"Kinzhal" hypersonic aviation-missile complex

1) You assume a constant burn.

I clearly stated:

Seeing as how from this we can assume it is a scramjet it is fairly obvious that intakes are obviously covered or retracted and uncover or deploy when the solid rocket booster has burned out.

How could it possibly have a constant "burn" if it has a solid rocket booster and then a scramjet motor?

3) Nobody said Mach 10 was the peak speed. In fact, it sounded like a reference to "effective speed". So it could
easily be a two stage rocket design (but with one body instead of two sections). A rapid Mach 15 initial burn followed
by a gradual momentum maintenance burn to prevent air drag from reducing range too much. So this thing likely takes
less than 10 minutes to traverse 2000 km.

When described as being a Mach 10 missile that is generally peak top speed...

There is no chance of a mach 15 initial "burn"... most modern rockets run at between mach 4.5 (for the Kh-32) and about mach 7 for the 400km range Iskander ground launched missile.

Obviously if launched from 25km altitude and at mach 2.5 then performance would be increased, but most likely the solid rocket booster for this missile will be minimised because it clearly has an operating scramjet motor and a scramjet motor has higher speed potential than solid or liquid fuelled rockets.

4) Those tiny intakes would be producing vacuum cavities in a scramjet. Seriously, it is laughable to claim
that those intakes are sufficient for a scram jet. Not a single ramjet or scramjet diagram shows a tiny inflow
aperture. In fact it looks like a ram scoop, i.e. the intake area is large compared to the compression zone.

What tiny intakes?

For all we know the nose tip might be jettisoned and the air intake is the open nose area...

As technology improves scramjets will only get more efficient and scramjet powered missiles will only get faster... the only top speed limit for a scramjet propelled aircraft is its ability to endure heat... the engine and the aircraft structure.

I'll add my 2 cents worth....

The so-called "intakes" on Khinzal have not IMHO been shown in sufficient detail to confirm if they are actual entries into the missile body, or if they are, how far they penetrate.  They look too small to be useful intakes, and have the general appearance of dielectric panels that you'd typically see over antennas in ELINT aircraft, so I wonder if they are actually sensors of some kind?  Alternatively, they could be the outlet ports of waveguides for a plasma-stealth generator?  Don't laugh or dismiss this out of hand as we know that plasma from hypersonically-induced friction is perfectly capable of blocking EM radiation.  The theory would be that the missile body is screened with plasma to reduce RCS, while the nose is left unscreened so that targeting sensors remain operable.

If so, that suggests that the Khinzal isn't fitted with scram-jet engine (unless there is some unseen intake that is either deployable, or concealed behind an ejectable panel and revealed after the SRB burn-out) and cruises at high altitude at M4-5 and relies on dive from high altitude to build its terminal-attack, maybe with a final kick-stage motor to boost to M10?

Since the range and speed of this missile imply that its flight time is 10 minutes or less, solid rocket propulsion is sufficient and consistent
with its external appearance. Solid rocket propulsion would also be rather reliable.

Sorry dude but that is just crazy... the missile is about the size of the Iskander, which has a range of about 500km at about a peak speed of mach 7... and what rocket motor burns for ten minutes?

Rockets going into space burn for less time than that...

The weapon is hypersonic so it would have to be a scramjet... meaning supersonic combustion... on a jet airplane its air intakes open fully on take off because at low flight speed it needs to maximise the volume of air entering the engine to maximise thrust. When flying at altitude however the problem is too much air entering the engine and choking it... so the air intakes close down to reduce the amount of air entering the engine so it is not supersonic when it goes through the engine.

This rocket will be launched from high altitude likely already moving at more than mach 2.. the solid rocket motor is likely just there because a scramjet engine has a big empty space at its rear... so you might as well fill it with a solid rocket motor and get a bit of extra speed and height before the scramjet motor is started.

Once running the scramjet can run at pretty much any speed because it can burn fuel at an speed... supersonic or subsonic.

As I said normal jet engines choke on supersonic air so normally when flying at supersonic speeds the air intakes are reduced down to reduce the amount of supersonic air entering the engine... when it gets past the intake ramp there is a much larger volume of space so it slows down before entering the engine and getting fuel added and burned...

The F-16 could easily fly faster than Mach 2 but it cannot because it has a fixed air intake so it chokes on supersonic air at above mach 2.

In comparison the MiG-29 and Su-27 can fly faster... generally about mach 2.3-2.5 for very short periods when needed because they have heavier, more complicated variable air intake ramps.

Have they seen any other air breathing engines
in aerospace with tiny square intakes?

Actually all the photos of models for hypersonic aircraft have small chin mounted square intakes.

Russia tested a scramjet engine in the 1990s on the nose of an SA-5 SAM and it used a round intake.... the important thing they took from that test was that a simpler square intake would be easier to model and control.

Because it does not need to slow down the airflow the intakes don't need to be very big... it could have scoops that open up if needed... the faster the air goes into the engine the more thrust the engine will generate....

10 MiG-31 with Kinzhal missiles are already on experimental combat duty

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/106765/

Arrow wrote:This missile can maneuver only in the terminal phase. It's just a ballistic missile.

do you have source?

Arrow wrote:This missile can maneuver only in the terminal phase. It's just a ballistic missile.

You're full of shit. It seems to based on an Iskander (a fact you've accepted), yet the Iskander is known to be a quasi-ballistic weapon which constantly adjusts its trajectory using steering vanes in its engine nozzle (which remain lit in sustainer mode for the flight duration).

I've long since ceased to bother with the trollish junk you post...

Not much that is typical about this weapon... not surprising that HATO is responding... soon we will be told SM-3 can engage much faster targets anyway...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Arrow wrote:This missile can maneuver only in the terminal phase. It's just a ballistic missile.

You're full of shit.  It seems to based on an Iskander (a fact you've accepted), yet the Iskander is known to be a quasi-ballistic weapon which constantly adjusts its trajectory using steering vanes in its engine nozzle (which remain lit in sustainer mode for the flight duration).

I've long since ceased to bother with the trollish junk you post...

He's too busy regurgitating the horse feces Foreign Policy mag fed to him.

Is it possible to add terminal sea skimming to the kinzhal. Even with speed and maneuverability, US SAMs like the SM-3/6 are specifically made for destroying high flying hypersonic missiles or satellites.

Hole wrote:The are not mady to destroy hypersonic missiles. They are mad to destroy ballistic missiles which do not change their trajectory.

If the kinzhal has a solid fuel engine and has the same trajectory as the iskander, why isnt it ballistic?

KomissarBojanchev wrote: If the kinzhal has a solid fuel engine and has the same trajectory as the iskander, why isnt it ballistic?

Same reason why Iskander is not ballistic? it is , but it is not flying on optimal ballistic trajectory (like Scud) but can change course and maneuver in all parts of trajectory. Same with kinzhal

GarryB wrote:Not much that is typical about this weapon... not surprising that HATO is responding... soon we will be told SM-3 can engage much faster targets anyway...

it can! it can miss targets of any speed

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is it possible to add terminal sea skimming to the kinzhal. Even with speed and maneuverability, US SAMs like the SM-3/6 are specifically made for destroying high flying hypersonic missiles or satellites.

So far going almost vertical with hypersonic speed is much more effective AFAIK