"Kinzhal" hypersonic aviation-missile complex

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:  While kinetic weapons can deliver a massive amount of energy this energy is distributed in 1 direction and does not create any sizable explosion like effect.
Kinetic weapons are best used against hard tagets such as tanks or bunkers and offer little to no explosive effects.

You don't see APFSDS rounds being used against infantry do you.

For the purpose of artillery KE weapons are utterly useless as they simply do not distribute thier energy outwards.

I  hope that I have made it quite clear as to why kinetic bombardment will simply not work .

Oh yes they can. We both agree that there is energy and the problem ti to pass it to the ship.This can be solved by mechanical characteristics of warhead that scatters upon impact and many shards with high energy make "trips" around CV. Weren't Germans tried in on BK-27mm ammo befroe?

Against a carrier yes it could work very well actually but against a wherehouse or tent no.

I guess however with the increasing amount of tall buildings KE missiles might actually become very usefull tools as they will do far more damage to a layered structure than an explosive warhead of the same size.

But still agaist flat targets like tents in the middle east your missile will only get burried in the sand.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Against a carrier yes it could work very well actually but against a wherehouse or tent no.

I guess however with the increasing amount of tall buildings KE missiles might actually become very usefull tools as they will do far more damage to a layered structure than an explosive warhead of the same size.

But still agaist flat targets like tents in the middle east your missile will only get burried in the sand.

Kindzhal is anti-ship missile isnt it? Taking into account its size and price Id assume a mostly anti CVSGs one.

But agreed for soft targets we still have good 'ol cassette warheads

JohninMK wrote:What?

Pavel Podvig
‏ @russianforces
Mar 3

Now the commander of the Military Space Forces says that Kinzhal, which he identified as Kh-47M2, is a 3-meter long missile https://rg.ru/2018/03/01/glavkom-vks-rossii-raskryl-sekret-giperzvukovoj-rakety-kinzhal.html … That's not what was on the video... (h/t AH)

Perhaps Kinzhal was defined here as maneuvering warhead without boosters? Kh-35 lenght is 5-6 meters depending on version.

JohninMK wrote:What?

Pavel Podvig
‏ @russianforces
Mar 3

Now the commander of the Military Space Forces says that Kinzhal,

I donno mann .. but my experience is that after Russia reveals some cutting edge platforms .. some decisive mis-informaton is usually fed into media
after 2-3 days. My experience is like that only . Here also avanguard and kinzhal are totally mixed up . deliberate misinformation.
About Russian language media I have always been suspicious.. they only create confusion rather than precise analysis done by people on RDF.
Believing the genuine analysis of GarryB and other people are far better sometimes than Russ language media.
They are quite a lot of rocket experts right here.. on this forum.

I think this Pavel podvig is a total NATO paid agent .. what he will tell say is upto the reader to believe.
Pavel spread the news of GZUR and KH-50 ..well donno lets see what comes up.

gaurav wrote:
Pavel spread the news of GZUR and KH-50 ..well donno lets see what comes up.

It was actually in Jane's first I believe. BTW Janes also mentioned that in 2013 Russian (me not remember name) mentioned that there will be 2 stages of hypersonic air-ground missiles. first ~6-7Ma second 12-14Ma. I wonder is Kindzal is early implementation of second wave...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

JohninMK wrote:What?

Pavel Podvig
‏ @russianforces
Mar 3

Now the commander of the Military Space Forces says that Kinzhal, which he identified as Kh-47M2, is a 3-meter long missile https://rg.ru/2018/03/01/glavkom-vks-rossii-raskryl-sekret-giperzvukovoj-rakety-kinzhal.html … That's not what was on the video... (h/t AH)

Perhaps  Kinzhal was defined here as maneuvering warhead without boosters? Kh-35 lenght is 5-6 meters depending on version.

I read the article. Cant see anything on the size.

Isos wrote:This missile looks like an improved kh-15. They seem to have same flight profile.

"Kickback" 200 km retaliation weapon . That is very short range. Not feasible in todays environment.
KH-15 is a liquid fuel Rocket engine .Very difficult to maintain, transport and stock pile in ammunition reserve. That liquid fuel may be
very hazardous/deadly for military personnel. Kh-15 only to be used for nuclear conflicts. Cannot be used in mass strikes as the fallout/handling
is too difficult to manage.
And very short engine burn time possibly 1 minute max (Liquid fuel rocket).
Though I would say that kh-15 family does look very similar.

For Kinzhal..
As pointed out earlier , the only thing we know about Kinzhal is "enormous jump " in technology.
Can be used in mass strikes/decapitation , very easy to handle(almost calibre level) , no environment fallout , can be stored for long time.
Golden standard/comfort for troops handling such weapons.


And solid fuel scramjet technology. Very long Engine burn time (10-15 minutes ,2000 kms with maneuvering almost like 2.5k kms effective burn time).
As many have pointed here in this forum (photo will be similar but inside will be different).

GunshipDemocracy wrote:t was actually in Jane's first I believe. BTW Janes also mentioned that in 2013 Russian (me not remember name) mentioned that there will be 2 stages of hypersonic air-ground missiles. first ~6-7Ma second 12-14Ma. I wonder is Kindzal is early implementation of second wave...

There are also different companies developing different products . It is just like mig/sukhoi difference. in missile it is more classified.
And there are many companies. We yet do not know which company developed this product.
They may have different specifications in their product lines even though the technology base is same.

miketheterrible wrote:


Perhaps  Kinzhal was defined here as maneuvering warhead without boosters? Kh-35 lenght is 5-6 meters depending on version.

I read the article.  Cant see anything on the size.[/quote]

https://rg.ru/2018/03/01/glavkom-vks-rossii-raskryl-sekret-giperzvukovoj-rakety-kinzhal.html

original article:

"- Высокоскоростной самолет-носитель доставляет аэробаллистическую ракету в район сброса за считанные минуты. Далее маршевый двигатель разгоняет боеприпас до гиперзвуковой скорости за секунды. На конечном участке траектории включается всепогодная головка самонаведения, она обеспечивает требуемую точность и избирательность поражения целей в любое время суток, - рассказал Суровикин.

Полет к цели также занимает несколько секунд, что исключает перехват "Кинжала" средствами ПВО. Длина Х-47М2 около трех метров, скорость боеприпаса превышает 10 Маха, дальность его полета 2000 километров. С 1 декабря 2017 года "Кинжал" проходит опытно-боевую эксплутатацию в Южном военном округе на перехватчиках МиГ-31БМ.
"

and translation:

"- A high-speed carrier aircraft delivers an aeroballistic missile to the discharge area in minutes. Further the march engine accelerates the ammunition to hypersonic speed in seconds.[/b] At the end of the trajectory, an all-weather homing head is turned on, it ensures the required accuracy and selectivity of target destruction at any time of the day, "said Surovikin.

The flight to the target also takes a few seconds, which excludes the interception of the Dagger by air defense means. The length of the X-47M2 is about three meters, the speed of the ammunition exceeds 10 Mach, the range of its flight is 2000 kilometers. Since December 1, 2017, "Dagger" is being tested in combat combat operation in the Southern Military District with interceptors MiG-31BM.

And solid fuel scramjet technology. Very long Engine burn time (10-15 minutes ,2000 kms with maneuvering almost like 2.5k kms effective burn time).
As many have pointed here in this forum (photo will be similar but inside will be different).

Where did anyone say solid fuel scramjet?
That'd be a pretty interesting wrinkle.

"Kickback" 200 km retaliation weapon . That is very short range. Not feasible in todays environment.
KH-15 is a liquid fuel Rocket engine .Very difficult to maintain, transport and stock pile in ammunition reserve. That liquid fuel may be
very hazardous/deadly for military personnel. Kh-15 only to be used for nuclear conflicts. Cannot be used in mass strikes as the fallout/handling
is too difficult to manage.
And very short engine burn time possibly 1 minute max (Liquid fuel rocket).
Though I would say that kh-15 family does look very similar.

Are you sure?

My understanding was that the Kh-15 was a solid fuelled 1,500kg missile carried by the Tu-160 and Tu-22M aircraft family as a short range strike missile.

Its range was between 250km and 350km and could be carried on the internal rotary launcher on the Backfire or in doubles on the Tu-160... in other words the Tu-22M3 could carry 6 internally and four more externally if needed, while the Tu-160 could carry 12 on each rotary launcher... so max load would be 24 missiles but normal load would be 12 missiles on one launcher and 6 cruise missiles on the other launcher.

The standard use for the missiles was to attack threats as they were approached like airfields or SAM sites or major comms centres... the missile climbed immediately on launch to about 40,000m altitude and then dived at mach 5 on the target... it used two solid rocket "stages"... one for the high altitude climb and one for the dive.

It pretty much used inertial guidance and a nuke warhead... the US had a very similar weapon called SRAM or something.

There was talk of an anti ship version but speculation in the west centred around having a radar transparent nosecone for the terminal guidance that could withstand mach 5 flight speeds... the consensus was that it was not possible... but who knows?

At such flight speeds a solid rocket booster that yaws the missile so it impacts sideways could massively increase terminal damage at minimal weight penalty...

The liquid fuelled missile that was unpopular was the Kh-22 and Kh-22M missiles, and therefore also presumably the Kh-32.

I would expect the Kh-32 uses a storable fuel to make handling and operational use easier and safer.

I read the article.  Cant see anything on the size.

Not a big surprise... I have several adverts regarding the Iskander missile but no mention of the missile length there either.

Where did anyone say solid fuel scramjet?
That'd be a pretty interesting wrinkle.

Suspect he meant solid fuel rocket/scramjet...

GarryB wrote:Are you sure?

My understanding was that the Kh-15 was a solid fueled 1,500kg missile carried by the Tu-160 and Tu-22M aircraft family as a short range strike missile.

yaah about KH-15 I will have to check once again. I am not so sure now as yu guys are pointing out.
I thought it was 200 km range weapon only for nuclear delivery .
It was named Kickback.
It would be used in intense conflicts with total radiation fallout .. basically a no use weapon in todays conditions.
There are always different ways to understand rocket technology. I am not that expert in that.

What i know is that solid fuel engines are very easy to handle /store and liquid fuel engines
are essentially being phased out.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launched-hypersonic-weapon-appears-to-be-a-modified-iskander-ballistic-missile
"Russian Naval Aviation – 32 in inventory as of 2016."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Operators

I'm sure that besides the Tu-22M3s/160Ms, future MiG-41s could carry it too!

I also saw the Kh-74M2 denomination roaming around… Any clarification? Mistake for Kh-47M2 or another missile?

yaah about KH-15 I will have to check once again. I am not so sure now as yu guys are pointing out.
I thought it was 200 km range weapon only for nuclear delivery .

That part is right AFAIK... the US equivalent is SRAM or something... short range attack missile... it is used by strategic aircraft or theatre strike aircraft to blast their way through heavy defences like major SAM sites and comm centres and air fields and was inertially guided with a nuke warhead to flatten enemy defences so the bomber could fly through to their launch positions for their primary package... cruise missiles.

I have even read it could be launched to a point in space in the air to deal with enemy fighters in groups on interception missions...

By limiting you mean most of tasks can be delegated to conventional hypersonic missiles?

Meaning if the target is an HQ in the middle of Syria with some ISIS aholes, then you probably don't want to hand them a nuclear powered ramjet engine.... even if it gets damaged by the 400kgs of explosives going off nearby on impact.

In comparison in a nuclear attack all evidence is vapourised...

Why energy source (not engine) has to do with that?

Can't leave used up engines lying around the place... at least when used in wwiii there will be no remains to speak of... with a conventional warhead you might be able to recover the design specs... or at least the nuclear material which could be dangerous in the wrong hands... don't want anyone to just be able to pick that sort of stuff up around destroyed baby milk factories and the like.

it can same as Iskander have tactical nuke or conventional warhead. Anyway a missile designated specifically to kill CVSGsis hardly to use in different scenarios

Anything that uses nuclear propulsion would be restricted in use to prevent nuclear material falling into the wrong hands...

So small nuclear powered cruise missile flying at subsonic speed and very low is better option than nuclear powered cruise missile with scramjet engine flying about 20M ? Hypersonic missile are more dangerous and more difficult to intercept?

All subsonic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads designed to destroy cities are dangerous because not all cities around the world have defences to stop that sort of attack... even in peace time let alone after WWIII.

I think that a cruise missile flying at the subsonic speed is a very easy target for American defense systems. When it is detected it's easy to intercept it. Hypersonic missiles that are easily detectable but difficult to intercept are more dangerous. Scrajmet engine with nuclear propulson thisa is better idea.

American air defences wont be operational after WWIII when all those ICBMs and SLBMs and bomber launched cruise missiles have destroyed much of north america... 6 weeks later when cities start getting hit again with nuclear weapons and the air defences wont be in better condition...

GarryB wrote:

Meaning if the target is an HQ in the middle of Syria with some ISIS aholes, then you probably don't want to hand them a nuclear powered ramjet engine.... even if it gets damaged by the 400kgs of explosives going off nearby on impact.

True, until other wont keep up with same technology to me. However it would be much cheaper to use PAK-DA with Kh-101 if this is not Syria but New Zealand jihadist camp for example

Can't leave used up engines lying around the place... at least when used in wwiii there will be no remains to speak of... with a conventional warhead you might be able to recover the design specs... or at least the nuclear material which could be dangerous in the wrong hands... don't want anyone to just be able to pick that sort of stuff up around destroyed baby milk factories and the like.

sounds fair to me

Hi guys,

Here's a new video of Kinzhal testing here:
https://www.rt.com/news/420947-russian-hypersonic-missile-tests/


So what you think, was Kinzhal part of the MiG-31BM upgrade from the get go? Or perhaps the rumour about a MiG-31BM2 standard was refering to this?

Same video on Zvezda's Youtube channel

Isos wrote:According to sputnik Kinzal was tested today on a mig 31. There was 200 flights of mig-31 with it since 2018.

Over 250 take offs since the start of the year according to the commander in the video. He says the system is in experimental combat deployment and that the unit is capable of attacking targets day and night and in bad weather

Isos wrote:This missile looks like an improved kh-15. They seem to have same flight profile.

Yep..
both of them are hypersonic .. and both achieve hypersonic speeds by launching them from very high altitudes.
Difference is range is way higher for Dagger ,2000km.. versus 300km.. and the speed of Dagger is mach 10.. versus mach 5 of Kh-15 ( NATO name : AS-16 'Kickback') ,it also have other major upgrades.. like plasma . So is more a totally new missile but that use similar tactics.. to achieve its max speed.