Talk:Kh-22

April 2008
I am sorry, but who was the person who posted that missile is largely obsolete? Australian air power review experts quite disagree:

"The Kh-22 is a formidable weapon by any measure"

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html#Raduga_Kh-22M_Burya

The missile is mach 4 aeroballistic missile, with warhead of 1000 kg, meaning it's impact is in terms of kinetic energy twice the point blank shot of Iowa guns, so, yeah, I am deleting the nonsense. It can seriously damage an aircraft carrier with single unit, is extremely hard to intercept, and yet someone has a heart to post the nonsense about it being obsolete. I edited a lot of factual errors of the article. Missile is currently deployed with Tu-22M3 with anti-radiation and anti-shipping roles, it is in NO way obsolete, by any standard, and in fact remains in terms of firepower and speed by far the most powerful anti-ship missile deployed by any nation. It carries 350-1000 kt warhead, while it mentioned that only 350 kt is possible. I also sourced all the facts mentioned.99.231.46.37 (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

KH-22E
I am glad that someone found rosoboron export site with the export version of the missile, but we are concerned with domestic product version, not the downgraded export version. Make a separate section if you want to put some information about the export version, but in the specifications, the genuine missile's specs should be stated.99.231.50.118 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
 * Edited for neutrality and clarity. 'Mightiest of Armadas' is a clear value statement ranged at another country. (In this case the USA).


 * References to it being 'a very powerful weapon' have been removed. It is undeniably a very powerful weapon, and the provided statistics in this regard should speak for themselves. Use of this terminology exposes the author's potential lack of impartiality.


 * References to other weapons systems have been removed, again predominantly for reasons of impartiality (the author's enthusiasm for the technical merits and destructive potential of such weapons systems is obvious), but also because detailed articles referring to separate weapons systems should be placed on another page. There is no reason why they should not be referenced in the variants section, but any more detailed discussion should take place on a separate page. Also this section would require extensive further work and referencing, since current indications are that this variant is in fact not currently in production and that it may have been cancelled, or not have progressed beyond it's development phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebus197 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
diameter cannot be 181 cm if you look at the photograph, could be around 100 cm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpine boarder (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Current status?
According to the article on Tu-22 they are believed to have been phased out, but this article does not mention the M3 version.150.227.15.253 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tu-22M has a separate article! 150.227.15.253 (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Produced" field
AFAIK, this field is meant to say how many were produced, not when it was introduced. Hunter Hutchins (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not so. A quick look at the template shows the argument is production_date. Hope this helps. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)