Offtopic stuff from the Ukriane war thread1

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.

Yes definitely small thrusters. LikeDislike wrote:

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.

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.

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. wrote:

I wrote it wrong. Several dozen seconds. Modern ICBM ballistic missiles with a range of 11,000 km have an engine phase of just over 2 minutes.

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. wrote:

Exactly. I'll tell you something else, ICBM missiles operate for 2 to 4 minutes and then another 20 minutes fly without propulsion as MIRV warheads. Of course, there is no atmosphere in space. At an altitude of 50 km it is very thin and the drag is very small.

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. wrote:

Iskander does not fly to the target with the engine burn, similarly to long-range air-to-air missiles, which fly kinetically for a significant part of the route, even the 48N6DM, or R037M. Only the Meteor has a ramjet engine on longer. However, those with standard engines

Yes definitely small thrusters. wrote:

You can also see that the Iskander E does not have those thrusters engines. You can see that the export version has limited maneuvering.

Unfortunately the ICCM's proved obsolete very quickly with the advent of the ICBM. wrote:

Not quite. Currently, cruise missiles are returning to ICCM ranges. The new version Kh 101, 102 has a range of about 6,500. That's already an intercontinental range.

I wrote it wrong. Several dozen seconds. Modern ICBM ballistic missiles with a range of 11,000 km have an engine phase of just over 2 minutes.

They also have three stages with three sets of engines each being smaller and lighter and pushing a smaller lighter load.

So three engine burns... are they two minutes each?

A liquid fuelled rocket like the Kh-32 can optimise its fuel burn depending on the range to the target and the flight profile chosen for the attack, and of course any air defence sites it might fly past on its way to its target... A solid rocket fuel missile like iskander has fixed fuels with fixed burn times, but you say it only uses high energy rocket fuel like no other long range solid propellant missile...

Exactly. I'll tell you something else, ICBM missiles operate for 2 to 4 minutes and then another 20 minutes fly without propulsion as MIRV warheads.

ICBMs have three rocket stages that are all used to accelerate and climb out of the atmosphere. The third stage is the warhead bus that manouvers left and right and up and down to release individual warheads in the direction of each of their targets on the flight path the missile is taking.

At an altitude of 50 km it is very thin and the drag is very small.

Have you ever stuck your hand out the window of a car in motion? In a carpark or at very low speed the force is not that noticeable, but on a motorway the force of the airflow drags you hand back. Even at 50km/h you can hold your hand out with your palm down with a flat hand and you can feel the airflow around your hand... angle your hand up or down and you can feel the very significant upwards or downwards for this creates.

Pilots flying at mach 2.8 in a MiG-31 wear all sorts of heavy pressure suit gear and one British guy whose feet were too big for the boots available wore normal shoes during a flight to 20km altitude and high speed and was told in the event he had to eject he would be landing on bloody stumps.

Even very thin air accelerated to mach 7 has force and energy... and will slow down objects in flight.

Iskander does not fly to the target with the engine burn, similarly to long-range air-to-air missiles, which fly kinetically for a significant part of the route, even the 48N6DM, or R037M. Only the Meteor has a ramjet engine on longer. However, those with standard engines

As I have explained several times, it is not efficient to use full high thrust engines as the only fuel in a rocket missile... an AIM-9 missile has a range of less than 10km at low altitude low speed launch because the thicker air limits the speed it can accelerate to and then the thicker air slows it down faster than if launched from higher faster launch platforms.

Missiles like R-27 and R-77 and R-33 use different rocket fuels to maximise performance... the high energy fuel accelerates and climbs to altitude but it burns very quickly so only having that fuel is a waste because it will only burn for a relatively short time.

The most efficient flight performance is achieved by something like the Kh-32 which has two rocket exhausts... you can see them on the rear of the missile... it is teh same for the Kh-22M that it is based on, but the Kh-32 has more powerful fuel.

The powerful fuel is burned to allow the missile to climb to altitude and accelerate to high speed, but if it only had that thrust setting it would not go very far.... think of it as a fighter using full AB to take off and climb to altitude... if it is an Su-7 fighter it can operate its AB for about 7 minutes and then it is out of fuel. If it uses the AB to take off quickly and climbs to 10km altitude and then reduces throttle to maybe 60% thrust it can cruise to a much greater flight range than if it used full power all the way.

Iskander does not need full power thrust all the way to the target... 30-40 seconds of full thrust will get it off the ground and accelerating to a decent altitude and speed of mach 6 to mach 7... but then instead of another 20 seconds worth of the same rocket fuel, it starts burning a lower energy fuel that essentially acts like a base bleed system on an artillery shell that reduces drag to close to zero so it can coast and high speed for several minutes.... it keeps the flight speed high and the longer it does this the better the flight range, but in the case of the Iskander it is not about extra range it is about being able to manouver at very high speeds and high altitudes to evade threats using tiny little low drag control surfaces like those you see on Patriot or even S-300.

Even the fins on AMRAAM are rather small and would struggle to manouer with a missile using thrust vectoring.

You can also see that the Iskander E does not have those thrusters engines. You can see that the export version has limited maneuvering.

What small thrusters?

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?

No. Normal air to air and air to ground missiles have fixed and moving control surfaces removed for storage and transport and have them attached before loading them onto aircraft. Wielded fins add extra size to the storage container.

Those two programs you mentioned were pale in comparison to what the Soviets had at the time - so not even worth mentioning!

No argument from me there.

Unfortunately the ICCM's proved obsolete very quickly with the advent of the ICBM.

They proved obsolete because ICBMs were too fast to intercept and could achieve better range by leaving the drag of the atmosphere.

A modern version using nuclear propulsion, like Thunderbird, or a scramjet powered missile that could fly very high and only carry fuel instead of having to carry fuel and oxidiser like a rocket needs to means they make rather more sense now.

It is like the difference between trying to track an artillery shell and trying to track a bomber aircraft.

In fact having thrust vectoring engine exhausts as part of the scramjet motor means you could probably do away with all external fins and strakes... further reducing drag and improving performance.

Not quite. Currently, cruise missiles are returning to ICCM ranges. The new version Kh 101, 102 has a range of about 6,500. That's already an intercontinental range.

Thunderbird has essentially unlimited range too and is nuclear powered.

Iskander is tested against the world class S-300VM series. Its the shit. Overpowered shit even.

Ironic even that they are developing a simpler cheaper more basic model for general targets at greater distances.

Iskander will be excellent for enemy long range SAM sites and even ABM systems if they get in range, but for most targets a simpler cheaper missile that actually is ballistic makes more sense.

A bit like having guided artillery shells and also having conventional shells for use against area targets...

The Iskander is transported as a complete missile as the fins are relatively small compared to to size of the missile's body.

Hahaha... Mr Picky, I mean in their shipping boxes, not their operational reload vehicles that transfer them directly to the launchers for launch in the field.

A great picture of the size of the fins compared to the missile body. No need to remove or fold them during transport, but feel free to post images that indicate otherwise.

Yeah, they look even smaller from space...

Btw - I have never seen those small control surfaces in the above picture in a deflected position. They must be fixed then, or have anyone seen any evidence suggesting otherwise?

Amazing photo... also evidence that the thrust vectoring blocks don't cover the exhaust so it clearly does not have thrust vectoring either.

In summary, movable fins (aerodynamic rudders) are used for steering in the atmosphere, while pitch control nozzles are used for maneuvering at high altitudes where the atmosphere is very thin. Although they can also operate in the atmosphere
And the ability to control during the engine phase of the main TVC engine. It's good that we have detailed photos of the Iskander. It's a pity that there are no similar ones of the Cirkon, because it's a much more interesting missile.

Yeah about those shipping boxes...The missile container ship with the missile as is - fins included.

A control surface would be vulnerable to impact damage and would be attached later. When lifted out of its container and into the launcher or transport vehicle a 4 ton missile hanging from a crane lightly impacting something during handling would rip a control surface off or damage it.

A stabiliser fin on the other hand...

A somewhat interesting translated graphic on the various trajectories utilized by the Iskander missile.

Some guy makes a diagram suggesting extending the range if the missile by adding a lofted trajectory component outside the atmosphere (which would be about 100km or so) and you think this is proof of something?

With a little research I've noticed that the "fins" on the Iskander missile are in fact referred to as "rudders' in Russian which itself is quite interesting, because a rudder is by definition a steerable or a moving part.

Or a mistranslation of keel or stabiliser.

You put a high guard an Iskander will uppercut you from down low. Defend against a low attack and the other missile will elbow you from above.

That might have been an original plan but with experience it is pretty clear that both missiles are going to reach their target anyway.

That drawing from 2021 looks like a suggestion to extend the range of the Iskander beyond the 500km design limitation by using a lofted trajectory up into space.