Monday, July 7, 2025

Iskander

The National Interest website has an interesting article on Russia’s Iskander missile.  The article describes the missile,
 
Russia’s Iskander system, particularly the Iskander-M variant, is equipped with two solid-propellant single-stage guided missiles, model 9M723K1, each capable of carrying a warhead weighing 1,543 pounds. These warheads can include high-explosive fragmentation, cluster, or even nuclear payloads. With an operational range of 249 to 311 miles, the Iskander-M can strike targets deep …
 
The missile’s hypersonic terminal speed, reaching Mach 6 or 7, and quasi-ballistic trajectory, which involves evasive maneuvers during flight, make it exceptionally difficult to intercept. …  Russia has introduced radar decoys that deploy during the missile’s final approach, generating false signatures to confuse air defense systems like the US-supplied Patriot missile battery. Additionally, the missile’s ability to perform unpredictable maneuvers at high altitudes complicates interception algorithms, reducing the effectiveness of even defenses. The Iskander’s mobile launch platform, which can independently target and fire within seconds, adds to its survivability, as it is challenging to locate and neutralize before launch.[1]

Impessive, on paper, without a doubt but this is not an invincible weapon.
 
This has been especially evident in attacks on Kyiv where, despite Ukraine’s success in intercepting some missiles, the upgraded Iskander-M has caused significant damage.[1]

It would be interesting to know the circumstances of the successful intercepts and the overall success rates.
 
It is also noteworthy that the reported successes of the Iskander tend to be mainly centered around attacks on cities rather than military targets.  It is possible that the Iskander may be more of a terror weapon, similar to Germany’s V-1 rockets in WWII, than an effective combat weapon.
 
It is also worth noting that Ukraine possesses only fragments of a comprehensive air defense system and in only limited numbers.  It may be that the Iskander successes are more the result of a lack of air defenses than the effectiveness of the missile, itself.  On the other hand, perhaps not.  What is the success rate of the Iskander when attacking targets defended by active air defenses such as Patriot?  We just don’t know.
 
 
Discussion
 
Several thoughts occur:
 
Where’s our version of something like this?  Which one of our missiles has capabilities of similar to this?  I’m not aware that we have a missile approaching this type of performance.  We have a lot of different types of missiles so maybe I’m missing something? 
 
How do we effectively defend against this type of missile?  Are we testing our defenses against a representative threat surrogate?  I know we’re not because there is no realistic threat surrogate.  Since we’re not testing, how do we know how our defenses will perform?
 
It’s clear that the Iskander is not unstoppable.  How stoppable it is in the face of an actual defense is unknown but there is no reason to throw up our hands in defeat, as so many do at the mere mention of hypersonic missiles.
 
This emphasizes the importance of deep surveillance to try to target the launchers prior to launch.  We have plenty of deep strike options.  What we lack is survivable, deep surveillance assets that would be unaffected by anti-communications efforts (jamming, etc.)
 
Intimately tied to deep surveillance is deep strike with an emphasis on rapid response.  We have plenty of deep strike options but they need to be linked with the deep surveillance and targeting so that when a target is found, a weapon can be on its way in moments to destroy the target before it can launch or move.
 
It is also important to apply deep interdiction to prevent resupply of enemy missiles from occurring.  There’s a limit to how much damage an initial salvo of enemy missiles can do.  The challenge is to prevent follow on missiles from reaching launch points.  This requires deep strike interdiction on the order of hundreds of miles inside enemy territory.  This is the kind of task that a carrier group or a Marine amphibious raid behind enemy lines might address.
 
The challenges are twofold: 
 
1. Develop our own version of such a missile, including a ship launched variant.
2. Develop realistic defenses that are be mobile and can move with our forces.
 
 
 
_____________________________
 
[1]National Interest website, “Russia’s Iskander Missiles Are Giving Ukraine a Massive Headache”, Brandon Weichert, 24-Jun-2025,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-iskander-missiles-are-giving-ukraine-a-massive-headache

24 comments:

  1. Russian missile technology seems to be very advanced; far more so than our own. The Iskandar is a bit of a workhorse having been around for twenty years or more, but we should be probably more concerned about the hypersonic Khinzal, and the ramjet powered Zircon, both of which are essentially unstoppable by current US interceptors, including the Patriots (although an upgraded version of the Patriot is on the way according to reports).
    And then the Russians have the slightly mysterious Oreshnik, about which very little is known, but which would appear to give them the ability to take out our European NATO bases with a conventional strike within 15 minutes of launch.
    Scary stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " ...both of which are essentially unstoppable..."

      According to who?

      Delete
    2. "both of which are essentially unstoppable"

      Unless you have data demonstrating that, let's not present opinion as fact. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Wikipedia has the receipts:
      https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

      https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/3M22_Zircon#Deployment

      Both have been shot down, are within the capability of Patriot and SAMP/T in the Ukraine, and presumably US and European navy ships as well. They don't seem very accurate and are only supersonic by the time they get near their targets.

      Delete
    4. "such interceptions are very few and far between"

      Comment deleted as unverified. I'm positive you have absolutely no data on the number of intercepts, attempts, percent success rate, or anything else.

      Delete
  2. Iskander is a precision strike missile with high accuracy. It has destroyed Patriot in battlefield.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every weapon in history has destroyed stuff. What's your point?

      Delete
  3. ATACMS is a similar size and range (per public information), but only Mach 3. Tomahawk similar size, greater range, not supersonic.

    Pershing II was > Mach 5, but much larger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pershing was cancelled in arms control treaty with Soviet Union. As time lapsed, much knowledge has lost in the nation but China adopted its concept of brief rising near target to develop its DF-21D. This brief rising gives radar to lock on target.

      Today, nation has most comprehensive missiles is China. Its precision rockets have longer range than ATACMS. Fire Dragon 480 (750 mm diameter) has a range up to 600 km with 480kg payload. US Army's PrSM, despite310 mile range, has only 200lb payload - what usefulness to deliver so little dynamite 300 miles away? Besides its famous DF-17 hypersonic missiles, China's DF-100 (or CH-100) supersonic cruise missile is also very lethal. Since recent Pakistan - India air battle, Chinese weapons have gained credibility among many.

      Nevertheless, ATACMS are good battle field missiles (although called rockets). A key problem is that they are too expensive to use extensively. If US could have supplied many ATACMS to Ukraine, they would have been able to last longer in many battlefields.

      Delete
    2. "Fire Dragon 480 (750 mm diameter) has a range up to 600 km"

      A quick check of references seems to show a range of up to 300 km, not 600. Do you have a reference for 600?

      Delete
  4. Uh-oh. Looks like we have a missile gap again!

    I opine we've always had a bit of a missile gap since at least the early 80s.
    The Soviets had the Shipwreck and Sandbox missiles with their large (750-1000kg) warheads.
    The current Russian missiles seem to be a continuation of that same philosophy. You don't have to be as accurate when you can sink the ship with just one hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " missile gap since at least the early 80s.
      The Soviets had the Shipwreck and Sandbox missiles"

      Just to offer some perspective, our needs were different than the Soviets. The Soviets had no significant surface fleet so we had no pressing need to develop a large, fast, anti-ship missile. With the rise of China, of course, we could now use one and, in that, we are decidedly lagging. The LRASM was, once upon a time, going to be our moderately large, moderately fast, anti-ship missile but that program seems to be on the back burner, at best.

      Just a reminder that we can't simply compare weapon to weapon. We have to compare weapon to needs.

      Delete
  5. Data on the Patriot system is very poor. If a missile is launched and explodes near its target with its proximity fuze that is counted as a successful engagement. It rarely destroys the missile but often knocks it off course so it still explodes near its target. This is why Russian missiles often hit civilian areas in cities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually it's more complicated than this. Patriot missiles are not all created equal. Per Wikipedia, the older Pac-2 missiles do have proximity fuses and fragmentation warheads, but the newer PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE missiles are hit to kill. Not sure what mix are going to Ukraine.

      Delete
    2. The Oman & Saudi also have been using PAC-3, so there should be an abundance of test info for once.
      Hittiles is the British term for PAC-3 style interceptors.

      Delete
  6. From today, Ford class carrier news just makes me laugh at this point. It was supposed to be delivered last year, then push out a year, and now two years!

    The future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) will now deliver in March 2027, according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget justification documents. The carrier was supposed to deliver this month, according to last year’s budget plans.

    “The CVN 79 delivery date shifted from July 2025 to March 2027 (preliminary acceptance TBD) to support completion of Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) certification and continued Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE) work,” reads the latest FY 2026 shipbuilding budget book.

    https://news.usni.org/2025/07/07/carrier-john-f-kennedy-delivery-delayed-2-years-fleet-will-drop-to-10-carriers-for-1-year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... time to scrap the Enterprise where she sits, cancel future ships in class, pull out the Nimitz plans, and real quick figure out how to make the new reactors work in the old design, as well as any other different long lead time items in the production pipeline. Then fire absolutely anyone even remotely connected with the Ford program. Recall the retirees and strip them of rank and privileges. This clown show has gone on long enough!!!
      And then... figure out how to get another 5 years out of Nimitz and CVN-69 to bridge the (new) gap. And while we are at it, cancel that ridiculous Constellation class before another cent is wasted!!!

      Delete
    2. "It was supposed to be delivered last year, then push out a year, and now two years!"

      So it sounds like the end date is receding faster than time is passing! Does this mean it's making negative progress?

      Delete
    3. USS Kennedy is a shame, especially compared to China's Fujian.

      USS Kennedy is second Ford Class carrier. Supposedly, problems found on USS Ford should have been addressed. It was launched in October 2019. At that time, China's Fujian was still under construction. The Fujian was launched in June 2022 (32 months after USS Kennedy). Now, as the Fujian has conducted many sea trials and is about entering service soon. What do we hear on USS Kennedy? still no sea trial but delivery will be delayed well into 2027.

      USS Kennedy is not first of its class. Have we not solved all troubles found on USS Ford and addressed them accordingly?

      Delete
    4. @Jjabatie
      Agree with your post, aircraft carriers are too important to our national defense to have such poor designs forming the backbone of the navy surface fleet.

      The only difference I would suggest would be to make carriers going forward non-nuclear. The benefits of nuclear are not insignificant, but IMO the danger of battle damage rupturing the nuclear system trumps all.

      Instead the navy could power carriers with multiple LM2500 engines and power the screws with electric motors.

      Steam for catapults could be harvested by reclaiming the heat from the LM2500s' exhausts to heat boilers and produce the needed steam.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    5. "...cancel that ridiculous Constellation class before another cent is wasted!!!"

      CNO's idea for a dedicated AAW ship seems like a better course:

      https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/search/label/Atlanta%20Class

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  7. Let us assume for a moment that the Iskander is impossible to intercept. I've read that they've fired between 1,000 and 1,500 of them at Ukraine. In a way, wouldn't the worst case scenario where Ukraine has intercepted 0 of 1500 missiles would be the best case scenario since it would indicate that the missiles aren't worth intercepting (at least from a limited military perspective) because they have no ability to damage Ukraine's military position?

    Is it worth spending billions to intercept missiles that can't hit their targets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "would indicate that the missiles aren't worth intercepting "

      ????? How do you reason that???

      "missiles that can't hit their targets?"

      How do you know whether they hit their targets? Do you have a comprehensive list of Russia's targets?

      You're trying to make some kind of point but I have no idea what.

      Delete
  8. A Ukranian newspaper article Dec. '23 which in sorrow said not one of the 300 Russian Kh-22 missiles had been intercepted (Kh-22 / 5,800kg/1,000kg warhead - Mach 4.6, Range 600km/320miles, max height 46,000ft), reflects the lack of AA and ABM systems in Ukraine a very large country and the lack of range of ABM missiles/systems. Patriot range only approx. 25km against SRBMs? Kh-22 is a difficult target as it flies low at high speed to give very limited reaction time to intercept, presume Patriot might have better success if the Iskander-M aimed directly at the Patriot battery, though one battery was hit.

    Understand figures from Oregon State University who specialize in using satellite radar data to assess the recent Iranian ballistic missile attack and damage on Israel reported five IDF military bases plus 36 other targets were hit. Israel is only a very small country with its very comprehensive ABM systems of David's Sling, Arrow 2 and 3 plus two US Army THAAD batteries and two USN Burke destroyers with SM-6 and SM-3 and thought Israel according to the hype would be capable of taking out all the Iranian missiles but IDF only claimed 87% success rate, though have seen lower figures showing it was letting through around 16 per cent Iranian missiles for whatever reason.

    My interpretation is that with ballistic missiles with atomic warheads Iran could have killed millions in Israel due to the limitations of ABM systems, unlikely any system will be 100%, whether Gold Dome will do better open to question.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.