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

13 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. The word ‘essentially’ is obviously a qualifier, and means ‘in practical terms’.
      Yes, these missiles have occasionally been intercepted by Patriots, and maybe their European equivalents, however such interceptions are very few and far between. Since at least two Patriot launches are required for any real chance of a hit, and since even then nearly all the missiles get through, and since Patriots are in short supply, at the present time these hypersonic missiles are ‘essentially’ unstoppable.
      Yuri Ignat, head of Ukraine Air Defense Command, stated in 2023 that Ukrainian defenses are completely unable to intercept not only Khinzals, but also most of the Iskander, Oniks and KH-31Ps that the Russians launch. Last month he confirmed that even with the Patriots it was almost impossible to intercept the latest versions of the Khinzals.

      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
  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

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