On the morning of July 8, 2024, the city of Kiev was subjected to a massive rocket attack. One of the missiles hit the Okhmatdyt children's hospital, causing widespread destruction and numerous human casualties. Ukrainian officials claim it was a Russian Kh-101 cruise missile. Trust but Verify specialists have verified this version.
.png){kind=small}
Article editor: Mark Beygelzimer, PhD, systems analyst, head of the Trust but Verify project.
We emphasize in advance that this verification, as well as all our fact-checking research, was carried out in the most objective and impartial manner, basing our conclusions solely on confirmed facts.
For this reason, we did not take into account the data on the remnants of the missile collected at the impact site and identified by experts from the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. These missile fragments can certainly be indisputable material evidence, but only if it is confirmed that they belong to the missile of interest.
In our research, we relied only on objective data from open sources that anyone can double-check on their own. To do this, we used the video below to estimate the parameters of the missile that got to Okhmatdyt and compared them with the known technical characteristics of the X-101 missile and other missiles mentioned in alternative versions. In addition, we analyzed the arguments of opponents of the X-101 version.
The detailed results of our research with a detailed justification for each conclusion are available here in pdf format and published in three separate parts (part 1, part 2, part 3) on this website. The key findings are summarized below.
Video. Missile arrival at the Okhmatdyt Children's Hospital on July 8, 2024 (source – Tsaplienko TG).
Parameters of the missile that hit Okhmatdyt
1. The length of the missile was 7.5 ± 0.5 m, which is consistent with the length of the X-101, which is 7.45 m.
2. The shape of the missile and its proportions fully correspond to the shape and proportions of the X-101.
3. The missile had two wings at the bottom of the body in its middle part, just like the X-101 missile.
4. On the final section of the trajectory, the missile dived in a straight line inclined at a 60° angle to the horizontal, just as an X-101 would when it hits a target.
5. The speed of the missile during the dive to the target was 700 ± 100 km/h, which is consistent with the speed of the X-101.
6. The location, shape, and size of the engine, as well as the sound during flight, corresponded to the parameters of the X-101 turbojet engine.
Arguments of opponents of the X-101 version
- The argument that the missile was much shorter than the X-101, since its length is comparable to the height of a building floor in the video, does not take into account the different distances from the video camera to the building and to the missile.
- The argument that the wings of the X-101 should not be visible when filmed from a side angle does not take into account that they become visible when the missile is rolling.
- The argument that Russia could not have launched the missile in such a way that it would have come from the western side does not take into account that the X-101 missile is a cruise missile, not a ballistic missile.
- The argument that the X-101 cannot attack the target at a high angle, because it flies low to the ground, is erroneous: in fact, the X-101 near the target gains altitude and then goes into a dive.
- The argument that the flight of the missile was not accompanied by the sound of a turbojet engine is false, as this characteristic sound is clearly heard in the video.
- The argument that the scale of the destruction is less than it would have been in the case of an X-101 missile strike is unfounded and not supported by anything.
- The reference to shrapnel allegedly found at the site of the strike does not take into account that during the last modernization of the X-101 missile, it was equipped with an additional warhead with shrapnel.
Alternative versions
The version that the Okhmatdyt was hit by a missile that was shot down by the air defense system is untenable, as the video clearly shows that the missile is flying steadily, without rotation relative to its transverse axes, without traces of damage and smoke.
Alternative versions related to other types of missiles (not X-101) are also not confirmed, as they are not comparable to the missile that hit Okhmatdyt:
- Missiles AIM-120 AMRAAM for NASAMS, MIM-104 for Patriot, Erint for Patriot, Aspide Mk1 have: a) 1.5-2 times shorter length; b) different proportions; c) different number of wings; d) several times higher flight speed; e) different type of engine; f) engine inside, not outside.
- The Storm Shadow/SCALP missile has: a) 1.5 times shorter length; b) wings located on top, not the bottom of the body; c) engine inside, not outside.
- The Neptune R-360 missile has: a) 1.5 times shorter length; b) 4, not 2 wings; c) an engine inside, not outside.
- The S-300 anti-aircraft missiles have: a) no wings in the middle part; b) a much higher flight speed; c) a different type of engine; d) an engine inside, not outside.
Verdict
The claim of Ukrainian officials regarding the missile attack on the Okhmatdyt children's hospital in Kyiv on July 8, 2024, is true: the hospital was indeed directly hit by a Russian X-101 missile. This is confirmed by the fact that all the parameters of the missile recorded on the arrival video fully correspond to the characteristics of the X-101 missile. All the arguments of the opponents of this version are based on false claims. All alternative versions are untenable, as the trajectory and behavior of the missile during the dive to the target indicate that it was not shot down by the air defense system, and the technical characteristics of other types of missiles do not match the characteristics of the missile that hit the Okhmatdyt hospital.
Cover photo: A young patient of the Okhmatdyt hospital who was injured in the shelling on July 8, 2024 (photo by Yan Dobronosov/Telegraf, source — Andriy Tsaplienko's Telegram channel)
.png){kind=small}
Dear reader, We invite you to share your opinion about this article and the Trust but Verify project in general through available communication channels. We will take your opinion into account when selecting content and verifying information. If your arguments are convincing, we are ready to make adjustments in evaluating statements, facts and conclusions.