballistic missile and scramjet missile because you said only ballistics missile is affected by altitude.
And I didn't say scramjet missile can't maintain constant hypersonic speed at low altitude, don't try to put words into my mouth. I said Zircon can't have the same top speed at 1 km altitude and 30 km altitude, because the drag will increase by 64 times, and drag will impact top speed. I don't care that hypersonic aircraft are less stealthy than stealth aircraft, because that isn't what we are discussing. I'm not comparing hypersonic aircraft and stealth aircraft, I'm comparing Zircon at 1 km altitude and 30 km altitude. You are suggesting that Zircon will reach and maintain the same Mach 9 at 30 km altitude and 1 km altitude. I told you, that is the equivalent of having 2 race car, one without anything, one has to pull a locomotive behind and declares that they will have the same top speed. It should be very obvious.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Among 3 example I gave you, 2 of them are fire control radar.
Using those ku-band radars against a hypersonic missile...... You might as well try to get lucky using an infrared system instead. Jokes aside one of those mentions are for drones, mortars, rockets nothing really relating to hypersonic missiles that sounds all like close range detection......Aselsan......Can you be a little more specific than naming a turkish company?

Around 5000 Kelvin is only reached if it can maintain Mach 9 at 1 km but reduce altitude by 30 times-drag increase by 64 times and maintain the same top speed is impossible. So no, the plasma shield won't be effective to any frequency higher than 1 Ghz.
There are many cases regarding that scramjets turn on after their booster phases are completed which by the missiles own design is used to reduce drag as stated by sources. To give you a better example in some of your own words and I am not saying this in a mockingly way. But lets say there is a driver in a F1 car he decides to travel down the road at 30kms and comes across a 100 ton reactor he than dismounts that car picks up a Haul truck and carries the 100 ton reactor further down the road to its desired destination. The car for a scramjet is the 1st stage the haul truck is for the 2nd stage. And by the way there is igla scramjet project that has had similar size dimensions like length as the Zircon with capabilities to fly at mach 15 maybe I can raise those altitudes a little to still maintain frequencies above 1ghz since there Zircon still seems to be ongoing and has its speed in multiple cases raised up.

Yes, the heat creates the plasma sheath, this sheath block communication. But you don't know if the plasma sheath blocks communication by absorbing radio wave or reflect them
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266203790_Radar_Systems_Technology_Principles_and_Applications_Chapter_1_MANIPULATION_OF_RADAR_CROSS_SECTIONS_WITH_PLASMA

"The use of plasmas to control the reflected electromagnetic radiation from an object (Plasma stealth) is feasible at suitable frequency where the conductivity of the plasma allows it to interact strongly with the incoming radio wave, and the wave can either be absorbed and converted into thermal energy, or reflected, or transmitted depending on the relationship between the radio wave frequency and the characteristic plasma frequency. If the frequency of the radio wave is lower than the plasma frequency, it is reflected. if it is higher, it is transmitted. If these two are equal, then resonance occurs."

As stated before transmission can still occur if rf waves have a higher frequency than the plasma. communication devices uses transmission.


Burevestnik doesn't have a ramjet engine, and it has a pair of thin high aspect ratio wing clearly not intended for supersonic travel.
Check Pluto project on Google
I am going to agree with the speeds for now because checking another forum they have sources that its ramjet, sources that its a turbojet, sources that is uses nuclear battery power, nuclear thermal rocket, etc etc. Its going to take awhile for this project to be complete. Googled Pluto and only sources I can find is them starting the engine and that was it, they have never flown the thing. I am now curious to see how the US is doing in nuclear reactor size reduction technology especially in the missile field.

An aircraft is big and it can carry a bigger power source than a missile, and because aircraft travel slower, you will need to generate less amount of plasma cloud before they get dissipated. Despite that, Okhotnik and Su-57 don't have any stealth plasma generator. Why did I bring up aircraft? because just a decade ago, we listen to the zealot Russian fanboys declare the plasma generator will make Russian aircraft stealthy to all frequencies, from all directions and it will make American physical stealth obsolete everywhere. A few years later, they became the laughing stock of everyone. And now, here we are, listening to you declare the same thing about plasma generator on missiles.
Aircrafts are big therefore better with power sources than missiles. Well I agree with you on that but do they have more electronics than a missile does? Do they have more surface area than a missile does?

You haven't provided any proof that plasma generator on missiles is practical. I said they are impractical because there isn't any working prototype anywhere, there isn't any missiles or aircraft with plasma generator in production. And I don't need another propaganda article about plasma generator on some missiles, I have read a fair share of articles about stealth plasma generator on Mig-1.44, and we all see how it ended up. Note to you, Russian isn't the only one who studies plasma stealth, USA did too and we all see how they abandon it. If such thing was practical then we won't see the two superpower ignore it and goes for physical stealth.
Still feel like bringing up aircrafts? I did provide that plasma generators are ongoing projecst according to the researchers and students studying the subject matter. But there is still no final conclusion that it cant be done in the future. I do not let the past draw the conclusion for the future on any science projects.

I'm 100% sure about what I said.
Ramjet and sramjet engine can't draw air into their inlet by their own from a standstill. They need a rocket booster to propelled them to speed. Then their inlet will compress the air and make the engine operate. That why all scramjet and ramjet missiles have rocket booster. Turbojet and Turbofan engine can draw air into the inlet even if you chained the aircraft up and stop it from moving. I didn't bring up ICBM, I only explain the difference between ballistic missile and scramjet missile because you said only ballistics missile is affected by altitude.
And I didn't say scramjet missile can't maintain constant hypersonic speed at low altitude, don't try to put words into my mouth. I said Zircon can't have the same top speed at 1 km altitude and 30 km altitude, because the drag will increase by 64 times, and drag will impact top speed. I don't care that hypersonic aircraft are less stealthy than stealth aircraft, because that isn't what we are discussing. I'm not comparing hypersonic aircraft and stealth aircraft, I'm comparing Zircon at 1 km altitude and 30 km altitude. You are suggesting that Zircon will reach and maintain the same Mach 9 at 30 km altitude and 1 km altitude. I told you, that is the equivalent of having 2 race car, one without anything, one has to pull a locomotive behind and declares that they will have the same top speed. It should be very obvious.
Yes you brought up a diagram of an ICBM and no I said that scramjets are better at lower altitudes than ICBMs based on design and another engine that kicks in when it descends. So please tell us what is your ideal flight path of the Zircon? flying 30kms 80-90% of the time? There are atleast examples like an old ramjet missile that can maintain the same speeds at all phases of its flight including the hi to lo trajectory which sounds like there was no performance drop in its speed with drag taken into account. Not saying scramjets will have those same altitudes as the ramjet missiles. Luckily I have just found out that there is another Onyx missile in development with an estimated range of 800kms up to mach 5 speeds that is going to be put into service soon. There are other hypersonic projects like HGVs where I see one country is better at another country at handling heat stress. And developments of projects where aircrafts are built to be more durable at hypersonic speeds. Just throw away what is your suggested flight profile of the missile.

Don't lie, the quotation will not change once you already post it. You can ask the moderator or test it yourself. Change your previous post, adding random letters abcdxys or color and we shall see if my quotation of you post change.
I will stop being drunk every night when I respond to you this time.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
752
Reaction score
89
Way way off topic and one particular contributors content appears to be of highly dubious quality and veracity.
Perhaps we can all agree to stop digging this particular hole?
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Using those ku-band radars against a hypersonic missile...... You might as well try to get lucky using an infrared system instead. Jokes aside one of those mentions are for drones, mortars, rockets nothing really relating to hypersonic missiles that sounds all like close range detection......Aselsan......Can you be a little more specific than naming a turkish company?
I was only pointing out Ku band fire control radar as the respond for your claim that there are Ku band satellite communication. Obviously, you won't see anything about hypersonic missiles tracking with Ku band because plasma stealth isn't real, so why use Ku-band while they can use X-band and S-band?.
I referred to this radar.
akd.PNG




There are many cases regarding that scramjets turn on after their booster phases are completed which by the missiles own design is used to reduce drag as stated by sources. To give you a better example in some of your own words and I am not saying this in a mockingly way. But lets say there is a driver in a F1 car he decides to travel down the road at 30kms and comes across a 100 ton reactor he than dismounts that car picks up a Haul truck and carries the 100 ton reactor further down the road to its desired destination. The car for a scramjet is the 1st stage the haul truck is for the 2nd stage. And by the way there is igla scramjet project that has had similar size dimensions like length as the Zircon with capabilities to fly at mach 15 maybe I can raise those altitudes a little to still maintain frequencies above 1ghz since there Zircon still seems to be ongoing and has its speed in multiple cases raised up.
Scramjet and Ramjet engine can't turn on before their booster, because their engine design doesn't allow them to suck air into the inlet from a standstill, they need the booster or some means to accelerate the engine to required speed before they can operate.
Your example: let say there are 2 drivers, 2 F-1 cars and 2 trucks but only a single 100-ton locomotive. They both travel down the road with their F-1 car, they both see 100 tons locomotive but only one of them has to pull the 100 tons locomotive with his truck. So which one is faster? the truck that has to pull the locomotive or the truck that doesn't have to?.
Igla is a hypersonic design for SSTO-Single stage to orbit, they are not designed to fly at low altitude, GLL-8 (GLL-VK) Igla is expected to reach Mach 15 at 70 km altitude, there is no way it can reach Mach 10 at 1 km altitude.
Capture.PNG





https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266203790_Radar_Systems_Technology_Principles_and_Applications_Chapter_1_MANIPULATION_OF_RADAR_CROSS_SECTIONS_WITH_PLASMA

"The use of plasmas to control the reflected electromagnetic radiation from an object (Plasma stealth) is feasible at suitable frequency where the conductivity of the plasma allows it to interact strongly with the incoming radio wave, and the wave can either be absorbed and converted into thermal energy, or reflected, or transmitted depending on the relationship between the radio wave frequency and the characteristic plasma frequency. If the frequency of the radio wave is lower than the plasma frequency, it is reflected. if it is higher, it is transmitted. If these two are equal, then resonance occurs."

As stated before transmission can still occur if rf waves have a higher frequency than the plasma. communication devices uses transmission.
Read the purple part. If the radio frequency is lower than the plasma frequency, it is reflected. So the plasma sheath will block communication from inside, but still reflect radar from outside. That like wrapping your missile in aluminum foil




Aircrafts are big therefore better with power sources than missiles. Well I agree with you on that but do they have more electronics than a missile does? Do they have more surface area than a missile does?
Still feel like bringing up aircrafts? I did provide that plasma generators are ongoing projecst according to the researchers and students studying the subject matter. But there is still no final conclusion that it cant be done in the future. I do not let the past draw the conclusion for the future on any science projects.
It doesn't matter that aircraft have more surface area. They move slower and have more volume, they must be much easier to shield but no one success. The plasma gun idea on Meteorite was tested on SR-71 earlier and shortly abandoned. The two superpowers invest in physical stealth instead, that the conclusion. You can say in future plasma stealth could be possible, but that also have as much chance of being possible as teleportation and handheld Mach 10 rail gun.





Yes you brought up a diagram of an ICBM and no I said that scramjets are better at lower altitudes than ICBMs based on design and another engine that kicks in when it descends. So please tell us what is your ideal flight path of the Zircon? flying 30kms 80-90% of the time? There are atleast examples like an old ramjet missile that can maintain the same speeds at all phases of its flight including the hi to lo trajectory which sounds like there was no performance drop in its speed with drag taken into account. Not saying scramjets will have those same altitudes as the ramjet missiles. Luckily I have just found out that there is another Onyx missile in development with an estimated range of 800kms up to mach 5 speeds that is going to be put into service soon. There are other hypersonic projects like HGVs where I see one country is better at another country at handling heat stress. And developments of projects where aircrafts are built to be more durable at hypersonic speeds. Just throw away what is your suggested flight profile of the missile.
It doesn't matter if I brought up the diagram of ICBM or SRBM, their re-entry vehicle doesn't have engine and they keep their speed by stay outside atmosphere, that is the point.
Zircon has 2 stages: first stage is the rocket booster to bring it to supersonic speed, the second stage is the scramjet engine that sustains the hypersonic speed in cruising flight. Zircon will have to stay at high altitude to sustain Mach 9. There is no ramjet missile that can keep the same speed at all altitudes, they may not mention the speed drop on their advertising charts, but it exists.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Way way off topic and one particular contributors content appears to be of highly dubious quality and veracity.
Perhaps we can all agree to stop digging this particular hole?
I don't enjoy explain self-evident thing like air friction by any means but trust me, if I don't argue with him in this thread, he will start copy that content to all threads.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
I was only pointing out Ku band fire control radar as the respond for your claim that there are Ku band satellite communication. Obviously, you won't see anything about hypersonic missiles tracking with Ku band because plasma stealth isn't real, so why use Ku-band while they can use X-band and S-band?.
I referred to this radar.
ku-band radars do not seem to be used for ballistic missile defense an example of that was already provided. Even the instrumental range does not seem efficient either https://www.aselsan.com.tr/AKRD_Naval_Platform_Fire_Control_Radars_6473.pdf. Physicists and other researchers define plasma stealth so can you provide a little more context to that? I have heard about-20 decibel reduction with generators sounds like stealth is being added from using plasma. Using S and X-band radars would be great but that depends on the plasma properties of the missile.

Scramjet and Ramjet engine can't turn on before their booster, because their engine design doesn't allow them to suck air into the inlet from a standstill, they need the booster or some means to accelerate the engine to required speed before they can operate.
Your example: let say there are 2 drivers, 2 F-1 cars and 2 trucks but only a single 100-ton locomotive. They both travel down the road with their F-1 car, they both see 100 tons locomotive but only one of them has to pull the 100 tons locomotive with his truck. So which one is faster? the truck that has to pull the locomotive or the truck that doesn't have to?.
Igla is a hypersonic design for SSTO-Single stage to orbit, they are not designed to fly at low altitude, GLL-8 (GLL-VK) Igla is expected to reach Mach 15 at 70 km altitude, there is no way it can reach Mach 10 at 1 km altitude.
hmm rhe truck that has to pull the 100 ton locomotive and the one that does not have to I will have to think about that. It seems the one that does not have to would be considered a ballistic missile. Ironically the GLL-8 (GLL-VK) with those altitudes and speeds http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/ will have no problems already passing the firecontrol frequency absorption range. But again until the zircon is declared operational with its final characteristics we will find out later.

Read the purple part. If the radio frequency is lower than the plasma frequency, it is reflected. So the plasma sheath will block communication from inside, but still reflect radar from outside. That like wrapping your missile in aluminum foil
To make it easier lets say the plasma sheath is 8ghz. The transmitting device in the zircon is using 14ghz frequency because 14ghz is higher than the plasma frequency as the purple context suggests from a physicist. The transmitting device from the Zircon sends the 14ghz through the plasma sheath all the way to the satellite. The satellite which utilizes 14ghz can send the same transmission back the the device because the frequency from the satellite is still higher than the plasma frequency of the plasma sheath covering the missile.

It doesn't matter that aircraft have more surface area. They move slower and have more volume, they must be much easier to shield but no one success. The plasma gun idea on Meteorite was tested on SR-71 earlier and shortly abandoned. The two superpowers invest in physical stealth instead, that the conclusion. You can say in future plasma stealth could be possible, but that also have as much chance of being possible as teleportation and handheld Mach 10 rail gun.
Thanks for the last sentence even if we both have disagreements on what the progress would be in this field.

It doesn't matter if I brought up the diagram of ICBM or SRBM, their re-entry vehicle doesn't have engine and they keep their speed by stay outside atmosphere, that is the point.
Zircon has 2 stages: first stage is the rocket booster to bring it to supersonic speed, the second stage is the scramjet engine that sustains the hypersonic speed in cruising flight. Zircon will have to stay at high altitude to sustain Mach 9. There is no ramjet missile that can keep the same speed at all altitudes, they may not mention the speed drop on their advertising charts, but it exists.
I have found something interesting https://books.google.com/books?id=lZJxDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Go to page 126 and 127 you will see examples of the moskit and onyx maintaining supersonic speeds at high or low altitudes. The Kalibr missile regarding the supersonic one with the 440-660km range follows a ballistic trajectory although its claimed to have a 1km flight ceiling. These are pretty old ramjet models for example I have heard indians have improved the missile for a steeper dive while the domestic variant could have a farther low altitude range. but both high and low altitudes.

if I don't argue with him in this thread, he will start copy that content to all threads
Oh come on dont be like that I love sharing some of your content to one of my answers as well it gets me upvotes and views. https://qr.ae/TZCScy
 
Top