Russia and other developments in Hypersonic Research

God damn it I am still obsessed with the development of this missile and for some reason also have a obsession of having it fit inside the Su-70.

Purchase No. 32009541542 stipulates the conduct of an integral part of research work with the code "Klevok-D2-Caliber". The topic is designated as "substantiation of the possibility of creating an interspecific long-range missile through the use of ramjet engines." Purchase No. 32009541559 launches the Klevok-D2-Airplane R&D midrange - “substantiation of the possibility of creating an interspecific long-range missile by optimizing the aerodynamic characteristics of the main stage with a ramjet engine”


"A missile with a ramjet engine must have a launch mass of no more than 150 kg and fit into a transport and launch container with an inner diameter of 207 mm. The product should consist of a sustainer stage and a 23Ya6 dumped starting engine, having a mass of approx. 67 kg. Payload - warhead length approx. 1,5 m and weighing 56,6 kg."

Assumptions are made that the Su-70 has a 4.6 meter by 1 meter internal weapons bay and that these missiles have folding wings, 1.5 meter payload length meaning remaining rocket with ramjet are both 1 meters. But lets say that the sustainer stage that was 130mm is also the version of the ramjet sustainer. so the ramjet body length with the payload length is 2.5 meters just for reference. That means on one internal weapons bay we stick 4 in the back move up by 1 meter, than assuming that we know have 130mm covered 2.5 meters and and up accounts for 520mm, means that we can stick 2 more 207mms 1 meter rocket boosters in there which now push the length to 4.5 meters? Meaning it can have 12 hypersonic air to ground 57 kg payloads to unload with a stealth profile and still travel far because of lightness of missiles?

Any agreements or suggestions would be nice if there are any to put here.

Those specs make it compatible with the Su-70. Also, the 2030s is some meaningless projection. If NATzO pushes its aggression,
such missiles will show up faster.

Sources of Izvestia in the Ministry of Defense and the military-industrial complex explained that several research and development work is currently underway on means of protection against hypersonic weapons . All of them are carried out within the framework of a single plan to create an echeloned defense. They will oppose the ammunition itself, and their carriers, and guidance and aiming systems. Some of the developments have already reached the testing stage, the interlocutors added

Some information about the ongoing work can be found in open sources. So, in 2019, JSC "Scientific and Production Enterprise" Delta "patented in Russia a method to combat hypersonic aircraft . The enterprise, part of the Rostec state corporation, proposed a scheme for their destruction with a powerful laser, as well as a passive detection method that does not require the use of a radar.

https://iz.ru/1101811/anton-lavrov/zaglianut-za-giperzvuk-chem-rossiia-budet-zashchishchatsia-ot-novogo-oruzhiia

been awhile since the last update of US developments in hypersonics so here we go.

https://www.rocket.com/article/another-aerojet-rocketdyne-hypersonic-engine-makes-history

“Our scramjet engine powered the United States Air Force X-51A Waverider when it made history in 2010 by completing the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever and we continue to propel the technology,” said Eileen P. Drake, Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and president. “Our Generation-3 scramjet delivers increased performance and affordability because of our significant investments in our skilled workforce, advanced technologies and innovative manufacturing processes.”

The 18-foot Aerojet Rocketdyne scramjet engine produced record levels of thrust, in excess of 13,000 lbs. The testing occurred over 12 months with more than an hour of sustained combustion at several hypersonic flight conditions. Tests were conducted across a range of Mach numbers demonstrating performance to accelerate a vehicle approximately 10 times the size of the X-51, at hypersonic speeds.

“Aerojet Rocketdyne successfully demonstrated the scalability of their air-breathing scramjet engine, proving its applicability to platforms ranging from missiles to high speed aircraft,” said AFRL Program Manager Paul Kennedy. “Years of preparation paid off as the completion of the MSCC test program sets the foundation for design of hypersonic propulsion systems across a broad range of vehicle scale and Mach operability.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/hypersonic-hawc-wont-fly-by-end-of-2020-due-to-ongoing-test-problems/?fbclid=IwAR0cQYrEv3HlwNQICIVayItqiV69l-21zvNqF-GzT5sFvgF3TLWqHb348j4

DARPA announced in September it had completed captive-carry testing of the two HAWC vehicle types and would be flying at least one by the end of the year. Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies have developed HAWC demonstrators, and sources said the Lockheed vehicle was the one being tested. They said last week’s attempt can’t be re-organized by the end of December.

“This is not about a design issue,” said a source familiar with the program. “This is dumb mistakes.”

The Air Force and DARPA got telemetry aircraft up and cleared the test area, but the missile was apparently not released from its B-52 mothership. The exact nature of the problem was not disclosed, but sources implied there were “basic errors” having to do with the mechanics of the test.

A nice study about constraints and performance of HGV:

http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs28tracy.pdf

LMFS wrote:A nice study about constraints and performance of HGV:

http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs28tracy.pdf

I have an issue with their Figure 7.   Maybe it's some US brain fart, but it certainly isn't a Russian one.   They have
the hypersonic glider starting out at under 114 km and descending to 40 km after 3000 km of the 8100 km total
distance to target.  

Hypersonic gliders are not constrained to atmospheric densities corresponding to 40 km.    They can engage in
ABM evading maneuvers including horizontal excursion in the hundreds of kilometers even at 100 km.  So launching
them higher is not precluded.    Anything cruising at 40 km would be slow and this whole scenario smells like some
delusional fantasy of the yanquis who can never admit that that Russia snookered their whole ABM "final solution".

What the Russian ICBMs with the Avangaard do is certainly not what is modeled in this paper.    They inject the
MARV well above 200 km and the glider separation occurs at the trajectory zenith where the yanquis and their
ABM wunderwaffe are not effective anyway.    The gliders use the enormous speed to bounce off the thin layers
above 100 km for most of the remaining trajectory distance.    Sure, they are losing altitude, but that is not
any sort of problem.  

This 40 km cruise altitude looks a lot like the Kh-102 flight path.   Why the f*ck would Russia constrain a hypersonic
glider capable at operating at temperatures of 2000 C to a trajectory that is similar to the Kh-102 cruise missile?
Operating at higher altitudes and lower densities keeps the temperature down.

I have found sources that the HTV-2 and Avangard according to NPO use scramjet engines during their descending phase(for those interested). I have repeatedly argued this with another user(not here) as well but does not accept this because the speed classifications put it above an ICBM and they like to pretend they have defenses already available to intercept it when they cant event make a successful HGV themselves

thegopnik wrote:I have found sources that the HTV-2 and Avangard according to NPO use scramjet engines during their descending phase(for those interested). I have repeatedly argued this with another user(not here) as well but does not accept this because the speed classifications put it above an ICBM and they like to pretend they have defenses already available to intercept it when they cant event make a successful HGV themselves

The Avangaard HGV may well have scramjets since it is disposable. They could use a ceramic coating on the inner surface that will last long enough to
do the job. But it is unlikely to have any engine at all since that would require it to carry fuel. Why bother since depending on the shape of the glider,
it can still carry out large horizontal excursions (enough to defeat any ABM system) without needing active propulsion. The trick is the enormous speed
that allows it to bounce off atmospheric densities that are vanishingly small. That is why the posted research paper is crap. It assumes that Russia
is not capable of taking advantage of high altitude hypersonic "flight".

Flight does not require a constant altitude. It requires maneuverability.

kvs wrote:

thegopnik wrote:I have found sources that the HTV-2 and Avangard according to NPO use scramjet engines during their descending phase(for those interested). I have repeatedly argued this with another user(not here) as well but does not accept this because the speed classifications put it above an ICBM and they like to pretend they have defenses already available to intercept it when they cant event make a successful HGV themselves

The Avangaard HGV may well have scramjets since it is disposable.   They could use a ceramic coating on the inner surface that will last long enough to
do the job.   But it is unlikely to have any engine at all since that would require it to carry fuel.   Why bother since depending on the shape of the glider,
it can still carry out large horizontal excursions (enough to defeat any ABM system) without needing active propulsion.   The trick is the enormous speed
that allows it to bounce off atmospheric densities that are vanishingly small.   That is why the posted research paper is crap.   It assumes that Russia
is not capable of taking advantage of high altitude hypersonic "flight".
 
Flight does not require a constant altitude.   It requires maneuverability.

coming out of the atmosphere and re-entering the atmosphere does not give you mach 27 to mach 28. HTV-2(this fuck up is included as well) and Avangard would give you sources that both are mach 20 and use the same 100km heights. That means anything above mach 20 would have to use engines.





https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HGMsixSighwJ:https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/russia-announces-successful-flight-test-of-avangard-hypersonic-glide-vehicle+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"Developed by the NPO Mashinostroyenia Corporation and furnished with a solid propellant scramjet engine, Avangard has a claimed engagement speed of Mach 27 (32,202.36 kph). The HGV can reportedly be integrated as a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces’ (Raketnye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya – RVSN) RS-18B/UR-100UTTKh SS-19 Mod 3 ‘Stiletto’, R-36M2, and RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The Avangard system has already been integrated onto the UR-100UTTKh ICBM, according to Russian Security Council member, Sergei Ivanov. “We have several dozen brand new UR-100N UTTH ICBMs, with which the Avangard fits very well,” he said. According to Ivanov, the new HGV also complies with the existing strategic arms reduction treaties, including the New START (SNV-3)."



If both were considered HGVs that than there speeds will just be mach 20 and mach 20 has been reference numerous times as well for both projects. but going above mach 20 like claiming mach 27-mach 28 is quite a big leap while the HTV-2 on my 1st image 4th paragraph says onboard rocket propulsion for the vehicle and thus we have the 3rd image showing a mach 22 reference. In other words they are HBGVs.

If you dont think any of this true than your going to have to explain to me why on numerous accounts why there were sources saying the Avangard and HTV-2 were mach 20 and why there sources also stating numerous times that they were above mach 20

kvs wrote:
I have an issue with their Figure 7.   Maybe it's some US brain fart, but it certainly isn't a Russian one.   They have
the hypersonic glider starting out at under 114 km and descending to 40 km after 3000 km of the 8100 km total
distance to target.  

Hypersonic gliders are not constrained to atmospheric densities corresponding to 40 km.    They can engage in
ABM evading maneuvers including horizontal excursion in the hundreds of kilometers even at 100 km.  So launching
them higher is not precluded.    Anything cruising at 40 km would be slow and this whole scenario smells like some
delusional fantasy of the yanquis who can never admit that that Russia snookered their whole ABM "final solution".

What the Russian ICBMs with the Avangaard do is certainly not what is modeled in this paper.    They inject the
MARV well above 200 km and the glider separation occurs at the trajectory zenith where the yanquis and their
ABM wunderwaffe are not effective anyway.    The gliders use the enormous speed to bounce off the thin layers
above 100 km for most of the remaining trajectory distance.    Sure, they are losing altitude, but that is not
any sort of problem.  

This 40 km cruise altitude looks a lot like the Kh-102 flight path.   Why the f*ck would Russia constrain a hypersonic
glider capable at operating at temperatures of 2000 C to a trajectory that is similar to the Kh-102 cruise missile?
Operating at higher altitudes and lower densities keeps the temperature down.  

Well to be fair they have calculated the needed altitude to provide the needed lift for the given L/D, drag and speed loss come from there and they admit they don't have the actual L/D number so there is a big uncertainty in the whole simulation. The 40 km come from terminal phase where speeds are substantially lower than at the beginning. But your proposal of bouncing would send the HGV into way thinner air and avoid drag for a long part of the flight. The lower trajectory is good against EW radars and is key against exoatmospheric interceptors, this capability is also important against space-based lasers, but creates lots of drag and speed loss. To maneuver out of atmosphere the HGV would need thrusters, that would be an additional issue. But I do not doubt that the real weapons do in fact optimize trajectory to avoid drag as much as possible, it is not just because of range but mainly because of minimizing the risk of interception in the terminal phase due lo low speed of the warhead.




@thegopnik: you need to check / redo the simulations if you question concrete figures like speed.

HGV flies through part of the trajectory in the atmosphere and performs maneuvers. Its final speed is much slower than traditional RV?

So you consider 5100 km out of a 8100 km distance to be "terminal phase". Sorry, that's not serious. Their whole scenario
is patent academic onanism that has zero relevance for Russian hypersonic glider warheads. And their lack of knowledge of
the physics parameters for high altitude hypersonic flight is one of the lamest excuses of all time. It utterly defeats their
whole simulation exercise.

May as well go back and simulate cars moving on roads.

@lmfs you need to check / redo the simulations if you question concrete figures like speed.


You and I are talking about separate things also its not just the Chinese and Russians that gave those speeds on HGV related projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGV-202F but thats besides the point. Speed dependency at low or high altitudes is out of the question if HGVs use engines and by engines I am talking about the ones that deal with air density and drag way better than solid or liquid fuel engines that burn fuel way faster. Don't get me wrong that article is great in regards to discussing flights of HGV in comparisons to ballistic missiles when re-entering the atmosphere in different altitudes, but any vehicle using an engines has to be taken into account as well.  

NPO stated it uses these engines and bumping up mach 20 to mach 27-28(speeds unheard of for any ballistic missile) you need an engine. NPO was not the only sources that stated it had engines.

https://news.rambler.ru/weapon/42502256-giperzvukovoy-kompleks-avangard-novaya-golova-na-dryahlom-tele/

The combat equipment capacity of one vanguard hypersonic unit is from 800 kilotons to two megatons. Presumably, the block is 5.4 meters long. The Vanguard corps is made of composite materials, which provides resistance to aerodynamic heating of several thousand degrees and reliable protection from laser irradiation.
The vanguard's combat units have their own engines and can maneuver on a trajectory and in direction and speed. The control system allows you to quickly change the flight task and distribution of targets before liftoff.

Regarding the civilian sector analysis of hypersonic systems, it really is not feasible if the data is locked up behind the secret category.
Both the USA and USSR conducted lots of hypersonic glider tests back in the 1970s.

http://www.astronautix.com/r/russianrocketplanes.html

So there would have been experience built up for re-entry "flight". But this data is not likely to have been declassified.

But even so, the authors just assume some Kh-102 style flight path for the Avangaard which is not based on anything other
than their own wants and needs. That is not serious research. They should have at least considered high altitude re-entry
gliding scenarios. If that is a show stopper, then there is no point producing such an article.

I see that the authors appealed to other similar rubbish:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF11459.pdf

I tried to find a rational analysis of this problem but I am seeing just the same idiotic assumption of constant altitude flight
below 50 km for most of the trajectory to the target. The inanity is mind numbing. Why would the kinetic energy of a
zenith glider release not be employed for maneuverability? The ceramics exist as shown by all the above linked tests to
enable re-entry survival. Using that kinetic energy the glider can pull very large variations in trajectory even approaching
100 km. I do not see the benefit of 1000+ km lateral excursions. The glider needs to avoid any potential ABM warhead(s)
and thus even ten kilometers is enough to survive a nuclear detonation.

An important parameter is speed. It has more value than the ridiculous 40 km cruising assumed in these lame attempts
at analysis. The HGV warhead is not avoiding interception by hiding over the horizon, it avoids it by having just enough
non-ballistic movement ability and speed. So the most likely HGV trajectory follows quasi-ballistic ICBM delivery to
the release point hundreds of kilometers above the ground (the ICBM trajectory is likely the depressed one) with the HGV
progressively deviating from ballistic movement as it descends into thicker layers of the atmosphere. This way the
HGV can leverage the atmosphere over a much greater depth and does not spend all of its time in slow cruising mode
at 40 km.

Interception of regular warheads is hard enough. So adding extra movement ability to them achieves the goal of
defeating any kinetic kill or even nuclear ABM interception capability. Slowing down the warhead to cruise at
40 km defeats the purpose of the exercise. These ludicrous scenarios purported to be HGV flight paths reduce
the speed to less than MACH 6. Why? Just to "glide"?

The real gliding is done at the top of the atmosphere (not in the stratosphere) where it is very likely that the descent
trajectory from near space back into the atmosphere is not steep but shallow. This increases the non-ballistic
duration of the warhead flight and makes the window through which it enters the target zone wider. A steep
descent would narrow the conic section of warhead paths above the target making interception somewhat easier.
So a depressed ICBM trajectory is almost certain to be used for delivering HGV warheads.

In the above scenario, interception is not possible. In the Mickey Mouse 40 km cruising scenario it is actually
quite feasible since the HGV becomes a cruise missile. This explains the origin of such inane analysis. Delusional
invincibility syndrome, where reality is interpreted through a heavy bias affirmation filter.

MACH 20 clearly does not apply to the 40 km cruise altitude attributed to HGVs. So it is not inconsistent with my arguments.

Taking the speed of sound to be 343 m/s to define a MACH number, a simple ICBM reentry speed of 8,000 m/s translates into
MACH 23. So my arguments are supported by the high MACH numbers being thrown around. The HGV is leveraging the
kinetic energy of the ICBM to enter the atmosphere at over MACH 20. It does not waste this energy by descending to
40 km after 3,000 km and then cruising there for 5,100 km.

Cruising at 40 km for 5,100 km actually requires engines. But the cruising speed is then under MACH 6 since the air density
is too high at this altitude to have MACH 20 flight.

"MACH 20 clearly does not apply to the 40 km cruise altitude attributed to HGVs. So it is not inconsistent with my arguments.

Taking the speed of sound to be 343 m/s to define a MACH number, a simple ICBM reentry speed of 8,000 m/s translates into
MACH 23. So my arguments are supported by the high MACH numbers being thrown around. The HGV is leveraging the
kinetic energy of the ICBM to enter the atmosphere at over MACH 20. It does not waste this energy by descending to
40 km after 3,000 km and then cruising there for 5,100 km.

Cruising at 40 km for 5,100 km actually requires engines. But the cruising speed is then under MACH 6 since the air density
is too high at this altitude to have MACH 20 flight."

I have nothing against LMFS regarding how the missile loses its speeds in a pro-long glide profile than a ballistic missile with a steeper dive towards its target. But with your arguments to LMFS I think he is right because HBGVs descend from a ballistic missile, than lift up and descend again at a steady range  than dive down which is why ballistic missiles descend faster in his source because they have a steep dive at way higher altitudes than the steep dives HGVs have at a lower altitude.



but the cruising speed is not going to be under mach 6 when sources say the Zircon is mach 9 at 30-40km altitudes(so it falls in the hypersonic cruise missile category demonstrated on image) so thats a big difference in what you are saying as under MACH 6. But if we are to remove the booster stage of the zircon the Avangard engine would be longer with a wider body. But it has been shown many times that an air-breathing engine does not slow down until it reaches its destination or target. To reach Mach 27 the avangard would have to switch from its glide profile to a dive(as all HGVs must do) but that dive wont slow down when the engines are still going as my concern to LMFS

If you still think its going to be under mach 6 than here you go. https://www.darpa.mil/program/falcon-htv-2

Falcon HTV-2 is an unmanned, rocket-launched, maneuverable aircraft that glides through the Earth’s atmosphere at incredibly fast speeds—Mach 20 (approximately 13,000 miles per hour).  At HTV-2 speeds, flight time between New York City and Los Angeles would be less than 12 minutes. The HTV-2 vehicle is a “data truck” with numerous sensors that collect data in an uncertain operating envelope.

HTV-2 flew its maiden flight on 22 Apr 2010, collecting nine minutes of unique flight data, including 139 seconds of Mach 22 to Mach 17 aerodynamic data.

However the material limit was 3,500 degrees farenheit for a 30 minute flight plan but it resulted in a failure being less than 1/3rd of that, So based on the HTV-2 data there is no way the Avangard in its glide flight profile would be mach 6. If speeds were to really slow down(than the material would have definitely lasted since temperatures would have gotten way cooler) for the HTV-2 than it would have ended up being a successful project which of course wasn't the case.

EDIT: I am not going to be all that hardcore with the math. But statement on the HTV-2. "The craft could cover 17,000 kilometres (11,000 mi), the distance between London and Sydney, in 49 minutes."

7km/s is like mach 20.4 so 7 times 60 we turn it to minutes than times that by 49 we get 20580 17,000/20580 we get .82604470359 times that to 7km/s means that the vehicle would have been 5.78231292513km/s the entire time from launch to finish to cover 17,000kms or mach 16.85805517530612.....But of course it would take awhile for the boosters boosting the craft to reach the desired height, along with slow times of the craft having to do lift, etc. The only thing you have to argue with LMFS is the speeds of the descending phase of the craft, but I have a different opinion on that matter because of sources stating engines for HTV-2 and Avangard.

I would need to research more on the topic to answer properly, but I don't have the time now...

How do all these "experts" dismiss the patently physical scenario I describe.   They know everything about
the Avangaard because they have access to the classified information, do they?   And please, don't
claim that this ludicrous cruising at 40 km is the only option for HGVs and "self-evident".   It is nothing
but delusional nonsense and a straw man.

No, you cannot cruise at 40 km at MACH 20.   All of the sources that claim that HGVs travel for most of their
trajectory at 40 km put the upper bound at MACH 6.   In this regard they know what they are talking about.
A Kinzhal missile can hit MACH 10 because it does not travel for 8100 km at that speed.   For sure its
surface coating ablates during its flight under 2000 km max range.   Doubling its speed results in at least
a factor of 4 ablation rate but it is probably higher since simple scaling with kinetic energy is too simple
and its surface texture matters and gets worse at higher temperatures.   You cannot trivially push the ablation
to last over a range of 8100 km.   The Avangaard likely uses ceramic surface protection and can survive MACH 20
above 100 km which rapidly drops to under MACH 10 by the time it reaches the stratosphere.   It is not traveling
at MACH 10 in the troposphere since it has no rocket propulsion.   It is a passive glider and hits the target at
under MACH 3.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/cami/library/online_libraries/aerospace_medicine/tutorial/media/iii.4.1.7_returning_from_space.pdf

Figure 4.1.7-9 for meteor re-entry.   The exponential increase of the atmosphere density with decreasing altitude
is actually not the full measure of its impact on the speed.   The speed transition is like a step-function shock
and happens over a 10 second period.   That is from a re-entry initial speed of 8 km/s which is roughly the
same as for a warhead and the Space Shuttle.   After 15 seconds crashing into the atmosphere it is traveling
8 times slower.    There is a meteor "dust" layer around 80-85 km which tells you that the density even
at those altitudes is high enough to ablate them big time.

But the above is for simple ballistic descent.   For an HGV, the speed is higher since it glides
through the upper layers of the atmosphere with a shallow angle instead of crashing at a steep angle.
But even with gliding and staying in less denser layers for longer, the energy loss is still there:

F = 0.5 * rho * V^2 * Cd * A

where rho is the atmospheric density, V is the speed of motion through the air, Cd is the drag coefficient,
and A is the cross sectional area of the object in question.   Since rho is increasing exponentially this drag
force cannot be argued away as being small.    The equation for F tells you that if you want large V, then
you need to stay where rho is small enough.    If you want to cruise at 40 km, then you pay the price of
having to reduce V.   And there is no cruising at 40 km without propulsion since the drag force is large enough
that it will reduce the kinetic energy of any object no matter how streamlined it is over a 5100 km flight distance.

Also, clarify for yourself that all the reference that claim constant cruising altitude for HGVs are talking about
cruising below 50 km.   None of them describe flight above 80 km where MACH 20 would work.

It is a passive glider and hits the target at under MACH 3. wrote:

If the HGV had scramjet engines, it would not have lost energy while flying in the atmosphere. 3M speed is not enough in the final flight phase, it could sustain over 10M.

"Product 70" is the code for the Tu-160.
I think they made a typo

What has me puzzled is that the bays in the Tu-22M3 allow weapons like Kh-15 which are more than half a meter longer and with bigger diameter than the ones in the Su-57. But this is very promising, maybe it is indeed and air breathing missile... we will see!

LMFS wrote:What has me puzzled is that the bays in the Tu-22M3 allow weapons like Kh-15 which are more than half a meter longer and with bigger diameter than the ones in the Su-57. But this is very promising, maybe it is indeed and air breathing missile... we will see!

I think this is the mini-Gzur for the SU-57, the Gzur for the Tu-22M3 was already texted last year. But time will tell

dino00 wrote:

LMFS wrote:What has me puzzled is that the bays in the Tu-22M3 allow weapons like Kh-15 which are more than half a meter longer and with bigger diameter than the ones in the Su-57. But this is very promising, maybe it is indeed and air breathing missile... we will see!

I think this is the mini-Gzur for the SU-57, the Gzur for the Tu-22M3 was already texted last year. But time will tell

GZUR for bomber was 6 meters long and a 1,500kg weight claimed as scramjet. hopefully cutting off 1.4 meters from the length will get it into the Su-57. Well friendly reminder that the work of this Gremlin missile began in November 2018 and they stated a month later that a internal kinzhal variant will be placed in the Su-57.... so.... different GZUR missile that is 4.6 meters or below in length intended to fit in Su-57.