ISKANDER-M (9K720 Iskander (Russian: Искандер) development and deployment

phrenzy

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
31 October 2013
Messages
276
Reaction score
19
I have been researching Russian strategic and tactical missile systems development and posture through the transition from U.S.S.R to the Russian federation for a university project and have come across some very interesting information about the development of the ISKANDER-M TEL and it's recent deployment to Syria.

I think it's deserving of it's own thread given that this is the first deployment of any new missile system that potentially contravines the INF and new START.

I am compiling information on specifications, capability and deployment.

For a start:

A program overview as of 2012:


An older document from 2008 detailing the development from the OKA to ISKANDER missile systems:



I will arrange other sources as I coalate them, I believe I have some interesting technical material on the data links and command and control systems and will add them where appropriate as well as updates on it's deployment and potential nuclear capability.

I would invite discussion and contribution.

If this is more appropriate in the "Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans" thread this can be moved and I'll add my sources as updates there. However I feel that now that ISKANDER has been deployed to a war zone it deserves its own thread.


Moscow_Victory_Parade_2010_-_Training_on_May_4_-.jpg
 
The 2012 link doesn't work for me at this time.

Why 2 completely different missiles both called Iskander (variant of Alexander I believe)? Merely to cause confusion - or to slip a treaty-busting cruise missile into service under the guise of a short range ballistic missile (still a massive threat in itself given Europe's parlous defensive state)?
 
An amazing system IMO.
It has never ceased to amaze me how the Soviet's/Russian's continued to develop battlefield ballistic rockets/missiles to this day (including their amazing and versatile TEL's)

Good luck with your endeavour phrenzy

Regards
Pioneer
 
2cobras said:
The 2012 link doesn't work for me at this time.

Why 2 completely different missiles both called Iskander (variant of Alexander I believe)? Merely to cause confusion - or to slip a treaty-busting cruise missile into service under the guise of a short range ballistic missile (still a massive threat in itself given Europe's parlous defensive state)?
Click to expand...

Same unit to employ them, same launcher vehicle, same loading vehicle ... Russians don't call things a "system", but a 'komplex' - and the Iskander komplex includes two different munitions - just as a MLRS in NATO armies employs different rocket types.


Besides, I think the approach of having a standard MLRS capable of launching PGMs over hundreds of km as done by the Americans with MLRS / ATACMS makes more sense than those dedicated Iskander units.
Ideally, one should also be able to launch 499 km PGMs from a standing storage container wired to a control unit. That way one could launch truly impressive surprise and saturation attacks. Iskander's conceptual weakness is that even a whole regiment cannot launch huge quantities of rockets in for example 20 minutes.
 
The different versions appear to for Russian Federation use and export use. The Russian version has a wider range of warheads ( including potentially a tactical nuclear version) as well as a lower minimun, maximum range and more accurate CEP.

The export version, ISKANDER-E, has increased maximum range, reduced maximum range and is is deliberate made unfit for nuclear service, though still an impressive piece of equipment.

Both have extremely quick set up and firing times times and non-ballistic trajectory characteristics that make any sort of ABM countermeasure extremely difficult to employ.

I will try and fix the first 2012 link, I think spell check might have changed some small detail :) *edit: first link fixed*

P.S real clear defence seems to have the most up to date information on specifications and deployments at the moment for those interested.
 
I actually still possess a marketing CD about Iskander-E from either a Eurosatory or a Farnborough show (not sure which).
Sadly, I possess no working CD/DVD drive here. Maybe I can upload it to MEGA at work some time if I find a computer with CD/DVD drive there.

The export version is strangely compliant with MTCR, even though Russia is not bound by it:
en.wikipedia.org

Missile Technology Control Regime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


The export version, ISKANDER-E, has increased maximum range, reduced maximum range and is is deliberate made unfit for nuclear service, though still an impressive piece of equipment.
Click to expand...

increased minimum range maybe?
 
Thanks for the correction, you're right about the increased minimum range. I'm running all this without aid of a PC at the moment so I'm getting making small mistakes which I hope to correct in the fullness of time.

I'd be very interested and grateful for the video, I assume it's the standard Mid Atlantic Russian voiceover spiel you see in most and show marketing? Just making sure I don't have to get out my Cyrillic table or have a friend do some translating. Although since it's from Farnborough I'm guessing that won't be an issue.


I think there's something odd about the way the Russians are treating export treaty compliance and domestic treaty non compliance here. This could turn out to be a good case study for their policy approach.

Thanks again, if it's too much bother at least I know it exists and I can try and hunt down a copy somewhere else.
 
lastdingo said:
I actually still possess a marketing CD about Iskander-E from either a Eurosatory or a Farnborough show (not sure which).
Sadly, I possess no working CD/DVD drive here. Maybe I can upload it to MEGA at work some time if I find a computer with CD/DVD drive there.

The export version is strangely compliant with MTCR, even though Russia is not bound by it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime


The export version, ISKANDER-E, has increased maximum range, reduced maximum range and is is deliberate made unfit for nuclear service, though still an impressive piece of equipment.
Click to expand...

increased minimum range maybe?
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion about the configuration of the units deployed to then deployed and sold on credit to Armenia, but if they don't already contravine the MTCR they would be almost immediately able to depending on the missiles and payloads the Russians are willing to give them. Interestingly it was supplied because of Armenian concerns about Azerbaijan and their acquisition of MLRS systems. Central Asia is becoming a dangerous new front.

Also the source of the confirmation of the Syrian deployment came through high resolution commercial imagery and, interestingly, the Israelis, who attempted to acquire ISKANDER themselves last decade. I guess they're burning their bridges there with regard to access to high end Russian equipment, but given the regional (almost local now) situation, needs must. Gives some good insight into their desperation for tactical ABM systems, not just for Katyusha variants...
 
iz.ru

«Искандеры» получат неуязвимые ракеты

Оперативно-тактический ракетный комплекс «Искандер-М» получит новый неуязвимый снаряд, который практические нельзя обнаружить и при этом он способен выполнять на траектории сложнейшие маневры, ловко уходя от ракет противника и поражая наземные цели.
iz.ru iz.ru

Iskander will receive invulnerable missiles

The Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system will receive a new invulnerable missile, which practically cannot be detected, and at the same time it is capable of performing the most complex maneuvers on the trajectory, deftly evading enemy missiles and striking ground targets.

Sources in the Ministry of Defense told Izvestia that the development of the latest shells for the Iskander began in 2016 and the ammunition is currently in a high degree of readiness. Its tests were already carried out in August last year at the Kapustin Yar test site.
The rockets are made using stealth technology and belong to the "aeroballistic" class, that is, they fly along a ballistic trajectory, but do not leave the earth's atmosphere.

The new items have a radio-absorbing coating and, being super-maneuverable, are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 500 km. Experts are confident that the new shells will radically increase the combat capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces.
 
What terminal guidance method does the semi-ballistic missile use? Is it suitable for moving targets?
 
That's an expensive JDAM. Impressive nonetheless.
 
Iskander M saw limited use previously - I wonder if there were not enough fired for these penaids to be identified or if those missiles intentionally not deploy/carry them in the first place to conceal their use.
 
The only previous opportunity for them to have been observed was Russian employment of the missile in Georgia 2008, really. Iskanders delivered to Armenia and used in 2020 against Azerbaijan did not have the PENAID ports, suggesting a deliberate downgrade for export. Somewhere in those Twitter discussions there is information on the development and manufacturing history which claims the device entered service in 2008. It may simply have narrowly missed the August war.
 
Trident said:
Somewhere in those Twitter discussions there is information on the development and manufacturing history which claims the device entered service in 2008. It may simply have narrowly missed the August war.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems to be a late addition so not available in Georgia and obviously not exported later. Thread here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503562788714651648
View: https://twitter.com/DuitsyWasHere/status/1503562788714651648



For people wondering why the Russians aren't holding the penaids back now, probably two reasons. 1) It may be pretty much universal in the current Iskander-M inventory and not easy to remove in the field. 2) Ukrainian S-300 may have a (small) chance of intercepting Iskander, so the penaids are a little extra help.
 
Last edited:
Yep, similar story with Ukrainian ATGM teams lurking on apartment block roof tops and artillery spotters directing fire on Russian formations from inside the flats. Name me one military that wouldn't do something about it, up to and including the destruction of the building? Quite apart from the fact that Ukraine made a point of publicly handing out arms to any civilian who was up for it. Understandable to a degree, but could turn out very counterproductive indeed - not least because it will be the guys you DON'T want in possession of guns that are going to hold onto them after the war.

Similarly, I don't blame the Ukrainian army for taking any cover that's available - are they supposed to stand out in the street and let themselves be shot to pieces by a numerically superior enemy? It also doesn't deflect any of the responsibility from the Russian leadership and military. Ultimately these buildings are now being shelled and any civilians inside killed or maimed because THEY decided to invade Ukraine and because THEY refuse to honour agreements on refugee corridors. No invasion, no urban warfare.
 
Trident said:
it will be the guys you DON'T want in possession of guns that are going to hold onto them after the war.
Click to expand...

Simple solution: let people keep their guns after the war. It's not like the threat is going away anytime soon... unless Ukraine conquers Russia (*slightly* unlikely), the threat of re-invasion will remain open. the threat of criminals will remain open. The threat of "migrants" will remain open.
 
Migrants have zero to do with the invasion, don't be blaming this on immigrants. The way things are going for Russia there wont be a threat of re-invasion.
 
Desertfox said:
Migrants have zero to do with the invasion,
Click to expand...
The point was that there are many good reasons to not strip the post-war Ukrainians - or anyone - of their ability to defend themselves. Putin is hardly the only threat in the world. Rotherham springs rapidly to mind. As Yamamoto pointed out, invading a nation of well-armed civilians is a nightmare, just as a home invasion of a well-armed homeowner is career-limited for criminals.
 
Last edited:
Orionblamblam said:
Desertfox said:
Migrants have zero to do with the invasion,
Click to expand...
The point was that there are many good reasons to not strip the post-war Ukrainians - or anyone - of their ability to defend themselves. Putin is hardly the only threat in the world. Rotherham springs rapidly to mind. As Yamamoto pointed out, invading a nation of well-armed civilians is a nightmare, just as a home invasion of a well-armed homeowner is career-limited for criminals.
Click to expand...
Err, wrong River Don.
 
Forest Green said:
These missiles are several million each. Working without air superiority is costing them shed-loads.
Click to expand...
Its cheaper than losing aircraft. In the Gulf War, the Americans lost 75 airplanes even if the Iraqi air defense network capabilities relative to the Air Force are worser than the Ukrainian´s compared to the VKS.
 
I wish we had any idea what Russian pre war stocks were of stand off PGMs.
 
alanch90 said:
Forest Green said:
These missiles are several million each. Working without air superiority is costing them shed-loads.
Click to expand...
Its cheaper than losing aircraft. In the Gulf War, the Americans lost 75 airplanes even if the Iraqi air defense network capabilities relative to the Air Force are worser than the Ukrainian´s compared to the VKS.
Click to expand...
The Gulf War was very short though. Working without air superiority in a long protracted war and relying on Iskander-M/K and Kalibrs etc. for strikes will added up. It's not exactly preventing Russian aircraft losses either, those providing CAS are forced to fly at low altitude, which is how most planes were lost in the Gulf War.

Josh_TN said:
I wish we had any idea what Russian pre war stocks were of stand off PGMs.
Click to expand...
Don't know but they've likely produced more cruise missiles and SRBMs in the interim anyway.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom