New Details On Russian Hypersonic Attack On Secret Nato Base Killing 40 Officers
(media.patriots.win)
* Unconfirmed *
Comments (80)
sorted by:
so they hit a Cee eye aye / Deeeeep stayte facility???
And they're too embarrassed to admit it because:
They're doing insanely illegal and gut wrenching things in there
They can't admit it because it gives Russia a "win"
They can't admit it because the most advanced military in the world, who's budget absolutely fucking dwarfs the next 10 nations has NO defensive capabilities against it
It calls attention to (C) (EYE) FUCK YOU (A) activities (among others)
Confirms Nato and US have been there all along
Because Biden is a pedophile
...And Epstein didn't KEK himself.
Not only no defensive capabilities, they have nothing close in offensive capabilities. Only prototypes.
Seems that Russian missiles are miles ahead despite having like 1/15 of the budget. They've got new ICBMs instead of 60 year old expired Minuteman, they've got hypersonic cruise missiles and regular cruise missiles by the thousands. They've used more missiles in a year in Ukraine than the US has used in Iraq in total. With no budget and under a billion sanctions!
Also, Russia is making like 800 tanks a year while the US is making 40. And hundreds of thousands of artillery shells per month instead of like 20,000. Hell, Slovenia is saying they'll be making 100,000 per month soon.
I understand that the Navy with their giant aircraft carriers is very expensive, but it makes you wonder what the hell the US is spending so much fucking money on. Besides free boob surgery for trans people, I mean.
US/NATO Secret Command in Kiev https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/03/09/russian-hypersonic-missiles-wipe-out-us-nato-secret-command-in-kiev-dozens-of-top-us-officers-vaporized/
Clown funeral 🤡⚰️
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.
Which don't exist anyway.
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
this might all be MOOT now, but i did this anyway
i'm going to do a quick sanity check, to see if this is even in the ballpark, so making a few assumptions, about the Kinzhal. lets just say it has the same mass as an AGM-129 3500lbs and lets take them at their word, that it's doing mach 10 (maybe it's going faster, maybe it's going slower)
and also.. just ignoring any warhead it may have on board
converting everything to metric
3500lbs = 1588 kg, lets just say 1600kg and mach 10,,. at sea level 3313 m/s, lets just call it 3300 m/s
the kinetic energy . KE = (1/2) 1600kg * 3300^2(m/s) or KE = 8,712,000,000 Joules that's 8.712 Gigajoules and that's without any warhead going off
so using another table/calculator i found here https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=joules&k2=atomic-bomb-[nuclear-weapon]
I can convert your glide bomb with a 1500lb warhead (680kg) to giga joules I used Kilograms of TNT to gigajoules as the conversion 680 Kilograms of TNT work out to 2.84512 Gigajoules
8.712>2.84512
so assuming.. that warhead weight is equivalent to KG of TNT, , and assuming that a 1500lb(warhead size) glide bomb could penetrate 400 feet of rock along with layers of steel, than, the Kinzhal missle has more than enough energy to penetrate (completely disregarding any warhead it would have).
that being said, i'm not fully confident of those assumptions(you would likely know better than me),., but it makes for an interesting sanity check, and the results are a definite maybe.
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.
I couldn't find much (on the open internet) that says there are bombs that can penetrate 400 feet. I was agreeing with your earlier point.
Cool, sorry, I hope it came across OK. The USAF has a deep penetrator called the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), but, yeah, it's hard finding data on testing. It can supposedly penetrate 200 ft of concrete.
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
I don't know how to take your "online" information, when the Navy spent a long time working on hypersonic railgun configurations. In any case, here is an account of its capability: "If it strikes with a mass of 2,000 kg (4,400 lb), including 500 kg warhead, and at a speed of Mach 12, the Kinzhal has more than 16.9 gigajoules of kinetic energy excluding detonation, the equivalent of 4,000 kg of TNT." (Wikipedia) Also: "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian military said that it used Kinzhal missiles to destroy an alleged underground weapons depot of the Ukrainian armed forces in Deliatyn on 18 March 2022 and a fuel depot in Konstantinovka the next day." (ibid.) The key parameter correlating to penetration is momentum per unit area, which is maximized for high speed and low frontal area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
No doubt any object moving at mach 12 will have some good penetration properties regardless of its design intentions. The question is, are these underground weapons and fuel depots being claimed to be 400 feet deep?
Is the recent target really 400 ft deep? I'm content to wait for the evening edition.
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.
It would not be the kinetic energy that would cause the destruction. It would be the thermal energy released by the oxidation combustion of the uranium. Sufficient overpressure (20 psi) would kill all of any number of personnel exposed to it (easy to do in a confined space). Such an overpressure would be a structural load of 2,880 lbf/sq.ft. Enough to mess things up. Infall from the overburden would finish the damage. (I worked on the design of kinetic energy weapons.)
BTW, you'll laugh at this. ChatGPT was careful to include this warning:
So, THAT'S what killed the dudes in that tank!
It's not even necessary for the uranium to be depleted, since that does not affect its physical and chemical properties. The use of some suitable warhead is implied by the Russian statements of having done it before. It is commonplace for such a weapon to have a terminal dive. That is what is done with our JDAM bombs, which don't even have propulsion. (The idea is to null out any lateral error resulting from elevation error magnified by a glide slope.) Whatever velocity may be lost in a turning maneuver would be repaid by gravity.
And it may not be uranium, but tungsten, with a delayed fuze explosive / thermobaric charge. Not a good idea to get caught up in particulars, when we know so little. Like not even the true depth of the penetration, or what the overburden was.
To be clear, I do not believe that the khinzal has a depleted uranium warhead. As you know, the uranium has to be in a "formed penetrator" shape and the weapon's attack profile would have to dive straight down, which the khinzal doesn't do
Edit:
I don't appear to be right. I asked ChatGPT:
Interesting
Wouldn’t the softer soil of Ukraine allow better penetration to a deeper depth? I have heard many agricultural pundits say Ukraine has a very rich layer of soil that extends nearly 80’ below ground level. Without knowing the below surface materials, between ground and the bunker, I would think this may change the effectiveness of a bunker buster…. If true it is quite a feat.
https://twitter.com/jcokechukwu/status/1634922391758589952
Don't poke the BEAR!!
all those DS goobers with their doomsday bunkers 100's of feet below ground just pooped a little
If it's 400 ft. under ground, wouldn't it be easier to just bury the thing and cover all air holes? (Be nice. I admit I don't know what I'm talking about).
Definitely the cheaper option
Except that the Kinzhal is NOT "nuclear-powered." Best to stop the nonsense at the beginning.
Only able to carry nuclear warhead I think.
Nonsense. Conventional or nuclear warheads are only components. The ALCM was a "nuclear" missile, but some of them have been converted to conventional weapons. The propulsion, airframe, and guidance remains the same. In times past, we had surface-to-air missile systems that alternately had nuclear or conventional warheads (e.g., BOMARC).
No nonsense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
Yeah. I'm familiar with the Kinzhal and that article. In the very first paragraph, it says "It can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads." Are you in the practice of reading the references you use to make an argument?
I find it hard to believe that anything short of an asteroid could penetrate 400 feet into the ground and then have enough explosive energy to penetrate a hardened shelter. I have no idea of the geology of the region but it’s probably a good call that that it is mined into bedrock and not buried in topsoil, making penetration more unlikely. All IMHO.
Interesting. Where said in Ukraine was the purported strike? It may be early and I haven't yet seen any other reports of this.
https://freespoke.com/search/web?q=Russian+Hypersonic+Missiles+Wipe+Out+US%2FNATO+Secret+Command
Thanks, in the Lvov region then... makes sense. This seems to be a staging area from Poland before armaments are sent to the Dombass.
I saw that there were two strikes, on in Kiev/Kyiv, and the deep one was in Lvov/Lviv.
However, all the 'proof' for this, is on veteran and mil-intel channels, not from Russian or Ukrainian MoDs. I don't think we will get confirmation either. The Russians won't want to broadcast a strike on NATO troops, because that will invoke official retaliation, and the Ukrainians/Westerners won't want to admit they had boots on the ground, when the official position is that there will be none.
An interesting conundrum.
Interesting interpretation one why no Russian reporting.
Evil manoeuvres?
What does that mean?
Attempt to translate surfer lingo "gnarly" into military lingo gone wrong, i suspect
And yet here we are
I personally think it's far more scary. Ukraine turns on the air raid sirens the moment the MIG-31s take off from Belarus
You probably meant that for the WEF in return for the death jab on the world.
„Evil maneuvers“ lol
Photo of a Kh-47M2 Kinzhal attached to a MiG 31K at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal#/media/File:2018_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_66.jpg
Details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-confirms-russia-used-hypersonic-missile-in-ukraine-2022-3
https://archive.md/WhEki
"...with the ability to perform evil maneuvers..."
Is this actually new or related to that story last year when they were hitting the underground bunkers with NATO officers inside? It's say's March 8th and 9th, but I swear I read this exact story last year near the end of spring beginning of summer. Maybe they have been trying to get to them this entire time and finally succeeded.
???
They meant to say "nuclear armed" (if they knew what they were talking about). Otherwise, it is stupidity. The Kinzhal is rocket-propelled.
happened March 9... SVB happened 3/10...
https://files.catbox.moe/imje8r.jpg
if true good for Russia. fuck em up
I think for all intents and purposes, the Ukraine/Russian "war" is finished. Plus, chances are getting really slim that a great big money drop from the US will be going there again unless totally under the table. Zelenskyy can put on his ballet slippers and pirouette right into hiding any time now.
I like it.
The missile mentioned in the story can not do what this post is claiming. If it was from realrawnews that alone is a essentially full confirmation a story is made up without even needing to look further into it tbh
Too quick to dismiss. There have been previous underground targets engaged by Russia with this missile. Wait to see whether the depth report was a typo, or a real event.
Possibly so, however the claim of any bunker full of nato and US generals getting smoked would be a massively important historical event, and needs more proof than Twitter posts or words on the internet from a stranger for me personally.
Naturally. I take this as an encouraging sign, but not anything that the West is going to acknowledge. Or even the Russians, for their own reasons. It would be more along the lines of a covert and deadly serious message: "When we say we have means of getting at you, we are not kidding."
...but Putin is losing, his military is weak.
What a bunch dipshits.
They ran out of artillery last March