Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
48m
Russian “Oreshnik” IRBM assembled from outdated components
Ukrainian specialists have examined the wreckage of the new Russian ballistic missile “Oreshnik” and found that it was built using old parts.
According to experts, many components were manufactured no later than 2016–2017, including Russian and Belarusian elements (from the Integral plant in Belarus). One of the units even bears a clear 2017 production date.
Despite Russian propaganda presenting the “Oreshnik” as a cutting-edge weapon, it is largely assembled from older parts.
Foreign components from China, the USA, Japan, Germany, and Switzerland were also discovered in the wreckage.
Source: @5channel
AFAIK, the tungsten thing is speculation based on what we would use if we had built the weapon, not on what Russia has actually used. I'd very much like to read it if anyone has specific details on debris left behind by the three Oreshnik strikes, especially evidence of actual tungsten submunitions. This last Oreshnik strike was supposedly used against a control bunker, but did it in fact destroy the bunker or just chew up the ground around the bunker? And it would be interesting to know how many submunitions hit close enough to the bunker to do any damage (which is closely related to the subject of CEP). Not to mention only three uses in 18 months is a very low expenditure rate. As for the Oreshnik being uninterceptible, AFAIK none of the three uses came up against an anti-missile system designed to take on ballistic missiles.Secondly, the Oreshnik is a kinetic energy weapon. It's my understanding that the warhead contains nothing more sophisticated than 'dumb' solid tungsten projectiles. The damage they inflict is due to the hyper velocities with which they hit the Earth.
Due to all the information warfare going on at the moment I doubt we will find out for sure for a few decades at least. Unless Russia or Ukraine does a factually accurate report posted to the public that is not buried...AFAIK, the tungsten thing is speculation based on what we would use if we had built the weapon, not on what Russia has actually used. I'd very much like to read it if anyone has specific details on debris left behind by the three Oreshnik strikes, especially evidence of actual tungsten submunitions. This last Oreshnik strike was supposedly used against a control bunker, but did it in fact destroy the bunker or just chew up the ground around the bunker? And it would be interesting to know how many submunitions hit close enough to the bunker to do any damage (which is closely related to the subject of CEP). Not to mention only three uses in 18 months is a very low expenditure rate. As for the Oreshnik being uninterceptible, AFAIK none of the three uses came up against an anti-missile system designed to take on ballistic missiles.
That's part of my problem with unquestionably accepting that the Oreshnik is a miracle weapon. Ukraine and Russia have both proved to be unreliable sources, and I have no idea why so many people are so willing to accept Russia's statements at face value about the Oreshnik. I think both sides wouldn't hesitate for a second to lie outright or deliberately mislead if it suited their military purposes.Due to all the information warfare going on at the moment I doubt we will find out for sure for a few decades at least. Unless Russia or Ukraine does a factually accurate report posted to the public that is not buried...
So what is your opinion on the US Dark Eagle ?All three Oreshnik missile strikes were launched from Kasptuin Yar, an experimental missile test range. If the Oreshnik has actually been actively deployed, why not test the mobile launcher system as well in a combat situation? I'm perfectly willing to accept that I could be wrong about everything I've said about the Oreshnik (I'm not an intelligence analyst), that every single thing that everybody else has said about the Oreshnik is all true, but I don't know that it's all true and I won't passively accept it as truth based solely on Putin's word. Heck, one author said the actual name of the missile is "Kedr," with "Oreshnik" being the development program's name (that's kind of like calling the Apollo-11 lunar mission "Moon rocket #11"), so apparently everyone worldwide is using the wrong name and maybe the Russians just bowed to the publicity and call it Oreshnik themselves. Or not. That's the problem with speculation ... it may turn out that it's not true.
Speaking of the Oreshnik, I just saw this (I don't do Facebook/X, so if somebody has access and it looks like a real story, I'd appreciate it if they could post the full text):
Oreshnik, which Russia used in a strike on Lviv in January, was ...
10 hours ago ... Ukraine's intelligence services say they destroyed a launch system for Russia's new Oreshnik ballistic missile at the Kapustin Yar range in ...
![]()
United24 Media
Oreshnik, which Russia used in a strike on Lviv in January, was manufactured nine years ago, Reuters reports. “We were a bit surprised because it is presented as a very new missile, but when you...www.facebook.com
The issue with this is it isn’t one 1500 kg projectile hitting at Mach 11. It is 36 individual 41.67 kg projectiles hitting at Mach 11. When you do the math it is roughly the equivalent of 71 kg of TNT. That is less explosive then a standard Mk 82 500 lb bomb.So what is your opinion on the US Dark Eagle ?
That is also a Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon is that real?
The are effectively the same type of system. An older first stage with a new hypersonic terminal warhead - only difference the Russian system has several submunitions in its warhead.
Both depend on the hypersonic speed of the impact to do the damage.
As for being "experimental" the US announced they were deploying the DE to the ME while it is still under development (7+ years) and evaluation - BTW that is a grand total of 8 to 10 missiles - all that exist. On any new weapon system there is always an overlap from pure research to full deployment. However that does not change the fact the systems EXISTS. There have been 3 confirmed uses of the Oreshnik in combat - this is not fiction or PR. BTW we have yet to see the US DE in action - does that make it less real?
As for the name - yes the popular name is a bit backwards - but that changes nothing.
Yes -"Kedr" is the name of the missile system, while "Oreshnik" is the name of the research project behind it.
According to Ukrainian Military Intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, "Oreshnik" is the codename of the research project, while the launch system itself is called "Kedr."
![]()
Oreshnik or Kedr: Ukrainian Intel Chief Explains Confusion Over the Name of Russia’s New Ballistic Missile
Ukrainian military chief Budanov clarifies that the missile used in Dnipro is called "Kedr," a medium-range ballistic system designed to carry nuclear warheads.united24media.com
A Ukrainian presidential adviser suggested that "Oreshnik" is essentially Putin's own branding, while the missile fits into an existing classification system alongside other Russian missiles like "Yars," "Topol," "Kedr," and "Rubezh."
Bottom line:
The Oreshnik does exist - I recall you wanted to see it used again - well it has been.
Yes it likely is still being "fine-tuned" like any new weapon system (consider the 23 years for the F-35). Every weapon system undergoes constant updates.
Calling it the "Oreshnik" or "Kedr" or being launched from a fixed or mobile platform does not change the FACT it is still able to delivers at the other end some 36 sub-munition hitting at Mach 11 (8,400 mph) which gives its 1,500 kg of total mass~10.5 billion joules of energy
Compare this to the US Dark Eagle with a 350 kg glide body hitting at between Mach 5 and 8 delivers between 505 and 1.3 billion joules of energy.
That puts the Oreshnik delivering roughly 8x to 20x more raw kinetic energy than the Dark Eagle on target,
Both these systems EXIST - yes both are likely still being improved. However only one has actually been used in combat.
The 1500kg is the total of the 36 (as noted in my post) - just added it up to get a comparison to the DE which is just one projectile.,The issue with this is it isn’t one 1500 kg projectile hitting at Mach 11. It is 36 individual 41.67 kg projectiles hitting at Mach 11. When you do the math it is roughly the equivalent of 71 kg of TNT. That is less explosive then a standard Mk 82 500 lb bomb.
Mario Nawfal
@MarioNawfal
May 30
Ukraine says its strike drones can now fly more than 3,500 km.
That would put some of Russia's most important military and industrial sites within reach.
Russia used to worry about its borders. Now it has to worry about its depth.
Source: Bloomberg