Talk:Kh-47M2 Kinzhal

Propulsion

Engine type , propellant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.208.30 (talk • contribs)

Accuracy Statistic

1m CEP is hugely unlikely even with terminal guidance, even 10m would be extremely impressive over a range of 2000km. Even short range laser guided rockets have a CEP of 1m over a range of a few km. ~

Range

The range reference makes no sense

Article states Range 2,000 km (1,200 mi) (Including range of launching aircraft)

Range according to Wikipedia of Tu-160: 12,300 km (7,600 mi, 6,600 nmi) practical range without in-flight refuelling 2A01:CB1D:8BE9:1200:E4CD:7AAC:B117:7AF (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• • • yep the range is wrong. the iskander missile (the ground luanch version the kh-47 is based on) has ~500km range. this missile is fired by supersonic fighters or bombers at 36,000 feet high after the aircraft has already broken the sound barrier for it. that is an enormous amount of kinetic energy that this missile doesn't need to provide for it self in the ground launched version. the range for this is missile is certainly closer to 1,500-2,000km and has nothing to do with the launching aircraft's range. I'm not going to bother looking this up and edit it only to get in a flamewar with someone who made this topic their property but thought I'd take 90 seconds to write this nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E940:1230:3857:9D92:62F6:652D (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe this claim originates from [1]. The issue is the author makes a number of very poor assumptions in deriving the conclusion that the range includes the launching aircraft.

To start out with the author doesn't understand that with a head-on engagement geometry a slower missile (PATRIOT PAC-3) can hit a faster inbound. It becomes an issue of detection and cuing, not of speed. Even if this assumption were true the author doesn't consider terminal manuevers that may reduce terminal velocity like how the Pershing II "pitch up" manuever it performed to slow down enough for its radar to function. As a result, they start out with the assumption that the maximum velocity the Kinzhal ever achieves is Mach 6. This is probably the root of most of their bad calculations but they make a number of other errors.

They then use the maximum ceiling values for the MiG-31 and Tu-22M. This ignores the matter of the additional weight lowering their ceilings. However, on the opposite side a zoom climb performed by either of these may result in a higher maximum altitude so the issue evens out somewhat.

More aggregiously they use a projectile motion calculation for what is probably a 2-stage missile. Furthermore, they discount air resistance, which, seeing how Iskander is launched from deep within the thickest parts of the atmosphere versus the thinner air at 30,000-60,000 feet that is likely the initial launch point for Kinzhal, this is another very poor assumption.

Finally, because of the operating assumption of Mach 6 being the maximum velocity, they fail to account for the initial velocity imparted by the aircraft which is another opportunity for divergence in range figures. ARandomGuy984 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

hypersonic

This was deleted by someone without providing a reason, and there are no existing discussions on this topic in the archive. The amount of credible sources I'm providing here is staggering. So I am reposting this.

I think it would make sense to remove a good portion of the 'hypersonic' mentions in this article. For example, phrases such as "hypersonic ballistic missile", as this article says in the opening, are semantically redundant, and are similar to saying "fruit apple" or "wooden tree". The only reason this ever became accepted language is due to russian propaganda falsely advertising this weapon system as something it is not. So we either update all articles about ballistic missiles to have 'hypersonic' littered throughout them, or we prune it from here. There are many articles from reliable sources on this topic.

example: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a43804177/russias-kinzhal-missile-is-not-hypersonic/ Quote: "Sidharth Kaushal, Ph.D., of the U.K.-based defense think tank RUSI is similarly doubtful about the “hypersonic” label. “It doesn’t meet the maneuverability criteria for being a true hypersonic weapon,” he tells Popular Mechanics."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-and-the-kinzhal-dont-believe-the-hypersonic-hype/ Quote: "The term “hypersonic” is now typically used just to refer to two types of weapons that are being developed through contemporary defense programs: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs). The Kinzhal is neither, as it is an air-launched ballistic missile."

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-kinzhal-missile-not-hypersonic-224538598.html Quote: "The Kinzhal was never a truly hypersonic weapon – a supposedly advanced military technology that the United States and China spent years developing, but that has yielded minimal results."

https://www.businessinsider.com/patriot-kill-shot-impressive-russian-kinzhal-hypersonic-ballistic-missile-experts-2023-5 Quote: "The Kinzhal is not a "hypersonic" weapon, as Moscow often claims, which is to say the Kinzhal is not part of a new class of hard-to-kill missiles that exclusively includes highly maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles able to maintain hypersonic speeds throughout most of the flight." https://interestingengineering.com/culture/russias-kinzhal-missile-not-hypersonic Quote: "If Kinzhal is dubbed hypersonic, then so are all ballistic missiles in the U.S. stockpile, and even SpaceX's Falcon 9 is a hypersonic rocket."

There are many such articles out there with experts weighing in that using the word "hypersonic" with this weapon is... not academically correct in the context of what experts agree a hypersonic weapon is. Binglederry (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Instead of hypersonic air launched ballistic missile, I would remove the 'hypersonic' part and leave it as Air-launched ballistic missile Zenixtronix (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE requires editors to make sure that all significant viewpoints are represented. Consequently, we must mention the disagreement between sources, and not simply chose the version that we like better. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a hypersonic weapon system must exhibit maneuverability or be of the cruise missile variety is not a viewpoint, it is a definition agreed upon by everyone in the field. I'm not familiar with all of wikipedia's rules, but I assume when it comes to scientific or engineering matters, certain viewpoints matter more than others.

In fact wikipedia's own hypersonic article says a hypersonic weapon (leaving out non weapons) must exhibit one of the following:

1. Hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV): missile warheads which maneuver and glide through the atmosphere at high speeds after an initial ballistic launch phase

2. Hypersonic cruise missile: cruise missiles which use air-breathing engines such as scramjets to reach high speeds

The Kinzhal exhibits none of these properties, and if you peruse the articles I linked above they say as much. So there's another inconsistency right on wikipedia. Binglederry (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'll further add, I have nothing wrong with the article saying certain people claim the Kinzhal is hypersonic. I just disagree with authoritatively labeling it as such in the opening part of the article, with insane sentences like "It is the first hypersonic weapon used", when it clearly, by all definitions, is not. Binglederry (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, in-the-field researchers mean maneuverable, not terminal velocity >M1. Russian propaganda is not a significant viewpoint in encyclopedic terms. Greglocock (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)