They returned to sender xD
Daily remainder those can carry nucelar warheads.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1544825682538143744
https://twitter.com/i/status/1544826322815537152
2x Iskander-M failures
They returned to sender xD
Daily remainder those can carry nucelar warheads.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1544825682538143744
https://twitter.com/i/status/1544826322815537152
Another one from this morning Kherson area: https://twitter.com/ripetvofficial/status/1544917788174782465
Other reports suggest 4 out of 7 missiles launched from Kherson area failed.
And remember these are brand new missiles, because they already shot their existing ones long ago.
Imagine the condition of their ICBMs that are just sitting in the silos and subs without maintenance for decades.
There was good article about ICBM maintanence cycle. In short - during 90's maintenance was neglected and only this should cause 1/4 of nuclear warheads not to work properly.
NATO hacked the atoms.
>They returned to sender
They look like they malfunctioned and burned up midair.
Perhaps, the time has come.
>SS-23 knockoff made by a stade with 1/5th the industrial capacity of the SU turns out to be shit
who yould have guessed
How do we know those were Iskander-Ms?
Isn't Iskander M the cruise missile variant?
Analogav mire njet bljaaaaa
Remember these are relatively modern by Russian standards.
Imagine what a first strike using 70's ICBMs would look like.
>Imagine what a first strike using 70's ICBMs would look like.
If I remember correctly, first generation Scuds used to have a CEP of 3 kilometers/1,86 mile
USSR actually maintained its gear - and gear itself was relatively new. It woudl prabably go much better.
What we are seeing here is probalbly a fault of decades of neglect and poor storage , rather than problem with the degsin iteslf.
Iskander is russian technology, not USSR - post 1990.
True, but im talking about the
>Imagine what a first strike using 70's ICBMs would look like.
Also i am not sure these failres were iskanders. Its more likely they are using their tochka stockpiles.
>What we are seeing here is probalbly a fault of decades of neglect and poor storage
>"in service 2006-present"
Uhh...
What capabilities does NATO possess to perform electronic attack on inertially guided ballistic missiles like this
They don't need to do anything, Russians built them.
It was a feint
Meanwhile, American missiles:
>1 malfunction from a few years ago
>Russia has seen multiple malfunctions in 3 months
>accuracy has also been poor.
*Deja Vu track starts playing*