Iskander-M/K (SS-26 Stone):

They mention the two cruise missile weapons, but claim they both have 480kg warheads, which sounds rather unlikely unless they have very fuel inefficient jet engines because cruise missiles that size and weight can normally fly rather a lot further than 500km.

My understanding was that the new cruise missile model had a 1 ton HE warhead replacing fuel with HE and limiting the range to 500km, but no mention of that in this article...

https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.638cffa9-64de2cef-5deb5282-74722d776562/https/iz.ru/1559904/2023-08-16/proizvodstvo-raket-dlia-kompleksa-iskander-vyroslo-v-neskolko-raz

General Director of the Research and Production Corporation "Engineering Design Bureau" (KMB) Sergey Pitikov on August 16 during the forum" Army-2023 " announced an increase in the production of missiles for the Iskander complex since the beginning of the special military operation.

"Deliveries have increased several times," he said, pointing to the 9M723-1K5 operational-tactical missiles.

During the forum, it became known that the Ministry of Defense buys missiles for Iskander . The corresponding state contract was presented to Pitikov by the head of the Main Armament Department of the Russian Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Anatoly Gulyaev.

It seems that Iskander proved to be so much overkill for the western supplied AD assets, that Russkie started to produce a downgraded version of it.



It lacks the countermeasures dispensers.



OR the countermeasures were modified somehow ...

But received additional GLONASS receivers of the Kometa type, same as revealed in Gerans.

Downgraded or needed improvements in precision?

A comment suggests those are Russkie.
So they are in some urbanized area in the vicinity of ChY, or the city itself already - it looks like urban area.

It seems that Iskander proved to be so much overkill for the western supplied AD assets, that Russkie started to produce a downgraded version of it.

We knew that western AD was not great but we didn't realise it was terrible and so easily overwhelmed.

A simplified cheaper model, and now that the INF treaty is gone they could extend its range probably quite easily to 800km plus without much real effort.

But received additional GLONASS receivers of the Kometa type, same as revealed in Gerans.

Likely newer and able to take advantage of improvements in GLONASS satellites and probably smaller and lighter and cheaper too... as well as more accurate.

Downgraded or needed improvements in precision?

Probably simplified and a modest range increase to make it cheaper and easier to mass produce.

Newer hardware probably makes it more accurate but targets that require 500kg plus warheads are never point targets and are often buildings or structures or SAM batteries rather than individual vehicles or people.

Its simple wartime optimizations and streamlining informed by actual battlefield experience. No point in the countermeasures if the Patriot's guidance algos struggle with the Iskander's end stage maneuvering. Saves a couple kilos that then buy you more kilos. Get it?

Removing expensive bits saves money but also reduces weight and should increase flight speed and range.

Upgrading the GLONASS sensor to a new one developed for drones should improve accuracy, but the accuracy of the Iskander is 5-7m which is good enough with a 600kg HE penetrating warhead.

In general, the shapes of these new missiles look a bit different, like a different production technology.
Take a look at the steering wings - not a flat sheet of metal anymore, but something looking like a 3D shape.
Maybe those are being made with different materials and 3D printers ?

Putin discussed with the Russian Security Council steps regarding a moratorium on the deployment of medium- and shorter-range ground-based missiles.

The President said that Russia itself should begin producing medium- and shorter-range missiles.



Welp this means 2000km Iskander is here

Kinzhal probably gets booster and put on Tu22m3 with refueling probe

And Iskander does what Kinzhal used to do


MiG31 can go back to AAM duty

Wonder what this means in general , Club - k will probably also be here

All 2000km range missiles now get truck launchers and etc

The President said that Russia itself should begin producing medium- and shorter-range missiles.

That is a better and logical response to western proliferation of long range precision guided weapons to Ukraine...

Probably new version Iskander range 1000km

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-975.html

They took the easy way out. I thought they would add an extra stage and increase the range to over 2000km.

Arrow wrote:Probably new version Iskander range 1000km

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-975.html

They took the easy way out. I thought they would add an extra stage and increase the range to over 2000km.

The link does not work. What was on it?

Iskander-1000 - SS-X-33

Author: DIMMI
Created: 07/24/2024 07:59:44
Modified: 07/28/2024 22:12:40
Comments: 0
Categories: EARTH / Surface-to-surface ballistic missiles / Medium-range ballistic missiles / Iskander-1000 - SS-X-33 /
DATA FOR 2024 (in progress)
"Iskander-1000" (conditionally) - SS-X-33


Medium-range ballistic missile of a universal modular missile system based on technical solutions of the 9K720 Iskander-M OTRK. The rocket is being developed as of at least 2024 by the Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau (Kolomna).

On June 28, 2024, V.V. Putin said that Russia may begin production and deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in response to the deployment of similar US missile systems outside its national territory. Earlier, on December 17, 2023, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces stated that, if necessary, the Russian military-industrial complex can quickly begin production and ensure the supply of serial samples of missile systems with medium- and shorter-range missiles to the troops. On May 6, 2024, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement that Russia was starting to produce medium- and shorter-range missile systems.

One of the options for a missile system with a range of up to 1000 km could be a modified ballistic missile of the 9K720 Iskander-M complex with an updated engine, control system and a modified warhead.

The new missile, presumably for the Iskander-M complex, was first demonstrated in a video dedicated to the 78th anniversary of the Kapustin Yar test site (05/15/2024).

The name "Iskander-1000" is conditional and unofficial.

With a few photos showing a more pointy Iskander missile.

Essentially they have doubled the range with a missile the same size as the original which means they can continue to use existing launch units and transporters etc etc.. and can reach significantly further.

It mentions a more powerful rocket fuel used to improve thrust and boost flight range and performance.

This is just a first step... the real advantage the Russians have is the scramjet engine... a propulsion system able to propel a vehicle to rocket speeds, but with the fuel and weight and cost efficiency of a jet engine.... there is a reason modern airliners and aircraft in general use jet engines rather than liquid or solid propellant rockets... the only disadvantage of jets used widely today is they can't get to the speeds a rocket engine can get you to.

A scramjet can get to those speeds and even exceed them with a fraction of the fuel a rocket engine would require to achieve the same performance.

Hopefully there will still be a worthy successor to the Pioneer and maybe also something extra quick to take out TELs while they are still preparing for launch during their "exercises".

Hopefully there will still be a worthy successor to the Pioneer and maybe also something extra quick to take out TELs while they are still preparing for launch during their "exercises".

The stupidity of the west knows no bounds.

The INF treaty was very limiting for Russia because it meant they would have to use sea or air launched missiles at targets over medium and intermediate ranges, or they would have to use the limited number of ICBMs and SLBMs for the job of destroying Americas drones in Europe and in Asia.

Now they can use all their ICBMs and SLBMs against US targets and make smaller lighter much cheaper weapons for targets closer to Russian borders.

I actually think the availability of scramjet engines will make most of their ballistic weapons with ranges beyond 500km less attractive and cruise missiles... essentially scramjet powered cruise missiles will become standard... simply because there is an enormous size and weight saving from using jet engines over rocket engines.

The Kh-32 uses a liquid rocket propellant and reportedly manages about 800km range at mach speeds in the vicinity of 5 or 6, but it weighs 5-6 tons.

The ground launched Iskander is almost 4 tons of solid rocket fuel and reaches 500km at mach 6 to mach 7 in its original version.

Zircon in comparison with a scramjet motor probably weighs 2.5 to 3 tons at most and can hit targets up to 1,500km away from a ground launch at mach 9... that is triple the range of Iskander with one to one and a half tons less fuel.

Kinzhal can hit targets 2,000km away because it is launched at 18km up in the air at flight speeds of mach 2.5... this is like fitting an enormous second stage to the missile to lift it up off the ground and to 18km altitude and mach 2.5 speed which would use an enormous amount of energy.

This means when it fires its own rocket motor it does not have to overcome its own weight and climb through the thickest part of the atmosphere and accelerate to supersonic speed... all the energy it used to get up into the air and moving fast can be used to get to an even higher altitude and higher speed than what it could otherwise reach... which means drag is lower and its top speed is higher so it can reach much much further.

Russia is developing the Iskander-1000. We are talking about a new ballistic missile for the Iskander-M OTRK with a flight range of 1000 km and a probable deviation coefficient from the target of 5 meters. It will also have a more powerful warhead in conventional equipment.

I can guarantee that they will do what they have been doing for the last 25 odd years... they will have two teams... one will work on the existing system and fix all the bugs and the issues and make it as good as it can possibly be... that leads to the fastest most cost effective results because you essentially upgrade what you are already using.... T-72 tank, Su-27 fighter aircraft, etc etc. What you also do is have another team working on the latest technologies in every area and looking at the problem this system solves and go for a blank sheet of paper solution that eliminates all the problems of the existing system... some of whichs features and capabilities can be applied to the upgrade of the existing thing to make it even better.... so you start with the various T-72 upgrades and then go for T-90 improvements which all gets into service quickly and improves their performance while in the background you have the T-14 and the B-14 and the K-14 tank systems based on the vehicle families... you also have the Typhoon and DT-30 based tank vehicles too.

In the case of the Su-27 you get Su-27SM upgrades but ultimately you get the Su-35 and while you are introducing that  another group that communicates with the other upgrade groups are working on the Su-57 too.

The Pioneer was a very good system, but the missile was 52 tons... a 5,000km range scramjet powered missile would be harder to intercept because its flight path wont be predictable and it wont be a lot slower than a ballistic missile and it can carry multiple warheads too... you might be able to make such a scramjet powered missile that is 15 tons or maybe even less.

The reduced weight is important because you can have more on a given vehicle and they will be cheaper to make and easier to hide and being fully conventional in some models they are the sort of things you can actually use... and if you make them right you can have a shipboard launch system for them too... maybe with a S-600 missile that can shoot down satellites in rather high orbits or any incoming ballistic missile threat too...

And if you take the Iskander-K OTRK with the 9M729 cruise missile, then it has a flight range of 2000 km with a conventional warhead and 2350 km with a special one.

More importantly the range extension for the ballistic missile can be mirrored for the cruise missile too so the air launched Kh-101 could be ground launched to 4,500km or 5,000km for the nuke armed model.

Our enemies have already begun to discuss our possible symmetrical response to the deployment of ground-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles by the United States and Europe. They are worried. But the deployment plans are not going to be cancelled.

I hope Russia makes it very clear that Russian missiles pointing at Europe are not first strike missiles so they wont be pointed at US missiles... they will be aimed to kill major population centres as a response to a US/EU attack on Russia so they will be nukes and they will be turned up to maximum brightness so to speak.

You are OK with US nukes in your country then you will understand this new Russian energy company bringing you light and heat:



Sorry this is an English language forum... the above says RVSN (The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces)
Free delivery of heat and light to anywhere in the world.
There will be no complaints.

One would have to do a series of cost calculations in order to decide if scramjets in their current form would be cheaper to manufacture than solid rocket motors. That they are a new technology may negate the savings in material used in their construction.

There is also the possibility of simply adapting the first stage from the Yars into a modern Pioneer or rather short notice as opposed to the likely lengthy development of an entirely new heavy scramjet missile. That is however not to say that they should not do both.

I do however feel that some of these posts belong in a more general intermediate range missile thread.

The-thing-next-door wrote:There is also the possibility of simply adapting the first stage from the Yars into a modern Pioneer or rather short notice as opposed to the likely lengthy development of an entirely new heavy scramjet missile. That is however not to say that they should not do both.

That is basically what the RS-26 Rubezh is. A Yars first stage with an Avangard upper stage.

One would have to do a series of cost calculations in order to decide if scramjets in their current form would be cheaper to manufacture than solid rocket motors. That they are a new technology may negate the savings in material used in their construction.

Solid rocket fuel is not cheap, that is like saying they are not sure about introducing a new sniper rifle because sling shots and crossbows could be cheaper.

Your average jet engine has blades or discs that pull the airflow through the engine and compress it and fuel is added and burned and the exhaust is expelled out the back as thrust. Lots of moving parts, and lots of metal parts exposed to rather hot airflows and high temperatures. With a ramjet or a scramjet there is no disc or set of blades, no drive shaft... the air flows in and is compressed and fuel is added and it burns and goes out the rear as thrust.

A ramjet and a scramjet are the simplest jets you can have other than the pulse jet.

Obviously they need to be very specifically shaped made of the right materials and adapt to different air flows at different speeds to ensure the fuel burns efficiently and completely but now the design has been perfected it most likely can be scaled and probably 3D printed.

The performance they can achieve makes them unique... but they wont completely replace all other types of missile... if the Ukraine conflict has shown anything, it is that a variety of weapon types is best to ensure you don't run out and can hit a very wide variety of targets with weapons optimised to do the most damage and destroy the targets most efficiently.

It would not make sense to have all scramjet powered intermediate range missiles... but as performance increases they will become cheaper and simpler than any rocket type... keep in mind that liquid rocket propellant rockets store fuel and oxidiser separately and pump them to the rocket nozzle for combustion while maintaining a centre of gravity of the rocket so it doesn't tumble out of control.

It will get to the point where even ICBMs might be scramjet powered because it makes that much difference in weight and performance.

The Pioneer is 52 tons. Most liquid propellant rockets are about 95% fuel and oxidiser so that means about 49 tons of the missile is fuel and oxidiser.

Three quarters of that fuel and oxidiser by weight will be oxidiser that the fuel uses to burn so about 37 tons of that will be oxidiser... that means that this 52 ton missile has 12 tons of actual rocket fuel and 37 tons of material that is used to burn that fuel.

Lets make the scramjet missile heavier... lets say it is 90% fuel.... that means the scramjet missile would be about 13-14 tons... that is just under 4 times lighter than the Pioneer missile.

It wont just be lighter, it will be smaller too...

There is also the possibility of simply adapting the first stage from the Yars into a modern Pioneer or rather short notice as opposed to the likely lengthy development of an entirely new heavy scramjet missile. That is however not to say that they should not do both.

It would actually be easier to go the other way... they have ICBMs and SLBMs that are three stage missiles right now in production and in service that they could remove either the second or third stage and make them two stage missiles.

The Iskander-M just seems to be an improved aerodynamic shape with improved rocket fuel and the range is doubled.

They can be clever and design an IRBM that can also be used to launch satellites into orbit in gaps their other rockets don't currently fill.

Regarding scramjet vs rocket it is even more useful to go to scramjet than to remain with rocket than I made it appear.

With a rocket you normally use stages to reduce drag. The missile shape is low drag and pointy but as it burns fuel it gets lighter and as it gets lighter it loses momentum.

You could design a balloon to be pointy but because it is so light the aerodynamic shape wont help it retain speed in the air when thrown so it wont go a lot further than a balloon that is round.

So what they do with a rocket is to have several stages, each with its own motor. think of starting an expedition from the Portugal you have a motorbike strapped on top of a car and mounted on top of a light truck. You need a light truck to carry the car and the motorcycle even though the payload itself really only needs a motorcycle to carry it it does not have the range... the fuel tanks on all three vehicles are closed and sealed and you can't pick up more fuel on the way.

You drive the truck with a big powerful engine needed to carry the weight of the car and bike until it runs out of fuel and then you separate the truck and leave it behind and carry on in the car. Its engine does not need to be as powerful because it is only carrying the motorcycle but it also has a smaller fuel tank, and when it runs out of fuel you get on the motorbike and ride to the target.

The point is that you can't have a bike on a bike on a bike. The first stage rocket motor needs to be able to carry a lot of fuel because it is powerful and burns fuel at an enormous rate and also has to lift and carry the other two stages too. It starts when the rocket is sitting on the ground so it has to use a huge amount of energy to lift the whole vehicle and get it climbing. When you strap that enormous fuel tank on the US Space Shuttle its main rocket engines in the back of the shuttle no longer have the thrust to lift the shuttle off the launch pad. They need two solid rocket boosters to get it climbing but once it is climbing the engines of the shuttle will keep it climbing and accelerating. Tons of fuel are burned just to get moving... which is why simply air launching a rocket will massively improve its range and flight speed... it is like fitting an extra stage to the weapon.

A scramjet in comparison is a jet engine and down its centre is empty because that is where the airflows through. The Soviets and now Russians have used that to put a rocket motor in that cavity that gets the jet engine airborne and moving and then falls away leaving the empty space for the ramjet and now scramjet to operate.

The SA-6 is the first example I have seen but they have done it repeatedly since.

If you look at western ramjet powered SAMs like the British Sea Dart and various US ramjet powered missiles they were all made very long because they had a solid rocket booster section and then the ramjet powered missile in front.

The Soviet SA-4 is an enormous missile and has four solid rocket boosters strapped around it to get it moving... a bit like the space shuttle.

The point is that the liquid fuelled rockets have rocket motors for each stage and the first stage rocket motor is huge and very powerful , while the other rocket motors are dead weight till they are used.

With a scramjet powered missile it is likely that it will use solid rocket propulsion to get it airborne and moving, but once it is moving a scramjet is a jet engine so it would make sense to build the missile so that fuel tanks are scabbed on or attached to it and can fall off in flight to reduce drag. You could also use fuel tanks in front of the warhead in the nose of the missile you launch, so when they are being used they are absorbing the heat generated as it pushes through the air at very very high speed. The heated fuel will be sent straight to the motor to burn removing heat from the aircraft structure.

When that fuel is burned up the tank is released and the next tank is used... till all the external tanks are used up and the missile carries on on its own at much lighter weight and much higher flight speed.