Russia's Kinzhal hypersonic missile has proven hugely effective in combat and effectively unstoppable.

Russia's Kinzhal hypersonic missile has proven hugely effective in combat and effectively unstoppable. How many did Russia have, how many has it used and how many can it reasonably produce?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >hugely effective in combat
    By what metric

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hits maternity wards and sewage processing facilities like no other.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Salty Ukros detected

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Hugely effective in combat

      You fired on innocent people in cities. I am not impressed.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't Anglos kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in deliberate bombings?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Depends, which time?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          yeah but they were nonwhite so who cares.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Good.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Didn't Anglos kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in deliberate bombings?

          So what you're saying is, Russian strike technology is on par with canvas-covered monoplane prop bombers from 80 years ago, and their copying tactics from 1944 is the peak of their abilities?

          Its hardly a glowing commendation of how advanced Russia is, is it?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't the Serbs try to GENOCIDE an entire people first?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Muslims
            >People
            Pick one

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/88lmP9M.jpg

              I love how Al-Qaeda accused us of being anti-Muslim when we have sided with Muslims MULTIPLE times in wars.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Serbs
              >People
              Pick one.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Russias bad.
          Shut the frick up.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Are you complaining about bombings done during total war and only after it was done to them first?
          Are you trying to compare a "special operation" to a total war?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Who the frick calls the British 'Anglos' in this context? If you're referring to the British and American strategic bombing campaigns just fricking call them the British and Americans, Such a bizarre phrase to use.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, we all know the anglos are evil, but that doesn't make russians into good guys. Truth is the Old World is all shit. That's the reason my family is in America, because my ancestors got sick of Europe's shit and GTFO. My great grandfather came to America after being made to fight in WW1.

          And that's why I don't like America getting involved in European wars. Europeans and Asians have been going at it for millenia and show no signs of ever stopping. Meanwhile in North America things are going fairly well. Neither Canada, Mexico nor America have gone to war with each other for while now. Imagine that, burgers and mexicans being more civil than Europe and Asia.

          inb4
          >muh injuns
          Crimea River

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >But whatabout anglos tho!!!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >what ABOOT anglos

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They had air defenses around te cities that failed to intercept.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Made some good webms

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        got some?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It is air to surface missile...
      The ground hit ratio is 100%

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Killing endless waves of wienerholes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hitting Kiev, where USA, Germany, France and England already failing to protect the capital with their AA systems.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        How will the holhols ever recover?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Idk it blew up that bus stop pretty good I guess.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      detonated after launch instead of before

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why is there a US concept in the picture instead of the 1980's Era russian weapon OP is talking about?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because if they used an actual image of one they might have to admit it's just an air launched Iskander.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        pic related is what it ACTUALLY looks like lmao. vatniks cannot into actual hypersonic weapons so they strap a ballistic missile to an aircraft. at least german wunderwaffen were actually mostly novel concepts for their time.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why does it look like a Pershing II from the 70s?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because it’s basically a Pershing II. But shittier because it’s Russian

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Wtf is that rope?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Decrease the size of the intake I'm guessing.
            I thought they only had them on MiG-29's for use on improvised runways (pic rel). I know other jet's need to actively manage how much air goes into the intakes but I'd have thought it was done hydraulically.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              it's holding the intake covers on anon, it gets removed before flight. Look closer

              I'm retarted - the red is universal for remove before flight.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            it's holding the intake covers on anon, it gets removed before flight. Look closer

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's to stop people from bumping their head into that edge.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/RoEivX9.png

            Decrease the size of the intake I'm guessing.
            I thought they only had them on MiG-29's for use on improvised runways (pic rel). I know other jet's need to actively manage how much air goes into the intakes but I'd have thought it was done hydraulically.

            Literally the rope attached to the covers and the visible red strip.
            It's so you can see that the covers are on even if inspected from the side, as they will always be attached to more forward covers that are more visible.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          "actual hypersonic weapons" are any weapons that move at hypersonic velocities.

          >nooo the term implies scramjet because reasons
          It literally doesn't. If you want to say hypersonic scramjet, then say hypersonic scramjet. The word "hypersonic" itself doesn't specify anything about propulsion or mission.

          • 1 year ago
            RC-135 Rivet Joint

            A lot of weapons have been hypersonic but ADVERTIZED as "muh hypersonic"

            The one of the far right, the CKEM? goes Mach 6.5 but General Atomics doesn't even mention its hypersonic nature in its own little missile flow chart.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Advertising claims are irrelevant. Does the weapon fly at hypersonic speeds or not? That's what determines whether or not a weapon is hypersonic.

              • 1 year ago
                RC-135 Rivet Joint

                Yes anon you technically 100% correct. I agree.

                ICBMs? hypersonic
                CKEM? hypersonic
                TBMs? hypersonic

                BUT in the English speaking MIC/World Hypersonic is reserved for air-breathing and glide body weapons.

                You don't have to like it, you can be correct but you WILL BE the social outcast and get told this exact same shit online you wanna talk about them.

                do you anon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ICBMs? hypersonic
                >BUT in the English speaking MIC/World Hypersonic is reserved for [...] glide body weapons.
                Guess what America developed for ICBMs decades ago?

                Are you trying to tell me that maneuverable reentry vehicles in controlled flight at hypersonic velocities aren't "hypersonic weapons" because... they don't have scramjets? Give me a break.

              • 1 year ago
                RC-135 Rivet Joint

                MARV? yeah they hit hypersonic at terminal speed.

                but we call them MARVs not HMARVs

                We call them RVs not HRVs.

                We call them ICBMs not HICBMs

                Get it?

                this is like a disagreement on nomenclature with both sides agreeing they have the same attributes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >hypersonic is defined by having a letter in the designation
                Oh I'm sorry, I didn't appreciate the shear depth of your autism. Carry on.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Do you sperg out equally as hard when someone refers to things as bullets and not supersonic bullets?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If somebody said that bullets aren't supersonic because they don't have jet engines, I would have a problem with that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                bullets aren't supersonic because they don't have jet engines

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I have a problem with that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                While true, and I agree with you, the cope Russians and Chinks often post is "The west doesn't have hypersanics they still testing haha" when what they mean is the west hasn't perfected scramjets to a non test model.

                The Chinks and Russians at the same time claim their weapons are effectively the same as the weapons the west is struggling with (scramjet hypersanics) despite being bargain basement SRBs, and thus people here argue that they aren't the same as the hypersanics, due to the wests decision to only use the nomenclature to apply to only their newer ram and scramjet technology.
                So while yes, the chinks and rooshans have hypersanics, so does half the world.

                The problem is simple really, the media once again is moronic, eats up shit and makes more shit, people misunderstand what the differences between hypersanics, and we have to argue about it here in every fricking goddamn hypersonic thread.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm no fan of russians and chinks, but perverting language just to dab on their shills isn't my cup of tea.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't subvert it, I just point it out. In every, fricking, thread.
                I'm not the other anon.

              • 1 year ago
                RC-135 Rivet Joint

                as per us government

                "The Army, Navy, and Air Force are each developing hypersonic missiles—nonnuclear offensive weapons that fly faster than five times the speed of sound and spend most of their flight in the Earth’s atmosphere."

                "The fundamental remaining challenge involves managing the extreme heat that hypersonic missiles are exposed to by traveling at high speeds in the atmosphere for most of their flight (unlike cruise missiles, which fly in the atmosphere at lower speeds, or ballistic missiles, which mainly fly above the atmosphere)"

                as per Northop Grumman

                "Today, we face the challenge of hypersonic missiles and maneuvering reentry vehicles that can move through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound."

                In America Hypersonic is used to describe a certain type of missile that goes hypersonic a certain way. so yeah I'm autistic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and maneuvering reentry vehicles
                Hmmm, now who was it that brought that up? Turns out missiles don't need scramjets to be hypersonic, because these things called "rocket engines" exist.

              • 1 year ago
                RC-135 Rivet Joint

                >Hmmm, now who was it that brought that up?

                Because MARVs are only hypersonic during the terminal phase which a small portion of their flight profile.
                and Hypersonic missiles(as per Americans) spend the majority of their flight profile at hypersonic speeds.
                This was brought up help the person reading the document understand the distinction.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and maneuvering reentry vehicles

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >in the English speaking MIC/World Hypersonic is reserved for air-breathing and glide body weapons.
                in the weird anti-reality bubble shared by Russians, Chinese and Indian PR teams it is
                In actuality, hypersanic is simply old news
                >nothin personnel kid

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Behold, a hypersonic missile!

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >max speed of 2.24 km/s
              yes that's quite quick.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >"actual hypersonic weapons" are any weapons that move at hypersonic velocities.
            that is correct but only if you are a coping shitskin.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          that does not accelerate half a ton of anything to 4km/s, it wouldn't even if it were literally made out of fuel, the whole thing except the warhead
          what these c**ts smoking
          >ballistic missile
          >range 2000km
          >flight ceiling 20km
          hmm?
          >If it strikes with a mass of 2,000 kg (4,400 lb), including 500 kg warhead, and at a speed of Mach 12
          >hmmmm??

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To fast to make photo anonn

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >hugely effective

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's the second stage of a normal ballistic missile strapped to a plane, technically hypersonic but then again so is just about every ballistic missile.
    it's about as effective as any other ballistic missile system, calling it hypersonic doesn't make it special.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Except that normal ballistic missile doesn`t need to slow down in the final stage to correct itself due to high speed

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You don't need to slow down if you have good satellite guidance

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Their latest wave of 80 missiles had like only 6 of those and I'm surprised they can't even hit a straight target with the normal missiles.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >spend 4.5m on a hypersonic cruise missile to blow up some random transformators worth 250k that can be replaced in 2 weeks
    yeah, thats some serious strategic impact

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the funniest part is that it's not a hypersonic cruise missile. chinks and vatniks like to pretend that if they slap hypersonic on the name that automatically turns it into a hypersonic glide reentry vehicle or a hypersonic cruise missile which is what people actually mean when they use the word hypersonic in this day and age.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Engineers were getting the power back up and running as fast as within the same day.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >hugely effective
    The mutts forced Serbia to surrender in 78 days mostly with Tomahawk strikes, it was 80s technology.
    Russia is still struggling on border towns after 13 months. Russian shit is exactly the opposite of "effective"

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hasn't been used in combat. They use it to hit static, non tactical or strategic targets.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >hugely effective
    The war is over?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >using your super duper fancy carrier-killing maneuverable missile to blow up a stationary diesel pump from the soviet era

    I strongly recommend Orcostan continue these actions.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >AI to dodge obstacles
    hah
    hahahaha
    hahahahahahaha
    does it mine warcrimecoins on the block chain too?

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    shit thread already, post marichka

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      she's been eating too many mobik corpses again.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        BIG Marichka is best Marichka! Moar!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          this is now a marichka thread

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Can her frens come too?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              every war propaganda girl is welcome in my book, i want them all in my harem

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/3ZHnY0W.jpg

                Can her frens come too?

                https://i.imgur.com/lm885Mz.jpg

                this is now a marichka thread

                keep it going anons, MOAR

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i'll post one but then i'm going to sleep and lucid dream frickin a marichka bareback. cya anons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I recognize the gay blowjob drone operator, the azov sharkteeth girl, the Humvee AT marauder, and the Ukie rambo. But who's the other two guys?

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >hugely effective
    1 wunderwaffen Kinzhal
    or
    100 2000lb JDAMs
    Which would be more effective in a war against an enemy with average air defenses

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Germany's V-2 supersonic missile has proven hugely effective in combat and effectively unstoppable.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Theater ballistic missiles are great, but the V-2 is an obsolete design (very expensive to manufacture). There are now much cheaper missiles which do the same job.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The fact they have to use a "top of the line" missile to knock out a power grid for a day is not a good sign

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The fact they have to use a "top of the line" missile to knock out a power grid for a day is not a good sign
      lmfao, you goddamn nafo gayots should have your skulls cracked

      Russian Kinzhal:Hypersonic
      >$6million per missile

      Patriot Missile system:
      >Single Patriot-missile system=$1Billion
      >Single Patriot missile=$3million
      >Single Patriot missile salvo:$18million (6 rockets)

      have ANY of you nafo idiots caught on to the cost of US munitions vs Russian?

      and just think the Kinzhal is HYPERSONIC,
      so IF and "when" the US finally gets one it will probably be like $25million per missile, and they will suck complete ass untill block-iv 5 years later

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Man, with economic and advanced weapons like that, Russia must have won the war already.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        now calculate how many of those cheap awesome rockets can shrinking russian economy actually produce vs nato

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          burger capitalists do not understand that in Russia people work for food and do not need money

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Kinzhal is hypersonic as any other ballistic missile in the terminal phase is hypersonic, even shitholes like Iran have ballistic missiles.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Human lives in the US just cost more.
        In terms of man hours the US beats you hands down.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Russia only makes weapons capable of defeating a civilian population. Change my mind

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia only makes weapons capable of defeating a civilian population. Change my mind
      this is precisely the purpose of war, are you some kind of idiot?

      the fundamental purpose of a national-military is to protect its civilians, and civilian assets from extra-national aggression.
      full stop

      to this end, Russia is succeeding massively, while the ukraine has failed utterly

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cool. Now deal with the thousands of people with guns that kill you 5:1

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That is only true in total war.
        Vatgays are only supposed to be conducting a special operation against the Ukrainian military.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    oh op you've done a wrong think and I am here for the coping and seething you inspire
    well done

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How many does Russia have?
    Wasting such rockets to destroy some power stations (if they are lucky) and random civilian commie blocks sound like a waste

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >camera
    >mach 12
    doubt

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >and effectively unstoppable
    Ukies can't stop even Kh-22 because they don't have AWACS plane

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >can be remotely piloted
    kek, russia finally entered the 1940s

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    gentle reminder that there is no footage of any Russian missiles traveling even remotely close to hypersonic speeds, and since it is a day ending in Y, the Russians are lying again

  24. 1 year ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Kinzhal is a quite literally an air launched TBM/SRBM(ALBM) that becomes hypersonic during its terminal phase.(like a truck or ship launched one)

    THAAD was designed to combat TBMs even those with MARVs.... so yeah keep banging on your chest like a nonce

    Oh and has ANYONE seen a optical sensor for Kinzhal or Isklander-M?

    just curious if they are using radar or imaging for terminal guidance

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This missile have been making /k/ seethe for years, and he is not planning to stop. Lol

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It hasn't even gone up against patriots yet. We need to wait and see when those finally arrive

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Blowing up random civilian buildings is not combat effective you fricking moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >electricity substations and transformers and power plants were all just hit.... randomly.....

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        wow 30% power loss and 2-8 hours to restore it are DEFINITELY proof of Russia's overwhelming might and capacity for terror and not at all the same as a bad winter storm downing trees and power lines
        >no sugar for you, Vanya

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't have the accuracy to reliably hit factory sized targets

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >has proven hugely effective in combat and effectively unstoppable.
    By combat you mean the thousand of civilian buildings that have been bombed? If that's what you vatBlack folk define as "hugely effective in combat" then good work I guess.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Empty field denazified of holol piggies mmmmm *~~*~~*~~)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody knew what didn't hit them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the bees knew

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Was this a failed attempt to destroy Ukraine's strategic reserves of honey?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They were genetically modified anti-Russia bees grown in the HATO biolabs. Their sting immediately neutralizes any amount of alcohol in a Russian's bloodstream. When experiencing with sobriety for the first time since early childhood, the typical response is for the Russian to immediately kill themselves. A true terror weapon.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >AI allows it to dodge obstacles
    inb4 it dodges to miss the target

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I cant imagine russias missile factories arent known, there must be a lot of activity. Where are they? I just want to see them on the map for autism purposes

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >effectively unstoppable
    Incorrect. They can be stopped by shooting down the aircraft they're launched from. Ukraine is incapable of this (since the missiles are launched from within Russia's borders). NATO is not. The Kinzhal is totally worthless against NATO because the moment NATO and Russia go to war is the moment that nothing Russian will ever fly again because NATO air power is almost farcically superior to Russia's.

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Russia's Kinzhal hypersonic missile has proven hugely effective in combat

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *