Mike Mihajlovic has some interesting insights at his site. I think what I've seen so far dismisses too readily the effects of kinetic impacts as trivial (see Postol's work although I understand how he got to his conclusion). It's reasonable to think that based on 1st order physics, and that the impactor converts on contact into a ball of plasma, but it's misleading.
It doesn't take into account the detailed penetration dynamics of solids at Mach 10 and the resulting shock generation. Also unaccounted for is the combined impact of multiple shock generators on underground structures.
The key technology that the Russians apparently have is something that is solid at 4000 C. This is not unreasonable. There are known ultra-high temperature ceramics in that regime (e.g. hafnium carbide).
Really, HfC? And at only a density of about 11g/cc... Who would think of using such a light material! (Guilty).
(Also, HfC starts to oxidize in atmosphere at rather low temperatures, below 500° C?)
I've learned a lot about aerospace heat shielding, friction heat dissipation & reduction, exotic ceramic/heat shield technologies, material properties and engineering of composites for reentry bodies fabricated with same these last days. Wish it were towards a more constructive end, can't we get back to exploring our solar system soon?
Hardness is one possibility, temperature resistance is another, there are other means by which an Oreshnik warhead could be penetrating.
I have noted before that the Shkval torpedo is able to go 200+km/hr underwater because it uses supercavitation to create an air bubble underwater. Maybe some similar kind of technology is used to create a cavitation bubble insulating the warheads from heat/friction.
Equally, I don't believe that Western engineers actually know how Kinzhal, Zircon and similar hypersonic missiles are steered, or even how the control systems of these missiles can see outside and/or be communicated with remotely.
General principles yes but in actuality? I think not.
The latest US Navy test showed a missile with zero control surfaces. It looks like a standard missile - which in turn makes me greatly doubt whether the LRHW is really a true hypersonic missile like Kinzhal. Even the Zircon - it has a blunt nose.
Think about it: both Zircon and Kinzhal are NOT pointy, why?
Now consider what the effect of 4000C plasma is on a control surface - how are they not being eroded away and causing problems?
The hypersonic missiles which Russia has demonstrated are incorporating multiple revolutionary advances in materials, in fuel, in hypersonic aerodynamic design and modeling, certainly many more.
If you have had at least a college introductory or highschool honors level chemistry & physics class? The possibilities could be more easily explained. Scramjets with long chain borane fuels? Ionized gas skin effects providing airframe with a degree of drag & friction heating reduction analogous to drag reduction provided by supercavitation over skin in water?
I actually went to Caltech - so yes, I actually do understand a lot of basic physics and chemistry.
I have also worked in hi tech industries including work with to compensate for quantum effects in semiconductor manufacturing.
And no, the possibilities ARE NOT easily explained because these are not basic, simple, college or even master's/PhD level effects being utilized in these real world systems.
The Shkval is not the only example of Russian fielded weapons tech which is literally unknown to the West. Kinzhal/Zircon/Oreshnik are obviously more examples but there are others like the 50 knot underwater sub.
My point is that while it is not at all easy to understand the actual engineering done, or possibly even the actual physical principles in question - it is possible to understand that there is something new going on.
The fuel requirements to go Mach 11 are far, far greater than twice needed to go Mach 5 because friction is not a linear effect - it increases as you increase speed. So barring something surprising - you would need far more energy in your fuel to achieve said speed for an otherwise identical missile.
The Kinzhals are also maneuvering. They don't have big wings or other control surfaces; the energy requirement to blast past the plasma shell and effect a directional change would be very large and we know the Kinzhals do a climb then a dive. Or in other words, these are acting like a far smaller air to air missile like a Sparrow but going at far greater speeds with a far larger missile.
Similarly - the Oreshnik has demonstrated amazing accuracy. Postol's talks before on Iranian ballistic missiles did an excellent job of showing why CEP accuracy is quite difficult in a purely ballistic missile; miniscule errors propagate into large CEP error - so clearly Oreshnik is not a purely ballistic missile.
It is all fine and good to say that "ultra fine maneuvering" and what not, but how does the weapon system verify where it is and where it is going?
How is it steering so precisely?
Keeping in mind this is all being done at hypersonic speeds - the warheads are not being accelerated individually. You certainly cannot use GPS or GLONASS because the radio signals will definitely not penetrate the plasma shell.
My point is that this does not tell us what is done but it is reasonable some or all of the above are being done.
Hey, you know enough to know what you do not know! That is a good start- I certainly don't know exactly what the hell is really going on here either!
But I've worked my whole life around various high energy systems, with a hobbyist/amateur aficionado level interest in every related technology from energetic chemistry on to aerospace engineering and nuclear weapons. My parents both had PhDs, one in in high energy physics and the other in psychology, I learned a few things about humans and the universe we all inhabit from them as well. So let's do some reverse engineering!
PhDs are great, but engineering is where the rubber meets the road.
In my time in the semiconductor industry - one of the biggest lessons I learned is that reality trumps theory every time.
I worked through 4 process geometry generations starting as a design engineer and ultimately managing my (design software) company's relationship with Taiwan Semiconductor.
In every single one, we thought we knew what the big issues would be.
In every single one, the actual biggest issue turned out to be totally different. I'm not talking about little details - I'm talking issues that caused entire shifts in methodology to take them into account.
This is what the West should be the most concerned about. The lack of manufacturing in the West is leading to a lack of capability from both capacity and real world engineering. There are absolutely smart and capable people working in the US and European military industrial industries, but it is equally clear that literally every new system fielded for at least 30 years is simply not fit for peer or near-peer combat much less being remotely economical.
Russia has demonstrated a large number of new platforms with radical new capabilities, in contrast, despite being a lot smaller economically and spending a tiny fraction. The hypersonic missiles are one. The new nuclear engine behind the infinite range Buresvestnik. Fiber optic drones. Even the derided turtle tanks and the assaults with electric motorcycles are examples of real world innovation.
I don't get how people are so surprised by this claim of 4000C, as if astronauts haven't been returning from 2-3x the speed and remained uncooked. It's just ablative shielding, it prevents the payloads from even reaching that temperature...
Among other things, it is not correct to express kinetic energy in TNT equivalent without calculating the energy acting on the impact area, since one impact on the target is narrowly focused, the energy efficiency of which is close to 100%, while the other impact is "radially dispersed", with an energy efficiency to 16%.
In order for the energy effect of TNT per cm2 of the target area to be comparable to Oreshnik, with a mass of 3 tons of warheads, the volume of TNT should be 24 kilotons. 24 kilotons is the TNT equivalent of "Oreshnik"
This is indicated by the following calculations:
Kinetic energy transferred to the target by 0.5 tons of steel at a speed of 10M = 2777 MJ with a steel density of 7.8 t/m3. Of 0.5 tons = 0.064 m3.
To simplify the calculations, we will use the cube shape.
In the form of a cube, a 0.064 m3 steel projectile has the following dimensions: an edge of 40 cm, an area of 9600 cm2, and a base of 1600 cm2
The density of TNT is 1,663 tons/m3. In 0.064 m3 - 0.1 tons of TNT, of which only about 1/6 of the cube directly facing the target affects it. 1/6 - 0.016 t. or 74 MJ, which is 37 times less than the kinetic power of a 0.5 t projectile
Now calculate the mass of TNT that it must have in order for the power acting on the surface in contact with it, with an area of 1600 cm2, to be equal to the kinetic power from a 0.5 t steel projectile. - 2777 MJ. 0.1x37/6 = 0.6 t . The volume of 0.6 tons of TNT is 360000 cm3. Calculate the height of the pyramidal part of a cube with a base of 1600 cm2 and a volume of 360000 cm3 = 675 cm. With the height of the pyramidal part 675 cm, the edge of the cube = 1350 cm. With an edge of 1350 cm. cube volume = 2460 m3 Volume of 2460 m3 with a density of 1,663 tons / m3 = 4090 tons.
Thus, the effective power of a 0.5 ton warhead accelerated to a speed of 10M, affecting cm2 of the target area, is equal to 4 kilotons in TNT equivalent.
Therefore, the effective power of 6 kinetic warheads of 0.5 tons each is comparable to 24 kilotons of TNT. Or 666 tons per 1 of 36 subunits.
Congratulations on this phenomenal display of nonsense. I'm sure you can talk to Gabor Fekete or the fine folks at vixra to get this published. Now please leave the grownups to talk about the effects of this weapon and stop trying to juggle different properties to conclude that this is equivalent to Nagasaki.
Yep. The real point of it all is not really what it did but it shows it can do. It did not have explosive warheads. It did not have nuclear warheads. What it shows is that it could just as easily have delivered such warheads isn't it?
Well written and informative. As noted, the plant is known to have multiple layers below ground level. Without access to inspection, I doubt we will ever know the true extent of the damage.
Hopefully the next test will be somewhere honest people can look at the aftermath and publish what they find.
It is disgusting the way the West is deriding and ignoring all warnings.
"The Oreshnik’s projectiles certainly seem to have penetrative power, but how deep they go is beyond my pay grade. I’ll leave that problem to the amateur physicists, who hopefully catch wind of this post and use it to inform their calculations."
I'd argue that the damage an Oreshnik does is so minimal that it does not justify its extreme cost. Its projectiles do not explode and destroy everything in a wide blast radius but transfer their energy nearly exclusively to the ground. I'd argue that a conventionally-armed Oreshnik is, damage-wise, around the same as a single Iskander in most scenarios. But an Oreshnik costs an order of magnitude more. The Oreshnik is extremely bad value-for-money without nuclear payload. So I predict that it therefore will only be used a couple more times for testing/intimidation/propaganda purposes and then never again - at least not without nukes on it.. The missile is specifically designed and intended to deliver MIRVed nukes.
It's great to show the capability to nuke Europe in an economical manner and to show Russians that "we can hit things w/o their ability to intercept it".
The Cost/Benefit analysis you suggest is somewhat flawed, if you'll permit me...
The Concept derives from a SciFi writer(s) imagination - Jerry Pounelle and Larry Niven, circa the late 60's or early 70's - named thereby "The Rods of GOD'...
In thier 'conception' onesuch would be a SINGLE IMPACTOR weighing several tons, being delivered from Orbit, AT Orbital re-entry velocity. Those would consist of Platinum plated Tungsten or Tungsten Carbide Rods which when striking the ground would best be approximated as a Subterrainian Nuclear detonation...without a NUKE...
Thought to br something on the order of 15 Kt, roughly.
The FOUNDATIONS uderlying most everything within a radius of roughly a 1 mile radius whould be SHEARED out from under all structures within the 'Blast Radius' of impact...
So why is that here germaine?
Simple...the 'Hazel Switch' - which is what Oreshnik MEANS in Russian - is SOLELY a test case for Hyper-kinetic weapons...and NOT the FINAL FORM thereof, IMHO.
Imagine now a SATAN II Super-Heavy ICBM carrying one OR more of those...
Does that illuminate what is here transpiring?
If NOT, then consider that such as THAT might - just might - be capable of reducing NORAD to 'dust' owing to it's EXTREME penetration capability...
The author here did an EXCELLENT job detailing 'Damage Assessment'...a truly commendable effort, IMHO.
You are talking poop brother. The rods from god would impact at about the same velocity as Oreshnik did, just weigh a bit more. Seeing as how KE is linear in mass that ratio in energy would translate to whatever is the ratio in mass, i.e. at most 10-20 tons of TNT. Oreshnik, R-36 and RS-28 can barely lift a single of such tungsten rods, being constrained both by mass and dimensions. There is also very little evidence that it can come anywhere close to the depths of NORAD based on some evidence of it penetrating a couple floors of concrete building. It's a literal mountain made of rock lol.
Before you start wanking off about your academic credentials (which, judging by your strange capitalisation, were probably attained decades ago), I have an MSc in Theoretical Physics and it's just as irrelevant to weapons design and practical collision mechanics as nuclear engineering is.
I am not that Andreas person, I have no reason to agree with them that Oreshnik is not a feasible and economical way to create destruction of a wholly new kind. I simply also do not agree with your wildly fantastical estimation as to the damage. You're off by a factor 1000, and just because this payload is moving hypersonically and able to more properly dissipate its energy at the foundations of these fortified buildings doesn't mean the laws of physics are different. The amount of energy necessary to create a shockwave in the ground powerful to shear foundations in a mile wide radius is even more astronomical than that! Even the so-called earthquake bombs of WW2 couldn't do that, they just relied on the sudden formation of giant holes under the foundations of fortified positions to collapse them. The results of the shockwaves were negligible.
I'm not an engineer knowledgable on high power/speed/accuracy actuators either. All I can do is call bullshit on your claims, and I am doing so.
Yours is a second person possessive pronoun. It indicates that something is owned by the person you’re addressing, both for second person singular and second person plural.
For example, you might say, “This pencil is yours, not mine.” This sentence means the pencil belongs to the person being addressed, not the person speaking.
Your’s with an apostrophe isn’t a real word, it’s just an incorrect spelling. If you accidentally add an apostrophe to the correct spelling, yours, your writing will look less professional and might confuse your reader.
As to your attempt to "pull rank" with all your "BS-es": Pulling rank is a recognized discussion trick, not a real argument.
If you expect (alleged) STEM majors posting at the speed of thought to have proper punctuation, you'll be regularly disappointed.
Yes, we are bandying about various classic science fiction tropes to discuss a real event. It saves a bit of time since we apparently have read many of the same works and think of some (conceptual) systems under their fictional names. Google "Thagomizer" and see where THAT tendency can lead one?!
No, the writers involved didn't necessarily let math and physics get in the way of developing their story line (or word outputs/day, their actual paying vocation).
As an engineer in R&D and manufacturing, I know that when X is much larger and much more complex and much more sophisticated than Y, that X is much more expensive than Y, when manufactured by a factory with access to similar technology in a similar economy to the factory that makes X. X and Y are both made by Russian missile manufacturers - perhaps even by the same factory.
I'm well-versed in the complexity and hence cost of ultra-accurate gyroscopic ring lasers, ultra-accurate bus maneuvering motors with their valves and gas generators and controllers and such. The cost reflects how long it takes and how many people it takes to manufacture something. Relative to a Khinzhal, an Oreshnik is much more expensive for obvious reasons (to an engineer who knows what both are capable of).
The only problem with this is that the two systems can't be compared, because the range of Oreshnik is 5-10x that of the Kinzhal. The valuable comparison is whether Oreshnik is more cost effective than however many MRBMs packaged with a conventional explosive warhead you'd need to duplicate its destructive effect (which is over a wide area)
You are aware that present day UK nuclear missiles/warheads are of USA origin AND USA CONTROLS THEIR LAUNCH CODES/WARHEAD FIRING ENABLE? Effectively, USA has got missiles WE control on some UK submarines but avoided the costs of building the subs PLUS profited on the weapons. Nice work if we can get it!
I don't know if UK bothered to retain some of their older but indigenously designed & manufactured nuclear weapons/missiles/gravity bombs? If so, THOSE might be deployed without Uncle Sam's permission. France avoided USA control over their nuclear capabilities such as UK accepted, go figure.
Ultra precise maneuvering reaction motors & related valving, electromechanical controls, especially very fast acting ones for hypersonic use ARE expensive, difficult to mass produce in spec & etc..
So think about possible "asymmetrical engineering":approaches to obviate this manufacturing bottleneck?
Since it has been broadly hinted that these new RF hypersonic reentry vehicles use surface ionic effects to reduce both atmospheric friction and RADAR visibility, and it has long been theorized that such surface effects could be used to STEER (or even PROPEL?!) high velocity vehicles in atmospheric environments? And solid state electronics to control and implement such ionic steering might be cheaper, easier to mass produce/less susceptible to violent G forces & vibration, less demanding of master machinist level talent to QA test and FASTER ACTING than legacy electro mechanicaly valved reaction drive attitude adjustment/thruster systems?
Perhaps they have found a different paradigm.
Goddamn, I would LOVE to see their shop and pick their engineers brains over a few good Czech beers.
One of the VERY INTERESTING 'things' which abides in the realm of Physics is MHD.
That is "Magneto-Hydro-Dynamics'.
IF we DO obtain really efficient Super-Conductors then that 'principle' could very easily be adapted to produce vehicles which DON'T use 'Rocket Engines' in atmosphere...per your observation.
A while back the Japanese tested an MHD system on a watercraft thet named the 'Yamamoto'. That used both Ekectruc AND Magnetic fields to produce - in effect - a Linear Induction motor powering the craft well beyond 115 mph.
The EXACT same principle can be employed in any ionized fas as that too is a CONDUCTOR and so eminently useful in propelling OR steering a vehicle.
Currently the primary difficulty associated therewith lies in prividing SUFFICIENT ekecyrical POWER thereto. Likely a small FUSION reactor would be required to provide that level of compact power.
Naturally, NONESUCH currently exist...though curiously, just a few years ago Martin-Marrietta openly patented a 'Loop-Handle' design for just such a small, extremely COMPACT unit...which promptly VANISHED from all scientific and technical pubs FORTHWITH...
The aspect of the Oreshnik which EVERYONE seems ti be missing is that THIS IS the very first such EVER DEPLOYED.
Does anyone want to compare 'Fat Man' OR 'Little Boy' to modern Nuclear ordinance?
Once again, the RUSSIANS ARE 'pushing thr envelope' of what IS possible, whilst the entire WEST erroneously believes that 'They' have a GOOD HANDLE on 'things'.
The STUDITY of that mindset is simply TITANIC...truly.
If you could point towards where/when the existence of a "Martin-Marrietta Loop-Handle" patent might have been disclosed, I will spend some time with way back machine & internet archive?
Failing that, what do you recall about concepts they patented?!
Unfortunately, I deal with an enormous amount of pre-prints - trchnical AND scientific - and I do not recall exactly where I stumbled over that...
To wit, I thought at the time, "Gee, THAT'S 'Ambitious'...nobody else is even CLOSE to 'break-even'..."
I CAN describe what I saw in that article.
The assemblage appeared to be spherical (roughly) and had three 'loops' positioned in rather odd locations about it...hence the 'loop-handle' configuration I mentioned...
WONDER OF WONDERS...it JUST HIT ME!
Try stopping in at scitechdaily.com, I BELIEVE that it was there that I originally encountered the ARTICLE itself!
Nothing you wrote makes any sense. The reentry vehicles are only released at a stage where they can't be intercepted anymore so RADAR visibility is irrelevant.
Making each submunition steerable would require dozens of extremely complex, expensive, bulky electromechanics (ring laser gyroscope etc.) and a means to electronically modulate plasma etc. so that it would not even fit in the submunition. Neither would that be *necessary* - the submunitions can be adequately targeted before re-entry. Also: How the hell would each submunition know where it is and where the target is, while being inside a glowing ball of plasma?
All very good questions, thanks for taking the time to consider this event. Now to find some answers (or discover why the questions we are asking were the wrong ones)?
Have you looked at the commercial satellite imagery/pre existing images showing the damage and apparent "lines" of impacts (unless that is just our monkey minds doing what they do best, trying to find a pattern that may not be there)? My grandfather was an Army signal corps officer in WWI, his unit tasked with taking aerial pictures of the Western front from wooden airplanes & trying to figure out WTF was in progress on the other side. Interpreting such images is an art and I'm barely a finger painter.
If they DID do this, individually targeting each impactor to the apparent degree of precision, it can be done. I am merely asking "How'd they do THAT?!" rather than denying it matters or reassuring myself that: It didn't really happen that way, is too expensive for production, a Third Reich type waste of resources on some kind of tactically/strategically useless & utterly inconsequential in number wunderwaffe and convincing myself that this just HAD to be a "one off" propaganda exploit.
As a parallel in weapons development, back in the aSumnet of 1945 when the first three nuclear weapons were used? We MIGHT have fielded a fourth bomb 10 days or so after Nagasaki. After that, we MIGHT have been able to produce more cores at a rate of 1 per week or just a bit longer if no teething problems in bringing the several new technologies involved from their R&D labs into mass production intervened (and several did). It was fortunate that we didn't need to go there right away, but not impossible if we had needed to.
Where are the several RF engineering establishments in the arc from development to full scale deployment?
You'd argue wrong because this Oreshnik lacked a warhead and thus did not have explosive (just kinetic power). Normally it would carry the equivalent of a FAB 300. Imagine 36 FAB 300s falling on a target at once with supersonic speeds.
Surely it could do serious damage but it would be much more economical to do that damage with the traditional means, Russia has at its disposal. The Oreshnik is the ideal way to nuke Europe and that's what it might be used for, one day, if Europe keeps facilitating attacks on Russia. I think that's the real message.
No. It is not "more economical" with traditional means - reason being that it 1) cannot be shot down and 2) is high precision without being an ICBM 3) can penetrate hardened Soviet buildings
Traditional means are less high precision, cannot penetrate hardened structures and can be shot down
It does seem rather pathetic. I had to really scan through the images to see any substantial damage. I understand they weren't carrying a payload, but why weren't they? Makes it look worthless. Can it not handle a warhead? Maybe because of the extreme speed and heat?
Can't find any prices of an Oreshnik but have seen estimates of over $30m. If that's accurate, a regular drone costs around $50k. For 1 Oreshnik Russia could launch 600 drones. Multiple attacks over a wide area vs a precision strike is no contest.
As for the Oreshnik being unstoppable. Last night alone Russia knocked out 2 missile factories, a Patriot launcher, a couple of SBU buildings and some Western fighters... with drones. The Oreshnik can only take out 1 target and unless that target is Kiev with a high yield nuke, it won't make any difference to the conflict. Taking out all the factories may not end the war, but it reduces the enemies ability to fight and ground troops are safer.
Launching an Oreshnik without a warhead is very suspicious. If the idea was to scare the West in to submission, it failed. I've seen more damage inflicted from a Tesla randomly catching fire.
What seems to be missing from most discussions is whether the submunitions were depleted uranium (it’s pyrophoric) and tungsten (to hold the mass together during reentry until impact). Think of the damage a small DU round does entering an armored vehicle, and scale up from there.
Spend some time comparing strengths of candidate materials at elevated temperatures, tendency to ablate/oxidize in atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. Don't limit candidates to what has been used in artillery systems, those are lower velocity applications... Look at patent la apps and research papers for nitrides, carbides, borides and inter metallic compounds/mixtures of all these too.
DU is used by USA & others for kinetic penetrators in anti armor systems because it was CHEAP and AVAILABLE, in fact a WASTE PRODUCT of cold war nuclear programs which they wanted to DISPOSE of rather than store securely forever... DU is not the BEST candidate in all (or most!) regards in THIS application and at such velocities.
Also, plenty of OTHER high density/refractory materials will very happily burn in air with high heat outputs after being smashed by impact into white hot, micron sized particles or even vapor... See here:
The author probably did not pay attention to the abundantly green trees in the pictures? All November in Ukraine the air temperature was within +7-2 Celsius. Do you know what trees look like in November in Ukraine?
Aside from the kinetic impactor bodies themselves (and any related controls), the whole MECHANICAL and airframe/drive system appears to be repurposed legacy late USSR/early RF program developed, mostly pre existing technology with new software/logic/sensor/guidance circuitry- and this new final payload?
Exactly. The Oreshnik has only one conceivable use, which is delivering up to six MIRVed nuclear warheads. The submunitions are intended to be a variety of decoys. And this demonstration was presented to the Russian public as a showcase of Russia's capabilities and a threat to the West that Russia can nuke Polish ports and factories, Romanian NATO installations and so on, w/o getting the European populace too riled up about: "Russia's threatening to nuke us!". Oreshnik is not about threatening to kill the UK government or blowing up Ukrainian installations. It's about showing that Russia has credible means to accurately nuke, with small-yield warheads, anything they want nuked in Europe.
Previously, the Treaty was terminated at the behest of the United States. Well, now the Russians can call any missile, for example, "HAZEL". What to load it with - it depends on the situation. The Russians are never in a hurry to harness...
Interesting analysis, however I disagree with your conclusions and think it is most unwise to downplay just how powerful Oreshnik is.
We know that 36 projectiles travelling at hypersonic speed of ~mach 10 penetrated different parts of the facility, on a vertical trajectory.
Important to note that the velocity of each projectile on impact may have been far higher than mach 10. This is because unlike the other hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles the Russians possess eg Kinzhal, which slightly decelerate prior to impact, the Oreshnik projectiles accelerate on impact.
The physics & math indicates that the speed and heat of such an impact would result in penetration of up to 200m (if not more) depth.
The Ukrainians and NATO have done everything they can to suppress all information about the strike. If it was limited as you seem to be saying, surely it would be relatively easy for them to embarrass the Russians, by disproving the claims that the facility was destroyed. However, where are the videos of tne facility operating as normal post Oreshnik, or the photos of the facility itself including underground
? Where is the official satellite imagery?
There isn't any. That's a huge tell.
Even if the imagery that you are using is genuine imagery of the facility after the Oreshnik strike - let's assume that it is - it doesn't reveal any of the underground destruction that Oreshnik is designed to create, or include the full 36 strikes that were delivered.
It's the underground destruction that is important, not the surface impact.
I note that multiple independent witnesses from near the strike and as far away as 25 km away, reported seismic like movements when the strike occurred, as well as total destuction of the facility. Having experienced multiple Russian strikes on the facility since 2022, they would be well placed to distinguish the difference between (say) an Iskander missile impact, and an Oreshnik impact.
My 10 cents - Oreshnik is a devastating weapon that cannot be defended against. A few minutes before impact, a missile launched in Russia carrying 6 MIRV glide vehicles. The missile travelled at ~mach 10 (at least) speed on a ballistic trajectory , detaching the glide vehicles somewhere over Russia. Each glide vehicle then flew at hypersonic speed to the target, on a non-ballistic / manouveeinh trajectory.
Each glide vehicle carried 6 projectiles (likely tungsten rods/projectiles although no one really knows) that were launched at the facility. As a result, 36 Oreshnik projectiles impacted different parts of the facility (we all saw the impact on video).
Each projectile was travelling at mach 10 plus, on a vertical trajectory. They impacted various targets in the site (as your analysis shows) but then penetrated deep underground, destroying the entire facility and anyone inside it.
NATO and Kiev are fully aware of this and as a result, have been suppressing all information about the strike.
The Russians are likely going to use Oreshnik again, so we will soon be able to learn more about this astonishing new weapon.
I strongly disagree with any argument that seeks to downplay the importance of Oreshnik, or the devastation of the strike. Like Avanagard, this is yet another game changing strategic Russian weapon that the world has never seen before, and which the collective West is unable to defend itself against.
The lack of large areas covered in rubble is completely baffling. From the fact that the area is still surrounded and inaccessible to the public we can conclude that the damage is much more extensive than at first sight. There is certainly extensive underground damage the extent of which must be kept out of public view.
This is a completely incorrect comparison. The total destructive energy of the Oreshnik is approximately 24 kilotons (24,000 tons) of TNT.
In order for the comparison to be more or less correct, with the same initial data, it is necessary to calculate the amount of energy released per impact area. And due to objective physical reasons, it differs, since one type of impact on the target is narrowly focused, and its energy efficiency is close to 100%, while the other impact is "radially dispersed", with an energy efficiency of up to 16%.
To begin with, we calculate the kinetic energy reported to the target from 0.5 tons of steel at a speed of 10M. This is 2777 MJ, with a steel density of 7.8 tons/m3. Of 0.5 tons. this is 0.064 m3.
To simplify the calculations, we will use the cube shape.
In the form of a cube, a 0.064 m3 steel projectile has the following dimensions: an edge of 40 cm, an area of 9600 cm2, and a base of 1600 cm2
The density of TNT is 1,663 tons/m3. In 0.064 m3 - 0.1 tons of TNT, of which only about 1/6 of the cube directly facing the target affects it. 1/6 - 0.016 t. or 74 MJ, which is 37 times less than the kinetic power of a 0.5 t projectile
Now calculate the mass of TNT that it must have in order for the power acting on the surface in contact with it, with an area of 1600 cm2, to be equal to the kinetic power from a 0.5 t steel projectile. - 2777 MJ. 0.1x37/6 = 0.6 t . The volume of 0.6 tons of TNT is 360000 cm3. Calculate the height of the pyramidal part of a cube with a base of 1600 cm2 and a volume of 360000 cm3 = 675 cm. With the height of the pyramidal part 675 cm, the edge of the cube = 1350 cm. With an edge of 1350 cm. cube volume = 2460 m3 Volume of 2460 m3 with a density of 1,663 tons / m3 = 4090 tons of TNT.
Thus, the effective power of a 0.5 ton warhead accelerated to a speed of 10M, affecting cm2 of the target area, is equal to 4 kilotons in TNT equivalent.
Therefore, the effective power of 6 kinetic warheads of 0.5 tons each is comparable to 24 kilotons of TNT. Or 666 tons per 1 of 36 subunits.
The analysis done by Amerikanets is very good for what it is, but what it is not is any form of analysis of subsurface damage.
Maybe there is none, the fact is we simply don't know.
I will note that this is precisely the type of thing which is very hard to see via satellite imagery - even discounting the buildings and debris in the way.
Mike Mihajlovic has some interesting insights at his site. I think what I've seen so far dismisses too readily the effects of kinetic impacts as trivial (see Postol's work although I understand how he got to his conclusion). It's reasonable to think that based on 1st order physics, and that the impactor converts on contact into a ball of plasma, but it's misleading.
It doesn't take into account the detailed penetration dynamics of solids at Mach 10 and the resulting shock generation. Also unaccounted for is the combined impact of multiple shock generators on underground structures.
The key technology that the Russians apparently have is something that is solid at 4000 C. This is not unreasonable. There are known ultra-high temperature ceramics in that regime (e.g. hafnium carbide).
@Regan Howard
Really, HfC? And at only a density of about 11g/cc... Who would think of using such a light material! (Guilty).
(Also, HfC starts to oxidize in atmosphere at rather low temperatures, below 500° C?)
I've learned a lot about aerospace heat shielding, friction heat dissipation & reduction, exotic ceramic/heat shield technologies, material properties and engineering of composites for reentry bodies fabricated with same these last days. Wish it were towards a more constructive end, can't we get back to exploring our solar system soon?
Hardness is one possibility, temperature resistance is another, there are other means by which an Oreshnik warhead could be penetrating.
I have noted before that the Shkval torpedo is able to go 200+km/hr underwater because it uses supercavitation to create an air bubble underwater. Maybe some similar kind of technology is used to create a cavitation bubble insulating the warheads from heat/friction.
Equally, I don't believe that Western engineers actually know how Kinzhal, Zircon and similar hypersonic missiles are steered, or even how the control systems of these missiles can see outside and/or be communicated with remotely.
General principles yes but in actuality? I think not.
The latest US Navy test showed a missile with zero control surfaces. It looks like a standard missile - which in turn makes me greatly doubt whether the LRHW is really a true hypersonic missile like Kinzhal. Even the Zircon - it has a blunt nose.
Think about it: both Zircon and Kinzhal are NOT pointy, why?
Now consider what the effect of 4000C plasma is on a control surface - how are they not being eroded away and causing problems?
The hypersonic missiles which Russia has demonstrated are incorporating multiple revolutionary advances in materials, in fuel, in hypersonic aerodynamic design and modeling, certainly many more.
@c1ue
If you have had at least a college introductory or highschool honors level chemistry & physics class? The possibilities could be more easily explained. Scramjets with long chain borane fuels? Ionized gas skin effects providing airframe with a degree of drag & friction heating reduction analogous to drag reduction provided by supercavitation over skin in water?
I actually went to Caltech - so yes, I actually do understand a lot of basic physics and chemistry.
I have also worked in hi tech industries including work with to compensate for quantum effects in semiconductor manufacturing.
And no, the possibilities ARE NOT easily explained because these are not basic, simple, college or even master's/PhD level effects being utilized in these real world systems.
The Shkval is not the only example of Russian fielded weapons tech which is literally unknown to the West. Kinzhal/Zircon/Oreshnik are obviously more examples but there are others like the 50 knot underwater sub.
My point is that while it is not at all easy to understand the actual engineering done, or possibly even the actual physical principles in question - it is possible to understand that there is something new going on.
The fuel requirements to go Mach 11 are far, far greater than twice needed to go Mach 5 because friction is not a linear effect - it increases as you increase speed. So barring something surprising - you would need far more energy in your fuel to achieve said speed for an otherwise identical missile.
The Kinzhals are also maneuvering. They don't have big wings or other control surfaces; the energy requirement to blast past the plasma shell and effect a directional change would be very large and we know the Kinzhals do a climb then a dive. Or in other words, these are acting like a far smaller air to air missile like a Sparrow but going at far greater speeds with a far larger missile.
Similarly - the Oreshnik has demonstrated amazing accuracy. Postol's talks before on Iranian ballistic missiles did an excellent job of showing why CEP accuracy is quite difficult in a purely ballistic missile; miniscule errors propagate into large CEP error - so clearly Oreshnik is not a purely ballistic missile.
It is all fine and good to say that "ultra fine maneuvering" and what not, but how does the weapon system verify where it is and where it is going?
How is it steering so precisely?
Keeping in mind this is all being done at hypersonic speeds - the warheads are not being accelerated individually. You certainly cannot use GPS or GLONASS because the radio signals will definitely not penetrate the plasma shell.
My point is that this does not tell us what is done but it is reasonable some or all of the above are being done.
Hey, you know enough to know what you do not know! That is a good start- I certainly don't know exactly what the hell is really going on here either!
But I've worked my whole life around various high energy systems, with a hobbyist/amateur aficionado level interest in every related technology from energetic chemistry on to aerospace engineering and nuclear weapons. My parents both had PhDs, one in in high energy physics and the other in psychology, I learned a few things about humans and the universe we all inhabit from them as well. So let's do some reverse engineering!
PhDs are great, but engineering is where the rubber meets the road.
In my time in the semiconductor industry - one of the biggest lessons I learned is that reality trumps theory every time.
I worked through 4 process geometry generations starting as a design engineer and ultimately managing my (design software) company's relationship with Taiwan Semiconductor.
In every single one, we thought we knew what the big issues would be.
In every single one, the actual biggest issue turned out to be totally different. I'm not talking about little details - I'm talking issues that caused entire shifts in methodology to take them into account.
This is what the West should be the most concerned about. The lack of manufacturing in the West is leading to a lack of capability from both capacity and real world engineering. There are absolutely smart and capable people working in the US and European military industrial industries, but it is equally clear that literally every new system fielded for at least 30 years is simply not fit for peer or near-peer combat much less being remotely economical.
Russia has demonstrated a large number of new platforms with radical new capabilities, in contrast, despite being a lot smaller economically and spending a tiny fraction. The hypersonic missiles are one. The new nuclear engine behind the infinite range Buresvestnik. Fiber optic drones. Even the derided turtle tanks and the assaults with electric motorcycles are examples of real world innovation.
I don't get how people are so surprised by this claim of 4000C, as if astronauts haven't been returning from 2-3x the speed and remained uncooked. It's just ablative shielding, it prevents the payloads from even reaching that temperature...
Among other things, it is not correct to express kinetic energy in TNT equivalent without calculating the energy acting on the impact area, since one impact on the target is narrowly focused, the energy efficiency of which is close to 100%, while the other impact is "radially dispersed", with an energy efficiency to 16%.
In order for the energy effect of TNT per cm2 of the target area to be comparable to Oreshnik, with a mass of 3 tons of warheads, the volume of TNT should be 24 kilotons. 24 kilotons is the TNT equivalent of "Oreshnik"
This is indicated by the following calculations:
Kinetic energy transferred to the target by 0.5 tons of steel at a speed of 10M = 2777 MJ with a steel density of 7.8 t/m3. Of 0.5 tons = 0.064 m3.
To simplify the calculations, we will use the cube shape.
In the form of a cube, a 0.064 m3 steel projectile has the following dimensions: an edge of 40 cm, an area of 9600 cm2, and a base of 1600 cm2
The density of TNT is 1,663 tons/m3. In 0.064 m3 - 0.1 tons of TNT, of which only about 1/6 of the cube directly facing the target affects it. 1/6 - 0.016 t. or 74 MJ, which is 37 times less than the kinetic power of a 0.5 t projectile
Now calculate the mass of TNT that it must have in order for the power acting on the surface in contact with it, with an area of 1600 cm2, to be equal to the kinetic power from a 0.5 t steel projectile. - 2777 MJ. 0.1x37/6 = 0.6 t . The volume of 0.6 tons of TNT is 360000 cm3. Calculate the height of the pyramidal part of a cube with a base of 1600 cm2 and a volume of 360000 cm3 = 675 cm. With the height of the pyramidal part 675 cm, the edge of the cube = 1350 cm. With an edge of 1350 cm. cube volume = 2460 m3 Volume of 2460 m3 with a density of 1,663 tons / m3 = 4090 tons.
Thus, the effective power of a 0.5 ton warhead accelerated to a speed of 10M, affecting cm2 of the target area, is equal to 4 kilotons in TNT equivalent.
Therefore, the effective power of 6 kinetic warheads of 0.5 tons each is comparable to 24 kilotons of TNT. Or 666 tons per 1 of 36 subunits.
Congratulations on this phenomenal display of nonsense. I'm sure you can talk to Gabor Fekete or the fine folks at vixra to get this published. Now please leave the grownups to talk about the effects of this weapon and stop trying to juggle different properties to conclude that this is equivalent to Nagasaki.
Bloody well done. That's excellent. That's investigative reporting and its science, too.
So where's all the 'turned to dust' ? That was maybe all rubbish. Or maybe when we find where the other impacts were we might know more.
This is great. We need more of it. Thank you. :)
The damage was underground - this analysis does not comment on that.
Yep. The real point of it all is not really what it did but it shows it can do. It did not have explosive warheads. It did not have nuclear warheads. What it shows is that it could just as easily have delivered such warheads isn't it?
Excellent Analysis…I commend you your studious efforts, truly.
JOG…
Love me some BMA; family. So many thanks for your stack! Old lady with a virtual kat🇷🇸💙🇷🇺❤️🐈⬛
Well written and informative. As noted, the plant is known to have multiple layers below ground level. Without access to inspection, I doubt we will ever know the true extent of the damage.
Hopefully the next test will be somewhere honest people can look at the aftermath and publish what they find.
It is disgusting the way the West is deriding and ignoring all warnings.
"The Oreshnik’s projectiles certainly seem to have penetrative power, but how deep they go is beyond my pay grade. I’ll leave that problem to the amateur physicists, who hopefully catch wind of this post and use it to inform their calculations."
On it.
https://forrestbishop.substack.com/p/back-engineering-oreshnik-second
I'd argue that the damage an Oreshnik does is so minimal that it does not justify its extreme cost. Its projectiles do not explode and destroy everything in a wide blast radius but transfer their energy nearly exclusively to the ground. I'd argue that a conventionally-armed Oreshnik is, damage-wise, around the same as a single Iskander in most scenarios. But an Oreshnik costs an order of magnitude more. The Oreshnik is extremely bad value-for-money without nuclear payload. So I predict that it therefore will only be used a couple more times for testing/intimidation/propaganda purposes and then never again - at least not without nukes on it.. The missile is specifically designed and intended to deliver MIRVed nukes.
It's great to show the capability to nuke Europe in an economical manner and to show Russians that "we can hit things w/o their ability to intercept it".
The Cost/Benefit analysis you suggest is somewhat flawed, if you'll permit me...
The Concept derives from a SciFi writer(s) imagination - Jerry Pounelle and Larry Niven, circa the late 60's or early 70's - named thereby "The Rods of GOD'...
In thier 'conception' onesuch would be a SINGLE IMPACTOR weighing several tons, being delivered from Orbit, AT Orbital re-entry velocity. Those would consist of Platinum plated Tungsten or Tungsten Carbide Rods which when striking the ground would best be approximated as a Subterrainian Nuclear detonation...without a NUKE...
Thought to br something on the order of 15 Kt, roughly.
The FOUNDATIONS uderlying most everything within a radius of roughly a 1 mile radius whould be SHEARED out from under all structures within the 'Blast Radius' of impact...
So why is that here germaine?
Simple...the 'Hazel Switch' - which is what Oreshnik MEANS in Russian - is SOLELY a test case for Hyper-kinetic weapons...and NOT the FINAL FORM thereof, IMHO.
Imagine now a SATAN II Super-Heavy ICBM carrying one OR more of those...
Does that illuminate what is here transpiring?
If NOT, then consider that such as THAT might - just might - be capable of reducing NORAD to 'dust' owing to it's EXTREME penetration capability...
The author here did an EXCELLENT job detailing 'Damage Assessment'...a truly commendable effort, IMHO.
BE Well everyone...and Blessed also.
JOG...
You are talking poop brother. The rods from god would impact at about the same velocity as Oreshnik did, just weigh a bit more. Seeing as how KE is linear in mass that ratio in energy would translate to whatever is the ratio in mass, i.e. at most 10-20 tons of TNT. Oreshnik, R-36 and RS-28 can barely lift a single of such tungsten rods, being constrained both by mass and dimensions. There is also very little evidence that it can come anywhere close to the depths of NORAD based on some evidence of it penetrating a couple floors of concrete building. It's a literal mountain made of rock lol.
Before you start wanking off about your academic credentials (which, judging by your strange capitalisation, were probably attained decades ago), I have an MSc in Theoretical Physics and it's just as irrelevant to weapons design and practical collision mechanics as nuclear engineering is.
Ah 'Mr Oreshnik'...again, no thanks.
Adios...Andreas.
Oh, FWIW..the choice of 'Oreshnik' in your 'handle' was the Tip-off...meaning that likely, your a Troll...more than likely govt. paid.
JOG
I am not that Andreas person, I have no reason to agree with them that Oreshnik is not a feasible and economical way to create destruction of a wholly new kind. I simply also do not agree with your wildly fantastical estimation as to the damage. You're off by a factor 1000, and just because this payload is moving hypersonically and able to more properly dissipate its energy at the foundations of these fortified buildings doesn't mean the laws of physics are different. The amount of energy necessary to create a shockwave in the ground powerful to shear foundations in a mile wide radius is even more astronomical than that! Even the so-called earthquake bombs of WW2 couldn't do that, they just relied on the sudden formation of giant holes under the foundations of fortified positions to collapse them. The results of the shockwaves were negligible.
I'm not an engineer knowledgable on high power/speed/accuracy actuators either. All I can do is call bullshit on your claims, and I am doing so.
What you wrote makes no sense. We're talking about the Oreshnik, not about SF weapons that are *perhaps* feasible with a SpaceX Starship.
Really...you seem to KNOW very little actually.
Here's my 'Bona Fides' BS- Mathematics, BS - Physics, SEPERATE, not a BS with a MINOR, MS -Nuclear Engineering.
How about your's?
JOG
How about "your's"? Well:
It's "yours", not "your's".
Yours is a second person possessive pronoun. It indicates that something is owned by the person you’re addressing, both for second person singular and second person plural.
For example, you might say, “This pencil is yours, not mine.” This sentence means the pencil belongs to the person being addressed, not the person speaking.
Your’s with an apostrophe isn’t a real word, it’s just an incorrect spelling. If you accidentally add an apostrophe to the correct spelling, yours, your writing will look less professional and might confuse your reader.
As to your attempt to "pull rank" with all your "BS-es": Pulling rank is a recognized discussion trick, not a real argument.
@Andreas Oreshnik
If you expect (alleged) STEM majors posting at the speed of thought to have proper punctuation, you'll be regularly disappointed.
Yes, we are bandying about various classic science fiction tropes to discuss a real event. It saves a bit of time since we apparently have read many of the same works and think of some (conceptual) systems under their fictional names. Google "Thagomizer" and see where THAT tendency can lead one?!
No, the writers involved didn't necessarily let math and physics get in the way of developing their story line (or word outputs/day, their actual paying vocation).
But at the end of the day, a thing was done. How?
A masterful take-down.
One question - where did you found Oreshnik cost for your "deep" analysis?
As an engineer in R&D and manufacturing, I know that when X is much larger and much more complex and much more sophisticated than Y, that X is much more expensive than Y, when manufactured by a factory with access to similar technology in a similar economy to the factory that makes X. X and Y are both made by Russian missile manufacturers - perhaps even by the same factory.
I'm well-versed in the complexity and hence cost of ultra-accurate gyroscopic ring lasers, ultra-accurate bus maneuvering motors with their valves and gas generators and controllers and such. The cost reflects how long it takes and how many people it takes to manufacture something. Relative to a Khinzhal, an Oreshnik is much more expensive for obvious reasons (to an engineer who knows what both are capable of).
The only problem with this is that the two systems can't be compared, because the range of Oreshnik is 5-10x that of the Kinzhal. The valuable comparison is whether Oreshnik is more cost effective than however many MRBMs packaged with a conventional explosive warhead you'd need to duplicate its destructive effect (which is over a wide area)
This makes no sense, unless you're suggesting that Russia plans to take out the UK's government. Highly unlikely. The UK has its own nuclear arsenal.
@Andreas Oreshnik
You are aware that present day UK nuclear missiles/warheads are of USA origin AND USA CONTROLS THEIR LAUNCH CODES/WARHEAD FIRING ENABLE? Effectively, USA has got missiles WE control on some UK submarines but avoided the costs of building the subs PLUS profited on the weapons. Nice work if we can get it!
I don't know if UK bothered to retain some of their older but indigenously designed & manufactured nuclear weapons/missiles/gravity bombs? If so, THOSE might be deployed without Uncle Sam's permission. France avoided USA control over their nuclear capabilities such as UK accepted, go figure.
@Andreas Oreshnik
Ultra precise maneuvering reaction motors & related valving, electromechanical controls, especially very fast acting ones for hypersonic use ARE expensive, difficult to mass produce in spec & etc..
So think about possible "asymmetrical engineering":approaches to obviate this manufacturing bottleneck?
Since it has been broadly hinted that these new RF hypersonic reentry vehicles use surface ionic effects to reduce both atmospheric friction and RADAR visibility, and it has long been theorized that such surface effects could be used to STEER (or even PROPEL?!) high velocity vehicles in atmospheric environments? And solid state electronics to control and implement such ionic steering might be cheaper, easier to mass produce/less susceptible to violent G forces & vibration, less demanding of master machinist level talent to QA test and FASTER ACTING than legacy electro mechanicaly valved reaction drive attitude adjustment/thruster systems?
Perhaps they have found a different paradigm.
Goddamn, I would LOVE to see their shop and pick their engineers brains over a few good Czech beers.
Ah...excellent, a THINKER.
One of the VERY INTERESTING 'things' which abides in the realm of Physics is MHD.
That is "Magneto-Hydro-Dynamics'.
IF we DO obtain really efficient Super-Conductors then that 'principle' could very easily be adapted to produce vehicles which DON'T use 'Rocket Engines' in atmosphere...per your observation.
A while back the Japanese tested an MHD system on a watercraft thet named the 'Yamamoto'. That used both Ekectruc AND Magnetic fields to produce - in effect - a Linear Induction motor powering the craft well beyond 115 mph.
The EXACT same principle can be employed in any ionized fas as that too is a CONDUCTOR and so eminently useful in propelling OR steering a vehicle.
Currently the primary difficulty associated therewith lies in prividing SUFFICIENT ekecyrical POWER thereto. Likely a small FUSION reactor would be required to provide that level of compact power.
Naturally, NONESUCH currently exist...though curiously, just a few years ago Martin-Marrietta openly patented a 'Loop-Handle' design for just such a small, extremely COMPACT unit...which promptly VANISHED from all scientific and technical pubs FORTHWITH...
The aspect of the Oreshnik which EVERYONE seems ti be missing is that THIS IS the very first such EVER DEPLOYED.
Does anyone want to compare 'Fat Man' OR 'Little Boy' to modern Nuclear ordinance?
Once again, the RUSSIANS ARE 'pushing thr envelope' of what IS possible, whilst the entire WEST erroneously believes that 'They' have a GOOD HANDLE on 'things'.
The STUDITY of that mindset is simply TITANIC...truly.
JOG...
@JustOneGuy
Thanks for the thoughts re: MHD.
If you could point towards where/when the existence of a "Martin-Marrietta Loop-Handle" patent might have been disclosed, I will spend some time with way back machine & internet archive?
Failing that, what do you recall about concepts they patented?!
Unfortunately, I deal with an enormous amount of pre-prints - trchnical AND scientific - and I do not recall exactly where I stumbled over that...
To wit, I thought at the time, "Gee, THAT'S 'Ambitious'...nobody else is even CLOSE to 'break-even'..."
I CAN describe what I saw in that article.
The assemblage appeared to be spherical (roughly) and had three 'loops' positioned in rather odd locations about it...hence the 'loop-handle' configuration I mentioned...
WONDER OF WONDERS...it JUST HIT ME!
Try stopping in at scitechdaily.com, I BELIEVE that it was there that I originally encountered the ARTICLE itself!
Not BAD fot an 'aged' old guy such as myself!
Now where did I leave my car keys...
What color is my car?
Are you my Mommy?...
Some days are better than others...OBVIOUSLY.
Be Well and Blessed...
JOG...
Nothing you wrote makes any sense. The reentry vehicles are only released at a stage where they can't be intercepted anymore so RADAR visibility is irrelevant.
Making each submunition steerable would require dozens of extremely complex, expensive, bulky electromechanics (ring laser gyroscope etc.) and a means to electronically modulate plasma etc. so that it would not even fit in the submunition. Neither would that be *necessary* - the submunitions can be adequately targeted before re-entry. Also: How the hell would each submunition know where it is and where the target is, while being inside a glowing ball of plasma?
Andreas Oreshnik
All very good questions, thanks for taking the time to consider this event. Now to find some answers (or discover why the questions we are asking were the wrong ones)?
Have you looked at the commercial satellite imagery/pre existing images showing the damage and apparent "lines" of impacts (unless that is just our monkey minds doing what they do best, trying to find a pattern that may not be there)? My grandfather was an Army signal corps officer in WWI, his unit tasked with taking aerial pictures of the Western front from wooden airplanes & trying to figure out WTF was in progress on the other side. Interpreting such images is an art and I'm barely a finger painter.
If they DID do this, individually targeting each impactor to the apparent degree of precision, it can be done. I am merely asking "How'd they do THAT?!" rather than denying it matters or reassuring myself that: It didn't really happen that way, is too expensive for production, a Third Reich type waste of resources on some kind of tactically/strategically useless & utterly inconsequential in number wunderwaffe and convincing myself that this just HAD to be a "one off" propaganda exploit.
As a parallel in weapons development, back in the aSumnet of 1945 when the first three nuclear weapons were used? We MIGHT have fielded a fourth bomb 10 days or so after Nagasaki. After that, we MIGHT have been able to produce more cores at a rate of 1 per week or just a bit longer if no teething problems in bringing the several new technologies involved from their R&D labs into mass production intervened (and several did). It was fortunate that we didn't need to go there right away, but not impossible if we had needed to.
Where are the several RF engineering establishments in the arc from development to full scale deployment?
You'd argue wrong because this Oreshnik lacked a warhead and thus did not have explosive (just kinetic power). Normally it would carry the equivalent of a FAB 300. Imagine 36 FAB 300s falling on a target at once with supersonic speeds.
Surely it could do serious damage but it would be much more economical to do that damage with the traditional means, Russia has at its disposal. The Oreshnik is the ideal way to nuke Europe and that's what it might be used for, one day, if Europe keeps facilitating attacks on Russia. I think that's the real message.
No. It is not "more economical" with traditional means - reason being that it 1) cannot be shot down and 2) is high precision without being an ICBM 3) can penetrate hardened Soviet buildings
Traditional means are less high precision, cannot penetrate hardened structures and can be shot down
Your claims that a Khinzhal can be shot down and is low precision are false, making everything you wrote false or not appliccable.
Silly comment, indicating a rudimentary understanding (at best) of just how revolutionary Preshnok truly is.
It does seem rather pathetic. I had to really scan through the images to see any substantial damage. I understand they weren't carrying a payload, but why weren't they? Makes it look worthless. Can it not handle a warhead? Maybe because of the extreme speed and heat?
Can't find any prices of an Oreshnik but have seen estimates of over $30m. If that's accurate, a regular drone costs around $50k. For 1 Oreshnik Russia could launch 600 drones. Multiple attacks over a wide area vs a precision strike is no contest.
As for the Oreshnik being unstoppable. Last night alone Russia knocked out 2 missile factories, a Patriot launcher, a couple of SBU buildings and some Western fighters... with drones. The Oreshnik can only take out 1 target and unless that target is Kiev with a high yield nuke, it won't make any difference to the conflict. Taking out all the factories may not end the war, but it reduces the enemies ability to fight and ground troops are safer.
Launching an Oreshnik without a warhead is very suspicious. If the idea was to scare the West in to submission, it failed. I've seen more damage inflicted from a Tesla randomly catching fire.
What seems to be missing from most discussions is whether the submunitions were depleted uranium (it’s pyrophoric) and tungsten (to hold the mass together during reentry until impact). Think of the damage a small DU round does entering an armored vehicle, and scale up from there.
@HalifaxCB
Spend some time comparing strengths of candidate materials at elevated temperatures, tendency to ablate/oxidize in atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. Don't limit candidates to what has been used in artillery systems, those are lower velocity applications... Look at patent la apps and research papers for nitrides, carbides, borides and inter metallic compounds/mixtures of all these too.
DU is used by USA & others for kinetic penetrators in anti armor systems because it was CHEAP and AVAILABLE, in fact a WASTE PRODUCT of cold war nuclear programs which they wanted to DISPOSE of rather than store securely forever... DU is not the BEST candidate in all (or most!) regards in THIS application and at such velocities.
Also, plenty of OTHER high density/refractory materials will very happily burn in air with high heat outputs after being smashed by impact into white hot, micron sized particles or even vapor... See here:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=500092&aid=63212
The author probably did not pay attention to the abundantly green trees in the pictures? All November in Ukraine the air temperature was within +7-2 Celsius. Do you know what trees look like in November in Ukraine?
There was wet snow on 11 November https://nashemisto.dp.ua/ru/2024/11/11/anticiklonalnoe-masshtabnoe-pole-smenit-mokryj-sneg-kakaja-pogoda-budet-v-ukraine-12-nojabrja/.
After such weather the frozen leaves just fall to the ground.
This is how the trees looked in Dnipro a month earlier on 19 October
https://www.instagram.com/avtosfera.dnepr/p/DCUiCxqNZdi/?next=%2Fbluegodzi%2Ftagged%2F&locale=%E5%9C%A8%E7%BA%BF%E5%AE%9A%E5%88%B6%E5%A1%94%E5%90%89%E5%85%8B%E6%96%AF%E5%9D%A6TEF%E8%AF%81%E4%B9%A6%E8%81%94%E7%B3%BB%7B%E5%A8%81%E4%BF%A1%2BTG%2F%E9%A3%9E%E6%9C%BA%3A%40buth27&hl=de&img_index=15
You seem to have been deceived by false images from early October 2024.
So when did the damage occur to the buildings and from just using my phone, most of the trees appear to be evergreens?
AAAAAHH, aren't the missiles capable of carrying nuclear bomblets? Isn't that what this demonstration was all about"
No, Oreshnik appears to be a weapon specifically designed to deliver kinetic projectiles
U sure? Also was there an actual payload or was the damage purely from the kinetic energy of the projectiles this time?
@Amerikanets
Aside from the kinetic impactor bodies themselves (and any related controls), the whole MECHANICAL and airframe/drive system appears to be repurposed legacy late USSR/early RF program developed, mostly pre existing technology with new software/logic/sensor/guidance circuitry- and this new final payload?
Exactly. The Oreshnik has only one conceivable use, which is delivering up to six MIRVed nuclear warheads. The submunitions are intended to be a variety of decoys. And this demonstration was presented to the Russian public as a showcase of Russia's capabilities and a threat to the West that Russia can nuke Polish ports and factories, Romanian NATO installations and so on, w/o getting the European populace too riled up about: "Russia's threatening to nuke us!". Oreshnik is not about threatening to kill the UK government or blowing up Ukrainian installations. It's about showing that Russia has credible means to accurately nuke, with small-yield warheads, anything they want nuked in Europe.
Previously, the Treaty was terminated at the behest of the United States. Well, now the Russians can call any missile, for example, "HAZEL". What to load it with - it depends on the situation. The Russians are never in a hurry to harness...
Interesting analysis, however I disagree with your conclusions and think it is most unwise to downplay just how powerful Oreshnik is.
We know that 36 projectiles travelling at hypersonic speed of ~mach 10 penetrated different parts of the facility, on a vertical trajectory.
Important to note that the velocity of each projectile on impact may have been far higher than mach 10. This is because unlike the other hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles the Russians possess eg Kinzhal, which slightly decelerate prior to impact, the Oreshnik projectiles accelerate on impact.
The physics & math indicates that the speed and heat of such an impact would result in penetration of up to 200m (if not more) depth.
The Ukrainians and NATO have done everything they can to suppress all information about the strike. If it was limited as you seem to be saying, surely it would be relatively easy for them to embarrass the Russians, by disproving the claims that the facility was destroyed. However, where are the videos of tne facility operating as normal post Oreshnik, or the photos of the facility itself including underground
? Where is the official satellite imagery?
There isn't any. That's a huge tell.
Even if the imagery that you are using is genuine imagery of the facility after the Oreshnik strike - let's assume that it is - it doesn't reveal any of the underground destruction that Oreshnik is designed to create, or include the full 36 strikes that were delivered.
It's the underground destruction that is important, not the surface impact.
I note that multiple independent witnesses from near the strike and as far away as 25 km away, reported seismic like movements when the strike occurred, as well as total destuction of the facility. Having experienced multiple Russian strikes on the facility since 2022, they would be well placed to distinguish the difference between (say) an Iskander missile impact, and an Oreshnik impact.
My 10 cents - Oreshnik is a devastating weapon that cannot be defended against. A few minutes before impact, a missile launched in Russia carrying 6 MIRV glide vehicles. The missile travelled at ~mach 10 (at least) speed on a ballistic trajectory , detaching the glide vehicles somewhere over Russia. Each glide vehicle then flew at hypersonic speed to the target, on a non-ballistic / manouveeinh trajectory.
Each glide vehicle carried 6 projectiles (likely tungsten rods/projectiles although no one really knows) that were launched at the facility. As a result, 36 Oreshnik projectiles impacted different parts of the facility (we all saw the impact on video).
Each projectile was travelling at mach 10 plus, on a vertical trajectory. They impacted various targets in the site (as your analysis shows) but then penetrated deep underground, destroying the entire facility and anyone inside it.
NATO and Kiev are fully aware of this and as a result, have been suppressing all information about the strike.
The Russians are likely going to use Oreshnik again, so we will soon be able to learn more about this astonishing new weapon.
I strongly disagree with any argument that seeks to downplay the importance of Oreshnik, or the devastation of the strike. Like Avanagard, this is yet another game changing strategic Russian weapon that the world has never seen before, and which the collective West is unable to defend itself against.
Thank you.
Any Nato attack on Russia would primarily rely on airpower, where the West may still have an advantage.
With a few hundred Oreshnik missiles, the Russians could render most Nato airfields in Europe inoperable within minutes.
Game over for Nato in any conventional battle with the Russians.
The lack of large areas covered in rubble is completely baffling. From the fact that the area is still surrounded and inaccessible to the public we can conclude that the damage is much more extensive than at first sight. There is certainly extensive underground damage the extent of which must be kept out of public view.
This is a completely incorrect comparison. The total destructive energy of the Oreshnik is approximately 24 kilotons (24,000 tons) of TNT.
In order for the comparison to be more or less correct, with the same initial data, it is necessary to calculate the amount of energy released per impact area. And due to objective physical reasons, it differs, since one type of impact on the target is narrowly focused, and its energy efficiency is close to 100%, while the other impact is "radially dispersed", with an energy efficiency of up to 16%.
To begin with, we calculate the kinetic energy reported to the target from 0.5 tons of steel at a speed of 10M. This is 2777 MJ, with a steel density of 7.8 tons/m3. Of 0.5 tons. this is 0.064 m3.
To simplify the calculations, we will use the cube shape.
In the form of a cube, a 0.064 m3 steel projectile has the following dimensions: an edge of 40 cm, an area of 9600 cm2, and a base of 1600 cm2
The density of TNT is 1,663 tons/m3. In 0.064 m3 - 0.1 tons of TNT, of which only about 1/6 of the cube directly facing the target affects it. 1/6 - 0.016 t. or 74 MJ, which is 37 times less than the kinetic power of a 0.5 t projectile
Now calculate the mass of TNT that it must have in order for the power acting on the surface in contact with it, with an area of 1600 cm2, to be equal to the kinetic power from a 0.5 t steel projectile. - 2777 MJ. 0.1x37/6 = 0.6 t . The volume of 0.6 tons of TNT is 360000 cm3. Calculate the height of the pyramidal part of a cube with a base of 1600 cm2 and a volume of 360000 cm3 = 675 cm. With the height of the pyramidal part 675 cm, the edge of the cube = 1350 cm. With an edge of 1350 cm. cube volume = 2460 m3 Volume of 2460 m3 with a density of 1,663 tons / m3 = 4090 tons of TNT.
Thus, the effective power of a 0.5 ton warhead accelerated to a speed of 10M, affecting cm2 of the target area, is equal to 4 kilotons in TNT equivalent.
Therefore, the effective power of 6 kinetic warheads of 0.5 tons each is comparable to 24 kilotons of TNT. Or 666 tons per 1 of 36 subunits.
Thanks for doing this.
I agree with your points.
The analysis done by Amerikanets is very good for what it is, but what it is not is any form of analysis of subsurface damage.
Maybe there is none, the fact is we simply don't know.
I will note that this is precisely the type of thing which is very hard to see via satellite imagery - even discounting the buildings and debris in the way.