Plasma Stealth on Missiles

panzerfeist1

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
6 October 2019
Messages
206
Reaction score
89
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 !.
 
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.
 
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?.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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".
 
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-...-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."
 
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-...-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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Tory_II-A_nuclear_ramjet_engine-1024x727.jpg



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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.gif kempster 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.
 
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/public...IPULATION_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.
 
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?
 
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/public...IPULATION_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:
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
 
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.
Ku-band are not used in ballistic missile defense, because there are more efficient frequency such as X-band and S-band. There is no reason to use Ku-band or Ka-band for that purpose because plasma stealth doesn't exist. There is no current or future plasma stealth aircraft or missile in any military, they are all stopped in the development phase 40-50 years ago. So no one spends money to counter a threat that doesn't exist. It like no one spends money to make anti Gundam weapon because they doesn't exist.



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.
You have two trucks on the same terrain, the same kind then the one which has to pull 100 times more weight will be slower. Why is it not obvious?.
GLL-8 (GLL-VK) at these altitude and speed will be at 10100 Kelvin, for the plasma sheath at that temperature, frequency excess 350 GHz is required to penetrate it. So we back to square one, you missile is blind and you can't guide it with your satellite.


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.
Read your citation:
"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."
So the plasma sheath will only absorb radar wave if it has the same frequency as the incoming radar wave.
To make it easier:
let say the plasma frequency of your plasma sheath is 8 GHz
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 7 GHz, it is reflected
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 8 GHz, it is absorbed
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 9 GHz, it goes through the plasma sheath
For the missile, its radar can communication system must operate at frequency higher than 8 GHz so it is not blinded by its own plasma sheath. But for enemy radar, their frequency can be anything as long as they are not the same as the plasma frequency of the missile. If your enemy radar operates at 7 GHz, the wave will reflect back from the plasma sheath as if it is a tin foil. If their radars operate at 10 GHz, then they go through the sheath and reflected from missile fuselage. I thought Plasma stealth is limited before, but with this information, it is even crappier. We see why all superpowers abandoned it
Capture.PNG







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..
From the book, Moskit speed reduces by 30% when you reduce altitude and Oniks speed reduces by 35% when you reduce altitude
This doesn't support your claim that missile can keep the same speed at all altitude

683FF365-C8CD-492A-99CF-7C5B72C8EBDA.jpeg

E1AA0F07-A629-4294-B59A-135E64ACE5CD.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Ku-band are not used in ballistic missile defense, because there are more efficient frequency such as X-band and S-band. There is no reason to use Ku-band or Ka-band for that purpose because plasma stealth doesn't exist. There is no current or future plasma stealth aircraft or missile in any military, they are all stopped in the development phase 40-50 years ago. So no one spends money to counter a threat that doesn't exist. It like no one spends money to make anti Gundam weapon because they doesn't exist.

"According to the tactical and technical task 3M25 was supposed to fly at speeds close to hypersonic, and be invisible to enemy radars. But the designers of the NGO Mash ran into a problem.
- Best of all, when a plane or cruise missile is irradiated with a radar, the blades of the engine turbine and the edges of the air intake are visible. These structural elements are similar to corner reflectors, ”Dmitry Kornev, editor-in-chief of the Militaryrussia Internet project, tells Izvestia. - Having hidden these structural elements from the radar, we solve the problem with the radar visibility of the aircraft by 70–80%. Therefore, on invisible planes, an air intake is made in the form of the Latin letter S. Its bend blocks the passage of radio emission, but at the same time it does not allow a rocket or plane to fly at supersonic speed."
The complex with the Meteorite cruise missile was preparing to be put into service. A full ammunition was manufactured for installation on the Project 667AM strategic missile submarine cruiser. However, the agreement between the USSR and the USA on the limitation of strategic arms (OSV-2) stopped work.
“Specially creating a plasma screen in front of a cruise missile today is no longer as relevant as it was in the 80s of the last century, when the Meteorite was developed,” professor of the Academy of Military Sciences Vadim Kozyulin told Izvestia. - The car was made under the then conditions of a missile defense breakthrough, when the enemy could notice it only in the opposite direction. Today, radar is irradiated from above, from below, from the side. Therefore, the only way to go unnoticed is to fly at a hypersonic speed of six or more Machs. At such speeds, a plasma cloud is formed around the apparatus itself. And here it is important that in Russia they already know how to use it both as a radar absorbing protective shield and as an antenna with which it is possible to transmit combat control signals.


Generators have offered them stealth capabilities and apparently so does speed.

GLL-8 (GLL-VK) at these altitude and speed will be at 10100 Kelvin, for the plasma sheath at that temperature, frequency excess 350 GHz is required to penetrate it. So we back to square one, you missile is blind and you can't guide it with your satellite.

I was thinking about mocking you by using your own phrase to put you in a contradiction with yourself, "From the book, Moskit speed reduces by 30% when you reduce altitude and Oniks speed reduces by 35% when you reduce altitude" to go from square one all the way to end of the board. But this is a reference of a scramjet that is around the same size as the zircon with those speeds. Zircon can match that of fly at slightly slower speeds since of course its an ongoing project.

So the plasma sheath will only absorb radar wave if it has the same frequency as the incoming radar wave.
To make it easier:
let say the plasma frequency of your plasma sheath is 8 GHz
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 7 GHz, it is reflected
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 8 GHz, it is absorbed
If the incoming radar or communication wave is 9 GHz, it goes through the plasma sheath
For the missile, its radar can communication system must operate at frequency higher than 8 GHz so it is not blinded by its own plasma sheath. But for enemy radar, their frequency can be anything as long as they are not the same as the plasma frequency of the missile. If your enemy radar operates at 7 GHz, the wave will reflect back from the plasma sheath as if it is a tin foil. If their radars operate at 10 GHz, then they go through the sheath and reflected from missile fuselage. I thought Plasma stealth is limited before, but with this information, it is even crappier. We see why all superpowers abandoned it


define resonance: Physics
the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object.

I do not think resonance is the same as the definition of absorbing. If it was for the sake of arguement than what can stop the zircon from using a receiver and adjusting its speed or altitude to match the frequency it received by changing its plasma property to absorb that incoming frequency? Also is the RF waves he is refering to reflected off the plasma sheath? Plasma stealth also has the capability to change the RF properties of an incoming RF wave.

From the book, Moskit speed reduces by 30% when you reduce altitude and Oniks speed reduces by 35% when you reduce altitude
This doesn't support your claim that missile can keep the same speed at all altitude

I did not say same speed read it again, "Go to page 126 and 127 you will see examples of the moskit and onyx maintaining supersonic speeds at high or low altitudes." I said that they can maintain supersonic speeds at high or low altitudes.
 
"According to the tactical and technical task 3M25 was supposed to fly at speeds close to hypersonic, and be invisible to enemy radars. But the designers of the NGO Mash ran into a problem.
- Best of all, when a plane or cruise missile is irradiated with a radar, the blades of the engine turbine and the edges of the air intake are visible. These structural elements are similar to corner reflectors, ”Dmitry Kornev, editor-in-chief of the Militaryrussia Internet project, tells Izvestia. - Having hidden these structural elements from the radar, we solve the problem with the radar visibility of the aircraft by 70–80%. Therefore, on invisible planes, an air intake is made in the form of the Latin letter S. Its bend blocks the passage of radio emission, but at the same time it does not allow a rocket or plane to fly at supersonic speed."
The complex with the Meteorite cruise missile was preparing to be put into service. A full ammunition was manufactured for installation on the Project 667AM strategic missile submarine cruiser. However, the agreement between the USSR and the USA on the limitation of strategic arms (OSV-2) stopped work.
“Specially creating a plasma screen in front of a cruise missile today is no longer as relevant as it was in the 80s of the last century, when the Meteorite was developed,” professor of the Academy of Military Sciences Vadim Kozyulin told Izvestia. - The car was made under the then conditions of a missile defense breakthrough, when the enemy could notice it only in the opposite direction. Today, radar is irradiated from above, from below, from the side. Therefore, the only way to go unnoticed is to fly at a hypersonic speed of six or more Machs. At such speeds, a plasma cloud is formed around the apparatus itself. And here it is important that in Russia they already know how to use it both as a radar absorbing protective shield and as an antenna with which it is possible to transmit combat control signals.

Generators have offered them stealth capabilities and apparently so does speed
The plasma generator on Meteorite is the same idea as KEMPSTER program on SR-71, it doesn't work.
0001472526_0002.gif
Capture.PNG


I was thinking about mocking you by using your own phrase to put you in a contradiction with yourself, "From the book, Moskit speed reduces by 30% when you reduce altitude and Oniks speed reduces by 35% when you reduce altitude" to go from square one all the way to end of the board. But this is a reference of a scramjet that is around the same size as the zircon with those speeds. Zircon can match that of fly at slightly slower speeds since of course its an ongoing project.
Zircon can't match that speed because it doesn't fly at 70 km altitude. We are back to square one, reduce altitude will have an impact on top speed.


I did not say same speed read it again, "Go to page 126 and 127 you will see examples of the moskit and onyx maintaining supersonic speeds at high or low altitudes." I said that they can maintain supersonic speeds at high or low altitudes.
My argument isn't Zircon can't maintain supersonic speed at low altitude, my argument is: Zircon can't maintain the same Mach 9 speed when you reduce the altitude from 30 km to 1 km, because drag will increase. While you said: " Zircon will maintain the same Mach 9 at all altitude because it isn't a ballistic missile" and "Old ramjet missile can maintain the same speed at all altitude". So the example of Moskit and Onyx reduce their top speed by more than 30% when altitude is reduced proves my point, not yours.


define resonance: Physics
the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object.
I do not think resonance is the same as the definition of absorbing.
Read your citation
.As the incident radar frequency approaches resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length, the characteristics of plasma slab takes over the object behind the plasma screen, and acts like a dielectric with absorption in front of a metal object


If it was for the sake of arguement than what can stop the zircon from using a receiver and adjusting its speed or altitude to match the frequency it received by changing its plasma property to absorb that incoming frequency? Also is the RF waves he is refering to reflected off the plasma sheath? Plasma stealth also has the capability to change the RF properties of an incoming RF wave.
A radar can hop frequency 10000 times per second, Zircon can't accelerate, climb, dive, decelerate 10000 times per second. No missile can do that.
With pulse compression, a single pulse can consist of 4-5 different frequencies.

puc2.print.png


Plasma stealth can change the property of incoming wave if the wave is at the same frequency as the plasma
 
Last edited:
The plasma generator on Meteorite is the same idea as KEMPSTER program on SR-71, it doesn't work.

70-80% reduction happened with meteorite elaborate on the kempster program.

Zircon can't match that speed because it doesn't fly at 70 km altitude. We are back to square one, reduce altitude will have an impact on top speed.

Zircon is an ongoing project we have seen it countless times where the range and speeds of the missile have changed.

My argument isn't Zircon can't maintain supersonic speed at low altitude, my argument is: Zircon can't maintain the same Mach 9 speed when you reduce the altitude from 30 km to 1 km, because drag will increase. While you said: " Zircon will maintain the same Mach 9 at all altitude because it isn't a ballistic missile" and "Old ramjet missile can maintain the same speed at all altitude". So the example of Moskit and Onyx reduce their top speed by more than 30% when altitude is reduced proves my point, not yours.

So in other words you have quoted the wrong context on one of my posts? No one knows if that speed is being put in high or low altitudes because the scramjet engine only kicks on at the max altitude before it descends. But than again we have users that guess estimate things and take it for a fact.

Air-Launched BrahMos-2.jpg

coyote.jpg

Oniks.jpg

Read your citation

I was reading your Sunday quote so it is not my problem that for some reason your having problems quoting the right context.
dang it ronny.PNG

A radar can hop frequency 10000 times per second, Zircon can't accelerate, climb, dive, decelerate 10000 times per second. No missile can do that.
With pulse compression, a single pulse can consist of 4-5 different frequencies.

Scramjets missiles seem to use fuel injection when controlling the combustion process to adjust their speeds. also drag helps to decelerate the missile as well. If you have a an/spy-6 with the options of X or S-band you will have to stick with a narrow band over a broader band for better signal return.
 

Attachments

  • p-800 flight profile.jpg
    p-800 flight profile.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 7
70-80% reduction happened with meteorite elaborate on the kempster program.
Meteorite didn't actually reduce RCS by 70-80%, that was the goal of the plasma generator, but it didn't work well enough to put in production, they ended up abandoned the idea and develope physical stealth.
Kempster program aimed to do the same thing as Meteorite, they also use the plasma gun and they failed too. If plasma stealth really works, they would have been popular.
1.PNG 2.PNG



Zircon is an ongoing project we have seen it countless times where the range and speeds of the missile have changed.
The impressive number that you see changing all the time is the product of propaganda rather than reality. There is a world different between Mach 10 at 1 km altitude and Mach 10 at 30 km altitude.



So in other words you have quoted the wrong context on one of my posts? No one knows if that speed is being put in high or low altitudes because the scramjet engine only kicks on at the max altitude before it descends. But than again we have users that guess estimate things and take it for a fact.

I didn't quote the wrong part of your post. You claimed Zircon speed can create a plasma screen which makes it invisible to all radar, then when you found out that the plasma sheath is affected by temperature, you start making wild claims about its speed. Public source shows Zircon speed at Mach 8 and altitude from 30-40 km, but because that generate very low plasma frequency below 1 GHz, you start to theorize Zircon can reach Mach 9 at 1 km altitude the same speed as it can at 30 km altitude. After many examples of mine, showing why altitude will affect top speed, you said you know old ramjet missile that can keep the same speed at all altitudes. So you brought Onyx and Moskit, but then they slow down by over 30% when their altitude is reduced, that prove my point. I don't need to guesstimate because I said things that are very obvious to everyone.


Speed for combined high altitude trajectory is 750 m/s
Speed for low altitude trajectory is 680 m/s
Speed clearly reduce so that proves my point


Speed for high altitude trajectory is Mach 4
Speed for low altitude trajectory is Mach 2.5
Speed clearly reduces when altitude reduces, so that proves my point.
The last photo is too blurry so I can't see anything.



I was reading your Sunday quote so it is not my problem that for some reason your having problems quoting the right context.
I bring these quotations out from your citations. You should read your citations because you bring them up. Why did you cite research that you don't read?





Scramjets missiles seem to use fuel injection when controlling the combustion process to adjust their speeds. also drag helps to decelerate the missile as well. If you have a an/spy-6 with the options of X or S-band you will have to stick with a narrow band over a broader band for better signal return.
It doesn't matter that scramjet missiles use fuel injection to adjust their speed. They can't change their speed as quickly as radars can change their frequency. Radar can change frequency 10000 per second and they can send a compressed pulse with multiple frequencies. Radar has hop over a wide bandwidth to counter spot jamming since the 60s.
 
Meteorite didn't actually reduce RCS by 70-80%, that was the goal of the plasma generator, but it didn't work well enough to put in production, they ended up abandoned the idea and develope physical stealth.
Kempster program aimed to do the same thing as Meteorite, they also use the plasma gun and they failed too. If plasma stealth really works, they would have been popular.

The generators still offered a reduction in RCS but they seem to have found it more easier to just use speed in that article. And their physicists are starting a new method in communication with plasma covered objects. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...black-out-problem-for-re-entering-spacecraft/ I guess it sort of makes sense why was one plasma covered missile not put into service, but why bother forming another plasma covered project with the same results as the meteorite(which is what you are trying to expect)? One has to make a breakthrough happen but their excuse is that the U.S. signed a treaty which prevented them(up to you if you believe them or not). So rather if the meteorite is like the pluto project I want to see what the conclusions will be for the burevestnik or Zircon.

The impressive number that you see changing all the time is the product of propaganda rather than reality. There is a world different between Mach 10 at 1 km altitude and Mach 10 at 30 km altitude.

Yes every opinion you draw is a complete fact therefore I use one of those opinions against your other opinion to put the missile in a firecontrol frequency which leaves you to go with only one opinion which is going to prove I am right that the missiles plasma density can be adjusted in the fire control range depending on an ongoing project.

I didn't quote the wrong part of your post. You claimed Zircon speed can create a plasma screen which makes it invisible to all radar, then when you found out that the plasma sheath is affected by temperature, you start making wild claims about its speed. Public source shows Zircon speed at Mach 8 and altitude from 30-40 km, but because that generate very low plasma frequency below 1 GHz, you start to theorize Zircon can reach Mach 9 at 1 km altitude the same speed as it can at 30 km altitude. After many examples of mine, showing why altitude will affect top speed, you said you know old ramjet missile that can keep the same speed at all altitudes. So you brought Onyx and Moskit, but then they slow down by over 30% when their altitude is reduced, that prove my point. I don't need to guesstimate because I said things that are very obvious to everyone.

Good old ronny making up stories again, where did I say anywhere in my contexts on this forum that says the plasma absorbs all the frequencies(hint: you are the one that suggested it)? Also please find me atleast one source just one that says this speed is for this altitude. You have showed me there is a 30% reduction but have not shown if those speeds are estimated at what altitude for the Zircon

I bring these quotations out from your citations. You should read your citations because you bring them up. Why did you cite research that you don't read?

Do I seriously have to teach you that there is a big difference between a sentence that says, "the fox jumped over the cat" and "the fox jumped over the cat and than the fence" when having a conversation with somebody? Regarding research that I dont read lets not forget your golden moments at another forum where you literally brought up a video showing a 100 megaton detonation cant cause tidal waves and I had to go state that the detonation was done at the deepest pits of the sea instead of at a higher height where other sources have shown can make waves.

It doesn't matter that scramjet missiles use fuel injection to adjust their speed. They can't change their speed as quickly as radars can change their frequency. Radar can change frequency 10000 per second and they can send a compressed pulse with multiple frequencies. Radar has hop over a wide bandwidth to counter spot jamming since the 60s

Sure radars can change frequencies but plasma can change those return signals going back to the radar. If you want an X-band frequency but receive an L-band frequency than what good is the radar return? The thickness of the plasma density can change the return signal. from that research gate source:

"There is also another mechanism where reflection can be reduced. If the electromagnetic wave passes through the plasma, and is reflected by the metal, and the reflected wave and incoming wave are roughly equal in power, then they may form two phasors. When these two phasors are of opposite phase they can cancel each other out. In order to obtain substantial attenuation of radar signal, the plasma slab needs adequate thickness and density."

and

"From the simulation results we can conclude: plasma covered objects enjoys smaller RCS at most forward directions, except an increase at the bore-sight direction at certain frequencies, which is a result of the plasma slab geometry. As the thickness of plasma layer increases, the reduction effect is enhanced. The front monostatic RCS minimum number increases from one at 11 GHz (without plasma) to two at 3.5 and 8 GHz (with plasma), while the back monostatic RCS increases mildly with plasma shielding. The usefulness of plasma shielding is strongly connected to the RCS characteristics of the object it covers, and the RCS pattern of the plasma slab. As the incident radar frequency approaches resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length, the characteristics of plasma slab takes over the object behind the plasma screen, and acts like a dielectric with absorption in front of a metal object."
 
The generators still offered a reduction in RCS but they seem to have found it more easier to just use speed in that article. And their physicists are starting a new method in communication with plasma covered objects. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...black-out-problem-for-re-entering-spacecraft/ I guess it sort of makes sense why was one plasma covered missile not put into service, but why bother forming another plasma covered project with the same results as the meteorite(which is what you are trying to expect)? One has to make a breakthrough happen but their excuse is that the U.S. signed a treaty which prevented them(up to you if you believe them or not). So rather if the meteorite is like the pluto project I want to see what the conclusions will be for the burevestnik or Zircon.
Plasma generator simply doesn't work, as I have said all along. Kempster, Meteorite, Mig-1.44 were their tests to see if the technology is practical, and they found out it isn't. So they abandoned the plasma generator idea for conventional stealth using shape and material. The plasma cover Zircon is a side effect due to its speed, it isn't the goal, and because the plasma cover only has an absorbing effect on radar wave with the same frequency as the plasma sheath, it isn't useful at all when radar can change their frequency.


Yes every opinion you draw is a complete fact therefore I use one of those opinions against your other opinion to put the missile in a firecontrol frequency which leaves you to go with only one opinion which is going to prove I am right that the missiles plasma density can be adjusted in the fire control range depending on an ongoing project.
The plasma frequency is affected by missile speed. You can't assume that Zircon will reach Mach 9 at 1 km altitude the same as it can at 30-40 km altitude. Drag will increase by 64 times and reduce the top speed. But let say Zircon speed at 1 km altitude is the same as at 30-40 km altitude in other words it can reach Mach 9 by witchcraft, the plasma temperature is 4844 Kelvin
at 4844 Kelvin the plasma frequency is less than 6.7 GHz, so it still doesn't affect SPY-3, SPY-6, APG-79, APG-81, MPQ-53, TPY-2, SBX, AIM-120 seeker, Meteor seeker.
Then you shouldn't forget that the plasma sheath only absorbs the radio wave with the same frequency as it, it fully let higher frequency pass through and lower frequency reflect. So in the best case scenario, plasma stealth is the same as a very narrow band radar absorbing material.

Capture.PNG




Good old ronny making up stories again, where did I say anywhere in my contexts on this forum that says the plasma absorbs all the frequencies(hint: you are the one that suggested it)? Also please find me atleast one source just one that says this speed is for this altitude. You have showed me there is a 30% reduction but have not shown if those speeds are estimated at what altitude for the Zircon

Burden of proof: I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
If you want to say Zircon can fly at Mach 9 at 1 km altitude then you have to provide the evidence to show that it can. I don't have to provide evidence for its incapability. I have shows you speed of many missiles reduce when their altitude is reduced.





Do I seriously have to teach you that there is a big difference between a sentence that says, "the fox jumped over the cat" and "the fox jumped over the cat and than the fence" when having a conversation with somebody?
I have no idea what you want to say in this


Sure radars can change frequencies but plasma can change those return signals going back to the radar. If you want an X-band frequency but receive an L-band frequency than what good is the radar return? The thickness of the plasma density can change the return signal. from that research gate source:
"There is also another mechanism where reflection can be reduced. If the electromagnetic wave passes through the plasma, and is reflected by the metal, and the reflected wave and incoming wave are roughly equal in power, then they may form two phasors. When these two phasors are of opposite phase they can cancel each other out. In order to obtain substantial attenuation of radar signal, the plasma slab needs adequate thickness and density."
and
"From the simulation results we can conclude: plasma covered objects enjoys smaller RCS at most forward directions, except an increase at the bore-sight direction at certain frequencies, which is a result of the plasma slab geometry. As the thickness of plasma layer increases, the reduction effect is enhanced. The front monostatic RCS minimum number increases from one at 11 GHz (without plasma) to two at 3.5 and 8 GHz (with plasma), while the back monostatic RCS increases mildly with plasma shielding. The usefulness of plasma shielding is strongly connected to the RCS characteristics of the object it covers, and the RCS pattern of the plasma slab. As the incident radar frequency approaches resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length, the characteristics of plasma slab takes over the object behind the plasma screen, and acts like a dielectric with absorption in front of a metal object."
You confused between phase and frequency. When the incoming wave has the same resonance frequency of the plasma sheath, you get the same effect as a magnetic absorbing material. When two waves are opposite in phase they will cancel the other out under destructive interference effect. What you have with plasma stealth is a very narrow band radar absorbing ability that doesn't work in fire control frequency. While modern radar absorbing material are wideband and affects fire control frequency.
SOS-RAM_chart1.jpg

.
 
Last edited:
I will separate this because it is off-topic.
Regarding research that I dont read lets not forget your golden moments at another forum where you literally brought up a video showing a 100 megaton detonation cant cause tidal waves and I had to go state that the detonation was done at the deepest pits of the sea instead of at a higher height where other sources have shown can make waves.
Don't lie, you said Poseidon torpedo can cause a tsunami that wipes out coastal regions in the US.
I said it is impossible then I post this video:
then I follow with this:
the 2011 tsunami in Japan released about 9.3 million megatons of TNT energy. That's hundreds of millions of times as much as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and roughly 163,000 times as much as the Soviet Union's test of Tsar Bomba on October 30, 1961.

Plus, Spriggs said, the energy of a blast wouldn't all be directed toward shore — it would radiate outward in all directions, so most of it "would be wasted going back out to sea."


A detonation several miles from a coastline would deposit only about 1% of its energy as waves hitting the shore. That scenario may be more likely than an attack closer to shore, assuming US systems could detect an incoming Poseidon torpedo.

But even if such a weapon exploded on the doorstep of a coastal city or base, its purpose would be questionable, Spriggs said.

"This would produce a fraction of the damage the same 50 MT weapon could do if it were detonated above a large city," Spriggs said. "If there is some country out there that is angry enough at the United States to use a nuclear weapon against us, why would they opt to reduce the amount of damage they impose in an attack?"

Then I followed with this study from Defense nuclear agency: clearly explain why nuclear explosion can't create tsunami

mmFfd5U.jpg AHtcDyq.jpg
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a304244.pdf


But things doesn't stop there, the creator of the tsunami torpedo hoax, Viktor Baranetz came forward to clarify that it is a lie
Russian source:
English summary:
The claim that underwater nuclear blasts could trigger devastating tsunamis appears to have started with and spread by some media outlets in the UK.

Those stories referenced a commentary piece by Viktor Baranetz, a former spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, that was published February 28 in Komsomolskaya Pravda, a Russian tabloid. At the time, Baranetz was responding to President Donald Trump's desire to increase US military spending by $54 billion, on top of an annual budget of about $600 billion — what he claimed is roughly 10 times that of Russia's yearly military investment.


According to a March 8 translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Baranetz suggested that Russia has "already found asymmetrical responses" to counter such US military might including, for example (our emphasis added):

"[N]uclear warheads that can modify their course and height so that no computer can calculate their trajectory. Or, for example, the Americans are deploying their tanks, airplanes and special forces battalions along the Russian border. And we are quietly 'seeding' the U.S. shoreline with nuclear 'mole' missiles (they dig themselves in and 'sleep' until they are given the command)[...]"

Starting around April 30, however, several British outlets — including the Daily Star, Daily Mail, Telegraph, and The Sun— wrote that Baranetz claimed such "mole" missiles could detonate underwater to trigger deadly tsunamis against US coastal targets.

But Baranetz's text doesn't mention underwater detonations or tsunamis. In fact, he wrote a piece on May 2 that decried the suggestion of nuclear tsunamis as a "lie". (Business Insider contacted several prominent British outlets that published the nuclear tsunami claim; in response, at least one publication removed all references to the idea in its story.)

In his follow-up commentary on May 2, Baranetz also clarified the suggestion of "mole missiles":

"In Russia, any student who owns a computer will explain that 'Status-6' is a Russian project of an unmanned nuclear submarine. The mission of the apparatus is to deliver a nuclear munition with the aim of destroying important coastal elements of the enemy's economy and inflicting guaranteed unacceptable damage by creating extensive zones of radioactive contamination."

The Kremlin quickly and roundly denied Baranetz's claims, according to a piece by Tom O'Connor at Newsweek, and experts doubt the existence of "mole" missiles.

So I was correct, Poseidon torpedo can't cause a tsunami that wipes out coastal regions in the US.
 
Last edited:
Plasma generator simply doesn't work, as I have said all along. Kempster, Meteorite, Mig-1.44 were their tests to see if the technology is practical, and they found out it isn't. So they abandoned the plasma generator idea for conventional stealth using shape and material. The plasma cover Zircon is a side effect due to its speed, it isn't the goal, and because the plasma cover only has an absorbing effect on radar wave with the same frequency as the plasma sheath, it isn't useful at all when radar can change their frequency.
The plasma frequency is affected by missile speed. You can't assume that Zircon will reach Mach 9 at 1 km altitude the same as it can at 30-40 km altitude. Drag will increase by 64 times and reduce the top speed. But let say Zircon speed at 1 km altitude is the same as at 30-40 km altitude in other words it can reach Mach 9 by witchcraft, the plasma temperature is 4844 Kelvin
at 4844 Kelvin the plasma frequency is less than 6.7 GHz, so it still doesn't affect SPY-3, SPY-6, APG-79, APG-81, MPQ-53, TPY-2, SBX, AIM-120 seeker, Meteor seeker.
Then you shouldn't forget that the plasma sheath only absorbs the radio wave with the same frequency as it, it fully let higher frequency pass through and lower frequency reflect. So in the best case scenario, plasma stealth is the same as a very narrow band radar absorbing material.
Burden of proof: I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
If you want to say Zircon can fly at Mach 9 at 1 km altitude then you have to provide the evidence to show that it can. I don't have to provide evidence for its incapability. I have shows you speed of many missiles reduce when their altitude is reduced.
You confused between phase and frequency. When the incoming wave has the same resonance frequency of the plasma sheath, you get the same effect as a magnetic absorbing material. When two waves are opposite in phase they will cancel the other out under destructive interference effect. What you have with plasma stealth is a very narrow band radar absorbing ability that doesn't work in fire control frequency. While modern radar absorbing material are wideband and affects fire control frequency.

Alright I am going to give you a nice answer that you wont be able to BS your way out of and ironically your own Kempster program source has set up the noose for you.

1.Radio Frequency higher than Plasma Frequency the wave gets through unaffected.
2.Radio Frequency lower than Plasma Frequency the wave will get reflected.
3.If radio waves are equal absorption will take place of the incoming RF waves.

It turns out that the 3rd option is not the only option for plasma stealth but the 2nd option is to be included as well quotes from researchgate.

“For a wide range of parameters and frequencies, plasma is electrically conductive, and its response to low-frequency electromagnetic waves is similar to that of a metal: a plasma simply reflects incident low-frequency radiation. Low-frequency means it is lower than the characteristic electron plasma frequency. 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.”

Plasma density effects the electromagnetic field and if the amount of electrons make the plasma frequency higher than the radio frequency the radar return signals would be weak which of course constitutes to the usage of plasma stealth. Example of another quote from researchgate.

"There is also another mechanism where reflection can be reduced. If the electromagnetic wave passes through the plasma, and is reflected by the metal, and the reflected wave and incoming wave are roughly equal in power, then they may form two phasors. When these two phasors are of opposite phase they can cancel each other out. In order to obtain substantial attenuation of radar signal, the plasma slab needs adequate thickness and density."

The more electrons you carry the denser your plasma will be and you can create a substantial attenuation of a radar signal which means weakening your RF signals. And your Kempster source is the 2nd proof to confirm this plasma density of the generator in the 1st paragraph was up to 175MHz which allowed the 70 and 170MHzs frequencies to weaken but had no effect on S-band in the 3rd paragraph.

The same type of example introduced from researchgate.

"From the simulation results we can conclude: plasma covered objects enjoys smaller RCS at most forward directions, except an increase at the bore-sight direction at certain frequencies, which is a result of the plasma slab geometry. As the thickness of plasma layer increases, the reduction effect is enhanced. The front monostatic RCS minimum number increases from one at 11 GHz (without plasma) to two at 3.5 and 8 GHz (with plasma), while the back monostatic RCS increases mildly with plasma shielding. The usefulness of plasma shielding is strongly connected to the RCS characteristics of the object it covers, and the RCS pattern of the plasma slab. As the incident radar frequency approaches resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length, the characteristics of plasma slab takes over the object behind the plasma screen, and acts like a dielectric with absorption in front of a metal object."

So either way if the radio frequency is lower than the plasma frequency the electrons will weaken it. Higher plasma frequency is like electricity to a piece of metal(low radio frequency). However higher radio frequencies are unaffected by lower plasma frequency.

Also your probably going to blame me for this for not taking it into account but there was one more variable that I have forgotten to include in that atmospheric calculator.

temperatures of altitudes.jpg

mach 9, temperature 32 farenheit, altitude 40km results in 4611.7917 Kelvin add one more Mach and that will put it at 20ghz. So it is quite a coincidence that they say the estimates are 30-40kms for the flight ceiling with regards to this image above my text here.

Timeline of the zircon: https://tass.com/defense/941559
April 2017: 400km at mach 5-6 from old data. this tests confirmed mach 8.

mach 8 around 1000kms.

Than later we here from Putin mach 9 "over 1000kms.

So we got until 2023 "if" it becomes operational to see those final results. so the main give aways of these sources are.

1.higher plasma frequency effects or weakens lower radio frequencies because the conductivity of the plasma with the amount of electrons it has will effect the lower radio frequency waves. Higher radio frequencies cannot effect lower plasma frequencies and if the incoming incident wave is equal to the plasma reflected wave absorption happens.

2. Their physicists recently discovered how to communicate with radio frequency blackouts by using the plasma as their antenna not too long ago, which probably made them go, hmmm lets get a plasma covered project going underway like the Zircon perhaps.

3. Altitudes of Zircon are chosen where the highest temperatures reside in those altitudes. which looks like they are going for the max plasma effect.

4. Their own scientists called the plasma generators a thing of the 1980s and said speed instead was more convenient than using a plasma generator which of course the Kempster project stuck around at very low frequencies unable to achieve the right amount of electrons for a denser plasma.
 
Don't lie, you said Poseidon torpedo can cause a tsunami that wipes out coastal regions in the US.
I said it is impossible then I post this video:

yes the marianna trench where its pressure completely crumples the tsar explosion which of course cant cause tidal waves which is why I ask you to give examples at higher depths.

then I follow with this:

Yes your 2nd story was the million megaton impact of the tsunami which you consider it as the output for its devastation. However this story did not work either when I pointed out than an earthquake of that magnitude was equal to a 150 megaton detonation and of course the depths of the plate movements was not as low as the marianna trench. Than your 3rd story was sticking with a nuclear physicist who tests the detonations at shallow waters since is distance estimates were closer to the shoreline. While another physicist said a "well placed" detonation near a coast line what cause the equivalent to japans tsunami or alot worse. Than I found this discussion with you to be completely pointless same thing with my discussion with a certain user in this forum believing one source stating this high range of the air defense missile while I have had multiple sources of the same air defense missile having lesser ranges but he continued to stick with his one source story, while you continue talk about a physicists credibility where his conditions differ from another physicists that is looking for the max effect of damage of that same detonation.

Then I followed with this study from Defense nuclear agency: clearly explain why nuclear explosion can't create tsunami

Oooohh a report where the U.S. has done multiple tests with small kiloton explosions at waters that were not considered deep from the 1960s, but none where they have went into the megaton range to try that with deeper depths . Atleast you get a good job for the effort. And they consider megaton explosions to dangerious to try out for potential seroius threats, say that the energy will dissapate after the explosion but a 1963 tests with a very small kilot explosions shows coastal regions unaffected.........Interesting XD

But things doesn't stop there, the creator of the tsunami torpedo hoax, Viktor Baranetz came forward to clarify that it is a lie
Russian source:

Also from the article.

"In Russia, any student who owns a computer will explain that 'Status-6' is a Russian project of an unmanned nuclear submarine. The mission of the apparatus is to deliver a nuclear munition with the aim of destroying important coastal elements of the enemy's economy and inflicting guaranteed unacceptable damage by creating extensive zones of radioactive contamination."

"The Kremlin quickly and roundly denied Baranetz's claims, according to a piece by Tom O'Connor at Newsweek, and experts doubt the existence of "mole" missiles."

I will pretend with you that his does not cause tsunamis is credible and that the Kremlin is lying for having his claim be denounced and that he has more credibility than the Kremlin, but he has destroyed his own credibility suggesting that Poseidon's carry and drop off munitions while their purpose from Russia's military defense industries say detonations instead. You might as well use Michael Moore as a reference.

So I was correct, Poseidon torpedo can't cause a tsunami that wipes out coastal regions in the US.

oh lord your getting a little too excited there :)
 
Alright I am going to give you a nice answer that you wont be able to BS your way out of and ironically your own Kempster program source has set up the noose for you.

1.Radio Frequency higher than Plasma Frequency the wave gets through unaffected.
2.Radio Frequency lower than Plasma Frequency the wave will get reflected.
3.If radio waves are equal absorption will take place of the incoming RF waves.

It turns out that the 3rd option is not the only option for plasma stealth but the 2nd option is to be included as well quotes from researchgate.

“For a wide range of parameters and frequencies, plasma is electrically conductive, and its response to low-frequency electromagnetic waves is similar to that of a metal: a plasma simply reflects incident low-frequency radiation. Low-frequency means it is lower than the characteristic electron plasma frequency. 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.”

Plasma density effects the electromagnetic field and if the amount of electrons make the plasma frequency higher than the radio frequency the radar return signals would be weak which of course constitutes to the usage of plasma stealth. Example of another quote from researchgate.

"There is also another mechanism where reflection can be reduced. If the electromagnetic wave passes through the plasma, and is reflected by the metal, and the reflected wave and incoming wave are roughly equal in power, then they may form two phasors. When these two phasors are of opposite phase they can cancel each other out. In order to obtain substantial attenuation of radar signal, the plasma slab needs adequate thickness and density."

The more electrons you carry the denser your plasma will be and you can create a substantial attenuation of a radar signal which means weakening your RF signals. And your Kempster source is the 2nd proof to confirm this plasma density of the generator in the 1st paragraph was up to 175MHz which allowed the 70 and 170MHzs frequencies to weaken but had no effect on S-band in the 3rd paragraph.

The same type of example introduced from researchgate.

"From the simulation results we can conclude: plasma covered objects enjoys smaller RCS at most forward directions, except an increase at the bore-sight direction at certain frequencies, which is a result of the plasma slab geometry. As the thickness of plasma layer increases, the reduction effect is enhanced. The front monostatic RCS minimum number increases from one at 11 GHz (without plasma) to two at 3.5 and 8 GHz (with plasma), while the back monostatic RCS increases mildly with plasma shielding. The usefulness of plasma shielding is strongly connected to the RCS characteristics of the object it covers, and the RCS pattern of the plasma slab. As the incident radar frequency approaches resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length, the characteristics of plasma slab takes over the object behind the plasma screen, and acts like a dielectric with absorption in front of a metal object."

So either way if the radio frequency is lower than the plasma frequency the electrons will weaken it. Higher plasma frequency is like electricity to a piece of metal(low radio frequency). However higher radio frequencies are unaffected by lower plasma frequency.

Read your citation. Plasma sheath only has an absorbing effect when the frequency of the incoming wave approaches the plasma frequency. Plasma frequency is proportional to electron density, so higher electron density is required to affect higher frequency radar is the same way of saying higher plasma frequency is needed to affect higher frequency radar.
Capture.PNG


Incoming wave with frequency higher than plasma frequency will penetrate it
Incoming wave with frequency lower than plasma frequency will be reflected back as if the plasma is metal
Incoming wave with frequency the same as the plasma frequency is partly absorbed and partly reflected.
First some background. Plasmas absorb electromagnetic waves close to a special resonant frequency called the plasma frequency, which depends on the properties of the plasma itself such as its density.
Korotkevich and co point out that any incoming signal
close to this frequency is both reflected and absorbed by the plasma
. The reflected signal is lost but the absorbed energy sets up a resonating electric field at a certain depth with the plasma.
That’s a crucial point.





Also your probably going to blame me for this for not taking it into account but there was one more variable that I have forgotten to include in that atmospheric calculator.

View attachment 623165

mach 9, temperature 32 farenheit, altitude 40km results in 4611.7917 Kelvin add one more Mach and that will put it at 20ghz. So it is quite a coincidence that they say the estimates are 30-40kms for the flight ceiling with regards to this image above my text here.

Timeline of the zircon: https://tass.com/defense/941559
April 2017: 400km at mach 5-6 from old data. this tests confirmed mach 8.

mach 8 around 1000kms.

Then later we here from Putin mach 9 "over 1000kms.

So we got until 2023 "if" it becomes operational to see those final results. so the main give aways of these sources are.

1.higher plasma frequency effects or weakens lower radio frequencies because the conductivity of the plasma with the amount of electrons it has will effect the lower radio frequency waves. Higher radio frequencies cannot effect lower plasma frequencies and if the incoming incident wave is equal to the plasma reflected wave absorption happens.

2. Their physicists recently discovered how to communicate with radio frequency blackouts by using the plasma as their antenna not too long ago, which probably made them go, hmmm lets get a plasma covered project going underway like the Zircon perhaps.

3. Altitudes of Zircon are chosen where the highest temperatures reside in those altitudes. which looks like they are going for the max plasma effect.

4. Their own scientists called the plasma generators a thing of the 1980s and said speed instead was more convenient than using a plasma generator which of course the Kempster project stuck around at very low frequencies unable to achieve the right amount of electrons for a denser plasma.
Firstly, the air temperature at 40 km altitude isn't 32 Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celcius), your chart resolution is too low so you estimate the wrong number. The actual, air temperature at 40 km altitude is -22 Fahrenheit
Temp.jpg
Second of all, in the calculator, temperature Increment is how much the temperature increase compares to the standard day. When you put 32 Fahrenheit in the calculator, you make the air much hotter.At Mach 9, you should get 4306 Kelvin instead of 4611 Kelvin

Besides, plasma frequency at 5000 Kelvin is only 6.7 GHz, so even at 4611 Kelvin it won't affect most fire control radar

1. Higher plasma frequency will reflect lower radio frequency, they will act like they are metal.
the plasma sheath will allow radio waves pass through it if the plasma frequency is lower than the radiofrequency.
If the plasma sheath has the same frequency as the incident radiowave, it will partly absorb the wave and partly reflect it
But because the plasma sheath is conductive, it will interact when the incident radar frequency approaches the resonance wavelength of the plasma slab length. The phenomenon is destructive interference, and it isn't " if the incoming incident wave is equal to the plasma reflected wave absorption happens", but if the reflected wave is out of phase with the incoming wave, then the destructive interference happens. But this can be counter productive too, meaning if the reflected wave is in phase with the incident wave, the return is twice as powerful. This is the same interaction that create anti stealth low frequency radar, when the radio wave approaches the length of the aircraft, we have the creeping wave effect that can create instructive or destructive interference.
RCS-Regions-1.png


2. Any hypersonic missile will generate that plasma sheath, but the it isn't useful for stealth purpose because it is very narrow band, and with the current speed, can't reach fire control frequency.

3. The altitude is chosen because the air density is low so the drag is low and missile can fly far.

4. you are the one who say plasma generator is practical.
 

Attachments

  • imgp8F.gif
    imgp8F.gif
    12.2 KB · Views: 1
yes the marianna trench where its pressure completely crumples the tsar explosion which of course cant cause tidal waves which is why I ask you to give examples at higher depths
.
and I did. There is no different, Poseidon can't cause Tsunami.



Yes your 2nd story was the million megaton impact of the tsunami which you consider it as the output for its devastation. However this story did not work either when I pointed out than an earthquake of that magnitude was equal to a 150 megaton detonation and of course the depths of the plate movements was not as low as the marianna trench. Than your 3rd story was sticking with a nuclear physicist who tests the detonations at shallow waters since is distance estimates were closer to the shoreline. While another physicist said a "well placed" detonation near a coast line what cause the equivalent to japans tsunami or alot worse. Than I found this discussion with you to be completely pointless same thing with my discussion with a certain user in this forum believing one source stating this high range of the air defense missile while I have had multiple sources of the same air defense missile having lesser ranges but he continued to stick with his one source story, while you continue talk about a physicists credibility where his conditions differ from another physicists that is looking for the max effect of damage of that same detonation.
The scale, the time and the structure of a nuclear explosion and tectonic plate moving aren't the same in any way.
Your only evident to support the tsunami torpedo story is a claim from a physicist we don't know who is your physicist, there is no information about him whereas Spriggs is a very well -known nuclear physicist. So he has more credibility and his claim is backed up by research.
If I recall correct, that was your discussion with Bring_it_on about PAC-3. You have the habit of overestimating the capability of Russian military equipment and at the same time underestimating the capability of USA equipment. If there are multiple sources with multiple numbers, you will always believe the biggest one if it is a Russian weapon, in some cases, you create your own number. If it is a US weapon, you will believe the lowest number. You don't check for the credibility of the source and how they came up with the number. When we discussed Zircon, you believe Zircon can fly Mach 9 at 1 km altitude, not because the assumption is supported by many evidences but because you want to believe that it is true, when we discussed plasma generator, you didn't think why no one brings that plasma generator into production and instead assume future will solve the problem, because that is what you want to believe.





Oooohh a report where the U.S. has done multiple tests with small kiloton explosions at waters that were not considered deep from the 1960s, but none where they have went into the megaton range to try that with deeper depths . Atleast you get a good job for the effort. And they consider megaton explosions to dangerious to try out for potential seroius threats, say that the energy will dissapate after the explosion but a 1963 tests with a very small kilot explosions shows coastal regions unaffected.........Interesting XD
It is about the structure of the explosion rather than the scale. High magnitude nuclear explosion has drawback such as fallout, the residual radioactive has a terrible impact on the environment. You haven't provided any credible study or research to prove the Tsunami generation ability of Poseidon


Also from the article.

"In Russia, any student who owns a computer will explain that 'Status-6' is a Russian project of an unmanned nuclear submarine. The mission of the apparatus is to deliver a nuclear munition with the aim of destroying important coastal elements of the enemy's economy and inflicting guaranteed unacceptable damage by creating extensive zones of radioactive contamination."

"The Kremlin quickly and roundly denied Baranetz's claims, according to a piece by Tom O'Connor at Newsweek, and experts doubt the existence of "mole" missiles."

I will pretend with you that his does not cause tsunamis is credible and that the Kremlin is lying for having his claim be denounced and that he has more credibility than the Kremlin, but he has destroyed his own credibility suggesting that Poseidon's carry and drop off munitions while their purpose from Russia's military defense industries say detonations instead. You might as well use Michael Moore as a reference.
He didn't say Poseidon's carry and drop off munitions, he said Poseidon's purpose is to deliver a nuclear munition with the aim of destroying important coastal elements of the enemy's economy and inflicting guaranteed unacceptable damage by creating extensive zones of radioactive contamination. That is the same way of saying Poseidon has a nuclear warhead and it damages enemy economy by polluting the water from nuclear fallout.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been dragged in a completely irrelevant direction again. What is the point?
 
This thread has been dragged in a completely irrelevant direction again. What is the point?
The point is the more time panzerfeist1 spend in here, the fewer threads you have to hear about plasma stealth, missiles which immune to drag and tsunami torpedo. Consider it a favor.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been dragged in a completely irrelevant direction again. What is the point?

Sorry this was my fault I should have realized that a certain user here is a prime example of what you call an egoist. Great examples of this are shown in his latest posts here.
1st. Pulling an example of "no no" my altitude temperature chart is the better one although both look identical, hell even I have one more chart that is closer to the one I presented. But pretty much the estimates of the Zircon missile's peak altitude are at or very close where conditions are favorable for plasma creation. Egoists go through further lengths to argue even over the smallest stupid shit possible like this.

2nd he goes on listing on highlighting reflections of plasma but does not highlight anything that is favorable for me where the contexts include plasma generation of kempster effect certain low frequencies but not high frequencies. Highlights parts of Korotkevich phrases but not the phrases where communication can still occur with their new idea.

3rd give an example that he did not bother looking at his video as I am claimed to not look at my sources, than decides to sperg-out with another topic maybe hoping that the thread gets derailed(which it did). Egoists are known to have a very high self defense mechanism and that is beautifully displayed by him for everyone to see.

4th favors a physicist that that might favor close proximity of shallow waters but not the one that looks for a well placed detonation which can include favorable conditions like deeper waters to cause an impact as great as japans tsunami, but than a similiar trend is found like the my graph is better than your graph as my physicist is better than your physicist while one of those physicists look for favorable conditions. I dont understand what he is trying to compensate for?

I should have taken Gargeans advice alot more earlier with the brickwall statement. But if you look at my responses with bring_it_on in a air defense(I believe it was s-400) topic you will see how I handled it. So there is no point for me continuing this conversation with him and this will be my last post for this thread.

@Ronny

Have this gift from me.

pg 2 and 3 give examples of UHF and S-band radars of the same object that enters into a plasma condition, so very low radar cross sections in fact lower than the 1m2 are shown throughtout both graphs. and a quote from page 8

"The electron density due to photo-ionization could well have been large enough to interact with the waves at UHF frequencies, but not dense enough to have caused an effect at S-band."

UHF frequencies 300mhz-3ghz is more than one frequency(the I bounce different frequencies in just a firecontrol range, for example wont work) in that range where electron density has interacted with, but if the density was enough for 30 ghz than that would effect the radar cross section at those frequencies below it as it did with UHF frequencies like S-band.

.
 
Sorry this was my fault I should have realized that a certain user here is a prime example of what you call an egoist. Great examples of this are shown in his latest posts here.
1st. Pulling an example of "no no" my altitude temperature chart is the better one although both look identical, hell even I have one more chart that is closer to the one I presented. But pretty much the estimates of the Zircon missile's peak altitude are at or very close where conditions are favorable for plasma creation. Egoists go through further lengths to argue even over the smallest stupid shit possible like this.

2nd he goes on listing on highlighting reflections of plasma but does not highlight anything that is favorable for me where the contexts include plasma generation of kempster effect certain low frequencies but not high frequencies. Highlights parts of Korotkevich phrases but not the phrases where communication can still occur with their new idea.

3rd give an example that he did not bother looking at his video as I am claimed to not look at my sources, than decides to sperg-out with another topic maybe hoping that the thread gets derailed(which it did). Egoists are known to have a very high self defense mechanism and that is beautifully displayed by him for everyone to see.

4th favors a physicist that that might favor close proximity of shallow waters but not the one that looks for a well placed detonation which can include favorable conditions like deeper waters to cause an impact as great as japans tsunami, but than a similiar trend is found like the my graph is better than your graph as my physicist is better than your physicist while one of those physicists look for favorable conditions. I dont understand what he is trying to compensate for?

I should have taken Gargeans advice alot more earlier with the brickwall statement. But if you look at my responses with bring_it_on in a air defense(I believe it was s-400) topic you will see how I handled it. So there is no point for me continuing this conversation with him and this will be my last post for this thread.

1st. I didn't just argue about the smallest possible shit, you bring up the chart but because the resolution is low, you get the wrong number, I only point that out. You thought the temperature at 40 km is 32 Fahrenheit while it is -22 Fahrenheit, you got 4611 Kelvin while it should be 4306 Kelvin. In any other case, this could be a small detail, but in this situation, it isn't a small detail because of the relation with plasma frequency. If you think it was a small detail, you wouldn't bring up the chart in the first place. If you don't want anyone to correct your mistake then you can write in your diary, but if you write in a forum, prepare to be corrected when you are wrong.

2nd. you should read your citation how they are able to maintain the communication. Hint: the case for plasma stealth is weaker.

3rd. I didn't bring up the tsunami torpedo thing, you did in an attempt to discredit me. Don't complain when I explain

4th. That comment could make sense if there are only two physicists argue about the Tsunami generation ability of Poseidon torpedo, with one physicist support you and one physicist support me. But I have more than the words of a physicist on my side. The study by Defense nuclear agency supports my case and the hoax creator Viktor Baranetz confirmed the misunderstanding about what he said.

For once, quit playing the victim card, you think kaiserd's comment of "one particular contributors content appears to be of highly dubious quality and veracity" isn't related to you?




@Ronny

Have this gift from me.

pg 2 and 3 give examples of UHF and S-band radars of the same object that enters into a plasma condition, so very low radar cross sections in fact lower than the 1m2 are shown throughtout both graphs. and a quote from page 8

"The electron density due to photo-ionization could well have been large enough to interact with the waves at UHF frequencies, but not dense enough to have caused an effect at S-band."

UHF frequencies 300mhz-3ghz is more than one frequency(the I bounce different frequencies in just a firecontrol range, for example wont work) in that range where electron density has interacted with, but if the density was enough for 30 ghz than that would effect the radar cross section at those frequencies below it as it did with UHF frequencies like S-band.
Good gift but the trailblazer already have very low RCS without the plasma effect, and the plasma sheath not only reduce the rcs but also enhance it at some altitude
11.PNG
Capture.PNG


About the mechanism:

2233.PNG
1.PNG
2.PNG
Capture.PNG
1 (1).PNG

So looking their summary plasma sheath can also reduce radar cross section of missile by three ways:
_ Divergent lens: the plasma can divert radio wave around the object and the radar see slightly smaller size, but that only have effect when wavelength is bigger than the dimension of the body ie: very low frequency.
_ Deformation: because the density is not uniform: some part of it can have high electron density while some part has low density. The sheath can reflect the wave at the front of the body and transparent to the wave at the back end of the body. To radio wave, this affects the shape that the radar will see. That new shape could have lower rcs compare to the initial shape of the missile. This isn't absorption. And you can see in the last page, this will not affect the tracking radar as long as it can track by the skin of the missile instead of relying on the beacon (transponder). Clearly not useful for stealth application.
_ Absorption: this is the potential for stealth application absorption mechanism of plasma is the darker area in the last chart, in fact support what I have said all along, the absorption bandwidth of plasma sheath is very narrow when speed increase, the resonance frequency and electron density will increase and the sheath becomes reflective to the radio frequency lower than it. In the chart, between 8000 feet/second and 10000 feet per second, the plasma sheath can absorb C-band frequency (5 GHz), but above it from 1000-5000 feet per second, the reflection at plasma surface is strong. You don't have the carryover absorption effect of " speed higher than x then it reduces radar cross section of all frequency lower than z". If the plasma sheath can absorb all radio wave with frequency lower than the plasma frequency, you will see a whole bar of dark area at the bottom of the chart.
And the deformation of plasma sheath can also increase radar cross-section by a high magnitude
3.PNG
2.PNG
 

Attachments

  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    109.1 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom