Go Fund Me for my first book! gofund.me/11d58d68 Join this channel to support it: ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Join the Discord server discord.gg/kvuFyrxDez AFFILIATE LINK: Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173 ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/ --------------------- All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
How can you be sure Russia won't conquer Ukraine completely the next time? What will stop them from attacking Ukraine again? I don't see it. I don't believe Russia will be satisfied with taking 2 and 2 half provinces from Ukraine. They urgently want Odessa and the rest of Ukraines half. The middle section shall be "neutral" russian controlled Ukraine and the west a "western puppet". This is not over even with 4 full provinces taken away. Not with Putin and unlikely with his successor. Edit: if you forgot, they tried several times to take Odessa since 2022. They wanted all of Ukraine under Russia's thumb and what should they do with their war industry running in peace time, going bankrupt?
Nukes are great as air defense, to take out an incoming hypersonic missile at high altitude. Isn't that the most likely first use of a tactical nuke? Seems morally quite defensible as the purpose is to prevent a devastating nuke blast on the surface. Would that necessarily escalate?
@@РафаэльСаркисянц-ъ2т Oh no, it was the first thought already back in the days! Missiles are difficult to hit, but a nuke allows for X number of kilometers of error margin. Nukes are also great as depth charges against submarines that are difficult to locate. When an SSBN launches its missiles, it will have an ICBM coming for it, and it will not have the speed to escape. The officers onboard will know that they have no more than 15 minutes to live, no matter what they do. The highest priority in nuclear war is to destroy the enemy's nuclear weapons. Nukes would be used against nukes, not so much against cities.
Food for thought for all of these who doubt in power, Oreshnik delivers. Everyone is familiar with rail gun and have seen projectile travelling at speed just around Mach 6 or 2000 m/sec. We have seen 25kg tungsten projectile penetrating several layers of thick steel plates or several reinforced concretes with combined thickness of over 6-9m. We have seen with what easy the projectile penetrate all of them before it explodes in terrifying fireball. We all accepted that because the very first demonstration was performed by the DARPA (the US Military Research Institute) and we never raised doubt about it. Now we have seen something that is by order of magnitude more powerful than rail gun projectile because it is much faster 3.6 km/sec and has way bigger mass. Now try to digest this information, and you will see that this Oreshnik is an extremely dangerous weapon, much more than an explosive warhead. Explosion of any explosive substance is basically a chemical process of very rapid expansion of gasses created due to chemical reaction of reactive material. Power of explosion depends on the mass of the reactive material (bigger mass - more gases) and the speed of gas expansion. This is one form of explosion and in the case of Oreshnik's hypersonic warheads we have a new form of explosion where material due to extreme heath and pressure transitions directly to superheated plasma which additionally increases volume and pressure of expanding gas, thus multiplying yield many times over.
Yes, everyone is familiar with railguns, a weapon that has never entered service (but to be fair, experimental versions have been around since the 1880s).
It's simple physics, the maximum energy an inert projectile can release is 1/2mv2, whether it turns to gas or shrapnel makes no difference, the total amount of energy is finite. And given that the same mass of TNT release a little over half the energy of an inert projective moving at the same speed, the Oreshnik is actually not a very efficient way of getting energy onto a target, given the cost and limited production run. An Iskander is more dangerous because it can be guided accurately to impact, and has a substantial conventional warhead. Much cheaper too.
@@shugieshugied2269but Iskandr can be defeated with salvo of Patriots batteries (even tho Kiel Institute paper sajd a lot of launchers needed), meanwhile Oreshnik is impossible to intercept
Ted Postol, US professor in physics and a cold war era military advisor, has claimed in recent YT interviews that a hypersonic projectile is obliterated on the surface without penetration effects. "Just brush fires". Because of the speed of sound through the projectile being too high, or something like that. What is to be said about that claim?
impactor? one short answer: first rule of elastic collision. in other words : m•V good luck significantly diverting a massive object in hypersonic speed with an impactor. (hint: you need something heavier or faster or both)
Great video as usual!!! Russia doesn't need oreshnik to destroy or disable a carrier group. It would need 1 855m submarine loaded with Zircons and Onyx -M. Zircons are Mach 9 Missiles 1500km range and Onyx-M are 800kms Mach 2-3. Zircons take out carrier and Arleigh Burke , Onyx's take out support ships. Yasen disappears into the depths 800km away. Even easier they could turn Poseidon into a carrier killer it would be unstoppable.
Yeah, Oreshnik is a weapon with a completely different purpose. Oreshnik aims to penetrate deeep bunkers, cover large areas like factories, airports, ports...
It can carry 24 missiles 2 or 3 hits would completely disable a carrier. The Kinetic alone of being hot at Mach 9 is crazy. It would hit the ship going 11,000kms per hour.
A few points regarding using the Oreshnik against a US carrier battle group - One, we literally have no idea of the full capabilities of Oreshnik. All we have are what the Russians have admitted to publicly, and what we've been able to surmise from video and other evidence, from the one attack against Ukraine. We have no idea if they've found a way to incorporate mid-course or terminal guidance. Two, the Russians have stated that they have other, similar, systems to Oreshnik in development. Possible that one of those is a more "tactical" system, with different characteristics, configured for use against mobile naval targets, that could make use of real-time surveillance and targeting data, and make use of terminal guidance, plus compact enough to be air or ship launched. Not as capable or potent as Oreshnik, but "sufficient" to take out something as large as a USN supercarrier. Three, depending on the circumstances and location of said carrier battle group, the flight time to target of an Oreshnik-type system could end up being significantly shorter than the oft-quoted 15 to 18 minutes depending on the range, particularly if said system is capable of being air, ship, or submarine launched - which could enable the launch platform to be at minimal ranges to the target. Four, the capabilities demonstrated so far by the other hypersonic weapons used by the Russians, such as Zircon, are such that, at the best, it would still be very problematic for a carrier battle group to contend with such weapons, especially if used in salvos of multiple missiles - in short, the Russians wouldn't need to resort to using Oreshnik against naval targets, as they already have other systems that are more than capable of taking out said targets - using an Oreshnik against a carrier would be like trying to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
I actually think that near-terminal guidance may be possible with the system we see now. While the speed-induced friction will blind the Oreshnik at lower altitudes the speed allows it to be above those altitudes only 18 seconds before impact, commercial cameras and lenses can spot a carrier sized target pretty easily at the 65+ km altitude needed to be above the heat ( based off some pretty rudimentry calcs so I may be misunderstanding things ). IDed and tracked for a second or two speed and trajectory are easily calculated and if Oreshnik has any terminal maneuverability ( this I view as being the big question ultimately ) it can dial in the aim point to the 70ish meter area where the centerpoint of a 300+ meter long carrier might be. While Oreshnik may seem like overkill I think it's worth keeping in mind that a Kirov or Oscar would be expected to empty most if not all of their silos to ensure the carrier gets got, Zircon certainly improves their odds but I doubt it's one Zircon for one carrier as the MIRV capability is a key component to the challenge to intercept and that's something Zircon doesn't do.
I think it's virtually a given that the Oreshnik has at least mid-course guidance correction, and probably some form of guidance after that as well. The evidence for that is the accuracy with which the Oreshnik's 36 warheads hit the Yuzhmash site in Ukraine. Granted it's a large site, but for a ballistic warhead to travel ~2000 km and hit such a target indicates that it has sophisticated guidance of some sort. (The Russians must have been confident about its accuracy, because Yuzhmash is surrounded by civilian areas.) I agree that the Russians may be developing, or even already have, a similar weapon that could be used to strike a carrier group. That would entail an IRBM delivering the six re-entry vehicles high above the carrier group, which would then release six sub-munitions each. However those sub-munitions wouldn't be unguided kinetic warheads traveling at Mach 10 like the Oreshnik, but instead warheads with terminal guidance descending at a slower (but still very fast) speed. The slower speed would facilitate the warhead reliably locking on to a ship. A single volley of a weapon like this could do extensive damage to an entire carrier group, not just the carrier itself. I don't know if such a weapon exists, but it certainly seems like it would be in Russia's ability to make one. On projected flight times of an Oreshnik-type system against a carrier group, (either at sea or in dock) one has to consider the possibility (likelihood?) that Russia will install the weapon on submarine-launched ballistic missiles as well. In that case, the flight time could be very short indeed. I also agree with you that weapons systems that the Russians have previously demonstrated would be very problematic for US carrier fleets to contend with. They would be the sensible weapon for the job in most cases.
@@richardroskell3452 From a detection point of view I'm not sure there's any point in slowing the speed down, presuming the weapon is getting above the higher density air. Certainly I think having more explosive is likely but I don't think that precludes the high speed which still has some notable advantages. Where I do think slowing down may prove necessary is the challenge of how maneuverable is the terminal phase. It's all well and great to get an update on your target position 30 seconds out from impact but if you can't maneuver sufficiently to hit then the detection may not do much good. Unfortunately I don't even know where to start on evaluating the maneuverability of such a thing, especially from my amateur perspective.
@@AmurTiger From my equally amateur perspective, an incoming hypersonic warhead that could *track* a moving target would need to reduce its speed from Mach 10+ to something more in the low hypersonic range. (Still very fast, like Mach 5-ish) This is for the reason you mention: time to manouevre is directly dependent on speed. A slower speed gives the warhead more time to change course. Slower Mach speeds also reduce the amount of plasma aura around the warhead. That plasma is a powerful impediment to the warhead being able to detect an assigned target. For example, if the warhead is using silhouette matching to target a specific a ship, it needs to have optical data which is going to be inhibited under a plasma cloud. As far as I know there's no getting away from that plasma discharge on re-entry, other than to get down into the lower Mach numbers. This is all hypothetical rambling on my part.
Launching a missile without advanced notice would get them nuked. The immediate retaliation would be a US Trident missile, which are launched within 6 minutes of SBIRS pickup and secondary confirmation. You don’t need an IRBM if your subs are in NATO sea. They’d hit before the IRBM. Neither RU doesn’t have the ability to locate, much less hit a moving carrier with warheads incapable of tracking through plasma. We don’t need to counter Oreshnik because we can already hold many of their targets at risk. You can admit it looks cool and sounds good on paper, but it just doesn’t fit the force design structure of any military on the planet. It’s a wunderwaffe that hasn’t been done by anyone else because the capabilities gained per PPP dollar spent doesn’t make sense. It’s a propaganda piece designed to instill fear into people who aren’t paying attention to military technology, force design, and defense economics.
70% of US Carriers are in some sort of dock for repair and maintenance at any given time. they are very maintenance heavy ships, thus would be easy targets.
@@pelle7771 it’s very likely that at any given time you would find an American aircraft carrier docked in Yokosuka or other ports in Japan, which the oreshnik can easily hit. It’s about 1000+km from Vladivostok. From the very small data sample of my personal travel experience, it’s a very safe bet that at least one American carrier would be docked in Yokosuka 70% of the time
Okay but before we talk about the Oreshnik, what about the new flat nozzle engines for the SU-57 that was just seen on the T-50? This is a major development and will fundamentally change the RCS and IR signature. The build quality is something I didn’t expect either, it looks super high quality, smooth and serrated. It honestly makes the T-50 look like an alien craft.
Yes AL-51F1. I think this Sunday, Moscow time we will see more footage or information about the engine as the documentary that showed us tid bits of the engine is set to premiere
I follow this channel from a bit and well honestly...in front of the many content creators debating over war actual and potental have one remarking that human lives have value and the worst thing happening to a human is death make me appreciate the channel even more. Beside that i appreciate even more how you reply to the fans of a part of another with calm rational arguments.
i despise “humanitarian souls” with rose glasses. if you can’t imagine a fate worse than death, it just means you have very low creativity - unlike russians. i fight and will (likely) die for my country because it might save more people, my people, from dying. why is this so incomprehensible for you? my countrymen that end up under russian control, especially the ones of ANY prominence, are already suffering worse than death, and then they die anyway. “stopping people dying” is IMPOSSIBLE without defeating russia. giving up will not stop people from dying. do i really need to list examples, both historical and modern? it has been said a thousand times but it’s like holy western people don’t hear us.
Russia and China have other Carrier killers. The tragic thing is these Carriers are full of thousands of Americans who need health care and jobs, which can only be found in the military.
I love when some country with a few thousand dollar per capita gdp feels sorry for the US. Gosh, Propaganda is as successful as back in the days of GDR.
Indeed. The Russians already have other "tactical" hypersonic weapons, that they've already used, that would be more suited, and more than capable, of taking out naval targets.
The choice between being targeted by either Oreshnik, Zircon or Kinzal is a tough one to be faced with; neither of them would be the preferred option 🤔😃!!
An attack using just 1 Oreshnik against an aircraft carrier and its squadron has a chance of success. In the Ukrainian factory we saw the 36 warheads programmed with coordinates proportional to the "narrow" quadrants of the factory plan. That's why we see groups of warheads falling with little space between them. In an attack against a squadron, such coordinates can be changed to a more expansive mode, with distances of 300,400,500 meters from one warhead to the other, which would provide coverage of a few km²
Unlikely. Aircraft carriers move, and a lot faster than you’d think. This isn’t an A2AD weapon. If sinking carriers was the goal, see China’s DF-ZF. Oreshnik uses hunks of metal as the payload because tracking through the plasma sphere is not something they’re technologically capable of. The “can it sink a carrier” point is moot. If this is used for anything, it’s going to be against very large, STATIC, disbursed targets. Not exactly the 200 T-90s RU needed right now, or arty barrels. This guy needs to step back into airplane videos, because he’s a geopolitical dunce.
It's such pleasant change to see cool, rational analysis on this topic on YT. One thing I've learned from the Oreshnik (and other recent events) is that even lots of general military experts are surprisingly at sea when it comes to air/missile war, in particular the strategic aspects. It's a very specialist subject.
Why is the video of the arrival of the"oreshnik" not shown to the end? I recommend finding the full video online. A little more than 20 sec after arrival, explosions of everything that is underground can be seen.
I linked the video back then. Weird how it's just gone or ignored. The same I had with January 6 in the USA. Hours after it happened I saw videos on Twitter of them calmly walking arround the capitol and police guiding them arround like a school excursion lol.
I never saw that extended video and would be happy to find a link, because I expected such a thing. This weapon is nothing if not a mass bunker buster.
Good video. Thanks for pointing out the insanity of using nuclear weapons. And yes, the point is that the Oreshnik gives the Russians a NON-NUCLEAR option that allows them to escalate without going nuclear. A quibble on hitting ships: large ships have a lot of inertia. The path can be predicted for several minutes fairly well if the current position AND velocity vector are known. That could possibly allow an Oreshnik to hit without terminal guidance.
All nuclear powers have constantly updated plans for that outcome, and it's unclear what is the latest evaluation in each country because it's all highly classified
nuclear winter is a __hypothetical__ term from early 80's, when it was nearly x100 nuclear charges form that today. There's literally no risk of nuke winter. Just Russia, US and EU will seize to exist (as a potent power), and China will rebuild civilization
Орешнику не нужна ядерная боеголовка, при такой скорости , при ударе, высвобождаеться чудовищьная кинетическая энергия, разрушительной силой не меньше ядерного, но ядерной зимы не будет ! Орешник, сравним с космическим больдом, посетившим Землю.
RF has already defeated Nato. This is the primary reason that the war never fully escalated (and because it is clear RF just traded Syria away for victory in Ukr). The nato's armouries are empty, western industry gone.
Last time I checked, RU had one brand of milk that was always out of stock and turning tricks was the best thing you could do to survive most of the past 30 years.
Instead of the warheads holding the sensors for targetting and course correction, couldn't the bus and/or a dedicated subvehicle be used for such a purpose via datalink, with the ensemble acting in a similar way to a Granit missile volley?
Theoretically I suppose guiding is possible. No need even subvehicle. It can be satellite which observe from above and send correction commands via datalink. There is a plasma cone from the front of warhead, but it's open from the rear and datalink back to the skies seems possible. Although I doubt it's really guided.
@ssoqboss I also tought of satellites, but the advantage of the having the system contained in the bus or subvehicle would be a reduced dependency on satellite coverage, plus they would have an ideal positionning to relay information to the warheads respective to the plasma cones.
You realize these things are already moving…right? I do like the assumption that RU could feasibly track a carrier from space, garner coordinates, and that rods of tungsten could track anything via IR/Radio/Radar, maneuver, or receive telemetry while in the plasma sphere. Even the best RV’s in the world have a huge CEP, and this thing is nowhere near that. RU **might** be able to knock a carrier with a Sarmat carrying a dozen 1MT bombs, but that’s still a maybe - they’d be guessing it’s location, bearing, and speed, hoping it doesn’t change, and probably still missing while retaining the high probability of a nuclear response due to an unannounced launch.
The Oreshnick missile could be guided prior to the point that it accelerates to hypersonic speed. Since the last phase of the flight is very short, probably about a minute, then the flight path can be corrected up until that point. Guidance data from satellites could be adequate to allow such a weapon to hit a carrier.
I find the Oreshnik to be a fascinating development. It is, with the benefit of 20 x 20 hindsight, a blindingly obvious development. There is NATO doctrine, there is a nuclear deterrence doctrine but there seems to be very little assymetrical thinking; except for Russia and maybe China. Doctrine is powerful but once established it must be challenged. It seems that the West hasn't challenged it's own thinking enough. As an example, GPS and its weaknesses. These were clear even from it's imception although my first thought many years ago was to find a way to destroy the satellites but jamming and interference as currently practiced were also an obvious possibility. The conflict in Ukraine has taught NATO a lot about the limitations of GPS. I can imagine Russia's thought process: NATO has an air superiority doctrine, NATO concentrates its airpower in a relatively few large bases, Nuclear weapons cant be used... Answer the Rods from God/Oreshnik. This weapon will become truly frightening when there's a ship or submarine launched version. Sure the range will be limited, sure there may be fewer kinetic effectors per missile but the tactical and strategic benefits would be immense. Just think about that.
IRBMs had a agreed ban between russia and nato, that is why nato did not make them. GPS is ok, nobody just thought 99% of gps receivers on the battlefield would actually be cheapest civilian embedded devices. Anything better than that can manage.
About interception : you need infra red guidance , whitch it is easily decoy , radar precision guidance vs an small hypersonic plasma coated target : Good luck
FUN FACT a lot of russian equipment follow nature based naming conventions a good example is russian artillery pieces or related weaponry typically being named after flowers Hyacinths, peonies, and carnations etc like the pion(peony) malva (literally flower) Tyulpan (tulipan) etc the orezhnik very much follows this principle it's name meaning hazel like the nut in this case referring to the flowers of the tree from which the nut comes as they are similar to the trails of light from the orezhnik above the impact zone
@@xanovaria i commented this or something similar on two or three separate orezhnik videos it is not about it having been said or written before mairely that it is available for people to stumple upon and read and possibly absorb as informaiton
The oreshnik is more then a suggestion of a weapon at the moment. It does work, is capable, that is all. It is proppably not designed to hit ships, or as one commentator already mentioned for ships Russian forces will proppably use a Zirkon missile, but its effect for those other targets is there. What Russia does have with the oreshnik is something they can use against Nato weapons before those can be used against Russian interests. Like transport (trains) and storege for those weapons. The oreshnik so far is non interceptable enough to risk any target within its range for Nato . . . Nato might come up with an answer, but so far Russia has the advantage. Indeed, heavens forbit if anyone finds an archument to go nuclear!!
They can target a large chunk of floating metal using MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) It is a field effect that does not depend on direct emission like radar or optical.
Ever since I first saw that Oreshnik video my furst thought was that this would be useful against airfield runways. The way the submunitions spread out in straight lines would seem to go well with runways as targets. But moreso, if they are kinetic penetrators, then they will "churn up" the ground underneath the runway to make it very difficult to repair. With regular bombs, at best you make holes in the cement and those are relatively easy to repair in a day or two by just cleaning it up and pouring new cement. But Oreshnik penetrators I feel would likely churn up the ground underneath so that it is no longer a stable base for a runway. It'd be a LOT more work to get the runways operational in that case. It'd be really interesting to see what it actually does to the earth underneath the impact point.
The penetrator has a small diameter of less than 20 cm. It will displace and compress the surrounding material. The effect might be measurable at 50 cm to 1meter distance. In soft ground there might be no significant effect at all.
@@thomasgerber1472Have you ever tried firing a high power rifle into soft ground? It can leave a hole you can stick your arm into. Now; multiply weight and diameter by orders of magnitude, and speed by about X 5-6. You'll see that your calculations might be a bit off.
У этого оружия есть главное преимущество - достать того, кто не на поле боя, а того кто управляет всем и решил спрятаться глубоко под землёй. По-этому оно так страшно, ведь до этого под землёй было достаточно безопасно.
@@ironmonkey1512 You missed the point. Depending on just how the missile interacts with the earth under the pavement, it may be that no amount of bulldozing will alliw you to simply patch the holes as the ground may no linger be firm enough to support it.
Most of NATO countries don't have working armies, Germany has very little working equipment, England has a couple hundred tanks , NATO is America, Turkey won't support Europe in a NATO war, I doubt it. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuanian wouldn't last a week , they have less than 75 tanks between them , no air force and not much American air defense, and we seen that American air defense is useless against most Russian missiles, Ukrainians 70% with no power in freezing winter temps,lol. Ukraine has suffered over 1 million casualties, 700k dead , 300k unrecoverable injuries , 100k desertions and 30% of the men abandoned the country, they need to start kidnapping younger boys if they want to hold the lines longer.
There are more NATO tanks in Europe, even without the US, than Russian tanks currently in service. Poland alone, we are talking of 1000 tanks. There are also far more aircraft’s and ships.
@@chefchaudard3580 Poland's army in 1939 was larger than Germany's. They were destroyed in less than 5 weeks. Russia is not going to invade Poland, If Poland is foolish enough to move east it will be ugly.
It doesn't need to impact the carrier itself. They could explode it above the carrier so the shrapnel would damage anything in a high range. Just imagine shrapnel that is covered by plasma.
Its interesting how some people say their enemy's new cutting edge weapon is not that amazing or they don't have any more of them and then the next turn start coming up with counters for said weapons that actually don't exist and that have had their development programs fully cancelled. Its almost like they are coping and seething, but i must be mistaken.
Optimistic to imagine that a bloody great aircraft carrier could dodge out the way of a couple of Oreshniks heading it's way. No not buying this. Carriers are an anachronism.
The Black Sea has already proven that all capital ships are in danger from hundred dollar boat drones. Nevermind saturation attacks with multiple drones and missiles.
@RogueEconomist things are reppaced most of the time when something else does a better job than it, not necessarily when something can destroy it. Tanks survived bombs, ATGMs, and now drones; unless something can do the job better it likely wont be replaced.
They have numerous missiles in development and have obviously found some to be producible since they are going to deploy them in Germany by the end of 2025
That's why you afraid to confront Russia directly and using proxies? But wait, even Iraq, Libya or Yugoslavia you didn't attack by yourself. Lol. You need a pack of dummies to attack even hundred times smaller countries with no logistics or air support. That's why Russia fuckes you up in Ukraine so badly 😅@@trevortoews9850
You didnt mention one thing. Who rules the skies wins the war. America has always relied on air superiority. Russia now has unstoppable missiles. Its a game changer.
This is not new. Ever heard of the cold war? Thats what it was all about. Assured mutual destruction. Oreshnik brings the same basic capabillity as every other medium range ballistic missile. The new thing is one side using it for the lols. A sign of weakness …
For deep background to Russian craft able to withstand intense temperatures, understand that as the US moved to develop probe landings on Mars, the USSR responded by developing landers for Venus. Sulphuric acid rain pressure cooker, that.
an aircraft carrier cannot to sharp turns, it cannot slow down or speed up quickly. Even without active guiding systems - the location of the carrier at time of impact can be predicted accuratrely.
Terminal guidance can be done in space. At a speed of 3 km/s there is only 20-40 seconds of blackout for the warheads (as we could see, they fall almost vertically), so ~30 seconds max for the carrier to change course and escape. But there are 36 warheads and not so much options (and they are predictable) for such huge ship to change speed and direction in 30 seconds.
Technically they wouldn't need to make a direct hit on a carrier, instead they could hit an entire carrier battle group with an EMP and then follow with direct hits if they chose to.
Aircraft carriers are divided into compartments, and so are designed to survive a few holes - provided they don't detonate the munitions magazine. It would seem to take some luck for an Oreshnik missile to hit the magazine to destroy an aircraft carrier. So far, no one has publicized details of the warheads - like their sizes to determine the likely size of holes they would make in aircraft carriers. However, with 36 of them packed into each missile, they can't be much larger than a foot in diameter.
Yeah, but there is a lot of energy in even a small mass travelling at hypersonic speeds. I did a bit of math and it works out as each kilo of mass travelling at the terminal speed of an Oreshnik warhead (3400 meters per second) is approximately equivalent to the same mass in kilos of TNT. So, say, one warhead weighing 100Kg will be the same as 125Kg of TNT. I should imagine they're capable of punching quite large holes in things.
Doesn’t matter because they can’t hit it with anything short of nukes. They could try hypersonics, but the RU navy is the same old navy it’s always been. An utter Sh. show.
I think a nation with a weapon such as the Oreshnik would possibly go as far as striking underground military targets with tactical nuclear warheads (if a warhead combining a kinetic penetrator and a nuke could be achieved). The effect on the surface would be limited but the damage below the surface would be tremendous. I don't think other countries would know how to retaliate or answer properly.
According to MIT university professor Dr. Ted Postol, he reviewed the wreckage of the Oreshnik and found evidence it has a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) warheads. I do not know if a Russian MARV can maneuver to strike an American nuclear aircraft carrier moving at 32 knots, but in theory its at least possible.
It always has been, ever since we started using the heavenly bodies to navigate- which was closely guarded information. It’s why we’ve been practicing multi-domain warfare for decades.
It's logical that moving target destruction strategies have been developed. Oreshnik would likely be the coup de gráce strike if required. Ports and bases don't move, so it's easy to strike them.
RE: guiding a reentry vehicle toward a carrier. I would use satellite based tracking to watch the carriers, and send the corrections from satellites that are above the warhead, where the interference from plasma is the lowest.
NASA has looked into that since the 1960s. They hate it that contact is lost with the crew during atmospheric re-entry. But one would have to time the landing with a satellite passing right above. Loss of flexibility which causes other risks. However, now with 10,000s of Starlink satellites, perhaps it is feasible! One musk not (pun intended) underestimate the power of launching (soon multiple!) orders of magnitude more mass to orbit than everyone else combined. In my mind, that is the most important thing that is happening in aerospace and warfare today.
you can terminally guide it using radio signals giving the updated coordinates of the target using antennas on the back of the warhead pointing up into the sky when it is making its final dive. SO if there is a satellite sending these guidance signals downward to the missile, the missile also has GLONASS antennas in the back so it knows its own coordinates and receives the target coordinates through the backward facing datalink and makes adjustments accordingly. GLONASS might have the capability to send both moving target coordinates embedded in the navigation signals intended to triangulate owns coordinate. This of course means that you need a third party observer like UAV, satellite SAR or ground radar to measure the coordinate of the moving target and send it to the satellite. I believe the Chinese DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missile works based on this principle with a satellite SAR radar pinpointing the aircraft carrier location.
The orechnik would be launched along 3 or 4 Kinzal missiles directed at the tower, this would immobilize the carrier and the Orechnik would do its job.
I served on the USS-Nimitz CVN-68 as an ABH-AN. That ship was the slowest of the Nimitz class, and i have no clue about the new ones, but the Nimitz could hit 45 knots. It was bumpy but she could scoot.
But time is not about 3-18 minutes - its only about 1 minute to arrival. And yes, if the carrier already moves in some direction, its unlikely it will have time to change it for a 1 minute.
Well, even though these missiles are really expensive, they're still way cheaper than a carrier. And a full hit on a carrier from oreshnik would undoubtably have a tremendous effect on any onlookers, seeing that big "invulnerable" ship get obliterated in the blink of an eye. So even if it's overkill in order to sink a carrier, i imagine it will have quite the value for use as propaganda in a war. Let's just pray it never comes to that......
so apparently su57 with flat nozzle is close. those nozzles are put in around 45° angle and there was some trailer for some movie that showed su57 with flat nozzle
@@VIPER276 its documentary movie at 85th anniversary of soviet air force i think. but just search su57 flat nozzle on youtube. you should find what was shown up to now. more is coming in 2 days i believe
Russians did claim that one of the reasons of success of Oreshnik is the development of heat-resistant materials that allowed them to ensure effective guiding while being covered in plasma. Well knows if those are just their claims or not.
Absolutely nothing new here. The British navy experienced just such events with their aluminum destroyers during Falklands war. WW2 era Mk82 gravity bombs using defective fuses achieved full penetration. Side to side tho - Argentinians couldn't master dive bombing technique.
2:23 не нужно замедляться. боевые блоки разгоняются до 10М за пределами атмосферы, а значит ничто не мешает прицелится в Авиансец по радару или тепловой сигнатуре. Так как боевые блоки проходят атмосферу быстро, то отклоняющие возмущения которые атмосфеера передаст блокам будут невелики. Фактически это выстрел из винтовки, только из космоса. Вы прицеливаетесь (самонаведение на этапе разгона до 10М) , и пуля (кинетический боеприпас) двигается к цели через (36км атмосферы) слой газа. При скорости 3,6 км/с понадобится 10 секунд полета. Куда денется авианосец за 10 секунд?😊
Это не винтовка, а плевок поносной жижей, Южмаш не даст соврать. Без ябч это игрушка плешивого недоучки, у которого кинетическим воздействием материя на элементарные частицы расщепляется при 5 к градусов. За наш счет, кстати.
Oreshnick reminds me of the orbital bombardment systems proposed during the Cold War. The so called Rods of God with its kinetic impactors. Oreshnick has advantages over a OBS though. It does not need to be space based. It is not limited to the course of its host satellite like OBS. The warhead's bus containing the impactors can be maneuvered. I think Oreshnick could hit a carrier, but only if the warhead bus can be maneuvered in real time according to constantly updated targeting, i.e., if the warhead bus has the ability to maneuver to the appropriate release point. If it can do that the impactors have a good change of success, because once they are released from the bus, the time to impact is just a few seconds. By saturating an area with impactors, several of them will probably hit. I am not sure how much damage they would do though. It would be similar to an anti-tank sabot round, but with a lot more energy. It might just burn through the decks and carry on to the depths of the ocean. It would have to hit critical systems or munitions stores etc. P.S. On nuclear war. What a lot of folks do not seem to be able to do is differentiate between Russia's conventional war capabilities and their nuclear ones. They see Russia is not a super power in conventional forces, so they assume little threat. What they need to understand is Russia can wipe the USA off the map in less than 30 minutes. Total destruction of every city and important military target etc. The country would become an irradiated wasteland. They have more than enough nukes to do that and the missiles to get them there, as do the Americans. If it ever happens, we are all kaput. That's why NATO and the USSR negotiated so many nuclear treaties during the Cold War. To lessen the chances of nuclear war.
Controlling a hypersonic projectile can be done if you manage to send a guiding-signal from behind the plasma shockwave.... basically you'd need the projectile approaching the target along the line-of-sight of a satellite. Not really practical but theoretically that would allow for precise guidance until the moment of impact.
An interceptor could Just dump Sand or small titanium crystals ( lot of it! ) in a cloud in front of the warhead in a large cloud. hitting this cloud at mach 10+ should do major damage to the warhead .
"A large U.S. aircraft carrier, such as the Nimitz-class, typically has a full complement of approximately 5,000 personnel, including 3,000-3,200 ship crew, 1,500 air wing personnel, and 500 additional staff. The unit cost for a Nimitz-class carrier was about $11.2 billion in 2023 dollars. The newer Gerald R. Ford-class carriers cost around $13 billion each and house up to 4,539 personnel. These carriers are among the most advanced and expensive warships, reflecting their strategic capabilities and technological advancements. The total program cost is around $120 billion."
True, once in reentry, the warheads cannot target anything, but could they be terminally locked on target before entering the atmosphere? Like one satellite giving the location of a carrier and Oreshnik listening to it.
They don’t have satellites capable of tracking ships in the ocean. The ocean is big as fk. Only the US has developed and iterated systems like Gorgon Stare and Argus-IV that might be capable. Even then, they can’t re-target a ballistic missile because it travels in a ballistic trajectory after its energy runs out. Like a ball after you throw it.
You make some good points nothing can stop Thors lighting bolts ,the non nuclear type ,Basically you can use them so long as you phone America first or visa versa
the point about the Oreshnik being destabilizing because "it could carry nukes and you can't tell if it does" is a bit of a stretch because there are a lot of missiles that can carry nukes, are used often and you cannot really tell if they are nuke armed, for example the Tomahawk, Kalibr, Iskander, bombers with gravity bombs can be nuke armed or even a few smaller weapons (152mm and 203mm howitzer rounds) so, the fact that there were not a lot of conventional ballistic missiles in the past doesn't mean that they cannot become a very common weapon in the present or in the future the second strike capability exists for this exact reason, you can fire after getting hit by the enemy the Oreshnik doesn't seem to be a ballistic missile either, it seems like it flies very low and close to the atmosphere in a powered flight before separation, we cannot know if the Oreshnik is a launch platform for the Avangard either, the Avangard might be able to deploy clustering kinetic warheads
@@ThePorkchop1787 I doubt they are in production. Believe that just today I saw report with, I guess, first American more or less successful test hypersonic missile launch.. So I really doubt they can start to produce them in masses just within 1 year...
Oreshnik(s) could conceivably take out an entire task force. Depending on how well its precision guidance works for the sub-munitions. The real question is do the Russians have a way to target nuclear submarines? I'd love to know what happens to one of those sub-munitions when it hits the ocean surface, does it create a fireball? How big is the shock wave?
It doesn't matter if it is unguided. WW2 torpedoes were also unguided. Ships could avoid the fish as the torpedoes moved in straight lines. So what happened? Japanese torpedo bombers simply coordinated with each other via radio and tactics. They coordinated to drop torpedoes into a pattern where if a ship avoids one torpedo, they dodge INTO the path of another torpedo.
people are calculating the destructive power of the nut purely on the kinetic energy of mass without taking into account the impact of a super heated plasma field dragged behind it
What is the impact of a super heated plasma field dragged down by a projectile? Meteors smash through the sky at hypersonic speed constantly. Thousands of meteorites have been picked up from the ground after having soft landed. Didn't the Ukrainians show off some kind of half intact engine gear from the Oreshnik missile that hit Dniepropetrovsk? I'm not sure what the effect of an hypersonic impact actually is, but feel pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't make a "demonstration" like this if it wasn't effective.
@@bjorntorlarssonLOL. The engine gear definitely was part of the kinetic penetrators and not just random scrap lying around a literal rocket factory. - probably Baghdad Bob
Russia has the real game changer and wonder weapons. Unlike the touted western wonderweapons and touted game changers turned out to not be game changers or wonder weapons at all. Urraa! 😊😍
I have problems to see Russia as a technology leader. Military technology is just an outgrowth of civilian technology. If your civilian products are crap then your military products are at best average.
@@thomasgerber1472well, they certainly know how to get the most "bang for the buck" compared to nato. And as shown in WW2; having the most advanced weapons only gets you so far if the enemy can churn out 10X as many weapons of somewhat less performamce. Russia has massive production capabilities, and are friends with countries with even greater production capability. So i dont see an easy win. Also; fighting on own soil gives a great advantage..
In the US we build very complex, expensive weapons who's main goal is to make corporate profits from sales and maintenance. Russia has been building weapons for functionality rather than corporate profits.
@@suprlite their annual t 90 and bmp3 production is in the low 3 digit numbers, high performance aircraft is a few dozen annually. They live from eating up their old sovjet era stuff. And by the way, they are not fighting on their own soil.
Oreshnik is not designed as Carrier killer. This is a weapon to destroy large Missile complexes in one attack. The role of Carrier killer is reserved for the Zirkon missile (on Chinese side Dongfeng) Impact speed is 3km/sec. So it would do serious damage even if only armed with a conventional warhead.
Not a well thought out video. I can’t speak to the ability of a kinetic warheads self guiding capability, but Russia has several hyper sonic delivery systems that are guided. And they’re extremely accurate. Aircraft carriers would have no chance of evading them. If our carriers ever enter an active combat theater with the Russians or Chinese, they will be sunk.
It's a lot more complex that. A fee fast missile cant sink a carrier. Carriers dont sail alone. In a war against a chinese or russian adversary, carriers would likely have around 4-6 LSCs and 2 subs escorting them.
Well, mon canard, you’ve pulled it until the knackers are as flat as a pancake on this story. Though I’m really glad you have because it’s fascinating what modern weapons can do. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy being as far as I am away from the deployment zone, but it is an amazing sight.
1. For what reason was Oreshnik created in the first place? Underground factories or bunkers are rare and hardly a reason to build a designated weapon. What is considered an optimal target? Is it an airfield, harbor, carrier group? 2. Consider scenario of Oreshnik strike against stationary aircraft carrier. Accuracy is the same as shown in Dnipro. Out of 36 projectiles, how many will hit? 3. Consider scenario of Oreshnik strike against aircraft carrier. All 36 projectiles miss and strike water some ~300 meters away from the carrier. Will there still be any damage to the carrier? Or will it survive unharmed? 4. Is Oreshnik a viable weapon to attack huge river dams (such as Dnipro river dams in Ukraine)?
With 36 entry projectiles for each orechnik, anticipating the carrier speed, you can probably launch 7 at the carrier and around at the same time and score a hit.
The Oreshnik can take out the carrier and 36 other support ships. Besides GPS targeting, there could be object recognition cameras to guide the missiles at the final stage.
Go Fund Me for my first book! gofund.me/11d58d68
Join this channel to support it:
ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Join the Discord server discord.gg/kvuFyrxDez
AFFILIATE LINK:
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
за что тебя поддерживать, за то что ты несешь бред об возможности новой ракетной системы Орешник, ? ты хочешь успокоить людей ? 😀😀😀
How can you be sure Russia won't conquer Ukraine completely the next time? What will stop them from attacking Ukraine again? I don't see it. I don't believe Russia will be satisfied with taking 2 and 2 half provinces from Ukraine. They urgently want Odessa and the rest of Ukraines half. The middle section shall be "neutral" russian controlled Ukraine and the west a "western puppet". This is not over even with 4 full provinces taken away. Not with Putin and unlikely with his successor.
Edit: if you forgot, they tried several times to take Odessa since 2022. They wanted all of Ukraine under Russia's thumb and what should they do with their war industry running in peace time, going bankrupt?
Nukes are great as air defense, to take out an incoming hypersonic missile at high altitude. Isn't that the most likely first use of a tactical nuke? Seems morally quite defensible as the purpose is to prevent a devastating nuke blast on the surface. Would that necessarily escalate?
@@bjorntorlarsson Ядерное оружие, как средство противоракетной обороны ? Это что-то новенькое.
@@РафаэльСаркисянц-ъ2т Oh no, it was the first thought already back in the days! Missiles are difficult to hit, but a nuke allows for X number of kilometers of error margin. Nukes are also great as depth charges against submarines that are difficult to locate. When an SSBN launches its missiles, it will have an ICBM coming for it, and it will not have the speed to escape. The officers onboard will know that they have no more than 15 minutes to live, no matter what they do.
The highest priority in nuclear war is to destroy the enemy's nuclear weapons. Nukes would be used against nukes, not so much against cities.
Food for thought for all of these who doubt in power, Oreshnik delivers. Everyone is familiar with rail gun and have seen projectile travelling at speed just around Mach 6 or 2000 m/sec. We have seen 25kg tungsten projectile penetrating several layers of thick steel plates or several reinforced concretes with combined thickness of over 6-9m. We have seen with what easy the projectile penetrate all of them before it explodes in terrifying fireball. We all accepted that because the very first demonstration was performed by the DARPA (the US Military Research Institute) and we never raised doubt about it. Now we have seen something that is by order of magnitude more powerful than rail gun projectile because it is much faster 3.6 km/sec and has way bigger mass. Now try to digest this information, and you will see that this Oreshnik is an extremely dangerous weapon, much more than an explosive warhead.
Explosion of any explosive substance is basically a chemical process of very rapid expansion of gasses created due to chemical reaction of reactive material. Power of explosion depends on the mass of the reactive material (bigger mass - more gases) and the speed of gas expansion. This is one form of explosion and in the case of Oreshnik's hypersonic warheads we have a new form of explosion where material due to extreme heath and pressure transitions directly to superheated plasma which additionally increases volume and pressure of expanding gas, thus multiplying yield many times over.
Yes, everyone is familiar with railguns, a weapon that has never entered service (but to be fair, experimental versions have been around since the 1880s).
It's simple physics, the maximum energy an inert projectile can release is 1/2mv2, whether it turns to gas or shrapnel makes no difference, the total amount of energy is finite. And given that the same mass of TNT release a little over half the energy of an inert projective moving at the same speed, the Oreshnik is actually not a very efficient way of getting energy onto a target, given the cost and limited production run. An Iskander is more dangerous because it can be guided accurately to impact, and has a substantial conventional warhead. Much cheaper too.
@@shugieshugied2269but Iskandr can be defeated with salvo of Patriots batteries (even tho Kiel Institute paper sajd a lot of launchers needed), meanwhile Oreshnik is impossible to intercept
Ted Postol, US professor in physics and a cold war era military advisor, has claimed in recent YT interviews that a hypersonic projectile is obliterated on the surface without penetration effects. "Just brush fires". Because of the speed of sound through the projectile being too high, or something like that. What is to be said about that claim?
impactor? one short answer: first rule of elastic collision. in other words :
m•V
good luck significantly diverting a massive object in hypersonic speed with an impactor. (hint: you need something heavier or faster or both)
Great video as usual!!!
Russia doesn't need oreshnik to destroy or disable a carrier group. It would need 1 855m submarine loaded with Zircons and Onyx -M. Zircons are Mach 9 Missiles 1500km range and Onyx-M are 800kms Mach 2-3. Zircons take out carrier and Arleigh Burke , Onyx's take out support ships. Yasen disappears into the depths 800km away.
Even easier they could turn Poseidon into a carrier killer it would be unstoppable.
I mean, that’s assuming it makes it out of port before getting torpedo’d herself by a US sub
Yeah, Oreshnik is a weapon with a completely different purpose.
Oreshnik aims to penetrate deeep bunkers, cover large areas like factories, airports, ports...
It's a lot more complicated than that. The strike would have to have more volume.
It can carry 24 missiles 2 or 3 hits would completely disable a carrier. The Kinetic alone of being hot at Mach 9 is crazy. It would hit the ship going 11,000kms per hour.
@@christopherchartier3017 US sub would not survive anywhere near the Russian waters.
A few points regarding using the Oreshnik against a US carrier battle group -
One, we literally have no idea of the full capabilities of Oreshnik. All we have are what the Russians have admitted to publicly, and what we've been able to surmise from video and other evidence, from the one attack against Ukraine. We have no idea if they've found a way to incorporate mid-course or terminal guidance.
Two, the Russians have stated that they have other, similar, systems to Oreshnik in development. Possible that one of those is a more "tactical" system, with different characteristics, configured for use against mobile naval targets, that could make use of real-time surveillance and targeting data, and make use of terminal guidance, plus compact enough to be air or ship launched. Not as capable or potent as Oreshnik, but "sufficient" to take out something as large as a USN supercarrier.
Three, depending on the circumstances and location of said carrier battle group, the flight time to target of an Oreshnik-type system could end up being significantly shorter than the oft-quoted 15 to 18 minutes depending on the range, particularly if said system is capable of being air, ship, or submarine launched - which could enable the launch platform to be at minimal ranges to the target.
Four, the capabilities demonstrated so far by the other hypersonic weapons used by the Russians, such as Zircon, are such that, at the best, it would still be very problematic for a carrier battle group to contend with such weapons, especially if used in salvos of multiple missiles - in short, the Russians wouldn't need to resort to using Oreshnik against naval targets, as they already have other systems that are more than capable of taking out said targets - using an Oreshnik against a carrier would be like trying to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
I actually think that near-terminal guidance may be possible with the system we see now. While the speed-induced friction will blind the Oreshnik at lower altitudes the speed allows it to be above those altitudes only 18 seconds before impact, commercial cameras and lenses can spot a carrier sized target pretty easily at the 65+ km altitude needed to be above the heat ( based off some pretty rudimentry calcs so I may be misunderstanding things ). IDed and tracked for a second or two speed and trajectory are easily calculated and if Oreshnik has any terminal maneuverability ( this I view as being the big question ultimately ) it can dial in the aim point to the 70ish meter area where the centerpoint of a 300+ meter long carrier might be.
While Oreshnik may seem like overkill I think it's worth keeping in mind that a Kirov or Oscar would be expected to empty most if not all of their silos to ensure the carrier gets got, Zircon certainly improves their odds but I doubt it's one Zircon for one carrier as the MIRV capability is a key component to the challenge to intercept and that's something Zircon doesn't do.
I think it's virtually a given that the Oreshnik has at least mid-course guidance correction, and probably some form of guidance after that as well. The evidence for that is the accuracy with which the Oreshnik's 36 warheads hit the Yuzhmash site in Ukraine. Granted it's a large site, but for a ballistic warhead to travel ~2000 km and hit such a target indicates that it has sophisticated guidance of some sort. (The Russians must have been confident about its accuracy, because Yuzhmash is surrounded by civilian areas.)
I agree that the Russians may be developing, or even already have, a similar weapon that could be used to strike a carrier group. That would entail an IRBM delivering the six re-entry vehicles high above the carrier group, which would then release six sub-munitions each. However those sub-munitions wouldn't be unguided kinetic warheads traveling at Mach 10 like the Oreshnik, but instead warheads with terminal guidance descending at a slower (but still very fast) speed. The slower speed would facilitate the warhead reliably locking on to a ship. A single volley of a weapon like this could do extensive damage to an entire carrier group, not just the carrier itself. I don't know if such a weapon exists, but it certainly seems like it would be in Russia's ability to make one.
On projected flight times of an Oreshnik-type system against a carrier group, (either at sea or in dock) one has to consider the possibility (likelihood?) that Russia will install the weapon on submarine-launched ballistic missiles as well. In that case, the flight time could be very short indeed.
I also agree with you that weapons systems that the Russians have previously demonstrated would be very problematic for US carrier fleets to contend with. They would be the sensible weapon for the job in most cases.
@@richardroskell3452 From a detection point of view I'm not sure there's any point in slowing the speed down, presuming the weapon is getting above the higher density air. Certainly I think having more explosive is likely but I don't think that precludes the high speed which still has some notable advantages.
Where I do think slowing down may prove necessary is the challenge of how maneuverable is the terminal phase. It's all well and great to get an update on your target position 30 seconds out from impact but if you can't maneuver sufficiently to hit then the detection may not do much good. Unfortunately I don't even know where to start on evaluating the maneuverability of such a thing, especially from my amateur perspective.
@@AmurTiger From my equally amateur perspective, an incoming hypersonic warhead that could *track* a moving target would need to reduce its speed from Mach 10+ to something more in the low hypersonic range. (Still very fast, like Mach 5-ish) This is for the reason you mention: time to manouevre is directly dependent on speed. A slower speed gives the warhead more time to change course. Slower Mach speeds also reduce the amount of plasma aura around the warhead. That plasma is a powerful impediment to the warhead being able to detect an assigned target. For example, if the warhead is using silhouette matching to target a specific a ship, it needs to have optical data which is going to be inhibited under a plasma cloud. As far as I know there's no getting away from that plasma discharge on re-entry, other than to get down into the lower Mach numbers. This is all hypothetical rambling on my part.
Launching a missile without advanced notice would get them nuked.
The immediate retaliation would be a US Trident missile, which are launched within 6 minutes of SBIRS pickup and secondary confirmation.
You don’t need an IRBM if your subs are in NATO sea. They’d hit before the IRBM.
Neither RU doesn’t have the ability to locate, much less hit a moving carrier with warheads incapable of tracking through plasma.
We don’t need to counter Oreshnik because we can already hold many of their targets at risk.
You can admit it looks cool and sounds good on paper, but it just doesn’t fit the force design structure of any military on the planet.
It’s a wunderwaffe that hasn’t been done by anyone else because the capabilities gained per PPP dollar spent doesn’t make sense.
It’s a propaganda piece designed to instill fear into people who aren’t paying attention to military technology, force design, and defense economics.
70% of US Carriers are in some sort of dock for repair and maintenance at any given time. they are very maintenance heavy ships, thus would be easy targets.
Yeah, but not for these missiles because the docks are in the US, so you need ICBMs not mid-range ones.
So would be the Moscow afterwars. What is this line of thought even lol.
Ones that are in repair and docs are strategic targets for a second wave of full scale exchange.
They are important but not an immediate treat
90% of Russian population in two targets er uh I mean cities.
@@pelle7771 it’s very likely that at any given time you would find an American aircraft carrier docked in Yokosuka or other ports in Japan, which the oreshnik can easily hit. It’s about 1000+km from Vladivostok. From the very small data sample of my personal travel experience, it’s a very safe bet that at least one American carrier would be docked in Yokosuka 70% of the time
Okay but before we talk about the Oreshnik, what about the new flat nozzle engines for the SU-57 that was just seen on the T-50? This is a major development and will fundamentally change the RCS and IR signature. The build quality is something I didn’t expect either, it looks super high quality, smooth and serrated. It honestly makes the T-50 look like an alien craft.
You about AL-51F1?
Yes AL-51F1. I think this Sunday, Moscow time we will see more footage or information about the engine as the documentary that showed us tid bits of the engine is set to premiere
@@kylekyle5438 the film is released on December 15 at 5 o'clock (Moscow time)
I agree. I saw those on Reddit recently, and they look very interesting. It looks like it has veins for cooling and possible IR signal suppression.
Look at the f-22's nozzles and realize why we don't care/aren't impressed
I follow this channel from a bit and well honestly...in front of the many content creators debating over war actual and potental have one remarking that human lives have value and the worst thing happening to a human is death make me appreciate the channel even more. Beside that i appreciate even more how you reply to the fans of a part of another with calm rational arguments.
i despise “humanitarian souls” with rose glasses. if you can’t imagine a fate worse than death, it just means you have very low creativity - unlike russians.
i fight and will (likely) die for my country because it might save more people, my people, from dying. why is this so incomprehensible for you? my countrymen that end up under russian control, especially the ones of ANY prominence, are already suffering worse than death, and then they die anyway.
“stopping people dying” is IMPOSSIBLE without defeating russia. giving up will not stop people from dying. do i really need to list examples, both historical and modern? it has been said a thousand times but it’s like holy western people don’t hear us.
Russia and China have other Carrier killers. The tragic thing is these Carriers are full of thousands of Americans who need health care and jobs, which can only be found in the military.
Even then there are homeless veterans everywhere. God bless America.
Hm.
Real shit
I love when some country with a few thousand dollar per capita gdp feels sorry for the US.
Gosh, Propaganda is as successful as back in the days of GDR.
that is what happens when you move all manufacturing off shore to reap bigger profits
Carrier: I'm too fast for Oreshnik.
Zirkon: hold my beer.
SM-3 Block 2A: smacks beer away 😂
@@christopherchartier3017 but how many beers can it smack away simultaneously?
@@user-xd4rs6vr4n Idk, I’ll ask it next time I see it
Indeed. The Russians already have other "tactical" hypersonic weapons, that they've already used, that would be more suited, and more than capable, of taking out naval targets.
The choice between being targeted by either Oreshnik, Zircon or Kinzal is a tough one to be faced with; neither of them would be the preferred option 🤔😃!!
An attack using just 1 Oreshnik against an aircraft carrier and its squadron has a chance of success. In the Ukrainian factory we saw the 36 warheads programmed with coordinates proportional to the "narrow" quadrants of the factory plan. That's why we see groups of warheads falling with little space between them. In an attack against a squadron, such coordinates can be changed to a more expansive mode, with distances of 300,400,500 meters from one warhead to the other, which would provide coverage of a few km²
that factory is huge.
an aircraft carrier is big, no doubt at 330mX78m but that factory is 2,2kmx740m
as in, it is 7x longer and 9x wider.
I also think it can be done, these aircraft carriers are stationairy a lot. It is now assumed they can make 300 per year.
What are the chances of actually hitting a ship like that though. The war heads aren't that bid. It's highly likely all of them would miss.
Unlikely.
Aircraft carriers move, and a lot faster than you’d think.
This isn’t an A2AD weapon. If sinking carriers was the goal, see China’s DF-ZF.
Oreshnik uses hunks of metal as the payload because tracking through the plasma sphere is not something they’re technologically capable of.
The “can it sink a carrier” point is moot. If this is used for anything, it’s going to be against very large, STATIC, disbursed targets.
Not exactly the 200 T-90s RU needed right now, or arty barrels.
This guy needs to step back into airplane videos, because he’s a geopolitical dunce.
It's such pleasant change to see cool, rational analysis on this topic on YT. One thing I've learned from the Oreshnik (and other recent events) is that even lots of general military experts are surprisingly at sea when it comes to air/missile war, in particular the strategic aspects. It's a very specialist subject.
Why is the video of the arrival of the"oreshnik" not shown to the end? I recommend finding the full video online. A little more than 20 sec after arrival, explosions of everything that is underground can be seen.
I linked the video back then. Weird how it's just gone or ignored. The same I had with January 6 in the USA. Hours after it happened I saw videos on Twitter of them calmly walking arround the capitol and police guiding them arround like a school excursion lol.
I never saw that extended video and would be happy to find a link, because I expected such a thing. This weapon is nothing if not a mass bunker buster.
@@nahidhkurdi6740 RUclips. Dmitry Konanykhin. Stream #228. ( 49.40--55.20 min)
Good video. Thanks for pointing out the insanity of using nuclear weapons. And yes, the point is that the Oreshnik gives the Russians a NON-NUCLEAR option that allows them to escalate without going nuclear.
A quibble on hitting ships: large ships have a lot of inertia. The path can be predicted for several minutes fairly well if the current position AND velocity vector are known. That could possibly allow an Oreshnik to hit without terminal guidance.
The best weapon against Hazel is diplomacy. All other options will fail
It would be interesting to know what percentage of time aircraft carriers are stationary. If they're British its probably at least 90% of the time?
😂
I just asked my old man who was on carriers for 15 years.
They’re never stationary unless they’re in port.
There is a 2,000% chance oreshnik would take out any aircraft carrier any day even with early detection.
One other issue with nuclear launches is that even if you "win" you still lose because of nuclear winter. That's why nuclear war cannot be won.
All nuclear powers have constantly updated plans for that outcome, and it's unclear what is the latest evaluation in each country because it's all highly classified
nuclear winter is a __hypothetical__ term from early 80's, when it was nearly x100 nuclear charges form that today. There's literally no risk of nuke winter. Just Russia, US and EU will seize to exist (as a potent power), and China will rebuild civilization
That is why oreshnik can be non nuclear.
Орешнику не нужна ядерная боеголовка, при такой скорости , при ударе, высвобождаеться чудовищьная кинетическая энергия, разрушительной силой не меньше ядерного, но ядерной зимы не будет ! Орешник, сравним с космическим больдом, посетившим Землю.
@@NJ-wb1cz Plan all you like; if winter lasts 25 years, most people will die of starvation.
There are worse things than death for a human being. There are things that will have one begging for the mercy of the sweet release of death.
RF has already defeated Nato. This is the primary reason that the war never fully escalated (and because it is clear RF just traded Syria away for victory in Ukr). The nato's armouries are empty, western industry gone.
Last time I checked, RU had one brand of milk that was always out of stock and turning tricks was the best thing you could do to survive most of the past 30 years.
Instead of the warheads holding the sensors for targetting and course correction, couldn't the bus and/or a dedicated subvehicle be used for such a purpose via datalink, with the ensemble acting in a similar way to a Granit missile volley?
Theoretically I suppose guiding is possible. No need even subvehicle. It can be satellite which observe from above and send correction commands via datalink. There is a plasma cone from the front of warhead, but it's open from the rear and datalink back to the skies seems possible. Although I doubt it's really guided.
@ssoqboss I also tought of satellites, but the advantage of the having the system contained in the bus or subvehicle would be a reduced dependency on satellite coverage, plus they would have an ideal positionning to relay information to the warheads respective to the plasma cones.
lol. Try getting a telemetry signal through that sphere of plasma.
Don’t forget it takes around 10 minutes for an aircraft carrier to hit their top speed of 1km per minute
But that would be from a dead stop. How many ships at sea are sitting at a dead stop?
You realize these things are already moving…right?
I do like the assumption that RU could feasibly track a carrier from space, garner coordinates, and that rods of tungsten could track anything via IR/Radio/Radar, maneuver, or receive telemetry while in the plasma sphere.
Even the best RV’s in the world have a huge CEP, and this thing is nowhere near that.
RU **might** be able to knock a carrier with a Sarmat carrying a dozen 1MT bombs, but that’s still a maybe - they’d be guessing it’s location, bearing, and speed, hoping it doesn’t change, and probably still missing while retaining the high probability of a nuclear response due to an unannounced launch.
The Oreshnick missile could be guided prior to the point that it accelerates to hypersonic speed.
Since the last phase of the flight is very short, probably about a minute, then the flight path can be corrected up until that point.
Guidance data from satellites could be adequate to allow such a weapon to hit a carrier.
I find the Oreshnik to be a fascinating development. It is, with the benefit of 20 x 20 hindsight, a blindingly obvious development. There is NATO doctrine, there is a nuclear deterrence doctrine but there seems to be very little assymetrical thinking; except for Russia and maybe China. Doctrine is powerful but once established it must be challenged. It seems that the West hasn't challenged it's own thinking enough. As an example, GPS and its weaknesses. These were clear even from it's imception although my first thought many years ago was to find a way to destroy the satellites but jamming and interference as currently practiced were also an obvious possibility. The conflict in Ukraine has taught NATO a lot about the limitations of GPS. I can imagine Russia's thought process: NATO has an air superiority doctrine, NATO concentrates its airpower in a relatively few large bases, Nuclear weapons cant be used... Answer the Rods from God/Oreshnik. This weapon will become truly frightening when there's a ship or submarine launched version. Sure the range will be limited, sure there may be fewer kinetic effectors per missile but the tactical and strategic benefits would be immense. Just think about that.
IRBMs had a agreed ban between russia and nato, that is why nato did not make them. GPS is ok, nobody just thought 99% of gps receivers on the battlefield would actually be cheapest civilian embedded devices. Anything better than that can manage.
@@gearloose703IRBM was between Russia and the US, not NATO... And let's be clear it's the US which withdrew from The treaty...
About interception : you need infra red guidance , whitch it is easily decoy , radar precision guidance vs an small hypersonic plasma coated target : Good luck
There’s no point to intercept something that’s going to miss you.
FUN FACT a lot of russian equipment follow nature based naming conventions a good example is russian artillery pieces or related weaponry typically being named after flowers Hyacinths, peonies,
and carnations etc like the pion(peony) malva (literally flower) Tyulpan (tulipan) etc
the orezhnik very much follows this principle it's name meaning hazel like the nut in this case referring to the flowers of the tree from which the nut comes
as they are similar to the trails of light from the orezhnik above the impact zone
We know. He said that last time.
@@xanovaria i commented this or something similar on two or three separate orezhnik videos it is not about it having been said or written before mairely that it is available for people to stumple upon and read and possibly absorb as informaiton
The oreshnik is more then a suggestion of a weapon at the moment. It does work, is capable, that is all. It is proppably not designed to hit ships, or as one commentator already mentioned for ships Russian forces will proppably use a Zirkon missile, but its effect for those other targets is there. What Russia does have with the oreshnik is something they can use against Nato weapons before those can be used against Russian interests. Like transport (trains) and storege for those weapons. The oreshnik so far is non interceptable enough to risk any target within its range for Nato . . . Nato might come up with an answer, but so far Russia has the advantage. Indeed, heavens forbit if anyone finds an archument to go nuclear!!
thank you for pointing out that "literal violence" isn't anywhere near as bad as "actual violence" 😊
They can target a large chunk of floating metal using MAD (magnetic anomaly detection) It is a field effect that does not depend on direct emission like radar or optical.
Thank you for answering these very intriguing questions. Please give my regards to Otis. 🙂
Ever since I first saw that Oreshnik video my furst thought was that this would be useful against airfield runways. The way the submunitions spread out in straight lines would seem to go well with runways as targets. But moreso, if they are kinetic penetrators, then they will "churn up" the ground underneath the runway to make it very difficult to repair.
With regular bombs, at best you make holes in the cement and those are relatively easy to repair in a day or two by just cleaning it up and pouring new cement. But Oreshnik penetrators I feel would likely churn up the ground underneath so that it is no longer a stable base for a runway. It'd be a LOT more work to get the runways operational in that case.
It'd be really interesting to see what it actually does to the earth underneath the impact point.
It's an economic weapon. If your 'cost' is extra hours of bulldozing I really doubt it makes sense to use a multi-million dollar missile for this.
The penetrator has a small diameter of less than 20 cm. It will displace and compress the surrounding material. The effect might be measurable at 50 cm to 1meter distance. In soft ground there might be no significant effect at all.
@@thomasgerber1472Have you ever tried firing a high power rifle into soft ground? It can leave a hole you can stick your arm into. Now; multiply weight and diameter by orders of magnitude, and speed by about X 5-6. You'll see that your calculations might be a bit off.
У этого оружия есть главное преимущество - достать того, кто не на поле боя, а того кто управляет всем и решил спрятаться глубоко под землёй. По-этому оно так страшно, ведь до этого под землёй было достаточно безопасно.
@@ironmonkey1512 You missed the point. Depending on just how the missile interacts with the earth under the pavement, it may be that no amount of bulldozing will alliw you to simply patch the holes as the ground may no linger be firm enough to support it.
Most of NATO countries don't have working armies, Germany has very little working equipment, England has a couple hundred tanks , NATO is America, Turkey won't support Europe in a NATO war, I doubt it. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuanian wouldn't last a week , they have less than 75 tanks between them , no air force and not much American air defense, and we seen that American air defense is useless against most Russian missiles, Ukrainians 70% with no power in freezing winter temps,lol.
Ukraine has suffered over 1 million casualties, 700k dead , 300k unrecoverable injuries , 100k desertions and 30% of the men abandoned the country, they need to start kidnapping younger boys if they want to hold the lines longer.
There are more NATO tanks in Europe, even without the US, than Russian tanks currently in service.
Poland alone, we are talking of 1000 tanks.
There are also far more aircraft’s and ships.
@@chefchaudard3580 You were kidding, right? Rusia has more tanks than all the countries in the world combined...
@@chefchaudard3580 Poland's army in 1939 was larger than Germany's. They were destroyed in less than 5 weeks. Russia is not going to invade Poland, If Poland is foolish enough to move east it will be ugly.
@@vasileteodorion9477 they had more in stock, not in service.
Now the stocks are almost empty
@ Poland is part of NATO, like it or not.
And they don’t particularly like Russia.
Armchair Warlord doing his part to talk the world back from the brink of nuclear holocaust.
Appreciate your analysis.
It doesn't need to impact the carrier itself. They could explode it above the carrier so the shrapnel would damage anything in a high range.
Just imagine shrapnel that is covered by plasma.
Its interesting how some people say their enemy's new cutting edge weapon is not that amazing or they don't have any more of them and then the next turn start coming up with counters for said weapons that actually don't exist and that have had their development programs fully cancelled. Its almost like they are coping and seething, but i must be mistaken.
Carriers will go the way of Battleships. Hypersonics have changed the game.
Optimistic to imagine that a bloody great aircraft carrier could dodge out the way of a couple of Oreshniks heading it's way. No not buying this. Carriers are an anachronism.
@@robert-wr6md they travel at more than 30 knots & have escorts + oreshnik's submunitons likely do not have terminal guidance
The Black Sea has already proven that all capital ships are in danger from hundred dollar boat drones. Nevermind saturation attacks with multiple drones and missiles.
Seems we were told once that the Battleship Bismark was un-sinkable. We never, ever learn from history.
@RogueEconomist things are reppaced most of the time when something else does a better job than it, not necessarily when something can destroy it. Tanks survived bombs, ATGMs, and now drones; unless something can do the job better it likely wont be replaced.
New U.S. hypersonic missiles? The ones that exists only as computer simulation? :D
They have numerous missiles in development and have obviously found some to be producible since they are going to deploy them in Germany by the end of 2025
lol. Russian gdp smaller than Texas. If you think Russia is on the cutting edge of military tech, then I have a bridge to sell you.
@@trevortoews9850 Comparing GDP to technology 😅
@@olexp9017 to amerikanski money is god 🦯🥴😆🤣
That's why you afraid to confront Russia directly and using proxies? But wait, even Iraq, Libya or Yugoslavia you didn't attack by yourself. Lol. You need a pack of dummies to attack even hundred times smaller countries with no logistics or air support. That's why Russia fuckes you up in Ukraine so badly 😅@@trevortoews9850
You didnt mention one thing. Who rules the skies wins the war. America has always relied on air superiority. Russia now has unstoppable missiles. Its a game changer.
That ww2 thinking, no war has ever been won by planes alone nor will it ever be
This is not new. Ever heard of the cold war? Thats what it was all about. Assured mutual destruction. Oreshnik brings the same basic capabillity as every other medium range ballistic missile. The new thing is one side using it for the lols. A sign of weakness …
For deep background to Russian craft able to withstand intense temperatures, understand that as the US moved to develop probe landings on Mars, the USSR responded by developing landers for Venus. Sulphuric acid rain pressure cooker, that.
an aircraft carrier cannot to sharp turns, it cannot slow down or speed up quickly. Even without active guiding systems - the location of the carrier at time of impact can be predicted accuratrely.
Not against the backdrop of an entire ocean
Guru your last sentence is too nice.
Terminal guidance can be done in space. At a speed of 3 km/s there is only 20-40 seconds of blackout for the warheads (as we could see, they fall almost vertically), so ~30 seconds max for the carrier to change course and escape. But there are 36 warheads and not so much options (and they are predictable) for such huge ship to change speed and direction in 30 seconds.
The problem is that the error adds up over distance traveled.
Not error over time.
It doesn’t matter how fast you go.
I have this feeling that even a near miss would be an extremely disturbing event for an aircraft carrier...or any boat.
They can make 300 per year for not a lot of money compared to a 10-13 Bilion $ aircraft carrier... they can miss a lot lol.
RU can’t even make 300 tanks a year lol.
This guy is honestly the most agreeable guy i've listened to on RUclips. Educated, unbiased, and just nerdily-interested in this stuff like I am.
he delivers once again
Grazie Mille per la preparazione e per l'obiettivita'. Sei un Grande
Technically they wouldn't need to make a direct hit on a carrier, instead they could hit an entire carrier battle group with an EMP and then follow with direct hits if they chose to.
Aircraft carriers are divided into compartments, and so are designed to survive a few holes - provided they don't detonate the munitions magazine. It would seem to take some luck for an Oreshnik missile to hit the magazine to destroy an aircraft carrier. So far, no one has publicized details of the warheads - like their sizes to determine the likely size of holes they would make in aircraft carriers. However, with 36 of them packed into each missile, they can't be much larger than a foot in diameter.
Yeah, but there is a lot of energy in even a small mass travelling at hypersonic speeds. I did a bit of math and it works out as each kilo of mass travelling at the terminal speed of an Oreshnik warhead (3400 meters per second) is approximately equivalent to the same mass in kilos of TNT. So, say, one warhead weighing 100Kg will be the same as 125Kg of TNT. I should imagine they're capable of punching quite large holes in things.
Doesn’t matter because they can’t hit it with anything short of nukes.
They could try hypersonics, but the RU navy is the same old navy it’s always been. An utter Sh. show.
Excellent as always. Much food for thought
I think a nation with a weapon such as the Oreshnik would possibly go as far as striking underground military targets with tactical nuclear warheads (if a warhead combining a kinetic penetrator and a nuke could be achieved). The effect on the surface would be limited but the damage below the surface would be tremendous. I don't think other countries would know how to retaliate or answer properly.
Russia has anti ship missiles for this purpose which run at mach 5 and are steerable.
According to MIT university professor Dr. Ted Postol, he reviewed the wreckage of the Oreshnik and found evidence it has a maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) warheads. I do not know if a Russian MARV can maneuver to strike an American nuclear aircraft carrier moving at 32 knots, but in theory its at least possible.
Informative as always, Thanks
Feels like naval warfare becoming proto-space warfare
USNC Infinity when?
It always has been, ever since we started using the heavenly bodies to navigate- which was closely guarded information.
It’s why we’ve been practicing multi-domain warfare for decades.
It's logical that moving target destruction strategies have been developed. Oreshnik would likely be the coup de gráce strike if required. Ports and bases don't move, so it's easy to strike them.
RE: guiding a reentry vehicle toward a carrier. I would use satellite based tracking to watch the carriers, and send the corrections from satellites that are above the warhead, where the interference from plasma is the lowest.
NASA has looked into that since the 1960s. They hate it that contact is lost with the crew during atmospheric re-entry. But one would have to time the landing with a satellite passing right above. Loss of flexibility which causes other risks. However, now with 10,000s of Starlink satellites, perhaps it is feasible!
One musk not (pun intended) underestimate the power of launching (soon multiple!) orders of magnitude more mass to orbit than everyone else combined. In my mind, that is the most important thing that is happening in aerospace and warfare today.
They don’t have the capability to track them, and even if they did, they can’t communicate through plasma.
you can terminally guide it using radio signals giving the updated coordinates of the target using antennas on the back of the warhead pointing up into the sky when it is making its final dive. SO if there is a satellite sending these guidance signals downward to the missile, the missile also has GLONASS antennas in the back so it knows its own coordinates and receives the target coordinates through the backward facing datalink and makes adjustments accordingly. GLONASS might have the capability to send both moving target coordinates embedded in the navigation signals intended to triangulate owns coordinate. This of course means that you need a third party observer like UAV, satellite SAR or ground radar to measure the coordinate of the moving target and send it to the satellite. I believe the Chinese DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missile works based on this principle with a satellite SAR radar pinpointing the aircraft carrier location.
The worst thing that can happen to a human being is absolutely not dying. That is an absurd statement.
Thank you. I thought, for a moment, this wasn't understood.
All ships must resupply and rotate. That involves a static time window. You watch, you wait then coordinate. I'm a poet.....
The orechnik would be launched along 3 or 4 Kinzal missiles directed at the tower, this would immobilize the carrier and the Orechnik would do its job.
I served on the USS-Nimitz CVN-68 as an ABH-AN. That ship was the slowest of the Nimitz class, and i have no clue about the new ones, but the Nimitz could hit 45 knots. It was bumpy but she could scoot.
Facts! Once the warhead is deployed from the bus in the upper atmosphere the target is fixed.
But time is not about 3-18 minutes - its only about 1 minute to arrival.
And yes, if the carrier already moves in some direction, its unlikely it will have time to change it for a 1 minute.
There's no point in using this thing against carriers since there're Zircons and Kinzhals
Kinzhal can target ships?
@MilitaryTechNerd006 I donno, I'm not in Ru MoD
Well, even though these missiles are really expensive, they're still way cheaper than a carrier. And a full hit on a carrier from oreshnik would undoubtably have a tremendous effect on any onlookers, seeing that big "invulnerable" ship get obliterated in the blink of an eye. So even if it's overkill in order to sink a carrier, i imagine it will have quite the value for use as propaganda in a war. Let's just pray it never comes to that......
so apparently su57 with flat nozzle is close. those nozzles are put in around 45° angle and there was some trailer for some movie that showed su57 with flat nozzle
What's the name of the movie?
@@VIPER276 its documentary movie at 85th anniversary of soviet air force i think. but just search su57 flat nozzle on youtube. you should find what was shown up to now. more is coming in 2 days i believe
The missile could do mid course correction before entering the atmosphere. This could be as late as 30-40 seconds before the hit.
At the speed it is going downward (2 mi/sec), the reentry plasma interfering with communication target updates is only the last 15 seconds.
Russians did claim that one of the reasons of success of Oreshnik is the development of heat-resistant materials that allowed them to ensure effective guiding while being covered in plasma.
Well knows if those are just their claims or not.
Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis of the whole situation.
Wow, you could take out an entire fleet with just kinetic warheads blowing straight through their hulls! Crazy!
I think the cavitation effect may make grouped near misses very dangerous as well.
Absolutely nothing new here. The British navy experienced just such events with their aluminum destroyers during Falklands war. WW2 era Mk82 gravity bombs using defective fuses achieved full penetration. Side to side tho - Argentinians couldn't master dive bombing technique.
@ottofoekus449 lol, these are hypersonic. From space. Absolutely no warning. It's A LOT different!
I didn't know the channel for long, thought you'd be tricked by the carrier question... you're really good! Keep up the good work!
2:23 не нужно замедляться. боевые блоки разгоняются до 10М за пределами атмосферы, а значит ничто не мешает прицелится в Авиансец по радару или тепловой сигнатуре. Так как боевые блоки проходят атмосферу быстро, то отклоняющие возмущения которые атмосфеера передаст блокам будут невелики.
Фактически это выстрел из винтовки, только из космоса. Вы прицеливаетесь (самонаведение на этапе разгона до 10М) , и пуля (кинетический боеприпас) двигается к цели через (36км атмосферы) слой газа. При скорости 3,6 км/с понадобится 10 секунд полета. Куда денется авианосец за 10 секунд?😊
Это не винтовка, а плевок поносной жижей, Южмаш не даст соврать. Без ябч это игрушка плешивого недоучки, у которого кинетическим воздействием материя на элементарные частицы расщепляется при 5 к градусов. За наш счет, кстати.
Oreshnick reminds me of the orbital bombardment systems proposed during the Cold War. The so called Rods of God with its kinetic impactors. Oreshnick has advantages over a OBS though. It does not need to be space based. It is not limited to the course of its host satellite like OBS. The warhead's bus containing the impactors can be maneuvered.
I think Oreshnick could hit a carrier, but only if the warhead bus can be maneuvered in real time according to constantly updated targeting, i.e., if the warhead bus has the ability to maneuver to the appropriate release point. If it can do that the impactors have a good change of success, because once they are released from the bus, the time to impact is just a few seconds. By saturating an area with impactors, several of them will probably hit.
I am not sure how much damage they would do though. It would be similar to an anti-tank sabot round, but with a lot more energy. It might just burn through the decks and carry on to the depths of the ocean. It would have to hit critical systems or munitions stores etc.
P.S. On nuclear war. What a lot of folks do not seem to be able to do is differentiate between Russia's conventional war capabilities and their nuclear ones. They see Russia is not a super power in conventional forces, so they assume little threat. What they need to understand is Russia can wipe the USA off the map in less than 30 minutes. Total destruction of every city and important military target etc. The country would become an irradiated wasteland. They have more than enough nukes to do that and the missiles to get them there, as do the Americans. If it ever happens, we are all kaput. That's why NATO and the USSR negotiated so many nuclear treaties during the Cold War. To lessen the chances of nuclear war.
The demonstration might have been a signal warning the Iron dome is useless
All I can say is....ask Japan what happens when you touch the boats.
What affect would oreshnik have entering water, would there be a massive pressure wave?
Controlling a hypersonic projectile can be done if you manage to send a guiding-signal from behind the plasma shockwave.... basically you'd need the projectile approaching the target along the line-of-sight of a satellite. Not really practical but theoretically that would allow for precise guidance until the moment of impact.
An interceptor could Just dump Sand or small titanium crystals ( lot of it! ) in a cloud in front of the warhead in a large cloud. hitting this cloud at mach 10+ should do major damage to the warhead .
"A large U.S. aircraft carrier, such as the Nimitz-class, typically has a full complement of approximately 5,000 personnel, including 3,000-3,200 ship crew, 1,500 air wing personnel, and 500 additional staff. The unit cost for a Nimitz-class carrier was about $11.2 billion in 2023 dollars. The newer Gerald R. Ford-class carriers cost around $13 billion each and house up to 4,539 personnel. These carriers are among the most advanced and expensive warships, reflecting their strategic capabilities and technological advancements. The total program cost is around $120 billion."
True, once in reentry, the warheads cannot target anything, but could they be terminally locked on target before entering the atmosphere?
Like one satellite giving the location of a carrier and Oreshnik listening to it.
They don’t have satellites capable of tracking ships in the ocean.
The ocean is big as fk.
Only the US has developed and iterated systems like Gorgon Stare and Argus-IV that might be capable.
Even then, they can’t re-target a ballistic missile because it travels in a ballistic trajectory after its energy runs out.
Like a ball after you throw it.
You make some good points nothing can stop Thors lighting bolts ,the non nuclear type ,Basically you can use them so long as you phone America first or visa versa
the point about the Oreshnik being destabilizing because "it could carry nukes and you can't tell if it does" is a bit of a stretch because there are a lot of missiles that can carry nukes, are used often and you cannot really tell if they are nuke armed, for example the Tomahawk, Kalibr, Iskander, bombers with gravity bombs can be nuke armed or even a few smaller weapons (152mm and 203mm howitzer rounds)
so, the fact that there were not a lot of conventional ballistic missiles in the past doesn't mean that they cannot become a very common weapon in the present or in the future
the second strike capability exists for this exact reason, you can fire after getting hit by the enemy
the Oreshnik doesn't seem to be a ballistic missile either, it seems like it flies very low and close to the atmosphere in a powered flight before separation, we cannot know if the Oreshnik is a launch platform for the Avangard either, the Avangard might be able to deploy clustering kinetic warheads
Once again, thank you to share your knwoledge!!
Could you comment more about the US and French hypersonic missiles? Have they achieved anything yet? What stage are these hypersonic missiles at?
US has had several Hypersonic missiles in Development. A recent one was the MAKO.
I think they have some in production because they plan on deploying them to Germany by the end of 2025
@@ThePorkchop1787 I doubt they are in production. Believe that just today I saw report with, I guess, first American more or less successful test hypersonic missile launch.. So I really doubt they can start to produce them in masses just within 1 year...
они в лучшем случае в стадии разработок на бумаге😀
@@ThePorkchop1787 к 2025 году ? Думаю Орешник, расчистит для них удобную площадку.😀
We are not getting bored with that weapon system
Oreshnik(s) could conceivably take out an entire task force. Depending on how well its precision guidance works for the sub-munitions. The real question is do the Russians have a way to target nuclear submarines? I'd love to know what happens to one of those sub-munitions when it hits the ocean surface, does it create a fireball? How big is the shock wave?
I want to know about cavitation effects and depth. Could 36 near misses turn the sea into a froth that just swallows the carrier group?
@@StanleyPinchak That's a GOOD question. K=1/2m(v*v).
Thanks, Gus. I’m proud to support you on Patreon. Un Natale molto felice e un nuovo anno felice e sano
The Oreshnik is designed to carry nukes. If they are armed with nukes, then close is good enough.
It doesn't matter if it is unguided. WW2 torpedoes were also unguided. Ships could avoid the fish as the torpedoes moved in straight lines. So what happened? Japanese torpedo bombers simply coordinated with each other via radio and tactics.
They coordinated to drop torpedoes into a pattern where if a ship avoids one torpedo, they dodge INTO the path of another torpedo.
people are calculating the destructive power of the nut purely on the kinetic energy of mass without taking into account the impact of a super heated plasma field dragged behind it
What is the impact of a super heated plasma field dragged down by a projectile? Meteors smash through the sky at hypersonic speed constantly. Thousands of meteorites have been picked up from the ground after having soft landed. Didn't the Ukrainians show off some kind of half intact engine gear from the Oreshnik missile that hit Dniepropetrovsk? I'm not sure what the effect of an hypersonic impact actually is, but feel pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't make a "demonstration" like this if it wasn't effective.
@@bjorntorlarssonLOL. The engine gear definitely was part of the kinetic penetrators and not just random scrap lying around a literal rocket factory. - probably Baghdad Bob
Otis wake up, there's new videos and pictures of a 2D canted nozzle for the AL51 on the T50 test bed, as well as a rear radar blocker within it!
Russia has the real game changer and wonder weapons. Unlike the touted western wonderweapons and touted game changers turned out to not be game changers or wonder weapons at all. Urraa! 😊😍
I mean the nuke was kind of a game changer no? Or the stealth bomber, stealth aircraft in general, AESA radars... both sides innovate, bro.
I have problems to see Russia as a technology leader. Military technology is just an outgrowth of civilian technology. If your civilian products are crap then your military products are at best average.
@@thomasgerber1472well, they certainly know how to get the most "bang for the buck" compared to nato. And as shown in WW2; having the most advanced weapons only gets you so far if the enemy can churn out 10X as many weapons of somewhat less performamce. Russia has massive production capabilities, and are friends with countries with even greater production capability. So i dont see an easy win. Also; fighting on own soil gives a great advantage..
In the US we build very complex, expensive weapons who's main goal is to make corporate profits from sales and maintenance. Russia has been building weapons for functionality rather than corporate profits.
@@suprlite their annual t 90 and bmp3 production is in the low 3 digit numbers, high performance aircraft is a few dozen annually. They live from eating up their old sovjet era stuff. And by the way, they are not fighting on their own soil.
Oreshnik is not designed as Carrier killer. This is a weapon to destroy large Missile complexes in one attack.
The role of Carrier killer is reserved for the Zirkon missile (on Chinese side Dongfeng) Impact speed is 3km/sec.
So it would do serious damage even if only armed with a conventional warhead.
You should start disclosing these beautiful places you record in.
Want to visit this one
Not a well thought out video. I can’t speak to the ability of a kinetic warheads self guiding capability, but Russia has several hyper sonic delivery systems that are guided. And they’re extremely accurate. Aircraft carriers would have no chance of evading them. If our carriers ever enter an active combat theater with the Russians or Chinese, they will be sunk.
Not at Mach 10
It's a lot more complex that. A fee fast missile cant sink a carrier. Carriers dont sail alone. In a war against a chinese or russian adversary, carriers would likely have around 4-6 LSCs and 2 subs escorting them.
@@MilitaryTechNerd006 And still be sunk!
@@MilitaryTechNerd006подлодки есть и у других, но орешник есть не у всех.
Well, mon canard, you’ve pulled it until the knackers are as flat as a pancake on this story. Though I’m really glad you have because it’s fascinating what modern weapons can do. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy being as far as I am away from the deployment zone, but it is an amazing sight.
1. For what reason was Oreshnik created in the first place?
Underground factories or bunkers are rare and hardly a reason to build a designated weapon. What is considered an optimal target? Is it an airfield, harbor, carrier group?
2. Consider scenario of Oreshnik strike against stationary aircraft carrier. Accuracy is the same as shown in Dnipro. Out of 36 projectiles, how many will hit?
3. Consider scenario of Oreshnik strike against aircraft carrier. All 36 projectiles miss and strike water some ~300 meters away from the carrier. Will there still be any damage to the carrier? Or will it survive unharmed?
4. Is Oreshnik a viable weapon to attack huge river dams (such as Dnipro river dams in Ukraine)?
With 36 entry projectiles for each orechnik, anticipating the carrier speed, you can probably launch 7 at the carrier and around at the same time and score a hit.
The Oreshnik can take out the carrier and 36 other support ships.
Besides GPS targeting, there could be object recognition cameras to guide the missiles at the final stage.
the missiles are upward of 3800 degree of temperature. plasma mode bro. these tricks won't work
They could be directed passively from another observers. And place some type of receiver in the back/sides of the projectile
You can’t send or receive squat through the plasma.
Did you see the photo of the new su57 nozzle? What u think about It?
Seriously, get back to what you’re good at M7.
This ain’t your bag.
You originally got views when it was hot news, but everyone did.
Thanks, Gus! It's definitely a first strike threat...
Hypersonic terminal guidance is difficult to master. Thanks 👍👍👍👍