Oreshnik.... unstoppable missile?

[justoffal]

What do you mean by that? It is not hard to understand at all if you know missile systems.

It's a variant of the RS-25 (NATO SS-X-31) IRBM, itself a variant of the RS-24 (NATO SS-29). Itself an update of the RT-2PM2 (SS-27). Ultimately they all descend from the RT-2PM TOPOL (NATO SS-25). In other words, just one of a long series of variants of a road mobile ICBM from 1985.

It is nothing special, it is nothing magical. And almost everything that you said is almost completely nonsensical and laughable.

And this is just another IRBM, there is absolutely nothing special about this that is any different than similar missiles of four decades ago. Because the Soviets first started using IRBMs way back in 1962. The US also had an IRBM once, but were only in service from 1959-1963 before they were all retired.

And the only US made IRBM actually has a rather interesting history. It was the PGM-17A THOR missile. Over 225 were built, but only saw service with the Air Force from 1959-1963. But the advent of the SM-65 ATLAS ICBM followed shortly by the LGM-25C TITAN II ICBM rendered them obsolete.

However, Thor would live on for many more years. It became the foundation of the Delta series of rockets, which was commonly used until April 2024 when the last Delta was used to launch a satellite.

Dude.... I didn't write that piece I'm only showing it here to ask what people think about it.

 

[justoffal]

There is nothing magical about that speed at all. And no, it is not going to be hitting "bases across the world". It's only an IRBM, with a range of under 3.500 miles (5.500 km). So listing all of those "bases around the world" is rather stupid, as most of those are well outside the range of an IRBM.

Oh, and it is not 10,000 miles an hour. Try around 7,600 miles per hour. Not that it matters, as it can still be intercepted.

Oh, and launching one of them at a US target is almost guaranteed to start a thermonuclear war. There is a damned good reason why over 30 years ago the US and USSR banned weapons like this. Do you think that if the US sees a ballistic missile of any kind targeting one of their bases that they are not going to respond as if it is a nuclear missile?

Still...the one strike seems to have stopped the long range nonsense and it did penetrate the air defenses with no obstruction....so while I certainly appreciate your input I am looking at a substantially changed battlefield.

 

[Crepitus]

So its a propaganda piece...

Up to a point, yes.

 

[Mushroom]

Dude.... I didn't write that piece I'm only showing it here to ask what people think about it.

It is absolute garbage. And without a reference, so it appears you wrote it.

 

[Mushroom]

Still...the one strike seems to have stopped the long range nonsense and it did penetrate the air defenses with no obstruction....so while I certainly appreciate your input I am looking at a substantially changed battlefield.

Which has nothing to do with anything. The primary missiles used on the conflict so far have been cruise missiles, air to ground missiles, and ALBMs. This is none of these. And it was not a particularly long range either.

Do you actually know what those terms mean when it comes to missiles? Because they do not mean what you think they mean.

And they have changed nothing, it is literally a demonstration of technology almost six decades old. The equivalent of using a hydrogen bomb for the first time in combat and saying it "changed the battlefield".

 

[justoffal]

Which has nothing to do with anything. The primary missiles used on the conflict so far have been cruise missiles, air to ground missiles, and ALBMs. This is none of these. And it was not a particularly long range either.

Do you actually know what those terms mean when it comes to missiles? Because they do not mean what you think they mean.

And they have changed nothing, it is literally a demonstration of technology almost six decades old. The equivalent of using a hydrogen bomb for the first time in combat and saying it "changed the battlefield".

Hmmm you seen to be looking for an argument that's not there. So let's review what actually happened... remembering that I never said a word about missile categories.

Ukraine used long range missles that apparently did nothing but escalate an already losing battle. Russia struck back with something different...you say it's 60 year old technology. Ok, fine.

Yet despite being guarded by less than ten years old technology all of the warheads penetrated Ukranian defenses with no obstruction whatsoever causing considerable damage to a military target.

Since that strike there has been no mention at all of returning to the long range attacks.

So what's your assessment?
You say nothing has changed?

Jo

 

[Mushroom]

Yet despite being guarded by less than ten years old technology

Exactly what "less than ten years old technology" was at play there? Specifically, what technology does Ukraine have to defend against Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles?

And want to know what one of the systems was that apparently failed to stop this threat are? The S-300 and S-400. Of course, neither of those systems is designed to stop an IRBM either.

Come on now, you have to give some actual specifics when trying to discuss specific questions. Otherwise, you come up as somebody floundering that has not a clue about what you are trying to talk about.

What do I think? I think that Russia is getting desperate, and is in serious danger of making this conflict much broader than it already is. No nuclear nation has used ballistic missiles, because of what should be obvious. It is impossible to tell before detonation if the warhead is nuclear or conventional. I not only think it is a sign of insanity that Russia is starting to use them again, it is even more so as they used a conventional MIRV. Something that makes even less sense, because what practical use is there to even use a conventional MIRV IRBM?

In military equipment it makes about as much sense as a multi-projectile armor penetrating round, a submarine aircraft carrier, or a parachute that opens on impact.

 

[justoffal]

Exactly what "less than ten years old technology" was at play there? Specifically, what technology does Ukraine have to defend against Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles?

And want to know what one of the systems was that apparently failed to stop this threat are? The S-300 and S-400. Of course, neither of those systems is designed to stop an IRBM either.

Come on now, you have to give some actual specifics when trying to discuss specific questions. Otherwise, you come up as somebody floundering that has not a clue about what you are trying to talk about.

What do I think? I think that Russia is getting desperate, and is in serious danger of making this conflict much broader than it already is. No nuclear nation has used ballistic missiles, because of what should be obvious. It is impossible to tell before detonation if the warhead is nuclear or conventional. I not only think it is a sign of insanity that Russia is starting to use them again, it is even more so as they used a conventional MIRV. Something that makes even less sense, because what practical use is there to even use a conventional MIRV IRBM?

In military equipment it makes about as much sense as a multi-projectile armor penetrating round, a submarine aircraft carrier, or a parachute that opens on impact.

Ukraine does not have Patriot interceptors? It's my understanding that they do.

In any case the real point here is that the missiles were not obstructed and apparently cannot be at this point with the availabile equipment. I don't know what your credentials are but I'm hearing the same thing all over the internet from people I guess you think must be phonies. Also I am not rooting for anyone....I'm rooting for de-escalation. I want to know why we just escalated.

 

[MarathonMike]

knowing where it will be is simple math.

You are missing the point of these new hypersonic missiles. They are MANEUVERABLE, so even if you have interceptors that can match the speed of the Oreshnik or whatever, the intercept has to occur in glide phase, where the intercept point is predictable.

 

[justoffal]

You are missing the point of these new hypersonic missiles. They are MANEUVERABLE, so even if you have interceptors that can match the speed of the Oreshnik or whatever, the intercept has to occur in glide phase, where the intercept point is predictable.

This is a very angry person...a little too angry.

 

[Mushroom]

Ukraine does not have Patriot interceptors?

It does. However, the PATRIOT is not designed to intercept IRBMs.

Expecting PATRIOT to intercept one would be like expecting an A-10 to intercept a fighter. Or a piece of body armor to stop injury from an RPG.

Also, the PATRIOT is most definitely not "less than ten year old technology". While the PAC-3 MSE is indeed just a couple of years old, it is 99% based on the PAC-3 from 1995. The only major difference being the change from 4 missiles per canister to six missiles per cannister. But it is just a reconfiguration of the PAC-3 from over two decades ago. And is still not intended to intercept IRBMs. That is the job of THAAD, a completely different missile system.

 

[MarathonMike]

This is a very angry person...a little too angry.

How do you figure that?

 

[Mushroom]

You are missing the point of these new hypersonic missiles. They are MANEUVERABLE

No, they are not "maneuverable". You see, there is this pesky little thing called "physics" that prevents anything operating at high speeds from being maneuverable. They are in fact the opposite of maneuverable.

The fact is, the faster an object travels, the less maneuverable it is. Why people believe the opposite is true I have no idea, other than they believe any propaganda they want to believe in.

But here, consider this. Which of the following aircraft is the most maneuverable, from most to least maneuverable?

The British Sopwith Camel, the Japanese A6M5 "Zero", the Soviet MiG-17, or the American F-22?

Because I can tell you right now, if you placed the craft in any order than the one I just listed them in, you are wrong. Speed is actually the exact opposite of maneuverability. And if you try to operate a MiG-17 like a Zero or Camel, you are going to rip the wings right off of the aircraft as they can not make turns anything even close to that of the Camel. And it even follows in cars, which is why you can maneuver your vehicle in a parking lot a great deal more than you can at freeway speeds. Try to make the sharp turns of a parking lot at 60 mph and you are probably going to flip the car.

The thing is, this is all just common sense. So why people for some reason believe the exact opposite, I have absolutely no idea. Other than it proves that "critical thinking" is rapidly disappearing from people in the modern era.

 

[Mushroom]

This is a very angry person...a little too angry.

Angry? No, not at all. I simply believe in things called "facts" and not "fantasy".

 

[Zavulon]

Ok. There are very few things we know for more or less certain:
- conceptually, it is RS-26 "Rubezh", heir of RSD-10 "Pioneer".


Its most important weak side (as for all mobile ballistic complexes) - is the high vulnerability for high-yeald nuclear bursts. Therefore it is almost exclusively first-strike weapon. While it can easily move, change its positions and/or be concealed in relatively cheap and numerous shelters.

- it is highly unificated with already existed and many times tested missiles.

It means it is reliable and relatively cheap, and can be produced in significant quantities.

- it bears a lot (at least 36) RVs.

- those RVs are pretty precise - all of 36 were put in the bull eye of a single plant, and every warhead hit its target within (as they said) 2 meters from the targeting point.

So, it can hit and effectively destroy Minuteman III silos. In fact, two regiments of them, deployed on Cuba might effectively destroy all US Minuteman silos before POTUS even informed about the launch. Without nuclear warheads it means no fallouts, no collateral damage, better and more acceptable for the USA terms of peace (like only Alaska, not Alaska+California after nuclear counter-force strike).


So, its definitely not a game-changer, but it makes our raising on the ladder of escalation more smooth and safe.

 

[justoffal]

How do you figure that?

Not talking about you

 

[Ringo]

Two statements that Ukrainians and Westerners jerk off to:
1.Oreshnik is not a new rocket, but an old one.
2. Putin has very few of them.
--
But:
1. If old, why Ukro air defense didn't even have time to run to the booths of Iris and Patriots?
2. And if it is old, Russia should have plenty of them.

 

[Zavulon]

In Russian Tg-channels they emphasize the counter-force capabilities of Oreshnik with Tony Stark's presentation Jericho scene.



"For your consideration - Oreshnik"

 

[Zavulon]

Two statements that Ukrainians and Westerners jerk off to:
1.Oreshnik is not a new rocket, but an old one.
2. Putin has very few of them.
--
But:
1. If old, why Ukro air defense didn't even have time to run to the booths of Iris and Patriots?
2. And if it is old, Russia should have plenty of them.

You see, here is the difference between already almost obsolete, 1984-style, classical anglo-saxon double-thinking, and the modern anglo-saxon "non-binary thinking".
A classical double-thinker sees contradiction in two statements and use some mental tricks and use intellectual energy to believe in both (may be not simultaneously). Nowadays a non-binary thinker not just doesn't see a contradiction, they doesn't necesserity to search contradictions or even the simple logic.

 

[Stryder50]

"Oreshnik" missile is lead update at this link, but it also gives general review and maps of the war.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 22, 2024​

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian military leadership continue to extol the ballistic missile that Russian forces launched at Ukraine on November 21, likely in an effort to artificially inflate expectations of Russian capabilities and

www.understandingwar.org