Last week, Russia launched a new type of missile, reportedly equipped with six warheads, which struck Dnipro, Ukraine. While the strike caused limited damage, the deployment of this weapon—praised by Russian President Vladimir Putin as "unstoppable"—has sparked analysis among Western military experts.
The missile's operation involved a Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) bus, which released six warheads, each targeting a separate location. The MIRV bus, guided by onboard systems, maneuvers through space before directing its payloads to their specific targets. However, this phase of the missile's flight is also its most vulnerable to interception by midcourse defense systems.
The missile's flight path mirrors that of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs): it blasts off, accelerates, and sheds its first stage before its upper stage propels the MIRV bus toward its targets. The technology underpinning this new weapon called the Oreshnik (or "Hazel Tree"), is not entirely new. Experts note it borrows from older ICBM designs, such as the RS-26, an intermediate-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads but never widely deployed.
Jeffrey Lewis, a missile expert at the Middlebury Institute, analyzed debris from the strike and identified components of the MIRV bus, including gas thrusters for in-flight adjustments. He described the design as "a series of old technologies assembled in a new way," rather than a groundbreaking advancement.
Russia claims the missile hit a Ukrainian military facility, but some analysts, including Lewis, highlight its inefficiency. Using such an advanced—and costly—missile for conventional warheads yields limited damage, raising questions about its practicality.
The Oreshnik's hypersonic speed, emphasized by Putin, is a standard characteristic of missiles with similar ranges. Furthermore, defense systems like Israel's Arrow 3 and the U.S. SM-3 Block 2A are designed to intercept such missiles.
The decision to equip intermediate-range ballistic missiles with conventional warheads also poses risks of misinterpretation. William Alberque of the Henry L. Stimson Center noted that such weapons could be mistaken for nuclear attacks, potentially triggering catastrophic escalation.
Russia’s defense ministry has not responded to requests for comment on this missile’s development and use.
A U.S. official, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the situation, informed Reuters that Russia had alerted Washington shortly before the November 21 strike. Another official confirmed that the U.S. had subsequently briefed Kyiv and allied nations, advising them to prepare for the potential use of such a weapon.
Tim Wright of the International Institute for Strategic Studies stated that this notification indicated Russia's awareness of the risks and its efforts to mitigate them. Ukrainian officials revealed to Reuters that the missile used in the Dnipro attack carried no explosives, resulting in minimal damage.
In a televised address following the launch, President Vladimir Putin described the strike as retaliation for Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory using U.S. and British missiles. He warned that the conflict risked escalating into a global confrontation and threatened potential strikes on Western military installations supporting Ukraine.
Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin advisor, told Reuters that the missile's use was largely symbolic, intended as a message from Putin to Western nations to "back off."
Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in missile systems, explained that the missile's high-speed reentry could cause damage even if the warhead were non-explosive, such as solid metal. He noted that the warheads descended at a steep angle, suggesting the missile was launched on a "lofted" trajectory—fired at an unusually high altitude to shorten its range. This method is often employed by North Korea during missile tests to avoid landing in sensitive areas.
Kapustin Yar, the launch site, is roughly 800 kilometers from the impact zone, making a lofted trajectory plausible, according to Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Panda added that the missile’s reported 15-minute flight time indicated it could have covered 1,500 kilometers on a standard trajectory. Videos of the strike showed a level of accuracy consistent with nuclear payload requirements but unnecessary for conventional weapons, noted analyst Ian Alberque.
Albergue explained that nuclear missiles typically have a circular error probable (CEP) of 50 to 200 meters, meaning half of all impacts land within that range of the target. Videos of the attack also showed each warhead releasing smaller payloads on descent, likely submunitions. Wright highlighted that such submunitions could spread over a wide area, making them effective against large facilities.
Lewis suggested the strike was likely a psychological tactic rather than a strategic military maneuver, given the high cost of such missiles. "If it were purely terrifying, Putin would have simply used it," Lewis remarked. "But instead, he used it, gave a press conference, then followed up with another press conference, amplifying the message: 'This is scary—you should be afraid.'’
Comments
Post a Comment