Iskander-K/R-500?

Brahmos is an anti ship missile at the moment and not really that much use against ground targets.

This is an absurd comment. Brahmos has already been inducted by indian Army. Pls refer to the links below:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Army_to_induct_Brahmos_ahead_of_schedule/articleshow/2039984.cms
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/June/2007/20070618_indian_army.htm

First off, the SRBM used by the earlier Iskander systems is the 9M723. The term Iskander encompasses the entire system, much like the term Trieumf encompasses the entire S-400 system, including the various missile types used therein. So any Iskander-K could very well employ a new weapon component.

Secondly, I doubt that the weapon is the 3M14. This weapon here, the R-500, is described as a stealthy, low-altitude, maneuvering, subsonic weapon. As far as I am aware the 3M14 is nowhere near as maneuverable throughout its flight regime as the R-500 is claimed to be. This could in theory be a 3M14 relation or some sort of advanced derivative thereof, or it could be related to the Kh-65SE for that matter.

Thanks SOC, its very much appreciated!:)

So basically back to square one! At least the Russians are keeping us entertained.;)

Hope you enjoyed your holiday.:)

Afterthought- Kh-SD!, development last commented on (that I know of) in 1999, so certainly some activity, 300-600km range, fits with the INF (more or less) and with the thus far reported figures from the test. Some commonality with Kh-101 in terms of systems so could have benefited from development in that area (with have seen the pictures of the Bear carrying Kh-101 or some part of that program). I must thank you again as it was your mention of the Kh-65SE that reminded me of it! IMO certainly a real possibility, probably more so than the Club derivative idea. Well this is my new favorite idea until we get evidence to the contrary………..

Hey SOC could I ask you opinion on the subject of this thread, you seem to be our resident Russian missile expert (I must confess a degree of jealousy;) ). This whole subject has me confused, I think I have made all the evidence fit but something just does not seem ‘right’?:confused:

First off, the SRBM used by the earlier Iskander systems is the 9M723. The term Iskander encompasses the entire system, much like the term Trieumf encompasses the entire S-400 system, including the various missile types used therein. So any Iskander-K could very well employ a new weapon component.

Secondly, I doubt that the weapon is the 3M14. This weapon here, the R-500, is described as a stealthy, low-altitude, maneuvering, subsonic weapon. As far as I am aware the 3M14 is nowhere near as maneuverable throughout its flight regime as the R-500 is claimed to be. This could in theory be a 3M14 relation or some sort of advanced derivative thereof, or it could be related to the Kh-65SE for that matter.

Is there something wrong with me if the first thing that comes into my head when you say Alamo is in fact the Vympel AAM? 😀

Yes. It means u been hanging around here way too much and the little break hasn’t helped reset your mind. Until recovery, stay away from all ranches south of dallas. 😀

You keep insisting that it must have a range of 500km but will not provide any evidence for it.

Where did I stated it had a range of 500km? The Iskander-E system has a range of 280km. The Russian system is known to have a range slightly greater because the E model Iskander is restricted by export laws to have a range less than 300km and a warhead less than 500kgs. The Russian system is generally attributed with a range of 400km and a slightly heavier warhead of about 550kgs.
In use the purpose of using a cruise missile with a ballistic missile is surely to perform missions the ballistic missile is not suited for. Considering the discussions of the introduction of an ABM system in eastern Europe is it fairly safe to assume that one of those countermeasures the Russians promised to take is a cruise missile able to attack an ABM system. They can’t use any of their existing cruise missiles as they are strategic weapons with large ranges exceeding the 500km limit imposed by the INF treaty. Using Yakhont would make no sense as it is a 300km range missile that flys the early portion of its mission at medium altitude to get max range. The Club on the other hand is low all the way… the MOSKIT is also low all the way but has a range of 120km at mach 2.2, which indicates that if the Yakhont were to adopt a low all the way flight profile that its range would probably be in the order of 150km or so.

Until such a point as some arises the only available conclusion can be that this is a 3M14 missile with a range just over 300km.

The only conclusion is that the export model of Club has a range of 300km with a conventional 400kg warhead. A domestic version will probably differ in warhead and flight range.

but am inclining to the theory that this is a 500 km plus range missile.

Which means that any month now the Russians will withdraw from the INF treaty.

Hey SOC could I ask you opinion on the subject of this thread, you seem to be our resident Russian missile expert (I must confess a degree of jealousy;) ). This whole subject has me confused, I think I have made all the evidence fit but something just does not seem ‘right’?:confused:

I’ll give it a thorough look tomorrow, I’ve been in and out on vacation the past week or so!

The west had nuclear warheads for everything… including anti tank missiles… I am sure you know about the Davey Crockett… and of course it is the ideal name for such a system if you remember the Alamo… and I don’t mean the R-27.

Is there something wrong with me if the first thing that comes into my head when you say Alamo is in fact the Vympel AAM? 😀

And yeah, back in the day we did have nuclear warheads for damn near everything, there was even a nuclear hand grenade design.

Regarding the S-200 as an ABM…

From the ABM article on my blog:

While the Saturn mobile ABM project was cancelled at an early stage in May of 1961, it should be noted that there is evidence that the 5V21 was intended for use from fixed sites in a limited ABM capacity. In 1973 the 5V21 was tested at Sary Shagan in an ABM capacity, and a nuclear armed variant was accepted for service as a national ABM system in 1975. Intelligence data indicates that the nuclear warheads for the ABM role began to appear at 5V21 sites in 1974. Interestingly, the parameters of the now-defunct ABM Treaty of 1972 do not classify the 5V21 as an ABM system due to its low velocity, but when fitted with a nuclear warhead an intercept is at least technically possible provided adequate early warning and target tracking is obtained.

Some of the data came from here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/s106-339-5.htm

I’ll see what the Russian-language stuff I got recently has to say on the issue as well.

I know plenty about the Club family.:rolleyes:

Good for you. Let us know if you learn anymore:rolleyes:

… constant re-evaluation is standard.

Indeed, re-evaluation is the only thing that comes standard these days;)

The CLUB name is lavishly being used by the Novator design firm. The name is being applied to almost all their missile models.

There are sea launched, submarine launched, air launched and now ground launched missiles designed by that firm. They are all called CLUB…in fact the only thing they don’t call CLUB is an air-air long range missile…

There are different types of missiles in this CLUB family that bear very little if any ressemblance to each other. e.g CLUB-S and CLUB-N are completely different.

We don’t know what type of missile are used by this ground launcher. There may even be more than one type of missile….The system may be armed with a so far unknown missile similar or completely different than the ones so far shown in public.

I agree with Mercurius, until we have more evidence this thread will go nowhere.

I know plenty about the Club family.:rolleyes:

This thread has used thus far available evidence and we have a temporary conclusion, constant re-evaluation is standard.:rolleyes:

The CLUB name is lavishly being used by the Novator design firm. The name is being applied to almost all their missile models.

There are sea launched, submarine launched, air launched and now ground launched missiles designed by that firm. They are all called CLUB…in fact the only thing they don’t call CLUB is an air-air long range missile…

There are different types of missiles in this CLUB family that bear very little if any ressemblance to each other. e.g CLUB-S and CLUB-N are completely different.

We don’t know what type of missile are used by this ground launcher. There may even be more than one type of missile….The system may be armed with a so far unknown missile similar or completely different than the ones so far shown in public.

I agree with Mercurius, until we have more evidence this thread will go nowhere.

That is pretty much what has me confused, as I stated in my initial post. It just seems pointless not to test to 500km.

I tried to answer that on 22 December, when I wrote “It’s not clear if the 29 May test was the maiden flight of the R-500. Since it was at least in part a demonstration to the Russian press, the range may have been limited to minimise mission duration.”

Such limited-duration demo flights are not unknown. For example, if you want to demo a UAV to VIPs, there is no need to fly a full duration mission – get it launched, run through its catalogue of tricks, bring it in to a nice smart recovery or landing, then whip the VIPs away for a gin & tonic (or a vodka or two) and a spot of lunch.

Although I’m aware that an R-500 trials programme is under way, I’ve seen no info on the durations or distances being achieved.

One factor I’ve already mentioned is that were a shorter-range requirement to exist, a Club land-attack round would indeed be a good candidate — as you rightly concluded. Especially with Club-M hardware to draw on. Yet there has been not the slightest hint of such an application from its designers.

(That said, I can think of at least one other instance where Russia claims to be developing a new variant of an established weapon, yet the company allegedly involved has said nothing about it.)

Another is that given the apparent Russian commitment to an INF-busting ballistic Iskander round, it’s hard to envisage that the second phase of the Iskander programme would involve fielding a shorter-range cruise weapon. Devising on operating doctrine for a weapon with 500+ and 300 km range rounds might pose interesting problems.

That is pretty much what has me confused, as I stated in my initial post. It just seems pointless not to test to 500km. Further more the fact that none of the open sources give a range, when 500km is just so obvious is weird.

I have taken all the data that I can find in the public domain and from that deduced what I believe is a likely answer. I would be intrigued to hear why you think that this is a 500km range missile?

One factor I’ve already mentioned is that were a shorter-range requirement to exist, a Club land-attack round would indeed be a good candidate — as you rightly concluded. Especially with Club-M hardware to draw on. Yet there has been not the slightest hint of such an application from its designers.

(That said, I can think of at least one other instance where Russia claims to be developing a new variant of an established weapon, yet the company allegedly involved has said nothing about it.)

Another is that given the apparent Russian commitment to an INF-busting ballistic Iskander round, it’s hard to envisage that the second phase of the Iskander programme would involve fielding a shorter-range cruise weapon. Devising on operating doctrine for a weapon with 500+ and 300 km range rounds might pose interesting problems.

The amount of hard data we have on the K-500 is very limited, and going beyond these basic facts is a matter of deduction. We need to bear in mind the famous dictum of Sherlock Holmes; “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Mr Holmes may be a fictional character, but his dictum is a useful one. I’ve seen several instances where the emergence of an inconvenient new fact has brought a ‘carefully thought out’ analysis of a Russian weapon system crashing down like a house of cards. An analysis of an item of German WW2 hardware I’ve been working at for the last decade has come crashing down more times that I’d care to remember.

So any conclusions we may reach on the K-500 can only be tentative given the small amount of hard data available.

I’m looking at the Iskander-K / K-500 problem in my professional capacity and have come to no firm conclusions, but am inclining to the theory that this is a 500 km plus range missile.

While various of the Club missiles can be carried on the Iskander TEL, the missile does not seem a very promising candidate. At MAKS 2007, CLUB-M was being described as ‘primarily for the export market’. Not a whisper of any connection with the Islander-K or R-500 was reported.

For now, the last lines from Carpenter’s 1982 version of the movie ‘The Thing’ seem to apply: “Why don’t we just wait here for a while? See what happens.”

The real R-500 will eventually emerge.

This is my point, I have taken all the data that I can find in the public domain and from that deduced what I believe is a likely answer. I would be intrigued to hear why you think that this is a 500km range missile?

The amount of hard data we have on the R-500 is very limited, and going beyond these basic facts is a matter of deduction. We need to bear in mind the famous dictum of Sherlock Holmes; “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Mr Holmes may be a fictional character, but his dictum is a useful one. I’ve seen several instances where the emergence of an inconvenient new fact has brought a ‘carefully thought out’ analysis of a Russian weapon system crashing down like a house of cards. An analysis of an item of German WW2 hardware I’ve been working at for the last decade has come crashing down more times that I’d care to remember.

So any conclusions we may reach on the R-500 can only be tentative given the small amount of hard data available.

I’m looking at the Iskander-K / R-500 problem in my professional capacity and have come to no firm conclusions, but am inclining to the theory that this is a 500 km plus range missile.

While various of the Club missiles can be carried on the Iskander TEL, the missile does not seem a very promising candidate. At MAKS 2007, CLUB-M was being described as ‘primarily for the export market’. Not a whisper of any connection with the Islander-K or R-500 was reported.

For now, the last lines from Carpenter’s 1982 version of the movie ‘The Thing’ seem to apply: “Why don’t we just wait here for a while? See what happens.”

The real R-500 will eventually emerge.

I base my opinion on something I read in the 80s about the cruise missile (US) getting its long range the same way most long range strike aircraft get it… by using the high low high flight model though without the high egress as it is of course a one way trip for the missile. It described the initial phase of flight being well outside enemy defence range so that period of flight was at optimum flight altitude and flight speed to minimise fuel usage. Close to the target however the low flight profile is used and the maximum thrust that will still allow the missile to make its turns on its waypoints without straying into obstacles.

Why do yuo think it needs to be highly modified? The rear area is simply a place for missiles to be held horizontally with the equipment to raise them up to a vertical position for firing. The Ballistic missiles are side by side and are raised one at a time for launch. It was developed during the cold war and was probably intended to conceal the fact that two weapons were on board each launcher so that two launches would be possible in relatively quick succession. This new pack of however is a post cold war development so all four missiles in launch tubes are raised and lowered together. The latter is probably much less complex but the basic design is an area for missiles to lie down in and a mechanism to raise them.

And without the missile being directly described jumping to that conclusion based on what is probable but not certain is premature. Whether it is a Club or a Club like missile is actually pretty irrelevant isn’t it? It is clearly a cruise missile intended to fly under ABM defences. Its performance is restricted by the ABM treaty, but if it is to be used agaisnt an ABM system and even assuming it is a Club variant then it is probably safe to assume that its warhead will likely be nuclear to clear the way for the ballistic Iskander missiles to be launched. With a nuclear warhead being rather lighter than conventional warheads range will probably exceed the 300km range of the longest ranged Club.

8.22 metres long and weighing 2.3 tons is not really compact. The airlaunched Kh-102 is supposed to be a similar weight and have a range of 5,000km.

The purpose of cruise missiles for the Iskander system is to fire them off first to defeat any ABM system that might threaten the ballistic missiles. If the Ballistic missiles have a range of 300km there is not much point in developing cruise missiles with a range of 500km.

WTF is your problem? Why would they develop a whole new type of cruise missile when they already have a weapon that can do the job?

By the look of your posts you are disappointed that this is not a brand new weapon.

They aren’t the only ones to have developed variants for anti ship missiles… look at SLAM and SLAM-ER.

WTF is your problem, I am trying to find out exactly what this is. You keep insisting that it must have a range of 500km but will not provide any evidence for it. Until such a point as some arises the only available conclusion can be that this is a 3M14 missile with a range just over 300km.

I don’t know, but you’ve given me some interesting questions to raise next time I get a cruise-missile briefing.

I base my opinion on something I read in the 80s about the cruise missile (US) getting its long range the same way most long range strike aircraft get it… by using the high low high flight model though without the high egress as it is of course a one way trip for the missile. It described the initial phase of flight being well outside enemy defence range so that period of flight was at optimum flight altitude and flight speed to minimise fuel usage. Close to the target however the low flight profile is used and the maximum thrust that will still allow the missile to make its turns on its waypoints without straying into obstacles.

Garry, this is my point, I have no doubt that the Russian could produce a 500km club, it would be absurd to suggest that they coul;d not. But for now everything points them having taken an off the shelf solution and just fitted the 3M14 to a highly modified Iskander TEL.

Why do yuo think it needs to be highly modified? The rear area is simply a place for missiles to be held horizontally with the equipment to raise them up to a vertical position for firing. The Ballistic missiles are side by side and are raised one at a time for launch. It was developed during the cold war and was probably intended to conceal the fact that two weapons were on board each launcher so that two launches would be possible in relatively quick succession. This new pack of however is a post cold war development so all four missiles in launch tubes are raised and lowered together. The latter is probably much less complex but the basic design is an area for missiles to lie down in and a mechanism to raise them.

All of the available facts point towards the 3M14 conclusion.

And without the missile being directly described jumping to that conclusion based on what is probable but not certain is premature. Whether it is a Club or a Club like missile is actually pretty irrelevant isn’t it? It is clearly a cruise missile intended to fly under ABM defences. Its performance is restricted by the ABM treaty, but if it is to be used agaisnt an ABM system and even assuming it is a Club variant then it is probably safe to assume that its warhead will likely be nuclear to clear the way for the ballistic Iskander missiles to be launched. With a nuclear warhead being rather lighter than conventional warheads range will probably exceed the 300km range of the longest ranged Club.

After all Club is a remarkably compact missile.

8.22 metres long and weighing 2.3 tons is not really compact. The airlaunched Kh-102 is supposed to be a similar weight and have a range of 5,000km.

I can not reinforce the point enough that I am not here to prove my theory, I am here for evidenced answers to the question why?

The purpose of cruise missiles for the Iskander system is to fire them off first to defeat any ABM system that might threaten the ballistic missiles. If the Ballistic missiles have a range of 300km there is not much point in developing cruise missiles with a range of 500km.

It still seems to me, for now at least, as if the Russians have taken an off the shelf solution.

WTF is your problem? Why would they develop a whole new type of cruise missile when they already have a weapon that can do the job?

By the look of your posts you are disappointed that this is not a brand new weapon.

They aren’t the only ones to have developed variants for anti ship missiles… look at SLAM and SLAM-ER.

The four-tube launch vehicle seen at MAKS 2007 is the Morinformsystem-AGAT Club-M coast-defence system, which was selected in preference to a design proposed by NPP Start, from Yekaterinburg. (The latter was shown at the International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS) 2005 at St Petersburg between 29 June and 3 July 2005.)

The prototype uses a chassis based on the MZKT-7930 8 x 8 vehicle, and the capacity of four rounds was dictated by weight restrictions. The definitive version will have six rounds, and be able to fire 3M-54KE and 3M-54KE1 anti-ship missiles and the 3M-14KE land-attack missile.

Like the prototype, the entire system – SPU (Samokhodnaya puskovaya ustanovka) launching vehicles, the MSU (Mashina svyazi i upravleniya) communication and control vehicle and the TPM (Transportno puskovaya mashina) transporting and launching vehicle – will use the MZKT-7930 wheeled chassis.

Club-M was developed primarily for export, and the first test launches were made in 2006.

Thanks for that. It still seems to me, for now at least, as if the Russians have taken an off the shelf solution.

The four-tube launch vehicle seen at MAKS 2007 is the Morinformsystem-AGAT Club-M coast-defence system, which was selected in preference to a design proposed by NPP Start, from Yekaterinburg. (The latter was shown at the International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS) 2005 at St Petersburg between 29 June and 3 July 2005.)

The prototype uses a chassis based on the MZKT-7930 8 x 8 vehicle, and the capacity of four rounds was dictated by weight restrictions. The definitive version will have six rounds, and be able to fire 3M-54KE and 3M-54KE1 anti-ship missiles and the 3M-14KE land-attack missile.

Like the prototype, the entire system – SPU (Samokhodnaya puskovaya ustanovka) launching vehicles, the MSU (Mashina svyazi i upravleniya) communication and control vehicle and the TPM (Transportno puskovaya mashina) transporting and launching vehicle – will use the MZKT-7930 wheeled chassis.

Club-M was developed primarily for export, and the first test launches were made in 2006.

I didn’t say it wasn’t Club. I thought I made that clear when I said:

It would make a lot of sense if it was Club… if they are going to limit themselves to the INF limits then the Club missile would be ideal… except that it is an anti ship missile, but they were planning land attack models. This is perhaps the best evidence that the land attack models are fully developed and ready for deployment.

500km – 140km = 360km. As far as I know the export versions of Club are 220km and 300km ranged for the supersonic and subsonic model respectively. The missiles for Russian use will probably have a range closer to the 500km limit with more fuel and less ballast.

Not to mention that the warhead is 200kgs lighter at 200kg instead of 400kg for the subsonic model, but if the target is alert flying at low level at mach 3 makes you hard to intercept… not many missiles actually reach that speed at that altitude and no manned aircraft approaches that speed at that altitude.

But that is the point about it being a system… this isn’t a new launcher for Club, it is an existing system adapted to take Club or Club like missiles… just the same as the MLRS can have 6 conventional rockets in each pod or a single ATCAMs in a pod. This launcher is not new… it just has a new erector launcher arm at the rear for the new weapon. All the preparation and support equipment will be Iskander support equipment. The terminal EO seeker is probably the same… the HQ vehicle will get a satellite image of the target and scan that into the missiles memory, whether it is the ballistic missile or the cruise missile, and on target the missile seeker will search for and guide towards that target image to get a CEP of less than 5m.

The max range of strategic cruise missiles largely comes from a long cruise phase at medium altitude at efficient cruise speeds. If you think about it the autopilot that manouvers the missile through its various waypoints will include altitude and direction changes… do you think it makes sense to also change throttle settings for optimum speeds or optimum fuel consumptions at the different legs of the trip? They probably have an adaptive fuel management system that will regulate throttle control if a head wind means they are burning up fuel too fast and might not make it to the target they would probably be smart enough to throttle back to reduce fuel burn to allow the target to be reached.

The west had nuclear warheads for everything… including anti tank missiles… I am sure you know about the Davey Crockett… and of course it is the ideal name for such a system if you remember the Alamo… and I don’t mean the R-27. 🙂

Garry, this is my point, I have no doubt that the Russian could produce a 500km club, it would be absurd to suggest that they coul;d not. But for now everything points them having taken an off the shelf solution and just fitted the 3M14 to a highly modified Iskander TEL. There is no point saying ‘probably’ ‘they will’ ‘it should be’ etc without any evidence. All of the available facts point towards the 3M14 conclusion. If you have evidence or any source suggesting otherwise, longer range higher speed etc then please post it. But at the moment everything says subsonic, approximately 300km+ range which combined with the TEL at MAKS screams 3M14.

I can not reinforce the point enough that I am not here to prove my theory, I am here for evidenced answers to the question why? There is no reason to hide this missiles range under 500km for the simple reason that everyone would expect a 500km range and yet the longest figure we can produce is 360km. To be honest the 360km makes sense on another level. If we assume that the 3M14E is limited artificially to 300km then it may be the case that the non export version is only capable of 360km. After all Club is a remarkably compact missile.

If you think about it the autopilot that manouvers the missile through its various waypoints will include altitude and direction changes… do you think it makes sense to also change throttle settings for optimum speeds or optimum fuel consumptions at the different legs of the trip? They probably have an adaptive fuel management system that will regulate throttle control if a head wind means they are burning up fuel too fast and might not make it to the target they would probably be smart enough to throttle back to reduce fuel burn to allow the target to be reached.

I don’t know, but you’ve given me some interesting questions to raise next time I get a cruise-missile briefing.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis