Russia To Test Its Cutting Edge Kinzhal Hypersonic Complex Aboard Tu-22M3 Strategic Bombers

Donate

Russia To Test Its Cutting Edge Kinzhal Hypersonic Complex Aboard Tu-22M3 Strategic Bombers

The Tupolev Tu-22M3 strategic bombers. Source: Vadim Savitsky/TASS

Russia needs to test its cutting edge Kinzhal hypersonic complex abord Tu-22M3 strategic bombers, former Commander of Russia’s Long-Range Aviation Mikhail Oparin told TASS on July 2.

“The tests are needed to see whether it [the bomber] will be capable of accelerating the missile and to get the results. For long-range aircraft pilots, the missile is sooner of the tactical scope but at the same time it has clear advantages by its capabilities of breaching enemy anti-ballistic missile defenses,” Oparin said adding that the Tu-22M3 strategic bomber “suits perfectly” for Kinzhal hypersonic missiles’ trials by its mass and volume characteristics.

“I believe it is speed that matters. The MiG-31 has higher supersonic speed than the Tu-22M3 but now that a possibility has emerged to test the missiles aboard a long-range plane, this has to be done. This will raise the combat potential of the Aerospace Force and add might to it.”

Earlier TASS reported citing a source in the Russian defense industry earlier that the Kinzhal complex would be tested aboard the Tu-22M3 strategic bomber.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Rob

    Breaking: Very fantastic news are coming.

  • RichardD

    The bomber can probably carry quite a few of them, which will be a real force multiplier allowing far greater targeting capability of a larger number of enemy targets in a shorter period of time. Such as countering a mass attack with a retaliatory mass attack. That neutralizes the attacks and prevents follow up attacks from the sources of the initial attack. It also makes any attack far more costly if a lot of the equipment used to launch it gets destroyed during the initial attack.

    • Daniel Castro

      A wonder if this isn’t going to break the strategic agreements regarding nuclear triad.

      • RichardD

        In what way?

        • Daniel Castro

          Well, if it increases the ammount of strategic nuclear weapons because of the reach of the bomber in adition with the missile.

          But I guess this is a non-issue because you can say all these agreements are pretty much in the past at this stage…

          • jako

            What are you talking about?
            Dagger is not “strategic nuclear weapon” !
            It is CONVENTIONAL anti-ship missile.

          • Daniel Castro

            If it is used in a long range bomber it will almost have enough reach to be considered strategic, and it can be armed with a nuke.

            At the moment tu-22m is not considered an strategic bomber, but if you give it a missile with 3000kms of reach then it will, khinjal reach is 2000kms.

          • jako

            There is NO “strategic” as category for non-nuclear weapons.
            You should revise again your information’s on that subject.

            Many things “can be armed with a nuke” but as long as they don’t carry nukes they are NOT “strategic” weapons.
            Short range ballistic missiles exist in nuke and non nuke option so (apart from range) that factor takes them out of being called “strategic”.

            Russia has cruise missiles that can go up to 4.500 km already
            But they are usually carried by TU-160 long range “strategic” bomber so no need for you to make new arrangements (with ANTI-SHIP “strategic” missiles) that doesn’t exist (if they do give me the link please to prove me wrong)

          • Daniel Castro

            The agreements are about the delivery platforms (i.e.: strategic subs, strategic bombers, ICBM), not the number of nukes you have on the ground, if you create a missile which will transform tu-22m from tactical bomber to strategic bomber then you will breach the agreements.

            “Many things “can be armed with a nuke” but as long as they don’t carry nukes and are not used on”strategic” targets they are NOT “strategic” weapons.”

            Wrong. That’s why Putin says time and again that NATO ABM in europe breach the agreements because they use launch tuber which can be armed with cruise missiles, not only air-to-air missiles. You can’t really see what is going on inside your enemy bases, if he can just as easily remove a conventional warhead of a missile and switch it to a nuke, the weapon platform is the problem, not the nuke.

            But khinjal still won’t do it, for that russians will have to develop a cruise missile with longer reach, but there is no real point in doing this as they already have the leverage.

          • jako

            I wasn’t talking about airplane but the missiles !

            “Wrong. That’s why Putin says time and again that NATO ABM in europe breach the agreements because they use launch tuber which can be armed with cruise missiles,”

            WHY is “wrong” ? Do you even know WHICH missiles are those to be used and if they are called “strategic” ?!! You probably do not have clue yetr you say I am “wrong”?!?

            Iskander is short range ballistic nuclear missile but it is not “strategic” !

            You probably do not have clue why is something called “strategic” that’s why you write your silly story !
            Give me the NAMES OF THE MISSILES please !

            It is NOT “khinjal” but “Khinzal = Dagger”

            “But khinjal still won’t do it, for that russians will have to develop a cruise missile with longer reach”

            This is TOTAL ignorance! Dagger is ANTI-SHIP missile !!!
            And cruise missile is something else it can not be replaced with “cruise missile ” !

            I had it !!!! You IGNORANCE insults me !!
            I already had that Jesus IDIOT going on my nerves now is your turn ?!
            I have you explaining to me yet you DO NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC difference between ANTI-SHIP and CRUISE-missile! Fuck that!

            The conversation is FINISHED for me !!!

          • Daniel Castro

            “This is TOTAL ignorance! Dagger is ANTI-SHIP missile !!!
            And cruise missile is something else it can not be replaced with “cruise missile ”

            My friend, I know there is a language barrier, but try to udnerstand what I’m saying.

            My original question was if the dagger could be considered strategic weapon when used with tu-22m because of longer reach, and on one of my post I already answered that sayng it isn’t. So you are right, the dagger is not strategic.

            From there I was just pondering on the possibility a new type of missile could be made to give tu-22m a longer reach, thus possibily giving the airplane strategic role. Of course such missile do not exist, but I think it could be easily made with current technology.

            “I had it !!!! You IGNORANCE insults me !!”

            You probably had a tough day, take a break, there is no reason to lose temper over this.

          • jako

            For the final and last time there is NO such thing as anti-ship “strategic”‘ missile !
            You (like Jesus false expert) claim something you can not prove
            Give me the link that “anti-ship “strategic”‘ missile” has ever existed or exist today!
            You DO NOT HAVE IT !
            Yet you keep repeating same nonsense words like parrot!

            I know what your claim was.
            i can copy paste it but I will not do it because I am sick and tired of this disgusting conversation.
            Also anti-ship missiles can NOT be replaced with cruise missiles!
            It can NOT be done!

            “I was just pondering on the possibility a new type of missile could be made to give tu-22m a longer reach”

            Well “my friend” you were “pondering” wrong.
            This is anti-ship missile not cruise missile.
            Also they already have long range cruise missiles that can go up to 4.500km
            For comparison Kalibr cruise missiles has declared range of 1500km

            “You probably had a tough day”
            I had apart from tough day this Jesus whom I am going to block now!
            I’m going to delete my comments and block that fucking idiot !

          • Daniel Castro

            Are you crazy? Read the post you’re answering to.

            One more time. I said long time ago, long before you started insulting me for no reason, that dagger is not strategic.

            I only said that an strategic missile for tu22m could be made, but there is none.

            If you’re looking for a fight go after some of the russophobes on this site, I’m not one of them.

          • jako

            The name of “prompt global strike ” missiles please?!
            I need the NAME of that MISSILE(S) !

          • Daniel Castro

            PBS is a military doctrine based on very precise attacks aiming at strategic targets in a very short period of time to cripple the enemy nuclear capabilities before he can strike back.

            Any long or even medium range missile, which is very precise can be used in this strategy.

          • jako

            Do not go Wikipedia on me I can read that crap myself if I want to!

            NAME of the MISSILES PLEASE !?

          • Daniel Castro

            1) This is a very high technology and a lot is classified. Go watch Putin talking about this, he talks about this several times, Inessa S is a good youtube channel to find these videos. In theory any long or medium range very precise missile can be used for this strategy.

            2) You are the missile expert, I bow to your superior knowledge, if you say there are no long range very precise missiles which can desabilitate strategic targets in USA or Russia it must be true. :One could wonder you have more classified information about russian missiles than Putin himself.

          • jako

            Yeah “classified”
            but we are lucky to have YOU who knows everything about it or just “enough” to continue his bullshit…

            I am not going to watch anybody !
            I have asked you about the names of the missile and all you always have is bull explanations !
            Something that doesn’t have name it doesn’t exist officially !

            I am “missile NOBODY ” but I read sometime people who know lot!
            And I have problem when people here have declarations that doesn’t comply with the reality.
            I never have said there are no ” long range very precise missiles which can desabilitate strategic targets” !!

            I have said that Dagger being anti-ship missile is NOT STRATEGIC MISSILE and can NOT become one even if you put nuke W.H. in it !
            NOBODY USE anti-ship missile to replace cruise missile or ballistic missile !

            Good bye !

          • Daniel Castro

            “I have said that Dagger being anti-ship missile is NOT STRATEGIC MISSILE ”

            I also said this, but it seems it was somewhat lost due to communication issues, it may be my fault, but it can be also due to your bad temper.

            “and can NOT become one even if you put nuke W.H. in it !”

            That you don’t know, and neither any of those missiles experts you read would ever write about classified matters. But logics easily show us an anti-ship missile can be adapted for land attack. The houthi are even adapting air-air missiles turning them into balistic missiles.

            “NOBODY USE anti-ship missile to replace cruise missile or ballistic missile !”

            That is because we are not in all-out war between great powers.

            Goo bye to you too.

          • jako

            I didn’t want to answer you but your ignorance goes on my nerves.*

            “The houthi are even adapting air-air missiles turning them into balistic missiles.”

            Here GENIUS you have AIR to GROUND missile (taken from the airplane or chopper) used as GROUND to GROUND !! But are they really those missiles ground to ground ? NO they are NOT!!!!!!!

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LQ0D1HStGR8/TZvYigEfcZI/AAAAAAAANHU/G38bODfoDMw/s1600/Untitled.jpg

          • Daniel Castro

            I had meant ground to air:

            “The Houthis have also modified Soviet missiles for use in the war, including the Qaher 2, which is a domestically modified Soviet SA-2 missile that boasts a range of over 300 km. This Qaher 2, which contains a 200-to-400 kg warhead, struck a military base located 966 km south of Riyadh on April 1, 2018, making it the very first Yemeni rocket to reach such a distance.”

            https://southfront.org/yemens-houthis-see-ballistic-missiles-as-last-hope-to-deter-saudi-agression/

            Now, your ignorance is shown for everyone to see it, pathetic know it all arrogant bastard.

            You like cursing, here is one for you:

            Fuck you, asshole!

          • jako

            IF “Soviet SA-2 missile ” was truly MODIFIED than it is not any longer ground to air but ground to ground so your point is NOT VALID anyway !
            If not truly MODIFIED than it is same bollocks like from the photo where they use it the best they can and hit something if they are lucky.

            “Fuck you, asshole!”

            Thank you “expert” for showing only human!
            I’m glad you will shut up finally !

          • Daniel Castro

            “There is NO “strategic” as category for non-nuclear weapons.
            You should revise again your information’s on that subject.”

            There is, it is called prompt global strike.

            Or perhaps you mean there are no agreements regarding PBS doctrine, then you are right.

            But having no agreements do not make them less strategic.

          • jako

            WHATEVER just leave me ALONE !

          • jako

            “There is, it is called prompt global strike.”
            True “prompt global strike” is something US keeps talking for quite some time but WHERE are the missiles?

            I can see that you have been Googling to gather “knowledge”.
            Than you must Google some more and
            find me the NAME of that MISSILE(S) !

            I am 1000% sure that you don’t have it .

          • Daniel Castro

            Even Putin talks about this saying NATO expected Russia to give away its nukes to be vulnerable to precise strikes.

            Do you even read my posts, I said there are no such missiles, and I said on one of my 1st posts that dagger is not strategic.

          • jako

            First thing first!
            Answer it FIRST please on “anti-ship “strategic”‘ missile” !

            “Just give me the link that “anti-ship “strategic”‘ missile” has ever existed or exist today?!”!

            THE LINK PLEASE !

          • Daniel Castro

            Any anti-ship missile can be easily adapted for land strikes, it already has nuke capability.

            But as I said, dagger is not strategic.

            Repeat after me:

            1) Daniel Castro stated that Dagger russian missile is not strategic missile.

            2) Daniel Castro never stated there are strategic anti-ship missiles.

            Do you need me to sign these statements, stamp on the registry office and send this to you in a official letter?

          • jako

            “but if you give it a missile with 3000kms of reach then it will, khinjal reach is 2000kms”

            So you suggest that Russia will need that option to sink the ships 5000 km away from Russia ? Maybe but not so much.
            This bomber is above all better because it is bomber and can carry much more than interceptor MIG-31.
            The problem is that “Dagger” need great speed already from the launch
            (that’s why they use MIG-31) to achieve Mach 10 speed every time.

            Mach 10 speed is twice speed of the exploding shrapnel and much faster than bullet.
            So when missile hits the carrier deck it will enter deep into the ship before explodes.

          • John Whitehot

            yes, but don’t forget that carriers have a ridiculous amount of buoyancy.
            just punching holes into them is not enough to sink them.

            i still think that the best weapon to deal with a carrier is a 65cm “Kit” torpedo exploding under their keel.

          • jako

            Not all single torpedoes can sink air carriers either

            I was talking about “punching ONE hole” from above and exploding INSIDE making maximum damage.
            So read again what I have wrote if you don’t believe.

            I’m not an expert but I have learnt from those who are (experts) that ONE Soviet SUPER-sonic missile like “Shipwreck” can sink carrier.
            So if you are in mood to go in all those details go and discuss with them.

            Now Russians will use faster missiles to disable defenses (that are more capable than 30 years ago) and sink it with nuke tipped missile.
            With Dagger they don’t need even that tactics.

            There are some very big and powerful torpedoes just like very powerfull missiles.
            So I don’t think your rule that torpedoes are straight forward “better” than missiles is valid.
            It always depends where it hits.

          • John Whitehot

            “So I don’t think your rule that torpedoes are straight forward “better” than missiles is valid.”

            It is valid, because torpedoes explode underneath, where is the largest amount of water (because by definition ships have their keel immersed), and their explosion goes up, involving upper bridges and technology, while missiles can’t, by definition, hit below the waterline, no matter their speed or warhead.

            3 65cm torpedoes exploding in 3 different places under the keel have an almost 100% chance to break the ship; if one of them hits an airplane munition magazine it becomes sure.

            3 p700 granits may disable a carrier, but also may not.

            “It always depends where it hits.”

            No doubt, yet the commanders of the attacking side don’t know where the hits are going to happen and they have to allocate their resources according to tactics which are based on the requirement of sinking the ships.

            In any case, the discussion may be pointless, as if Russia or China forces have been given the mission to sink a US carrier, there is already a large chance that nuclear weapon usage is warranted.

            In that case the chances that the carrier manages to perform any part of its mission are close to zero, because if nukes are involved, carrier groups and relative amphibious groups cannot effectively defend theirselves.

          • Tim Hadfield

            Shot placement is all.

          • Jesus

            Hypersonic weapons unleash tremendous kinetic energy at point of impact, aside from a 750kgs warhead. The carrier skin is paper thin, primary, secondary, tertiary explosions would take the carrier down.
            The torpedo would exact damage according to its explosive power of the warhead.

          • Wise Gandalf

            But ruskie weapons are so unprecize, that never hit the target :DDDDD

          • Gary Sellars

            Stupid muppet…

          • Luke Hemmming

            Maybe Gandalf the white could conjur up a spell or two to help?

          • jako

            “The carrier skin is paper thin”

            yeah paper air carriers ! bravo how intelligent !
            ;-))))))))))))))

            “primary, secondary, tertiary explosions”……
            sextiary, septiary explosions …and so into infinity !

          • James

            Even if you could get the carrier lop-sided, aircraft could no longer take off and it would have to limp home at the risk of further attack.

          • jako

            “aircraft could no longer take off”

            True
            even, superficial damages of the deck can do that
            But if something has damaged engine than air carrier is dead duck.

          • John Whitehot

            mission kill?

            possible, in theoretical scenarios. But i’d say that, if I managed to cripple a carrier and made it go limp, I won’t let her repair and go home, unless their president comes begging for peace.

          • John Whitehot

            it’s also anti-surface, and it’s very likely that it can be armed with a tactical nuclear wh.

          • jako

            Like I have said many things can be armed with “tactical nuclear wh.”but that doesn’t make them “strategic” aPriori .

            I haven’t seen it a single article that Dugger exists as anti-surface missile also.
            Do you have link or you act as an “expert” on the subject.
            All big anti-ship missiles like that can be anti-surface but they must have that capability built in ..
            I do not know ANY air-born anti-ship missile to be in the same time
            “anti-surface” except maybe Brahmos with its new capabilities(and I’m not sure if that is 2 different Brahmos missiles or they are different capabilities on the same missile).
            This is new missile I would be surprised that they come out with
            “anti-surface” option already.
            I’m not saying it is impossible I just haven’t seen dual use anti-ship anti-surface air-born missile.
            Provide link please for your claim.
            Thanks in advance

          • Jesus

            Oniks has a anti ship and anti surface capability, check out the Bastion system, they used it in Syria. Any supersonic or hypersonic missile would have dual capability to hit surface or ship targets. I see Zircon having similar capabilities.

          • jako

            ” check out the Bastion system”
            You are wrong !
            And you even do not know what are you talking about.

            Why would I “check out the Bastion system” (there is “BAL” system also http://www.military-today.com/missiles/bal.htm BTW)
            Those are NOT AIRBORNE systems !
            They are NEVER LAUNCHED BY AIRPLANE .
            See the difference huh?
            Jets are flying fast – they MOVE towards the target and fire misssile!
            That is COASTAL defense (FIXED=doesn’t move)

            Show me the link with AIRBORNE “DUAL” anti-ship anti-surface missile Mr Expert.
            For John I have impression that he might be military guy but for you….

          • Jesus

            “””check out the Bastion system”
            You are wrong !
            And you even do not know what are you talking about.”””

            You seem like the typical condescending jerk, so what if the Russians do not have an air delivered Oniks? The missile has the capability to be air launched, just as the Indians made the Brahmos ( a version of Oniks) air launchable. They had to deal with some structural issues to accommodate a 3 ton payload.

            As I said, you are a BS artist, without much understanding of military affairs and historical background. Your pathetic analysis of Luftwaffe’s loss of pilots flying F104’s equating to German losses during the Battle of Britain is decrepit and with zero substance.

            P.S. silly man, why should not a hypersonic missile be capable of hitting stationary or moving targets?

          • jako

            Indians DID NOT made the Brahmos you IGNORANT TWAT !

            Brahmos is Russian-Indian joint venture based on Russian Yakhont missile !
            India was doing programming part on missile !

            There is BIG difference from missile that is LAUNCHED from airplane and those anti-ship missiles ON THE GROUND you can NOT use them on the airplane directly!
            If you are STUPID and do not see the difference that is not my fault !

            Anti ship missiles (unless they have built in that capability) can NOT have DUAL USE !

            Give me the link for ANTI-SHIP MISSILE THAT IS ANTI-SURFACE MISSILE IN THE SAME TIME AND IS LAUNCHED FROM AIRPLANE !

            If you can not than SHUT THE FUCK UP !

            “why should not a hyper-sonic missile be capable of hitting stationary or moving targets?”

            Because SIMPLETON the hyper-sonic (is not magic word) means only= missile that flays 5 TIMES SPEED OF SOUND OR HIGHER SPEED.
            And hitting hitting “stationary or moving targets” FROM MOVING AIRPLANE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES THAT MUST BE BUILT IN MISSILE !
            If they are not built in both in the missile than missile can NOT do them both but only ONE!!!!
            Missiles are different when they are FIXED and they are different when they are mounted on airplane also!

          • Jesus

            “””Indians DID NOT made the Brahmos you IGNORANT TWAT !”””

            LOL, where did I say they did?

            “””There is BIG difference from missile that is LAUNCHED from airplane and those anti-ship missiles ON THE GROUND you can NOT use them on the airplane directly!
            If you are STUPID and do not see the difference that is not my fault !”””

            The stupid one is you putting words in my mouth to drive your idiotic narrative.
            The launching platform is different, subsequently the missile has to have changes to be accommodated for that respective platforms.

            “””Anti ship missiles (unless they have built in that capability) can NOT have DUAL USE !”””
            What exact built in capability are you referring to? Let’s see how far your BS goes?

            “””Because SIMPLETON the hyper-sonic (is not magic word) means only= missile that flays 5 TIMES SPEED OF SOUND OR HIGHER SPEED.”””

            A first grade student knows that, what is with the caps?
            Simpleton, it is not “ flays”….it is flies.

            “””And hitting hitting “stationary or moving targets” FROM MOVING AIRPLANE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES THAT MUST BE BUILT IN MISSILE !”””

            Why can’t Khinzhal hit both? You claimed it could only have antishipping capability?
            Where is your proof? Or is this more BS …..Like Germany loosing more pilots flying F104 than the pilots they lost in the Battle of Britain?

          • jako

            I say you are dirty LIAR !
            Just one question for you dirty LIAR !

            Give me “Dagger” dual capabilities PROVES !

            Give me the LINK where it is clear said that ANTI-SHIP “Dagger” can hit the fixed ground targets !

            Stop playing idiot and GIVE ME THE PROVES !

          • Jesus

            Your understanding is based on what you read on links, sounds like you lack common sense. If I had a hypersonic weapon I want that weapon to hit any viable target, on the ground or sea, part of the prompt global strike capability using conventional weapons.
            Khinzhal could hit targets all over Europe, Pacific and Arctic.

          • jako

            I say you are dirty LIAR !
            Just one question for you dirty LIAR !

            Give me “Dagger” dual capabilities PROVES !
            I was talking here about Khinzal”Dagger” missile and you LIAR are claiming that missile to have dual capabilities which is not true !

            You are dirty LIAR !

        • Daniel Castro

          Well, I just looked up, it still won’t have strategic reach, but almost.

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        The US has done that long ago , this is for non nuclear missiles these are called nuclear ship busters.

  • FlorianGeyer

    The US has a lot of obsolete carriers. Perhaps the Russians could test the missiles on a few of them :)

    • paul ( original )

      Why limit to only obsolete carriers ?

      • FlorianGeyer

        I didn’t want to push the boat out too far as I like to take some heed of the Hasbara shills here. They have had a bad time recently and I would hate to think they might hang themselves :)

        • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

          Nah they just delete and repeat ! Huzzah Huzzah Rule Witt and facts all the way !!

        • Siegfried

          LOL!

      • Nosferatu

        Are there any aircraft carriers that are not obsolete after the appearance of this new missile?

        • paul ( original )

          Probably not. But there are quite a few shiny new ones out there, so no need to stick to the rusty old ones.

    • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

      Tu 22M3 just 1 mach slower than Su 31 but larger payload capacity from one to four just three more missiles and would extend the use of the aircraft, it’s called “adapt and survive in this world” more possible threats to enemy naval forces the better.

      Edit: The old world name from last century is called “Detente” how easily many forget it.

      • FlorianGeyer

        That is why nations who ignore the past are less likely to have success.

      • Gary Sellars

        MiG-31, not Su-31

        • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

          Sorry was thinking of Russian purchase of Su 57 first order is 19 jets might hit 100 next purchase order.

    • Jesus

      You mean sitting duck targets?

      • FlorianGeyer

        Ok, I like the pun. The USS Donald Cooke can take part as well as that ship is experienced with failure :)

        • Marko

          Perhaps soon-to-be the USS Donald Cooked.

          • FlorianGeyer

            It is the BBQ season after all :)

          • Harvey Swinestein

            LOL

  • John Whitehot

    it was a rather natural choice. One of the likely roles for these weapons would be that of “path-openers” for other strategic bombers.

    The Soviets envisaged the Kh-15 (AS-16 Kickback) for that mission, and it was carried by TU-160s. At the time, the Kh-15 would carry a small nuclear warhead, the bombers would launch them at air defenses that laid in their path to their objectives well in advance of reaching their operational range.

    In the case of the Kinzhal, although it’s not publically known if they have a passive-radar sensor option, it’s almost sure that the intended targets are the US “antimissile shield” installations in Europe.
    Being those systems fixed though (or on ships), they could be targeted by satellite and other means different from passive radar.

    In a carefully concerted warplan, it’s likely that the Kinzhals would be launched from loitering bombers and MiG-31s even after the ICBMs left their silos.

    Although it’s too early to devise what kind of mission this weapon has been designed to fulfill, it’s safe to say that it followed requirements included in already prepared operational scenarios, and that the early removal of missile interceptors bases is just one of several different objectives that can be achieved by it.

    • John Mason

      Satellites are the problem and they need to be taken out first if war starts, the Kinzhal has the potential to do that using either Mig31 or TU22 and take out the US NATO satellites then all communications comes to an abrupt halt and defenses will fail.

      • John Whitehot

        satellites can also be taken out by destroying their control centers on the ground, with strikes from submarines near the coasts.

        • John Mason

          Satellites can also be armed and take out other satellites…land based control centers can be heavily fortified or mobile…and so on..

          • John Whitehot

            the outer space treaty banned the installation of weapons on satellites.

            the Reagan era sdi initiative is one of the biggest lies ever told by a country, although it fattened very much the pockets of space related industries and corrupt senators.

          • John Mason

            Since when John has the US abided by any treaty? Who really knows what is out there?

          • John Whitehot

            during cold war, the US was mostly compliant with the strategic treaties it signed with Soviet Union.

            It was probably due to having to show being a highly ethical country, which respected pacts taken even with the “evil empire’.

            Covertly breaking treaties is a risk with many implications – the adversary has intel means that may discover the violation and use it to cause the most damage to your side.

            In the post cw period, the US has broken pretty much all the treaties and pact it signed. It revealed it’s true nature as a jewish country, who does not recognize the ethical importance of “respecting its own word”.

            Even more, they appear to sign pacts already knowing they would break them later, when they would get “the most advantage”.

            In the long term, nobody will ever trust the US again, they will have no other friends than Israel (which is not a friend anyway, because find me two pathological liars who are ready to get hurt to save each other), and they will end up ISOLATED.

          • John Mason

            In a lot of respects the Cold War was safe, my father was in the military and he wasn’t afraid of a nuclear war. How times have changed. I put it down to the quality of leadership and the self centered attitude/greed that seems to perpetuate constant conflict so that the minority can maintain a lifestyle at the expense of the majority. US/UK and possibly France and Germany are on a suicide mission and the end will come, question is at what cost.

  • Wise Gandalf

    This kinzhal is newest bullshit.

    • Gary Sellars

      Fuck off clown…

    • Luke Hemmming

      dont you have a audition to go to Gandalf? for the part as a gay wizard?

  • Joe Dirt

    30 years behind USAF! LOL

    • Gary Sellars

      Pfftt.. as if the USAF fields any hypersonic missiles… moron

      • Joe Dirt

        LOL they have 10 years ago

        • Gregory Louis

          No…they don’t XD that’s why a recent contract to make them so they can counter Russia was made. The USAF doesn’t have the capabilities of these missiles

          • Joe Dirt

            You seem to have the internet, use it before making false claims

          • Gregory Louis

            What system does the US have that has the capabilities of the missiles Russia made go ahead I’ll wait since I don’t know how to use the internet ;)

          • Joe Dirt

            It’s your job to do your own research. I don’t need to post links every time someone disagrees with me.

            You have the internet use it.

    • Carne João Pasta

      Ha ha ha. Who’s the one 20+ Trillion dollars in debt? Not including unfunded liabilities. Whose empire is buckling at the seams. What exactly is the USA doing that is good for the world? Or for its own people?? Busying itself with creating untold imaginary or engineered enemies and adversaries. Viewing the world through a neurotic, paranoid lens. What exactly are the virtues of the USA? What sets us apart from other countries? I’m nothing but sad and nauseous over what’s become of my country (USA). I wish I had whatever drugs you were on so I wouldn’t have to bear the pain of knowing what I know about the world, esp as seen from various empires, from today and our empire, all the way down the line. I can tell you I don’t feel any glee or happiness to know that it’s pretty much never going to be as good as it ever once used to be.

      That the laws of mathematics and of nature itself, karma, etc shall eventually be impossible to hide or explain away, ala propaganda. It’s a real damn shame for what could have been on this planet. I find it unforgivable what has been set upon humanity over the millenia. ((They)) are having their fun, having their way with us now but at some point we are going to be a liability, too expensive to maintain, of less or no value for the elites, powers that be, what have you.

      Tell me why I should feel happy or energized about the stark, hopeless reality that these bastards have laid out for us all (were lucky, being at the top. We most probably will be the last to suffer through the coming global depression. However it shakes out, that ol pesky law of entropy and mathematics. What actually is the reality vs. the fantastic, artificial, fictitious reality, ie ideologies, so many have signed onto. Resources. We live on a finite planet with finite resources.

      You’d think humanity would have come together to work out a mass synergistic, co-op of sorts, with the aim of optimizing, making efficient vs maximizing, re profit being the focus vs the quality of overall life when is enjoyed and prospered when there is a working, natural economy (usually capitalist, but there are amalgams or hybrids of the systems which govern our economies and societies. Such as in Denmark, to name one country. It is capitalist but does incorporate some qualities or ideas from “socialism”. It shouldn’t be black and white in a most variegated, diverse creation, universe we find ourselves in. It isn’t as simple as man (religion, politics) likes to make it out to be. It’s just not authentic. It’s living a lie, imo.)

  • Smaug

    Another page turned in MAD, although given the claim that Russia is already outfitting balistic missiles to be hypersonic this development isn’t surprising. Still there will be the industrial/economic difficulties in producing high tech rockets in significant numbers.

  • Siegfried

    And this all with only 70-80 Billions.
    USA need ONE TRILLION to keep is somehow with the Russkis….