How The New Russian Missiles Are Changing The Game

So why did I call the new Russian Oreshnik missile a ‘game changer’?

There are several reasons.

For one the missile with its 36 kinetic war heads is an unexpected response to the U.S. abolition of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty. The U.S. had hoped that the stationing of nuclear missiles in Europe might give it an advantage over Russia. Oreshnik denies that advantage WITHOUT resorting to nuclear force.

Any U.S. attempt to pressure Russia into a situation where it would either have to concede to the U.S. or to go nuclear has been demolished.

This is most visible in Ukraine. Over the two plus years of the war the U.S. has used a ‘boiling the frog’ strategy against Russia. It increased the temperature by slowly increasing the reach and lethality of the weapons it has provided to Ukraine. In each such step, the delivery of tanks, of Himars, of ATAMACs, of allowing Ukraine to use these on Russian grounds, was declared to be a move across imaginary Russian red lines. Each such step was accompanied by propaganda which claimed that Russia was looking into a nuclear response.

The aim was to push Russia into a situation where it could either make concessions over Ukraine or use nuclear weapons. The U.S. was sure that Russia would refrain from the later because it would put Russia into the position of an international pariah. By going nuclear it would lose support from its allies in China and beyond. It would also risk an all out nuclear war.

The strategy would probably have worked if Russia had not found an asymmetric response against it. It now has non-nuclear weapons, (the Oreshnik will not be the only one), which allow it to apply the equivalent of nuclear strikes without the dirty side effects of actually going nuclear.

Russia’s announcement that future Oreshnik deployments will come under the command of its Strategic Forces -which so far have only been nuclear. This is a clear sign that these new weapons are seen as having similar strategic effects.

The kinetic concept of the Oreshnik payload is not a new one. Mass times speed is the amount of destructive energy these can deliver. [Comment correction for my sloppy writing: Force equals one half the mass multiplied by velocity squared. F = 1/2 m * v^2]  Being hypersonic and hitting the targets with a speed of Mach 10 allows even small penetrators without explosives to have very strong, explosive like effects.

In the early 1980s president Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative included several attempts to introduce kinetic weapons. ‘Rods from God‘ (and later ‘Brilliant Pebbles’) were conceptualized as kinetic darts to be launched from satellites to hit Soviet ICBM missiles:

A system described in the 2003 United States Air Force report called Hypervelocity Rod Bundles was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods that are satellite-controlled and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.

The bomb would naturally contain large kinetic energy because it moves at orbital velocities, around 8 kilometres per second (26,000 ft/s; Mach 24) in orbit and 3 kilometres per second (9,800 ft/s; Mach 8.8) at impact. As the rod reenters Earth’s atmosphere, it would lose most of its velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb. These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.

None came from it. The envisioned penetrators had to be too large and too heavy to be positioned in space. The huge ‘telephone pole’ size of the penetrators was need because these would burn up during the hypersonic flight through the atmosphere.

The penetrators Oreshnik is using are much smaller.

Russia seems to have solved some general physical problems of objects flying at hypersonic speed. In March 2018 Russia’s president Vladimir Putin announced the introduction of several new weapons designed to penetrate U.S. missile defenses. One of these was the hypersonic glide vehicle now known as Avangard:

The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.
…
We are well aware that a number of other countries are developing advanced weapons with new physical properties. We have every reason to believe that we are one step ahead there as well – at any rate, in the most essential areas.

I have since been looking for what ‘new physical properties’ or principles Russian scientist might have discovered to solve the problems of guided hypersonic travel within a plasma envelope. Nothing has come up so far. But the fact that Oreshnik is using relative small guided projectiles at hypersonic speed makes it likely that the new physical properties or principles the Russians discovered have also been applied to this weapon.

Until those basic scientific discoveries become known in the west there will be no chance for it to make weapons that can match the characteristics of Oreshnik and Avanguard.

Oreshnik is, so far, a non nuclear weapon with a limited (5,000 kilometer) range. But there is nothing in principle that hinders Russia from equipping an ICBM missile with similar non-nuclear capabilities. It would make non-nuclear strikes by Russia on U.S. grounds, or more likely on U.S. foreign bases and aircraft carriers, possible.

But those facts, and their consequences, have yet to penetrate the minds of western decision makers.

Even after the Oreshnik strike happened the U.S. continued to pin prick Russia by guiding Ukraine to fire ATAMAC missiles against targets in Russia. Yesterday the Russian Ministry of Defense announced, uncharacteristically, that two such attacks had taken place:

On 23 November, the enemy fired five U.S.-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles at a position of an S-400 anti-aircraft battalion near Lotarevka (37 kilometres north-west of Kursk).

During a surface-to-air battle, a Pantsir AAMG crew protecting the battalion destroyed three ATACMS missiles, and two hit their intended targets.
…
On 25 November, the Kiev regime delivered one more strike by eight ATACMS operational-tactical missiles at the Kursk-Vostochny airfield (near Khalino). Seven missile were shot down by S-400 SAM and Pantsir AAMG systems, one missile hit the assigned target.

Militarily these strikes are irrelevant. But they demonstrate that the U.S. is still trying to ‘boil the frog’ even after it has escaped from the vessel. Russia has, according to Putin, several Oreshnik and similar weapons ready to launch.

The potential target for such missiles are obvious:

MOSCOW, November 21. /TASS/. The US missile defense base in Poland has long been considered a priority target for potential neutralization by the Russian Armed Forces, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated during a briefing.

“Given the level of threats posed by such Western military facilities, the missile defense base in Poland has long been included among the priority targets for potential neutralization. If necessary, this can be achieved using a wide range of advanced weaponry,” the diplomat said.

Russia has closed the airspace over the Kapustin Yar missile range until November 30. Kapustin Yar is the test range from which the Oreshnik had been fired.

As there is no defense possible against Oreshnik type weapons Russia could announce a strike on the U.S. controlled Redzikow base in Poland days or hours before it would take place. As the strike would be announced, conventional in type and would cause few if any casualties it seems unlikely that NATO would apply Article 5 to it and to hit back with force.

Such would become a moment where the boiling of the frog would start again but this time with the U.S. being the frog inside of the vessel.  Russia, by hitting U.S. bases in Europe by conventional means, would increase the temperature day after day.

Would the U.S. dare to go nuclear over this or rather retreat from its plans to defeat Russia?