I did some research and the kh59me casset warhead is classified but estimated to 280~kg
TGAF-5M is around
TNT ≈ 40–60%
RDX ≈ 30–50%
Al ≈ 3–10%*
When it comes to how much energy is its about 1.2KG of TNT per KG of it
Ofc its not official that they are using this type of explosives but if gaijin sticks to that then lets calculate it with this type of explosives
So when we calculate 280KG TGAF-5M to TNT we get a nice 336KG and that’s almost 95% more than in dev server rn.
3 Likes
quick update when it comes to high-explosive fragmentation penetrator warhead we get 320~kg and it comes to around 390-400kg on TNT and it gives us 105%~ more than on dev server
1 Like
warhead mass =/= explosive mass
3 Likes
literally what i just calculated here the warhead is 320kg using TGAF-5M explosive material and with 1.2kg of TNT per it we get a TNT equivalent
yes, and the mass of the warhead is not the same as the mass of the explosive
the warhead mass includes other stuff like the frag liner, the casing around it, and the penetrator
2 Likes
thats right sorry for my stupidity but still the filler in the warhead is around from 80-90% of the whole warhead and it still gives us lets say for 90% 288kg and its 340kg TNT equivalent
Thanks for noticing
why do you think the filler is 80-90 percent
filler only being ~50% of the warhead mass is pretty common
1 Like
no, in aerial warhead its around 75-90%
it depends on the warhead, but especially for penetrating warheads or frag warheads 50% or so is common
like i said its high explosive fragmentation penetrator warhead / high explosive fragmentation warhead
And in the dev server the warhead is “HE”
high explosive bomb is usually around 50%, and heavier bombs allow for a higher loading ratio. But that far exceeds the size that an AGM can carry.
then why as example kh29td that is 2 times lighter has to give up space for fuel has same TNT equivalent?
2 times is not correct, the Kh-59 is only around 1.5x the weight. And both have a 320kg warhead anyway.
The Kh-59 also has to give up space for fuel, a lot more proportionally actually because the turbine it has (which also adds about 80kg at least) uses kerosene, which is a less dense fuel than most solid rocket fuels, requiring a large container (in this case long length), which “wastes weight” so to speak as that weighs more too. The Kh-59 seems to reserve quite some space for the GNSS, IMU, etc electronics, so in the end the warhead is the same size as on the Kh-29TD (which does not require to fly as long, so less robust electronics needed and smaller wings and lacks GNSS and an IMU)
So in the end it seems more like a Kh-29 still but with 50% extra weight added by being considerably longer now due to added electronics, a large fuel container for the turbine, the turbine itself and larger wings (wings may not be a large contributor though).
Spoiler
According to the WT datamines, the Kh-59 ends up only being roughly 200kg heavier than the Kh-29TD, when removing all fuel weight, so the the Kh-59 ends up being around 1.36x the weight of the Kh-29TD, and since the Kh-59 is 40% longer as well, a decent amount of that weight is simply by being longer. The turbine account for 40% of the 200kg difference at least as well. So 120kg for just electronics and 40% longer frame then.