Talk:Kh-47M2 Kinzhal

Nomenclature

first , is Kh74M2 (by Kh74) , gzur , by ktrv (miltomsk) , not related at all with 9m720 partially derivated hyson Kinzh , is like ks172 witch partially is derived from buk (allegedly ..) (and perhaps rvv bd R37 , else?) , propulsion too , of kinzh , can be multiple , and about gzur , its supposed to be a Ru K15 (sagarika) and Shaourya wich use AIP HTPB APCP (LOX h2o2 no2 HAN or else - boosted) , based on scaled up Oniks Brahmos core (hull) or P700 / else , Zirkon is another story too .
- ~ KCuCN NH3

now , there must be stop , and here (article) need change name , not Kh74M2 , and there is no 47m2 , here or by searching Х-74М2 ГЗУР . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.236.84 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

there must be stop: but you're not in Russia now I'm afraid, so need to co-operate. The page you reference - http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-562.html - is (a) in Russian, and therefore not a good source for the English wiki; and (b) says Project of a hypersonic cruise missile. But it isn't a cruise missile; it's a converted baby ballistic. In essence, there is no really reliable information available William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

here http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-896.html , and gzur mean hyson guided msl , is kh74m2 , isn't kinzhal , and kinzhal isn't ASM zirkon , so , I proved my points , and given data . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.236.84 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

it is in foreign, sorry. Do you have any English sources? Also, if you keep reverting, the page will be semi-protected and you won't be able to edit it any more William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

soreh , only few avaiable , those are some, and like with a thrust engine (167 , was > 176 so) , same error , and on this, same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.227.66 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

only few , mainly ru , and bastion and dimmy milru are 100% (astronautix rspweb else) , oX_(v v) .

btw , the propellant and propulsion , engine of kinzh still cloudy (about) , and 9M720 723 (ss26 stone) are NOT made by KTRV corp .

SS-26 Stone

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.236.84 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You should stop spreading this about gzur and stop deleting the Kh code. All Russian air to surface missiles have a code with starts with Х, which is Kh in Russian.--Arado (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

btw , the same genious (psyche!!) who called S-200 SRB toys, lego-rakete ?! : v ... ////(The S-200 air defense system has excellent capabilities as a tactical ballistic missile, like Buk-1/2, or C-125 (new versions), with -75 (special versions only as ground-to-ground), s-300/400 .. .. it's official)185.124.231.84 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

this system anyway isn't the same , this came out much later , years to months .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.227.66 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This is a Russian missile and it is fine to use Russian-language sources if those are better than the English sources. Translation software helps, but we should also appreciate the contributions of Russian-speaking editors who are willing to read those sources for us, rather than hassling those editors. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not fine at all to use Russian citations for English-language wikipedia. How do you know what it says? Translation is not exact. You'd need an English-language citation of what the translation is. Letting somebody "read it for us" is original research by them.98.246.153.16 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Propulsion

Engine type , propellant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.208.30 (talk • contribs)

It is among them anti-ship missile

It is among them anti-ship missile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Sanity check on kinetic energy

Just musings, I was curious about the numbers and noted the citation needed so thought I would find one. This probably gets into the WP:NOR realm but this is a talk page so I think it is acceptable. "the Kinzhal has more than 432 times the on-cruise kinetic energy of a Tomahawk missile (~17.3 gigajoules, or equal to 4,100 kg TNT explosive energy)". The language is not clear if this is the energy of a Tomahawk or a Kinzhal but I am assuming Kinzhal. According to missilethreat.csis.org the launch weight is 4800 kg so saying that it flies with a kinetic energy of more than the equivalent energy as if it was entirely made of TNT seems implausible. Just to sanity check the missilethreat article it says that the missile is 8m length 1m diameter is a volume of about 6m^3 giving a density of 700-800 kg/m^3. This feels a bit low given that it is presumably mostly fuel and explosives but maybe the diameter includes fins which could easily give a factor of 2 here. Also found this on www.military-today.com which gives the same size but a launch weight of 1000 kg giving a ludicrous density similar to balsa wood so maybe the moral of this is that it is worth sanity checking links before trying to fix a citation needed. Mtpaley (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Going just by the claimed mach 10 speed and your mention of 4800 kg launch weight, if the whole launch weight is at mach 10, I get E=½ mv²=26GJ. The 16GJ figure sounds reasonable if ~40% of the mass was ejected as spent fuel. That does correspond to 4 tons of TNT. TNT is maybe less energetic than rocket fuel, but more explosive. If the type of rocket propellant is known, the mass ratio can be found using the Tsiolkovsky equation. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've become skeptical of the mach 10 claim. That is really awfully fast to keep something flying in atmosphere. I'll try to do a little math later. This says the true speed is unknown, giving a range of mach 5-mach 12. It also states some doubts about the target in UKR, but that's a separate matter. This also mentions mach 5 as a generality about hypersonic missiles. That would be a 4x difference in kinetic energy vs mach 10. I plan to put the War Zone link into the article later today unless someone objects. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually wonder if this amount of kinetic energy makes any sense in combination with a warhead. If the warhead explodes before impact, the kinetic energy does not add much to the result, it might even deviate the explosion effect. If, however the warhead is meant to explode on impact, the kinetic energy effects not only the target but the missile alike, therefore dismantling its front section (the warhead) probably before it can explode. Maybe the warhead still explodes but in an uncontrollable fashion 95.118.117.59 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

With that much KE it's unclear how useful a conventional warhead is compared to just slamming the target like an inert bunker buster. But the missile can also carry a nuclear warhead :O. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That was my thought too. Of course having a nuclear warhead would make sense, if nuclear warheads make sense at all, but a conventional warhead seems counterproductive, better use 500kg of something heavy. 95.115.21.117 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"I've become skeptical of the mach 10 claim. That is really awfully fast to keep something flying in atmosphere."

That's probably because you're not thinking. There are clear statements about plasma. Well, what happens when you put out a stream of tiny air bubbles underneath the hull of a ship? Oh yes, friction is notably reduced. Plasma can be used in what is essentially the same way for aircraft and most likely missiles(and Russia has been playing with plasma on aircraft since at least the 90s). It is in fact perfectly possible that the plasma-effect forming is what allows it to reach its "topspeed", by drastically reducing drag. Anything down to a quarter isn't out of the question. And if the plasma-effect cuts drag in half... DW75 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

That's absolutely not how plasma works, and no, it wouldn't reduce drag that way.

The real reason it can fly that fast is because, being a derivative of a ballistic missile, it arcs up into extremely thin high altitude atmosphere during the flight. It's not doing mach 10 at low altitude, it's doing it at 150kft+. 2002:82A:4EA9:0:7C01:B690:F59A:E69F (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Propaganda nonsense

"designed to overcome any known or planned US air or missile defense systems" this is a complete absurdity. The article should talk about the present tense, what is it, what can it do. Speculating that perhaps it can defeat missile defense systems that aren't even designed yet is just stupid-sauce.98.246.153.16 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it names some specific systems. If something "hasn't been designed yet" in the sense of not even having been specified in terms of known technology or given a deployment timeline, then I'd say it is aspirational rather than "planned". I do know there has been some breathlessness about this stuff including on the US side. It certainly makes the defender's job a lot harder with conventional interceptors. Anyway, the statement is sourced to several Russian and Polish language sources, so readers can tell where it is coming from. You are right that propaganda may be involved, but we should still report on it. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Ditto the nuclear warhead claim, which is substantiated by nothing more than a quote from V. Putin-- while defense scientists have concluded that hypersonics cannot deliver a nuclear payload, for a number of reasons.

This article needs some editing. KenThomas (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Any statements from the Russian gov't about the use of Kinzhal missiles in combat operations should considered as, and noted in the body text, a dubious source with a track record of falsehoods and deliberate inaccuracies. Independent verification is needed to confirm or deny the facts before these statements are published uncritically by Wikipedia 2600:1000:B030:FA96:1D29:4761:38A1:DDEA (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that the missile only flops down on the enemies of Russia. The article sounds as though it was written by Putin or one of his flunkies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.146 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you treat other lying governments the same way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is heavily US biased, are you surprised? 94.189.193.233 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually more British biased than anything. From what I've seen, most pages that mention stuff from a point of view almost always are from a British point of view. I think its because a lot of Americans who want to seem more worldly are ashamed of writing stuff from an American point of view while even the most anti-nationalistic British person has no problem seeing London as the center of the universe. 2604:2D80:6305:600:21FF:8A5D:758:ED86 (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Mach 10 and manouverable?

I have troubles believing several of the claims in the article, especially that the missile is capable of manoeuvring at ten times the speed of sound. In 1974 an SR-71 crossed the pond at a speed of around Mach 3, to participate in the Farnborough Air Show. A split-second navigation error forced her to turn, in order to land in Farnborough. The turn was so spacious that the plane almost flew over Paris. So, I can't imagine that the Kinzhal can manoeuvre, with its tiny ailerons, at three times the speed of the SR-71 without straying far from its original path. Actually, the whole article smells of propaganda, especially since all claims are formulated as facts, without any references to neutral and reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.117.59 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Maneuverability is mentioned in multiple sources as a feature of hypersonic weapons (not just Russian ones) as compared with ICBM's, which are even faster but not maneuverable. This mentions the Kinzhal and links to other background articles, but I didn't see anything backing up the claim of Mach 10. A few said > Mach 5. I agree with the above poster that we shouldn't report Mach 10 uncritically, but I think we should still report it with some skepticism.

Regarding maneuverability, I expect the idea is not to fly around in circles but just to change the flight path enough to dodge a slower moving interceptor, and then change it again to get back on target. Is anyone here who can read the non-English sources? 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right, but still: manoeuvring at that speed, even a smidge? And AFAIK just by using rudders? Their servos must be terrific; however, I still have my doubts. Is there anybody here who has some knowledge about the physics involved? 95.115.21.117 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The fastest it has been observed travelling was mach 6.8. It follows a quasi-ballistic trajectory and is not very maneuverable. Your skepticism is warranted. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course you have troubles believing the stats, that's because the US is light years behind Russia in terms of hypersonic missile technology, and missile tech in general. And no, the "claims" in this article are accurate.  F1V8V10V6!  10:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please deliver reliable sources. 95.115.21.117 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW: what do you mean by "the US is light years behind Russia"? Is Russia located in the Alpha-Centauri System, or the US circles Sirius? I mean, you are aware that light years measure distances, are you? 95.115.21.117 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just a term to mean hugely distant - units are not length in trolls. Mtpaley (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

And now we see precisely where all these "facts" are coming from. . . 192.112.253.14 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

F1V8V10V6!, physics does not care if the US is light years behind Russia or not. Transversal acceleration for a given turn radius increases with the square of velocity, so a Mach 12 missile has to exert sixteen times (!) the lift to have the same turn radius as a Mach 3 missile, all while lift-to-drag ratio being significantly worse in hypersonic regime. That is what makes these claims hard to believe -- pure physics, that's all. No country can violate laws of nature. 88.101.199.63 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We're so far behind Russian missile tech that we had a maneuvering hypersonic reentry vehicle in the 1980s on a Pershing missile? We're so far behind that we had functioning scramjets over a decade ago, something that Russia still hasn't actually demonstrated with evidence (though they do make claims)?

Sure. Russian propaganda is not a good source for things like this. 2002:82A:4EA9:0:7C01:B690:F59A:E69F (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy Statistic

1m CEP is hugely unlikely even with terminal guidance, even 10m would be extremely impressive over a range of 2000km. Even short range laser guided rockets have a CEP of 1m over a range of a few km. ~

Meteoric fireball

So it's moving at about 2 miles or 10,000 feet a second. Anything it hits on the way in, even a bird, will do it grief. So you are a ship or a fixed target, and you spot a fireball coming toward you. Gads! It's a Kanzhal four miles out! In the two seconds you have you direct your Auntie Em's old fashioned modified M18 Claymore mine array toward the fireball, and let the 700 times 25, 200, or whatever steel balls fly. The missile hits a pellet and is ripped wide open. Unstoppable indeed. Whatever, it's a talk page. Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

More reading

Have a look at Aljazeera.com Hypersonic missiles: Why is Russia using them in Ukraine. Also Wikipedia : scramjet Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Some physics behind hypersonic weapons

The following article from "Scientific American": "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-and-hype-of-hypersonic-weapons/" sheds some light on the physics behind hypersonic weapons, and comes to the sobering conclusion that most of the claims are execrated, in the US, Russia and China, and are meant to generate funding.

Non-ballistic missile

It is not a ballistic missile, as it does not follow a parabolic trajectory but flies at low level and it is able to change its direction during flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiltrado6 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps ballistic in the sense of not cruising under sustained thrust. Perhaps also it boosts to significantly higher than the launch altitude (how high ? is this the quoted "service ceiling"?).

It would help to know how long the first stage SRM burns for, and if there is any propulsion from later stages. - Rod57 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an air launched ballistic missile. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The propaganda bits about it being merely ballistic, whatever absurd source is cited for it, are directly at odds with the Janes information that it adjusts course.

See "earth-grazing fireball" on you tube

If it is enveloped by plasma and invisible to radar, them it cannot receive guidance information and so its flight must be preprogramed, you could not hit a mobile target. If it looks like a fireball you could track it optically. A good bet the missles launched were scrutinized by satellite and Nato knows a good deal more now than it did. The carrier isn't obsolete just yet, but drone jet assisted vertical take off of fully loaded supersonic interceptors from midsized warships will likely put an end to the supercarrier. Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Enveloped by plasma means it will not be able to home in on a target, as the front is completely covered, but i very much doubt it means that it is completely unable to receive any form of guidance from BEHIND. All that is needed is that an antenna sticks out enough that it can receive at all. As long as it is in the aerodynamic "shadow", it should be workable.

This would potentially also explain why a larger launching aircraft can fire it at longer distances, ie. they have longer ranged missile guidance systems. Though it may also be that they can launch it at a higher altitude and velocity. DW75 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Video of presumed Kinzhal missile apparently traveling at Mach 10 or more

There's a video at: https://twitter.com/Harry_Boone/status/1505161731873587208 of a high-speed glowing object which I think can reasonably be assumed to be a Kinzhal. Dated 2022-03-19, the tweet is "Allegedly footage of Russian Kh-47M2 'Kinzhal' hypersonic missile launched today against of the Ukrainian armed forces underground weapons depot in Deliatyn." I don't know to what extent it would be notable enough to cite in the main article. The source seems to be this Telegram channel https://t.me/s/Cbpub but I found no such video there between 2022-03-12 and today 2022-05-11. See also the videos at https://t.me/Cbpub/29765 and https://t.me/Cbpub/29789 which seem to show similar missiles, both of which appear to stop in mid-air. So these may not be 100% reliable.

The closest approach to the camera is, I guess, 60 degrees from horizontal. With an an assumption about the field of view of the presumably cellphone camera and some extra work it would be possible to determine the elevation more accurately.

Assuming the sound is well synchronised to the video, the sonic boom arrives about 4.2 seconds after the closest approach, which means the distance is about 1.4 km and the altitude about 1.2km.

This would be unremarkable except for the fact that in those 4.2 seconds, the object is hell-and-gone from the point of closest contact. It has disappeared into a distant cloud. It is easy for me to believe that by the time the shockwave arrives at the camera, the missile is 10 times as far away as its point of closest contact, which would indicate a speed of Mach 10.

Assuming a horizontal flight path and flat topography, and by extrapolating the trajectory towards the horizon, careful analysis, based on an assumption about the camera's field of view would enable the distance of the missile to be calculated at the time when the shockwave hit the camera location. So the true speed of the missile could be estimated with reasonable certainty.

I imagine that trying to hit this missile with a non-fragmenting counter-missile would be like trying to hit a bullet with a pea-shooter. Guns or missile-launchers would need to be located in an infeasibly large number of ground locations across the missile's path. The missile's low elevation, high speed and I guess its plasma shield would make it very hard to track except with an infeasibly large number of specialised radar stations. However, in the absence of cloud cover, the visible (and presumably IR and UV) emissions of the plasma would make it easy to track from space or an aircraft.

I can't estimate to what extent the missile could detect counter-missiles, but I imagine it could vary its course somewhat in an unpredictable fashion would would make it harder to hit. At Mach 10 it travels 33 km in 10 seconds. If a fragmentation charge has an effective radius of 50 metres, can't track the missile and takes 10 seconds to aim and launch, then only small unpredictable variations in the missile's trajectory and/or errors in the tracking data would make such a counter-attack unlikely to succeed.

Robin Whittle (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not Kinshal. X-22 or Zircon. Kinshal falls perfectly down. 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:FB7:D624:F844:4800 (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that is actually fake video cause it is from 28 February. https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS8XDAjSs/ 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:FB7:D624:F844:4800 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Another instance of use? (Ukraine, 29-Sept.-2022)

Alleged hypersonic missile strike in Dnipro, Ukraine (video only involves an explosive sound) https://twitter.com/maksymeristavi/status/1575590850783952896

ETA: It's being described as KH-22. So maybe never mind. https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1575350804684341248 Cosmicaug (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not Kinzhal. Too slow and Kinzhal falls perfectly down (ballistic trajectory) on the target (nukes also require this, kinda). See also this, same rocket, not Kinzhal: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbSryaPtJyU&bpctr=1678693394 in fact here is a video that calculates the speed from your video. It may be Zircon, or Х-22, the only other hypersonic projectiles, because the sound on that video makes it obvious it is hypersonic. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1tahZ3-SJ6g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d84r7Ifid78 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:FB7:D624:F844:4800 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

About the claim that a Kinzhal was shot down

The claim has been refuted. In fact, the Kyiv Independent reported: "Ihnat's denial came after the publication Defense Express alleged on May 5 that a Kh-47 Kinzhal ballistic missile could have been successfully shot down by Ukrainian air defense overnight on May 4.."

In light of the above, this claim of a Kinzhal being shot down is being deleted.

An Indian expert made the observation that the kind of debris claimed to have been produced does not seem likely at hypersonic speeds. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The shot down was confirmed by the Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force Mykola Oleschuk on Telegram on the morning of May 6th and stated the Kinzhal missile was shot down by a Patriot missile. The official Twitter account of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also cited this.

SincereGuy (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is unreliable not only is that not true but the missile in the photo looks nothing like a Kh-47. I go with Kyiv Independent report. Even defense express came out and said it was fake https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1654443972335370241 there has been lying and false flags onnboth sides lately.2601:3C5:8200:97E0:115F:FF78:7857:8826 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Defense Express certainly didn't say it was fake. In Defense Express's first report from May 5, it identified the wreckage of being that of a Kinzhal and stated that it had been shot down but that the publication was awaiting official confirmation. That confirmation came today and there could be reasons as to why it was first denied; the source being unaware, an attempt to mask capabilities or uncertainty (a quote in the Kyiv Independent infers operational security). The missile is clearly a Kinzhal with its distinctive thick cone. SincereGuy (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The originating sources and photographs depict a nosecone from a missile which is claimed to be that of a Kinzhal, punctured. Yet they at the same time they say that the warhead is missing, and must have detonated at interception. So we have a supposed Kinzhal missile nose cone which was blown away by a warhead detonation, yet lands neatly and cleanly to be photographed, having survived a 500 kilo payload explosion. A little strange, isn't it? 87.16.164.209 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal incredulity is completely irrelevant. SincereGuy (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest waiting for some reliable western source about this, especially one that not just cites statements of belligents, and then adding it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There aren't always "reliable Western sources" that can comment on each and every claim. There are photos which people obviously has identified as being Kinzhal and the NYT cites sources that corroborates the claim, but it could be qualified by stating it's a "claim". SincereGuy (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What about Russia’s claim about taking out HIMARS launchers are they unreliable because they are not western sources? You seem to bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia saying one side is always right while the other is always wrong. That being said it should be added but it should also be added that it was originally denied to add neutrality WP:NPOV 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:68EB:C57F:339A:418C (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention a "western source" initially and that is a whataboutism. Russia has never been able to produce imagery for any destroyed HIMARS and the U.S. has denied any such claims. A HIMARS is more difficult to destroy than a missile since they're far behind the frontline, not racing towards it.

As I wrote earlier, a qualifier should be used, i e that it is a claim. Also, as I linked to a source in an edit that was reverted, the spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force who initially denied the claim spoke at length about the downing in a show on the morning of May 7 (he also stated yesterday that the initial denial was for "obvious reasons"). SincereGuy (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Kinzhals are solid white like seen in the wiki picture not grey. That’s one of the things I noticed and it looks to be made of concreate. Could it be fake like the wooden HIMARS? 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:586E:B0DE:6FA4:BBD3 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Ukranian Ait Force said no Kinzhal was shot down according to this Ukranian news site: “There was a possibility of the use of ballistic missiles, but none were detected,” Ihnat said in a comment to Ukrainian boradcaster Suspilne on May 5. He also noted that some military officials have already received reprimands for spreading false information." The picture looks like some pipe coming out of the ground. lol

https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrainian-air-force-denies-reports-kinzhal-hypersonic-ballistic-missile-downed-over-kyiv-50322488.html BarclayDonaldson (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look a Kh-47 because the pictures depict the warhead. The interception has been confirmed since the 9th May by the Pentagon.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/russia-patriot-missiles-ukraine/index.html 212.224.231.224 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The "Foreign Reaction" section continues to state that "have concluded existing radar architectures are insufficient to detect and track hypersonic weapons." This should be changed to augment that information with a recognition that one HAS been shot down. In other words, a reader reading this section shouldn't be left with the understanding that shooting one down is impossible. Swiss Frank (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So far, only the claim of an alleged shoot-down exists, but there is neither any evidence nor any independent confirmation. What the mayor of Kyiv Vitali Klitschko presented as alleged debris from the Kinschal was identified by experts as the remains of a much smaller aerial bomb. --Rio65trio (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps those uncited "experts" would explain how a "smaller aerial bomb" (as well as the Russian sources cited) would care to explain how a smaller "aerial bomb" has wound up near Kyiv recently. SincereGuy (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a hypersonic missile

Calling the Kh-47M2 a hypersonic missile is not accurate. It's an air launched Iskander that briefly reaches hypersonic speeds. All ballistic missiles reach hypersonic speeds.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/complex-air-defense-countering-hypersonic-missile-threat Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

“Hypersonic missile” label should be removed

With an air to ground missile, it is not reaching hypersonic speeds at level flight. By calling this missile a “hypersonic missile”, then technically the German V-2 rocket was hypersonic, as it reached speeds in excess of Mach 5 in descent Memelephant (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's kinda funny as 1950s GAM-87 Skybolt same type missile was even faster. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

agreed. All ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It's entirely redundant. Binglederry (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Operational range 2,000 km (1,200 mi) (Including range of launching aircraft)

Shouldn't it be "excluding range of launching aircraft"? 87.52.109.24 (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the Russians include the range of the launching aircraft in that figure (which is an... odd way to measure it). 199.103.2.101 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of this mention, not necessarily indicating it because it depends on the type of plane, should there be more than one kind doing it. AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Kinzhal interception may or may not be true, but it is still notable enough to mention. And please stop edit warring.

Per WP:NOTABILITY, this interception has received significant media coverage by multiple reliable sources, like Reuters, New York Times, The Washington Post, and many more. Whether it's actually true or later proved false, it will stay, due to the media coverage. If it is indeed proven false, we will just say that the claim was proven false, provided that we have reliable sources backing it up. As a reference, here is the list of sources you can use/avoid. Green means that you can use it without too much worry. Yellow and red you should avoid.

Unfortunately, some users may not be aware of Wikipedia's policies (I'll assume good faith) and this is leading to an edit war. For new users, the three-revert rule states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." If you break this rule, your account or IP is at risk of being blocked and you'll no longer be allowed to edit for a certain amount of time.

If you claim that a source is not reliable, you must say why with proof; the explanation doesn't have to be long. Reverting it and saying "because it's clearly unreliable" or "false information" isn't enough. If an agreement isn't reached, resolve it in the talk page, not by reverting.

Please stop edit warring before more drastic measures like page protections or blocks get issued. Agile24 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine denied it! AP news at it again. 109.252.169.209 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as a French user, I cannot update but Newsweek reports that it is untrue as claims it the spokesman of the Ukrainian Air Force, please read [1]; excerpt: « Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yuriy Ignat said in a statement: "I have already refuted a thousand times, you should have seen it yesterday. There was a possibility of using ballistic missiles, but no ballistic missiles were recorded." A Ukrainian Telegram channel reporting on Ignat's statement clarified that the "air command does not confirm the media reports about the downing of the Kinzhal missile over Kyiv." The channel added that the media outlets that have suggested that have been reproached as Russia is using their information in the war against Ukraine. » Yours faithfully. --AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@AbramsRaKourskX: The original Newsweek article from 5/5/2023 actually gave an interesting and detailed analysis. Unfortunately, the article has since been completely changed for some reason. --Rio65trio (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rio65trio. I think it does not change anything about the fact that Ukrainian Air Force denies that there had been a Kinjal which was downed. This information should be reported in the article. AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@AbramsRaKourskX: I totally agree with you on this point, but do you have another source on this? In the current article, these passages have unfortunately been removed. Rio65trio (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look under the other headings here concerning the downing, you'll see that Ignat confirmed the downing the next day and spoke about it in more detail on a Ukrainian show. SincereGuy (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rio65trio and SincereGuy, I think that those changes in Ignat's assertions should be reported… I've got another source but I'm not sure it is currently admitted as a reliable one by en.wikipedia. And Newsweek may be enough… --AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@AbramsRaKourskX: The problem is that with an updated source we can't choose any old version we want, even though I agree that it is dubious that the meaningful quotes from Yuriy Ignat were quietly removed from the Newsweek article without any reason given. Rio65trio (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Interception confirmed since the 9th May. The missile was used in an attempt to destroy a Patriot system located near Kyiv.

(https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/russia-patriot-missiles-ukraine/index.html) 212.224.231.224 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It's beginning to be hardly credible because the mayor of Kiev Klitschko showed photos of the pretending-to-be a Kinzhal, although it appeared to simply be a glided-bomb ! Twice or thrice shorter ! But apparently the US press will not report those discrepancies when a lot of money (around 30 billion US dollars) is at stake for financing new interception weapons, as I read it somewhere. AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

What is hardly credible is that you ignore that a missile is made up of several parts.

The pictures depict several of them, the biggest being the warhead of the missile and not the missile. It does not matter that it looks like something else and you cannot discard the other parts that were also recovered.

Is the end of your reply as credible as the beginning ? 212.224.233.48 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also read contradictory analytical information, so I let it run.

The photos could be those of a Kinzhl missile beacause it loses its envelope when flying. AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@AbramsRaKourskX: According to a report by the German TV channel Welt, the mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko himself presented the disputed debris of the Kinschal to Bild journalist Paul Ronzheimer. He can be seen in the TV channel's report together with Ronzheimer. Rio65trio (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I know, as I said it earlier. AbramsRaKourskX (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It is "Kyiv" not "Kiev"

The name of ukrainian capital is actually spelled "Kyiv", not "Kiev" (it is wrong name variant used by Russians) YaroMar12 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

Can you please replace "Kiev" with "Kyiv". Abagmut (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2023 (2)

On 5-16-23, when the Ukranians claim to have shot down nine of them using the US Supplied Patriot air defense system.

Scraphound (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lizthegrey (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda and Misinformation

Despite Russia's reported use of Kinzhal missiles for about a year, Ukraine has only managed to intercept one missile. Now they suddenly claim to have intercepted all six out of six missiles in a single day, without providing ANY evidence. Furthermore, the reported casualty figure of only 10,000 in the Ukrainian army after the start of the conflict in another article is also an unquestionable lie. Wikipedia is slowly destroying it's reputation as a reliable source of information with all this moral-driven propaganda and misinformation. 109.42.177.195 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)