No it wasn’t a new design… it is rather more like SLAM is to Harpoon… a change of guidance and a (dramatic) change in role but based on an existing weapon.

It was a new missile, it may have been based on the Kh-55 but there is no evidence to suggest that a real missile would consist of the back end of a reworked Kh-55.

Think of it more as a upgrade kit in the same sense that JDAM is an upgrade… in JDAM the tail section is removed and the JDAM kit is fitted.

JDAM is a little more involved than just the tail section, but it is a strap-on kit.

In the Kh-65 the nuclear warhead and guidance section is removed and the new warhead and guidance system is fitted. In that sense the Kh-65 nost could be fitted to almost any Russian missile in that it is a warhead and guidance package to be fitted to a missile body. Obviously reshaping of the external part of the Kh-65 nose section would be required for very large missiles perhaps if that is an option. They might just stick to strategic cruise missiles.

But is it that simple? A much heavier front end may require some center of gravity alterations, perhaps necessitating the resituating of the wings or some other major change.

The missile is very likely to be modular in design with a warhead and guidance section respectively. I would expect the new warhead and guidance package was specifically designed to replace the existing one so you just manufacture as many kh-65 front sections as you need and select the Kh-55 missiles that are about to expire and use them for testing.

It could be modular, but there is just not enough information to make that a definitive answer.

Unless they are at war soon obviously missiles will expire before they can be used in practise so a few of the Kh-55 missiles will likely get overhauls or be discarded.

Probably tossed eventually, as their replacement is the Kh-102.

Common sense would suggest they would use up all the Kh-55s as Kh-65s first while production… hang on… I thought there were two new missiles… Kh-101 and Kh-102, where the Kh-102 was nuclear armed and the Kh-101 was conventionally armed and that the Kh-65 was basically fitting the Kh-101s warhead and seeker onto the Kh-55.

Kh-101 seems to have superceded both the Kh-555 and Kh-65.

The Bears, the Blackjacks and the Backfires that remain in service are to be given a unified upgrade with the same radar, the same systems etc. This means that if the Backfire is to retain its maritime role as well as its nuclear land strike role then all three will get naval and land attack strike capabilities and there will probably be some sort of unification of their weapons as well. Whether that means that they will all get Kh-15 or a replacement for that weapon remains to be seen.

I’ve heard that they are being upgraded but not that they are receiving the same systems. Even if they did receive the same basic radar set, there is no guarantee that, say, the anti-ship avionics modules will be fitted to the BEAR and BLACKJACK.

As seen in Google Earth, there were 10 visible on the ramp at Debre Zeyt as of 4 December 2005.

I assume the main reason the latest Bears can’t carry the Kh-22 would only be lack of the Down Beat / Leninets type radar. The Bear should have carried the Kh-22s underneath its wings, so the recess isn’t an issue I think. The noses of the Bear G / H are similar, so you can’t rule out the possibility it perhaps being possible.

I mentioned the recessed fairing because the genius at Wikipedia mentioned the Kh-20 as well…and that one isn’t fitting underwing!

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/kh/20/kh20_e.htm

[color=blue]Just a friendly warning…do not turn this or any other thread in here into a referendum as to whether or not Kosovo should have declared independence or whatever. If you want to discuss that issue you are certainly welcome to do so, but start a thread for that topic over in the General Discussion section.[/color]

I think India is going to stick with it’s IL-76 plans, but Boeing can dream

India sticking with the Il-76 family is the smart thing to do. They’ll have a transport, AEW platform, and tanker all using the same airframe, saving costs and logistical expenses for spares, maintenance, and support. Besides, what in the world would they want only 2 C-17s for?

As for the “undisclosed nation”, Japan isn’t necessarily out of the question. They do participate in UN operations and may like the ability to move themselves around. For that matter any nation heavily involved in UN operations is a possibility for that reason. 2 C-17s won’t make your military expeditionary but it will allow you to move peacekeepers and equipment around. The fact that the nation in question is after the C-17 and not the A-400 or Il-76 (or even An-124) makes me think they have a solid peacekeeping presence and close ties with the United States. Germany doesn’t make sense as this could be seen as a slap in the face to the A-400. Perhaps South Korea is the answer? All things considered however, it is most likely Sweden. The numbers and the expressed interest do seem to match up.

My somewhat controversial opinion on this is that if (and it is a very big if) any of what I call the big four (India, US, China, Russia) end up going to war with each other it will be about economic deconstruction through non chemical, biological and nuclear military means. By that I mean conventional weapons but extremely high tech, information based and long ranged,probably in a time frame counted in hours.

You should check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/Space-Wars-First-Hours-World/dp/0765313790

Very interesting read. It is formatted like a novel, but it is basically an example of the power of nonkinetic and unconventional warfare.

National security doesn’t wash. They initially concluded that the satellite would land in North America. Anything left when it hits the ground isn’t going to be of much intelligence value anyway.

Was the shot similar in profile to an ABM kill? Not exactly. But it did prove the viability of the AEGIS system as a dual-role ABM/ASAT weapon system.

A few thoughts:

1. This was far less dangerous than the Chinese test. The low altitude means that the bulk of the debris has probably already burned up, with the rest of it being toasted within 40 days. China’s debris field will remain in orbit for at least 20 YEARS. This was also technically less impressive insofar as system performance is concerned, as the Chinese weapon reached a much greater altitude.

2. Yes, you can accurately track satellite debris in orbit. This is done all the time.

3. Anyone who thinks this was a simple ASAT modification and rogue sat kill is fooling themselves. Read this:

The interceptor destroyed the target at an altitude of 130 NM. The target was approaching the launch site at over 17,000 mph in a decaying orbit.

Now what does that really sound like to you?