Military Review

Hypersonic Domination: Arrow against Zircon and Dagger

105

Arrow of the Pentagon



A few years ago, Russia seriously declared its leadership in the field of development hypersonic weapons... Fortunately, the States provided her with all the opportunities for this. The once promising American hypersonic missile X-51, created by Boeing and first tested on May 26, 2010, has remained a bold experiment: at least when it comes to the product in the form in which it originally appeared. The United States, of course, has gained valuable experience, but this is by no means a missile that can be used in combat. Some tests were relatively successful, others, for example, in 2012, completely failed. Then the rocket just fell apart and fell in the Pacific Ocean.

Now the situation is different. The United States is seriously considering getting a hypersonic weapon (capable of flying in the atmosphere at a hypersonic speed greater than or equal to 5M) and maneuvering using aerodynamic forces. Now the Americans are implementing several programs for the Army, Navy and Air Force. The closest to the goal was the AGM-183A ARRW (Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon) project, sometimes referred to as the Arrow.

The system has a number of features that distinguish it from other other hypersonic systems. After launching a rocket from an aircraft and reaching a given point, a hypersonic unit is separated - a small glider that must hit the target.

Exactly what the complex looks like, we were first shown in June 2019. In the photographs one could see the mass and size model of the AGM-183A hypersonic aeroballistic missile on the external sling of the Boeing B-52H strategic bomber.


Flight tests were also carried out this year. It is important to note that neither then nor now did the Americans launch any missiles, while Russia has already tested its air-launched Dagger (sometimes called the “hypersonic”), as well as the sea-based Zircon hypersonic missile.

Introduced


Does this mean that the US is "lagging behind"? Yes and no. Americans, like Russians, have a comprehensive approach to the program. According to a number of sources, tests of the Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon warhead, designated Tactical Boost Glide (TBG), were carried out back in 2019.

The main intrigue lay in the characteristics of the complex. Earlier, unofficial sources indicated the speed of the ARRW warhead at about M = 20, which naturally raised doubts among experts. Now the United States has dotted all the i's by announcing the main characteristics of the Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon. They were voiced by Air Force Major General Andrew J. Gebara in an interview with Air Force Magazine. The translated material can be found on the bmpd blog.


As you might expect, Arrow will have much more modest characteristics. Based on the data presented, its range will be at least 1600 kilometers at a warhead speed between M = 6,5 and M = 8.

The B-52N bomber will be able to carry four of these missiles on external mounts: two under each external mount. For our part, we recall that the B-52, in addition to external suspensions, also has internal ones, and the dimensions of the Arrow, according to the available photos, allow placing missiles inside the aircraft.

In April 2020, The Drive reported that one B-1B strategic bomber could carry up to 31 such missiles. These are external and internal holders. True, aircraft will receive such capabilities only after modernization.

Reply Russia


The fact that the United States is increasingly talking about its hypersonic missiles is directly linked to the testing of the Russian Zircon and the experimental combat operation of the Dagger missile. A number of authors speak of the desire of the Americans to "catch up with Russia." In fact, as noted above, the situation is more complicated here. And now it is not possible to name the unambiguous favorite of the hypersonic race. Let's compare Arrow with Russian designs.

"Dagger". At first glance, the AGM-183A can be called a conditional analogue of the Russian Kh-47M2 "Dagger" rocket carried by the upgraded MiG-31 (after the upgrade it is designated MiG-31K), and in the future, the long-range bomber Tu-22M3M will act.


The Dagger missile has neither a ramjet engine, like the X-51, nor a glider that separates in flight, like the Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon. "Dagger" accelerates the MiG-31K, after which it is separated from the carrier. Thus, it would be more correct to call the Kh-47M2 an "aeroballistic missile" - a conditional analogue of the Soviet Kh-15. According to the previously cited data, it was created on the basis of the Iskander operational-tactical complex missile.

There is no doubt that the Dagger can reach hypersonic speeds. On the other hand, the ability of a large product, devoid of a ramjet engine, to maintain it in all major flight phases raises questions. Which does not mean that the "Dagger" cannot be effectively used against its main targets - surface ships.

"Zircon". October XNUMX this year from the White Sea "Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Gorshkov "fired for the first time with this type of product. More importantly, for the first time, ordinary citizens were able to see the rocket, albeit without any details.

As in the case of the "Dagger", we have no confirmed product characteristics. According to available data, the rocket can develop (at least on tests) a speed of M = 8, and its range can reach at least 450 kilometers (according to some reports, the rocket will be able to hit targets located at a distance of 1000 kilometers).


According to unconfirmed information, the Zircon has two stages: a solid-propellant rocket engine is used to gain speed, after which a ramjet engine is activated, which allows maintaining hypersonic speed throughout the flight path.

Probably, we are talking about a conditional analogue of the Boeing X-51, that is, a weapon that in theory can be called "hypersonic". If so, then Russia is currently following the path that the Americans once chose and which they subsequently abandoned: at least when it comes to the X-51.

In a broad sense, the main difference between ARRW and Zircon is airborne: Zircon will have to be carried primarily by submarines and surface ships. Time will tell which of the chosen concepts is more correct. It is too early to draw final conclusions.
Author:
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ka-52
    Ka-52 19 October 2020 06: 17
    34
    Well, Ilya, well, Ilya ... everything that the United States does for him is categorically hypersonic
    ... there is a separation of the hypersonic unit
    ... weight and size model of a hypersonic aeroballistic missile AGM-183A

    and everything that is done in the Russian Federation is somehow streamlined
    ... it is sometimes called "hypersonic"
    ... which in theory can be called "hypersonic"

    what a soft deflection, feels like a professional lol
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 19 October 2020 07: 33
      -24 qualifying.
      It was in vain that someone poisoned Americans with cartoons, boasting of their advantage. In the wrong weight classes! Now, as if at the turn, they did not go around.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 19 October 2020 08: 35
        +7
        Everything seems to be good with us hi
        Here are just the Dagger in splendid isolation under the plane ... And I would very much like to be able to launch dozens of them. But .. where to get so many media ..?
        Zircon - work and work on it more. And I believe that they will finish it, but again the same problem: 6-9 frigates and 10-12 corvettes, and several submarines - that's all the carriers. Yes, and corvettes are not needed for this, but primarily for sea anti-aircraft weapons.
        Against the background of all this, reading about 31 missiles under one B1B ... But there are 6 dozen of them ...
        What I mean, even if our GZR will surpass American ones in performance characteristics, there will not be many opportunities to place them.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 09: 27
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          Against the background of all this, reading about 31 missiles under one B1B

          It looks more like a journalistic duck. They love to come up with a wunderwaffe. We must look for this article.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 19 October 2020 09: 41
            +8
            “The situation looks something like this: first, the Americans will write off seventeen B-1Bs, and then the remaining 44 aircraft will be upgraded to the new standard. As part of the modernization, the aircraft will receive eight external hardpoints, which can accommodate AGM-183A.
            “My goal would be to get at least one squadron of B-1B aircraft equipped with external suspension components to carry the ARRW hypersonic cruise missile.”
            - quotes "Air Force Magazine" as the head of the US Air Force Strategic Command, General Timothy Ray.
            Here, however, an important clarification needs to be made. For the Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon or AGM-183A, they want to use both external holders and internal revolving mounts. Thus, the total number of hypersonic missiles should be 31 units! The B-1B has never had such tactical capabilities. "
            IN. April 14, 2020.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 10: 15
              -3
              I read the original, here's what they write:
              “My goal would be to recruit at least a squadron of aircraft modified with external pylons on the B-1 to carry the ARRW [Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon] hypersonic cruise missile,” General Ray told the Air Force magazine. He added that the service was considering several options for integrating the AGM-183A into bombers, "but we believe that the easiest, fastest and probably the most effective in the short term will be the use of external pylons."

              Those. only on external pylons, without internal compartments. Maximum 16 rockets on 8 pylons. About 31 AGM-183A is clearly the fantasy of a journalist, the B1 will not pull out in terms of carrying capacity. I suppose that in the end there will be a maximum of 8 AGM-183A on B1
              1. Ali
                Ali 19 October 2020 19: 45
                +1
                Quote: Stas157
                It was in vain that someone poisoned Americans with cartoons, boasting of their advantage. In the wrong weight classes! Now, as if at the turn, they did not go around.

                Stas157. Do not worry. The USA is still far away:
                Quote: Hypersonic Domination: Arrow Against Zircon and Dagger Military Review * Technology
                Flight tests were also carried out this year. Important note that nand then, and now, the Americans did not launch missiles, while Russia has already tested its air-launched "Dagger" (sometimes referred to as "hypersonic"), as well as a sea-based Zircon hypersonic missile.

                Russia is not standing still! But the United States may have big problems with the launch and flight rangeas before with X-51 at the last test in
                2013 year.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Hermit21
          Hermit21 19 October 2020 10: 08
          +7
          "Zircons" and "Daggers" are not particularly needed, because it is a weapon against the highest priority and dangerous targets. This is just one of the tools in a whole set of anti-ship weapons. Well, the carriers will also be destroyers 22350M, cruisers 23560, coastal complexes, Tu-22M3M will receive 3 "Daggers" at once, for 21631 they promised "Mini-Zircon". So in the future, the carriers will be fine.

          You can, of course, fight back, "But when it is, then we'll talk." But "Zircon" is in the final stages of testing with the first deliveries in a year or two, "Dagger" is on experimental combat duty. And the Americans are still only skating MGM on the "Superfortress. That does not prevent to carry nonsense about entering service in 2023.

          As for the B-1B, firstly, less than a dozen of them remained operational, and secondly, with a combat load in the region of 40 tons and an AGM-183A weighing 3-3,5 tons, God forbid that he dragged 10-12 missiles. And for an acceptable radius and so that the glider does not finally become bo-bo and does 5-6.

          UPD: in other sources, the weight is 2-2,25 tones. But in any case, there can be no question of any 31 missiles. The glider will go crazy even from 15-17
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 10: 23
            +5
            31 AGM-183A aboard B1 is a fake, the general talked about a maximum of 16 missiles on board, 8 pylons, 2 missiles each. Which seems to me also extremely optimistic. I assume that in the end there will be 4 pylons with 2 missiles each.
            Our journalists have not translated correctly. 31 HAWC missiles, it is much smaller than the AGM-183A.
            The Air Force is also working on the concept of hypersonic air-breathing weapons, or HAWC, with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Pentagon officials said that the Air Force is already thinking about the combined transport of hypersonic missiles both within the country and abroad, on B-1 and B-52 aircraft. With the help of external hardpoints and the Central Scientific Research Laboratory, the B-1 can take down 31 hypersonic missiles.

            https://www.airforcemag.com/afgsc-eyes-hypersonic-weapons-for-b-1-conventional-lrso/
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Kalmar
            Kalmar 19 October 2020 10: 52
            +3
            Quote: Hermit21
            "Zircons" and "Daggers" are not particularly needed, because it is a weapon against the highest priority and dangerous targets.

            How to say. Zircon's favorite mental exercise is the destruction of the AUG. How many missiles must hit an aircraft carrier to safely disable it? And yet another escort. Some missiles will not reach their targets: missile defense and electronic warfare will make their contribution. Further, not all missile carriers will survive until their launch; as a consequence, there should be more of them. It turns out that the number of missiles ready for use should be in the dozens, otherwise they will not really affect anything.

            Quote: Hermit21
            So in the future, the carriers will be fine.

            Oh, this prospect ... We always have everything in order in it, but "here and now" is always somehow not very good))

            Quote: Hermit21
            You can, of course, fight back, "But when it is, then we'll talk." But "Zircon" is in the final stages of testing with the first deliveries in a year or two.

            This is, in fact, a very serious argument, which is clearly evidenced by the experience of the same Su-57 or T-14. Sadly, but true: very often promising products hang forever "at the final stages of testing". Plus, of course, the problem of carriers: the rockets, for example, will be made, but the construction of the required number of ships for them is an extremely slow process.

            Quote: Hermit21
            And the Americans are still only skating MGM on the "Superfortress. That does not prevent to carry nonsense about entering service in 2023.

            The Americans still have an important advantage - a huge financial resource. The year 2023, of course, looks overly optimistic, but still they can (in principle) push themselves up and quite quickly not only bring the product to an acceptable level of readiness, but also actually start supplying it to the troops. This point must be borne in mind.
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 19 October 2020 11: 25
              -1
              Well, besides "Zircons" and "Daggers" we have other "minerals". X-22 / -32. And no, it doesn't take much to disable the AV. After 3-5 hypersonic missiles, the crew will not have time to release the aircraft. If he doesn't start to sink at all.

              Sadly, but true: very often promising products hang forever "at the final stages of testing".


              Does anyone wonder that testing and adopting an absolutely new AME is a slow process? By the way, these are just normal terms when compared with the same F-22 / -35. No, you can, of course, rivet a few dozen half-baked Su-57 and T-14 and send them to the troops, as the Americans did and do with the F-22 / -35, but the iksperd will go to shit at the first breakdown or disaster. Do we need it?

              Americans still have an important advantage - a huge financial resource


              Not everything depends on money. No matter how much you pour in, it is impossible for a couple of years to catch up with the one who is already overtaking you in the circle.

              nevertheless, they can (in principle) push themselves up and quite quickly not only bring the product to an acceptable level of readiness, but also actually start supplying it to the troops


              In two years? "I am tormented by vague doubts ..." (c). Looking at their previous apupeys - five years, at least
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 19 October 2020 11: 48
                0
                Quote: Hermit21
                Well, besides "Zircons" and "Daggers" we have other "minerals". X-22 / -32

                I do not argue, only they are, shall we say, not of the first freshness (except for "Onyx", only with it the problem of carriers is also acute). The Kh-32, as noted, did not reach the Aerospace Forces in significant quantities in the end. However, this does not concern the topic of "Zircon" any more.

                Quote: Hermit21
                And no, it doesn't take much to disable the AV. After 3-5 hypersonic missiles, the crew will not have time to release the aircraft. If he doesn't start to sink at all.

                It is hardly possible to drown the AV with hits from non-nuclear missiles. After a couple of hits, the aircraft carrier's combat capability can be restored rather quickly even by the crew - American sailors work out such moments. Of course, everything still depends on the performance characteristics of the Zircon warhead, but we do not know this, so I see no reason to reason.

                Quote: Hermit21
                No, you can, of course, rivet a few dozen half-baked Su-57 and T-14 and send them to the troops, as the Americans did and do with the F-22 / -35, but the iksperds will go to shit at the first breakdown or disaster. Do we need it?

                It’s not even about "must / don’t", but the fact that a hundred not very good planes is still better than a dozen unfinished excellent ones. It's a similar story with the anti-ship missile ship: it's too early to talk about the Zircons in earnest before they actually enter the fleet in significant quantities.

                Quote: Hermit21
                Not everything depends on money. No matter how much you pour in, it is impossible for a couple of years to catch up with the one who is already overtaking you in the circle.

                Not all, but a lot. Even good old espionage is heavily tied to money. Well, overtaking by a circle is still very speculative: no one has yet seen real products. Plus, as I wrote above, we like to get stuck a few steps before the conditional finish.

                Quote: Hermit21
                Looking at their previous apupeys - five years, at least

                Maybe five. They, unlike us, have nowhere to rush. Even if "Zircon" is really quickly completed and put into production, it will take much more than five years to build a sufficient number of carriers for it.
                1. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 19 October 2020 12: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  ... After a couple of hits, the aircraft carrier's combat effectiveness can be restored rather quickly even by the crew - American sailors work out such moments

                  Are you serious? bully Let me remind you that AV Forrestal was put out of action by one NUR missile and had to be repaired for six months ... request and Zircon, when hitting AB, will most likely have a tactical-class nuclear warhead ...

                  Quote: Kalmar
                  it is premature to speak seriously about the Zircons before they actually enter the fleet in significant quantities.

                  you forgot about PR / disinformation ... the enemy will take into account the possibility of having - this is quite enough for most cases ... hi
                  1. Kalmar
                    Kalmar 19 October 2020 12: 40
                    +2
                    Quote: DrEng527
                    Are you serious? Let me remind you that AV Forrestal was put out of action by one NUR missile and had to be repaired for six months ...

                    Extremely serious. The lessons of the Forrestal were learned: now aircraft carriers are equipped with a powerful fire extinguishing system that allows you to instantly wash everything and everyone from the deck. In general, they pay very, very much attention to the issues of the fight for the survivability of aircraft carriers, so that for the final decommissioning of the AB, it will have to be very specific.

                    Quote: DrEng527
                    you forgot about PR / disinformation ... the enemy will take into account the possibility of presence - this is quite enough for most cases ..

                    PR is more likely to play into their hands: a reason to knock out more money from Congress for (a) symmetrical answers of various kinds. And so, the American military leadership, I think, in the old fashioned way, relies more on intelligence data. How they will "take into account the possibility of existence" and for what cases this will be enough - I find it difficult to guess, but I would not count on such a psychological effect, especially in the long term.
                2. ZEMCH
                  ZEMCH 27 October 2020 17: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  After a couple of hits, the combat capability of an aircraft carrier can be restored rather quickly even by the crew - American sailors work out such moments.

                  After hitting the top of the deck in the aft part, AB makes it impossible for him to receive aircraft, with some luck and takeoff. Perfected by American sailors)))
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  I do not argue, only they are already, let's say, not the first freshness (except for "Onyx", only with it there is also an acute problem of carriers). The Kh-32, as noted, did not reach the Aerospace Forces in significant quantities.

                  The Kh-32 was made for the MPA, which is absent as a class (the aircraft were transferred to the DA). Onyx from the above is also no one to hang
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  Not all, but a lot. Even good old espionage is heavily tied to money. Well, overtaking by a circle is still very speculative: no one has yet seen real products. Plus, as I wrote above, we like to get stuck a few steps before the conditional finish.

                  I agree here))
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  Maybe five. They, unlike us, have nowhere to rush. Even if "Zircon" is really quickly completed and put into production, it will take much more than five years to build a sufficient number of carriers for it.

                  The problem is not in the Zircon and the carriers, but in the issuance of the anti-ship missile center! This question is more important. Onyx and under the Su-30 can be suspended (they did it for the Indians). But in hitting the target, at the required range, the question is critical
                  1. Kalmar
                    Kalmar 27 October 2020 18: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: ZEMCH
                    After hitting the top of the deck in the aft part, AB makes it impossible for him to receive aircraft, with some luck and takeoff.

                    It is doubtful, although, of course, depending on where exactly and what goes. In any case, this is temporary: as soon as the fire is extinguished, the repair team will immediately begin to patch up the damaged area.

                    Quote: ZEMCH
                    The problem is not in the Zircon and the carriers, but in the issuance of the anti-ship missile center!

                    There are many problems in general. The rocket is just one of the many components of the system, which we have collapsed very qualitatively. There is nothing to look for, there is nothing to direct the missiles with, and, for that matter, nothing to launch. And those missiles (if we talk about "Zircon") also do not exist yet.
                    1. ZEMCH
                      ZEMCH 27 October 2020 18: 28
                      +2
                      Quote: Kalmar
                      It is doubtful, although, of course, depending on where exactly and what goes. In any case, this is temporary: as soon as the fire is extinguished, the repair team will immediately begin to patch up the damaged area.

                      A training BC was dropped on the deck from the aircraft, only the fuel caught fire, but the air traffic control officers and the aircraft landing post suffered (I forgot what it is called correctly). Repair only in the conditions of the plant, they themselves could not. All the planes that took off went ashore, because he could no longer accept)) wink
                      Quote: Kalmar
                      There are many problems in general. The rocket is just one of the many components of the system, which we have collapsed very qualitatively. There is nothing to look for, there is nothing to direct the missiles with, and, for that matter, nothing to launch. And those missiles (if we talk about "Zircon") also do not exist yet.

                      Our system has not collapsed, we have never had it. The problem of the control center has always been. Tu-95RTs could still be issued, but they have long been gone
                      1. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 27 October 2020 18: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: ZEMCH
                        A training BC was dropped on the deck from the aircraft, only the fuel caught fire, but the air traffic control officers and the aircraft landing post suffered (I forgot what it is called correctly). Repair only in the conditions of the plant, they themselves could not. All the planes that took off went ashore, because he could no longer accept))

                        Here the factor of luck and bad luck has already played a big role. Those. yes, there is a chance that one single missile, arriving at the right place at the right time, will inflict critical damage. But in general, it's better not to rely on luck like that.

                        Quote: ZEMCH
                        Our system has not collapsed, we have never had it.

                        It is argued that in Soviet times it was, to a greater or lesser extent. Fortunately, it was not necessary to evaluate it in practice. Now, alas, there is no system as such.
              2. ancient
                ancient 19 October 2020 15: 00
                +3
                Quote: Hermit21
                X-22 / -32

                And how many of them do you have ...? In fact. except .. "slogans" wassat
                X-22 yes .. there is, but ... against the AUG ... this is for the carrier a one-way flight (due to the launch range) and only one type of X-22 missile is possible and then ... with a special warhead.
            2. DrEng527
              DrEng527 19 October 2020 12: 22
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              experience of the same Su-57 or T-14. Sad but true: very often promising products

              As far as I know, these products have contracts for serial production - 132 pcs. T-14 and T-15 ... do you have other information?
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 19 October 2020 12: 33
                +1
                Quote: DrEng527
                As far as I know, these products have contracts for serial production - 132 pcs. T-14 and T-15 ... do you have other information?

                Earlier they wrote that they do not want to buy at all, because it is expensive. Apparently, they bargained. We will see
                1. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 19 October 2020 12: 42
                  +1
                  I recommend looking at the UVZ website - what they produce: bully
                  http://uralvagonzavod.ru/product
          5. ancient
            ancient 19 October 2020 11: 50
            +1
            Quote: Hermit21
            Tu-22M3M will receive 3 "Daggers" at once

            Where are you going to "hang" them ...? wink
            1. ancient
              ancient 20 October 2020 11: 42
              +2
              Quote: ancient
              Where are you going to "hang" them ...?

              "Minussists" .. wassat Well, open your face a little ... yes "enlighten" all the same ...... where are the X47M2 going to "hang" on the Tu-22M3? wassat
              Or just " fellow - with slogans "can you rush?" wink
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 21 October 2020 01: 45
                +1
                Quote: ancient
                Minussists ".. well, open your face a little ... yes" enlighten "all the same ...... where are the X47M2 going to" hang "on the Tu-22M3?

                No problem! right here:

                by the way, according to the Americans wink
                Now it's your turn! yes
                Where on B1 will they hang 31 (according to local experts 16, at least 8) AGM-183A?
                1. ancient
                  ancient 21 October 2020 15: 35
                  +3
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  Now it's your turn!

                  Please - the weight of one Kh-47M2 is almost 4,0 tons ... and that 12 tons (for landing 8, on the ground 1,5, for takeoff and a flight of another 5) how much is left for fuel? wassat
                  Ie you propose directly from takeoff to the MFR to continue the climb to the launch altitude (although it will be much less than you wanted and the speed is completely ... "tiddly" (to achieve the 2000 km long launch range for the dagger ... at what distance do you plan to launch your "Daggers"? wassat
                  Well, only if you imagine that the enemy is already at your gate, then you can try.
                  And yes ... if you use "murzilkas", then you can explain to yourself why, with the "murzilka" with the X-15s, they also "hung up" the MKU with the 6th X-15s for a total of 10 ... fellow , but in fact they only flew with 6 pieces suspended on the MCU in g / o and more ... no wink
                  And also about 3 X-22 wassat
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  where on B1 will hang 31

                  And where did you see that I would write about this somewhere or discuss with someone? belay request
                  The conversation was for the B-1B, which is capable of carrying up to 24 AGM-158C LRASM missiles (internal + external), but external suspensions are always increased CLS, as a result of which fuel consumption increases and the tactical range of action decreases + you have to take into account restrictions due to the presence external hangers.
                  Then there are 16 missiles ... and about 31 ... and even with a weight of under 3,5 tons each ... wassat it's like in a cheese ad ".........." ... yes son ... it's fantastic lol
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 22 October 2020 15: 35
                    0
                    Quote: ancient
                    Please - the weight of one Kh-47M2 is almost 4,0 tons ... and that 12 tons (for landing 8, on the ground 1,5, for takeoff and a flight of another 5) how much is left for fuel?

                    Duc I wrote: by the way, according to the Americans wink
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 22 October 2020 18: 25
                      +1
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      Duc I wrote: by the way, according to the Americans

                      Well, yes ..... and after .. "Duc" ... who are you addressing? quote - "....Now it's your turn!" wink
                      To which you got my specific answer ... quote - "... And where did you see that I would write about this somewhere or discuss with someone?" wink
        3. DrEng527
          DrEng527 19 October 2020 12: 16
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          Against the background of all this, reading about 31 missiles under one B1B ...

          in fact, making an air version of zircon is noticeably easier than making an air version of land or sea. request in the opinion of an amateur - you just need to reduce the accelerating part of the zircon and change the launch algorithm ... hi based on the criterion of reasonableness, this should be done ... repeat
          1. ancient
            ancient 19 October 2020 14: 55
            +1
            Quote: DrEng527
            you just need to reduce the overclocking part of the zircon and change the startup algorithm ...

            An example already exists ... how an aviation BrahMos-A was made from a BrahMos rocket (now also called BrahMos Air Launched Cruise Missile - ALCM) wink
            Quote: DrEng527
            just reduce the accelerating part of the zircon

            And why ... with the same engines .. "let it fly" wink
            1. DrEng527
              DrEng527 20 October 2020 11: 16
              0
              Quote: ancient
              And for what...

              corny - the mass ... for a frigate, the mass of a rocket is not important, but for an airplane even 0,5 tons it is noticeable ...
              1. ancient
                ancient 20 October 2020 11: 39
                +1
                Quote: DrEng527
                corny - mass

                So on BrahMos-A and "shortened" it in size and the weight was removed by 500 kg .. and the engines remained the same .... speed characteristics have not been canceled wink
                1. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 20 October 2020 11: 41
                  0
                  Quote: ancient
                  .speed characteristics have not been canceled

                  who argues, but the plane is at altitude and has speed, so the acceleration stage can be reduced without problems ... hence the shorter and less mass.
        4. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 28 October 2020 13: 34
          0
          um..GZUR what does not suit you?
        5. boriz
          boriz 28 October 2020 13: 51
          0
          As for the carriers, the sadness will not be in Russia, but in the United States. Do not forget that the achievement of not only GPZ speed, but even SZ, implies increased fuel consumption.
          Therefore, the dimensions of the rocket are increasing. Even SZ Onyx has a length (aviation version) of 6,1 meters. Zircon, obviously, no less. And the rockets, for which the B-1 is adapted, are less than 5 meters.
          That is, they will not stupidly fit on the internal suspension. How the plane will feel when carrying three times more (by weight) rocket on the external sling is a very interesting question.
          Well, the berry on the cake:
          Even Onyx (in the ship version) has a length (according to various sources) of 8 or 8,6 meters.
          our shipborne vertical universal launchers are 9,58 meters long. All.
          And the US has a maximum of 7,7 meters. But not all, part - 6 meters with kopecks, part - 5 meters, there are also less than 5.
          The most important thing is that it is no longer possible to put large launchers on each specific ship.
          That is, they will fit a rocket or less power-equipped (low speed / range) or with a funny warhead.
          This is not to mention the fact that the diameter of Onyx in their PU, too, will not fit for more.
          That is, the lack of long-term planning amers greatly let down.
          Ours can at least Onyx, at least Zircon (theoretically) put even on Buyan. But the United States, alas.
          They have a complete ambush with the carriers.
      2. avg
        avg 19 October 2020 09: 51
        +1
        Quote: Stas157
        It was in vain that someone poisoned Americans with cartoons, boasting of their advantage. In the wrong weight classes! Now, as if at the turn, they did not go around.

        And if they wrote to you now about Star Wars, but under the leadership of Lord Darth Vader himself? Not otherwise, as already called to surrender. wink
        Yes, about the weight categories. Here is "Vanguard", it is really a different weight category, and so far not unattainable for anyone. yes
      3. Zhevlonenko
        Zhevlonenko 19 October 2020 12: 33
        -1
        That's just a question of how much the arrow can carry the same fu35 or 16, judging by the fact that it is not even announced, then not at all.
      4. zenion
        zenion 19 October 2020 14: 46
        +1
        As Kozma Prutkov and Herr Hitler said, everything is correct if it matches what you want. And of course it's a lie if it doesn't match. The point is not at all that something is not clear to you, but that it is not included in the circle of your concepts.
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. sgrabik
        sgrabik 20 October 2020 08: 26
        0
        Everything is far from being as simple as it seems, they took it and immediately overtook it, in addition to money, new technologies and years of hard work are needed here, moreover, we will not stand still.
    2. ancient
      ancient 19 October 2020 11: 59
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      Well Ilya, well Ilya.

      Greetings, Andrey! Well, by and large, in some ways the author is right?
      I just wanted to ask him a question ... where did this .. come from wink ".... and also the long-range Tu-22M3M bomber will appear in the future." belay
      Not too much ... with one missile and a whole Tu-22M3? recourse
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 19 October 2020 12: 10
        0
        To date, the Tu-22M3M avionics do not allow adjusting the Dagger's trajectory. The point in using the Tu - 22? The Dagger's engine for the Tu - 22 will have to be altered, the avionics will have to be changed ... but what is the benefit?
        Sincerely
        1. ancient
          ancient 19 October 2020 14: 47
          0
          Quote: nobody75
          To date, the Tu-22M3M avionics do not allow adjusting the trajectory of the Dagger

          To date, avionics do not allow adjusting the flight trajectory .. "Dagger"
          Quote: nobody75
          The point in using the Tu - 22?

          No wink (only adds to the name of the Tu-22 .. "letter" M "otherwise fellow .. "will go")
          Quote: nobody75
          The Dagger's engine for the Tu - 22 will have to be altered, the avionics will have to be changed ... but what is the benefit?

          Upgrade ... if "remodel" (ie increase "dimensions) will not fit under the belly.
          Quote: nobody75
          and what is the benefit?

          In nothing ... not now, not after ... only ... after fellow -dream.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 19 October 2020 19: 16
            +2
            Personally, I consider both projects that - 22 turbid ... And the "golden" standard rocket for him ... I'm afraid they will be banned.
            Sincerely
      2. sgrabik
        sgrabik 20 October 2020 09: 51
        0
        And who told you that the Tu-22M3M will carry only one Dagger missile, in its modernized version, which is the Tu-22M3M bomber, it will be able to simultaneously carry up to 4 Dagger missiles.
        1. ancient
          ancient 20 October 2020 12: 35
          +1
          Quote: sgrabik
          And who told you that the Tu-22M3M will carry only one Dagger missile, in its modernized version, which is the Tu-22M3M bomber, it will be able to simultaneously carry up to 4 Dagger missiles.

          And who told you that the Tu-22M3M will carry as many as 4 X-47M2 belay
          You can draw anything you want ... but how to implement it? wink
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 19 October 2020 16: 20
      0
      Yes, everything is falling apart in the United States and in a year (2, 10, 100, underline the necessary) and the country will not be like that.
      Are they unable to do OTP? Able. What prevents to hang on the plane and attach the "Glider", the tests of which took place?
    4. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 19 October 2020 18: 19
      0
      I agree, a strange deflection! Especially in the knowledge of Russian developments. Although I read the history of Soviet, and then Russian, developments on this topic. Much is in the public domain, but not in Zen))) laughing
  2. Alexander E
    Alexander E 19 October 2020 06: 24
    +3
    Range from 450 km for zircon, but not per hour request
    1. Stasi
      Stasi 19 October 2020 06: 36
      +7
      Quote: Alexander E
      Range from 450 km for zircon, but not per hour request

      An ordinary mistake, when the author was obviously thinking about one thing, but wrote about another yes

      Or vice versa, he wrote about one thing, but thought about another lol
  3. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 19 October 2020 06: 25
    +4
    Arms race.
  4. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 19 October 2020 06: 30
    +2
    Our rocket is capable of maneuvering and choosing a target! If the Americans do it, then a hypersonic blank! They don't even know how to control a rocket at such speeds! The main difference!
    1. Asad
      Asad 19 October 2020 06: 35
      +5
      Why such confidence? We know what we are allowed to know! Maybe the characteristics are much better than those stated, but maybe not!
      1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
        VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 19 October 2020 07: 53
        -7
        There are sources, but I will not say anything!
        1. Hypertension
          Hypertension 19 October 2020 12: 40
          +6
          Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
          There are sources, but I will not say anything!

          We have SUCH devices! But we won't tell you about them. (from)
        2. sgrabik
          sgrabik 20 October 2020 09: 54
          0
          All these sources are not worth a broken penny, and you won't find anything plausible on this score, don't even try.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 October 2020 09: 45
      +3
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      Our rocket is capable of maneuvering and choosing a target!

      Well, it is quite logical to expect from the RCC the ability to find the target. The Americans, as I understand it, do not make anti-ship missiles, but a means of destruction of stationary targets (such as the "Dagger"). As for maneuvering, everything is still very speculative.
  5. Operator
    Operator 19 October 2020 08: 12
    +2
    The main difference between the Arrow and the Zircon and Dagger is a detachable warhead in the form of a hypersonic glider: an assembled Arrow flies along a ballistic trajectory under the action of a rocket engine, the warhead, after separation, flies by inertia along an aeroballistic trajectory. Aeroballistics allows you to increase the range and provide a flatter trajectory, which reduces vulnerability.

    In any case, the Zircon with a motorized hypersound is more advanced than the Arrow - its entire trajectory (with the exception of the accelerating section) goes not just along a gentle, but along a horizontal trajectory at the most optimal altitude of 28-30 km.

    Since the United States for 30 years has not been able to master the motor hypersound, the undoubted dominator is the Russian Federation.

    PS Nothing prevents equipping the Dagger (and at the same time the Iskander) with a detachable aeroballistic warhead.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 October 2020 09: 57
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      PS Nothing prevents equipping the Dagger (and at the same time the Iskander) with a detachable aeroballistic warhead.

      Well, like nothing - the rocket needs to be altered, the warhead separation mechanism developed and screwed on, and that's all. In fact, there will already be a new rocket.
  6. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 19 October 2020 09: 21
    +5
    It is desirable to see two photos:
    1) Detachable hypersonic unit ARRW
    2) Detachable hypersonic Zircon unit.
    These pictures will immediately take many questions and discussions.
    1. vargo
      vargo 19 October 2020 10: 23
      +3
      One problem, this is exactly what neither one nor the other will want to show. Much secret in this so far
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 19 October 2020 10: 40
        +2
        Quote: vargo
        One problem, this is exactly what neither one nor the other will want to show. Much secret in this so far

        But why? The appearance of American products is more or less known (the question, of course, is how final it is). Here is "Zircon" - that yes, a completely dark horse in all respects.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 October 2020 10: 41
        +1
        The Americans demonstrated their X-51 quite openly.
        I am waiting for them to show ARRW in "disassembled form".
        1. sgrabik
          sgrabik 20 October 2020 08: 34
          0
          Let them better demonstrate how they all fly and at the same time confirm all the declared characteristics !!!
    2. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 19 October 2020 18: 22
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      These pictures will immediately take many questions and discussions.

      Photos of the Zircon head will not be shown for a long time. its appearance is secret, the geometry determines the stability of the scramjet operation above 6.5M
      The Americans demonstrated their X-51 quite openly.

      They have a problem with destruction above 6.5M. So why should they hide, at the time of the beginning of the X-51 we collaborated with them on hypersound))
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 October 2020 18: 32
        0
        "geometry determines the stability of the scramjet above 6.5M" ///
        ----
        Most likely you are right.
        But there is one more option, which also explains this super secrecy: Zircon does not have a scramjet.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 20 October 2020 00: 53
          0
          Zircon does not have a scramjet. If she did not have a scramjet engine, she would have been shown in all its glory as a Dagger.
        2. sgrabik
          sgrabik 20 October 2020 10: 06
          0
          What does this mean that the "Zircon" does not have a scramjet, but due to what then it is able to develop speeds up to 10M inclusive and at the same time is able to maneuver throughout its flight, there is only one thing for sure, this is that the "Dagger" with the "Zircon" absolutely nothing in common !!!
        3. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 20 October 2020 15: 59
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          there is another option, which also explains such super secrecy: Zircon does not have a scramjet.


          There is no such option. Without the scramjet engine, they would not have dared to demonstrate it to the "partners" (and the tests of Zircon are precisely the demonstration of their achievements to the "partners").
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 20 October 2020 17: 16
            +2
            The "partners" would be shown hitting the target. This is what the Americans do when they want to demonstrate something: they show a hit on a target in slow motion.
            And launching an enemy container will not impress in any way. Onyx, Bastion start the same way.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 20 October 2020 17: 21
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The "partners" would be shown hitting the target.


              EMNIP, according to official statements, the missile hit the target. Again, this should be visible to radar.

              Quote: voyaka uh
              And launching an enemy container will not impress in any way.


              Starting a container - no, of course. Therefore, they launched a rocket that flew 450 km. And all these 450 km were probably driven by "partners".
  7. The comment was deleted.
    1. Ersh
      Ersh 19 October 2020 15: 11
      -1
      So the author is not bragging about our achievements! He brags about American accomplishments - super duper, etc. Or are you a US citizen?
  8. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 19 October 2020 09: 46
    +3
    And what are we actually discussing?
    In fact, we know nothing about Zircon, Arrow or Dagger.
    The author invented something for himself. From his fantasies he drew some conclusions.
    And now we are discussing what? Each his own fantasy?
    1. Asad
      Asad 19 October 2020 11: 09
      +2
      Vladimir Vladivostok said that in the course of development, we must ask in unison to share information!
  9. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 09: 52
    -2
    With our tests, we kicked the USA in one place, so they accelerated. Now they are actively developing 6 programs, in which there are several projects. There is a small missile for arming fighter-bombers, and a missile for an air defense missile system, I am an OTRK, and a missile for submarines, etc. They experienced the latter half a year ago.

    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 10: 06
      0
      HAWS Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept. For arming fighters.

  10. nobody75
    nobody75 19 October 2020 11: 09
    +2
    Dear Author! Have you ever wondered why the "Dagger" was tested with the MiG - 31? The thing is that the thirty-first is able to work in the upper layers of the stratosphere, where the Dagger "bounces" from the dense layers of the atmosphere. The presence of the modernized "Zaslon" turns the MiG - 31 into a "militarist". He can control the flight of the Dagger with great accuracy ... In this regard, I have a question: "How will the Americans test and refine their aerobalistic rocket with a detachable hypersonic gliding unit from the B-52? Aren't they too early for it on B-" 52 attached? "
    Sincerely
    1. Koval Sergey
      Koval Sergey 19 October 2020 13: 06
      17
      Quote: nobody75
      Aren't they a bit early on the B-52?

      Perhaps this is a psychological move intended for Russia. Remember how many carriers they have? In general, work and work on the product. The series can be changed beyond recognition.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 October 2020 13: 27
      +2
      Quote: nobody75
      why was the "Dagger" tested with the MiG - 31?

      Here you can think of a whole bunch of options. For instance:

      1. Altitude and flight speed of the MiG-31: lower values ​​do not allow the Dagger to be launched reliably without significant modifications to the missile (and I think they wanted to sharpen the Iskander for an air launch as quickly and cheaply as possible).

      2. It is not a pity for him. "Dagger" at the time of its creation looked more like a political project: a "legal" MRBM, which formally did not fall under the restrictions of the INF Treaty. It is somehow a pity to sharpen the drill "dryers" for it, but the MiG-31 still slowly, so to speak, "leaves" (the resource is being developed, it is difficult to repair due to the lack of spare parts, etc.), so it can be used on alteration for a new miracle rocket.

      Quote: nobody75
      How will the Americans test and refine their aerobatic rocket with a detachable hypersonic glider from the B-52?

      Why not? Carrying capacity and dimensions allow not to restrain too much the flight of design imagination. The lack of speed and height is completely eliminated by a thicker starting booster.
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 19 October 2020 13: 54
        +3
        Telemetry and radio correction? The 31st has a radar in the nose cone. It provides speed and coordinates with "millimeter" precision. In addition, it has an interceptor avionics, which allows it to issue radio correction commands. And the B-52 is nee a bomber ... I haven't been trained to detect the elements of movement of air targets ... Should I use AWACS additionally? It won't help much ...
        Sincerely
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 19 October 2020 14: 07
          +1
          Quote: nobody75
          Telemetry and radio correction?

          Hardly. The "Dagger" has a range of up to 1000 km, at such a distance the MiG-31, with all the desire, will not be able to see the target and will not correct anyone. Moreover, it is necessary to aim at ground targets, the search and tracking of which is clearly not the strongest side of the 31st. Here is the MiG, that the B-52 will be launched on the external control center; their own radars do not play a special role in this process.
          1. nobody75
            nobody75 19 October 2020 14: 47
            +2
            Sorry, I disagree. "Zaslon - M" easily accompanies the dagger up to 300 km. This is enough for taking telemetry and issuing correction commands.
            Here is the MiG, that the B-52 will be launched at an external control center; their own radars do not play a special role in this process.

            I agree with the launch. I'm writing about test launches.
            With respect.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 19 October 2020 15: 00
              0
              Quote: nobody75
              Sorry, I disagree. "Zaslon - M" easily accompanies the dagger up to 300 km. This is enough for taking telemetry and issuing correction commands.

              If we are talking about test launches, then this does not play a big role at all: there is nothing to prevent the placement of several transmitters along the intended trajectory of the missile flight. And there you can make a correction, and shoot telemetry, and so on. It seems to me that they usually do this, because trying to shove all the necessary equipment into a rather small MiG is an unreasonably difficult task. It is no coincidence that all "flying laboratories" are made on the basis of strategists or transport aircraft.
              1. nobody75
                nobody75 19 October 2020 18: 22
                +1
                They do it with ballistic and winged ones. But the Dagger's trajectory is complicated ... Not at all areas, telemetry can be removed from it.
                Sincerely
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 19 October 2020 18: 37
                  0
                  Quote: nobody75
                  But the Dagger's trajectory is complicated ... Not at all areas, telemetry can be removed from it.

                  Why? It flies along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, i.e., let's say, along ballistics, but with fluctuations. So from the field of view of the telemetry transmission and reception facilities located between the carrier and the target, will not go anywhere.
                  1. nobody75
                    nobody75 19 October 2020 19: 12
                    0
                    Reception and transmission in a cloud of plasma (when he dives) is difficult, the KMK is all about radio correction for out.
                    Sincerely
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 October 2020 17: 22
      0
      The dagger does not "bounce" anywhere. The dagger is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. After separation from the aircraft, it soars up to an altitude of 50 km. Exactly how Iskander does it. Its engine runs for 20 seconds. Further, the Dagger flies along a ballistic trajectory. And over the target it dives vertically downward with braking on the atmosphere.
      1. nobody75
        nobody75 20 October 2020 19: 56
        +1
        using calculated and experimental data, it is shown that
        ... that at high supersonic speeds, M = 6 - + - 10, Su (a) carrying
        bodies significantly depends on their shape and relative thickness and
        carrier body can be significantly higher than that of a thin
        wing, while at moderate supersonic speeds,
        M = 2 - + - 3, and with the same elongation, the value of Cy (a) at a - <100
        almost the same.
        - INFLUENCE OF THE SHAPE OF THE BEARING BODY ON ITS
        LIFTING FORCE IN SUPERSONIC
        AND HYPERSONIC FLIGHT SPEEDS IN TO KELDYSH. "Scientific notes of TsAGI" v. 5 1974
        Sincerely
  11. Ersh
    Ersh 19 October 2020 15: 08
    +1
    Those. is what they write about - the holy truth? It's only we show cartoons! And then for some reason cartoons actually fly, horror !!!
  12. Ersh
    Ersh 19 October 2020 15: 13
    +3
    Some commentators are surprising! Cartoons, lies, give photos (it's all about Zircon), well, etc. Guys, can I give you all the working drawings? And a detailed description of the manufacturing technology?
  13. 3danimal
    3danimal 19 October 2020 16: 18
    0
    does not at all say that the "Dagger" cannot be effectively used against its main targets - surface ships.

    The main targets, like Iskander's, are ground-based. The very use of OTP from the air greatly increases the flexibility in applying these frames.
    About ships: where is the information that the Dagger has the necessary radar seeker?
  14. Old26
    Old26 19 October 2020 17: 30
    +4
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    Those. only on external pylons, without internal compartments. Maximum 16 rockets on 8 pylons. About 31 AGM-183A is clearly the fantasy of a journalist, the B1 will not pull out in terms of carrying capacity. I suppose that in the end there will be a maximum of 8 AGM-183A on B1

    Unfortunately, we do not know its performance characteristics, in particular its weight and dimensions, so it is extremely difficult to say how much it can take.
    Earlier, before the withdrawal of the B-1B from the US Strategic Nuclear Forces, it could carry 20 AGM-86B cruise missiles. 6 on a revolving mount in a double bomb bay and 14 of the same missiles in external hardpoints under the fuselage (7 nodes). So he had 6 double pylons and 1 single one. 4 CRs were suspended on a double, and two on a single. In total, this gave 20 (6 + 6x2 + 1x2).
    If now they are going to put 8 pylons and use the bomb bay, then the pylons should be triple, like on the B-52. Then the total is 3x8 + 6 = 30. In any case, 31 does not work. As an option in bomb bay 7 or the same 6, but one pylon is quadruple. In short, it is still clear that nothing is clear.
    And it is not entirely clear why the general called the AGM-183A cruise missiles. what

    Quote: Hermit21
    "Zircons" and "Daggers" are not particularly needed, because it is a weapon against the highest priority and dangerous targets.

    And what does it mean that you don't need much? 10 carriers of "Dagger" for the fleet + 4 frigates + 8-9 "Ash"? Or what other alignment?

    Quote: Hermit21
    Well, the carriers will also be destroyers 22350M, cruisers 23560, coastal complexes, Tu-22M3M will receive 3 "Daggers" at once, for 21631 they promised "Mini-Zircon". So in the future, the carriers will be fine.

    Well, 22350M and 23560 are still some kind of spherical horse. So far there are only 2 projects 22350. Of the boats, only one is Severodvinsk, Kazan is promised this year.
    Tu-22M3M - too. There is only one on trial. There are none of them in the MPA, just as there is no MPA.

    Did you promise "Mini Zircon"? Well, I don’t know, I don’t know. Several years ago there was insider information that in addition to "Zircon" there will be 2 more "minerals". But the silence is still grave
    So there are actually two carriers in the fleet - two 22350 frigates of the project and 1 boat "
    So it's not very good with native speakers either.

    Quote: Hermit21
    You can, of course, fight back, "But when it is, then we'll talk." But "Zircon" is in the final stages of testing with the first deliveries in a year or two, "Dagger" is on experimental combat duty. And the Americans are still only skating MGM on the "Superfortress. That does not prevent to carry nonsense about entering service in 2023.

    The final stage of the Zircon test? Yes, in fact, he had only 3 tests with shooting at the range (2 on the ground, 1 on a sea target). There was NOT ONE test with a nuclear submarine. So, God forbid, that by the same 2023, like the Americans, we put it.
    Why do you think that putting this missile into service in 2023 by them is nonsense? With their budget, this can be easily done

    Quote: Hermit21
    As for the B-1B, firstly, less than a dozen of them remained operational, and secondly, with a combat load in the region of 40 tons and an AGM-183A weighing 3-3,5 tons, God forbid that he dragged 10-12 missiles. And for an acceptable radius and so that the glider does not finally become bo-bo and does 5-6.

    UPD: in other sources, the weight is 2-2,25 tones. But in any case, there can be no question of any 31 missiles. The glider will go crazy even from 15-17

    A dozen combat-ready - this does not mean that everyone else was killed in the trash. Part of B-1B is in conservation, and the rest can simply undergo modernization and repair and be considered incapable of combat. In the SNF, such aircraft (boats, missiles) are considered "not deployed"
    He has more combat load. On the external sling, it can carry a load of up to 23 tons, on the internal sling - up to 34
    As for how much it can carry - here we cannot say anything yet. We do not know the mass-dimensional characteristics of this rocket. Alas. Therefore, we can only assume

    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    31 AGM-183A aboard B1 is a fake, the general talked about a maximum of 16 missiles on board, 8 pylons, 2 missiles each. Which seems to me also extremely optimistic. I assume that in the end there will be 4 pylons with 2 missiles each.
    Our journalists have not translated correctly. 31 HAWC missiles, it is much smaller than the AGM-183A.
    The Air Force is also working on the concept of hypersonic air-breathing weapons, or HAWC, with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Pentagon officials said that the Air Force is already thinking about the combined transport of hypersonic missiles both within the country and abroad, on B-1 and B-52 aircraft. With the help of external hardpoints and the Central Scientific Research Laboratory, the B-1 can take down 31 hypersonic missiles.

    https://www.airforcemag.com/afgsc-eyes-hypersonic-weapons-for-b-1-conventional-lrso/

    Thanks for the footnote. Still, one should read the original source, not a retelling.
    But even the HAWC will not be much smaller than the AGM-183A. After all, apparently she has a direct flow
    and starting accelerator

    Quote: Kalmar
    It is hardly possible to drown the AV with hits from non-nuclear missiles. After a couple of hits, the aircraft carrier's combat capability can be restored rather quickly even by the crew - American sailors work out such moments. Of course, everything still depends on the performance characteristics of the Zircon warhead, but we do not know this, so I see no reason to reason.

    If my sclerosis serves me right there was such a book - "War at Sea" Author - Captain. And EMNIP there were numbers. In order to disable an aircraft carrier (so that it cannot raise aircraft), it is necessary to hit it with 8-9 X-22 or Granit missiles. Of course, with the usual BG. For drowning - 10-12. For a cruiser - 6 for incapacitation and 8 for sinking, respectively.

    Quote: nobody75
    The Dagger's engine for the Tu - 22 will have to be altered, the avionics will have to be changed ... but what is the benefit?

    Maybe the other way around? Does Tu have engines and avionics for "Dagger"? Why, though?

    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    There are sources, but I will not say anything!

    "We have such secret devices, but we will not show them to you."

    Quote: nobody75
    Dear Author! Have you ever wondered why the "Dagger" was tested with the MiG - 31? The thing is that the thirty-first is able to work in the upper layers of the stratosphere, where the Dagger "bounces" from the dense layers of the atmosphere. The presence of the modernized "Zaslon" turns the MiG - 31 into a "militarist". He can control the flight of the Dagger with great accuracy ... In this regard, I have a question: "How will the Americans test and refine their aerobalistic rocket with a detachable hypersonic gliding unit from the B-52? Aren't they too early for it on B-" 52 attached? "
    Sincerely

    And in the upper layers stratosphere A moment with a load of "Dagger" will be able to "crawl ??. Everything is much simpler, kmk. The moment is used as 1 stage of the system itself. Launch from a height and at high speed, as a result, increases the flight range of the" Dagger "itself. about 2000 km (according to open data). It is possible to place the "Dagger" on the TU-22M3M. The arm will be even "longer", the reach of the system will not be 2000 km, but 3000 or even more. Although the range and final speed of the "Dagger" will be less. You can hang the "Dagger" and under the TU-95. The range will be huge, but the range and speed of the "Dagger" will be less than under the MiG
    Therefore, the Americans will simply bring AGM-183 using the B-52
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 19 October 2020 17: 53
      -1
      By the number of missiles on the carrier, we find out when the project is completed. Regarding the 8 pylons on B1, the general said that this is their goal, i.e. we want 8 pylons with 2 missiles each, but what in fact will be time will tell.
      Of the interesting things write about the possibility of installing 1 AGM-183 on the central pylon F15.
    2. nobody75
      nobody75 19 October 2020 19: 03
      0
      And into the upper layers of the stratosphere Mig with the load of the "Dagger" will be able to "crawl" ??. Everything is much simpler, kmk. The Mig is used as the first stage of the system itself. Launch from a height and at high speed as a result increases the flight range of the "Dagger" itself. As a result, the range of the system is about 1 km (according to open data).

      Flash 31 max. speed km / h max speed m / s M
      at low altitude 1500 417 1,23
      at an altitude of 18000 m 2500 694 2,35
      The first stage of the rocket
      2000 6,78
      The instant does not fly fast near the ground, and as the first stage it makes sense to use it from 18 km. There it shows 694 m / s (2,35M). And even then ... The first stage usually accelerates up to 2 km / s (6,78M). And the combat radius of the 31st is 720 km ... It doesn't work out 2000 km at all ... It's all about the barrier ... Otherwise the point?
      Sincerely
  15. ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 19 October 2020 18: 15
    0
    Which does not mean that the "Dagger" cannot be effectively used against its main targets - surface ships.

    For the Dagger, surface ships are not the main targets, and we do not have MRA as such))
    If so, then Russia is currently following the path that the Americans once chose and which they subsequently abandoned: at least when it comes to the X-51.

    The Americans made their X-51 on the basis of the developments received from Russia under the "Cold" program, this was a transfer to Discovery in the early 2000s, where the developer spoke about it. The main thing is that the cause of the destruction after M> 6,5 is the geometry of the X-51, by the time of the tests in the mid-2000s, we with the USA stopped cooperation on this topic)))
    Our scramjet differs from the state laughing
  16. Old26
    Old26 19 October 2020 19: 22
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    Hardly. The "Dagger" has a range of up to 1000 km, at such a distance the MiG-31, with all the desire, will not be able to see the target and will not correct anyone.

    Actually, I heard that the declared range is 1300 km

    Quote: nobody75
    To date, the Tu-22M3M avionics do not allow adjusting the Dagger's trajectory.

    Who is talking about trajectory correction? The engine runs for about 15-20 seconds. On this site, he can make any evolutions using gas rudders. After running out of fuel, control only small aerodynamic surfaces. Moreover, the warhead of the Iskander (Dagger) is inseparable. So he is unlikely to be able to make too serious "evolutions". For a stationary target - this will compensate for the INS error, for a sea target - if only the target is stationary. And if it moves, then these rudders are not enough.
  17. Old26
    Old26 19 October 2020 21: 26
    +2
    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
    By the number of missiles on the carrier, we find out when the project is completed. Regarding the 8 pylons on B1, the general said that this is their goal, i.e. we want 8 pylons with 2 missiles each, but what in fact will be time will tell.
    Of the interesting things write about the possibility of installing 1 AGM-183 on the central pylon F15.

    Well, at one time they had 7 pylons on B-1B. Each under 2 AGM-86B. Now they want 8 - technically it's not difficult ...

    Quote: nobody75
    Flash 31 max. speed km / h max speed m / s M
    at low altitude 1500 417 1,23
    at an altitude of 18000 m 2500 694 2,35
    The first stage of the rocket
    2000 6,78
    The instant does not fly fast near the ground, and as the first stage it makes sense to use it from 18 km. There it shows 694 m / s (2,35M). And even then ... The first stage usually accelerates up to 2 km / s (6,78M). And the combat radius of the 31st is 720 km ... It doesn't work out 2000 km at all ... It's all about the barrier ... Otherwise the point?

    The question is whether it will be able to rise to an altitude of more than 18 km with such an oversized load as the "Dagger". The first stage of the rocket and the MIG as the 1st stage of the system are two different things. In any case, launching even from a height of 16 km and even at a speed of 8M will give a decent increase in the final speed. For when starting from the ground, the same Iskander along a ballistic trajectory can theoretically fly away at a distance of 800 km. And when the initial speed of the "Dagger" is not 0, but 8M, for example, and the launch will be not from 0, but from an altitude of 16 km, the range will increase by a little more than 50%.
    You correctly noticed the combat radius of the MIG - 720 km. If we add to this about 1300 km of the flight range of the "Dagger" itself. the reach of the system will be just 2000 km
    And where does the "barrier"? This rocket operates on a fire-and-forget principle.
  18. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 October 2020 07: 17
    +1
    It would also be nice for Zircon to get a version for Su30 / 34/34, T22M3M Some kind of younger version.
    1. sgrabik
      sgrabik 20 October 2020 10: 46
      0
      Versions of "Zircon" starting from air carriers were probably initially in the plans of the designers, and with a high degree of probability they are now working on them.
  19. peter rusin_2
    peter rusin_2 20 October 2020 11: 56
    -1
    Ilya, the Academician, scientist, author of the Zircon development told you! When in Russia, the USSR, they were already engaged in hypersound, the former President of the United States, Barack Husseinovich Obama, went to school.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 20 October 2020 16: 08
      0
      The United States was engaged in hypersound before the birth of Obama smile
  20. Dkuznecov
    Dkuznecov 20 October 2020 20: 33
    +2
    The meaning of all these posts is the bottom line:
    We have a wunderwaffen ogogo. Yes, Americans
    also came up with something.

    But they answered our "fist" with real
    products, we just had enough money
    only for OCD and prototypes, plus cartoons.

    Then the money ran out,
    but blue duct tape and sticks remained.
    And I almost forgot.
    We have such a special spirit
    that you don't need money either.
    They are American. just a little
    Give them toilet cubicles.
    So win.
    Thank you for attention.
  21. srha
    srha 24 October 2020 17: 48
    0
    "" Dagger "accelerates the MiG-31K" - "to execute can not be pardoned."
  22. Volder
    Volder 27 October 2020 08: 02
    +1
    Quote: Ilya Legat
    A few years ago, Russia seriously declared its leadership in the development of hypersonic weapons. Fortunately, the States provided her with all the opportunities for this.
    What such opportunities did they provide us with? Perhaps we are talking about sanctions?
    First Ilya writes:
    Quote: Ilya Legat
    It is important to note that neither then nor now did the Americans launch missiles, while Russia has already tested its air-launched Dagger, as well as the Zircon hypersonic missile.
    And then he gives out a pearl:
    Does this mean that the US is "lagging behind"? Yes and no. Now it is not possible to name an unambiguous favorite of the hypersonic race.
    The author admits that the United States is not lagging behind in the creation of hypersonic missiles. A very strange and contradictory opinion. The desire to belittle Russia's successes, and the desire to pull the US by the ears, sticks out very strongly. Throughout the article, the author is trying to prove that the design developments of the Americans are unequivocally successful, and the missiles will turn out better than the Russian ones.
    In April 2020, The Drive reported that one B-1B strategic bomber could carry up to 31 such missiles.
    The author does not even admit that foreign sources may present incorrect information.
    Probably, we are talking about a conditional analogue of the Boeing X-51, that is, a weapon that in theory can be called "hypersonic".
    The author constantly compares Russian missiles with American projects, and Russian ones are just an analogue with the worst characteristics and capabilities.
    In a broad sense, the main difference between ARRW and Zircon is airborne: Zircon will have to be carried primarily by submarines and surface ships. Time will tell which of the chosen concepts is more correct.
    What other concepts? The issue of concepts is not relevant for Russia, since we have a full line of hypersonic missiles: Dagger - airborne, Zircon - sea-based, Avangard and Burevestnik - land-based. The combat operation of the latter, however, we will not see until 2025.
  23. storm
    storm 28 October 2020 22: 13
    +1
    The author of this opus can in theory be called a journalist, and they are also sometimes called scribblers ...
  24. Misha Smirnov_2
    Misha Smirnov_2 7 November 2020 23: 31
    -1
    The point of talking about hypersonic weapons is that you can shoot them down with a laser. Because light is faster than sound.

    That is why Khrushchev was carrying missiles to Cuba.
    Therefore, in the US, there are Russian bombs. And in Germany too.
    Therefore, there will be no second German stream.