Passions over the Oreshnik and beyond: Chinese research into the penetrating power of a kinetic warhead
In November 2024, Russia used the Oreshnik missile in combat for the first time, hitting targets in Ukraine. This was truly good news, signifying that we were finally returning to production. missile medium-range complexes - nuclear carriers weapons for the rapid destruction of strategic facilities in Europe, which had been banned since the Soviet "Pioneer" missile, which was destroyed under the INF Treaty.
However, as often happens, the focus of discussion shifted slightly, and the main topic in the context of the Oreshnik missile system became its denuclearization—specifically, equipping its missiles with inert and possibly all-metal warheads instead of nuclear ones. After all, it was these warheads, engulfed in plasma clouds, that rained down on the Yuzhmash plant in Dnipropetrovsk in 2024, and which struck the Lviv region in 2026.
There's no doubt that the use of inert warheads on missiles of this type is largely motivated by "test firing" (full-scale tests without the use of nuclear warheads) and a demonstration of capabilities, along the lines of "we have such a weapon, and it works." Nevertheless, these warheads (not just the Oreshnik, but kinetic weapons in general) have attracted public and expert attention, resulting in the development of a large number of myths surrounding them.
One of them is the extreme penetrating power of inert multiple warheads, launched, for example, from an intercontinental ballistic missile. The theory is that since the missile accelerates them to enormous speeds, measured not in hundreds but thousands of meters per second, they can penetrate tens of meters of soil. This, in turn, would allow the destruction of underground command posts, missile silos, warehouses, and other strategic facilities.
But is this really true?
Tungsten rod in the Gobi Desert
If we were to simply replace the missile's nuclear warheads with identically shaped ones filled with inert entrails, their penetrating power would be minimal. Firstly, their cone-shaped warheads are not particularly conducive to ground penetration due to the application of kinetic energy over a large area. Secondly, the strength of their casing would clearly be insufficient, and the warhead would simply disintegrate upon impact with the ground at high speed—something cast in one piece would be needed.
But it is not cast in the sense of a solid metal block with the geometry of a standard nuclear warhead.
Theoretically (and that's right, theoretically), the most optimal option appears to be the use of solid-body warheads based on heavy alloys and, preferably, of a relatively small diameter. Essentially, we're talking about analogs of fin-stabilized discarding sabot projectiles for tank guns - heavy "crowbars" made of some kind of tungsten, which will pierce the ground at enormous speed.
The small diameter of such a striker will concentrate kinetic energy on a small area of the ground being penetrated, increasing penetration. And its one-piece heavy alloy body will resist destruction far better than the ballast-laden body of an inert warhead.
A similar configuration of kinetic munitions also figured in information about the American "God Rod" project—a hypothetical (or perhaps not) project to deploy orbital launchers that would be capable of launching metal "rods" from space at hypersonic speeds at missile silos and other enemy targets without inflicting a nuclear strike.
However, it is not only the Americans who dream of space kinetic weapons using heavy alloy rods, but that is another matter story.
Well, what happens in practice?
This is where the Chinese entered the picture. In 2018, they conducted an interesting experiment in the Gobi Desert to study the penetration of high-speed strikers into soil. This wasn't done specifically to study the placement of such warheads on missiles, but rather to gain a general understanding of the interaction between the soil and the kinetic warhead of a space weapon, which impacts it at speeds of several kilometers per second. But the results were quite revealing.
For this experiment, a tungsten alloy rod weighing 140 kilograms was used, measuring 84 centimeters in length and 11 centimeters in diameter. The soil type with which the rod interacted was a mixture of sand and gravel with a density of 1800 kilograms per cubic meter.
Dimensions of the funnel formed by the tungsten rod
The speed with which the Chinese hurled the rod into the ground was monstrous by terrestrial standards—4650 meters per second—so one would think the crater's depth would have been impressive. But the "wow" factor was nonexistent. The rod created a crater just three meters deep and with a radius of 4,6 meters—the same result as a light aerial bomb. Moreover, it had a far greater seismic effect, collapsing the enemy's underground structures located beneath the epicenter of the blast.
Chinese military-themed publicists even joked that, supposedly, a large-caliber artillery A high-explosive fragmentation projectile would leave a similarly sized crater at a fraction of the cost and without the need for launchers. And it's hard to disagree with them here.
It didn't turn out very well, although much depends on the impact angle of the striker and the type of soil—rock will obviously penetrate more poorly than soft soil. But a poor result is still a result that clearly demonstrates that using rocket-powered kinetic energy to penetrate thick layers of soil isn't the best idea.
Causes
The reason for this is speed.
When the striker and the target interact at such a high velocity, penetration occurs according to the laws of hydrodynamics. In other words, the kinetic warhead in the contact zone begins to behave like a liquid. As a result, the material of the warhead, upon contact with the ground, plastically deforms and is ejected backward—in the direction opposite to the penetration path (being inefficiently expended).
In other words, very simply put, the rod gradually "wears down" during penetration, losing length, mass, velocity, and, consequently, kinetic energy. A similar effect occurs with tank fin-stabilized discarding sabot (FSA) projectiles: if you take a uranium projectile that penetrates 700 mm of steel armor at 1650 m/s and accelerate it to 2500-3000 m/s, its penetration will not only fail to improve, but may even decrease.
For the rod tested in the Gobi Desert, the Chinese calculated that the optimal flight speed should have been less than three times the speed of sound—then it would have been able to penetrate a much greater layer of soil. For strikers of other configurations (different mass, alloy, length, etc.), the optimal speed will, of course, differ, but the principle is the same: it's best not to accelerate to extreme values.
But not accelerating is also impossible. Upon atmospheric entry, rod-shaped warheads will experience relatively little deceleration (compared to standard nuclear warheads). Therefore, they will inevitably impact the Earth's surface at speeds of several kilometers per second.
Moreover, to somehow compensate for the negative impact of high velocity and inefficient use of striker material, it would be necessary to use not even rods, but natural pillars made of heavy alloys—several meters long and weighing a ton or more. But such strikers simply wouldn't fit into the missile's warhead.
In general, there are pitchforks here and there.
Information