Oreshnik MRBM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justo Miranda said:
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.
Click to expand...

That’s not how ballistic missiles work. They burn all their fuel by apogee and then fall back to earth unpowered. Shorter ranges force a higher altitude/more parabolic trajectory.
 
Everyone freaking out over nothing major. The US has plans for this, nothing has changed, its not an ICBM, ambiguity is not an issue.
 
Josh_TN said:
That’s not how ballistic missiles work. They burn all their fuel by apogee and then fall back to earth unpowered. Shorter ranges force a higher altitude/more parabolic trajectory.
Click to expand...
.I understand, the same thing happened with the V-2, but in that case the heat energy of the fuel was transformed into very destructive kinetic energy.
 
DrtQF0yXQAAi1mi


I mean, we're all familiar with this photo comparing SS-16, SS-20, and SS-25; the difference between an IRBM and ICBM is the third stage and number of warheads you load onto the post-boost vehicle. Heck, you could overload the missile and use it as a giant SRBM.

The litigation over whether they want to call this an ICBM or an IRBM seems a little irrelevant beyond the point that the Russians are signaling by introducing a new category of long-range weapons; the politicians can work out whether the signaling is deceptive or real or whatever later.
 
The fact that it's just been released that NATO and Ukraine will hold talks next Tuesday in Brussels on this issue is unsurprising.
What NATO can offer is unlcear, maybe more ABM defence - if that's possible - or perhaps early signs that Ukraine will be asked to avoid any more long-range strikes.
 
What bothers me to no end is when somebody is saying "hypersonic" because "flies at mach 5+ ". Well IRBMs and ICBMs by this metric are hypersonic. Well so is the Shuttle. Or a Soyuz.
"Hypersonic" doesn't only means "Mach 5+" but also a) horizontal trajectory and b) inside the atmosphere (but not always "airbreathing", because boost-glide)
 
Archibald said:
Tom Cooper takes at the whole affair.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-151964154

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-22-november-2024-the

Could it be just a matter of "let's take a cancelled missile out of storage and shoot it at the ukrainians with non-nuke warheads" ? Kinda opportunistic move, but not one that can be repeated anytime soon ?
Click to expand...
That made no harm to Russia in spending those stocks as they are destined to be disposed.
At the other hand, one day we may see war of prototypes, just like Japanese Manga...
 
Hood said:
The fact that it's just been released that NATO and Ukraine will hold talks next Tuesday in Brussels on this issue is unsurprising.
What NATO can offer is unlcear, maybe more ABM defence - if that's possible - or perhaps early signs that Ukraine will be asked to avoid any more long-range strikes.
Click to expand...

NATO can offer nothing. These strikes are likely to be few in number; it is not clear this is even a fully deployed system and in any case it must be quite expensive and barring a MARV, quite inaccurate compared to Iskander/Kinzhal. IMO, the use of some kind of cluster warheads implies lack of precision was acceptable for the purposes of this system, or at least this particular launch.
 
Tom Cooper says CEP is 200 meters, which is not sufficient to destroy a peculiar target, unless it is larger than a football field. Albeit they could use it as a terror weapon against large cities, just to kill people.
 
Josh_TN said:
NATO can offer nothing. These strikes are likely to be few in number; it is not clear this is even a fully deployed system and in any case it must be quite expensive and barring a MARV, quite inaccurate compared to Iskander/Kinzhal. IMO, the use of some kind of cluster warheads implies lack of precision was acceptable for the purposes of this system, or at least this particular launch.
Click to expand...
I agree. A THAAD or SM-3 could probably deal with it but given the lack of precision, cost-wise it's better to just let them keep on driving their currency into the toilet.
 
Archibald said:
Tom Cooper says CEP is 200 meters, which is not sufficient to destroy a peculiar target, unless it is larger than a football field. Albeit they could use it as a terror weapon against large cities, just to kill people.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • b928de40dd9b1e231bc841002961a4df.jpg
    b928de40dd9b1e231bc841002961a4df.jpg
    193.9 KB · Views: 78
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...
That would be a stupid move beyond belief and would bring no tactical benefits whatsoever
 
Stills from a video of a fragment. Looks like fiberglass to me.
 

Attachments

  • fragment3.PNG
    fragment3.PNG
    161.5 KB · Views: 52
  • fragment2.PNG
    fragment2.PNG
    221.4 KB · Views: 20
  • fragment1.PNG
    fragment1.PNG
    183.3 KB · Views: 18
  • fragment.PNG
    fragment.PNG
    220.1 KB · Views: 29
At least the Russians contacted the U.S. just prior to launch. It was the responsible thing to do.

The current administration is just delaying the inevitable. The incoming President has stated he will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. The news media keeps saying he hasn't explained how he would do that. Perhaps their phones aren't working. If I was them, I'd call and ask. But I do not think that will happen...
 
GTX said:
That would be a stupid move beyond belief and would bring no tactical benefits whatsoever
Click to expand...

Even if Pudding don't give a rat about the West, such move would also piss China. And since the russian economy - or what's left of it - is now on chinese life support...
 
I suspect there will be additional launches against the weakest Ukrainian military formations. Then Kiev (Kyiv or Kiew) will be surrounded. That way, Putin will be in a better bargaining position with the new administration in January.
 
Archibald said:
"Hypersonic" doesn't only means "Mach 5+" but also a) horizontal trajectory and b) inside the atmosphere (but not always "airbreathing", because boost-glide)
Click to expand...
Well, the Aegis radar sites in Poland and Romania doesn't seems to notice anything, so it looks pretty much likely that payload was indeed boost-glide and flew below their horizon.
 
P.S. But seriously, isn't it a bit of absurd, how "western experts" like -

Archibald said:
Tom Cooper says CEP is 200 meters,
Click to expand...
Archibald said:
Could it be just a matter of "let's take a cancelled missile out of storage and shoot it at the ukrainians with non-nuke warheads" ? Kinda opportunistic move, but not one that can be repeated anytime soon ?
Click to expand...
- are trying to invent more and more convoluted explanation instead of just following the simplest one? That the missile launched was exactly what it was said to be and done exactly what it was launched for?

Seriously, this attitude "it just cannot be what it seems because it must be some Russian Plotsky!" started to lean toward conspiracy theory pretty heavy. Basically it deny that Russia may just do something because it must be impossible (why?) for Russia to do it, and therefore it must be (why?) something else.
 
I reiterate: Thread will only stay open if dealing with facts about the weapons used and not if members keep posting stupid commentary.
 
Josh_TN said:
The timing implies it is a response to the U.S. giving Ukraine permission to use its weapons in Russia. It will be interrogated see if it is used again; I would not think a lot were in inventory.
Click to expand...
Seems like it's pretty much the most expensive way possible of hitting a target, or not hitting a target as the case may or may not be without satellite images.
 
Forest Green said:
Seems like it's pretty much the most expensive way possible of hitting a target, or not hitting a target as the case may or may not be without satellite images.
Click to expand...
When the main goal is to demonstrate the capability and to send a political message, it's absolutely irrelevant, how expensive it exactly was (because everyone perfectly understood, that it is NOT supposed to be used oftenly - or even used at all - again). Seriously, just a month ago US send a billion-dollar-each B-2 bombers to strike targets in Yemen (that could be demolished by cruise missiles or carrier planes for a fraction of B-2 cost), merely to send a message to its opponents. Why can't you comprehend the same action by someone else?
 
Dilandu said:
When the main goal is to demonstrate the capability and to send a political message, it's absolutely irrelevant, how expensive it exactly was (because everyone perfectly understood, that it is NOT supposed to be used oftenly - or even used at all - again).
Click to expand...
Not to sure it conveyed the message Russia were hoping for.

1732304500099.png
Dilandu said:
Seriously, just a month ago US send a billion-dollar-each B-2 bombers to strike targets in Yemen (that could be demolished by cruise missiles or carrier planes for a fraction of B-2 cost), merely to send a message to its opponents. Why can't you comprehend the same action by someone else?
Click to expand...
The B-2 didn't destroy those targets by diving into them though, it dropped guided free-fall bombs, which are the actually the cheapest option for an accurate airstrike.
 
GTX said:
That would be a stupid move beyond belief and would bring no tactical benefits whatsoever
Click to expand...
I agree that it is stupid and unnecessarily expensive from a military point of view, there can only be one political reason: to scare European voters over sixty years of age to put pressure on the oligarchs in Brussels who still depend on the electoral system.
 
Dilandu said:
When the main goal is to demonstrate the capability and to send a political message, it's absolutely irrelevant, how expensive it exactly was (because everyone perfectly understood, that it is NOT supposed to be used oftenly - or even used at all - again). Seriously, just a month ago US send a billion-dollar-each B-2 bombers to strike targets in Yemen (that could be demolished by cruise missiles or carrier planes for a fraction of B-2 cost), merely to send a message to its opponents. Why can't you comprehend the same action by someone else?
Click to expand...
And what capability would have been demonstrated - that Russian missiles work?
Justo Miranda said:
I agree that it is stupid and unnecessarily expensive from a military point of view, there can only be one political reason: to scare European voters over sixty years of age to put pressure on the oligarchs in Brussels who still depend on the electoral system.
Click to expand...
This did not happen with Kinzhal. I'd like to remind everyone this is not the first weapon "reveal" of this war. Even Zircon has supposedly been used.
 
Dilandu said:
Okay, it was officially revealed (by our president, so it's not rumors) that it was a combat test of "Oreshnik" (rus. Hazel) hypersonic medium-range missile. Probably with cluster warhead.
Click to expand...
Medium range only threatens Europe, intercontinental range threatens America, the difference in intentions is important.
 
Dilandu said:
P.S. But seriously, isn't it a bit of absurd, how "western experts" like -



- are trying to invent more and more convoluted explanation instead of just following the simplest one? That the missile launched was exactly what it was said to be and done exactly what it was launched for?

Seriously, this attitude "it just cannot be what it seems because it must be some Russian Plotsky!" started to lean toward conspiracy theory pretty heavy. Basically it deny that Russia may just do something because it must be impossible (why?) for Russia to do it, and therefore it must be (why?) something else.
Click to expand...
In this stupid war nothing is what it seems and history shows that the Russians never undertake anything without having a good initial reason and a hidden second objective... chess.;)
 
Justo Miranda said:
In this stupid war nothing is what it seems and history shows that the Russians never undertake anything without having a good initial reason and a hidden second objective... chess.;)
Click to expand...
Funny, because Russians generally think the same (hidden goals within declared goals) about Westerners...
 
While the SS-X-31 appears to be accurate for delivering nuclear warheads the video footage shows that it has horrible accuracy for a conventional strike, IMO to work in that role it needs to be equipped MARVs not MIRVs.

edwest4 said:
The incoming President has stated he will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
Click to expand...

Trump is a self-deluded if he thinks that.

Archibald said:
Even if Pudding don't give a rat about the West, such move would also piss China.
Click to expand...

Xi has privately and publicly warned Putin not to use tactical nuclear weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom