The reason I haven't stickied this is that there are some things with this story that don't check out for me. NO missile has ever destroyed a buried bunker at a depth of 400ft. So far, only gravity bombs have done that. From a weapons design perspective, the design approaches of a bunker buster and a hypersonic missile couldn't be more opposed to each other.
From ChatGPT:
The Kinzhal missile is a Russian air-launched ballistic missile that was first unveiled in 2017. It is a hypersonic missile designed to be carried by Russian fighter jets such as the MiG-31. The Kinzhal missile has a reported range of up to 2,000 km and can reach speeds of up to Mach 10, or 10 times the speed of sound.
While the exact capabilities of the Kinzhal missile are not publicly known, it is designed to be a highly maneuverable and fast missile, which makes it difficult to intercept by existing missile defense systems. However, it is not specifically designed to destroy buried bunkers. A bunker buster looks like this:
Inside a bunker-buster, there are several internal structures that enable it to penetrate the ground so well. These structures include a heavy and dense metal casing around the explosive charge, which provides the bomb with its weight and momentum. The metal casing is usually made of materials such as depleted uranium or tungsten, which are very dense and heavy.
In addition to the metal casing, the bunker buster may also have a hardened nose cone made of a similar material, which is designed to withstand the initial impact with the ground or concrete. This nose cone helps to keep the bomb on target and prevent it from veering off course.
The explosive charge inside the bunker buster is typically surrounded by a layer of high-strength steel or other material that is designed to direct the force of the explosion downward, further aiding penetration. Some bunker busters may also have a delayed fuse or timer, which allows the bomb to penetrate deep into the ground before detonating, increasing its destructive power.
Guaranteed, the Khinzal would have none of this.
It is worth noting that destroying a buried bunker at a depth of 400ft would be a difficult task for any missile system that emphasizes speed and maneuverability (the Khinzal would be basically a small SRB with a 1000lb max warhead), as it would require a high level of precision and a large amount of explosive power. It is also possible that the bunker may have been designed to withstand such an attack.
There is a chance this story could be true if the Russians used one of their new glide bombs on the bunker. They are GPS guided, have warheads of 1500lbs, and can coast 65km to their targets (launched from 14km high). But those bombs are not bunker busters. So, hence, I'm having a hard time explaining this feat by Russia. I still think that "hearing buzz" about this from multiple channels means it's likely true, tho, but, I hesitate to sticky this based on these doubts.
Wait, no, absolutely not. Rods from God are 24-tonne tungsten rods that impact at mach 34. They are designed from the ground up to be deep ground penetrators (several KM) and deliver energy yields in the 5-15 kiloton range. These are entirely different animals. Also, and I hope I'm stating the obvious, these are American weapons, not Russian.
you might be right, but one thing to think about, is that Kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, ,
KE = (1/2)mv^2
if it really is going mach 10, instead of say, even mach 5 or 6, it isn't simply double the energy, it's to the square, giving it much much greater penetrating power
This stat only refers to the crater created, as the MOAB is an aerosolized, atmospheric-detonating weapon. Its kinetic yield literally depends on the supply of atmospheric oxygen at the target site.
The other thing that sounds weird to me is how the Russians would know how many dead were found. Are they the ones digging through the rubble? If so, why did they need to bomb the bunker if they have control of the area?
Are you familiar with anti-tank penetrating rounds? One variety is simply a rod of uranium. The high-speed impact essentially reduces the uranium to a molten state through extreme plastic deformation such that, when it penetrates to the interior, it does so in a spray of fine molten droplets. Uranium is pyrophoric: at high temperature, it spontaneously bursts into flame when exposed to air. It creates a high-pressure fireball within the tank.
So, what is so hard to imagine about a 1.000-lbm uranium warhead on a Kinzhal, diving into the ground at a speed of Mach 10 (11,400 feet/second) when anti-tank rounds have a muzzle velocity of 5,000-5,400 feet/second? This is far faster than any gravity bomb penetrator, so there is little question that it could penetrate to that depth.
So, what is the alternative? That the whole story is a fiction, and there are no deep bunkers---and no capability to get them? What would be the point of bothering with such a story, when there are other important matters to deal with? If there are no deep bunkers, who is going to lose any sleep about a Russian ability to go after them?
A quick read online read tells me hypersonic weapons have extreme diminishing returns and then lose effectiveness in penetration ability above mach 5. They then theoretically gain effectiveness again at mach 30-35. Either way, the particular weapon claimed can not penetrate 400 feet of earth and reinforced concrete/whatever else this supposed bunker had protecting it. Wondering why someone would ever post a fake story is a good question, that’s what everyone should be asking with this very obviously false story being told in this post
In general, the effectiveness of a kinetic weapon like a hypersonic missile depends on a number of factors, including its speed, mass, and impact angle. While a uranium warhead traveling at Mach 10 would certainly have a lot of kinetic energy, it is unclear whether it would be able to penetrate 400 feet of solid rock and then cause enough damage to destroy an underground bunker.
I feel this is unlikely to yield the destruction needed to destroy a large, hardened concrete underground bunker and kill a hundred NATO officers.
BOOM
The reason I haven't stickied this is that there are some things with this story that don't check out for me. NO missile has ever destroyed a buried bunker at a depth of 400ft. So far, only gravity bombs have done that. From a weapons design perspective, the design approaches of a bunker buster and a hypersonic missile couldn't be more opposed to each other.
From ChatGPT:
Guaranteed, the Khinzal would have none of this.
It is worth noting that destroying a buried bunker at a depth of 400ft would be a difficult task for any missile system that emphasizes speed and maneuverability (the Khinzal would be basically a small SRB with a 1000lb max warhead), as it would require a high level of precision and a large amount of explosive power. It is also possible that the bunker may have been designed to withstand such an attack.
There is a chance this story could be true if the Russians used one of their new glide bombs on the bunker. They are GPS guided, have warheads of 1500lbs, and can coast 65km to their targets (launched from 14km high). But those bombs are not bunker busters. So, hence, I'm having a hard time explaining this feat by Russia. I still think that "hearing buzz" about this from multiple channels means it's likely true, tho, but, I hesitate to sticky this based on these doubts.
Side question - Are you certain ChatGPT isn't going to parrot MSM talking points?
I know weapons and military very well, I used ChatGPT only to assemble the facts in a presentable manner.
The kinetic energy alone would be sufficient-Rod from God enters the chat..
Wait, no, absolutely not. Rods from God are 24-tonne tungsten rods that impact at mach 34. They are designed from the ground up to be deep ground penetrators (several KM) and deliver energy yields in the 5-15 kiloton range. These are entirely different animals. Also, and I hope I'm stating the obvious, these are American weapons, not Russian.
you might be right, but one thing to think about, is that Kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, ,
KE = (1/2)mv^2
if it really is going mach 10, instead of say, even mach 5 or 6, it isn't simply double the energy, it's to the square, giving it much much greater penetrating power
Wow, that's very interesting, I forgot to consider that. So it's logarithmic, like the Richter scale? OK, hmm
For reference even MOAB only goes to 200 ft. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-04-14/ty-article/what-is-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-and-what-is-it-capable-of/0000017f-dbb8-d856-a37f-fff875cb0000
This stat only refers to the crater created, as the MOAB is an aerosolized, atmospheric-detonating weapon. Its kinetic yield literally depends on the supply of atmospheric oxygen at the target site.
The other thing that sounds weird to me is how the Russians would know how many dead were found. Are they the ones digging through the rubble? If so, why did they need to bomb the bunker if they have control of the area?
Are you familiar with anti-tank penetrating rounds? One variety is simply a rod of uranium. The high-speed impact essentially reduces the uranium to a molten state through extreme plastic deformation such that, when it penetrates to the interior, it does so in a spray of fine molten droplets. Uranium is pyrophoric: at high temperature, it spontaneously bursts into flame when exposed to air. It creates a high-pressure fireball within the tank.
So, what is so hard to imagine about a 1.000-lbm uranium warhead on a Kinzhal, diving into the ground at a speed of Mach 10 (11,400 feet/second) when anti-tank rounds have a muzzle velocity of 5,000-5,400 feet/second? This is far faster than any gravity bomb penetrator, so there is little question that it could penetrate to that depth.
So, what is the alternative? That the whole story is a fiction, and there are no deep bunkers---and no capability to get them? What would be the point of bothering with such a story, when there are other important matters to deal with? If there are no deep bunkers, who is going to lose any sleep about a Russian ability to go after them?
A quick read online read tells me hypersonic weapons have extreme diminishing returns and then lose effectiveness in penetration ability above mach 5. They then theoretically gain effectiveness again at mach 30-35. Either way, the particular weapon claimed can not penetrate 400 feet of earth and reinforced concrete/whatever else this supposed bunker had protecting it. Wondering why someone would ever post a fake story is a good question, that’s what everyone should be asking with this very obviously false story being told in this post
In general, the effectiveness of a kinetic weapon like a hypersonic missile depends on a number of factors, including its speed, mass, and impact angle. While a uranium warhead traveling at Mach 10 would certainly have a lot of kinetic energy, it is unclear whether it would be able to penetrate 400 feet of solid rock and then cause enough damage to destroy an underground bunker.
I feel this is unlikely to yield the destruction needed to destroy a large, hardened concrete underground bunker and kill a hundred NATO officers.
I just posted a follow-up with explanation actually:
https://greatawakening.win/p/16amPFVgNU/
Thank you (and the others above) for this technical detail. I loves the maths.