Just because the Iranian Khorramshahr and Musadeh utilise the same engine as the R-27, it does not follow they must have the same range-payload specification. You post the specifications of the R-27 and miss the obvious difference in its dimensions and the Iranian Khorramshar. You're making yet another elementary error.
View attachment 708063
View attachment 708064
The Iranian system is considerable larger than the soviet R-27. Moreover, there many other factors that can be different between these systems that can explain their specs, You're commenting as if these systems are clones of one another.
You want me to start giving you the basics on how missile payloads can be increased? If your level of understanding is this deficient, then are you even commenting on this topic?
Straw-man argument, where did I claim doubling the range can be achieved without reducing the payload?
The irony is, you simply googled and posted a blatantly false article which was debunked. My sources were all reliable and respected references. The problem is not using google, but knowing how to analyse the data, something which you have demonstrated to lack.
Already debunked this.
1- You made a statement claiming its warhead would have to be less than 500kg to reach the stated ranges.
2- I asked you for proof and you ended up posting some unreliable article which was debunked
3- Now you're shifting the burden of proof
I do not have an issue defending my own assertions however the point is this, if you are incapable of defending your own claims, then why are you making them in the first place?
An argument which was baseless.
The Iranian Khorramshahr is believed to have been influenced by the Musaden which itself was influenced by the R-27. The specification of the Musaden are estimated to be as follows:
View attachment 708060
The BM-25 Musudan is a medium-range ballistic missile deployed by North Korea.
missilethreat.csis.org
What are you trying to do is compare the Iranian Khorramshahr to the very original R-27 which had less capable specifications and completely different dimensions. Again, you are acting as if these systems are clones of one another. These are different systems with varying specification.
About 50% of your entire comment is just repeating the same statement(s). The fact that you resort to this shows you do not actually have a succinct and substantive argument.
What is this "optimised variant" you're referring to here?
The 4000km range has been part of multiple sources I have posted, this would have been evident should you have checked the sources. As for my asking for evidence, well if you believe people here will just accept your statements as facts than you're in the wrong place. In your case, we have witnessed that your entire claims have based on erroneous calculations.