Hypersonic missiles are quickly becoming a key part of Russian military doctrine, but how can Russia’s newest sci-fi system be expected to impact relations with NATO and collective European Security?

Russia’s 3M22 Zircon missile system has the potential to transform maritime warfare. However, the system will have its most significant effect on Russia-NATO relations in the form of uncertainty: limited information and the unsettling of the status quo function as effective lubricants for political and military escalation at NATO’s ever-changing borders.

This article was submitted to the UK Defence Journal by Tom King. Tom is a graduate student studying Russian politics and security studies at UCL. Please note that the opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect that of the UK Defence Journal.

Unlike its competitors, a significant proportion of Russian hypersonic missile technology (HMT) efforts have revolved around nuclear-capable hypersonic missile systems — a position justified by President Putin as necessary in light of Washington backing out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002.

To avoid generalisations, this article focuses on the Zircon specifically, instead of the air-launched Kinzhal or boost-glider Avangard systems, as well as on conventional use rather than the issue of HMT’s effect on the nuclear stalemate.

Expected operational impact

Revitalisation of Russia’s ailing Navy is arguably the primary role of the Zircon. Russian naval capabilities have long paled in comparison to the American colossus, their sole aircraft carrier, the diesel-powered Admiral Kuznetsov seemingly destined for the dry dock. A Russian fleet-in-being is incapable of competing with the NATO and U.S. equivalents.

Hypersonic speed combined with impressive, low-flying manoeuvrability allows the Zircon to deliver its potentially carrier–disabling payload without fear of interception or counterattack. Equipping the serviceably large fleet of Russian screening ships (like the Buyan-class corvettes) with the Zircon provides the ability to disable much larger, stronger vessels, unsettling dominant naval doctrine on a scale some compare to the carrier revolution of the 1940s.

Despite Western fears, the Zircon does not necessarily spell the end of NATO’s firm presence near Russian waters.

Due to incomplete development e.g. no submarine variant, existing supersonic stockpiles, and an estimated cost of 1 to 2 million USD per missile, it is highly likely that the Zircon will only enter service in 2022 on a political and psychological level. The bulk of missile-capable ships will instead likely carry the Onyx and subsonic Kalibr missiles for the foreseeable future; Onyx producer NPO Mashinostroyeniya supplied 55 missiles to the Russian navy in 2019, more than the company has manufactured in any other year.

Despite the long timeline and limitations surrounding widespread implementation of the Zircon, Russia continues to celebrate the majesty of the project as NATO members’ nervousness grows — but why is this? The answer lies within the Zircon’s role in Russian identity building, and subsequently the role of perceptions and uncertainty towards hypersonic missile systems.

A test launch of Zircon.

Politics, perceptions, and uncertainty

The Zircon, whilst not underplaying its impact on the battlefield, affects European security to a certain extent by fostering uncertainty largely through identity building. Implementation of the hypersonic missile system helps unite the domestic Russian base; the Putin regime’s 20 year long framing of Russian identity in terms of security and militarisation allows hypersonic missile systems to have a notable ‘rally around the flag’ effect evocative of the Cold War. This psychological impact and political boon of the Zircon system for Russia lowers the chances of much-needed HMT agreements, be they bilateral or multilateral. Not only is it in the interest of Moscow to maintain its technological advantage, but the militarised, separate civilizational identity means collective European security is not Russia’s priority.

Tensions between NATO and US forces and Russia are not a hypersonic missile-induced phenomenon, with constant altercations and interruptions of drills by both parties. However, as identified by former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges as well as a litany of International Relations scholars, the power vacuums and misunderstandings in the region are what leads to an escalation of these tensions and potential conflict. The secretive, militarily revolutionising, unregulated nature of the Zircon, and a lack of clarity around its use case, threatens to breed misunderstanding and thus escalate tensions. This is where the immediate threat of the Zircon missile system lies for NATO.

The threat of uncertainty presented by the Zircon and Russia’s other hypersonic systems is reminiscent of the infamous Cold War ‘missile gap’ of the 1960s, wherein the United States vastly overestimated Soviet missile stockpiles due to fear and misinformation. Perceptions of Soviet missile capabilities influenced US politics and foreign policy, spiking tensions between the ideological adversaries.

Western answers to the Zircon (both in missiles and updated interception systems) are expected to develop at a speed akin to the systems themselves. However, the dangerous political and operational uncertainty the Zircon brings means attempts to reduce information asymmetry, and open regulatory discussions, is more important now in the system’s formative years, than ever.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

102 COMMENTS

  1. This where I think drone ships have potential- it would be excessive to use a $2 million missile against an unmanned unit. Maybe we could screen carrier groups with a drone swarm of patrol boats and corvette or frigate sized motherships.

  2. When you cannot get the propulsion system on the Russian carrier correct I start to doubt the points made in the article.
    The best reports have Zircon hitting stationary targets only on land or a barge at sea.
    The kill chain is everything. Break the kill chain and it doesn’t matter what you have.. You won’t hit anything.

    Hypersonic and near Hypersonic are nothing new. The western navies have been facing them since the early 1960s. Until some more Info becomes available on Zircon its going to be considered as a limited threat to shipping

    • What hypersonic threats did Western Navies face in the 60’s. I can only think of a ICBM type ballastic nuclear missile. To which there was no defence.

      • Ok explain the physics of 500 mph at sea leve. Maybe explain the physics of a fragments with a kilogram force meter of 6,500, from a Zircon destroyed at >1000 m hitting a thin skinned frigate? Maybe explain why engaging at 1000 m is better than engaging at 2, 3 or 4 times that could be achieved by a non Phalanx system.
        If the Phalanx is so good answer this. Why has the system NOT been selected for the new US frigate? It has not been selected for the Canadian type 26. The Russian Gorshkov frigate has no gun based CIWS. The new Italian destroyer will not have a Phalanx type system.

    • I was inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume they were jokingly referring to the smoke plumes as being diesel generated.

  3. The Russian line of thinking is logical – we cannot build ships that compete with Western navies, so pour all our money into missiles that can destroy them. Same with the S400 and S500 SAMs. I wouldn’t underestimate weapons like Zircon. The fact they even exist is cause for concern……..Meanwhile the west is slow to actually respond to the potential threat at hand.

    • Exactly, just because their other technologies are underfunded, doesn’t mean they all are. It is a clever asymmetric investment. A $0.5bn frigate and crew versus a lifeless, $2m missile. It swings the cost calculation somewhat when the probability of your 2mil getting through is high. Heavens, throw two of them at it.

    • You are correct Paul, we cannot compete with NATO navies so no point trying, at same time NATO surface fleet have only limited use against Russian territory, but one point this article and comments miss is zircon was developed for navy due to INF limitations, with that gone a larger, longer range land based zirconM and air launched version is where main interest has moved to

  4. A coup;e of questions. If the cost to Russia is about £1 million why would they not order them in hundreds if the missile is as capable as they say?
    Realistically how many Zircons could you mount on a ship,particularly a Corvette.? They are nearly 35 feet long and the exhaust burn and debris must be huge

    • Issue is, I suspect, probably access to exotic materials in sufficient volumes v the competing demands elsewhere in Russia.

      I suspect hitting a moving target at sea would be problematic but using them to swamp moored ships at Devonport or hardened shelters at lossiemouth would be worrying.

      P

  5. FYI some glaring mistakes in this article
    1. hypersonic missiles need to fly high to attain such speeds, too much friction at lower altitudes.
    2. More speed = less maneuvrability. There is a trade-off. That is why sea skimming missiles are subsonic
    FYI Zircon flies at mach 8 or 9 at 28km altitude, and this is according to Russian defense ministry.

  6. Interesting article, thank you.

    Would a hypersonic AshM need to carry a warhead? I’d imagine that the kinetic force alone would be so enormous that a warhead would be totally superfluous

    • Yes it actual true sort of maybe. if you do the calculations around dynamic kinetic energy these hypersonic missiles seem to actual deliver the same order of energy in joules as an intercity being driven into something at full speed. Trouble is it’s unlikely to actually convert all the dynamic kinetic energy into impact force ( unless it’s hitting something large solid and very hard like) and the calculations are very complex with lots of variables. This is because the missile will effectively move through the ship impacting over time, doing work as the ship deforms as well the missile itself deforming ( it’s the same as how we manage down force in impacts, You loss the Kinect energy through work, which you hope creates damage to unimportant things ). If Missile mass then also exits the ship it will still have a lot of dynamic kinetic energy it did not deliver as impact force. It sort of becomes a wee bit like the relationship a human body has with a bullet, but without the complexity of cavitation. In that can be a bit random like, if you you don’t do catastrophic damage (just losing to much tissue) your working on the permanent cavity Interacting with something that’s needed( heart, inferior vena cava, brain etc ) . So I imagine adding the warhead gets around that uncertainty with a store of potential energy it converts to chemical energy at the right time in the right place (with bullets they use nasty things like hollow points or tumbling to ensure more energy is dump as it creates as wide a permanent cavity as possible).

    • The energy is great, but not enough to really make a blast on a ship hull.
      You can even risk an overpen with a just a hole above the float line.
      So you need a warhead to explode in the hull and maximize the damage.

  7. I posted this on an earlier article. There was some discussion but I was believe the post is still valid.
    It seems to me that Phalanx type systems are being made effectively useless by hypersonic missiles like the Brahmos II and Zircon anti-ship missiles.
    Some simple calculations.
    A Zircon is reported to travel at least 2,700 meters per second.
    Phalanx fires 75 rounds per second, at 1,100 meters / sec, with a max effective firing range of 1500 meters.
    A Phalanx firing at 75 rounds for a second results in one round every 14.6 meters. For an incoming vampire travelling in an absolutely direct straight line at the Phalanx barrel that’s fine. So long as the rounds are in flight when the incoming enters the max range the missile will be destroyed. 
    But here’s the problem if the incoming missile trajectory is even a few degrees offset from the direct line of fire then the chances of actually hitting it become much reduced. I think the maths works out at the chance of a hit is 1 in 36. This is only for the horizontal angle offset, with no ballistic factor, my head hurts too much to try and work out the effect of a vertical offset may also have.
    This is for the rounds being fired across the trajectory of the incoming. If the rounds are fired to try and track and hit the moving target rather than across it, the odds of a hit needs a computer to estimate, but they are massively higher than 1 in 36.
    These calculations may not be spot on but the principle is. Once there is any divergence in intersection angle,the odds of a Phalanx round hitting an incoming hypersonic missile becomes unacceptably low.
     
    It seems to me the better approach is let the missile hit the round rather than the round hit the missile.
    A 40 mm Bofors firing 5 rounds/sec , with each round containing with 100 projectiles, each weighing 8g, programmed to explode at between 1500 m and 2000m, would result in a cloud of 500 projectiles each second over a 500m distance for the missile to fly into. Each 8g fragment would have an impact force of 6500 kilogram/meter providing enough energy to rip the missile apart.
    A 57 mm Bofors firing 4 rounds /sec could place a cloud of 1000 fragments in front of an incoming missile each second.
     
    The effect of angle offset becomes more acute the larger the vessel. The QE carriers I believe have zero practical chance of knocking down even the relatively slow Brahmos which is   already in service. The soon to be replaced Brahmos, at Mach 3.5, enters the Phalanx max effective range 1.25 seconds from impact. If the incoming is not knocked down immediately Phalanx is then chasing. Now assume the self correction is instantaneous the corrected round and the incoming can only meet at 575 meters or 0.48 sec from impact. Even if the 1st corrected round hits the target the vessel is at best hit by the an almost undissipated  pressure wave followed by an expending cone of shrapnel still travelling twice the speed of a bullet. But in the real world the correction is not instant. Allow 0.25 seconds to register a miss, to calculate in 4 dimensions the predicted interception point, then make the physical adjustments. This then provides a real world time of 0.23 seconds before the correct round might hit the missile. That’s puts the vampire exploding 265 meters from the ship. That makes one hell of a mess.

    Decoys, soft kill, EW, and especially vessel manoeuvring will probably become completely obsolete with the introduction of AI to the missiles. I stand by my point that the simple maths indicate that placing a wall of lead for the missile to fly into than trying to hit a hypesonic target is the best method.
    One last point. On 17 November 7 short range rockets were fired at the Green Zone in Baghdad. A Centurion ( Block 1 Phalanx ) engaged. It reports indicate that not one of the rockets was hit. “Some landed in the Green Zone, some outside killing a young girl.” The video clips seem to support this as the rounds are seen self detonating, to avoid collateral damage, but there is no sign of an intercept. This is  real world proof that Phalanx is defence is not certain, even against slow crude missiles

    • In support of my post above I also presented this quote from the article “Why Russia’s Hypersonic Missiles Can’t Be Seen on Radar.”from military.com.
      “Hypersonic weapons such as Russia’s 3M22 Zircon fly so fast and low — at speeds of up to Mach 6 and at a low atmospheric-ballistic trajectory — that they can penetrate traditional anti-missile defense systems.
      The missile flies with an advanced fuel that the Russians say gives it a range of up to 1,000 kilometers. And it’s so fast that the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems.
      U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the Russian Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up.”
      I still say Phalanx CIWS are on the verge of obsolesce.

      • Physics works both ways. If it has a plasma, radio absorbing shield then how does it home? Radar homing won’t work… The radar cannot get through the plasma. Anti radar homing won’t work the radar from the ship cannot penetrate the plasma so the missile cannot detect it.
        IR homing… At Mach 8? The friction would white out the sensor.
        Then let’s get onto say a radome or sensor window material that can be opaque to radar or IR and still not disintegrate when hit by particles in the atmosphere or even rain drops.

        Funnily enough nobody has come back with a valid solution to it hence HS weapons are only known to have it fixed points or stationary targets.

        • This has been my question for a long time. One that up to now no commentator has in my view successfully addressed. These questions have always been thrown by me at the new supposed Chinese anti ship ballistic missile, so called carrier buster. I concluded to myself that these missiles could only be guided from behind, maybe by receiving satellite signals up their chuffs? Alternatively, it’s all just hype. The same would apply to a HS cruise missile. I can see how Brahmos can guide itself, just about, but anything significantly faster is going to start having problems. Surely?

      • Missiles don’t catch up. They use proportional navigation to fly to a future intercept point and then home in.
        Chase homing went out of RN use with Sea Slug. Sea dart being semi active used proportional navigation constants and look angles to fly to the future interception point Ceptor and Viper use future intercept points and active homing. With Pif Paf manoeuvring on Viper the thing can pull insane right angle turns at huge G to get close to the target

          • Before anymore comments like that maybe you should as why the US Navy is no longer maybe you should ask why the US Navy is no longer installing Phalanx. The new class of frigate as no Phalanx.
            Additionally original comment was based on simple maths not the intrenet. Gunbuster suggested that a Zircon type missile could be defeated by a manouvering ship.

          • Oh dear are you shouting at me and being angry? Calm your pants, as I, and obviously Gunbuster seem to prefer direct subject matter experience to base our various knowledge on. And I will continue comment as I see fit, but thanks for your concern.

          • And John I’m sure Gunbuster is awaiting your response, amongst many things, to include the plasma cloud issue. I also am intrigued, thanks.

          • Companies that develop these weapon systems use massive super computers, and hundreds of highly intelligent people with lots of letters at the end of there name. We get John who’s got his calculator out to try and prove the Russians are awesome ?

        • Hi Gunbuster. Question with hypersonics, if indeed they can be made to hit a moving target, would be 1) can something like Aster acquire a Zircon by diving down on it from its launch apogee? Does the seeker have sufficient of a look angle to acquire a HS missile early enough while maintaining a proportional navigation intercept path? 2) Will the fuse be capable of reacting in time so that the warhead successfully destroys the clever bits and not just the tail cone of Zircon as it flies past at Mach 5/7? Might SM-6 or Aster B1-NT have a better chance?

      • That is exactly what battleship Admirals said about aircraft prior to WW2. Now I doubt the Russian propaganda about this but we do need to develop countermeasures. A laser anti ship missile capability, by nature travelling at the speed of light, would seem the logical option.

        • I don’t think that’s a logical comparison. The Russians can’t even get one aircraft carrier to work, let alone develop unstoppable laser death ray missiles.

        • Current lasers don’t have the range. Future systems may be good to say 10km but there are huge issues with getting a kill. Currently and for the mid term… Kinetic kill remains king closely followed by Soft kill.

        • There was a lot of thinking about the impact of air power in navel conflict in the inter war period. The question of navel air power had been clarified well before WW2. But there were lots of complex issues and as with any discussion around balance of risk in complex systems there is no tue right or wrong answer ( Those who thought they had a definitive answer generally did not and those who went with a mixed approach and balanced views, such as Moffett in the US lead navy’s to a positive outcome in the end).

          and remember this was expressed by:

          The first thing the RN did in the opening of WW2 was take out as many major enemy surface combatants as it could with air and surface power ( air at Taranto and the mixed use of air and surface power at Mers-el-kebir )

          With the role of major surface company’s shown by Germany as it played Merry Hell using a very limited number of major surface combatants because:

          Navel and land air Power had and still has limits and all assets have different limits, strengths and weakness (air, surface and sub surface, nuclear and conventional). Just as an example of limits it’s always worth considering the problems faced by the defenders and attackers of the Russian artic convoys in winter (weather, ice, sea state, range and finding the enemy are still all factors today).

          in regards to navel air power the international consensus of it usefulness and influence can be seen to have solidified by the 1920s, you can see this in the Michell Demonstrations and the Work of Moffett in the US. The RN was in reality even more advanced in its thinking and had developed navel aviation as a decisive arm of sea power by 1918.

          If you look up the academic records of imperial college London’s defence studies there is a really good focused Doctoral thesis’s on the evolution in navel aviation in the U.K (1914-18):

          In truth this has always been an evolving debate, and the surface combat vs navel air power discussion has never gone away.

          another good read that tracks discussions into the Cold War period is the House of Lords debate on navel air power on the 28th of may 1971. This was all about the range of major surface company’s weapon. System (and how Soviet systems out ranged wester systems) and how this interacted with RN navel air power.

          basically the whole debate about surface and sub surface combatants armed with long range hyper sonic missiles is jut a continuation of this major surface combatants vs air power vs submarine discussion. Like most things in life I suspect that the answer is very complex and grey with balances of risk on all sides. As with all risks worth discussion time, you generally never have a definitive answer until the risk has been realised and your counting up the dead.

          • Thanks Jonathon, that was an interesting read. You are correct about the balance of air / surface / sub-surface being complicated. Looking at WW2 the superiority of naval air power over big gun battleships seems to have been clearly established. Battles such as the Philippine Sea, Midway and the sinking of the Bismarck show this. However I feel the wrong lesson was learnt about submarines. Just because the Allies won the battle of the Atlantic, with massive material and technological superiority, doesn’t mean that the strategy of submarine blockade doesn’t work. In fact the US Navy’s submarine campaign against Japan was hugely decisive in the outcome of the war in the Pacific.

            What does that tell us about the ‘Zircon threat?’ Well tech advances in missiles / air, subsurface weapons and surface weapons are all important. The emergence of a missile gap could be decisive (think about what happened to the new Prince of Wales in the South China sea in 1942. We don’t need to get in a flap over Zircon but we must take the threat seriously and develop serious counter measures.

      • The Phalanx is near useless against hypersonic threat.
        Just talking about the range you have something like 1-1.5s of time in the effective range…
        You need a bigger range with a bigger splash with a very very very good early detection to preshot and make a wall of airburst between the ship and the threat.

        • The Oerlikon KBD upgrade would have swapped the 20×102 round for the 25x 184, giving the Phalanx greater range & hitting power. Still marginal, but better than the current 20mm.

    • A Zircon would Not be travelling in a near horizontal direction, It will be in a near vertical direction from a hight of 28km, to minimise the amount of atmosphere it has to travel in.

    • As I mentioned before the gun will fire at a predicted intercept point along the path a threat will take and not directly at it, unless its heading directly for the gun. Therefore, the missile will fly into the tungsten rounds. The gun will chase the intercept point and not the target, as it uses solid sabot rounds and not shells with proximity fuses. If it was the other way round then logically some of the rounds would be wasted as they’d fall behind the target as it passes.

  8. I wonder how these hypersonic missiles work. If I understand correctly at this type of speed you need a supercooler otherwise the engine melts. Then comes the fins for mid flight target correction, I would think that they would need some form of special material on the leading edges again due to friction they would be disformed or melt. So is it possible that Russia has such missiles, yes are they effective I don’t know. The only way that I see that they could work is if hypersonic speed was for a limited time, almost like a superboost. If Russia has gone down the RAMJET/SCRAMJET idea which Zircon seems to be, they get into the same issue of low level/sea skimmer flight, friction, heat and midflight correction. So for a radar controled missile the radar signal speed is about 186 miles per second, but if the missile is pulling away at Mach 5 then the control signal will not get to the missile. so the radar would need to aim ahead. It all becomes a bit of hit and miss, the missile has aready gone 1 mile before the guidance radar has giving an update. Then comes the next issue try turning doing Mach 5, the turn radius must be huge. Zircon apears to have a Mach 9 ability, why do I think it is more of a tactical ballistic missile for air explosion rather than a anti ship missile with direct hit ability. The Mach 9 Zircon is pulling away from the radar control signal at 1.9 miles per second. Where is the control.
    We can all chuck a missile up in the air at high speed and blow it over an area. Hitting a moving ship is a hole diffrent ball game.

    Also looking at the range of Zircon SAMPSON should be able to pick this missile up 2.5 minutes out, in that 2.5 minutes the ship has move 1.5 sea miles. Even at the sea launch range of 200miles SAMPSON would pick Zircon up 1.8 minutes out. I don’t know the reaction time of ASTER, possibly Gunbuster does but again if I understand correctly SeaViper can handle 17 ASTERs as a single salvo. It will be a bit dicy but I think the T45s can handle Zircon. Concern yes panic no.

    Then come the next issue, again I might be wrong but a SCRAMJET needs a launch platform or a RAMJET firing stage, it needs a speed of about Mach 4 before the SCRAMJET kicks in, So if its air launched good job we have the QEs and the F35Bs to take out the bombers and as for surface ships I really would like to see Perseus come to fulfilment.

    • Great commentary! The only thing I would say with respect to the T45s, is the limited Aster missile loadout. Just 48 max; if we’re throwing 17 in the air at one time to intercept just one Zircon…. well, let’s hope the Russians don’t fire too many! Three in the air at once and we’ve expended everything.

      • You dont need to fire 17 Aster 30 to hit something. Aster has one of the most sophisticated seekers equipped on any missile
        Latest Aster 30 Block 1NT can be used against missiles having 1500km range, and Aster 30 Block 2bmd currently in development is designed to counter ballistic missiles having range of 3000km

        • LT, you miss understood me, I did not say or mean that you need to launch 17 ASTERS to hit something, what I meant was that SAMPSON can control 17 engagements in a single salvo. Thats 17 missiles in the air at one time engaging 17 targets. An Arliegh Burke can only engage three targets at one time.

          • Bear in mind the number of missiles in the air is not limited by the radar because Aster uses active radar homing in its final stage, independent of the ship it was launched from.

      • I believe 48 is deemed adequate by the RN, as the US ships have loads between 72-96 sparrows, but need to fire 2 or even 3 missiles per target to ensure a hit. That to me makes the maths about right. Gunbuster, please do elaborate mate and correct me if im talking bollocks, cheers.

      • The T45 weapons fit is another issue, from my understanding these Zircon missiles cost a few million each so hopefully they don’t have to many. Its also one of the reasons that I argue that we should have a Batch 2 T45, remove the hanger and replace with a second ASTER farm. It would be better if we could stretch the T45 with hanger and second farm much like the Ariegh Burke batch 2 but I am thinking of cost. There is a third possibility, install Mk57s and MK41s/SYLVER A-70s, if we go with the Mk57/41 that would be another 32 launchers, that would do the trick. The Mk41/A-70 to be installed where designed for and the Mk57s could relace the boat bays port/starb of hanger. As BAE built the T45, also the Mk41 and 57 as well as the SAMPSON radar system it should not be an issue to get these to work together. Yes I know plumbing, electrics etc, but either we have a ship of war or a passanger liner. Whats the point of the white ensign if it is not ready for war. With the US Mk57s and 41s intergration of US Standard missiles is an extra cost, (possibly the US might help pay for the intergration) but SAMPSON should be able to cope with them, with the A-70 ASTER NT and the future BMD should be straight forward. Its just a pity, the T45 has a world leading radar but a very limited missile fit. I am still trying to understand how or why an Arliegh Burke that is three meters longer has 96 missiles and we have only 48? Hopefully the future replacement will have an updated SAMPSON,( I know that BAE was looking at a four and five plane rotating head) with a AB weapons fit, 96 launchers, then we do have a carrier escort. There also appears to be space for a towed array on the T45, the French and Italian Fremm have towed array on their equivlants why cant we.

        • Navylookout said one of the proposed Sampson upgrades would add a panel looking straight up, to tackle ICBM/diving hypersonics.

          • Yeep, I looked at the old spec, it was four panel and the fifth was to look straight up. Somewhere cuts were made for the two panel that we have now. I am with this very confussed as a radar or any comms dish is not to expensive. I know that is my job build comms. So I am wondering if the panel is the active part (the panel does the thinking) or is it passive where it will pass the signal to a recieving station. If the panel is active possibly it is better if the ABM panel is on the roof of the bridge. The reason for my thinking is top weight and geometrics.

          • Sampson has 2 X AESA panels that beam form and steer the radar beams. There are multiple beams in use during every instant. So say the panel at an instantt in time during its rotation is facing straight ahead on ships head. The beams in that instant can be scanned more than 50 degs either side of ships head and up and down from surface to almost vertically straight up.all at the same time whilst also being optimised for air or surface search.
            Aegis cannot do this with anything except for Spy 6 radars which are only now just being fitted to new build ABs and may be retrofitted to older ABs

        • ABs have more missiles because they need to shoot at least 2 at every target. Most are semi active homes not active homes.
          A Standard 6 which has active homing and a secondary anti ship role costs… 4. 5 million dollars a shot.

      • Unlike Standard 2 which is the main USN missile, is semi active homing and fires in Salvos of 2 Viper is active homing fired singly and the kill percentage is such that its around the same percentage kill chance as a Standard 2 salvo shot.
        So where a USN Tico or AB has say 70 standards in silos ( assuming others have asroc or tomahawk or standard 6 if they are lucky loaded) that’s 35 engagements. Viper is probably good for 40+ hits with its 48 silos.

    • From what has been published about Zircon. It is a guided hypersonic land attack or anti-ship missile, that can achieve Mach 8 at 28km and has a range of about 1000km. It uses a narrow lifting body design and is between 8 and 10m long. It is powered by a combination of a rocket booster, followed by a scramjet to punch it to hypersonic speeds.

      Fact from fiction. The missile needs to be huge, as these speeds demand a lot of fuel. The scramjet is the only internal combustion engine that can reliably attain very high Mach numbers, a ramjet runs into compression problems around Mach 5.7. At very high Mach numbers (+7) the cooling of the scramjet becomes a problem and must use active forced cooling. Aerodynamically speaking the use of a wedge lifting body is correct for high Mach numbers, as the wedge generates a positive lift shockwave that not only develops lift but can also help provide some thrust. To attain these speeds the missile MUST fly through a less dense atmosphere. It may be possible to attain hypersonic speeds at sea skimming height. However, the denser air will significantly heat up the airframe, and it will literally burn through fuel trying to maintain the speed. Therefore, the range will decrease massively, but also the time spent at these speeds at low level, could be measured in minutes before the airframe suffers catastrophic heat fatigue.

      The way this weapon is probably used is in a flattened ballistic profile. Whereby the missile is launched from a ship and punched to a high altitude by the rocket booster. The booster will need to be pretty powerful with quite a long sustained burn. A scramjet isn’t really operating happily until it gets above Mach 5. You can in theory operate a scramjet as soon as it goes supersonic. But because the airflow must be and then be maintained at supersonic speeds through the combustion chamber, any variance will cause it to choke, stutter and potentially explode.

      The missile’s cruise altitude/apogee of 28km is quite telling. This part of the atmosphere is the Stratosphere. It is free from weather turbulence and its temperature can vary between 0 to +5C on average. However, the air density, i.e. the air pressure is significantly lower than at sea level as in 1/500 to 1/1000 depending on altitude. Therefore, the amount of molecules that make up air is much less. So the missile has less to interact with, meaning the airframe won’t heat up as much or as quickly. As the airframe is travelling at hypersonic speeds, the leading edges in particular will still be heated up. There is a physical phenomenon, whereby drag is the major issue at these speeds, so wing profile and airframe frontal aspects need to be minimised. However, conversely by minimising the leading edge radius, there is a proportional increase in convective heat transfer as the leading edge gets sharper. So the missile will require either ablative coatings and/or behind-the-skin active cooling. Its possible that they have used under skin cooling, as they’re probably already using the fuel to cool the engine. Sacrificial ablative coatings are most likely used though, as it is a very simple/cheap product that can be painted onto an object.

      The missile uses an active radar to search for and home in on its target. So the ablative coating will need to be transparent. As these speeds generate a massive temperature flux between the nose and the body. This high energy variation will cause a plasma sheath to be generated. How do they control this, are they tuning the plasma, so the radar can see through it? This has been done in the lab, but how is that being transferred to fit a missile? The simple answer may be that the missile flies the majority of the flight at these high speeds at height, then when it gets “near” to the target’s expected location, slows down, dissipating the plasma sheath, allowing the radar a clear view. As the speed drops off, it will allow the missile the ability to manoeuvre without generating excessive G. However, due its long thin shape, this will still be quite limited and quite tame, think long wide turns and corkscrews. The Aster 15 dart section is just over 3m long and is only 180mm in diameter, travels near Mach 4.5 and with the pif-paf reaction jets can do 60G manoeuvres.

      Therefore, before we get too excited over Zircon’s capabilities or perceived invulnerability, let’s consider what is feasible and practical.

      • Slowing down the missile for the guided terminal phase would make sense and answer my questions. But then, as you say, Aster should be able to deal with it relatively comfortably.

      • Nce post. Hypersonics is definately a work in progress. Things like the corona effect are real .If you need to slow up to see me, I can see you (usually well before).You also don’t need to catch a missile that is heading toward you..ie you don’t need a hypersonic missile to take out a hypersonic missile.It’s hard for a hypersonic to dodge something it can’t see.

        It is also worth remembering that the more you tune for hypersonics, the more likely a subsonic will sneek past you. Baby, bathwater & all that.

  9. Like always Merkel won’t do anything. She will just sit back and let other nations do the heavy lifting for Germany’s defense.

  12. Does it work? But even if is not reliable 1 in 10 is already a big headache for any defense.
    I am afraid we are entering a technological period where attacking will have significant advantages over defending with obvious strategic implications.

    • Attacking is always advantages at every level of conflict. Defending is always a poor man’s prep and a wise man’s guess.

    • We got through the Cold War by pouring vast sums into Defence across the board to a point where Russia simply couldn’t compete and was on the edge of Bankruptcy. But then the Cold War ended, and our investment/spending was dramatically cut, and we are still reluctant to spend the sums we need to in a world where both Russia and China are behaving in a far more aggressive manner and investing far more than we are.

      • Paul42, Not quite true, during the period when I served the UK spent approx 4% GDP on defence. WE had 1BR Corp, a 4 Armoured Div front line force, we had a RN that could carry out NATO tasking and send a task force South to the Falklands, even by the end of the 1980s we had 48 surface combat ships. We had a RAF that had enough squadrons to multi task. The ICBM deterant was a treasury issue and pensions etc was a government issue. Now we spend 2.2%, the ICBM is a Mod issue, pensions etc is an MoD issue and buying power is getting less. Where we could build our own aircraft we now buy them in, where we built our own missiles we buy them in, where we built our own AFVs we buy them in. This means a reduction in tax return for investment, even when we do invest into systems the companies building are no longer British so it means monies going out. It seems to me to be confirmation of the Law of diminision return. HM Government should expect a 38% tax return on buying and investment into the defence equipment programs, now it is much less; reason, we buy them in.

        Think about it for a moment, we are now getting the Boxer, yes its a good AFV is it British no, we used to have companies such as Alvis, Vickers, etc could they build them yes but they are gone. We built the QE carriers, British, No French they are a Thales design, we could build Vulcan, Valiant, Lightning, TSR2, Harrier and now we can build what the wings of an Airbus.

        We don’t even build a car anymore that is not owned by some company, I actually find it funey in that the modern VW company a highly respected company would not even be operational if it was not for two REME officers. Don’t believe me check up Major I Hirst REME and VW. Another example myself, I was am ExRoyal Signal, left the Army worked for a German company that built the German telecom network in comms, all my equipment was German, my company car was German, Police cars are German, Ambulancies, Fire Engines all Government company cars are German. The same in France, in the UK they buy German, Japanese, French etc does that help British industry or British tax payers. NO. So we have the know how, we have the people, but if people don’t buy then industry won’t thrive. So can we go back to a 4% defence budget and buy British, or a 2.5% but take the Nuc deterant and pensions out of the MoD and put them back in the treasury budget.

        • That’s a very different world you have described Ron. We simply couldn’t justify the cost of building these huge defence projects at a national level. Even the Americans are struggling to justify spending 14bn on one aircraft carrier. Times have very much changed, but it’s the same for all countries these day’s.

        • Trouble is China got clever and realised a very significant weakness in western liberal democracy and capitalist models. You can’t out compete neoliberal states via a militaristic central control model, it will simply out produce you, that’s what happened the the facist states, military imperialists and communists ( third reich, imperial japan and soviets).

          The Chinese learnt that lesson very well, went back to the history books and found a weakness in neoliberal states.

          The very engine of the neoliberal state, the purity and dominance of the market, the thing that allows it to be so competitive and strong is also it weakness. The west’s problem is since the fall of communism we have followed and built on even more purist neoliberal models, the market rules all, if another nation makes it cheaper then we buy it from that nation, which is fine right up until you run up against a nation which sees you as it’s enemy, is a totalitarian state with pretty much unlimited natural resource and a unlimited cheap labour pool, that decides the best way to beat you is not go head to head but instead produce everything you want as cheaply as possible and sell it to you at the same time reducing external imports as much as possible with the simple fundamental goal of collecting all its enemies money (the purist form of mercantilism).

          The west’s problem is that we have become so addicted to the neoliberal model ( cheaper everything No matter the social and societal cost ) that we have started to sacrifice our national security ( which is the point of the mercantile strategy) for cheap stuff.

          We can’t militarise ourselves out of this ( after all others have tried that against the west and failed) as you can’t in the end win against a nation or society that can out produce and out spend you, you just bankrupt joy self quicker. What you have to do is start fighting back useing production and trade, focus in on reducing imports from the mercantile state, trade within you own power Block and increase your exports to other power blocks, taking their wealth and industry for your own.

          to an extent this was one thing that Trump actually understood, what he did not get was the geopolitics of who were his allies and the need to bring them on the same journey. If he had gone for democracies first and only, he may have had more success.

      • And we then discovered after the Cold War that the Great Russian Bear wasn’t as scary as we all thought.
        A lot of the tech and systems where poorly built and maintained and in a lot of cases didn’t actually work as advertised.
        Fighters, Subs, Surface vessels, Missiles, Tanks, all found to be very substandard. Some of the kit was good (ICBMS) but a lot wasn’t. From the performance of a lot of Russian systems over the past years they still have huge issues.

  14. We should be neither scared witless, nor complacent, about the development of hypersonics. While the kill chain for them to be effective today may be challenging, it is also target dependent, with some targets easier than others.

    For example ports, naval bases and even individual berth positions of high value targets are known precisely. Amphibious support vessels, operating either close inshore, or beyond sight from land, may be fixed in location while conducting ship-to-shore ops. CSGs, moving at 20-30 kn are the most challenging to target, or even find, for today at least. So if the target location is known, its then an issue of ensuring the missile can actually hit the target, with whatever sensors (that operate in a hypersonic environment) and comms it has available to aid accuracy.

    Targeting ability is going to change over time, particularly with the advent of LEO satellite networks providing continuous earth surveillance, that will enable better targeting with low latency. Similar LEO satellite networks are also part of the answer by enabling thermal tracking of hot hypersonic bodies, augmented by airborne surveillance, for detection at distance. The challenge then for either adversary is persistently disabling such networks (where satellites may be rapidly replaced) without creating massive amounts of space debris, which are likely to be counter-productive for all parties.

    From a defence perspective, the current unknown is the ability to either destroy or disrupt an attack. We have existing and in development solutions against the more predictable flight paths of ballistic missile threats. Manoeuvering hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) are a significantly tougher nut to crack.

    A short, easy read, by CSIS on the dynamics around modern hypersonics might be of interest.
    https://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Williams_Hypersonic-Era_Final.pdf

    • There are definitely means available today to counter hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs). As you mentioned above, early detection is the key and airborne surveillance is paramount. Satellite networks may in future be capable of tracking numerous very hot bodies, but due to the current small size of the low earth orbit (LEO) satellites and the sensor’s size requirements, I’d say that’s for the future. Ground based radar will have no problem seeing the HGV boost phase if it is lobbed by a medium range ballistic missile. The HCM is the problem. As it can be ship or worse sub launched. A sub launched missile will have a significantly smaller timeframe to react to it. But the counter to this is through active anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrols, but also combined with patrols by airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft. The ASW patrols will try to block the sub threat from getting close enough to launch the missile. Whilst the AEW aircraft can detect and track the missile once it has been launched.

      It’s funny with hindsight to see the mentality of leaders in the 30’s, who said the “bomber will always get through!”. As at that time combat air patrols were effectively flying blind. But along came radar and coordinated ground controllers to make sure the fighters were placed in the path of the oncoming bombers, day or night. Today, we have a multitude of sensors from radar, lidar, infrared, ultraviolet and visible spectrum optics to search for and track a threat. Radar will always be the primary method used for long range searches. The E7 Wedgetail will advance our capabilities significantly over the Sentry’s.

      The problem that the UK in particular has, is the over reliance on Typhoon, as the primary method of killing an incoming cruise missile threat. I have no doubt that when Meteor/Typhoon is used in combination with the Wedgetail, it will be able to knock out a incoming hypersonic cruise missile. But, we generally only have a few up on combat air patrol or some on QRA duties. We have no means or quickly countering a large volume of incoming threats simultaneously from a sneak attack. OK, in a few years time we will have the first batteries of Sky Sabre, but that is a tactical system and not a strategic system, due to the smaller area footprint it can cover. We do have the six T45s. However, there are not enough to patrol around the whole of the UK and provide escort duties to carriers, amphibs etc.

      As GB is fond of saying: “take out the kill chain and you can mitigate the threat.” However, this means we must have a constant ASW patrol monitoring our seas out to the predicted launch range of potential cruise missile threats. That is a lot of water to check, with the limited number of assets we have, such as T23, Astute, T class, Merlin and now Poseidon, (is SOSUS still in use?). It is therefore inevitable that a sub could get past them to fire a salvo of cruise missiles. To be brutally honest. Even if the launch sub was taken out, the programmed missiles will still fly to their intended targets. For a carrier group this is not a problem, it can move. But if a ship is tied up at dock, an airbase or factory that produces military equipment is the target, then they are effectively stuffed! A Typhoon on QRA although very quick to 40,000ft, will not be able to match the intercept speeds of a land based surface to air missile system. Especially if that system is networked and controlled by an AEW platform such as Wedgetail.

      We already have the means to protect the UK, but it will require investment by both the MoD and Government. The quickest solution would use the Aster missiles used by the T45, but used from a number of fixed/mobile ground bases. Admittedly there is the French/Italian SAMP/T system that uses the Arabel X-band PESA radar in combination with Aster. But I believe we can do better, using the Thales SMART-L MM AESA radar and using the T45s command and control system, or a development of the Israeli Rafael system used with Sky Sabre. The SMART-L MM has a significantly longer range than Arabel. The T45’s C2 system can track more than a hundred threats and handle more than 10 simultaneous launches as per SAMP/T. Being an AESA radar it is a lot more resistant to jamming. If it was possible to develop the test and training site at Portsmouth to be a ground based area SAM system, it would go a long way in protecting this vital port area. There would need to be at least four sites at a minimum to cover the whole of the UK, along with the upgrade to the Aster 1NT or BMD missiles. But this system would be doable and provide a means of protecting key assets in the UK from a sneak attack.

      • Hah! T45 ashore! I must admit I had also considered the BAES radar test facility up on the hill in Portsmouth as a potential defence site if things went pear shaped, provided we have the appropriate ground launch missiles for such a system. Its relative altitude would provide much better visibility vs a T45 moored alongside. Although, I suppose if Aster variants are capable of intercepting manoeuvring ballistic missiles, then a T45 in the harbour could launch them on instruction from the BAES ‘T45 ashore’ facility.

        Surveillance-wise NATO has its integrated air defence L-band radars. So the UK benefits from Icelandic, Norwegian and Dutch systems with respect to anything launched from the sea north and east of the UK, provide the missile gets above the respective radar horizons. Of course, we also have our own RRH and Flydales, but I agree its the low altitude missiles in particular that need the air and space detection assets to get advanced warning. Perhaps MALE UAV platforms would in future provide the persistence and numbers for some level of detection for these low altitude threats, in conjunction with manned AEW assets.

        I’m not so sure about our current missiles’ ability to intercept hypersonic, non-ballistic flight profile missiles, it certainly needs to be verified. The threat is relative though, since a Mach 5 missile is likely to be an easier target than one at Mach 10 or greater, but in both cases the defensive missile has to be launched from an appropriate location to have a chance of even closing with the attacking missile. That said, for air intercept with an appropriate missile, we might again use UAVs for their persistence and numbers, while using ground based missile defence located at strategic defence assets such as major airbases and ports.

      • I should have also added that it seems the RN is likely to strongly leverage a range of UUVs for the submarine threat to meet the challenge you outline. I expect them to be surveillance only platforms that can provide potential target information to surface and air assets to prosecute. The air assets would be P8A but probably also sonobouy equipped Protector. Surface assets would be T23/26 but might also include USV platforms.

  15. After reading the article, I’m no wiser as to what Zircon means for Western security.
    Once again Russia (or its closely predecessor, the USSR) has made a major investment to produce a highly advanced weapon that may be superior “to anything the West has”, but it’s only available in small numbers, and probably only modest percentage of those will actually work if used. We have been here many times, e.g. the M-4 Bear bomber, VA-11 Shkval torpedo, the T-14 Armata tank, Akula-class submarines, the SS-7/R17 ICBM, the BraMos cruise missile, …
    Yes, Zircon may be a serious threat at a tactical level – the Argentine’s stock of just 5 Exocet ASMs in the 1982 Falklands War being a case study in this regard. But effective counter measures can be developed against Zircon and other similar threats. The overall affordability (GDP %) of these counter measures seems likely to be far less than Russia has spent on developing the missile.

    • I could add the M25A to that list. The west were sh****ng themselves until Belenko defected in one and it was seen it was not so invincible.

      Often these scares are hyped up themselves by the military industrial complex to access more cash.

      • Yes, exactly. I remember the fuss made about the MIG29. It was sold to be the mother of all fighter’s. IRST, Helmet mounted sight, Radar with a fancy name, ?F16 beating performance ect ect. Turned out to be good for a airshow display, and that was about it. Poorly made, unreliable, smoky crappy engine’s, and poor avionics compared to Western standards.

  16. From the country that exports miss information. Think it’s there Ironman suit cannot develop a efficiency jet engine. May have a warhead and missile body But there goes the pig.

  17. Tell me if I’m wrong but isn’t this the sort of thing that Dragonfire would be able to deal with pretty simply?

    Seems to me that even if Zircon is everything the Russians say it is, that mounting a few Dragonfire lasers onto our carriers, frigates and destroyers would all but negate the threat.

    So maybe that’s the solution: invest more and focus on getting it operational.

    • Nope. Dragonfire will be good for drones and boats. Laser systems needed to hit missiles doing high subsonic let alone High mach numbers need to be in the megawatt class. We are no where near that.
      Current lasers will maybe get to 500k Watts. That’s around a 5 km range against a drone or a boat or an aircraft on a good day.

      A viable laser could be a free electron laser but it’s a huge monster of a thing that would need an LPD to carry it and a bunch of nuclear physicists to maintain it.

  18. Whether the missiles work or not is kind of irreverent, as their threat results in a deterrence and should a war happen would mean that strategies would need to be designed around the assumption that they do work. Its the same as trident/vanguard, we have no idea if it works or not, as its too expensive to test it often enough, but the threat is still there and so the deterrence.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here