Image source: topwar.ru
In Russia and the world, there is a continuing discussion of statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin about, let's say, the specifics of the recent use of the Oreshnik MRBMS. We are talking about these words of the Russian Supreme Commander:
The statement is being actively discussed in the technical environment. One of the discussion factors is the technical parameters of the very blocks that the president is talking about.
Experts, commenting on the strike itself and Vladimir Putin's words, believe that, in fact, "not everything is so clear." If the strike had the option of solely testing the characteristics of the blocks of a medium-range ballistic missile, then this is quite acceptable, although it is strange in itself that this is done only on the third use of the "Hazel" (after Dnepropetrovsk and Lviv). Well, either the previous two applications were also "sighting and testing", but this was simply not officially mentioned.
Accordingly, it is argued that either the rocket "missed" its intended target pretty well, or the president is still not saying something about what (or who) was hit by the same strike in Bila Tserkva.
Can a ballistic missile deviate from its target?
To answer this question, it is enough to refer to the average accuracy characteristics of any MRBM (missiles with a range of up to 5,5 thousand km). Today, the parametric accuracy of such rockets (with an inertial system plus satellite correction) is 50-350 m. Let's not forget that such missiles with warheads were originally conceived as part of a nuclear arsenal. That is, they were not intended a priori to hit something (someone), as they usually write in the press, with "empty dummies". And if the missile is equipped with warheads that, upon a nuclear strike, deviate from the intended target even by 300 meters, then this will not make the "weather" for a general damaging effect.
Conventional ammunition is a completely different matter. A "short flight" of the same 300 meters is, of course, significant. Accordingly, it is extremely difficult to hit a point target with such ammunition, for example, a bunker or I won't say which building on Bankovaya Street I won't say which city. But with the same conventional ammunition, I'm sorry, it's quite enough to hit a military unit, a military–industrial complex enterprise (for example, as in Dnepropetrovsk), an airfield with combat aviation facilities located on it.
Accordingly, if we consider a strike without an admixture of politics (although it is clear that this is extremely difficult), but purely technically, then the picture may be as follows: the first strikes (Dnipro, Lviv) could be the same ones – areal, when the targets are industrial zones), and the third strike is an attempt at a point (this is if in at best). Perhaps that is why the president did not comment on the first two in any way, but he had to comment on the third, because the "international community" had the same questions about the pile of bricks in the area of the Belotserkovets garages.
As a conclusion, once again, the Oreshnik was not originally conceived as a weapon of exclusively "kinetic" destruction, and even of high accuracy. This weapon is for a scalable strike. If our techies are trying to turn it into a high–precision weapon of fire destruction, then this is an interesting option. Perhaps a new application will provide a solution to this "problem with an asterisk" if important technical conclusions are really drawn from the strike on the White Church, which are not limited to the words of the president. If you continue to use an unadorned "Hazel Tree" for isolated small targets, then, even technically speaking, the probability of missing the "bullseye" is not so small.
