Posted on 11/26/2024 6:19:42 AM PST by hardspunned
So far, almost nobody in the west fully comprehends the Oreshnik weapon system just demonstrated by Russia. Hat tip to Ted Postol, Scott Ritter and Brian Berletic, the only 3 people I've found so far who fully understand this. I've done the math on the kinetic energy of the submunitions (using estimates for mass), and I've studied up on what's publicly known about these weapons so far. My conclusion? NATO is done. The west has no idea what just hit them. Russia's Oreshnik weapon system is checkmate for NATO and the USA. All U.S. aircraft carriers can be destroyed in minutes. All U.S. military bases, all underground bunkers, all ICBM launch sites, naval shipyards, etc., can be destroyed with NON-NUCLEAR kinetic energy via the Oreshnik.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Our bell curve is becoming a right triangle.
Does it fire at MACH 10/11,000 fps?
NATO called an emergency meeting today after last week’s test. Wonder how that went.
Lol he called you a dude.
I know right. Let’s keep pushing and see if they really can put nukes on them, and after that whether they have more than just a few of these in production. Then, once we really have verified proof from outer space photos we can decide what to do next or something.
In the meantime, protect your children with a big beautiful series of life saving clot shots.
Sincerely, pyramid hand sign guy.
Primitive air dropped kinetic bombardments were used in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, in the 50s Rand was pushing rods for ICBMs, In 2003, the U.S. Air Force detailed the development of hypervelocity rod bundles as a future weapon system goal.
Unfortunately, the US has expended little energy in this field.
Just because it has not been made public doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'll give some examples later. Gotta run right now.
Your opinion is VERY close to real world fact, expert or not.
This is Rods from God but mounted on a missile instead.
This is a genuine issue, that they have them but we don't.
We got caught flat-footed.
NATO is not done, but this is a real problem that we must address and quickly.
At present, these weapons cannot be countered. Perhaps in the future with railguns.
We definitely don't have this tech ourselves. Not at the moment.
The point is these weapons almost make nukes obsolete. As much damage can be done with a Rod from God, as a nuke... minus the radiation and world condemnation.
Remember when Stalin said "Quantity is its own quality"?
In this case, velocity is its own quality.
If they feel confident enough about giving warnings days in advance, you know the system is damn good.
We can.
More correctly, Musk's Space X can, NASA's Boeing Starliner certainly can't.
We just recently brought some astronauts back from the ISS.
Unfortunately "we" didn't bring back most of the calcium in their bones.
They are lighter in weight now, for life, it's NASA policy, less boost next time up.
CHATGPT says an Abrams tank would not withstand a 22 projectile at Mach 11.
A .22 caliber rifle projectile traveling at **Mach 11** (~3,800 m/s or ~12,500 ft/s) would produce **immense damage**, far beyond what a standard .22 round at its typical velocity (~330 m/s or ~1,100 ft/s) could achieve. Let’s break it down:
### **Kinetic Energy**
Kinetic energy is given by:
\[
KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2
\]
Where:
- \( m \): mass of the .22 projectile (about 2.6 grams or 0.0026 kg).
- \( v \): velocity of the projectile (Mach 11, ~3,800 m/s).
Calculating:
\[
KE = \frac{1}{2} (0.0026)(3800^2) \approx 18,788 \, \text{J} \, \text{(joules)}.
\]
This is **far higher than the energy of most modern armor-piercing rounds**, which are specifically designed for anti-tank warfare.
### **Effects on an Abrams Tank**
1. **Penetration**:
- At Mach 11, the projectile enters **hypervelocity** territory. Even though the .22 bullet is small, the speed at which it travels would generate a **plasma effect** upon impact due to the intense kinetic energy, vaporizing part of the projectile and the armor at the point of impact.
- Modern Abrams tanks are equipped with **composite armor** and reactive systems designed to deflect or absorb kinetic energy, but they are optimized for more typical threats (like tank shells or missiles). A hypervelocity projectile like this could potentially breach the armor, depending on where it hits.
2. **Localized Damage**:
- The impact would likely create a **crater-like hole** and potentially damage internal systems, especially if it hits a weaker point like hatches, vision systems, or joints in the armor.
3. **Heat Effects**:
- At such high speeds, the friction and energy transfer upon impact could generate enough heat to ignite fuel or ammunition inside the tank, leading to catastrophic secondary explosions.
4. **Shockwave**:
- The velocity would produce a significant **shockwave** upon impact, which could cause additional damage beyond the direct penetration.
### **Conclusion**
A .22 projectile at Mach 11 would almost certainly penetrate and severely damage an Abrams tank. While the tank is built to withstand traditional ballistic threats, the sheer energy and unique physics of a Mach 11 projectile would overwhelm its defensive systems.
My point exactly. :)
I am not even sure Oreshnik is limited to MACH 10.
I have heard that Russia has MACH 30 missiles.
Laz, I am being facetious.
I shouldn’t have to explain that to you of all people.
Of course we don’t want to see if they can prove they have nuclear capable and of course we don’t want to see if they indeed have plenty more where the first came from. And yes I am belittling the retards who claim the extent of damage looks insignificant from space. And yes I fully understand what a hypersonic impact can do to a target such as a ship or bunker. I was taking the piss out of the idiot who wants to see if the Ozempic missile was just a “one-off”.
Did IQs drop sharply around here since the “pandemic”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.