The Kh-101 cruise missile with a reinforced warhead and the prospects for creating modular long-range precision weapons

53
The Kh-101 cruise missile with a reinforced warhead and the prospects for creating modular long-range precision weapons

At the end of March this year, Ukrainian sources reported that during the next massive night missile strike, the Aerospace Forces (VKS) of the Russian Federation (RF) used the Kh-101 cruise missile (CR), carrying a warhead weighing about 800 kilograms, which is almost twice the mass of a standard warhead. Presumably, this was achieved by eliminating some of the fuel tanks and reducing the overall flight range of the missile system.

Based on open sources, the range of the KR X-101 ranges from 3 to 000 kilometers; given the size of the territory of Ukraine, reducing the flight range of the KR X-5 in favor of strengthening its warhead seems quite justified. Recently, the Armed Forces (AF) of the Russian Federation have been paying increased attention to Ukrainian infrastructure facilities, such as hydroelectric power plants, thermal power plants, underground gas storage infrastructure and workshops of large industrial enterprises.



Most of these objects were built back in the Soviet period, so hated by Ukraine, and therefore were built conscientiously, and therefore their destruction to an irreparable state poses a certain difficulty. Perhaps this has something to do with it resumption of production of high-explosive bombs - FAB-3000. True, delivery of FAB-3000 equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPC) deep into Ukrainian territory will be associated with certain difficulties and risks.


FAB-3000 with UMPC can potentially wipe out any Ukrainian fortifications and structures within 50–100 kilometers from the line of combat contact (LCC) from the face of the Earth.

Almost all samples of Russian high-precision weapons long-range weapons are equipped with warheads weighing about 500 kilograms or less. The exception is the Kh-22 aeroballistic anti-ship missiles (ASMs) with their warheads weighing 960 kilograms, but presumably their guidance accuracy is insufficient to hit targeted highly protected objects, and on the modified Kh-32 anti-ship missiles the warhead weight is approximately reduced in favor of increasing the firing range .

Also, warheads weighing about 750–1 kilograms, again, according to open sources, are available on Anti-ship missiles of the P-500 “Basalt”, P-1000 “Vulcan” and P-700 “Granit” projects, but they have not yet been used in Ukraine, although they could potentially.

Thus, apparently, increasing the warhead power of long-range precision weapons is an objective necessity; in addition, this may only be the beginning of the modernization of existing and the creation of new models of long-range precision weapons with a modular design that allows you to quickly change the warhead and vary the flight range and install additional equipment depending on the application conditions.

Range of flight


Flight range, firing range, is one of the main characteristics of long-range precision weapons. At the same time, as the conflict in Ukraine has shown, it is not always necessary to shoot at the maximum range; as a result, a significant part of the fuel can essentially be wasted - the remaining fuel of significant destructive power that fuels cruise missiles will be unused and will burn out when the missile launcher is detonated.

In this case, the use of modular fuel tanks in combination with a modular warhead seems quite justified; shorter range means greater destructive power of the missile. By the way, in some cases, external conformal fuel tanks can be installed on the KR, as was done with the KR X-55/555.


KR X-555

At the same time, it is necessary to understand that this opportunity will not be realized for all types of high-precision weapons. It is one thing to install modular fuel tanks with liquid fuel on/on a cruise missile, another thing is to implement something similar on the Iskander operational-tactical missile system (OTRK) missile with its solid-fuel rocket engine or on its relative - the hypersonic aeroballistic missile of the complex "Dagger".

Although here the possibility of playing with the range and destructive power cannot be completely ruled out, however, versions of such a missile will be implemented directly in production, while in the case of cruise missiles, the principle of changing the range and mass of the missile warhead directly in military units can potentially be implemented.

Warhead


Here we have two options.

Firstly, we can change the warhead without changing its mass.

Secondly, we can increase the mass of the warhead by reducing the missile’s flight range by dismantling part of the fuel tanks, as was presumably implemented in the KR X-101 mentioned at the beginning of the article.

Let's start with the second option.

What can increasing the mass of warheads provide?

The answer is obvious - greater destructive power, and it can be expressed in different ways, for example, an increase in explosives and fragments/ready-made submunitions will cause more significant damage to openly located manpower, equipment and other objects, while using the mass reserve to install a durable hull will allow you to hit highly protected and buried objects.

There is no linear relationship between an increase in the mass of a warhead and its destructive properties, even for nuclear weapons - it is more profitable to strike with several ammunition of a smaller mass than with one ammunition of a larger mass. But this is more about the affected area, but what if we need to destroy a point, but highly protected object, this is where the mass of the explosive (explosive) and the mass/strength of the warhead body come first.

If we want to increase the destruction area, then it is better to use cluster munitions, while the permissible mass of the warhead, of course, will also matter, since this will affect the number of submunitions.

Now let's move on to the first option - changing the type of warhead without changing its mass.

In fact, a number of long-range precision-guided munitions are already equipped with different warheads, for example, the missiles of the aforementioned Iskander OTRK can carry both monoblock and cluster warheads, not to mention a special warhead (with a tactical nuclear charge). Actually, the KR X-101 exists in the modification of the KR X-102 with a special warhead.


Iskander OTRK missiles can be equipped with various warheads. Image by Mil.ru

However, these are all just factory versions of these missiles; they do not allow you to quickly change the warhead depending on the situation on the battlefield. It can be assumed that the KR X-101 with a reinforced warhead was also made at the factory, that is, this is just another modification, but this does not mean that such a solution is optimal.

Modular equipment of the Kyrgyz Republic


Of course, most of the high-precision long-range weapons will still be produced with one or another charge “in the base”, however, it is possible that understanding the objective need to vary the types of warheads in the Kyrgyz Republic will lead developers to the creation of modular designs that allow changing the flight range, power and the type of combat unit directly in the troops, depending on the tasks to which this missile system will be involved.

This will make it possible to flexibly plan the deployment of forces and means to destroy certain targets. For example, to destroy a strong workshop building, a reinforced high-explosive warhead can be used, and to attack an airfield with an openly located aviation A cluster warhead would be a better technology.

By the way, earlier we said that equipping the Kh-22 aeroballistic anti-ship missiles with cluster warheads could partially compensate for the low accuracy of their guidance when attacking area targets.

As part of a massive strike delivered by a missile launcher, some of them could be equipped not with warheads, but with electronic warfare (EW) equipment necessary to cover other missiles, and part of the missile launcher could carry reconnaissance equipment with feedback, allowing one to assess the effectiveness of the strike and identify new goals.

Within the framework of a modular design, the composition of the Kyrgyz Republic’s self-defense means can change, ranging from their absence to devices for releasing thermal and dipole traps, and even towed decoy release module.


A cruise missile, presumably an X-101, shoots decoys

Modular configuration of OTRK missiles


With OTRK missiles everything is more complicated; it is unlikely that on a missile with a solid propellant rocket engine it will be possible to implement a modular design that allows you to play with the range and weight of the warhead. Nevertheless, some elements of modular design can be incorporated into these missiles.

Of course, we are talking about replacing warheads directly in the troops, and the mass of the warhead does not have to be the same in all variants; a scenario is quite possible when a more massive warhead will be used when firing at a shorter range, of course, provided that its dimensions allow it to be placed on a rocket.

The changed alignment may well be compensated by the missile control system, for example, the flight range of the American Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with a maximum payload of 2 kilograms is 800 kilometers, while with a reduced payload the flight range will be 7 kilometers - the difference is almost one and a half times. Most likely, the thrown payload also changes by about 800–11 times, but no problems with alignment arise.

Separately, it is necessary to say that as the capabilities of the enemy’s air defense and missile defense systems (AD/BMD) increase, it may be necessary to transition to a detachable warhead of OTRK missiles, in this case, its size and visibility will significantly complicate interception in the final section, and the hull separated on the descending branch of the trajectory will play the role of a decoy target, and possibly a source of interference if supplemented with electronic warfare equipment.

Conclusions


War is the best catalyst for the development of weapons; it also serves as a factor of natural selection, when the most effective solutions gain the right to life, and unsuccessful ones sink into oblivion.

We see how cruise missiles have evolved over the course of the SVO - thermal/dipole traps have appeared on them, accuracy has apparently increased, and now they have added a warhead that has been strengthened almost twice as much.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    April 4 2024 05: 08
    War is the best catalyst for the development of weapons; it also serves as a factor of natural selection, when the most effective solutions gain the right to life, and unsuccessful ones sink into oblivion.

    War is a test for both the state and the people, and shows without embellishment who is capable of what for the good of the Fatherland.
    1. 0
      April 4 2024 08: 09
      Back in the summer of 22, there was terrible suffering about “long approvals in high offices.”
      “shorten the chain, time, etc., of making decisions before the target leaves.” - Lancet, etc.
      In 2 years it seems like they decided, now modularity.
      But we need determination and understanding of who we are, where we are going and that we want to build what kind of state, why do we need victory on the outskirts?
      1. +2
        April 4 2024 08: 21
        Quote: antivirus
        But we need determination and understanding of who we are, where we are going and that we want to build what kind of state, why do we need victory on the outskirts?

        Let’s ask Roman Skomorokhov (he’s good at it) to publish a problematic article with a survey: “Do you know who we are, where we are going and what kind of state we want to build, including in Ukraine?”
        This will be fun...
        1. 0
          April 4 2024 08: 27
          I know London and Courchevel better than the novel.
          Or to Singapore and Dubai.
          But not to Kostroma and Uryupinsk.
  2. 0
    April 4 2024 05: 08
    It is possible that the resumption of production of high-explosive bombs - FAB-3000 - is connected with this. True, the delivery of FAB-3000 equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPC) deep into Ukrainian territory will be fraught with certain difficulties and risks.

    Where did the belief come from that the FAB-3000 would be equipped with UMPC? Has anyone seen or at least read about such UMPC-3000?
    There are no questions regarding the conversion of the missile launcher to warheads of increased power, except one: why have not the modernized missiles been put into mass production yet?!!
    1. -2
      April 4 2024 07: 30
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      Why haven’t the modernized missiles been put into mass production yet?!!

      They have been launched and are already being actively used. Witnesses of this are the destroyed thermal power plants throughout Ukraine.
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      Where did the belief come from that the FAB-3000 would be equipped with UMPC?

      Actually, these are official statements by the Ministry of Defense and Rostec with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, as well as reports from the factory workshops, where the head of the bomb is covered with an aerodynamic fairing and the UMPC is installed. The area of ​​application will most likely be city blocks, now being converted into fortresses and fortified areas, underground shelters and highly protected targets / fortifications.
      All this is in anticipation of a big offensive this summer.
      1. 0
        April 4 2024 07: 41
        bayard, thank you, I don’t have time to keep track of all the events.
        1. 0
          April 4 2024 10: 59
          FAB-3000 with UMPC can potentially wipe out any Ukrainian fortifications and structures within 50–100 kilometers from the line of combat contact (LCC) from the face of the Earth.
          As far as I know, it is only being developed for the 3000th UMPC. And “within 50–100 kilometers from the line of combat contact (LCC)” is nothing, modern air defense systems will reach the carrier at such a distance with ease!
          1. 0
            April 4 2024 12: 41
            for example, who will get it??? Will they set the air defense to zero? less than 70-100 km they do not deliver air defense, and this is 150 - 200 km in total
      2. +3
        April 4 2024 10: 43
        in general, there is a more realistic alternative to the FAB-3000 UMPC with an explosive of 1400 kg
        The 9M723 missile is being modernized for the Iskander OTRK
        with a decrease in range to 150-250 km,
        BUT increasing the warhead from 480 kg to 1000-1500 kg swept away hexogen and octogen
        what is not an analogue in terms of high-explosive effects of fab-3000 (?)(!)
        but air defense is definitely no longer a hindrance
        1. +4
          April 4 2024 11: 11
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          The 9M723 missile is being modernized for the Iskander OTRK
          with a decrease in range to 150-250 km,

          If this is so, then a very sound decision. In war, caliber does matter.
          But FAB with UMPC is still cheaper and can provide much greater mass. But at a shorter range.
          1. -1
            April 4 2024 11: 21
            There will be no problems with UMPC because the dimensions of FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 are approximately similar
            weight 3 tons - more related to the choice of carrier
            length is the same 3 meters, diameter 600 and 750 + head wraps
            the lifting force of the UMPC will be increased by the longer wing length, due to a longer head fairing for the FAB-3000 and also a larger tail unit with a greater load-bearing capacity
            1. -1
              April 4 2024 13: 34
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              There will be no problems with UMPC because the dimensions of FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 are approximately similar

              Apparently that’s why everything is resolved so quickly. Soon we will see FAB-3000 with UMPC in action.
  3. +1
    April 4 2024 05: 12
    By the way, in some cases, external conformal fuel tanks can be installed on the KR, as was done with the KR X-55/555.
    Interesting, I didn't know this was possible.


    By the way, earlier we said that the equipment aeroballistic PKR X-22
    What ?!
    1. -1
      April 4 2024 05: 30
      Now it is an aeroballistic missile. The term is relatively new, but the flight profile of the X-22 is quite correctly characterized by this term.
      1. +5
        April 4 2024 05: 45
        Quote: U-58
        Now it is an aeroballistic missile. The term is relatively new, but the flight profile of the X-22 is quite correctly characterized by this term.

        You should at least read something about it... That there are at least two profiles, that even at high altitude the rocket flies not along a ballistic curve, but horizontally under engine thrust.
        The fact that a missile dives from level flight towards a target does not make it aeroballistic.
        1. +3
          April 4 2024 06: 26
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          The fact that a missile dives from level flight towards a target does not make it aeroballistic.

          But it sounds so beautiful.
          But in fact, the rocket is from the 70s of the last century.
          And they called it aerobalistic, so it’s like they “got off their knees.”
        2. -2
          April 4 2024 15: 34
          Well, that’s pretty much how Iskander flies. It seems like there are cruise and ballistic missiles, and this is an intermediate option with a complex trajectory.
          1. +2
            April 4 2024 15: 41
            Quote from alexoff
            Well, that’s pretty much how Iskander flies.

            One more... Do you know that the Iskander has two types of missiles? Which one “flies roughly like this”?
            1. -3
              April 4 2024 16: 15
              Which is not winged, which is not K. What do you think it is?
              1. +1
                April 4 2024 16: 17
                Quote from alexoff
                Which is not winged, which is not K. What do you think it is?

                It is not related to the X-22 either in terms of flight principle or flight profile.
                1. -3
                  April 4 2024 16: 25
                  Well, let's go point by point, what is fundamentally different in the flight profile, well, besides the fact that Iskander must go to the flight level from the ground himself?
                  1. 0
                    April 4 2024 18: 04
                    Quote from alexoff
                    Well, let's go point by point, what is fundamentally different in the flight profile, well, besides the fact that Iskander must go to the flight level from the ground himself?

                    What is the echelon for OTR, what are you talking about, a 9M723 pseudo-ballistic missile, its engine runs for 15-20, well, 50 km on the acceleration section, that’s all! Then rise to 50-100 km by inertia and fall with limited maneuvering towards the target.
                    But the X-22 has a full range flight at a given altitude from 12 to 20 km or 1 (one) kilometer with the engine running and staying in the air due to the lifting force of the wings.
                    I sincerely don’t understand how you can be such a dropout...
                    1. +1
                      April 4 2024 18: 24
                      What echelon for OTR

                      At an altitude of about 50 km
                      The missile flies to this height and goes into horizontal flight to the target. Likewise the X-22. Whether the engine is running or not is not important for the trajectory.
                      But the X-22 has a full range flight at a given altitude from 12 to 20 km or 1 (one) kilometer with the engine running and staying in the air due to the lifting force of the wings.

                      I haven’t heard anything worse, is this about onyx? The X-22 has always been high altitude, the X-32 generally falls on the target from 40 km
                      I sincerely don’t understand how you can be such a dropout...
                      What sofa-making school did you finish your education at?
                      1. -2
                        April 5 2024 03: 35
                        Quote from alexoff
                        What sofa-making school did you finish your education at?


                        In high school and vocational technical school. True, they didn’t give me any special knowledge, but they taught me how to use my brains. Where were you not taught this?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        The missile flies to this height and goes into horizontal flight to the target. Likewise the X-22. Whether the engine is running or not is not important for the trajectory.
                        Here's the simplest thing - with the engine turned off, horizontal flight is impossible. This is either an ascent by inertia or a descent. But for those who are not trained to use their brains, such things are inaccessible...

                        Quote from alexoff
                        What echelon for OTR
                        At an altitude of about 50 km
                        . OTR is in this case a pseudo-ballistic missile. Altitude level is the selected altitude at which HORIZONTAL flight is carried out. When the engine is turned off, horizontal flight is impossible. You, due to your lack of education, confused the flight level with the maximum height of the ballistic flight path of the rocket. The X-22 can, relatively speaking, have a train, because the X-22 flies on wings and with the engine running.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        I haven’t heard anything worse, is this about onyx? X-22 has always been high altitude
                        Because your lack of education does not allow you to guess to read at least something on the subject. At the latest, such a profile was introduced with the X-22NA.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        X-32 generally falls on the target from 40 km
                        Because the power of the new engine allows you to introduce such a flight profile. Not the only one and perhaps not the main one.

                        In general, calling the X-22 a pseudo or at least an aeroballistic missile can be done by mistake or out of ignorance. But one can persist in this only due to lack of education...
                      2. 0
                        April 6 2024 10: 28
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Here's the simplest thing - with the engine turned off, horizontal flight is impossible.

                        Why is it impossible? Possible, but with inhibition. This is exactly how modern missiles like the AIM-120D or P-77-1 fly over long ranges.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Because your lack of education does not allow you to guess to read at least something on the subject. At the latest, such a profile was introduced with the X-22NA.

                        The X-22NA has two trajectories: upper and lower. The first has a flight altitude of 22,5 km, the second 12,5 km.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Because the power of the new engine allows you to introduce such a flight profile.

                        The engine of the X-32 is the same (C.5.44), it has plenty of thrust - the starting thrust is more than 10 times greater than the sustaining thrust. The missile's flight range has been increased due to the guidance system.
                      3. 0
                        April 6 2024 11: 00
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Why is it impossible? Possible, but with inhibition.

                        It is extremely short-lived because to maintain altitude you need to increase the angle of attack, and this means even stronger braking, increasing the angle, exceeding and stalling.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        This is exactly how modern missiles like the AIM-120D or P-77-1 fly over long ranges.
                        No. When launched at long ranges, they gain altitude and speed until the engine turns off, and then glide towards the target due to speed, tail and hull - a classic exchange of height for speed.
                        https://pikabu.ru/story/o_bednoy_aim120_amraam_zamolvite_slovo_ili_kakova_realnaya_dalnost_raket_vozdukh__vozdukh_10581056

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        The X-22NA has two trajectories: upper and lower. The first has a flight altitude of 22,5 km, the second 12,5 km.

                        Kh-22N - “active” with the new PMG-type ARGSN, “passive” Kh-22NP - with anti-radar RGSN and “autonomous” Kh-22NA ...
                        ...In addition to the flight options along the upper or lower trajectory, a low-altitude launch was added. At the same time, the missile stabilized at an altitude of about 1000 m, and on approach to the target it performed a “slide”



                        Quote: Lozovik
                        The engine of the X-32 is the same (C.5.44), it has plenty of thrust - the starting thrust is more than 10 times greater than the sustaining thrust. The missile's flight range has been increased due to the guidance system.
                        The open press writes about new engines. A lot has changed since 1966.
                        Regarding the traction, you are confusing something:
                        a chamber with an afterburner thrust of 8460 kgf served to accelerate and reach maximum speed, after which the flight continued with the help of a sustainer chamber with a lower thrust of 1400 kgf

                        https://missilery.info/missile/x22

                        How can a guidance system radically double the range? Due to the smaller mass, the increase is ten, well, two tens of percent, but not twice as much. But due to the new engine and flight profile, and also, possibly due to the smaller warhead, that’s another matter.
                      4. 0
                        April 6 2024 17: 30
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        It is extremely short-lived because to maintain altitude you need to increase the angle of attack, and this means even stronger braking, increasing the angle, exceeding and stalling.

                        At high Mach numbers, as the speed decreases, the lift coefficient increases noticeably.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        No. When launched at long ranges, they gain altitude and speed until the engine turns off, and then glide towards the target due to speed, tail and hull - a classic exchange of height for speed.

                        This “classical exchange” of yours is ineffective at high Mach numbers - reducing the flight altitude does not give a noticeable increase in speed (and in our case does not effectively reduce the intensity of the speed drop) as at subsonic levels.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In addition to the options for flying along an upper or lower trajectory, a low-altitude launch was added. At the same time, the missile stabilized at an altitude of about 1000 m, and on approach to the target it performed a “slide”

                        This is wrong. In the “N” option, the possibility of low-altitude launch really appeared (from altitudes of 1000-8000 meters), but at the same time the rocket’s flight altitude was 12,5 km. The rocket does not roll near the target, but dives with the engine turned off. Use reliable sources.



                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The open press writes about new engines. A lot has changed since 1966.

                        C5.44 has not been produced since 66. You can write a lot of things, in reality the engine is the same, modifications are minimal.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Regarding the traction, you are confusing something:

                        Operating mode I - 7074 kgf
                        Operating mode III - 600 kgf
                        If there is interest, I can clarify the thrust of the remaining modes.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        How can a guidance system radically double the range?

                        There is no longer a need to set a target for auto tracking before launch, so the range against point targets has increased from 300-340 km to 600 km. For area purposes, a new trajectory appeared, the flight along which was impossible without an INS.
                      5. 0
                        April 6 2024 18: 42
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        At high Mach numbers, as the speed decreases, the lift coefficient increases noticeably.

                        However, this still does not allow horizontal flight without thrust. The level of long-range explosives decreases after the engine is turned off, more or less. Maneuvering in general, and especially upward, sharply reduces the range of use.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        This “classical exchange” of yours is ineffective at high Mach numbers - decreasing the flight altitude does not give a noticeable increase in speed
                        And what does the increase in speed have to do with it? MAINTAIN an acceptable speed to engage a maneuvering target.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Use reliable sources.
                        This picture is not the source. And not even because it doesn’t understand where it came from, but because the Tu-22M is indicated on it as a carrier of three missiles. And he could only transfer them, and most likely unfilled.
                        And the low-altitude flight profile for the X-22NA is mentioned in more than one source. And of course there are no physical restrictions for this.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        C5.44 has not been produced since 66.
                        Perhaps a new engine is mentioned for the third generation X-22. But your words that the X-32 has the same engine as the X-22 are just words.


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        For area purposes, a new trajectory appeared, the flight along which was impossible without an INS.
                        I wrote this about the X-32, from 500 to a thousand you cannot achieve it by replacing only the guidance system.

                        In general, the X-22 is neither a pseudo nor an aeroballistic missile, just like the X-32, despite such a regime for the X-32.
                      6. 0
                        April 6 2024 20: 25
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        However, this still does not allow horizontal flight without thrust.

                        Can you substantiate your statement from an aerodynamic point of view?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The level of long-range explosives decreases after the engine is turned off, more or less.

                        From R-77-1 operators: during the radio command phase of the flight, the missile occupies a flight altitude, correction is made in azimuth.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And what does the increase in speed have to do with it?

                        Read the message in full.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        MAINTAIN an acceptable speed to engage a maneuvering target.

                        It is impossible to maintain speed; such a rocket will only move with braking, no matter what the pitch angle is.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        This picture is not the source.

                        Well, well, not the source laughing What then is the source?





                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        because the Tu-22M is indicated on it as a carrier of three missiles. And he could only transfer them, and most likely unfilled.

                        It is prohibited to transport three equipped missiles in operational use. But during flight tests with three they both flew and were allowed to fly.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And the low-altitude flight profile for the X-22NA is mentioned in more than one source.

                        So the sources are so-so.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And of course there are no physical restrictions for this.

                        Velocity pressure, conditions for stable operation of the PMG head and PSI equipment.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Perhaps a new engine is mentioned for the third generation X-22.

                        Not new, but modernized. It uses nodes from C5.33.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But your words that the X-32 has the same engine as the X-22 are just words.

                        What model do you think is there?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I wrote this about the X-32, from 500 to a thousand you cannot achieve it by replacing only the guidance system.

                        The X-32 does not fly 1000 km.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In general, the X-22 is neither a pseudo nor an aeroballistic missile, just like the X-32, despite such a regime for the X-32.

                        The only correct definition is a cruise missile.
                      7. 0
                        April 7 2024 05: 23
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Can you substantiate your statement from an aerodynamic point of view?

                        Is it necessary to justify that the URVs fly in a descending manner when the engine is turned off to maintain an acceptable speed?! I hope you are not saying the opposite? Here knowledge of elementary physics is enough.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        From R-77-1 operators: during the radio command phase of the flight, the missile occupies a flight altitude, correction is made in azimuth.
                        But the engine is running on all or most of this area. There is no need to mix guidance method and flight profile.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        MAINTAIN an acceptable speed to engage a maneuvering target.
                        It is impossible to maintain speed; such a rocket will only move with braking, no matter what the pitch angle is.
                        And that’s why, before the seeker is put into operation, the rocket flies with a descent.


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Well, well, not the source. What then is the source?

                        An album with scant detail and richness, made in the 70s for demonstration to people with an unknown degree of access - source?
                        By the way, there is mention that the X-22, with changes, of course, was tested as an aeroballistic missile, with a lift of up to 80 km. Is this in your source?


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        It is prohibited to transport three equipped missiles in operational use. But during flight tests with three they both flew and were allowed to fly.
                        Well, that’s the level of detail, modern sources mention this, but the Tu-22M is indicated as a carrier of one missile.


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        So the sources are so-so.
                        In terms of time of appearance, and therefore the ability to access information, as well as the degree of detail, my sources are fundamentally superior to your album.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Velocity pressure, conditions for stable operation of the PMG head and PSI equipment.
                        These are technical limitations that were solved by reducing range, accuracy and speed
                        - two additional flight modes have been introduced - along a ballistic trajectory and at an altitude of 1000 m with a slide in the target area (range and accuracy in this mode are significantly reduced), horizontal flight speeds at altitudes of 1000 and 12500 m - 2160 km/h (Mach numbers are equal to 1,8 and 2,0), at an altitude of 22500 m - 3600 km/h, M=3,4
                        ;
                        https://dzen.ru/a/YoMn_WW81jwtddCF


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Not new, but modernized. It uses nodes from C5.33.
                        Completely unprincipled.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        What model do you think is there?
                        I don't have access, only open sources. Can you name it and somehow confirm it?
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        The X-32 does not fly 1000 km.
                        I don’t have access, only open sources, they contain such a figure. But the development of technology does not contradict this figure.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        The only correct definition is a cruise missile.
                        This is actually where I started.
                      8. 0
                        April 9 2024 18: 22
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Is it necessary to justify that the URVs fly in a descending manner when the engine is turned off to maintain an acceptable speed?! I hope you are not saying the opposite? Here knowledge of elementary physics is enough.

                        At least analyze the graph of the lift coefficient at a constant angle of attack versus the number M and the increment Cy versus the increase a by 1°, then it will become clear whether knowledge is enough or not.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But the engine is running on all or most of this area.

                        At best, 20-30 seconds.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And that’s why, before the seeker is put into operation, the rocket flies with a descent.

                        I repeat once again, at supersonic speed you cannot maintain speed by decreasing.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        An album with scant detail and richness, made in the 70s for demonstration to people with an unknown degree of access - source?

                        An album from the developer - that's one thing, the information in it does not contradict the real characteristics - that's two things.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        By the way, there is mention that the X-22, with changes, of course, was tested as an aeroballistic missile, with a lift of up to 80 km. Is this in your source?

                        Are you reading one line at a time again? It says in black and white “developed and adopted for service.”

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In terms of time of appearance, and therefore the ability to access information, as well as the degree of detail, my sources are fundamentally superior to your album.

                        What is program "A", "B", "N"? What is the principle of measuring distance using PSI equipment? Which rocket compartments have an air conditioning system? What is the rocket's lifespan (in hours, number of landings)? Is this in your “superior access and level of detail”?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        These are technical limitations that were solved by reducing range, accuracy and speed

                        We didn’t dare, these are fantasies.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I don't have access, only open sources. Can you name it and somehow confirm it?

                        What are we talking about then? “It’s worth something else, but I don’t know what.”

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I don’t have access, only open sources, they contain such a figure.

                        Here is one of the open sources, it contains a different number. Who to believe?



                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But the development of technology does not contradict this figure.

                        There was such a friend on the site Rushnairfors. Dalnik, one of the active ones, told me something about the X-32, you can look it up.
                      9. 0
                        April 10 2024 05: 33
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        At least analyze the graph of the lift coefficient at a constant angle of attack from the number M and the increment of Cy from an increase in a by 1°, then it will become clear whether knowledge is enough or not.

                        I won’t analyze anything, I don’t have such knowledge, and I’m not going to look for the formula and delve into it, but I conclude that you are claiming that an URVV missile can carry out horizontal flight with the engine turned off without a significant loss of speed. Do you approve or not?
                        Because this “schedule” of yours is nothing more than a blurring of the topic.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Are you reading one line at a time again? It says in black and white “developed and adopted for service.”
                        It’s you who persistently skip the words “ACCEPTABLE speed”


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        From R-77-1 operators: during the radio command phase of the flight, the missile occupies a flight altitude

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        At best, 20-30 seconds.
                        Radio correction at the initial part of the trajectory, the rocket flies to its full range for at least 100 seconds, which means the engine runs for at least 50 seconds. But even your 20-30 seconds is the initial section.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        I repeat once again, at supersonic speed you cannot maintain speed by decreasing.
                        And you also reproach me for “reading every line”... Acceptable speed is ACCEPTABLE...
                        Once again, are you claiming that an URVV missile can carry out horizontal flight with the engine turned off without a significant loss of speed? Do you approve or not?


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        We didn’t dare, these are fantasies.

                        Quote: Lozovik

                        What are we talking about then? “It’s worth something else, but I don’t know what.”

                        In summary, you yourself are not able to confirm...


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        What is program "A", "B", "N"? What is the principle of measuring distance using PSI equipment? Which rocket compartments have an air conditioning system? What is the rocket's lifespan (in hours, number of landings)? Is this in your “superior access and level of detail”?
                        Sorry, but I don’t see these clever words in your album. As soon as you provide a scan with this absolutely important information from your album, I will immediately consider it a super source. laughing


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Here is one of the open sources, it contains a different number. Who to believe?

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        There was such a comrade Russianforce on the site. Dalnik, one of the active ones, told me something about the X-32, you can look it up.
                        What prevents you from giving a link, religion, moral beliefs? Do you even have a basic understanding of online disputes?
                      10. 0
                        April 11 2024 17: 46
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I won’t analyze anything, I don’t have such knowledge, and I’m not going to look for the formula and delve into it, but I conclude that you are claiming that an URVV missile can carry out horizontal flight with the engine turned off without a significant loss of speed. Do you approve or not?
                        Because this “schedule” of yours is nothing more than a blurring of the topic.

                        “I don’t know anything, I don’t want to study it, but I will draw conclusions,” is that what they call it?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        It’s you who persistently skip the words “ACCEPTABLE speed”

                        How much is this in m/s? It seems useless to ask about available overloads.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Radio correction at the initial part of the trajectory, the rocket flies to its full range for at least 100 seconds, which means the engine runs for at least 50 seconds. But even your 20-30 seconds is the initial section.

                        Only some Meteor can have 50 seconds. For product 470-1E, for example, the engine runs for only 8 (eight) seconds, and the advertised launch range is under 100 km.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And you also reproach me for “reading every line”... Acceptable speed is ACCEPTABLE...
                        Once again, are you claiming that an URVV missile can carry out horizontal flight with the engine turned off without a significant loss of speed? Do you approve or not?

                        Can fly with braking, the value of nx will depend on the altitude. At 20 km, a rocket of a similar shape and size has nx = -15...20 m/s², at 15 km -30 m/s², at 10 km -40 m/s², etc. A pattern? Yes!

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        In summary, you yourself are not able to confirm...

                        Well, well laughing
                        Product 132 = X-32.



                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Sorry, but I don’t see these clever words in your album.

                        Read above to see what information the album contains.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        As soon as you provide a scan with this absolutely important information from your album, I will immediately consider it a super source. laughing

                        What about the level of detail in your sources and all that? Since they have such a super-secret trajectory that none of the operators even dream about it, then there should be such little things even more so?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What prevents you from giving a link, religion, moral beliefs? Do you even have a basic understanding of online disputes?

                        Moral beliefs.
                      11. 0
                        April 12 2024 14: 29
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        “I don’t know anything, I don’t want to study it, but I will draw conclusions,” is that what they call it?

                        This is called persistent avoidance of a direct answer!

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        How much is this in m/s? It seems useless to ask about available overloads.
                        I won’t say, I didn’t think so, but it was acceptable for hitting a low-maneuverable target.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Can fly with braking, the value of nx will depend on the altitude. At 20 km, a rocket of a similar shape and size has nx = -15...20 m/s², at 15 km -30 m/s², at 10 km -40 m/s², etc.
                        Is it possible that in 15 seconds of horizontal flight he will lose Mach 1? So maybe the flight is not horizontal after all? A?

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Only some Meteor can have 50 seconds. For product 470-1E, for example, the engine runs for only 8 (eight) seconds, and the advertised launch range is under 100 km.

                        Well, of course I turned it down to 50, but not 8! Although it can be ballistic even when launched from 20 km, as they write then...


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Well, well
                        Product 132 = X-32.

                        Well, now it’s authoritative.


                        Quote: Lozovik
                        Read above to see what information the album contains.
                        Well, this diagram is not from your album! Well it's obvious! BUT, this scheme is convincing, so to hell with it, with the album.

                        Quote: Lozovik
                        What about the level of detail in your sources and all that? Since they have such a super-secret trajectory that none of the operators even dream about it, then there should be such little things even more so?

                        The scheme, yes, the scheme is an indicator. I come to terms with the fact that the X-22 did not have a low-altitude flight profile. crying
                      12. +1
                        April 13 2024 18: 58
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        This is called persistent avoidance of a direct answer!

                        The answer is literally in the first message.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I won’t say, I didn’t think so, but it was acceptable for hitting a low-maneuverable target.

                        Back to the beginning again laughing To do this, there must be a certain available overload, and this is the ratio of the maximum possible lift force to the weight of the rocket.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Is it possible that in 15 seconds of horizontal flight he will lose Mach 1? So maybe the flight is not horizontal after all? A?

                        Hmm, how did this happen? No, of course this can happen, just like...

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Well, of course I turned it down to 50, but not 8!

                        Previously, this was the only way it was possible, but now multi-mode solid fuels have been mass produced.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Well, this diagram is not from your album! Well it's obvious!

                        It belongs to another topic of discussion; the information on flight trajectories neither confirms nor refutes.
  4. 0
    April 4 2024 07: 32
    More good and different missiles - everything for Ukraine!
  5. 0
    April 4 2024 08: 28
    There are two thoughts about the article:
    1. Flexible (elastic) fuel tanks for the Kyrgyz Republic. Those. warheads are relatively easily added/reduced to troops immediately before launch.
    2. Regarding the resumption of FAB-3000 - because the method of use is in principle clear, maybe it makes sense to quickly rework the design in order to give it a more aerodynamic shape, integrate the umpk into the design and the possibility of installing TT accelerators, say, based on the s-8/s-13 without warheads?
    1. +1
      April 4 2024 11: 23
      FAB-3000 - the method of use is basically clear

      Happy man! laughing
      it makes sense to quickly rework the design in order to give it a more aerodynamic shape, integrate the UPC into the design and the possibility of installing TT accelerators

      That's not how things are done! We need to hold a tender, launch R&D, release “unparalleled” prototypes for testing... and provide the RIGHT people with a reliable income for 10-15 years.
      Sarcasm, if that.
    2. 0
      April 4 2024 15: 59
      Possibility of installing TT accelerators, say based on S-8/S-13 without warheads?
      Are you kidding? There, the tornado requires accelerators, about four of them, to give this loaf noticeable acceleration
  6. 0
    April 4 2024 09: 09
    Conformal fuel tanks are good. Why weren’t conformal additional charges invented to increase the power of warheads???
    And the most important question.
    Why don't high-precision missiles use a leading shaped charge? The speed to the Kyrgyz Republic is quite acceptable. The charge can even be made on a telescopic truss and at the last moment moved away from the main charge. A correctly selected funnel “focus” will allow you to pierce thick layers of concrete so that the main charge explodes inside.
    For small ammunition such as grenade launcher rounds, this has long been implemented. Why is there no information about similar warheads for the “long arm”???
  7. 0
    April 4 2024 09: 20
    You can also launch from a nose-up at a high angle of attack - + to a range of 15-20 km.
    1. +1
      April 4 2024 11: 27
      ONLY if it doesn’t have aerodynamics like a brick. Therefore, forget about the FAB-3000 M-54.
      1. -1
        April 4 2024 15: 01
        And this is not aerodynamics, but ballistics. Free-falling bombs are also launched from a nose-up, significantly increasing the range (I’m not talking about accuracy).
  8. 0
    April 4 2024 12: 32
    In promotional films about the Tomahawk they showed its option with 2 warheads and the ability to bomb 1 target and then fly to the 2nd target...
  9. 0
    April 4 2024 12: 45
    Regarding missiles, there is a rational grain (oddly enough). Indeed, having an aerodynamic shape initially suitable for flight/gliding, missiles, in general, have more prospects as an effective long-range strike weapon than a bomb + wings. But naturally, no one knew or imagined that they would have to be used in such quantities throughout this time. And at the same time, a rocket is an expensive product, uses valuable materials, and imposes specific requirements for production. And if it makes sense to somewhat reduce/adjust the parameters, then in my opinion, IMHO, not in order to replace range with power, but in order to reduce the cost/speed up production (i.e., conditionally, “we make from 1 missile, if not 2, then at least 1,3 .1,5-72, but worse"). So I think it will have a better effect on events in the future (more massive raids, more reaching targets). In general, we need a kind of “mobilization rocket,” “T-80 with a diesel engine instead of a T-XNUMX with a gas turbine engine.” A simplified steel body (the range will drop, yes), a reduction in design requirements for minor parameters (packaging/labeling/transportation/storage/environmental friendliness/recycling, etc.), maximum introduction of cheap standard parts and materials from civilian circulation by how much this is possible, simplified acceptance, etc. This kind of modification is now “welcome.” In general, you need to look at the secret of the success of FPV drones with Alik, and not with “Kid” and “Fat Man”.
  10. +1
    April 4 2024 13: 46
    This version of the Kh-101 missile has been requested for a long time. In the late 1980s, the Americans converted some of their AGM-86B missiles (400 out of 1400) into the AGM-86C variant, replaced the 130 kg W-80 nuclear warhead with a 900 kg HE warhead, and of course, with a reduction in range from 2800 km to 800 km. Then these missiles were used in the Gulf War. Of course, the 5500 km range of the X-101 is an excess; why waste so much kerosene if it can be replaced with explosives.
  11. -3
    April 4 2024 14: 50
    Modular design is evil, a waste of money. Our modular ship was sunk or seriously damaged, what should we do with the modules, in ferrous metal? You need a missile with a warhead weighing 800 kg, so make it. No one in the army will bother with rearranging warheads; they need specialists and places to store these modules.
  12. 0
    April 4 2024 18: 11
    Maybe it would be wiser to use tactical missiles - with an appropriate range - rather than mutilate strategic ones?
    1. -1
      April 10 2024 11: 12
      It is not a nuclear missile launcher....If you can deliver 1 ton instead of 0,5, then why refuse?
  13. -1
    April 4 2024 18: 14
    (VKS) of the Russian Federation (RF) used the Kh-101 cruise missile (CR), carrying a warhead weighing about 800 kilograms, which is almost twice the mass of a standard warhead.

    Well, in the third year of the war they were worthy and thought of it. What prevented us from doing this earlier and almost doubling the effectiveness of these expensive strategic missiles. How many of them were spent during this time from the previous warhead. By the way, the calibers also need to be redone. Why do they need 2500 km range for Ukraine?
  14. 0
    April 4 2024 20: 40
    I risk getting a bunch of minuses, but I will say what I think about all these unparalleled “X’s” - they have no place in solving tactical and operational-tactical tasks of the Northern Military District. A cruise missile obviously exceeds in range everything we have on the line of combat contact, and its charge (in conventional equipment) is not sufficient to destroy serious structures.
    We need super-bombs made by UMPC, but not in the form of half-garage ersatz, but in the form of gliders of high aerodynamic quality, in which such a bomb is enclosed (of course, without a stabilizer), while being the main supporting structure. Equipped with a small pulsating jet engine and a conformal fuel tank, such a machine is capable of covering the entire territory of Ukraine, and in the future Poland, Romania, Finland, the Baltic states and all others who ask to go to war.
    Moreover, this weapon is significantly superior to any cruise missile in terms of lethality, but is much cheaper and can be mass produced.
    And leave the cruise missiles for Great Britain, France, Spain and others who think that they are in the rear in the future European mess.
  15. +1
    April 4 2024 20: 56
    Of course, we are talking about replacing warheads directly in the troops

    This is something I definitely wouldn’t do. It is safer to make two options at the factory than to farm on site: with a heavy warhead + reduced range and vice versa. Moreover, now the first option is most in demand.