Oreshnik MRBM

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no reason to believe that any accurate, detailed news reports have been made from any side. Whatever exact missile type was used, Russia did fire a missile into the Ukraine. U.S. supplied missiles are not just pieces of hardware that were handed to the Ukrainians. They had to get permission. The launch codes were secret as well as GPS data. The British should know all about this. President-elect Trump has been told by Putin that a cease-fire is possible. I suspect this type of nonsense will end soon. The Ukrainians were given a limited number of missiles to fire. A few may have been shot down by Russia.
 
I agree with this assessment. The various members of NATO are watching the pieces being rearranged in Europe and the Cold War never ended. The Russians feel cut off and that is also accurate. Like any large country, they want trade and access to markets. Not German troops in Lithuania for example. In the 1980s, I read military journals with lots of "Russia moves west" scenarios. Various ways to stall the Russian advance were described. Since then, declassified documents reveal how complex defensive measures were. Britain would be a jumping off point for SAC aircraft. The world would not have survived the planned ICBM exchanges. If anything, the coming Winter and a lack of replacements on the Ukrainian side will tip the balance against them. Only a cease-fire and sorting out of guarantees is the best way forward.
 
leiter said:
Is it just me or there has been a quite worrying streak of revelations about "secret" weapons sytems lately? The never-heard-before Israeli ALBMs in the leaked docs, this "Oreshnik" MRBM nobody has ever heard of before... maybe all of these "who know what they're hiding under the wraps" people were right all along.
Click to expand...
There are no surprises to those in the know. The general public might be surprised but if you know you know.
 
yahya said:
War Noir noted in their morning post on sm the lack of explosions on the ground (unless they were not visible to the camera). Can our experts explain that feat unless indeed something like the BETAB-500 concrete penetrators as @Dilandu suggested were used?
Click to expand...
Well, at 3 km/s impact velocity you simply would not need explosive. The kinetic energy released by the impacting mass would exceed the energy released by the same mass of TNT explosion.
 
Supposed image of reentry vehicles hitting the ground
Gc5WnMoXYAAAC8M
 
Archibald said:
It is the ICBM that is worrisome. Wonder whether it is a desperate move (using ICBMs as a "Super Iskander") or nuclear sabre rattling.
Click to expand...
It wastes a lot more money per strike, which is a good thing.

1732219930417.png
1732219983230.png

www.twz.com

Russia's Unprecedented Ballistic Missile Attack On Ukraine: What We Know

Russia has used a more capable ballistic missile than ever before to strike Ukraine with what appear to be multiple warheads.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Ams2p7FIg

Apparently 2 were fired and one failed, more on that to come. That makes 3 failures out of last 4 ICBM tests/firings.
 
Last edited:
The MIRVs would most likely be able to handle a small nuclear warhead. I'm not sure it'd be necessary to stick one into the submunitions, how big is the spread of six submunitions going to be from one MIRV? 6 very small warheads or one larger warhead - the larger warhead may be more than enough to affect the same area without resorting to trying to get a very small warhead into a submunition.

Archibald said:
3 or 4 km/s ? https://web.archive.org/web/20220901043545/http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABM/BM_Classes.htm

MRBM.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought. I'm sure this will in no way eventually be used as marketing for Arrow-3 or other systems.
 
lancer21 said:
And another tidbit from someone i follow:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1859654779502264755
View: https://x.com/Pataramesh/status/1859654779502264755



If that is the case, what do knowledgeable people think, would the MIRVs or even the submunitions be big enough to hold a small yield nuclear warhead, a few kilotons or so?
Click to expand...
Always good to see a mutual to come to same conclusions, glad to not be alone in thought process of form follows function.
There is also another person that came to same conclusions, it is logical explanation and probably actual missile experts state same.
 
SOC said:
The MIRVs would most likely be able to handle a small nuclear warhead. I'm not sure it'd be necessary to stick one into the submunitions, how big is the spread of six submunitions going to be from one MIRV? 6 very small warheads or one larger warhead - the larger warhead may be more than enough to affect the same area without resorting to trying to get a very small warhead into a submunition.



I had the same thought. I'm sure this will in no way eventually be used as marketing for Arrow-3 or other systems.
Click to expand...
I was thinking from the angle of overwhelming any ABM site. With 36 submunitions most would be decoys with a portion having a warhead, but with so many it would be practically impossible for the ABM system to destroy them all and escape from being hit by at least several warheads. With "just" 6 MIRVs it might perhaps be possible they could be intercepted/deflected. They could do a mix and match though, 2-3 MIRVs with warheads and the others with submunitions/decoys. I note that it appears the submunitions fall quite close together though, others more knowledgeable can comment on that?
 
One assumes the response to that scenario would be to...build more ABM sites. Or sell a LOT more THAAD or Arrow 3 batteries.

If you're trying to overwhelm and destroy an ABM site with a nuclear payload, you may as well use a "real" one. If you want to use nuclear RVs, you're arguably better off using a "quick" ICBM RV rather than a comparatively "slow" MRBM RV. If you have to use Oreshnik, then I'd assume you'd end up with a few MIRVs and some PENAIDs like decoy RVs or chaff dispensers or something, rather than MIRVs plus submunitions. We know they can make small PENAIDs, they showed up on Iskanders.

Random thought, maybe Oreshnik is some sort of multi-stage Iskander-ER rather than from the Rubezh/Yars/etc. tree? Would that random part that appeared on Bulava also show up in an Iskander, or would it show up in Rubezh/Yars/etc. (or all of the above)...?
 
If you are hitting an ABM site with nukes, just have the first one explode in space and "blind" the radar, then drop a few more behind it.
 
t.me

ТАСС

❗️РФ за 30 минут до пуска "Орешника" отправила США уведомление в автоматическом режиме по линии центра по уменьшению ядерной опасности, заявил ТАСС Песков.
t.me t.me

TG Channel of Russian news TASS. They reported that according to Putin's spokeperson Peskov, US Was notified 30 minutes before launch.
Guess that includes the nature of the weapon too.
 
edwest4 said:
I agree with this assessment. The various members of NATO are watching the pieces being rearranged in Europe and the Cold War never ended. The Russians feel cut off and that is also accurate. Like any large country, they want trade and access to markets. Not German troops in Lithuania for example. In the 1980s, I read military journals with lots of "Russia moves west" scenarios. Various ways to stall the Russian advance were described. Since then, declassified documents reveal how complex defensive measures were. Britain would be a jumping off point for SAC aircraft. The world would not have survived the planned ICBM exchanges. If anything, the coming Winter and a lack of replacements on the Ukrainian side will tip the balance against them. Only a cease-fire and sorting out of guarantees is the best way forward.
Click to expand...
People with some goddamn common sense are hard to come by these days...

giphy (5).gif
 
SOC said:
One assumes the response to that scenario would be to...build more ABM sites. Or sell a LOT more THAAD or Arrow 3 batteries.

If you're trying to overwhelm and destroy an ABM site with a nuclear payload, you may as well use a "real" one. If you want to use nuclear RVs, you're arguably better off using a "quick" ICBM RV rather than a comparatively "slow" MRBM RV. If you have to use Oreshnik, then I'd assume you'd end up with a few MIRVs and some PENAIDs like decoy RVs or chaff dispensers or something, rather than MIRVs plus submunitions. We know they can make small PENAIDs, they showed up on Iskanders.

Random thought, maybe Oreshnik is some sort of multi-stage Iskander-ER rather than from the Rubezh/Yars/etc. tree? Would that random part that appeared on Bulava also show up in an Iskander, or would it show up in Rubezh/Yars/etc. (or all of the above)...?
Click to expand...
ABM is not cheap and takes a lot of time to produce than would ballistic missiles because complex sensors require perfection in construction and exotic materials to begin with as too flawless software.

Just to launch single missile at each warhead if for example using SM-3 would be three years worth of production against Oreshnik yet to have assured neutralization would require 6 years worth of SM-3 production.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1842294646590095640
View: https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1842294646590095640
 
This kinda complicates US defensive planning, though.

Since before the only possible warhead you'd put on an ICBM or MRBM was nuclear, you could plan that any such missile detected was going to deliver a nuke.

But when someone has demonstrated a conventional warhead of some value, now you need to guess as to whether the incoming BM is a precision conventional or a nuclear strike.
 
Scott Kenny said:
This kinda complicates US defensive planning, though.

Since before the only possible warhead you'd put on an ICBM or MRBM was nuclear, you could plan that any such missile detected was going to deliver a nuke.

But when someone has demonstrated a conventional warhead of some value, now you need to guess as to whether the incoming BM is a precision conventional or a nuclear strike.
Click to expand...

Already the case for TBMs from Russia and practically every ballistic missile China has.
 
Last edited:
The footage of ICBM warheads hitting the ground didn't seem to have much image blooming (videotape?)

These latest IRBM strikes have a lot of digital blooming... phosphorus? Camera-on-a-chip artifact?
 
Josh_TN said:
Already the case for TBMs from Russia and practically every ballistic missile China has.
Click to expand...
TBMs are most likely to be conventional warheads anyways (see ATACMS).

China has been doing weird stuff with their AShBMs.
 
TomS said:
Notably, the US position has long been that RS-26 with its intended warload is actually an IRBM, not an ICBM. It was tested at very light loads with a range that just barely qualified as an ICBM, thus excluding it from the INF treaty. But the US always considered it a direct successor to SS-20.
Click to expand...

And here we go:

www.defense.gov

Russians Launch New Missile at Dnipro, U.S. Provides Ukraine With New Tactical Weapons

The Defense Department has characterized the intermediate-range ballistic missile as "experimental" in that it's the first time a weapon of its kind has been used on the battlefield in Ukraine, Deputy
www.defense.gov

"I can confirm that Russia did launch an experimental intermediate range ballistic missile," said Sabrina Singh during a briefing today at the Pentagon. "This IRBM was based on Russia's RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile model. In terms of notifications to the United States, the United States was prenotified, briefly, before the launch, through nuclear risk reduction channels."
Click to expand...
 
SS-27 or... Looking for a NATO Designator.
 
Dilandu said:
Sigh. Western sources deny that any kind of ICBM launches took place. Seriously, guys, could you just stop this nonsence?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the use of an intercontinental missile for tactical purposes has a political message: the next one will have nuclear warhead.

I don't know of these types of weapons to argue seriously on the subject, but I suppose that if they are used for short range a large part of the unused fuel can have devastating results, or perhaps it can be replaced by a greater quantity of explosives.

Putin continues to win in the psychological game of scaring opponents lacking testosterone and with inferior strategic intelligence.

Have I seen a propaganda video in which ballistic missiles coming from Russia attack all the major countries of Europe, except mine, perhaps because it is already pre-digested?
 
Josh_TN said:
ETA: Also the RS-26 seems rather designed to bypass the old INF treaty.
Click to expand...

That treaty is now defunct.

Justo Miranda said:
In my opinion, the use of an intercontinental missile for tactical purposes has a political message: the next one will have nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...

The SS-X-31 is an IRBM not an ICBM, I strongly suspect that an ICBM's minimum range would've been too big for this use.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
That treaty is now defunct.



The SS-X-31 is an IRBM not an ICBM, I strongly that an ICBM's minimum range would've been too big for this use.
Click to expand...

I am aware, but it seems to be an IRBM that has such a long range that it actually exceeds the definition of IRBM in the INF treaty. And this missile apparently predates treaty termination in 2019.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom