Promising long-range precision weapon systems: Iskander-1000, Kinzhal-M and Kinzhal-MD

29 278 37
Promising long-range precision weapon systems: Iskander-1000, Kinzhal-M and Kinzhal-MD
Presumably the image missiles OTRK Iskander-1000. Image MilitaryRussia.Ru


During the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) in Ukraine, high-precision weapon Long-range (WTO) is used in quantities in which it has never been used before. Operations “Desert Storm”, “Allied Force”, “Enduring Freedom” - all this is kindergarten in terms of the scale of the use of long-range high-tech weapons compared to air defense.



According to Western experts, Russia's long-range high-tech weapons should have ended long ago, but the attacks continue, while along with the production of serial products, promising complexes are being developed. In turn, Ukraine is making full use of cruise missiles (CR) and operational-tactical missiles (OTR) from Western countries.

One of the most effective long-range high-tech missile systems was the 9K720 operational-tactical missile system (OTRK) Iskander-M and aviation hypersonic complex 9-A-7660 (X-47M2) “Dagger”, it is logical that such a formidable weapon does not stand still and is developing - new modifications of the Iskander-M OTRK and the Kinzhal aviation complex should soon appear.

From Iskander-M to Iskander-1000


Due to the provisions of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), the flight range of the Iskander-M OTRK missiles was limited to a distance of 500 kilometers. This applied to both the 9M723 quasi-ballistic missile and the R-500 cruise missile.

By the way, it was the R-500 missile launcher from the Iskander-M missile system that the United States used as a reason to withdraw from the INF Treaty, accusing Russia of the fact that the range of the R-500 missile launcher exceeds the restrictions imposed by the said treaty, while the United States forgot about the launchers ( PU) missile defense (BMD) systems located in Europe and allowing the launch of the Tomahawk missile system with a flight range of about 3 kilometers.


OTRK "Iskander-K" with missile launcher R-500 in a transport and launch container (TPK). Image by Mil.ru

The Iskander-M OTRK has become a vital component of reconnaissance and strike contours, allowing for the rapid destruction of high-priority targets located in the enemy's rear identified by reconnaissance means. These include enemy combat aircraft and helicopters located at air bases, NIMARS launchers, artillery systems, accumulations of armored vehicles and manpower.

When firing the 9M723 quasi-ballistic missile, the Iskander-M OTRK has an important advantage - the time interval between the launch of the missile and its approach to the target is too short for the enemy to react.


Launcher with OTR 9M723 and transport-loading vehicle (TZM) with KR R-500 OTRK "Iskander-M" / Image Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Of course, the long range of the Iskander-M OTRK would make it possible to hit targets deep into enemy territory, and given the fact that Russia, following the United States, withdrew from the INF Treaty, and compliance with the restrictions of this treaty became meaningless, it is not surprising that a version of the Iskander-M OTRK is being developed, which, according to open sources, has received the name Iskander-1000 OTRK.

The flight range of the Iskander-1000 OTRK missile will be 1 – 000 kilometers, depending on the type of warhead, while the speed and altitude of its flight path should be comparable to the parameters of the 1-S-300 hypersonic missile of the Kinzhal aviation complex. .

An increase in the missile’s flight range and speed, according to open sources, was achieved through the use of new, more energy-intensive fuel, while simultaneously increasing its volume by approximately 10–15% and reducing the mass of the warhead (warhead) to 300 kilograms. A maximum range of 1 kilometers can be achieved for a warhead with an even smaller mass - about 300 kilograms; we can assume that this will be a special warhead (SCU).

At the final stage of the flight, the Iskander-1000 OTRK missile should be capable of performing anti-aircraft maneuvers with an overload of about 25-30 g. Also, presumably, the Iskander-1000 OTRK missile should be equipped with on-board self-defense systems, in particular, an electronic warfare system (EW), as well as means for firing dipole and heat traps.


Comparison of Iskander-M and Iskander-1000 OTRK missiles. Image MilitaryRussia.Ru

The appearance of a new modification of the Iskander-M OTRK missile suggests that similar work is being carried out in the development of the Kinzhal hypersonic aviation complex.

"Kinzhal-M" and "Kinzhal-MD"


The Kinzhal aviation hypersonic complex, created on the basis of missiles from the Iskander-M OTRK, has two possible development paths.

The first is to reduce the size and weight of the Kinzhal complex missile in order to integrate this complex onto a larger number of tactical aircraft.

The second is to maximize the flight range of the Kinzhal missile complex, with the aim of ensuring the defeat of American medium-range missiles throughout Europe.

Somewhere in 2022, designations such as “Kinzhal-M” and “Kinzhal-MD” appeared in open sources. No details were given there, so we will conditionally designate the modified Kinzhal complex with a decrease in size and weight as Kinzhal-M (modernized), and the Kinzhal complex with an increase in range as Kinzhal-MD (modernized, long-range).


Rocket complex "Dagger" on the carrier MiG-31K

So, the Kinzhal-M aviation hypersonic complex should be used from tactical aircraft; most likely, first of all it will be integrated on aircraft such as the Su-34, and then on the Su-35S, Su-30SM, and possibly as on the Su-57.

Presumably, by analogy with the Iskander-1000 OTRK missile, the mass of the warhead will be reduced to approximately 300 kilograms and means of protection against interception will be installed - electronic warfare equipment, as well as means of shooting dipole and thermal traps.

Exact information about the flight range of the Kinzhal complex missile is classified, but, according to data from open sources, taking into account the flight radius of the MiG-31K carrier, the range of the Kinzhal complex is 2 kilometers, and taking into account the flight radius of the Tu-000M22 carrier - 3 kilometers

Some sources say that the range of the Kinzhal complex is 2 kilometers without taking into account the radius of the carrier, but most likely this is an exaggeration, since in this case the MiG-000 carrier aircraft could be based deep in Russian territory to minimize risks their defeat at air bases by Ukrainian long-range kamikaze UAVs. In addition, this would make it difficult for the enemy to obtain information about MiG-Z31K takeoffs.

Based on the above, it can be assumed that the range of the existing Kinzhal missile is about 1 kilometers, plus/minus a couple of hundred kilometers. At the same time, the range of the Kinzhal-M hypersonic aircraft missile will most likely be about 000–500 kilometers.

As for the Kinzhal-MD complex, it can exist in two versions.

The first option is when the increase in range will occur in a similar way to how it is implemented in the Iskander-1000 OTRK missile, using new, more energy-intensive fuel, while simultaneously increasing its volume by approximately 10–15% and reducing the mass of the warhead to 300 kilograms , without significant changes in the weight and size characteristics of the rocket.

In this case, the flight range of the hypersonic missile of the Kinzhal-D complex can be about 1 kilometers without taking into account the radius of the carrier; this version of the Kinzhal-MD complex will be used from existing MiG-500K carriers.

The second option is to increase the dimensions and weight of the Kinzhal-MD complex missile, taking into account the limitations imposed by such carriers as the Tu-22M3 and, potentially, the Tu-160M; the MiG-31K aircraft is no longer an enlarged version of the Kinzhal-MD complex missile will pull.


The Tu-22M3 long-range bomber is capable of carrying three Kh-22 missiles, which are almost 30% heavier and one and a half times longer than the Kinzhal missiles.

In particular, the existing missile of the Kinzhal complex has a mass of 4,3 tons, a length of 7,2 meters, and a diameter of 1,2 meters, while the X-22 missile used by the Tu-3M22 long-range bomber has a mass of 5,78 tons, length - 11,67 meters, diameter - 0,92 meters and height with folded keel - 1,8 meters. If we consider the Tu-160M ​​strategic bomber as a carrier, the maximum length of the missile will be limited by the length of the cargo compartment, which is 11,2 meters.

Thus, for Tu-22M3 and Tu-160M ​​carriers, the missile of the advanced Kinzhal-MD complex may well increase by almost 4 meters in length and by 1,5 tons in weight. It can be assumed that increasing the length of the rocket itself is unlikely to be advisable; rather, it can be equipped with an additional first solid-fuel accelerating stage - a booster.

Accordingly, the Kinzhal-MD complex will represent the second stage - the Kinzhal-M complex rocket, supplemented by the first stage - a booster, which will ensure maximum unification of the Kinzhal-M and Kinzhal-MD complexes. A two-stage missile of the Kinzhal-MD complex in this configuration can have a flight range of about 2 - 000 kilometers without taking into account the radius of the carrier, which completely covers the territory of continental Europe and Great Britain, when launching missiles of the Kinzhal-MD complex from Russian airspace.

Conclusions


The appearance of the Iskander-1000 OTRK will create a serious threat to F-16 fighters stationed at air bases located deep in the territory of Ukraine. The network of American HBTSS and PWSA satellites will not be able to recognize whether the launch of a conventional Iskander-M OTRK missile or an extended-range Iskander-1000 OTRK missile is being launched, as a result of which the enemy will have to respond to all launches of the Iskander family of missiles. This will lead to increased fatigue of flight and engineering personnel, wear and tear of equipment and additional unmasking of aircraft deployment sites.

The Kinzhal-M aviation complex, along with the Iskander-M OTRK, will become the main weapon of reconnaissance and strike contours designed for the operational destruction of enemy aircraft and helicopters located at air bases, HIMARS launchers, artillery systems, accumulations of armored vehicles and manpower.

In turn, the Kinzhal-MD aviation complex may become the main threat to cruise and medium-range ballistic missiles (MBMs), which the United States plans to deploy in Europe, until the moment when domestic ballistic missiles created on the basis of intercontinental ballistic missiles enter service. missiles (ICBMs).


The estimated maximum range of the Kinzhal-MD missiles will allow them to attack targets throughout Europe and the UK

Finally the Kinzhal-MD complex can be used as an offensive weapon to destroy the strategic nuclear potential of such inferior nuclear powers as Great Britain or France.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    26 August 2024 04: 34
    According to Western experts, long-range WTO in Russia should have ended long ago,
    fool Western experts are their and our poor students who are of no use anywhere. request
  2. +1
    26 August 2024 05: 20
    And in the near future, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will launch dozens of cheaper drones a couple of times a week, flying the same 1000 km. Time will tell which option is better. Although I am inclined to think that drones are still preferable due to their cheapness and mass production.
    1. +5
      26 August 2024 05: 47
      Although I am inclined that drones are still preferable
      Drones have their drawbacks, which is their low speed. To guarantee a 100% hit, "Daggers" are preferable
      1. 0
        26 August 2024 06: 08
        Well, if the target is huge and stationary, then yes, the Dagger solves it. Only now the West is constantly firing at the takeoffs of our MIG-31s, allowing the enemy to remove certain targets from attack.
        1. +3
          26 August 2024 09: 12
          “scorches the takeoffs of our MIG-31s” - this problem can be easily solved - by dispersing the Dagger carriers, and their joint deployment with interceptors. They are tired of announcing alarms.
        2. +3
          26 August 2024 21: 55
          The dagger is capable of destroying bunkers. But they won’t run away anywhere
      2. 0
        26 August 2024 14: 49
        No missile has a 100% chance of hitting a target; there is always a chance of shooting down a product or carrier aircraft/factory defect.
        1. +4
          26 August 2024 16: 57
          No missile has a 100% chance of hitting a target; there is always a chance of being shot down
          A missile has a much higher chance of hitting a target than a drone.
        2. 0
          17 November 2024 23: 00
          The chance of shooting down hypersonic missiles, which include the Kinzhal and Zircon, is simply negligible and tends to zero even for the American Patriot air defense system, not to mention the other anti-aircraft systems in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. +1
        28 August 2024 12: 47
        But drones are cheap to produce and can be used en masse to distract air defense forces. It should be understood that at present there is no perfect weapon, but our state is simply obliged to resume production of Iskander-1000 RSD type systems. soldier
    2. +2
      26 August 2024 06: 00
      Quote from Nesvoy
      And in the near future, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will launch dozens of cheaper drones a couple of times a week, flying the same 1000 km. Time will tell which option is better. Although I am inclined to think that drones are still preferable due to their cheapness and mass production.

      The drone is an easy target for modern air defense systems. To use it effectively, you need a huge satellite constellation and a decent staff of analysts capable of developing new routes to bypass our air defense positions every time. So the use of drones over long distances, firstly, is not necessarily cheaper, and secondly, it requires lengthy preparation. The second factor is of important tactical importance in a total war (and not the local one that is currently being waged in the Ukrainian military theater), and it is clearly in favor of our missiles, which are either an extremely difficult target or a target completely inaccessible to Western missile defense.
      1. +3
        26 August 2024 06: 11
        I don’t argue that they are an easy target, although the wreckage of these downed drones is constantly setting something on fire. We haven’t been able to put out the oil depot for a week now...
        1. +2
          26 August 2024 06: 15
          I agree with your argument, however, precisely with the massive use of destructive weapons by the parties, and we all hope that it will not come to this (but we hope in vain), the effectiveness of “manually” conducting drones deep into our territory will greatly decrease in relation to missiles. So ours are rightly relying on missiles. But what else we need to rely on is the build-up of air defense/missile defense systems and personnel trained to use them. And it is important to note that it takes longer to train high-level personnel than it takes to produce the complex itself.
          1. -2
            26 August 2024 06: 25
            This is the whole point that Iskanders and Daggers are, first of all, carriers of tactical nuclear weapons, they generally need to be protected to the maximum in case something happens. And in “combat operations of attrition” it is better to use drones. They are cheap and produced quickly. You launch a couple of dozen at the target, like it or not, the air defense will be overloaded and a couple of drones will still fly. The cost of Iskander, if my memory serves me right, is around 4 lyam bucks. For this money you can collect a couple of hundred Geraniums. So the enemy will still spend quite a few air defense missiles. And they will cause much more damage than one Iskander or Dagger.
            1. +4
              26 August 2024 06: 27
              Well, Geraniums are being assembled and launched... The news is that Russia is modernizing its missiles. And from your comment it appears that this is not necessary... So, this must be done. No one called for abandoning Geraniums and other UAVs, which, by the way, are also constantly being modernized...
              1. -3
                26 August 2024 06: 34
                It can and should be modernized. But the way the author of the article suggests using them, drones will do this job better. Why, I answered above.
                1. +2
                  26 August 2024 13: 40
                  Quote from Nesvoy
                  Drones can do this job better

                  Not better at all. The successes of Nazi drones are mainly associated with the shortcomings of our air defense: an acute shortage of airborne AWACS, which have ceased to be produced, and unclear slowdowns in the organization of mobile ground air defense groups, which can precisely work against low-speed targets.

                  And in Ukraine, and with the first, there is complete order, thanks to the technical intelligence of the entire NATO, and they organized mobile groups almost immediately. That's why most of our Geranek go astray. And Daggers are practically guaranteed to hit a target, and can work against such targets as mobile air defense systems due to their high speed. And by the time the drones arrive, the targets will have already changed positions. sad
        2. +2
          26 August 2024 17: 36
          Drones work well when the receiving party is burdened by deranged military leaders who prefer to pocket money and do nothing. It has long been possible to install sensors along the border every kilometer to search for drones by sounds and heat signatures, with the subsequent dispatch of helicopters, fighter jets and men with guns. And we have separate air defense for Moscow’s money to protect only Moscow, the management of factories, refineries and oil depots themselves must somehow be running around with anti-drone guns
    3. +2
      26 August 2024 15: 51
      Well, of course, hitting a buried bunker or storage facility with a drone is the best thing... And in general, why do people need so many different tools? For example, there’s an ax, and that’s okay, otherwise they’ve made electronic microscopes and screwdrivers for the landscape...
    4. +1
      26 August 2024 20: 50
      Drones will not be able to destroy a large object (except for ammunition depots and fuel depots), the destruction of factories, bases with equipment, even more or less fortified targets, even ordinary brick houses, not to mention bunkers, drones are not capable of doing all this. Plus, it’s our military specifically that flatly refuses to make mobile anti-aircraft groups. If they were, perhaps the drones would not fly at all.
    5. +1
      14 October 2024 17: 32
      Powerful countries have everything in their arsenal, from drones to ICBMs. And they choose weapons based on the situation. Dancing countries are only able to have their own drones, well, and NURs, the rest - what is given from outside.
  3. -2
    26 August 2024 07: 30
    Who are you, my secret “admirer” that you only downvoted my comments and didn’t give others any + or +???))))) :)
  4. 0
    26 August 2024 10: 00
    What a fantasy... wow! fellow Oh, what a dreamer this Mitrofanov is! bully
  5. 0
    26 August 2024 10: 27
    I would also make some kind of MRBM like Pioneer with a silo-based base deep in the Russian Federation, so that it would cover both the EU and the Middle East. And conventional replaceable warheads from 1,5 tons to several of 0,5 tons. With precise individual guidance.
    In the European part of the Russian Federation, create a region with mines in the Far East.
    1. +1
      17 November 2024 23: 12
      "Pioneer" was a mobile operational-tactical missile system; silo-based options were not envisaged for this type of missile.
  6. +2
    26 August 2024 11: 25
    It would be easier to add a second stage to the Iskander-M and make the launcher based on a semi-trailer; it would be faster and cheaper.
  7. +3
    26 August 2024 12: 07
    that's what I think...control missiles are needed for the Smerch MLRS with a range of 300 km. By analogy with the MLRS Polonaise. They would take on most of the targets in operational-tactical depth. They would be more widespread. They could be fired in batches (we saw how Iskanders work against Chimeras and against air defense systems - 1 missile, and sometimes this is not enough), for the total destruction of a target/area. Moreover, such new missiles could be adapted for air launch at the same time as the carriers - as the Israelis do (Rampage, for example). UMPB D-30 could be optimal... but it needs mass production for aviation and the army
    1. +1
      17 November 2024 23: 16
      There is already a modernized version of Polonez, whose missiles fly over 400 km.
    2. 0
      13 December 2025 22: 28
      300mm rocket, 800kg - it's expensive, that's why there are few of them.
      The Hymars GMLRS 220mm is three times lighter and cheaper. This makes it possible to mass-produce it.
  8. +4
    26 August 2024 15: 38
    Reducing the mass of explosives is not good without the corresponding development of new explosives. Although there are already ready-made solutions, these are CL-20 and diaminoazoxyfurazan. But are there production capacities and the corresponding specialists for these solutions? If we use these explosives, then, for example, 200 kg of CL-20 is already 4000 kg in TNT equivalent. That is, "playing" with the mass of the warhead with a new explosive, we can further vary the range and speed of missiles. And of course, stay within the framework of conventionality while this is necessary. Powerful explosives in liquid form are also needed for the rapid "digging" of trenches and trenches. Another question is who will be the first to start using these explosives en masse?
    1. +1
      26 August 2024 17: 44
      If you use these explosives, then for example 200 kg of CL-20 is already 4000 kg in TNT equivalent.
      Now you can, in much less time than you wrote this nonsense, you could google that 200 kg CL-20 is the equivalent of 240 kg of octogen or 380 kilos of TNT
  9. 0
    26 August 2024 18: 20
    "long-range high-precision weapons (HPE) are used in quantities in which they have never been used before."
    So where is the result? Maybe it's enough to praise "there are no analogues". What's the point in weapons if we've been standing in one place for three years? Not a single bridge over the Dnieper has been destroyed, the Rada is standing, the clown is tired of receiving delegations and, mind you, not in basements or bunkers. Western weapons are delivered on schedule and they don't give a damn about our super-duper weapons. As soon as our government and Putin screw up, there'll be a series of articles about super-duper, there are no analogues. Enough of the sycophants!!!
    1. 0
      28 August 2024 13: 00
      The use of Iskander-M and similar systems in the theater of military operations in Ukraine is an indispensable combat experience. Which can only be acquired through practical use. Therefore, only the SVO command can evaluate their results, and as for the destruction of strategic targets of bridges across the Dnieper and the like, this is the task of the military polytheistic leadership. soldier
  10. 0
    22 September 2024 21: 04
    It feels like one person writes the articles.
  11. +1
    12 October 2024 04: 29
    Affftor, you're not quite in the know. In aviation, 2+2 is not always 4. The Tu-22 can theoretically carry 3 missiles, but it never flies with them. And if you load it with three, there's almost no fuel left for takeoff weight. This applies to other aircraft too. It's not for nothing that aircraft with the ability to carry up to 8 tons of payload actually carry 4 or 5
  12. 0
    12 October 2024 04: 37
    In the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, Pershing and Pioneer missiles from the 70s stand side by side. The Pioneer is significantly superior to its neighbor in all characteristics (size, warhead weight, range). And, most interestingly, the USSR began installing them several years before the US began importing Pershings to Europe...
    Well, then there was Reykjavik, disarmament, etc., etc. Thank God!
  13. -1
    1 November 2024 16: 22
    Long-range precision weapons without nuclear weapons are ineffective, but terribly expensive. The destruction of one Ukrainian costs from 5 to 40 million dollars: according to episodes published online.
    .
    The same money should be used to develop high-precision battlefield weapons with a range of up to five kilometers. Then up to 10 dollars or less will be spent on one Ukrainian soldier.
    It's better to hit 500 to a couple thousand Ukrainians instead of one for the same money. And on the battlefield, where the targets are legitimate and Putin's mercy is powerless.