Russian warship with hypersonic Zircon missiles on drills in Atlantic

[Lyneham Lad]

In The Times this afternoon.
Russian warship with hypersonic Zircon missiles on drills in Atlantic (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/89f3b372-9c9e-11ed-8201-2ed91f44d1e8?shareToken=607890054fc8e4619fff1f19a47cd057)

Show of strength is in response to the potential delivery of American battle tanks to Ukraine. A Russian warship armed with hypersonic Zircon missiles has tested its strike capabilities in the western part of the Atlantic Ocean, after Russia warned Nato over the supply of more weapons to Ukraine.

Zircon missiles, which President Putin has hailed as “invincible”, have a range of 560 miles and can travel at nine times the speed of sound, according to the Russian military. A combination of speed, manoeuvrability and altitude makes the missiles difficult to track and intercept, experts say.

The exact location of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, which is armed with the missiles, is unclear, but the warship is said to have recently diverted towards the coast of the United States in a provocative show of strength by Moscow’s military.

Click the link for the remainder, photos & diagrams.

[anxiao]

Article behind "The Times" paywall.

[nevillestyke]

Article behind "The Times" paywall.
An iron curtain is being drawn across the free press.

[Ninthace]

Was it not a computer simulation? Never miss with a simulation!

[Lyneham Lad]

Article behind "The Times" paywall.

Odd, usually the links work. It is quite a lengthy article, broken up by photos, diagrams, adverts etc so a bit of a pain to separate out the text - hence posting the link. Anyway, here's more:-
The Russian defence ministry said Zircon missiles had been tested by computer simulation and that they had “destroyed” a target over 500 miles away.It is not thought that any missiles were launched by the Admiral Gorshkov, but videos released by Russian media showed the vessel’s missile bays opening while crew members simulated a launch sequence. Russia last test-fired a Zircon missile in May in the Barents Sea.

This month the frigate was escorted through British waters by the Royal Navy, and then by French and Spanish ships through the Atlantic.

It was due to head south past South Africa to the Indian Ocean and enter the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal. But monitoring sites claim it took a sudden diversion and headed west towards Bermuda. Pro-Russian telegram users have claimed this week that it had been “spotted on radar in neutral waters of the Atlantic Ocean — at an effective salvo launch distance from the US coast”.


The reports were not confirmed by the Russian Defence Ministry, nor commented on by the United States. But Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s national security council, said this month that the Admiral Gorshkov, which is also likely armed with Kalibr cruise missiles and torpedoes, could be deployed about 100 miles off the coast of the United States.

Russia has threatened on a number of occasions that it will use its nuclear arsenal to defend occupied regions of Ukraine (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/ukraine?page=1) that it claims as its own, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, while accusing the West of escalation by sending weapons and supplies to the government in Kyiv.

The rest of it is mostly Russia blaming the West etc etc.

​​​​​​​

[pasta]

Was it not a computer simulation? Never miss with a simulation!
This is Russia we're talking about, I'm sure they could give it a good try...

[_Agrajag_]

Article behind "The Times" paywall.


Use "12ft ladder": https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2F89f3b37 2-9c9e-11ed-8201-2ed91f44d1e8%3FshareToken%3D607890054fc8e4619fff1f19a47cd057

Useful site to defeat paywalls. Enter any paywalled URL here and it will display it: https://12ft.io/

[DaveReidUK]

The exact location of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, which is armed with the missiles, is unclear

Hmmm.

Who is The Times trying to kid ?

[_Agrajag_]

Hmmm.

Who is The Times trying to kid ?

No one other than some of its readership. If the whereabouts of the ship are really unknown I will eat my (long since thrown out) SD hat.

That was written to appeal to some of the people that read The Times. They like to believe that we are still living at a time when all ships in the middle of the ocean were invisible.

[uxb99]

So this is a Russian show of strength.
Anyone care to make a comparison between Russian, US and NATO Naval assets?
I wouldn't be surprised if America has more fleets than Russia has ships.

[MENELAUS]

So this is a Russian show of strength.
Anyone care to make a comparison between Russian, US and NATO Naval assets?
I wouldn't be surprised if America has more fleets than Russia has ships.


All well and good. It sadly just takes the one to get through. As we found out to our cost. On more than one occasion.

[twb3]

Very confident that the U.S. Navy knows the precise whereabouts of this target threat at all times. Should a launch be detected against a NATO target, that ship would have a short life, but a merry one.

[HarryMann]

Not sure. Russia hasvavhelluvavlitbif shios, China a ridiculous number

[BFSGrad]

Hmmm.

Who is The Times trying to kid ?Seems to be a lot of kidding going on by the media. The Zircon is simply a very expensive way to deliver a warhead to a target faster than a non-hypersonic missile. While hypersonic missiles are more difficult to defend against, the warhead carried is similar to non-hypersonic missiles.

[Rockie_Rapier]

I'm just a little curious, are the Zircon missiles as effective as the Kerch bridge defenses? Those military trained dolphins we heard about struggeled dealing with that exploding truck.

[Flyhighfirst]

Unlike Russia and China the US does not have many, if any at all deployed anti air weapons in the continental US. So a hypersonic missile is not needed as a normal missile would work just as well.

Edited to add I am not talking about ballistic missile defence.

[jolihokistix]

Cuban missile crisis pt. II?

A lone Russian ship sitting duck off the coast of the US? What could possibly go wrong?

[Ninthace]

Very confident that the U.S. Navy knows the precise whereabouts of this target threat at all times. Should a launch be detected against a NATO target, that ship would have a short life, but a merry one.
How so? Unless it has a shadow vessel.

[pasta]

How so? Unless it has a shadow vessel.
As an indication of ship-borne capabilities, the Astute class sonar is claimed to have a range of 3000 miles (whatever that means in practice). SOSUS, or whatever's succeeded it, is presumably more capable. There's also satellite imaging (this is a surface vessel), ELINT, and plain old radar. I'd be amazed if tracking vessels such as this were even vaguely challenging or anything other than routine.

[Ninthace]

As an indication of ship-borne capabilities, the Astute class sonar is claimed to have a range of 3000 miles (whatever that means in practice). SOSUS, or whatever's succeeded it, is presumably more capable. There's also satellite imaging (this is a surface vessel), ELINT, and plain old radar. I'd be amazed if tracking vessels such as this were even vaguely challenging or anything other than routine.
Surely passive sonar will give you a bearing but not a range unless different sensors are combined (unless the SM is close enough to be in trail). Satellite imagery is intermittent, the claim was that the precise whereabouts was known at all times. Likewise, I would have thought ELINT and radar woud require a shadow vessel to provide reliable data.

[jolihokistix]

I suppose she it would have some kind of magic cloak of invisibility.

[Video Mixdown]

I suppose she it would have some kind of magic cloak of invisibility.
Wouldn't work, they can still track it using tsunami warning buoys.

[Ninthace]

I suppose she it would have some kind of magic cloak of invisibility.
Going dark by minimising emissions is quite effective I believe. The effort expended trying to find ships that want to be found suggests knowing the precise whereabouts of a vessel at all times is not as easy as post #12 implied.

[Ninthace]

Wouldn't work, they can still track it using tsunami warning buoys.
Now THAT'S what I call a wake!

[_Agrajag_]

Surely passive sonar will give you a bearing but not a range unless different sensors are combined (unless the SM is close enough to be in trail). Satellite imagery is intermittent, the claim was that the precise whereabouts was known at all times. Likewise, I would have thought ELINT and radar woud require a shadow vessel to provide reliable data.

Seems possible that the Doppler could be processed along with a bearing from a passive sonar array to give a track perhaps? I don't know enough about sonar but remember seeing waterfall displays showing the frequency shift as a target moved relative to the sensors. No idea how this can be processed though.

[uxb99]

I think this discussion needs a smattering of fog of war and reality to enter the mix.
Technical discussions on paper soon enter the waste basket in war. We lost enough high tech naval assets to relatively low tech delivered munitions in the Falklands to remind us of that.
An interesting comment was that "If we had taken our stored WW2 Barrage Balloons with us we may not have lost so many ships" is interesting.

Rules of war.
The enemy will do something you have not anticipated.
Plans vary rarely go to plan.
If the enemy can get through (our defences) it will get through.
Most importantly, never underestimate the enemy.

[Ninthace]

Seems possible that the Doppler could be processed along with a bearing from a passive sonar array to give a track perhaps? I don't know enough about sonar but remember seeing waterfall displays showing the frequency shift as a target moved relative to the sensors. No idea how this can be processed though.
If it was that good, submarines would not need attack periscopes :8

[_Agrajag_]

If it was that good, submarines would not need attack periscopes :8

What's the visible horizon from a periscope, though? Can't be far, can it? Knowing where a ship like this was to within a dozen miles is more than good enough if you're not interested in sinking it, just keeping a tail on it's whereabouts.


Edited:

Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.

[Ninthace]

What's the visible horizon from a periscope, though? Can't be far, can it? Knowing where a ship like this was to within a dozen miles is more than good enough if you're not interested in sinking it, just keeping a tail on it's whereabouts.


Edited:

Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.

Monitoring a vessel can be done at a distance using passive sonar and a series of manoeuvres to get a range and bearing. The sonogram will give more information about the vessel.. The attack periscope (is/was) is used to get a firing solution by acquiring more precise data on the target's course, speed and range, including confirming the identity of the target. It is much smaller than the conventional periscope which has a larger radar cross section but is used at longer distances or where there is no threat. But either way. a trailing submarine is a boat in trail and is outside the scope of my question.

[Recc]

Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.

Those figures are for waterline visibility. If you add in the height of the ship, then they look more realistic (e.g. a periscope at a height of 20ft can see a 70ft warship out to 13Nm.

On the wider point, target-motion analysis as a method for estimating range from passive sensors has been around in crude form since before the 2nd world war. On modern submarine with automated analysis it is much more sophisticated.

[balsa model]

Seems to be a lot of kidding going on by the media. The Zircon is simply a very expensive way to deliver a warhead to a target faster than a non-hypersonic missile. While hypersonic missiles are more difficult to defend against, the warhead carried is similar to non-hypersonic missiles.
According to the wisdom imparted to me by the Internet, apples-to-apples (say, same launch weight?), the warhead ought to be actually smaller.
The reasoning:
(1) All that speed (and attendant friction) doesn't come from nothing - need to carry more fuel.
(2) Hypersonic means surrounded by plasma, so no guidance corrections until it slows down near target. At which point it can be engaged just like any supersonic missile at close-in range.

If the design chooses not to slow down, then:
(1) The warhead must give up some of its HE weight to a heat shield, and
(2) It will not be GPS accurate. So ironically, it could really use a bigger warhead.
Perhaps this last point can be solved with some clever optical terminal guidance, but it certainly won't be easy to do, with the nose cone busy trying not to melt.

[_Agrajag_]

Those figures are for waterline visibility. If you add in the height of the ship, then they look more realistic (e.g. a periscope at a height of 20ft can see a 70ft warship out to 13Nm.

On the wider point, target-motion analysis as a method for estimating range from passive sensors has been around in crude form since before the 2nd world war. On modern submarine with automated analysis it is much more sophisticated.


Thanks. Makes sense. I had a feeling there were ways to get range as well as bearing from passive sonar, just didn't know how it was done. Presumably modern signal processing makes that easier and more accurate.

[ETOPS]

There are quite a few USN P8 maritime patrol aircraft based at NAS Jacksonville so I would imagine they would be tasked ?

[Ninthace]

Thanks. Makes sense. I had a feeling there were ways to get range as well as bearing from passive sonar, just didn't know how it was done. Presumably modern signal processing makes that easier and more accurate.
In crude terms, you put a zig zag in your course to form a baseline from which to triangulate the bearing. Do it a few times and you have a last known course and speed - which is why skimmers zigzag in the face of an SM threat.

[albatross]

I think that if you have the required clearance and a “need to know” you could get a full briefing as to what the crew had for breakfast.

[Thrust Augmentation]

I'm guessing that the US have SAR equipped satellites that could pinpoint it 24/7, all weather if required?

[maggot]

I think that if you have the required clearance and a “need to know” you could get a full briefing as to what the crew had for breakfast.

It wasn't good.

[Less Hair]

Kasha.

[jolihokistix]

If she suddenly sank in rough weather, that would not look very good.

[Ninthace]

I'm guessing that the US have SAR equipped satellites that could pinpoint it 24/7, all weather if required?
There is that much orbital coverage to provide 24/7?

[Thrust Augmentation]

There is that much orbital coverage to provide 24/7?

Would anyone know or comment if they did.

[Asturias56]

it would be astounding if they didn't - after all they've had spy sats for over60 years...............

[Ninthace]

it would be astounding if they didn't - after all they've had spy sats for over60 years...............
Not withstanding, I would be sceptical of 24/7 coverage of the Atlantic. In the days when I was peripherally involved in doing things we did not want the other side to see, we knew when to work and when to sit tight.

[petit plateau]

There is that much orbital coverage to provide 24/7?

They've stopped showing all of the live Starlink video during the launch sequence. Until recently there was live payload video right up to and through the deployment sequence, i.e. when the individual satellites get released from the carrier/dispenser. Up until they stopped doing this one could be absolutely certain what was the configuration of the payload.

That cessation coincided with some changes to the satellites themselves that were supposedly be to allow the addition of other capabilities. Different capabilities than the initial(v1) up/down radio comms ones (mass 260kg) , and different than the subsequent addition (v1.5) of in-orbit sat-to-sat (intersat) laser comms ones (mass 295kg). The latest v2 satellites have additional functionality and mass 1250kg. They've recently started launching some of the v2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#

https://mezha.media/en/2022/12/28/spacex-launched-the-first-54-starlink-v2-0-satellites-into-orbit/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/01/fcc-authorizes-spacex-gen2-starlink-up-to-7500-satellites.html

Given the quantities of the Starlink constellation (3,300 now) with at least 12,000 planned, and given the various orbits which include polar to at least 60N, plus some that seem to be fully polar, very soon every bit of earth will have a continuous 'stare'.

https://satellitemap.space/

There is a 'military' variant of the v2 that is known to include defence payloads, and it is known that one of those payloads is for earth observation purposes. But it has been noted that the close-up release videos seem to have stopped for all variants.

Individual sensors on these things might be relatively poor, but the cumulative effect need not be. And individual sensors have a habit of getting much better very fast when produced in high volume.

So even without considering all the various other hardware in orbit, we can pretty much be sure that either already or in the very near future, continuous observation of an interestingly useful nature is going to be available to the USA.

[havoc]

In the 80s SAC had B52s rig the Kiev every 30 minutes on its trip from Cuba to the Med.

On one pass the ships crew were lined up in dress uniforms.

Maybe a possible option again….

[chopper2004]

There are quite a few USN P8 maritime patrol aircraft based at NAS Jacksonville so I would imagine they would be tasked ?

am sure our Poseidon brethren oop in in Sturgeon land be on the case as soon as the damn thing set sail along with (or there was last year) our cousins Poseidons also oop there too.. And in RAf social media, theres a pair in the land of fire and ice.

https://scontent-lcy1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/326089230_1225169395024997_3510316650983232967_n.jpg?_nc_cat =104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=umtspOPJ0-YAX_EBY84&tn=kedkKBqdR4lrlENg&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-2.xx&oh=00_AfClu3yI0fbTSpoQ_erdpICAcGOdYHJzJln3T7LbEzDhAg&oe=63D887ED
one if called ‘Spirit of Reykjavik’ to honour the battle of the atlantic

cheers

[Sfojimbo]

My understanding is that hypersonic missiles are more effective at PR than they are as weapons. They have a few traits that limit their effectiveness as weapons.

First of all, they need to get up to 25 miles or so altitude in order to travel at mach 5+, and even there, they are still in partial Earth atmosphere, so they build an electrostatic 'bubble' around them, thus they can receive no mid course corrections, so while they are not on a ballistic trajectory and can maneuver (somewhat) they cannot 'see' or hear. When they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere the heat generated from the friction with air molecules is intense, thus they need heat shields on the forepart part of the missile; so they can have no sensors looking out to identify a moving target's current location and they still won't be able to receive mid course updates.

Another problem is that they don't have the ability to carry a large payload, so their warhead size is limited. Unless they have a nuke warhead they couldn't take out a ship anyway.