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

Mir wrote:
I dare say that principle applies to a great number of BALLISTIC missiles of various classes.
Ever since the V-2 rockets some form of TV was implemented to do coarse corrections during flight.
Mind you without TV the rocket would probably end up near the launch pad when the motor runs out!  

True!
V2 used two gyroscopes that controlled deviations and sent signals to two electric motors that corrected 8 fins to keep on the path.

ALAMO wrote:
True!
V2 used two gyroscopes that controlled deviations and sent signals to two electric motors that corrected 8 fins to keep on the path.

Also true! But lets not forget that the V2 was also the first rocket to use graphite vanes that also helped to control the flight path of the rocket.

Arrow wrote:Even ICBM maneuvers in the active phase of flight, then PBV maneuvers throwing MIRV warheads and then optionally RV can maneuver after entering the atmosphere. I'm leaving out Avangard. However, ICBM is called ballistic, although most of the route is covered in ballistic flight of course.

True
As long as we keep in mind what "ballistic" means - it is all cool.
It is the most range effective way of delivering ... ekhm ... cargo.
Every single maneuver costs energy, that can be either chemical or gravity.
Increase maneuver/decrease the range...
This game is simple.

Ask Putin.
He called dozens of scientific endeavors guilty of the result ...

Well that's a whole page of interesting but way off topic discussion that I waded through in the hope of finding something relevant to Ukraine..

Paging Garry to move it somewhere else.

Making a HGV is the easy part btw.

Taming the plasma sheath, so you can pass through data through the radio opaque shroud is the hard part.

Otherwise you are limited to nuclear payloads or cassette warheads.

Only two countries have demonstrated this capability.
Russia and Yemen.

Yemen I doubt makes their missiles per se and HEAVILY doubt they are manoeuvrable once heading to the target directly.

They are assembling it.  Most of their earlier missiles were jerry rigged AD missiles like S-75 missiles being used as ballistic.  Now I think most are just Iranian missiles being assembled in Yemen.  The guidance is most likely gyroscopes.

Unless there is examples of the missiles seen.

Iskander was always said to be a quasi ballistic missile.

It is a ballistic missile, unless we are talking about the maneuvering subsonic version.

What?

Do you think a ballistic missile is just a rocket powered missile?

The Iskander is rocket powered but unlike most similar missiles it has its rocket motor running from launch to impact. Its external fins are fixed and are only for stabilisation. When the rocket motor stops burning in an Iskander or Kinzhal then it can no longer manouver... it will just continue on its trajectory like a rock.

A ballistic weapon is unpowered for most of its flight.... like a bomb. Even a guided bomb has a ballistic flight path with control surfaces that can steer it one way or another but it does not "fly" like a cruise missile.

The Iskander flys like a cruise missile to its target... it climbs to high altitude and then flies towards its target and then dives on it like a cruise missile.

A ballistic missile is accelerated to high speed, during which it climbs to altitude... and then the engine stops and it continues on its way towards its target in a parabolic flight path and then falls in the general direction of the target... onboard guidance and navigation equipment and terminal seekers can be used to operate external flight controls to manouver the weapon to hit the target directly but it is only flight correction before impact... it is not manouvering or evading.

The iskander flys all the way to the target and has onboard sensors to detect air defences for which it can release jammers and decoys and also manouver to evade interception and steers itself to its aim point to hit the target.

The subsonic version is a cruise missile and not ballistic either.

Change the soft to keep a ballistic trajectory and you have a 700-800km range ballistic missile.

The rocket motor burns all the way till impact 500km away, so if you made it a ballistic weapon you could use the fuel right up to 500km to accelerate and climb, which means the remaining energy from very high altitude and very high speed could be used to extend range to probably 1,000km but you would have to add external control fins to steer the missile on its ballistic return to earth and to get close to the target and counter the spin of the earth and crosswinds etc.

Yes, that's true. The apogee of the parabola is about 50 km. The question is whether there is enough air at that altitude to maneuver the aerodynamic controls.

It doesn't have aerodynamic controls... it has thrust vector fins inside the rocket motor. The tiny tail fins are fixed strakes to stabilise the missile in flight.

Iskander M and Kinzhal, despite their aeroballistic trajectory, are still ballistic missiles, I don't know where any doubts arise from.

Ballistic means unpowered... like a thrown rock. Iskander is powered all the way to the target like a plane or a cruise missile.

SSMs are considered ballistic missiles.

Tomahawk has a ground launched missile... is it a ballistic missile?

There are SRBM and MRBM and IRBM and ICBM... short range, medium range, intermediate range, and also intercontinental range BALLISTIC MISSILES.

But there are also SRCM and MRCM and IRCM and ICCM.... short range medium range intermediate range and intercontinental range cruise missiles that are NOT ballistic because they fly using wings.

The thing is that flying above Mach 5 and you get body lift that makes wings unnecessary... in fact it creates more drag than lift.

If you had a mach 5 aircraft then it would have wings but they would count against it at mach 5 plus speeds.

The Iskander flies at mach 6 to mach 7 so wings would just add drag and weight.... body lift drag is enough to keep it flying at its normal operational flight speeds and altitudes.

The tiny tail mounted strakes are fixed and are just stabilisers. The actual control surfaces are inside the engine exhaust and work like the thrust vectoring pads in an R-73 AAM that direct the rocket exhaust to manouver the weapon.

It only works while the rocket motor is burning.

Ballistic weapons generally have a first part powered flight and a majority coasting and then falling flight unpowered.

Another reason Kinzhal and Iskander are not ballistic weapons.

This includes the ATACMS and the previous gen Lance missile sytems.

And Smerch and Grad and FROG-7 and lots of other ballistic weapons... which are different from the Iskander and Kinzhal.

Thrust vectoring only works when the rocket engine is running. The Iskander engine does not work for a time, only for a few dozen seconds. Simple. In the initial phase of flight, the Iskander can maneuver on TVC, but not in the terminal phase.

Why the **** would you make a ballistic missile that can perform amazing turns a few seconds after launch but can't even manouver when it gets to its target area?

The R-73 has thrust vectoring because it has high off boresight capability and if you launch it at a closing target the thrust vectoring allows it to turn extremely hard off the pylon and follow a target flying past the aircraft that launched it and hit it behind while keeping the nose seeker of the missile locked on the target.

For a ground launched ballistic missile there is zero value in being about to use high manouver capability a few seconds after launch... or even a few minutes... because all it will be doing is climbing and accelerating to as high a speed and high an altitude as it can achieve... it wont need to perform any manouvers till it approaches its target... when you claim it wont be running its rocket motor.

Once again. Thrust vectoring on ballistic missiles is called gas-dynamic control. It is on many ballistic missiles. For example, Topol. Iskander can maneuver throughout the entire flight, but on the part without the engine on, it does it with aerodynamic controls.

Show us the aerodynamic controls for the Iskander...

How about these graphite vanes on the good old Elbrus (Scud) that controls the flight path of the missile by redirecting the thrust of the rocket blast. Pretty much thrust vectoring I'd say

Very true, but Scud does not run its rocket motor all the way to the target, and nor does it perform manouvers near the target to evade air defence like the Iskander does and the Kinzhal does... which is why Scuds would get shot down every time up against Russian or Soviet air defences and Iskanders and Kinzhals might not be shot down every time.

The Temp (Scaleboard) seems to have actuators directly linked to the (TV) nozzles.

Which enables it to roll in the direction the target is in at launch, but being a multi stage missile those TVC wont be available when the missile approaches the target area.

Iskander also has similar blades to control the direction of TVC thrust as well as aerodynamic rudders. The aerodynamic controls are marked.

Those are fixed stabilisation fins.

Perhaps the Iskander has some additional small gas generators that are activated for powerful maneuvers when the main engine is turned off. For example, the 9M96 have side gas generators for performing powerful maneuvers before hitting the target.

It is a four ton missile with a flight range of 500km... work it out for yourself... for 800kg a SMERCH rocket can reach 90km and for 815kg it can reach 120km... with four tons of solid rocket fuel it is going to go rather more than 500km if it is ballistic... but it isn't.

Mir wrote:

Arrow wrote:
Most missiles have TVC control.

That's a fact

Most ballistic missiles and space rockets have engine steering to launch and to roll in the direction they need to head because they usually start off flying way to slow for their tiny fins and strakes to turn them in the direction they need to go.

Mir wrote:

Perfect photo... thanks Mir. Proof they don't move. Those square blocks the fins are set into have no mechanism to turn or space to turn... those are fixed strakes.

No it can't.

Like most long range air to air missiles the Iskander has two types of solid rocket fuel... a high energy fast burning type to accelerate and climb and a slower burning lower energy fuel that burns much further... in this case, all the way to the target... which allows thrust vectoring control all the way to impact.

However, even though Iskander maneuvers, it is described as quasi-ballistic, and by the Russians themselves. Here the terminology is a bit blurred.

If it was ballistic, why would they call it quasi ballistic?

The definition of quasi is "seemingly but not actually... in other words Quasi Ballistic means it appears to be ballistic but it is NOT.

They're ballistic missiles because they follow a ballistic trajectory. i.e. they're not powered throughout their flight

It has already been established they don't fly a ballistic trajectory... they climb to about 50km and then level off and fly to the target area and then dive... that is not ballistic.

Ballistic is an artillery shell... it is accelerate to speed and pointed in the direction of the target... it is lobbed up into the air and essentially falls on the target... that is what ballistic means.... unpowered and generally inaccurate.

Modern ballistic missiles obviously have very precise aiming and are able to make small flight corrections before impact to improve accuracy.

If that was the case then Iskander would be easy to shoot down... like ATACMS are getting shot down now because they are just guided ballistic missiles.

So why are Iskander and Kinzhals getting through if they are just useless ballistic rockets?

Russian bias... maybe Gaijan is cheating and faking the numbers...

It still uses a ballistic trajectory, that can be changed/adjusted if needed.
Point.

No, it doesn't... if it was ballistic then it would go higher and be much easier to shoot down.

True!
V2 used two gyroscopes that controlled deviations and sent signals to two electric motors that corrected 8 fins to keep on the path.

Most such missiles used gyroscopes for part of the navigation system to roll in the direction of the target or into an orbital path, and also to stop it going anywhere else with liquid fuels sloshing around and changing the cg as they burned.

Paging Garry to move it somewhere else.

Trying to decide between an Iskander thread or talking bollocks thread because this is not the first discussion on this...

Iskander was always said to be a quasi ballistic missile.

And what is the definition of quasi?

Apparently being but not actually being.

It can also mean almost... but not actually.

In other words quasi ballistic means seems ballistic but isn't, or almost ballistic... but isn't.

Moving off topic stuff... 3,2,1..

GarryB wrote:Perfect photo... thanks Mir. Proof they don't move. Those square blocks the fins are set into have no mechanism to turn or space to turn... those are fixed strakes.

So you completely ignored my first image of the Iskander fins that indicates otherwise?!

Here is another clear picture of the fins on the Iskander. The areas marked in blue seems to indicated moveable fins.



The Iskander-E as well...



Iskander-M again...they don't look fixed at all.

Arrow wrote:
The small jets marked in red are interesting. Could it be for corrections in a very thin atmosphere?

Yes definitely small thrusters.

It is not powered to the target. The engine runs for several seconds. Not several minutes.

Must be the most powerful rocket motor in the universe if it can pick up a 4 ton missile and deliver it to target 500km away with only a few seconds thrust... bloody amazing.

Here is another clear picture of the fins on the Iskander. The areas marked in blue seems to indicated moveable fins.

If they were moving fins why would the attachment be a square block... if it turns the fin that would mean that block would create serious drag. With the strake the way it is the distance to the fin leading edge means the block is not a problem because at the speeds it would be moving at the airflow would not be along the surface, so the block would not be a problem.

If you turned it on an angle the airflow over the surface would hit the block and it would disturb the airflow and lead to drag... it would act as an airbrake.

Iskander-M again...they don't look fixed at all.

They are not deflected, so all you could say is that they are not actually moving.

Garry believes that the Iskander maneuvers with the engine on throughout the flight.

The missile is launched vertically and climbs and accelerates to about 50km altitude and about mach 6-7 flight speed from a ground launch.

From a standing start that would require a 50km flight distance with full rocket thrust, but then you claim the rocket stops and it coasts almost 500km at mach 6 to mach 7 all the way and hits its target with its motor off.

Remember they have had IRIS-T missiles and Patriots and S-300s and BUKs and they have not shot one down in flight in 3 years of war... but it is only a ballistic missile like a scud or an honest john...

That is why he considers the movable controls on the Iskander to be fixed.

You are the ones claiming they move.

The Tochka has moveable rear grid fins but it does not travel at the speeds the Iskander moves at.

However, the Iskander needs them for maneuvers in the atmosphere. The small jets marked in red are interesting. Could it be for corrections in a very thin atmosphere?

So what you are saying is that the Iskander climbs up out of the thicker lower atmosphere to the very thin upper atmosphere where its main rocket motor burns out and its only method of control are tiny tail fins that are too small to manouver so they add solid rocket side thruster motors to enable manouvering...

Why not just climb to 30km altitude and use control surfaces?

Side thruster rockets only make sense if they are mounted on the centre of gravity of the rocket... so when all the fuel is burned up the cg is generally rather close to the warhead and not the tail... a side thruster near the tail would turn the rocket in the opposite direction of thrust. Like the sidewind effect on an RPG-7 rocket turns the rocket upwind.

GarryB wrote:If you turned it on an angle the airflow over the surface would hit the block and it would disturb the airflow and lead to drag... it would act as an airbrake.

Even if the fins are fixed then the block would still effect the airflow over the fin. from an engineering point of view it's pretty obvious that the block acts as reinforcement for the moving parts. The moving fin itself is much larger than the block and would be far more effective as an "airbrake" compared to the small reinforcement block, as you like to suggest.

If the fins are supposed to be fixed then I would say it suggests pretty shoddy engineering that would most likely not allow the superb accuracy we have seen so far. However there is ample evidence that points to a moving fin design for the live missile.

GarryB wrote:They are not deflected, so all you could say is that they are not actually moving.

It would be rather silly to deflect the fins whilst you are preparing to launch the missile - don't you think?

All I know is that they are using these small thrusters to allow precision movement out in space. This will surely enhance accuracy for a ballistic missile.

The Kliper is a good example of various types of thrusters.

Just gonna leave this here:

There is a general classification of different missile systems. Like most other missile systems, surface to surface missiles have sub-classifications, and in general refers to the range of the particular missile system. Despite all the fuss here, missiles like the ATACMS and the Iskander are still classified as Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM's).

The longer ranged Iskander-1000 is classified as a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) and the ATACMS replacement (PrSM) will probably fit into the same category when the planned extended range version is fielded. There is even an ant-ship version of the PrSM - also referred to an Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile. These missiles and their even longer ranged mates are also referred to as Theater Ballistic Missiles.

The next few steps up are the IRBM's, SLBM's and ICBM's - all feature the word "ballistic" in the description - despite many of them being guided or maneuvering missiles. Much to do about nothing I'd say!

Just because the Javelin can't kill a tank does not mean that it's not an Anti-Tank Guided Missile

It would be rather silly to deflect the fins whilst you are preparing to launch the missile - don't you think?

I would think simple gravity would lead to a slight deflection of the control surface when the missile is horizontal... or is that fin perfectly balanced around its point of attachment to the missile?

Most missiles with moving fins have those fins tied in place to stop them moving round in transit or before being attached to the aircraft.

Even if the fins are fixed then the block would still effect the airflow over the fin. from an engineering point of view it's pretty obvious that the block acts as reinforcement for the moving parts.

Or it is needed to hold the fin in place during high g manouvers performed at higher than mach 5 speeds using thrust vectoring.

The moving fin itself is much larger than the block and would be far more effective as an "airbrake" compared to the small reinforcement block, as you like to suggest.

If they wanted to effect flight control through the use of airbrakes a more conventional airbrake would make rather more sense

The size of the block is not enormous and would likely not stick out past the airflow from the tip of the fin... essentially it would not cause any drag and might even reduce drag the same way dimples on a golf ball effect surface airflow.

If, however, the fin is a control surface that turns relative to the incoming airflow, then the block surface on the side the fin is turned to create a turning movement or force would not be hidden by tip of the fin... like the pointed nose of an aerospike reduces drag and allows all sorts of nose shapes to be used on supersonic platforms.... including Trident SLBMs and Igla-S MANPADS. When the airflow reaches the block it is already turbulent, making the shape of the block irrelevant to aerodynamics... in the same way that the round nose of a Trident missile or the round nose of an IR seeker on an Igla missile don't cause drag because the aerospike in front of them creates a shockwave and the round noses are inside the shockwave.

The French Mistral uses a pointed faceted IR sensor with reduced IR performance, but the pointed nose allows supersonic speeds to be achieved more easily.

The question is whether it is possible to make flight corrections using these small nozzles at a high altitude at the peak of apogee, where the atmosphere is already too thin for aerodynamic controls and the main engine is no longer working? Although in this case the enemy has nothing to intercept the missile with at an altitude of 50 km.

Then what is THAAD? Isn't it supposed to be able to hit targets up to 186km altitude or some such thing?

Side thruster rockets are used on a variety of weapons, including the notorious Dragon III ATGM that the Javelin replaced. It was awful. Some missiles have side thrusting rockets for air to air interception so that at the last milisecond the missile can shift a metre or two in one direction or another to ensure a direct hit. Russian missiles more often have a directed energy warhead that calculates the precise position of the target and directs the fragments of the warhead to intercept the target like an aerial claymore mine. The Patriot failed to take down Iraqi Scuds because it would hit centre of mass which with the Scuds is the engine and fuel tanks of a falling missile. The tanks are empty so you could shred them with as much shrapnel as you please... the warhead is still going to fall and hit the target. The improved Scuds were not modified for the longer range and therefore higher flight speed so often as they were coming in they broke up anyway and of course the Patriots hit the biggest bits... engines and fuel tanks and didn't hit the warheads.

At this time (1991 Desert Storm) the Soviets were well aware of the problem and already had smart warheads on the S-300 SAMs they were using to target the warhead when used against ballistic missile weapons. The key to defeating an incoming missile like a Scud was to destroy the warhead.

At 50km altitude moving at mach 7 the very thin atmosphere would generate body lift for the missile to help it maintain altitude. The stabilising strakes would not allow it to make dramatic turns needed to evade incoming air defence missiles.

Most long range air to air missiles use two types of rocket propellant... a high energy fast burn fuel to climb and accelerate... the high energy means it does not burn for long... a few tens of seconds. If the missile was only filled with that fuel its range would be short because it would burn up all its fuel too fast.

Think of it in terms of a car. You get your best fuel economy by going at high speed with the highest gear at the minimum rev count... but to get that best fuel economy you need to get up to speed. A MTOW fighter plane uses afterburner to takeoff and climb and accelerate to speed as quickly as possible because getting airborne and to altitude allows it to fly much faster with a lower engine power setting than idling the engine all the way... which would mean taxiing all the way on the ground.

The second fuel is less powerful but burns much longer... for minutes. It does not accelerate the missile even though the missile is getting lighter, it just overcomes drag and helps it maintain speed and altitude... without it the missile would immediately start to slow down due to drag... even without any manouvering.

Thrust vectoring manouvering... as long as you are not making extreme turns... a few degrees to take you out of the radar areas of ground based air defence systems does not create drag like using external control fins would so it helps the missile maintain speed and altitude.

All I know is that they are using these small thrusters to allow precision movement out in space. This will surely enhance accuracy for a ballistic missile.

The Kliper is a good example of various types of thrusters.

That is in space where there is no other option because wings don't do anything. The space shuttle would land like a rock on the moon and parachutes don't help either... which is why the moon landers needed retro rockets to land.

Just gonna leave this here:

What it lacks is the onboard sensors that Iskander and Kinzhal have to detect enemy air defence systems (radar) and incoming active radar missiles. The Russian missiles detect incoming threats and actively manouver to evade them... it also releases decoys and chaff and flares to distract the enemy air defences...

There is a reason ATACMS have been shot down and Iskanders and Kinzhals have not.... and it is not just because the Russians have a layered and fully operational IADS system and the Ukrainians don't. There are several SAM systems the Russians use today that can engage a ballistics missile or a missile performing some manouvers in flight.

The manouvers are blind so they would be like a fighter pilot making a few random course corrections occasionally... it is not going to stop a SAM from hitting it.

In comparison the Kinzhal and Iskander have sensors to detect enemy air defence systems and incoming missile threats and based on how far away they are and the angle they are coming at the Kinzhal actively manouver to be difficult targets and also have jammers and decoys and flares it can release to make the work of the air defences even harder.

Just flying at 50km altitude makes things tough... and it is something the Kh-32 also does.

The Kh-22M flys at about 23-26km altitude which makes it tricky, but the Kh-32 takes it a step further.

Both missiles are liquid fuelled rockets with two rocket chambers... a lower energy cruise engine and a high energy launch and climb engine... sound familiar?

The larger rocket motor is lit to climb and accelerate to altitude and speed and then the less powerful rocket chamber is used to cruise to the target location and then the range dictates what happens next... it might run both engines in a high speed dive on the target to hit at max speed or it might not have enough fuel and do a pullup and then dive near vertically on the target using the fuel it does have... depending on the range.

It is surprising how many air defence systems cannot stop a missile coming down vertically... a difficult target as most tracking radars can't point vertically.

Of course some make it hard for themselves like Patriot whose radar only covers about 120 degrees... making individual systems set up for ambush the way Kiev uses them leaves a huge blind spot and that is not including from directly above.

Just because the Javelin can't kill a tank does not mean that it's not an Anti-Tank Guided Missile

Good example... Javelin is rocket powered but flys a ballistic path lofted into the air for the seeker to find its target and lock on after launch... it should be called a ballistic missile by your terms. Without the lock on after launch mode for a cold tank target or a target in a target rich environment where the missile might hit a window or hot rock the missile can be fired in SACLOS mode, but the guidance and flight mode of the missile does not define the missile... it is the target in this case.

Militarys make mistakes all the time... The flight path of the Iskander and Kinzhal is not much different from the Kh-32 anti ship missile... which is not called a ballistic missile.

The Zircon is a cruise missile so Short range, medium range, intermediate range and intercontinental range missiles are SRCM, MRCM, IRCM, and ICCM respectively.

Look up the Snark programme, or the Navaho programme to see examples of the latter.

Scramjet propulsion is going to revive the cruise missile in all those range categories... the Thunderbird is already an ICCM.... as it has a flight range of more than 5,500km, and the new GROM II missile is supposed to have a flight range of 12,000km and so it will be an intercontinental range cruise missile too.

ABMs and ATBM systems (anti (strategic) ballistic missile systems and anti Theatre ballistic missile systems will also be tasked with taking down cruise and non ballistic threats too.. like hypersonic bombers and hypersonic cruise missiles.

BTW I would say the Javelin would need to hit tanks rather more often before it could be called an ATGM... its only virtue is that it is superior to the piece of crap it replaced in the form of the Dragon III ATGM.

@GarryB

Ok so you still believe those fins are fixed. From an engineering perspective - wouldn't it be far more simple and efficient to just weld the whole base of the fin to the missile's body if that was the case?

GarryB wrote:Look up the Snark programme, or the Navaho programme to see examples of the latter.

Those two programs you mentioned were pale in comparison to what the Soviets had at the time - so not even worth mentioning!
Unfortunately the ICCM's proved obsolete very quickly with the advent of the ICBM.