Kh-95 long range strategic missile

Is this news to us?

ASB News / MILITARYPart alternation mark
@ASBMilitary
·
15h
Hypersonic Kh-95 missile is being developed for Tu-22M3M and Tu-160 mM bombers and & Su-57 for long-range ops. The reports say that the new missile prototype has already been test-fired from an aircraft. The Kh-95 missile has never been mentioned before. Expected range: 5.000KM

New hypersonic cruise missile with 5000km range big wow And it is already being tested? I wonder how fast it flies.

That's probably how they developed the scramjet engine technology.  They can mount larger missile on bombers than on ships, which are limited by the size of the VLS USKS.  Though I doubt that the Kh 95 could be carried by the Su 57.

Oooops, wrong thread. Can you move it please Garry?

I think Russia is currently in the "Century Series Fighter Jet" phase that USA had after WW2 only with missiles instead of planes

Basically once you crack the engine technology new platforms that use it just keep coming up at the crazy pace

A very good analogy... jet engines offered potential increases in flight speed performance over propellers, but the fuel consumption meant much shorter range and less endurance.

Over time the jets improved and got more powerful and make supersonic flight practical while range and endurance improved too.

Ramjets have an upper speed limit and are essentially running a very simple jet engine like it was in full AB all the time.

If you need to fly very fast all the way a ramjet makes sense but for most planes the ramjet is not so efficient for takeoffs and landings.

For missiles however a high flight speed could only be achieved by rocket power and rocket power is not very fuel efficient for long range flights.

For intercontinental flights an ICBM makes sense, but before ICBMs could do it there were plenty of ramjet powered super heavy cruise missiles being worked upon.

Interestingly with scramjet motors the top speed limit is shifted dramatically but being a jet engine that scoops up oxygen in flight makes it vastly more fuel efficient than a rocket motor and able to fly much faster than any jet turbine powered aircraft.

Expect to see scramjet engines replacing rocket motors in a range of weapon types from SAMs and AAMs as well as cruise missiles and anti ship missiles... perhaps even ATGMs too.

I guess max.load will be 3 missiles for the Tu-22M3M.

The new missile might just be like a super Zircon in the sense that it will be a long narrow missile that is mostly fuel, with a solid rocket booster to get it up to flight speed and start a long climb to high altitude where it can accelerate and burn fuel and get lighter to a point where it dumps a large section like an external fuel tank and really starts to accelerate and climb... it might even be subsonic for the first thousand kms of flight but that is just speculation on my part.

The point is that the fuel it carries does not need any oxidiser like rocket fuel needs so it will be quarter of the weight of a rocket powered weapon.

It will likely be long and slim so it can be carried internally in the Tu-160 and the PAKDA which will likely be the main carriers of the weapon.

Aren't the Tu-22M3 being tested with a new smaller hypersonic missile (suitable with Su-57 bays) already?

Yes, the Gzur, Mach 6 and 1,500km range... could be carried externally on an Su-57 but most likely about 6m long.

Also, the Tu-160 have new rotary launchers?

To carry Calibr and Kh-101/102 and Kh-555 type missiles... 6 to a weapon bay.

I wonder what the maximum speed is able to reach Kh 95?  The range of the new missile is impressive, about 5 times more than that of the Cirkon.  This is a huge improvement even in relation to Cirkon, which is also in the testing phase.  Of course, the Cirkon is limited by the size of the USKS launchers, but the Kh 95 cannot be much larger. So some more modern scramjet engine for that new fuel? It can also follow a ballistic trajectory after turning off the scramjet engine. Perhaps the Cirkon at a range of over 1000 km also follows such a non-propelled trajectory.
The new hypersonic missile will provide great opportunities for strategic aviation, as well as the Cirkon for the surface and submarine fleet.  The development of new missile systems in Russia is impressive.  Nobody has developed so many new hypersonic cruise missile , ballistic, aerobalistic, maneuvering, etc.

kvs wrote:

LMFS wrote:It is remarkable how differently US and Russia work. In Russia the MoD projects are secret and when they are announced it means they are essentially ready and their followers and/or countering technology is being worked on. In the US the main thing is to make PR, even when the actual thing does not even work, like the ARRW fiasco. This is completely wrong for many reasons, but specifically sets the programs in the West under immense pressure and scrutiny which are totally contrary to the needs of actual technological development. This is strikingly ignorant and inadequate from the West, and of course has consequences in the military value of what is produced in the end. As said before, the West's remaining core competence is indeed PR and little more.

The reason for the PR hype is that it serves to project a facade of superiority and invincibility.   So we have US pundits talking about US hypersonic
missiles being deployed around China which do not even exist.   And many people take this rubbish seriously.

Also it allows another group of people, perhaps with an ex General or two involved, to get grubby their hands in the Government money pot.

It is interesting whether the Kh 95 is simply a GZUR missile, they reported many times about the work on this missile. Is it a completely different project?

Arrow wrote:I wonder what the maximum speed is able to reach Kh 95?  The range of the new missile is impressive, about 5 times more than that of the Cirkon.  This is a huge improvement even in relation to Cirkon, which is also in the testing phase.  Of course, the Cirkon is limited by the size of the USKS launchers, but the Kh 95 cannot be much larger. So some more modern scramjet engine for that new fuel? It can also follow a ballistic trajectory after turning off the scramjet engine.  Perhaps the Cirkon at a range of over 1000 km also follows such a non-propelled trajectory.
The new hypersonic missile will provide great opportunities for strategic aviation, as well as the Cirkon for the surface and submarine fleet.  The development of new missile systems in Russia is impressive.  Nobody has developed so many new hypersonic cruise missile , ballistic, aerobalistic, maneuvering, etc.

I think like GarryB said, subsonic main stage and a hypersonic terminal one. Don't think it will use a scramjet in that case as that would just be additional weight; you'd still need a rocket booster to accelerate it from subsonic to high supersonic in that case. Instead skip that, and just rather use a rocket stage to accelerate it to hypersonic and then hit the target.

Like the Kalibr basically, except running at a higher altitude, and maybe using the Kh-101 as its base

I wonder what the maximum speed is able to reach Kh 95? The range of the new missile is impressive, about 5 times more than that of the Cirkon. This is a huge improvement even in relation to Cirkon, which is also in the testing phase. Of course, the Cirkon is limited by the size of the USKS launchers, but the Kh 95 cannot be much larger.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, Zircon is a mach 9-10 speed weapon so five times faster is simply not realistic.

This new missile will be designed to be carried internally by the Tu-160 and PAK DA and externally on the Tu-22M3M so it could be 11 metres long and 5 tons in weight... with most of the weight being fuel.

It is interesting whether the Kh 95 is simply a GZUR missile, they reported many times about the work on this missile. Is it a completely different project?

Interesting you bring that up because GZUR is supposed to be a Mach 6 missile with a range of 1,500km that will be 6m or less long so it can be carried internally on the Tu-22M3 or in doubles on the Tu-160 with 12 missiles in each weapon bay... which are 11m long... perhaps an upgrade will make them 12-13m long so they can carry double 6m long missiles.

The point is that GZUR was supposed to replace the Kh-15 Kickback... a short range attack missile armed with nuclear warhead and a mach 5 solid rocket motor.

The Kickback is supposed to be carried by Tu-160s and if enemy air defence light up or enemy fighters appear this high speed ballistic rocket can be launched into the midst of enemy aircraft interceptors or ground based air defences with a nuclear air burst to clear the way.

It needs to be fast to accelerate ahead of the bombers and destroy the threat before the bombers fly over.

GZUR II however is double its length and is 11 metres long with hypersonic speeds and flight ranges of 10,000km+ to engage targets anywhere in the world.
The GZUR was supposed to be ready about now and the GZUR II was supposed to be ready in 4-5 years time... according to Piotr Butowski.

Don't think it will use a scramjet in that case as that would just be additional weight; you'd still need a rocket booster to accelerate it from subsonic to high supersonic in that case.

A ramjet and a scramjet are the same thing with the only exception being that in the scramjet the fuel can be burned in a supersonic airflow, while in a ramjet the airflow must be subsonic for the fuel to combust...

Basically no fins or blades or disks... air comes in a tube that gets narrower and narrower... which compresses it and heats it up... fuel is added and it combusts and the resultant gasses exit the rear of the tube generating enormous thrust.

A ramjet loses energy at about mach 5 to mach 6 because it has to slow the air coming in to it to subsonic speed to burn fuel... a scramjet does not need to slow down the airflow into the engine... it is like a rocket that scoops up its oxidiser in flight... its potential is enormous...

GarryB wrote:

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, Zircon is a mach 9-10 speed weapon so five times faster is simply not realistic.

GarryB I meant Kh 95 range, not speed. The source said that the range of the new missile is about 5000 km, which is a huge improvement compared to the Cirkon. Perhaps the Kh 95 will fly slower, for example at 6M

The main difference is that Zircon is surface launched or ship or sub or whatever.... so it will probably have a big heavy solid rocket motor designed to get the whole object airborne and moving at speed before the scramjet lights up and accelerates and climbs higher.

This new missile is air launched so a solid rocket booster to accelerate it makes sense to fill in the combustion chamber of the scramjet... which is otherwise just empty space anyway.

Having some folding wings would be useful too if they could be swept to different angles for different flight phases... a high lift straight wing for launch at normal high subsonic speeds at medium altitudes... the solid rocket motor booster allowing it to perhaps climb to 20-30km altitude to then level off and light up its scramjet motor to accelerate to higher and higher speeds to start with.

Ramjets operate quite efficiently at supersonic speed so it would not be like a turbojet that is subsonic most of the way to conserve fuel.... with a turbofan engine I would say fly most of the trip at high subsonic speed and then as you get closer to the target and most of your fuel is burned off so you are much lighter and can perhaps drop some external fuel tanks then a full AB sprint to the target would make you harder to intercept while maximising range performance... but with a scramjet powered missile it would probably be most efficient to accelerate to high speed and very high altitude and then throttle back and cruise along at very very high speed as that would allow you to cover the most distance with the minimum of fuel burn and when you are moving that fast at that high you are likely the safest you are going to be from enemy air defences.... and the amount of ground you will cover at the high speed will give you much better range.

To start with you will be very heavy with excess fuel as most of the missile by weight will be fuel, so the first part of the flight might be at mach 5 or 6, but as you get lighter your power to weight ratio will shift and if you can dump external fuel tanks or a second stage then the huge reduction in drag should allow rather higher speeds to be achieved which means covering ground much much faster.

Remember a Kh-15 moving at mach 5 which means it covers about 26kms per minute, so in 10 minutes it will reach its max range of 250km.

It uses solid rocket propulsion so it would not burn for 10 minutes... it would go up and down like an artillery shell on a ballistic trajectory... very predictable and not easy to intercept, but straight forward with the right tools.

This new missile... assuming a similar scramjet motor will be moving at mach 10 or so, which means about 3.2km/s flight speed which would take about 26 minutes, but the engine can be throttled so for the first part of the flight it will be travelling slower because it will be heavier and higher drag but it will also be safer from enemy air defence systems, but later in the flight when it is higher and faster there is no point in hitting the target with fuel left over so it can calculate its fuel burn rate and distance to the target... even allowing for a few manouvers and start climbing and accelerating as much as it can to be the hardest target it can be for the enemy air defences.

Assuming internal carriage on the Tu-160 and the PAK DA but allowing external carriage on the Backfire... though that is suspect because the Backfire is not strategic so probably wont carry this missile except in a conventional armed version...

The length could be as much as 11 metres... longer means internal carriage while fatter greatly complicates things and increases drag.

The Kh-101/102 got fatter but it is a subsonic cruise missile so the extra fuel capacity was vastly important than the increased drag and weight to its performance.

GarryB wrote:t... even allowing for a few manouvers and start climbing and accelerating as much as it can to be the hardest target it can be for the enemy air defences.

Unlike Russia, with no IADS NATO air defences seem to be 90% fighter, 5% SAM and 5% fingers crossed/prayer. Maybe I got the % wrong but you get the point. There are probably well under 50 strategic airfields in Europe and under 10 ports on the US eastern seaboard. Missiles like these will ensure that any war is effectively over in hours. Leaving only the nuke option to the West.

The performance of these systems just seems to get more dominant.

Body diameter Tsirkon: roughly 550mm
Body diameter Kh-95: propably closer to that of the Kh-32 with 950mm

= Fatter

Body diameter of Zircon is to fit into the UKSK launch tubes which means it is probably 750mm the same as Onyx.

Body diameter of the Kh-22 is 920mm with a wingspan of about 3m and the Kh-32 is the same AFAIK.

The point is that matching the Kh-32s diameter makes no sense because the Kh-32 cannot be carried internally on the Tu-160, which will be is primary carrier along with the PAK DA.

The Kh-101/102 is 750mm diameter too and it fits internally on the Tu-160, and I would expect a requirement of the Kh-95 would be to be able to be carried internally on the Tu-160 and the PAK DA...

Now they increased the payload of the Tu-160 from 40 tons to 45 tons in the upgraded models and I would guess they might extend the weapon bays a little perhaps too because having a weapon bay 11 metres long means with 6 metre long missiles you can only get six missiles per bay despite a lot of empty space, whereas an extended weapon bay of say 13m is not that much bigger but would allow a double missile weapon load or the loading of much longer missiles... both of which is a good thing.

It would essentially mean that 6 GZUR II missiles in the front bay could be carried along with 12 GZUR I nuclear armed enemy defence penetration missiles on some aircraft to blast their way through enemy defences.

Perhaps one in 4 or one in 6 would carry the GZUR I missiles while the remainder just carry more GZUR II missiles... whose flight range would mean the aircraft would not need to penetrate enemy territory very far anyway and the missile would cover the distance to the target much faster and safer than the plane could.

JohninMK wrote:

Unlike Russia, with no IADS NATO air defences seem to be 90% fighter, 5% SAM and 5% fingers crossed/prayer. Maybe I got the % wrong but you get the point. There are probably well under 50 strategic airfields in Europe and under 10 ports on the US eastern seaboard. Missiles like these will ensure that any war is effectively over in hours. Leaving only the nuke option to the West.

The performance of these systems just seems to get more dominant.

Yes, Russia today has a significant advantage over NATO, despite the fact that NATO is much closer to Russia's borders than it was in the times of the USSR.  Today, the incredible development of maneuvering hypersonic and subsonic missiles has given the FR the possibility of precise strikes on critical NATO infrastructure and, thanks to hypersonic weapons, a very quick strike .  Even the USSR did not have such an option, ignoring the nuclear option.  NATO has such weak air defense that even subsubsonic missiles like the Kalibr and the Ch 101 are very dangerous.  on the other hand, the Russian IADS is able to stop a massive cruise missile attack.  Only a massive nuclear attack with ICBM and SLBM missiles is at stake.

Hypersonic weapons are a very serious game changer.

The irony is that the best defence against a hypersonic manouvering threat is the sort of massive IADS network that Russia currently has, and the same network is the best solution to stealth and low slow cruise missiles and swarm attacks.

As the west introduces new forms of attacks the Russians adapt their defences to cope making them stronger and more capable and for export...

The real irony is that low flying cruise missiles are cheap and easy to mass produce and the intended swarm drones are supposed to be the same so they can be made in enormous numbers.

By making and using the former the west has forced Russia to adapt its air defences to deal with the problems and in creating their own equivalent cruise missiles which the west has not responded to in terms of air defence they are in effect making Russia even stronger than it appears.

Air defence and attack are all performed in the west by air power and they have a lot of planes, but do they have enough to effectively perform both defence and attack roles at the same time?

I am not sure they have the management and AWACS and JSTARS like aircraft in sufficient numbers for both jobs at the same time... and indeed the Russians have taken steps to make those management aircraft vulnerable along with inflight refuelling aircraft...

S-500 is too valuable to waste shooting down most aircraft targets, but using two or three to take down AWACS platforms would be very much a fundamental change in any battle against the side that lost the AWACS planes.

Its effect would make it worth it, while shooting down an individual B-1B or B-52 might not be so useful... in fact depleting the S-500 missile stocks might be worth the loss of some aircraft.

The problem with swarm weapons is that the west can't make cheap which will make the numbers required to make it successful too expensive to achieve more than a few times, and the obvious solution of a nuclear air burst amongst the swarm cloud while it is in enemy territory on its way towards you would even make it counter productive.

More seriously the capacity for Russia and China to make equivalent drones in the numbers required to make it effective would leave the west horribly vulnerable to its own idea.