Putin highlights the significant thermal advantage of the Oreshnik ballistic missile

Russian President Vladimir Putin has asserted that the warheads of the “Oreshnik” missile system are capable of withstanding temperatures comparable to those found on the sun’s surface, a development he credits to innovative materials created by Russian experts.

During his address at the “Technologies of the Future” forum in Moscow on February 21, 2025, Putin emphasized the distinctive characteristics of these warheads, particularly their resilience to extreme thermal conditions.

According to narratives from Russian state sources, this advancement represents a significant breakthrough in missile technology, enhancing the Oreshnik’s status as a powerful asset within Russia’s military capabilities.

Putin remarked that the idea for such systems originated in the 1980s; however, the lack of appropriate materials to endure such high temperatures hindered progress at that time. He claimed that advancements in modern Russian technology have now resolved these previous challenges.

In addition to discussing the missile, Putin connected this development to wider technological advancements, highlighting the role of specialists who have developed materials for cutting-edge aircraft like the MS-21-300 and advocating for ongoing collaboration across various sectors to maintain Russia’s technological superiority.

The Oreshnik missile gained attention when it was first utilized in combat on November 21, 2024, targeting the Pivdenmash defense facility in Dnipro, Ukraine.

This event marked the operational introduction of the missile during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which Russian officials characterized as a direct reaction to Ukraine’s deployment of U.S.-provided ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles targeting Russian territory.

The missile was launched from the Kapustin Yar facility in Astrakhan Oblast and was reported to have a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) payload, releasing six warheads across the designated target area.

Ukrainian authorities indicated that the physical damage was minimal, with high-ranking sources suggesting that the warheads might have been “dummies” without explosives. This detail raised questions about whether the strike was intended more as a political statement than a genuine military action.

The attack prompted air raid alerts throughout eastern Ukraine, yet no significant casualties were reported, and the strategic implications seemed limited in comparison to the rhetoric from Russia. Analysts from both Western nations and Ukraine interpreted the incident as an escalation, heightening concerns about a broader conflict, although its immediate effects on the battlefield were relatively minor.

Russian commentators were quick to emphasize the importance of the Oreshnik missile. In a televised statement following the strike in Dnipro, Putin asserted, “There are currently no means to counter this weapon. The missiles strike targets at a speed of 10 Mach, which is 2.5-3 kilometers per second. We are prepared for any developments. Those who still have doubts should reconsider.”

Anatoly Matviychuk, a military expert in Russia, reinforced this assertion, stating in state-affiliated media, “It can carry six to eight conventional or nuclear warheads and is likely already operational, providing unparalleled versatility and power.” Meanwhile, skepticism remains prevalent among Ukrainian officials.

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, refuted Putin’s assertions in an interview with The Guardian, stating, “Putin lacks understanding of military matters. He is someone who relies on presentations showing animated depictions of missile trajectories, claiming they are invulnerable to interception. He has made similar claims about the Kinzhal missile, yet it has been demonstrated that Patriot systems can effectively neutralize it.”

From a Western perspective, Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute, provided a balanced assessment to Reuters, noting, “While this represents a new capability, it does not signify a significant shift in conventional weapons development. It combines existing technologies in an innovative manner. The high speed of reentry can cause damage, even if the warhead is not explosive.”

Examining the technical specifications of the Oreshnik, experts from both Russia and the United States offer differing yet complementary viewpoints. Russian commentators, including military blogger Yuri Podolyaka, claim that the missile has a range of 5,000 kilometers, posing a threat to much of Europe and the U.S. West Coast, with hypersonic speeds surpassing Mach 10—approximately 12,300 kilometers per hour.

Putin has asserted that the missile is impossible to intercept, a claim echoed by Matviychuk, who informed Russian media, “Its MIRV design enables it to strike multiple targets with accuracy, and the materials used in its warheads can withstand extreme temperatures, making it a transformative weapon.” This aligns with Putin’s recent remarks regarding heat-resistant materials, indicating an emphasis on engineering durability at hypersonic speeds.

American analysts, however, are cautious about the excitement surrounding the Oreshnik missile. Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh characterized it as a variant of the RS-26 Rubezh intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), explaining to reporters that it is experimental and based on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) platform, with its reduced range likely achieved by omitting a booster stage.

Lewis, who examined debris from the Dnipro strike, informed Reuters that the technology is not groundbreaking. He stated, “All ballistic missiles within this range are hypersonic, and while intercepting them poses challenges, systems like Israel’s Arrow 3 or our SM-3 Block 2A are equipped to address this threat. The warheads that struck Dnipro followed a lofted trajectory, indicating a high apogee to decrease range, rather than representing a significant technological advancement.”

The Russian narrative surrounding the Oreshnik portrays it as a testament to national strength, with Putin’s recent remarks enhancing its allure by referencing solar temperatures—around 5,500 degrees Celsius at the sun’s surface. Such assertions suggest the use of advanced ablative materials or ceramics, although no specific alloys or composites have been revealed.

American specialists remain skeptical about its distinctiveness, with Lewis telling Reuters, “A detailed examination of the debris could provide insights into Russian design, but it does not signify a fundamental change. The speed and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capabilities are noteworthy, but this represents an evolution rather than a revolution.”

The missile’s initial deployment in Ukraine, combined with Putin’s heightened rhetoric, highlights its function as both a psychological and strategic instrument. However, its actual impact—evident in Dnipro and in broader expert discussions—indicates a capability that is more entrenched in propaganda than in demonstrable effectiveness.

As Russia continues to amplify its technological claims, the Oreshnik remains a contentious topic, with its true capabilities being debated amidst the complexities of the ongoing conflict.