0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
100 $
DECEMBER 2021

In Video: Russian Tu-22M3 Strategic Bombers Simulate Penetration Of Enemy Air Defense

Support SouthFront

In Video: Russian Tu-22M3 Strategic Bombers Simulate Penetration Of Enemy Air Defense

Click to see the full-size image

Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bombers took part in the military drills in Kaluga Oblast (Region). Tu-22M3 crews trained the withdrawal of aviation equipment from the conditional enemy strike and breaking through the enemy air defense, including carrying out retaliatory strikes.

In Video: Russian Tu-22M3 Strategic Bombers Simulate Penetration Of Enemy Air Defense

Click to see the full-size image

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
107 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HiaNd

Has shoved in Syria to be extremely useful, battle proven bomber.
Indispensable in carrying hyper sonic Mach-12 “Kinzhal” missiles that can sink the most expensive US floating bathtubs .
That way keeping in check US imperialist pirates not come even close to Russian territorial waters.

gryzor84

Entirely accurate.

In my opinion the timing of these drills is even more a message to regional players punching above their weight such as Turkey (or even Israel) to whom Russia reminds that does not need to physically deploy a costly amounts of assets in theater to be able to to utterly devastate the bulk of their military infrastructure, should the need arise to a frontal confrontation, and so no matter how unlikely such an development is at the time.

Add their strategic submarine and heavy surface fleet on top of such bomber squadrons taking off directly from Engels air-force base, plus the many SRBMs and TRBMs already deployed all over Syrian land at key and well-defended locations, and any player unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of a combined sea/ground/air stand-off onslaught will bitterly regret the day it triggered confrontation with the Russian bear. Khinzals and Kalibrs can be fired from many strategic delivery vectors, and that’s precisely the beauty of it.

Those thinking Russia cannot contemplate a fist fight with local powers often forget the very concept of stand-off ordnance and strategic strikes of which Russia was among the first to become a certified able member shortly after the US. Their very spectacular entry in the Syrian conflict reminded this and made it clear to pretty much everyone starting by, but not reduced to Washington.

HiaNd

Nicely explained, with detail…
I agree that they underestimate Russia falling for their anti-Russian propaganda “as reality”
They can’t grasp the reality of the situation and I don’t know why?!
The only explanation I have is that Russia is not good in propaganda the Western world is.
So people imagine things the way they prefer them to be.

gryzor84

Thanks mate.

I often asked myself the very same question, but my personal , dominant explanation (among other possibilities and as you say, general Russian weakness in media self-promotion), is that the West has simply been too full of itself and for too long ever since “winning” the Cold War to be able to come to terms with any new normal going against their illusion of continued, perpetual hegemony in a mere 7 to 8 years. A full decade of 360° collapse, withdrawal and self-inflicted humiliation + economic and industrial dismantlement under puppet drunkard Yeltsin has had its long-term persistence : the Syrian War, Georgia and Eastern Ukraine/Crimea do not seem to be enough concrete proof yet to their observers and decision-making circles of a global re-calibration of the global order, and namely the Russian military resurgence as an international power with the needed projection capabilities to back its title.

They do not even seem to see the imminent currency collapse of the dollar that a growing number of their own financial circles have repeatedly been warning about for a good 5 years now due to the de-dollarization of global trade and the solid entre of the Petro-Yuan to the oil market, which is a direct thorn in a longstanding post Breton-Woods stalwart of American-centric Western Dominance over the global economy.

Nor do they seem to see how unable and helpless they were in watching the geopolitical chessboard being swiftly whisked away from their control and plans, while you STILL see their media and fanboys keeping on with their delusional self-inflating posturing running wild with “Russian cannot question / change / do anything because it is a paper tiger and does not have the economy to sustain a long-term confrontation” while on the ground Moscow happens to keep piling up victories against both their proxies (Syria/Libya) AND their very own forces (takeover of the crucially important naval port of Sevastopol in Ukraine, active blocking of NATO’s mouvement in the sea and air around the Crimean Peninsula, which was on NATO’s target list for years before their Neo-nazi backed regime change turned into an ongoing nightmare), not to mention Georgia way before that and of course Eastern Ukrainian provinces.

What is incredible to me is that seemingly unshakable persistence of a pathological narcissism, everlasting overconfidence and utter disconnect that seem to still characterize to this day and fast-changing age, the driving force of a suicidal confrontational policy undertaken by the Reps as well as Dems still hell-bent on antagonizing both Russia and China in one go in their respective area of influence and core interest exactly they are staunchly bound and obligated to protect tooth and nail with no compromise on their backyard, this is plain crazy and will lead to an even more rapid downfall of their dying empire. Fine by me !

HiaNd

Thanks for your explanation. I have nothing to add.
The only thing I can say is that I am impressed with your selfless, detached approach in your judgment. To the actions and interests not only of US, but the Western governments in general…
While often we can see Westerners who try to defend illegal and sometime even criminal actions of their governments. For obvious selfish reasons…

gryzor84

Thanks in turn for your appreciation and kind words ! it’s good to discuss topics with people gifted with the ability for critical thinking and factual analysis.

For my part I learned the hard way throughout my younger years to let go of passion whenever it comes to stone cold facts and trends that I do not, nor will ever control at my individual level in any way whatsoever. Emotions only lead to bias and are the enemy of reason and serenity, by definition. So I try to keep a safe distance with whatever is going on in my gut at a given moment whenever I speak about geopolitical events.

Indeed it has always been my belief that the only “claim” one can have on such world events is to merely understand its overall direction, and the underlying mechanics explaining them. This in itself can prove an intellectually healthy counterweight to helplessness. And in our case, facts happen top be geared slowly but surely in the direction of our vision, rather than our opponents’, which in itself is satisfactory enough to keep our noses in there for a little while longer :D That would be my view of solace lol

Oliver Eitel

because people that comment here so much against Russia or China and praise their western world….are either working for them or living in a delusional fantasy world! China passed the US in GDP years ago,Netto GDP not the fake one, where they add growth of wallstreet, self created bubbles are no GDP just listen to Michael Hudson….the west has no chance they are fake financial capitalists not anymore industrial capitalists and that is was China really is, controlled by the government so that not a shit fake casino grows out of it like the USA….after JFK the openend the economy for the financial fraudsters….

gryzor84

Absolutely Oliver, I couldn’t sum it up better myself, you’re spot on. Westerners and their followers are somehow stuck in geopolitical times, still believing the bad old and a thousand times proven mantra of Yamamoto’s “End of history” that was supposed to crown some everlasting achievement of the post-colonial powers of the rest of the globe after the Eastern Bloc fell. And no amount of undeniable facts seem to be able to burst their ever-growing bubble of delusions regarding their place in a fast-changing balance of power on global scale. Shortsighted relocation of their industry and know-how in key sectors further eroded an already ailing hegemony in the late 80s to mid-90s, and with that, part of their sovereignty and crucial levers of influence and control they once exerted on smaller nations now directly competing with them all the way to what they considered their exclusive backyard. Latin America, Asia, the Middle-East, everywhere, their monopoly is crumbling, but what is astonishing is that they seem intend on ignoring whatever indicator they do not like and prefer to play ostrich thinking their big armies somehow will prevent their downfall from happening. Are they willing to push that erroneous rationale to the point of armed conflict of potentially epic consequences with Chinese or Russian powerhouses ? who knows.

For a long time, and despite my harsh opposition to Western governments, I always believed that rationality would always prevails over the temptation of militaristic folly, but for the first time ever in modern times, it seems that frontier is dangerously blurring away, with a traditional restraint being gradually replaced by overt and extremely hostile assertiveness, I did not expect team Biden to fall that far from a more traditional US stances when it comes to major foreign players. Of course I knew from day one they would continue with the Deep State’s malign agenda and stomp upon weaker nation and wreck their people in favor of the Pentagon’s agenda, but antagonizing BOTH China & Russia in a constant, consistent and vocal fashion like the man seems to be hell-bent on doing, along with the likes of Blinken that in the Obama days were all about “Detente” ? I cannot say I saw that coming.

gryzor84

PS : and I’ll look up Hudson, thanks for the tip, I’m a taker for any analysis of their financial situation and policies and the inherent coming failure of their bubble, beyond habitual sensational headlines from the MSM.

Ricky Miller

Kinzhal is an exceptional missile but it’s not a Mach 12 flyer. In a military test reported by TASS the missile reached a top speed of Mach 10, and that’s when launched by a Mig-31, not a TU-22. Both are supersonic aircraft that impart part of their velocity to the missile while it sprints away but the 31 imparts more. The Kinzhal reaches Mach 10 at the zenith of it’s flight before suffering some velocity loss as it enters terminal flight. By the time it reaches it’s target it’s probably close to supersonic, or depending on the way the target evades it might have dropped wholly into supersonic flight.
A Russian study I encountered on Eurasia Daily cautioned the Russian public against putting too much expectation onto the Kinzhal. A four missile strike might not sink an American Carrier and the missile’s performance against American jamming and decoys is a complete unknown.

James

Even to get an AC lop-sided would effectively disable the ship.

HiaNd

VERIFY before challenging !!
“The mass – 500kg – of the Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” traveling at Mach 12″
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-survive-hypersonic-missile-strike-169034

Kinzhal at mach 10 reportedly and Zircon at mach 9 reportedly… the main difference is that the Kinzhal will be burning a lower energy fuel so perhaps in a steep dive on the target it might accelerate due to gravity so when it hit a target at sea level it might be going mach 2 faster… perhaps Mach 12…
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7902p250-kinzhal-hypersonic-aviation-missile-complex

Ricky Miller

Great claims, but I’ll take TASS’s word for it. They say the maximum velocity during the test was MACH 10. I wouldn’t go around citing the National Interest for anything. It’s a NEOCON rag, and would like nothing better than to convince Congress to throw several hundred billion dollars more at Pentagon programs.

The Kinzhal is a great weapon. But it’s not likely to be nuclear tipped unless the Russians are unsure that targeting systems can actually direct the weapon onto American ships. Russia is not about to use even tactical nuclear weapons first, fearing events will spiral out of control. They’ve said as much in their doctrine reviews which state that hypersonics form the basis of their non-nuclear deterrent.

Hypersonic missiles targeting a mobile target will have to slow in order to use targeting guidance. Why? Hypersonic flight interferes with sensors and communications. They can’t target what they can’t see. If using hypersonics against a fixed target one can hypersonic flight right onto the target, no problem. But if your target has moved 3800 meters during your missile’s quite brief flight than one of two things must happen: the missile must be guided onto the target which means communicating to the missile, which means a drop to lower hypersonic speeds or the missile itself, absent outside direction, must burn off speed and use it’s own targeting sensor suites. No hypersonic missile can do this at high hypersonic velocity as the flight physics disrupts the environment around the missile.

In conclusion I summarize the article I read by a Russian military expert at Eurasia Daily: These missiles are great and all, and they improve our position surely. But we should be careful not to overestimate their capability or to think that they are the solution for all military encroachment issues at our borders. They’ll work certainly much better against land based targets but against mobile, naval targets we’ll need more of them than initially thought.

HiaNd

National Interest is the ENEMY of Russia and they NEVER say anything positive about Russia unless hard core FACT !!!
The only “rag” here is your comment I suppose.
But I have given you 5 articles not only one?!
One is RUSSIAN “Sputnik” who always uses Russian verified source!
Even so, let us presume that you were right and that speed is “only” Mach 10.
The problem is your STUPID comment (theory) where you reduce speed in HALF without single proof !!!
You forgot about Mach-27 GLIDER (while you were limiting “Kinzhal” speed on only Mach-5 …saying it is impossible to go faster because of plasma guidance problem… shoving how PATHETIC you are really)

NO ! The only “rag” here is your comment !

Ricky Miller

Yes, you must be absolutely right. No way the National Interest would ever hype up Russian weapons tech in support of more Pentagon funding. People just don’t think that way. The fact is that there are no instances of hypersonics being used to target mobile naval vessels from a state of hypersonic flight. Nary a one. China has used DF-21’s and 26’s to target and sink target vessels but the anti-ship warheads had slowed to MACH 5 and the vessels were anchored. Things are not working the way you think they are and I’d rather fully understand Russia’s actual tactical advantages and disadvantages than to create overwhelming advantages and power dynamics where it’s not really true.

Dick Von Dast'Ard

Kinetic energy combined with the warhead will disable just about anything. Once disabled then the slow moving carrier (incapable of conducting air operations) and her escorts are sitting ducks for the SSN’s and their 650mm’s.

HiaNd

at Mach 12 speed even solid flying peace of sh*t would sink air carrier :))

Dick Von Dast'Ard

Hypersonic cowpat gun.

HiaNd

you of course have no links for your claims?!

“A four missile strike might not sink an American Carrier”

4 nuke tipped Kinzhal’s can’t sink an american carrier??? You must be joking !!!

Jim Allen

That part is quite possible. It depends on damage control, and where the ship is hit.
Remember, Liberty didn’t sink, and the Russian destroyer Captain that stood by was sure it was going to. It was shot all to Hell, and was hit by a US Navy torpedo from the submarine that had to be quiet when the destroyer showed up and IAF had to break off, so as not to be discovered. (Too late, the destroyer had been monitoring the radio) That’s what good damage control can do.
Liberty was a converted cargo ship.
Having said that, this guy is an idiot troll. Like a faux intellect, he has a pretense of knowledge, but his trolling is completely ordinary.
He has no valid arguement, can’t backup his dismissive claims, and demands proof from those with nothing to prove. He’s the idiot making the claims the missile doesn’t perform. In US, Russia, and most of the known world the burden of proof goes to the accuser. The idiot made the claim, therefore it’s the idiot’s burden to prove his idiocy. He does not attempt this, instead the idiot attempts to project the burden of proof away from himself, and onto others. As you can see, no amount of tangible evidence has been acceptable to the idiot, he continues to deflect the proof he continues to demand. There is no arguement, engaging the idiot in rational, logical dialog is like eating soup with a fork.
As Mark Twain said, never argue with an idiot. Or, there will be two idiots arguing.
It’s the idiots task to prove his claim, period.
He can’t do that, largely because he’s an idiot. He’s like Jens Holm with a vocabulary, and it’s just about blocking time.

HiaNd

He’s the idiot making the claims the missile doesn’t perform
Basically we agree on all points.
The problem is that hyper-sonic tech is top-secret.
So nobody (including the Russians) is publishing anything… any kind of material on those tests.
His “plasma limiting communication – problem” and insisting that missile must go down to Mach 5 (to slow it down so much how?!?) to “re-establish guidance communication” is totally unsubstantiated with any proves …
Based literately on nothing.
Guidance problem and overheating problems are technological problems that are presumed to have solution once missiles are in production…How else to explain Avangard glider and Mach – 27 speed (if they can’t control missile or heat on only
Mach-10)
They can call Russian bluffing liars, but official U.S. experts don’t do that

So any other argument on the subject is pointless.

Ricky Miller

You guys crack me up. The Russians never say that the missiles are hypersonic in terminal flight. You say that. They don’t make that claim.

They carefully say they have a missile capable of MACH 10 flight. It is capable of evading defenses. It can target shipping. Yet all that is consistent with slowing for guidance. You create some mythical capability of high hypersonic all the way to target. No one in Russia actually makes that claim or shows a test to demonstrate it. The proof is on you.

HiaNd

This was about declared top speed not bout “terminal flight” speed for vhich you (or anybody else) have any information at all !
“slowing for guidance.” is your nonsense “invention”, since one even needs “guidance” to “slow missile down” ( IF that is possible at all !!)

Ricky Miller

My point exactly. We don’t have enough information to know anything for sure and descriptions of top speed have nothing to do with terminal attack velocity. All ballistic missile warheads slow through the atmosphere to something like MACH 2-3 near the ground (Let’s know things podcast, on hypersonic missiles.) Russian language that missiles are capable of targeting a naval object doesn’t deserve the leap to automatic 100% belief in sure lethality. If the Russian Navy had images of MACH 7 impacts on target vessels, it would be in their advantage to show them and deter American bad behavior. They haven’t. And when they do, it will be an explosive topic of conversation far beyond SF. Hysteria in Washington D.C. will be fun to watch and off the hook.

My point? We’re not there yet.

Ricky Miller

Go ahead. I’ve been around these parts for a long time and am a known supporter of Russia’s foreign policy and defense equipment. What I’m not in favor of is creating capabilities beyond truth or what we actually know.

Russia doesn’t claim a hypersonic capability all the way to terminal approach and target impact. People here do. The Russian statements are vague. They have a hypersonic MACH 10 missile. It can attack naval targets. Left deliberately unsaid: the missile can impact the target at peak hypersonic speed. But suddenly, like magic, it’s a done deal. Guidance all the way to target, an extra 2 MACH and impacts like we’ve never seen. Yet, the elephant in the room? Russia never actually says that.

They have two missiles. They are high hypersonic flight. They can reach top speeds of MACH 9-MACH 10. They can attack naval targets, or one of them can. Yet no tests are released and Russia itself doesn’t claim high hypersonic to target. I point out that glaring gap in the logic bridge and I’m a Jens Holm style Imperial troll. Hilarity. You guys run on ahead into the world of so far fictional capability. I’ll stay back here waiting for the day that the Russian MOD announces that the missiles are hypersonic during terminal flight and impact. Or, until we find out that the capabilities, while awesome, are more nuanced, thus explaining the deliberate ambiguity in Russian language usage.

Jim Allen

“Been around these parts for a long time.”
Me too, and this is the first time I’ve seen, or heard of you.
I’m sure as Hell not impressed, your history is flawed, inaccurate, at best with regards to WWII.
Thing is, no one here piped up, with claims that Russia’s hypersonic weapons don’t perform as stated, (there are more than two systems, excluding ICBM) then launching into a long, repetitive dissertation on how these systems can’t do this, or that, and must go through a process in order to receive some last minute data that couldn’t have possibly been included at the time of launch for some inexplicable reason that Russia has not the capabilities to communicate to the missile in flight.
It could be interesting, execpt these weapons appear to be capable of managing multiple warheads autonomously, and should a warhead targeting a high value location be lost, it’s replaced by another warhead that had previously been assigned a lesser target location. As well as find it’s own way around enemy radar’s with no input from outside sources after launch.
How can this weapon perform these rather complex operations in flight, but somehow need to pull into a rest area, and receive data to find it’s way to the designated target locations it was launched with ?
That it’s incapable of striking a ship, simply because the ship is moving, and the missile can strike only land based targets is absurd. There’s plenty of land based targets that move. Presumably, these missiles are useless in combat against aircraft, regardless of launch point, yet are able to be launched from both surface ships, and submarines, which are often themselves moving.
You offer zero evidence to support your claims, while demanding evidence, (on top secret military technology on highly complex, and technical systems that is not available to mere mortals, and refuting all evidence that is presented to you.
What is obvious is, you initiated this conversation, have made claims you can’t defend.
You’ve blamed everything, and everyone, as uninformed, mistaken, and/or dead wrong, when the only individual that fit’s this description is you. The only individual that has a duty to prove their claims on the subject of Russia’s hypersonic missile performance is you. No one else began running their fat stupid mouths, disparaging the performance of these missile systems, and demanding to be proven wrong.
Kind of got a bit ahead of yourself there didn’tja’ tiger ? You must first prove the claims you made. You claim these are just hypersonic junk, that can’t hit the side of a barn at 20 paces. What I’d like to know is, when do you intend to set about proving all these fun fact’s you’ve been slinging around as though they’re meaningful ?

Ricky Miller

I wasn’t the one claiming that a missile reported by reputable sources as MACH 10 capable was out there flying around attacking targets at MACH 12.

I wasn’t the one claiming that Kinzhal missiles can sink American aircraft carriers. In fact, no Russian source has ever claimed a naval target test for the Kinzhal. No Russian source has claimed a high hypersonic terminal guidance phase of flight for any Russian weapon. That’s all right here.

I wasn’t the person or persons stating a scenario where ballistic missile warheads remain under powered flight during a descent to target, or terminal flight. This flight profile has never been seen in any ballistic weapon. Ballistic missile payloads are unpowered during attack phase, literally they are falling like a rock and losing speed, able to alter their flight somewhat by way of control surfaces. People around here, maybe you too, think that ballistic missile payloads are under power. It’s laughable. In fact nearly all ballistic missiles are hypersonic during some part of their flight, as are their payloads after they separate. The payloads then lose speed as they interact with a thickening air medium. The Russian MOD, nor any other semi-official Russian source has ever claimed a hypersonic capability at target impact. They never declare that, carefully remaining obtuse in the details. People around here run off claiming the outer fence as a city wall to die on. More realistically, and in line with Russian claims regarding the Kinzhal and Tsirkons, these missiles become ballistic and evade potential defenses along their planned route by way of manuevers programmed into them before launch. They fly at a peak speed of MACH 9 or MACH 10 until they reach near the target area. By then they are an unpowered ballistic payload, like every other ballistic payload in the whole world, outside of hypersonic gliders, which are warheads with better flight characteristics. The payloads receive or use onboard sensors to find the target after they slow to velocities that allow for that. That’s MACH 6, or slightly less.They then use flight control surfaces to interact with the atmosphere in order to glide toward the target’s location. Impact is at a real world MACH 4 or MACH 5, not MACH 12 with a tailpipe blazing away back there, the belief in which is fanboy quality lunacy.

I’m fine with where I’m at. If anyone is ahead of themselves it’s people who need to believe in supernatural Russian weapons out of the information provided, despite the fact that real world tech progress of Russian weapons is pretty terrific. There are no MACH 10 or even more ridiculous MACH 12 lighted candles driving a controlled projectile under guidance all the way to sea level. It’s laughable.

Ricky Miller

In fact someone just called my attention to the fallacy of the position you are defending. I mean beyond the fact that you are defending claims and details that Russia itself doesn’t make, which is an emotional leap into fanboy world with some real world details run amuck.

Space shuttle Columbia. You know, broke up over Texas at MACH 17-20. I’ve seen the bunker at KSC where the wreckage was buried and the person I went with just reminded me that the front landing gear was found in Texas, intact. Now how could the front landing gear remain intact if the shuttle broke up at MACH 18, high above with a bunch of falling to do? Because a thickening air medium slows all objects falling into the atmosphere, even objects with the flight characteristics of a boulder. The landing gear and other pieces of wreckage didn’t impact the ground at MACH 17, but somewhere in the vicinity of 180-225 mph. A high speed car crash. OK, Ferrari high speed, but still. Ballistic payloads are only slightly different in that they retain velocity better because they’re shaped to. But no, I mean no, ballistic payload is ever going to cut out powered flight at 105,000 feet and 100 km from target and retain the speed at cutoff. MACH 9 will become MACH 6, and then MACH 5. And every second after that drop rapidly.
There is a reason that Russian sources don’t claim high hypersonic speeds above MACH 6 at impact. Because they either have to violate the laws of physics or remain under powered burn. And if they remain under burn, and stay above MACH 6 how do they re-establish guidance? It’s a big ocean to splash down in out there. This entire debate is fanboy ludicrous.

Jim Allen

Yo idiot, I’m not discussing the performance of Russia’s military hardware. Damn you’re dense.
What I’m discussing is your complete absence of tangible evidence that backs up your fairy tale storyline, while at the same time you are demanding evidence these weapons can’t/won’t perform as stated by the manufacturer. When tangible, and correct evidence is presented, you reject it.
Again, it is your burden to prove your claims are factual, and accurate. We the comment’s section have fuckall to prove.
You so far have failed to provide satisfactory tangible evidence your claims are valid.
(The Barent’s article proves nothing, except Russia doesn’t share top secret data with Barent’s) Yet your still on about being the idiot that believes his idiocy is correct, simply because you can’t locate actual performance data that supports your claims, but you’re happy to use everything you can scare up that doesn’t provide data, one way, or the other, as the evidence your assertions are accurate. Which they are not.
The absence of evidence, either by the fact none is mentioned, or discussed, not inclusive in any related reports, articles, etc., indicates this data is not available for view at this paygrade, has not been declassified, or isn’t, and never has been any kind of an issue with the performance of these particular weapons systems, and it’s simply a figment of your hallucination, that took off when you bumped your fucking head on the corner of the DJ’s booth at the Country, and Western Disco bar after dancing a marathon 2-step with a hot trans named Lola. Having been dragged into the
“Gal’s” bathroom to do God knows what with the huge bag of some kind of white stuff, and 200 proof moonshine.
You, and the trans were hitting it off until you remembered, you had a bad experience as a child with some deviant, and became hysterical, and tried to flee through the DJ’s booth, which led to the corner with the popcorn machine.
Your fat idiot head punched a hole in the booth, knocked the turntables, and mixing boards clear across the dance floor, in the middle of a another slow, “my baby drank herself to, ssskkippp ? and into Gretchen Wilson, backed up by Alice in Chains, singing her aunts hit “Barracuda” very well.
Kinda’ stunned the cowboys for a second, ’til they made the connection, that their country darlin’ and Annie, and Nancy Wilson are related.
Then the whole mess shorted out, y’all lit up like a barber pole, and bang, disappeared in a cloud of that fake fog. Into some alternate reality.
Everyone thought good riddance, by pure chance you were put out of our misery. But it was not to be. Some 3 day’s later, a group of nonplussed lizard fighter pilots, dragged yore sorry ass through the front door, and unceremoniously dropped you in a heap in the middle of the dance floor, and made it clear we were to never, ever, never let your lame ass go to the head without a keeper.
Takes a lot to piss off the lizard fighter pilots, and they hang at a really rough bar, ’bout halfway to Zoltar. Easy going bunch, get along with everyone. Except you.
They mentioned you created a temporal distortion, that shook that wholee reality until all the knick-knacks fell on the floor.
Threatened to rip a hole in the time/space continuim, so they snatched your dumb ass up, grabbed a fast fighter-bomber, and warped you back whence you came.
You don’t know how to have a rational, reasonable, logical, objective discussion like grown-ups have sometimes. Nothing, not one subject you’ve spoken to since I had the misfortune to encounter you is useful, accurate, factual, or enjoyable.
You can’t take a hint either, you could’ve argued yourself silly, with any

Ricky Miller

Russian arms manufacturers nor the Russian government make claims at all saying 1) high hypersonic flight to target. There are no claims that these missiles are anything other than guided warheads, subject to the same limitations as other guided warheads. The only claims I’m pushing back against are claims that they’re invincible super weapons sure to sink aircraft carriers. Unproven, so there’s nothing for me to disprove. Also, the absurd claim that they’re MACH 12 to target. Also not claimed by Russia, only here.

Ricky Miller

Barents Observer Article, December 16, 2020. No claim of high hypersonic to target capability. Infact, the article points out that it’s hypersonic because it’s ballistic. No mention of any test indicating a naval capability. Article suggests that the Kinzhal is meant to target airfields and other military infrastructure in the region.

Missilethreat.csis.org covers the Kinzhal this way: “…the definition of the Kinzhal as hypersonic is somewhat misleading as nearly all ballistic missiles reach hypersonic speeds at some point in their flight.” The article says that the missile may have ASM capability but that it’s uncertain. In fact: “Russia likely developed the unique missile to more easily target critical European infrastructure (airfields, warehouses, command centers, etc) and to counter US theatre defense missiles, such as THAAD.”

And this gem. Military-today says that Kinzhal has a CEP of 10-20 meters. How is a missile under power during terminal approach and guided even above blackout velocity miss a ground target by as much as 20 meters? Because it’s not guided during high hypersonic flight and uses inertial guidance or if still available satellite guidance to get close to impacting it’s target. Which implies that it has to re-establish guidance lock at aerobraked speeds, does it not?

I checked Sputnik, RT, TASS, EAD, RGRU, ANNA. I can find no reference of a claim to a naval test for Kinzhal. Nor any Russian claim to high hypersonic controlled flight during terminal approach. Official Russia uses hazy language so as not to compromise their integrity and claim ownership of a science fiction weapon. In conclusion, “tiger,” Kinzhal and Tsirkon are most likely the same missile, derived from Iskander and launched with different type boosters to facilitate ballistic flight, suddenly rebranded as hypersonic. Within both the realms of possibility and Russian language regarding the missiles is the following likely real world capability: Missile is programed before launch to evade potential ABM sources. Missile launches and loses guidance as it climbs above MACH 6. Missile follows it’s flight program, reaching it’s test speed of MACH 9, launched by ship, or MACH 10 launched by MIG-31K. Probably somewhere in the middle for TU-22. Missile payload separates at flight profile designed time. Warhead aerobrakes and again discovers targeting guidance at speeds which allow it. Warhead uses control surfaces and MACH 5 speed retainer to navigate toward the target below. Warhead impacts target or nearby, what with a CEP of 10-20 meters against a ground target, how close is the hit going to be to a warship hauling it at 30 knots?
Russia: we have a hypersonic missile capable of MACH 10 speeds, evasive flight to avoid intercepts, and the ability to target shipping. Fanboys: Russia has a missile that travels at MACH 12 the whole flight and sinks aircraft carriers for sure every time with devastating MACH 12 hits! See the lunacy and the logical fallacy?

Ricky Miller

BTW, what WW2 history did I get wrong? The majority of ships sunk in the war were by torpedo and mine. That’s a blatant fact. The American war against Japanese shipping? 80% losses to American submarines. The German war that sank 3000 allied merchant ships and two dozen escorts? 85% torpedo fire, with mines coming in a close second.
The Narvik Battle. HMS Warspite went up the fjord and fired her 15 inch armament so often that Narvik natives said that the harbor water boiled. Yet all 8 German destroyers were sunk by…torpedo fire. Most Baltic shipping, including military shipping were sunk by mines and torpedos. “Red Star under the Baltic” is a great starting point for that story.
HMS Prince of Wales and the Repulse, plus escorting destroyers? Sunk by torpedo bombers. USS Yorktown? Sunk by submarine launched torpedo. Same for the greatest loss of allied naval shipping by location, off Guadalcanal in Iron Bottom sound. A majority of that iron was placed there by Japanese long lance torpedos, including the torpedo the killed all the Sullivan brothers.
I could go on. Since the age of sail ended most shipping lost worldwide to conflict, including WW2 has been lost to torpedo and mine warfare. I’m a pimp. You can check my stats.

Ricky Miller

Need more? HMS Barham sunk by submarine torpedo, November 25, 1941. The Pearl Harbor battleships including the permanently lost USS Oklahoma and USS Utah were sunk by torpedo bombers. As we’re three Japanese carriers at Midway. The ship that brought the bomb, the USS Indianapolis sunk by torpedo fire from submarine. The HMS Warspite herself survived a guided missile it (fritz x) only to be mined and damaged onto the reserve list.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Mach 10 or 12, or even Mach 8 will sink anything it touches.

At those speeds, kinetics does the business. A grain of sand travelling at those speeds would cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
Kinzhal is just one hypersonic weapon, Russia have more.
The USA and NATO have none.

Ricky Miller

These hypersonics are not going to be used against naval vessels and dreams of MACH 10 or 12 hits against warships are fanboy fictions. Against a land based target, sure. Hypersonics are a game changer. But most effective anti-ship missiles are going to be supersonic sea-skimmers,still. That’s why Russia is still turning out significant production volumes of Kalibrs, P-800’s, and KH-32’s. This article is about the Tu-22, which carries in the modern day the KH-32, which is the primary naval weapon for the platform. MACH 3.5-4.5, diving on the target from above and guided by it’s internal sensor suite. Why would Russia continue to manufacture these if Kinzhal’s represented a real naval superweapon? Because the Kinzhal is primarily a land attack weapon with just enough skin in the naval game to offer advantages for deterrence. It’s not really an effective naval weapon. Not right now.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Calling a hypersonic weapon “fanboy fiction” is infantile, and typical Western bollox. The Russkies have been educating the US for decades about missiles and radars. The US says it will soon be deploying hypersonic weapons, so they obviously realise that these systems work, as advertised.
It won’t be the first time that Russia has led the way with missile tech, they were the first to send rockets into space, despite the Yanks having the expertise of Nazi scientists to do the maths for them.

Russia still produce T90s, upgrade T72 and T80. Why wouldn’t they produce other missiles other than Kinzhal? Having a selection of missiles that are proven to accompany a new missile is common practise for Russia, they don’t throw out the good stuff to buy just the new stuff. That’s why they always win against invaders, and why the US has bankrupted itself and its allies, by buying gear which only works in the Lab.

A ballistic missile fly’s at Mach 20+, and has a low CEP. it was only a matter of time before someone figured out how to guide them on route, and the Russians have form when it comes to innovation and progress.

Ricky Miller

Oh, hypersonics are not fanboy fiction and I didn’t say they were. You know what I did say was a fanboy fiction? The belief and resulting claim that hypersonic anti-ship missiles can fly at MACH 10 or MACH 12 into a mobile naval target. The Russian MOD has never even claimed thay can, yet here the capability is proudly declared a done deal. Hypersonics can attack land targets at high hypersonic velocity surely. But these is no evidence that a hypersonic can be guided to a mobile target or can guide itself to a mobile target while exceeding MACH 6. Many, especially around these parts, have taken the KH-32 in their mind and given it’s flight profile and targeting capability that it executes at MACH 4.5-5.5 and poof! just magically assigned those characteristics to hypersonics. It’s great if true, but believing so without evidence has a make believe world quality to it that creates a different tactical situation than the world we actually live in.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

All I know is this. Russia armed Mig31s with Kinzhal missiles when the NATO gang got together to attack Syria last year. NATO sent it warships to the Western Med, far away from where Russia said its Kinzhals could strike at. The US has since boasted that its hypersonics are faster than Russian ones. They produced nothing to back up that childish boast, while they know through satellites that Russian hypersonics work. The US accept that Kinzhal and Avantgard work, as they have seen the things flying through surveillance.
Name me a time when Russia put weapons on an aircraft for immediate use, when those weapons were just a bluff?
It’s all a matter of science, and the Russians are world famous for being great at that.

Ricky Miller

Yes, they work but not in the way claimed here. Hypersonic missiles targeting a land based object or position can dive at high hypersonic speeds onto the target. Against naval targets though, they’ll have to bleed speed for targeting. I’m sorry, but that’s simply the truth. The speed at impact will be something on the order of MACH 3 or 4, maybe even 5. Not MACH 10 or 12. They might well prove to be an effective naval weapon, but not some MACH 12 harbinger of doom that keeps American pirates far away from coming even close to Russian territorial waters.
FACTS not in evidence:
That American warships stay far away from Russian territorial waters.
That hypersonic missiles can guide themselves or be guided onto moving naval targets while still at high hypersonic speeds.
That Russia even claims a navalized high hypersonic lethality.
Or any video of hypersonic impacts on test ships.

Supreme Blyat

Cool story, pal :)

Jim Allen

You need to prove they don’t.

Ricky Miller

Yep, you win. Russia has invincible new hypersonic weapons that can easily sink carrier battle groups. They magically propel themselves down from ballistic suborbital flight holding their top speed from ballistic cruise and remaining precisely guided through atmospheric flight interference and slam into American and anybody else’s warships without fail. They are high hypersonic all the way to target, and there is no loss of velocity due to atmospheric friction and there is no escape.
Our long struggle is over. American loons are sure to back off pressing against Russian borders with warships and bad behavior all the time and properly chastened are sure to be on better behavior as Russia walks tall. Thankfully the people of Syria might get some relief, finally. I can’t wait to read the news in the morning and begin to see the world change. Thanks for helping me see the light, I was wrong to question assertions here about weapon performance that even Russia does not claim but people here are sure of.

Band Itkoitko

It’s good that people are pondering on this. It’s always advisable to try thinking and not blindly accepting things. However, approaching it from the ground of “I don’t see how this can be done, so it has not been done” is a very limited way of thinking, deprived of basic insight and a reflection of the falling empire’s arrogance. Quite immature and a bit narcissistic I would say (I don’t mean you personally, I mean the “partners”). This is fundamentally a logical fallacy. Of course, you are free to believe whatever suits you and let’s you sleep at night. The overall problem is clearly hard, and that’s why the very cocky bastards could not solve it yet. We will not solve it in this forum…

Your own argument shows that the West is essentially mad and deterrence doesn’t seem to work on them anymore. It’s hard to expect reason from people that lost their minds. These weapons are likely to be used in the future, probably soonish. They are not just a facade. Russia knows very well (from historic experience and basic analytical thinking) that they always end up fighting wars in the end and cannot afford overstating the capacity of their weapons and deceiving themselves. Of course, we know a small fraction of information on these weapons, the majority (especially targeting) being secret.

I think it’s legitimate to believe the Russian military attitude. The primary application of these weapons is naval for large high-cost targets, not for small boats. Yes, they are not the front-line naval weapon. Other missiles are in service to create a more complete coverage. Hypersonic weapons change a lot of things but are not a universal solution to all. Communication is the simplest and oldest problem in the story. Plasma utilization for munitions and airplanes have been considered long time ago both in the West and by the Soviets. This haven’t appeared only recently and suddenly. Relative to hypersonic speeds an aircraft carrier is a stationary object. From several kilometers away when you are moving with speeds above 6 mach it makes very little difference if your target is a building or a moving aircraft carrier. 6 mach is a bit above 2km per second. So even if the missile target information is a few kilometers or a few seconds old, it would still hit the ship very well.

You are misrepresenting and turning upside down a basic fact. The relation “fast munition – slow target” is the easier one to solve in practice. Heck, if it was the case that the faster the munition and the slower the target would make targeting hardest, by continuity the extreme case of difficulty would be a hypersonic munition against a stationary object. The hard problem for targeting is “fast target – slow munition”, which is the case with the western antimissile defenses.

Ricky Miller

I’m not saying that it can never be done. I’m saying that it can’t be done now, or at least there is zero evidence that it can. Russia’s defense ministry actually doesn’t even claim that naval targets can be struck by a missile in high hypersonic flight and there is no video or even a claim of a high hypersonic impact with a mobile naval target.
Perhaps Quantum radars, although I don’t see how since they need precise location data to work at all. But as things stand now all hypersonic missiles must slow near to terminal flight in order to achieve targeting. That’s just truthful.
And otherwise, consider the behaviors around this issue. Like a black hole we don’t have to see it in order to understand the nature of existence, we can examine the behavior of matter near one. So too here. The USA deploys it’s Navy aggressively, near both China and Russia. China even calls it gunboat diplomacy. There is no evidence that American Naval Officers feel overwhelmed by a hypersonic threat. In truth, they seem way more worried about Kalibr missiles, the KH-32, and Russian submarines. Also, the Russian Federation Navy itself doesn’t have money to waste. Yet, they are still building some 200 anti-ship missiles a year, or so. Nearly all of them are P-800’s, Kalibr, and KH-32 along with subsonic KH-35. BAL and BASTION-P coastal defenses are based on P-800’s and KH-35’s. Kinzhal’s and Tsirkons would make all of them instantly obsolete, yet Russia turns them out with purpose. SUBMITTED: hypersonic naval missiles have targeting difficulties and cannot do what some comments around here suggest.

Band Itkoitko

You may very well be right but your argument has deficiencies. The US behavior can be better explained with their arrogance and acting with impunity rather than the particular features of a particular weapon like Kinzhal. Also, they clearly lack sufficient understanding of hypersonic weapons to be a credible source of judgement.

It is a completely incorrect claim that if the hypersonics worked, then the other missiles would be phased out. There are many different applications and considerations. You personally outline several systems coexistent already. If your argument was to be taken as correct, it would imply in extremity that none of them is actually functional, or that at most one is functional (depends on how you interpret it).

If your argument is that the missile itself and the carrying airplane (or ship) lack capacity to acquire a moving target from thousands of kilometers, then probably many people would agree. So target information needs to be provided from a different source (e.g., a drone).

It is already stated by the Russian side that such a missile (mostly in relation to Zirkon) flying in low trajectory cannot achieve that large velocities and ranges (10 mach or 3000km) and one needs to live with lower while still great performance. So it needs to fly in an “aeroballistic” mode for such excessive speeds and ranges. If you claim that once plunging towards the target it cannot sustain the speed, it is not such a new question since it is exactly the same problem with all ballistic munitions and they seem to do well in that regard. If you claim that it cannot home by itself to a moving target, you might be right, although you don’t provide a good argument for that. However, that doesn’t exclude the capability of obtaining externally the targeting information.

Then, you probably claim that it is impossible to communicate through plasma. This is a clear point of disagreement (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3103). In fact, one of the good characteristics of Avangard is that its trajectory can be modified externally. Avangard does fly in plasma. You would claim that it flies much higher. Yes, but it also flies much faster and actually the problem there is much more difficult. So the Russian side does claim to have solved that problem even if not explicitly in relation with Kinzhal.

All put together, we don’t know for sure, but if the judgement is on the basis of “more likely than not”, I would be very inclined to accept that it is considerably more likely that Kinzhal is capable of destroying a moving large ship form large distance using extremely high velocities. Of course, this involves facing considerable operational complexity, which only a few countries would be able to actually achieve.

Ricky Miller

You may very well be right and I hope you are. A hypersonic able to target and receive guidance at way more than Mach 6 and in the exclusive possession of the Russian Federation would be a Godsend. Yet, no source has claimed such a test where either Kinzhal or Tsirkon struck a Naval target at any velocity, let alone high hypersonic. I have encountered no information of a Russian claim that either missile received targeting guidance while striking ground targets. All I have seen from official Russia or trustworthy sources of information is that Tsirkon and Kinzhal missiles have MACH 9-10 top speeds and that they were successfully tested against ground targets. Again, perhaps I have missed a report of a test involving strikes against a Naval target, a radio controlled barge maybe. Or even a stationary target outline. I have seen nary even a claim of such, not one. Except places like these comments, where a whole bunch of demonstrated steps seem to be skipped before we actually declare what we know as opposed to what we claim.

Band Itkoitko

I understand. Being skeptical helps progress. My guess is that a lot of the thinking in these forums is influenced by people reading articles by military analysts. I’ve seen (but I don’t remember where) research articles by Russian military scientists/officers on the operational aspects of the hypersonic weapons that give them a strategic standing and this can be seen in a relation or as a neutralization of the US Prompt Global Strike, but I think it goes beyond that. I think hypersonic weapons are a bit ahead of the current operational times and only in the future their relevance will become more clear and what the implications are.

Yes, I think that Russia currently and already has a stronger standing than what they admit. The world is in transformative stage. It will become clearer and clearer that Russia achieved a strategic supremacy. It’s not a complete supremacy, but definitely the balance is broken. We can easily see that waving one’s strategic superiority in the other party’s face would not have good outcomes for the peace and stability. In fact, I think large portion of the US is in denial. It would be a mistake to wake them up from that.

Yet, the top strategic dog is Burevestnik. This is the complete opposite of everything that forms strategic balance. It can be launched undetected and attack in surprise at any time without causing any advance suspicion. It is the ultimate retaliation and first-strike weapon. I bet this is what causes the most fear in the “partners”. They were in complete denial for quite some time and only recently started talking more seriously about it. This is a psychological reaction of fear.

Ricky Miller

I agree with you that Russia has achieved a paradigm shift and some level of unrecognized dominance, especially in strategic weapons. This is easy to prove just in examing the age of each country’s SSBN’s and ICBM’s. But people are claiming around here a MACH 12 capable Naval strike missile guided to target. The missile and a sister missile also in development have both struck ground based targets in hypersonic flight tests yet neither have ever been tested as a tactical Naval weapon, capable of being guided to a moving target under high hypersonic velocity. Without Russia even claiming a navalizrd test under those conditions and parameters some people here are ringing the prize bell and calling it a done deal. Where is the proof? I’ve seen many a video of subsonic missiles striking target ships, and more than a handful of supersonic missiles striking through a target ships hull but I have never seen nor read any account from Russia or anywhere else of a high hypersonic missiles striking a target ship. Ever. Not even a stationary target target ship, let alone one underway. I can’t prove a negative yet so far my fellow commenters have yet to prove a positive, as in any record of a successful Naval test of these missiles. Yet, somehow it’s a default position that this is a done deal capability. Based on what?

Band Itkoitko

There’s information about naval tests of the Zircon. See: https://www.rt.com/russia/502769-zircon-missile-test-barents-sea/

“Thought to be able to reach speeds of up to Mach 9, the Zircon will have
an operational range that allows it to hit both land- and sea-based
targets at a distance of 1,000km.”

Of course, no details are stated apart from top speed and distance.

Even with the Oniks, it took a lot of time for Russia to provide videos of it hitting a target. They like leaving ambiguity as you can imagine. That’s part of the game.

I think it’s more likely than not for Russia to have weapons that can hit large moving ships from large distance with hypersonic speeds. Whether that is 12 or 7 Mach, noone here knows. I don’t think Russians bluffs with this. There’s research showing the principle of communicating through plasma. I find it believable that there are even improved approaches that have been implemented in practice in the military sphere.

Videos will come later but don’t expect to see much from a video.

Ricky Miller

I’ve read those reports too. But it doesn’t say that they’ve tested against Naval targets, only ground targets. Now I also want it to be true but am unwilling to consider it in the bag until tested and demonstrated. Russia isn’t even claiming a successful Naval target test but around here it’s an operational MACH 12 carrier killer. My guess is it’s navalized, it can transit to target at MACH 9 or 10, but must bleed speed for targeting which occurs at or under MACH 6. Right now though, there is not even demonstrable proof of that. All I really know is that the missiles can reach MACH 9-10 during their flight and have been successfully directed against ground targets. I’d love to have information signaling greater capability, please give me some.

Band Itkoitko

You need to read it again: “As part of live-fire trials, it dispatched the hypersonic cruise missile from one of its vertical silos. It was the first time the Zircon had been trialed for anti-ship warfare, and the weapon “directly hit the seaworthy target located 450km away,” the ministry reported.”

You can also enjoy this: https://tass.com/defense/998221

Quotes come from officials or experts.

Naval use: “Moreover, this is a class of precision weapons fitted with
multifunctional combat capabilities making it possible to strike both
stationary and mobile targets. Specifically, aircraft carriers and
cruiser-class warships, destroyers and frigates are potential targets
for this weapon”

Targeting: “At the final section of the flight path, a homing warhead is activated
to ensure the required accuracy and selectivity of target engagement in
any time of day or night.”

We know it’s fast: “the primary specificity is speed, in the first place”

Deterrence (not from ships going around but from ships shooting their silly tomahawks): “The Kinzhal system is precisely intended for their deterrence. Intruders must know about this.”

“In the opinion of TASS military expert Viktor Litovkin, the deployment
of MiG-31 fighters carrying the Kinzhal hypersonic missile systems in
the Southern Military District can be most likely explained by the need
“to keep under control the Black Sea area,” which US and NATO warships
armed with Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles regularly enter, posing a
threat to strategic missile systems in Russia’s European part.”

After all, it’s a classified project. We don’t know more information for other weapons. Do we know what’s the velocity of a strategic nuclear warhead when it hits a target? No, we don’t. If you believe the information on ICBMs, this is equaly reliable and equally detailed, i.e., there are a lot of gaps.

If your wish is Russia to have terrifying hypersonic weapons, your wish is fulfilled. You have hard time accepting it. Then, let’s give it some time. For now, you can go on not accepting it, until it becomes undeniable for anyone. I don’t think they need to slow down to MACH 6. Even if they needed to do that, that is still hypersonic.

Ricky Miller

Again, I love it but at no point in the article does anyone make the claim that the missile has been tested against a moving target or that it attacks at speeds greater than Mach 6. That it flies at MACH 10 I accept. That it can do programmed turns to evade defenses I accept. That it can be guided beyond MACH 6 they don’t claim and the conditions of the naval test, while still new to me, are still left murky. Not enough information there to conclude that the device can accept guidance throughout the entire flight, or that it attacks at high hypersonic speed.

Band Itkoitko

We will have to agree to disagree on that. Although, I sympathize with your point that 12 mach terminal velocity is unconfirmed.

I also wish Russia was more open about demonstrating the capability of their weapons, e.g., showing the consequence of a hit by Kinzhal. Mostly because I wish the abominable elites got some fear of God by seeing that. However, Russians seem to have a different perspective. For all practical respects, Oniks is enough to guarantee the safety of the Black Sea already.

Ricky Miller

I agree. I mean really, it is to Russia’s advantage to openly say and demonstrate that the missile can be guided through MACH 10 flight and that the missile impacts a moving Naval target at high hypersonic speed. The United States, a spoiled brat and demented waning superpower is likely to throw a fit and go nuclear if they lose a carrier battle group to some hidden in plain sight tactical hypersonic missile capability. Yet demonstrating a MACH 9 impact into a target ship today both changes expectations and alters behaviors forthwith. It’s in Russia’s interests to do so, yet she doesn’t.

And Russia behaves differently about other weapons systems. Terminal velocity for attacking missiles are openly stated, and YouTube videos of Russian ASM’s striking target ships are available. Kalibr, subsonic sea skimmer, MACH 2.9 in terminal attack. P-800, MACH 2.5 in high flight altitude and diving attack, MACH 1.1-1.2 in sea skimming attack. Posedion, 1000 meter depth, more than a year endurance, stealthily low cruise speed and 100 knot sprints to target, 10MT-25MT payload yields. But for Kinzhal, just land strike tests with vague references to anti-shipping roles. Tsirkon, OK stated testing for anti-shipping roles and MACH 10 flight characteristics but no stated claim that terminal attack is MACH 10, or even high hypersonic. Just that it’s MACH 9-10 capable and can strike Naval targets. But left directly, deliberately unclaimed is MACH 9-10 Terminal attack sprints. The icing on the cake is withheld, why? That doesn’t happen with other Russian reports about other Russian weapons. Occam’s Razor? The missile transits to the target area, bleeds speed to MACH 6 or just under and achieved either internal targeting guidance from onboard sensor suites or receives targeting guidance before attacking at somewhere between reduced velocities of MACH 4-MACH 5.5. This flight profile is consistent with Russian statements about the missile and it’s testing and also explains why they leave the key details about terminal attack speed left to imigination and interpretation.

Ricky Miller

And I agree that MACH 6 is still hypersonic. But that’s not the claim made here earlier today. The claim was that the missile slammed into naval targets at MACH 12, NO room for doubt. I accept TASS at it’s word but still no where does it say that the target was moving in the test. All they confirm is what I already believe. This missile takes off, reaches high hypersonic velocity during flight and then goes into terminal attack mode. Left unclaimed: it maintains high hypersonic speed all the way to target and doesn’t slow for guidance. They leave the language ambiguous with little cause, almost as if they want you to draw an unclaimed conclusion from the information provided.

Ricky Miller

Avangard may be able to receive guidance changes in flight after slowing to MACH 6. Notice they don’t claim such a capability during high hypersonic flight, or at least it’s not specified. Telling it to take a hard left turn after it slows to MACH 6 is different than altering it’s flight path or target at MACH 17.
Please provide me any example of a successful MACH 6 plus guided strike on any target in motion. I can find no test or combat example or even claim from any government of such capability. I know that an Iskander missile struck underway fuel trucks in Syria at MACH 5.5, clearly a guided strike. Any such example at speeds greater than MACH 6, in combat or testing and I’ll send you $100

Band Itkoitko

You understand that if I had such information, I would not be writing in this comments. Still, to slow down Avangard to 6 Mach you would need to communicate that “slow down” command to it.

You can try reading this paper that I pointed to: https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3103

Have in mind that is relatively old (even though not very old) research from 2007. So it can give us some idea. This is in the public sphere.

I would appreciate if you send me information about the Iskander strike on the fuel trucks in Syria. Thank you!

Clearly, in this field everything we say is mostly a speculation. We sometimes try an educated speculation.

Ricky Miller

Sure. I want Russian MACH 12 anti-shipping strikes to be true too. Yet educated speculation should include some reasonable testing of capability. We should know something of a Kinzhal test against a throwaway Naval target in testing as it’s in Russia’s best interest to demonstrate for the benefit of certain other state actors. Yet not one hint of such an actual test exists but here we are assuming it to be true based on reports of successful tests against ground targets.
Avangard cannot glide all the way to ground at MACH 17. It’s a glider and must slow as it descends into the thickening air, like the space shuttle. By the time it reaches it’s target and goes thermonuclear it’s expected speed will be something in the range of MACH 5-MACH 7. People think it’s going to be MACH 20 all the way to the ground but even ballistic cannonballs aerobrake, even more so hypersonic glide vehicles.

Jim Allen

And, why won’t they ?
At best a warship the size of a US carrier will make 35 knots, where the Hell is it going to go in the minute’s it takes a hypersonic weapon to cover whatever distance to the target, regardless of where it was launched ?
There’s not all that great a difference in the speed of Tu-22M, and a MiG-31 that’s unlikely to be flying max speed,
2.8 Mach with a large missile under it’s wing. Tu-22M max speed is 2.3 Mach, and can likely make that speed with three of these mounted externally. Also, it’s a light payload for the bomber.
You haven’t shown these missiles must slow down to gather final targeting data. But you’re braying long, and loud demanding evidence, while claiming the weapons are slower than stated.
Something on Russian max speed ratings on military equipment.
Russia tends to be a bit conservative in it’s max speed ratings across the board. A MiG-31 is rated at max 2.8 Mach. However, they’ve been picked up on radar, (in neighboring countries at 3.1 Mach more than once, when running down an SR-71)
There’s no reason to believe Russia is being disingenuous in it’s performance data. Besides, you have no means of clocking any of these weapons in the first place. Unlike it’s Western partners Russia is not in the habit of lying, and has no record of doing so.
Finally, last time I looked, missiles, don’t know their launch point, whether it’s stationary, land based, mobile launcher, tracked, or wheels. Or, from an aircraft, Tu-95 Bear, at just under supersonic, Tu-160, Tu-22M3M, or MiG-31K.
Or, from a surface ship, a submarine, whether they’re Diesel/Electric, or a really expensive, and dangerous water boiling oven.
Neither do they know what their target is. What’s more they don’t care what their target(s) is/are.
While you’ve been chattering incessantly on a subject you know squat about, most of these weapons have received at least one upgrade, and a new weapon has been introduced.
You’re in no way qualified to determine these weapon’s capabilities, and at best your opinion has no cash value. You’re just another long winded pitiful troll, doing a poor job of bullshitting those bright enough to understand it’s reasonable to take Russia’s performance data at face value. It’s refreshing not having to deal with deliberate pathological liars.
I suggest your time might be better utilized joining the search for the two Kilo Class submarines US Navy lost track of a week, or so ago. How hard can it be, they’re in small shallow Sea’s.
Perhaps there’s something you can contribute to this effort. Eventually Diesel/Electric boats must surface to charge batteries. One thing is certain Russia has the US Navy’s nuke boat targeted. Unless it’s Iran’s week to track it.

Ricky Miller

Varshvanyanka. They aren’t called kilos by me, I refer to them by the name that the people who actually built them give them. But I can’t really be sure of the spelling most of the time so I just call them 636.3

klove and light

A four missile strike might not sink an American Carrier and the missile’s performance against American jamming and….

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

here we go again….the TITANIC…unsinkable…….

little secret 4 u………… ALL SHIPS SINK….but dont tell anyone..shssssss

Ricky Miller

In truth, most naval vessels are sunk by torpedos. Gunfire and missiles have proven to be difficult weapons with which to sink properly designed warships. Exocet hits by Argentine aircraft in the Falklands conflict left British ships burning and damaged but mostly they were scuttled or towed off. Even in WW2 heavy point blank gunfire was responsible for sinking warships only rarely. Think of the HMS Rodney and the HMS King George V pumping so many 14 inch and 15 inch rounds into Bismarck at 8km range yet still no founder. The guns were so hot that gunnery officers passed up the chain the growing concerns of damage. The biggest statistical danger that warships faced in the war was air attack and torpedo and mine losses. Long Lance torpedos sank more allied warships than all the gunfire losses everywhere, all theatres of war.
So it will still be. Want to make sure Russia is defended from encroaching carrier battle groups? Build submarines with 533mm torpedo tubes. 636.3’s numbering in the dozens and armed with the Shkval rocket torpedos, when launched from moderate ranges won’t even need guidance, just aimed straight. That’s the way to be sure you sink aircraft carriers.

Jesus

“”” in WW2 heavy point blank gunfire was responsible for sinking warships only rarely. Think of the HMS Rodney and the HMS King George V pumping so many 14 inch and 15 inch rounds into Bismarck at 8km range yet still no founder.”””

Bismarck sank HMS Hood using its 15 inch guns by landing a couple of rounds on the deck which was lightly armored hitting the ammunition stores.
Rodney and King George were firing at a battleship that had good armored protection and was disabled.

Today’s ships are thin skinned, a missile fired from hundreds of kms away would sink or disable most ships……except the Kirov class battle cruisers.

Ricky Miller

However, the full story is that the Hood was flawed. The Royal Navy had the bad habit of sending Battlecruisers to fight Battleships, with magazines exposed due to limited armoured plating. Hood is a gunnery outlier, and in fact an example of a celebrated super-weapon that wasn’t.

Jim Allen

You fight what you’ve got. Prince of Wales also had the shit shot out of it by Prinz Eugen. It was chance the Bismarck’s shot hit Hood’s magazine.

Jesus

The Royal Navy came with the idea of having ships that relied on speed and heavy guns instead of completely armored ship, something that was deduced from the battle of Jutland in WW1.

Jim Allen

That’s barely true. German commerce raiders sunk a lot of tonnage, and captured many prizes with their 6″ guns.
Actually German torpedoes accounted for more tonnage than any other. US stuck with the defective magnetic detonator, and the poorest performing torpedoes way too long.
Porpoising, failure to run at set depth, and a bad habit of circling back and sinking the submarine that launched it.
US lost more submarines to bad torpedo’s than any other single cause. When the torpedo runs too deep, passes under the ship it was shot at, the Japanese destroyer on the other side pounced on the boat, with big ass depth charges. US boats couldn’t go deep enough to evade, Jap destroyers were quite deadly, fast, 6″ guns, plenty of torpedo’s. The Japanese were British trained, and were very good, the torpedo’s weren’t as effective as you claim despite the fact they were fast, long, long range, and no wake.
Japan didn’t fight it’s submarines very well. They were excellent though.
The allies lost warships to the Japanese trying to fight night battles with the better trained, and more skilled Japanese, US Navy was not up to slugging it out with the Japanese Navy at night, particularly against it’s battleships, and cruisers, with a handful of cruisers, and a lot of destroyers. Although it did manage to sink Kongo when the tin cans got in under the battleships guns, and just pelted it with 5″ rounds, I think there was a 6″ cruiser that got in there. But the tin cans took such a beating from the battleships accurate fire, US lost a couple cruisers in that exchange.
One shot from the Japanese battleship, and no more tin can. US Navy did better in daylight.
Carriers are hard to sink, so many watertight compartments, with reasonable damage control, carriers are pretty survivable, however knocking them out of action isn’t so tough, a few 500 pounders to the flight deck, maybe an elevator, and launch/recovery operations come to a screeching halt. US carrier flight decks were not armored, and as such the hangar deck’s took a lot of damage. Fires are devastating, it’s not necessary to sink the ship, taking it out of action is more than adequate. The aircraft destroyed, or forced to land on another carrier, or land base, and the carrier is useless, and defenseless. Not much of a threat, the best it can do is run away, or limp away depending on how many engine’s will run. The nuke carriers after Enterprise have two boilers for four engines. Lose a boiler, lose two engines, that slows down the escape.
WWII carriers, and fast battleships had 8 boilers, four engines. It takes all of them producing 1,200 psi superheated steam to make max speed. (faster than the 32 knots claimed) A bomb detonating can knock out the fire in a boiler, then it must be relit.

Oliver Eitel

will if they defend like the Saudis Oil fields angainst Houtis??? haha American General said alread in Cold war Carriers live for 30 minutes in real war with RUssia….then they are sunk because of missiels

Jesus

Khinzhal is an aero ballistic missile, its performance characteristics are very similar to Iskander missile, I see terminal velocity being higher than supersonic speed since it will be diving on the target.

HiaNd

“terminal velocity being higher than supersonic speed since it will be diving on the target.”
Don’t go there it is physics …common sense logic….not warranted on forums…

Ricky Miller

Diving onto a land based target. How is it going to dive at hypersonic speeds against a mobile, navalized target? It has to know where the target has moved to in order to fly to that location for impact. This means that against mobile targets it must slow to a velocity that allows for internal or external guidance. Communications and most targeting sensors are disrupted at high hypersonic velocities because of the atmospheric plasma environment created by the bow shock of the missile’s passage through the thickening atmosphere. A hypersonic missile targeting a ship will have to slow, receive guidance information or use it’s own sensors, both radar and visual in order to know how to juke and angle it’s flight to fly onto the target instead of just vaporizing several hundred cubic meters of seawater, and ruining Nemo’s day.
Terminal approach speeds in order to properly guide to a mobile target are somewhere in the range of MACH 5.5-5.8. This is awesome, surely. But it’s not a MACH 12 hit.

HiaNd

Nice bed time story with no proves (again) what so ever….
For everything you have said you have NOT SINGLE PROOF !
So far Russia has always respected specs of their own weapons.
Everything that was ever declared by Russians (when it comes to the specs of their weapons) could be only UNDERSTATEMENT – never exaggeration !
Problem of plasma and guidance on such high speed is one of the big problems that US and their “friends” must resolve before having hyper sonic weapons.
Other problems are heat resisting materials ( up to 2000+ Celsius degrees )
and of course ramjet and scram-jet engines.

Ricky Miller

Proof is in Russia’s production. Primary naval weapons? Kalibr. A sea skimmer, supersonic to target. The P-800. Sea skimmer. Supersonic to target. The KH-32. High altitude plunger, supersonic to target. If the Kinzhal represented a real super-weapon against naval vessels than Russia would just be placing land attack cruise missiles on their warships. Yet, they don’t. This article is about the Tu-22. Primary naval attack weapon on the Tu-22? KH-32’s.
The Kinzhal is a navalized bluff. It has to slow to a moving target in order to achieve targeting that can’t happen at high hypersonic flight. It’s great at deterrence, maybe. After all a U.S. Cruiser and Destroyer are both operating in the Black Sea right now. The NATO task group there has just broken treaty convention and surpassed 30,000 tons of naval shipping in the Black Sea. Super-weapon deterrence seems not to be working right.

HiaNd

If the Kinzhal represented a real super-weapon against navaKh-32 vessels than Russia would just be placing land attack cruise missiles on their warships

Kinzhal is not to be launched from slow or static platform since that is something that defeats purpose of the weapon(by significantly reducing SPEED and RANGE)
Russia already have “Zircon”-“Tsirkon” ship born hyper sonic anti-ship missile for that option !

You can’t use supersonic – rocket propulsed missiles with hyper-sonic scram engine missiles in straight foreword comparison and “proof” for something !

You have NO PROOF for your previous statement simply because exact detailed specs on Russian hyper sonic missiles are still top secret

P.S.
“The Kh-32 can reach top speed of over Mach 4 (4 939 km/h) in its terminal phase
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/kh_32.htm

Ricky Miller

I understand that. You have a debate style that tries to score points by pointing out the obvious whilst assuming your other has no knowledge of the obvious. There would be no need for P-800’s, or Kalibr, or KH-32’s if your worldview on these matters had any grip on reality. Why? Nothing to do with initial boosters or launch platforms but because Naval vessels wouldn’t need supersonic missiles at all. Kinzhal’s magically overwhelmingly sink all before them, so why build anything else? It’s foolishness. There is no evidence, zero, none, that hypersonic missiles can sink warships without slowing down for targeting. Zip. And Russia’s procurement says that they are fully aware of that.
But along comes you. You mean well, you are reasonably intelligent and persuasive. Yet, without a single weapons test or any Russian specific claim about hypersonics being effective against mobile warships you would have us believe that naval warfare is over. All those sea-skimmer missiles are fit to rot. And it’s just not true. There is zero evidence that hypersonics are meant to be used as tactical naval weapons at all. That is a far cry from “…U.S. imperialist pirates not coming even close to Russia’s territorial waters.” Which is untrue seeing that an Arleigh Burke Destroyer and a Tico are both in the Black Sea right now and last fall the USS John McCain crossed over the claim line outside Peter the Great Gulf.

Ricky Miller

I’m a big boy, I can take the downvote. There is no evidence that the Kinzhal is anything but a land attack weapon. And if it truly does have an anti-shipping role it will have to trim speed for targeting. It cannot dive onto a moving target at MACH 10 or even 12 without knowing where it’s target is. It can’t gather that information in a hypersonic flight environment, not high hypersonic flight.
If Russia had the goods on this she’d claim as such and show it off for geopolitical effect. Where are the claims that Kinzhals and Tsirkons can fly at MACH 12 all the way to a naval target? Where are the videos of MACH 12 impacts on target ships? Nonexistent. Please, prove me wrong. I’d be delighted to see one and would have a glass of wine to celebrate.
Yes the KH-32 can reach a top terminal speed over MACH 4. MACH 4 is within the threshold for guidance. You made a claim of MACH 12 attacks, well outside the range of targeting capability inside an atmosphere against a moving target. You bold faced provided an example of my point, not yours.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

What makes you think a Kinzhal would have to slow down to hit a target, you don’t think a 100 thousand ton ship can execute a handbrake turn and duck beneath the waves to avoid incoming?
That’s if the ship even sees the missile coming at them at hypersonic speed.
If they can get a missile to hit at supersonic speeds, then it was only a matter of time before they attained higher speeds.
It won’t be the last time Russia leads the world, and the Russians already have quite a few worlds first to their names.

Ricky Miller

I’m proud of Russia for it’s weapons research and for it’s brave push-back against the American imperialist order. But I’m against believing in fairy tale weaponry. Hypersonics don’t work the way most commentators are thinking, not even Surface to Air missiles. Against any mobile target it must be guided. It can’t be while at high hypersonic flight, and that’s an inconvienient fact. The warship doesn’t have to dodge in the way you suggest, it simply needs to be in a different location. The hypersonic missile must know this location not at the beggining of the flight but instead near to the approach to the target. To have this information it must be told or discover such through it’s own onboard targeting mechanisms.

A true hypersonic tactical naval missile in the real world would fly at hypersonic speed to the target AREA. It then runs out of fuel or suspends it’s fuel burn, leaving the payload part of the projectile. It’s flying too fast to use targeting sensors to the degree it needs to in order to find a little ship on a big ocean, and communications with the outside are difficult to impossible because of the interference environment created by the missile’s hypersonic flight through the air medium. It has to bleed speed. It can do so by using flaps and or swaying in flight in a series of oblique turns. It does so in a manner designed to bring it to MACH 6 or so near to or just short of the target area last known location. It is then either guided to target in final approach or uses optical and or radar sensors to find the target, a method more vulnerable to jamming and decoy. The missile uses it’s remaining flight velocity to approach the target, diving on it while trimming it’s flight to steer toward it. Impact isn’t MACH 12, or MACH 10. or MACH 8. That was top velocity during transit. Impact speed would probably be something on the order of MACH 4. Maybe 5 if the targeting navigation was fortunate during transit, meaning the missile got lucky as to where it was relative to target when hypersonic flight turned to the guidance phase.
The targeting model many commenters are thinking of is actually the KH-32. Launched from a Tu-22 the missile heads up near stratospheric, making it hard to target. It’s maximum speed is MACH 4.5 and so it remains guided during it’s entire flight or has the ability to use internal navigation and sensor targeting during the entire flight. Above the naval target is then dives down directly onto the target. It might reach a top impact speed of MACH 5.5 depending on factors such as the target’s distance from the Tu-22 during launch and how fast the Tu-22 was flying during the missiles’ release. Hypersonic missiles cannot work this way against naval targets, but they can against land targets. I mean a hypersonic could work this way against a naval vessel if the ship agrees to stay in one place and take it like a man.

Ricky Miller

Against a fixed target. Avangard is not a weapon for tactical Naval warfare. Flying at MACH 27 is one thing. Flying at that speed and being directed or guided onto a moving target is another. Provide me with any example of any hypersonic missile or glider striking a moving target at velocities greater than MACH 6, and I’ll send you $100. I can’t find even a claim that it’s been done. Do it for me.

Jesus

The Russians have means of communicating with the missile through the plasma cloud created by the missile, and I am sure terminal guidance is determined by sensors and the target seeker on the missile.

The Avangard HGV flies a lot faster through the atmosphere and it can maneuver, the plasma cloud is not an issue to communicate externally or gather data on its own and determine its trajectory.

Same thing with the zircon, the very essence of hypersonic attack on targets is to render present day defenses obsolete and without remedy.

Ricky Miller

Avangard is a strategic weapon, not a tactical naval one. It’s following an internal navigation program to assault a fixed target, and won’t even have to hit it directly, being a strategic payload.
Tsirkons have been tested…against land targets. There has not been a Russian claim, video, or anything related to a navalized strike on a target by Kinzhal or Tsirkon. There are plenty of video’s of P-800 and other strike platforms shredding naval target ships with supersonic strikes, sans warheads. But none of hypersonics.

Look, I’m with you. I’m encouraged by Russia and China’s weapons progress and there is a lot to be excited about. I’m firmly behind Russia’s foreign policy goals, etc. But I think there is way more confidence and smacktalk being thrown around in these forums than we can take or should take seriously. Russia hasn’t arrived at some safe place with these new weapons and sometimes people become a little more enthusiastic than they should be in regarding their capabilities. That’s my point. I mean two years ago I had to calm someone down who thought that videos of Pantsir systems being destroyed in drone strikes meant that the system was junk and wouldn’t work to protect Russian soldiers against drone strikes. Conversations and claims beyond reality had convinced him of their “magical” combat qualities beyond all reason. No, pantsirs and the missiles they employ are competitive weapons; sometimes they’ll destroy drones and shoot down attacking missiles and sometimes they’ll be destroyed. Military, not magic. Some people are falling for the overconfident thinking that hypersonics are like a Russian superman and the end of history. Nope. So far, there is zero evidence that a hypersonic missile can be directed onto a mobile naval target while still at hypersonic speeds above MACH 6. None. it’s important to stay in a zone of realism regarding these weapons.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

You missed the state trials of the latest Russian frigates then, they successfully hit targets with hypersonic weapons in testing.
If they weren’t successful, Russia wouldn’t be deploying them.

Ricky Miller

They successfully struck land based targets. Suddenly, my fellow pro-Russia netizens believe that Tsirkons now have proven ASM capabilities too. Unproven and not even a capability claimed by official Russia. Vladimir Putin himself brought them up realitive to a do the math comment related to Yasen-M class submarines targeting the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Tsirkon’s probably are a great missile but they too will have to slow for targeting information as they near terminal approach. So far there is no proof or even claim otherwise, except for internet people who want so badly for it to be true. I want it to be true also but will not think that way until we KNOW it, and part of the way we’ll know it is Russia itself slowing production and placement of more proven anti-ship missiles.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

I’m not in charge of testing, but if Russia says it can target ships with hypersonic missiles, then I believe them.
I doubt Russia would load up a Mig31 with anti ship missiles, if they didn’t work.

My reason for believing, well that comes from the march of progress. Who would have believed that guided missiles were real at all, before the Germans started inter city missile strikes with un heard of weaponry, in the 1940s!
We send craft travelling at hypersonic speeds to Mars, and if you think Mars is just sitting there, then I can see why you don’t believe in hypersonic objects finding moving targets.
Mathematics says all this is possible, Russian production lines prove it.
The Russians won’t be firing hypersonic missiles at every ship, why are you so confused about Russia still producing cruise missiles that don’t go hyper? Also range has a lot to do with missile selection, there is no point firing a missile at subsonic speed to a ship a thousand miles away, you may as well post it to them, unless it is a hypersonic missile which has the speed to approach that ship in less time the it takes that ship to move away from a targeted area. Ships move slowly, electronics work at light speed. There is no need to fire a Kinzhal at a ship you can see, which is why Russia still produces other ASM systems.

Ricky Miller

There is no Russian claim that hypersonic missiles are engineered for ASM duties. They sort of suggest it by location of some drills and moving squadrons around for testing. But to date all Russian hypersonics have only been directed at land based targets. It’s internet sites and commentators not associated with the Russian government where these capabilities have been expanded to an already successful ASM role. There is not one report anywhere of a Russian Kinzhal or Tsirkon test against a naval target. Not one. They are deployed for use against land based targets like missile sites and airfields.
This site is a great example. The article is about the TU-22 penetrating enemy defenses in drills. Yet these drills showed no Kinzhal missiles being carried, in fact the only missile I saw was a taxiway shot of a KH-22 being carried on a bird not later shown in flight operations. And no way a Kinzhal even being flight tested reaches MACH 10 when launched from a Tu-22. That’s Mig-31 territory. No claims or videos have ever been shown from official Russia of a hypersonic missile striking a ship. As cheerleaders some of us on the internet have placed a cart before the horse. If Kinzhal’s or Tsirkon’s are tested against target shipping they will fly to the target area at hypersonic velocity and then lose speed to MACH 6 or so for targeting. You can take that to the Bank.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Have you read Wiki, The Diplomat, Naval News, Meta-Defence or the Barents Observer? RT, Sputnik, RBTH, they all describe Kinzhal as intended to hit carriers and other high value targets at a greater stand off distance.

None of them agree with you, and why would the Russians take a hypersonic, land launched weapon like the Iskander, which is used for attacking land targets, and turn it into an aircraft launched weapon, for hitting land targets?
You accept that the Russians have long held a Mach 4.5 anti ship missile, that is targeted at ships, but you seem to be aware of some Law of Physics where that speed and targeting is impossible beyond the speeds generated a generation ago. What Laws are you quoting?
You must be aware that no Western nation has non ballistic missiles capable of speeds greater than M3.5, which shows just how far the West is behind Russia on missile tech. The US would love to make a Tomahawk hypersonic, but they do not have the capability to do so.

Again, if you think Russia loaded a Mig31K with Kinzhals as NATO sent a flotilla to Syria, so that they could hit land targets their Iskander can already do by themselves, then you are living in denial. The Kinzhal has no need to be loaded on a plane so as to attack ground targets exclusively, so the worlds press and Russian media have it right, the Kinzhal is a hypersonic anti ship or whatever target it needs to hit missile.
It’s all in the guidance system, the speed is just a number that was always attainable, with the proper research and more modern technology/materials.

Ricky Miller

None of them claim that these missiles strike the target at maximum velocity. None of them specifically say that Naval vessels are a target of the Kinzhal. If you have a specific quote that I’ve missed feel free to share. I reviewed again today and can find no official Russian declaration that Kinzhal is intended for anti-shipping duties, although I believe it to be true. I have also seen no claims that a Kinzhal or even a Tsirkon has hit a Naval target during testing. And no claim at all anywhere to support the assertion here that they are capable of targeting a moving Naval vessel while flying at peak hypersonic velocity.
Reality, as far as I can see: Kinzhal and Tsirkon missiles have been successful in striking ground targets. Both missiles have been hinted at having a Naval attack role yet official Russia hasn’t said that. And official or otherwise no source of information I tread in has even claimed a successful anti-shipping strike, let alone where the test ship was underway and even far removed from that any claim that a Naval target was struck beyond Mach 6, the seeming speed limit for atmospheric guidance. I could be wrong, please include a source mated to a quote or claim that I can navigate to and check.
I also have not seen any claim that Mig-31K’s or BM’s or BSM’s for that matter have ever operated in Syria. And in no instance do I recall Mig-31K’s being used in flight operations to force NATO task groups farther out to sea. Even now a huge treaty violating NATO task group is in the Black Sea and EAD has an article about Russian aviation up and about to push back with flight operations. Mig-31K’s nor Tu-22 were mentioned as responders. Again, this is not reality based cheerleading for Russia, but more like wishlist based cheering.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

What’s more specific than Russian claims it can hit sea based targets? As the Russians said, it is a hypersonic missile that can hit targets at land or sea. I don’t see the need to go further than that. Common sense tells me it’s a high value weapon, intended for high value targets, or military dissuasion, as the Syrian incident showed. Russia strongly condemned the soon to be carried out attack to Syria by large NATO forces moving towards the Eastern Med. The Russians promised immediate action against any craft that fired missiles which may injure or kill any Russian troops in Syria. Russia highlighted how it was putting into immediate service and state of high readiness, Mig31K with Kinzhals mounted, that could hit any craft that launched missiles into Syria. The Migs patrolled the Black Sea areas while on this mission.
NATO forces abandoned their positions in the Eastern Med, sailed West and fired their missiles from the Red and Arabian seas, far from any Mig31Ks.

That’s not cheerleading, these were facts. Migs went to the air with Kinzhals, NATO forces withdrew from the Eastern Med. Crisis averted, the West believe/realise they are vulnerable, job done.
The Black Sea states are responsible for the Montreaux Convention, not solely Russia. If Turkey refuses to enforce the rules they are responsible for due to their position in the Bosporus, then I’m sure Russia will also disregard the treaty and build nuclear powered aircraft carriers for their navy in Crimea and base more nuclear powered systems within the region. As for NATO ships breaking the 30 thousand tonnage rule by a thousand tons, it’s hardly going to keep the Russkies awake at night, knowing that 2 US ships are sailing within point blank range of Russia. The Yanks however, will scream blue murder to the Turks should Russian nuclear powered carriers and subs ever start pouring out into the Eastern Med at will though.

The “simple” maths are the solution to increasing speed, accuracy and targeting systems, and obviously, the Russians have cracked it first.

Ricky Miller

Demonstrate please that this has been done. In what news source when and where has Russia or any reputable publication claimed a successful Mach 6+ test of a guided missile onto a moving target? I know that an Iskander missile was used to strike a fuel convoy inside Syria, the trucks reportedly in motion but the Iskander is a MACH 5.5 missile.
Any example apart from that, at speeds greater than MACH 6, guided to target and after reading your source I’ll send you $100.

rightiswrong rightiswrong

Hypersonic speed is over Mach 5. Zircon, Aventgard, Kinzhal, have all passed that speed, which is why they are referred to as hypersonic, by the worlds media.
Would you believe it, I was out when Russia sent me the audit of the weapons test.

You’re on the internet, a simple google will do. When I tell you something, you start twaddling on about specifics. I couldn’t give a flying duck what you believe, it’s your choice. As they say, I had some time on my hands, and now I don’t.

Luddites and time wasters have a limited time span, and yours is up.

Ricky Miller

Prove it. That’s what I ask. I want to believe yet Russian tests of these missiles clearly state that they were directed against ground targets. Do you have information I can navigate to of a successful high hypersonic test against any moving target at all, let alone a Naval target underway?

Jesus

The very need to attack a target at hypersonic speeds is to render existing air defenses useless.
A lot of these hypersonic weapons are fire and forget type of weapons that have the guidance technology to attack naval targets.

After all the Chinese use ballistic missiles against a carrier strike force using the warhead as a hypersonic glide vehicle…Russians can at least do as much or better.

Here is some text on APAA guidance technology used in context of air to air missile:

The K-77 is reported by Russian sources to have a range of 193km, longer than the top American missile the AIM-120D which reaches 180km, but short of the Chinese PL-15 which reaches an estimated 250-300km. What makes the K-77’s introduction particularly significant, aside from its more compact size and longer range, is the fact that its active phased array antenna (APAA) guidance technologies make it extremely accurate even against small and agile targets at extreme ranges. A sophisticated radar system in the missile’s nose can overcome the radar’s “field of view”problem, allowing the missile to retain a lock 360 degrees around itself, and thereby preventing fighters from evading its “field of view” by ducking past it. This will provide the missile with a ‘no escape range’ several times as long as that on the R-77, and much longer than those of the AIM-120D or PL-15. Russian state media outlet RT explained the APAA technology used by the K-77 as follows: “An active phased array antenna consists of a large number of cone-shaped cells installed under a transparent-to-radio-waves cap on the nose of the missile. Each cell receives only a part of the signal, but once digitally processed, the information from all cells is summarised into a ‘full picture,’ enabling the K-77M missile to immediately respond to sharp turns of the target, making interception practically inevitable.”Integration of the K-77 is but the latest example of the Su-57 fighter pioneering groundbreaking new technologies which other countries may only later begin to develop themselves.

APAA guidance systems on hypersonic system is viable, allowing the weapon to see the target from at least 2-300 kms away and zero on it at speeds of 3kms per second…..having about 100 seconds to make the final adjustments to hit the target.

Ricky Miller

You’re talking about air to air missiles flying at MACH 5.5. I’ll concede guidance up to MACH 5.8 or maybe slightly beyond. Note that Russia doesn’t directly say they have a MACH 9 missile all the way to target, including during terminal approach. Hypersonic flight doesn’t mean hypersonic in all flight phases. We are talking apples and oranges.

Jesus

Again, APPA guidance technology can be applied to any weapon that is fire and forget type.

Ricky Miller

There is no evidence that Chinese missiles like the DF-21 and DF-26 attack at hypersonic speeds during terminal approach. In fact their ability to do so has long been questioned by Western military professionals. And China doesn’t claim such. It’s most likely that the missile payloads, an anti-ship glider or warhead, bleeds speed and begins terminal guidance at MACH 5.8 or so. There is no evidence anywhere worldwide of a successful missile strike against a moving target at any velocity above MACH 6.

Jesus

There is no evidence because neither China and Russia advertise. I saw an animated u tube rendition of the DF21 and the deployment of the warhead in space. At that point the warhead and its deploying vehicle move at about 6kms per second. As it enters the atmosphere it slows down some, however, the gravitation pull maintains a respectable speed.

“”” There is no evidence anywhere worldwide of a successful missile strike against a moving target at any velocity above MACH 6.”””

Because it is not advertised, they have stimulators and develop realistic models how the weapon will operate…….and how do you plan to slow a hypersonic missile to a high supersonic one?
Do you have any viable data that supports your dogmatic assertion?

Ricky Miller

A respectable speed that drops every second as air resistance is stronger than gravity. All ballistic missiles release their payload which is then a hypersonic glide weapon, no longer under powered flight. I’d need to Yandex for you articles and books on ballistic missile technology to “prove it.”

I searched today and found no evidence for a claim about Kinzhal being tested as an ASM of any sort. I used a search engine and checked all the usual suspects, including EAD, RT, Sputnik, and more. The best descriptions I came across were professional sites who all claim that Kinzhal is an Iskander ballistic missile carried aloft for greater speed and range.
But you have the cart before the horse, again. Russia does not claim that these missiles are high hypersonic all the way to target, or that they remain under thrust, which would be a ridiculous paradigm shift. People here involved in group think regarding how this technology works began and continue spreading the confusion around, going so far as to make outlandish claims that Russia does not herself in any way make, not even close. Yet I am supposed to prove that they don’t operate like every other ballistic object used as a weapon, like, ever? Even though Russia doesn’t claim or provide evidence for the kind of leap here regarding how this stuff works?

Jesus

http://www.youtube.com › watch

Video for did russian hypersonic missiles hit any naval targets

9:30

… GIFT-ZIRCON HYPERSONIC MISSILE HITS A NAVAL TARGET WITH MACH 8 … which was the birthday …

Oct 23, 2020 · Uploaded by Defense Updates

Ricky Miller

I have not trusted Defense Updates videos since they falsely claimed that TASS outed the deaths of 45 PLA soldiers in the fight with India. Which TASS didn’t do, and which didn’t occur. Defense Updates also uses altered images and isn’t trustworthy. If there were images released of MACH 9 hits on warships during tests the Russian MOD would be releasing them and we’d see them on RT, TASS, LENTA, and so on. There would be huge discussions beyond SF. There would be hysteria untold in the West, especially Washington D.C. Not just on some little Western propaganda site designed to spread Western orthodoxy and generate defense urgency in Western legislatures.

Note, Tsirkon missiles have been used in an anti-shipping test, images not released. But the fact that the missile is capable of reaching MACH 9 during it’s flight and the fact that it is capable of targeting shipping doesn’t therefore mean that it impacts it’s target at MACH 9, or anywhere close. It’s a ballistic missile. Until proven otherwise we have to consider that it behaves like one, and Russian professionals don’t make any claim saying it doesn’t, if one reads them carefully. Being a ballistic missile the payload, or warhead, falls toward it’s target losing speed. It’s true the world over.

Jesus

An official Kremlin account confirmed that Putin had been informed of the test launch the day after in a video conference with the Chief of the General Staff, First Deputy Minister of Defense Valery Gerasimov. The Russian defense chief told Putin that the missile achieved a maximum altitude of 17.4 miles and hit its target after a flight time of four and a half minutes.

Zircon, also sometimes transliterated as Tsirkon, achieved a speed of “more than Mach 8” before striking a target located 280 miles away in the Barents Sea during the test.

280 miles= 450.5 kms.
450.5 : 280 seconds = 1.6 kms per second or Mach 5.3.

Cold launch, attaining supper sonic speed in order to attain hypersonic speed possibly a minute or less….or more.

450 kms : 220 seconds = 2.18 kms per second or Mach 7.25.

Ricky Miller

Don’t buy it. This is a political story you’re quoting, not a military or professional source. In fact there is no evidence of a successful Naval impact of any of these missiles at all, let alone an impact against a moving target, or the same under combat conditions including decoys. On top of that there is a problem with the launch images, which appear to show a P-800 launch from the Admiral Gorshkov, not a Tsirkon. Although it could have been a navalized Iskander, but the climb out flight profile matches a P-800. All this is covered by H.I. Sutton in an article at his Covert Shores web page on November 5, 2020 titled “Russia’s much vaunted Zircon Hypersonic Missile Launch: not all that it seems?”

HiaNd

Those are ballistic missiles, they all fly hyper sonic speed !
Of course they fly hyper-sonic speed (check any modern ballistic missile speed (even old US ) )
There is no way they can slow it down or “bleed the speed” (even more absurd ) even if they want to do it.

Ricky Miller

Yes, they can but only slightly. All ballistic warheads slow to between MACH 2 and MACH 3 anyway, due to air resistance. If a ballistic warhead is spun clockwise as opposed to counter-clockwise it’s course will be different through the atmosphere. Warheads, at least Russian warheads designed to defeat ABM defenses can also deploy small flaps, sealed to the warhead hull via powerful magnets. The flaps are used for evasion, although this evasion includes a velocity drop. One magnetic side releases and a small flap pops up on four sides of the warhead. This retards the devices speed by a few meters per second, continuing each second. But not for long, as the entire magnet releases perhaps 15-30 seconds after, stopping the braking and giving the weapon a standard fall again, and shallowing up it’s trajectory. In effect, this is a double juke. Kinetic kill ABM’s like the USA Empire prefers must be in a precise Intercept point at an exact second. Two warhead changes in inertia is enough to make them miss by tens of meters which might as well be tens of light years. Also, Laser and microwave weapons would have to work longer to maintain a lock. Even if they win they lose because this warhead is most likely being followed by another they are too busy to Intercept. And Russian warheads attacking high value targets no doubt have internal sensors that register a dangerous heat buildup and a second before critical damage is done that might prevent the detonation chain of events, the sensor will trigger early. It might be 3100 meters above the target and not 750 but the damage will still be stupendous.

Ricky Miller

I should have said halting in the shallowing up of trajectory. The shallowing will occur during braking and stop after the full magnetic release.

Jesus

From what I read plasma clouds are not an impediment to the seeker head to find the target, or to maintain external guidance.

HiaNd

23.02.2020
Prototype of Hypersonic Missile Designed for Su-57 Fighter Jet Ready for Testing – Reports
Late last year, Russian aerospace and defence giant United Aircraft Corporation confirmed that new weapons systems designed especially for the Su-57 had been developed or were in active development, without elaborating.
A prototype hypersonic missile designed for use aboard Russia’s new Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter has been created, a defence sector source had told Russian media.
The source described the missile as a small, air-to-surface weapon designed to be carried inside the plane’s fuselage, and said it has yet to be tested aboard the plane.
https://sputniknews.com/military/202002231078387903-prototype-of-hypersonic-missile-designed-for-su-57-fighter-jet-ready-for-testing–reports/

cechas vodobenikov

a few silly comments below.
a hypersonic does not need to sink a pathetic amerikan vessel; it is sufficient to transform it into a burning fireworks display swimming lesson program for their LGBT navy

107
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x