System 9-A-7660 Kinzhal - 9-S-7760 missile (Article 292) / AS-24 KILLJOY

paralay said:
They show that the Dagger in this screenshot has a detachable warhead, but the Iskander in this screenshot does not.
Click to expand...
We're really talking about the RV not the warhead. So does the RV steer via deployable fins, flaps or by thrust in order to guide?
 
It should be managed, for example, like this


425125.gif
 
There are a few of these internal arrangement diagrams floating around the interwebs, do we know if any of them are any more than educated guesswork?

Kinzhal-variants-2.jpg

Kinzhal-variants-5.jpg

EDIT: Zooming in on the second drawing shows that the 'unitary warhead assembly' has pretty clearly been added at a later date to a copy of the internal arrangement drawing above (in blue), and so is probably even less reliable than that drawing.
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
There are a few of these internal arrangement diagrams floating around the interwebs, do we know if any of them are any more than educated guesswork?

View attachment 699614

View attachment 699615

EDIT: Zooming in on the second drawing shows that the 'unitary warhead assembly' has pretty clearly been added at a later date to a copy of the internal arrangement drawing above (in blue), and so is probably even less reliable than that drawing.
Click to expand...
I think you can actually see the folded flaps in the last drawing.

1684090072720.png
 
Forest Green said:
jeffb said:
There are a few of these internal arrangement diagrams floating around the interwebs, do we know if any of them are any more than educated guesswork?

View attachment 699614

View attachment 699615

EDIT: Zooming in on the second drawing shows that the 'unitary warhead assembly' has pretty clearly been added at a later date to a copy of the internal arrangement drawing above (in blue), and so is probably even less reliable than that drawing.
Click to expand...
I think you can actually see the folded flaps in the last drawing.

View attachment 699656
Click to expand...
Yeah you can, but only because the 'unitary warhead' section of the drawing has been dropped on top of the same section from the drawing above (in blue). You can see whoever did it didn't bother moving or removing any other lines, they just dropped that bit in on top. That part of the picture even uses a different line thickness to the rest of the diagram. They even drew over the mechanicals that drive the flaps.

iMarkup_20230515_124502.jpg iMarkup_20230515_124753.jpg
 
jeffb said:
There are a few of these internal arrangement diagrams floating around the interwebs, do we know if any of them are any more than educated guesswork?

View attachment 699614

View attachment 699615

EDIT: Zooming in on the second drawing shows that the 'unitary warhead assembly' has pretty clearly been added at a later date to a copy of the internal arrangement drawing above (in blue), and so is probably even less reliable than that drawing.
Click to expand...

" even less reliable ? " We know the location of the warhead that is behind the radar.
 
seruriermarshal said:
jeffb said:
There are a few of these internal arrangement diagrams floating around the interwebs, do we know if any of them are any more than educated guesswork?

View attachment 699614

View attachment 699615

EDIT: Zooming in on the second drawing shows that the 'unitary warhead assembly' has pretty clearly been added at a later date to a copy of the internal arrangement drawing above (in blue), and so is probably even less reliable than that drawing.
Click to expand...

" even less reliable ? " We know the location of the warhead that is behind the radar.
Click to expand...

That's as may be, the diagram with the 'unitary warhead' looks like a fake though. Whoever did the copy paste job didn't even bother centering it properly.
 
Another set of diagrams, sadly in potato quality. The middle one appears to be the cassette warhead type Paralay mentioned. Again, don't know how accurate or not. Probably not.

1684139456481.jpeg
 
jeffb said:
Yeah you can, but only because the 'unitary warhead' section of the drawing has been dropped on top of the same section from the drawing above (in blue). You can see whoever did it didn't bother moving or removing any other lines, they just dropped that bit in on top. That part of the picture even uses a different line thickness to the rest of the diagram. They even drew over the mechanicals that drive the flaps.
Click to expand...
It does say it's been edited to show the unitary warhead warhead though. But fact is, it matches the one found in the Stavropol Kinzhal crash site anyway, and that's the only thing we know is really of and from the Kinzhal. Or were you talking about the blue line drawings?

jeffb said:
Another set of diagrams, sadly in potato quality. The middle one appears to be the cassette warhead type Paralay mentioned. Again, don't know how accurate or not. Probably not.

View attachment 699696
Click to expand...
That's more likely the Iskander given the different unitary warhead shape (top drawing) that matches the one found in Syria (below).

0iskander-warhead-from-shusha-jpg.699547
 
Last edited:
There is a big side argument for the latter.
There was no air raid warning on that day, and Ukraine does it every time mig-31k takes off.
There was, however, footage of a twin Iskander launch that night.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
It does say it's been edited to show the unitary warhead warhead though. But fact is, it matches the one found in the Stavropol Kinzhal crash site anyway, and that's the only thing we know is really of and from the Kinzhal.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering which came first, the edited drawing or the crashed missile?

Also, that Stavropol crash seems weird to me. Did it land horizontally?
 
jeffb said:
Forest Green said:
It does say it's been edited to show the unitary warhead warhead though. But fact is, it matches the one found in the Stavropol Kinzhal crash site anyway, and that's the only thing we know is really of and from the Kinzhal.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering which came first, the edited drawing or the crashed missile?

Also, that Stavropol crash seems weird to me. Did it land horizontally?
Click to expand...
Probably.

After a hit like that it likely be tumbling.

And we did see similar happened with the Scuds back in Desert Storm so its not unheard off.

It just that mobile missile defense is so NEW and UNUSED all the quirks of it still fairly unknown in the public sphere.

And Strange Shit Happens in war.

Cause reality had no care bout making sense.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
So the AS-24 has a separable MARV?
Click to expand...

No sorry, don't know. Won't muddy the waters.

EDIT: Iskander-M might though:

The 9M723 Ballistic Missile​


9M723 SRBM is 7.3 meters long, 0.92 meters in diameter, and have a launch weight of 3,800 kilograms.6 The missiles possesses a maximum range of 500 km and carries payloads between 480 and 700 kg. The export variant, the 9M720 has a reduced range of 280 km while carrying a 480 kg payload.7

These missiles fly on a depressed trajectory and can maneuver up to 30g in flight. Additionally, the 9M723 is reported to have a separating warhead which can independently maneuver in the terminal stage. Using a combination of inertial, GLONASS, and radar terrain correlation guidance, the missile can strike targets within a circular error probable (CEP) of 2-5 meters. The 9M720 export model employs inertial guidance for midcourse flight and electrooptical terminal guidance to achieve accuracies between 5 and 10 m CEP. Several units may also be fitted with a digital scene matching area correlation (DSMAC) terminal guidance system, which was first tested in 2011 and entered service in 2012.8
Click to expand...
missilethreat.csis.org

9K720 Iskander (SS-26) | Missile Threat

The 9K720 Iskander (NATO: SS-26 “Stone”) is a road-mobile short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) with a range of up to 500 km. Using a common transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) and support vehicles, the system can also fire the 9M728 (R-500, SSC-7) and 9M729 (SSC-8) cruise missiles. Iskander...
missilethreat.csis.org missilethreat.csis.org

EDIT: Additionally:
The Iskander has several different conventional warheads, including a cluster munitions warhead, a fuel–air explosive enhanced-blast warhead, a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, an earth penetrator for bunker busting and an electromagnetic pulse device for anti-radar missions. The missile can also carry nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Sorry for all the edits.
 
Last edited:
Which means that some or all of the Iskander warheads have been adapted to the Kinzhal or, possibly, the Ukrainians shot down an Iskander.

The Iskander flys M6-7 and its range is thought to be about 500km. Belgorod, within the Russian Federation, is a bit over 400km from Kyiv.
 
Forest Green said:
This one:

Click to expand...
Sorry Forrest, I rely on the notifications system to work out if someone has replied to me and I'm only 'watching' a couple of threads.

There's no scale on the first image to allow any sort of comparison (to anything really). The blurry image has been pasted over the outline of a Kinzhal. All we we can deduce from that is that it's roughly the right shape.

The second certainly appears to be a Kinzhal (or an Iskander) but is only proof that that particular missile wasn't fitted with a separating warhead.
 
How many AS-24s are there left? From what I've seen in regards to reports indicates the Russia has squandered the majority of its' Killjoys in its' stockpile?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom