Test failure of the most powerful nuke delivery system Sarmat ICBM | Seems unreliable !

[@floridaman4073]

Imagine being a firefighter in Russia, non stop action…

[@slowtheplanedown]

Clearly, the Flux Capacitor hasn't been properly maintained.

[@oculosprudentium8486]

Apparently nothing in Russia has been properly maintained at all

[@craigdavies4682]

@@oculosprudentium8486 Especially the ashtrays.

[@allenfitzpatrick8485]

Must have borrowed one from NASA. 😂

[@allenfitzpatrick8485]

Must have borrowed one from NASA.

[@verdebusterAP]

Yet another failure of a supposed Russian super weapon

[@TrungNguyen-du9cn]

Puff! The magic Sarmat. 💨💨💨

[@jaimeortega4940]

Well, this makes sense now. The 200 tons of various liquid propellants leaked and exploded causing the cave in. I was thinking the silo was perhaps poorly constructed (and it may have been as well) and caved in during the launch. It could have been both so a real disastrous result for Russia whose military hardware just isn't what it used to be. It's mostly "infomercial junk."

[@oculosprudentium8486]

Quick question here Did they open the launch doors before firing it off? Just asking some simple questions here

[@Yautah]

​@@oculosprudentium8486probably, but given the amount of propellant/explosives, I don't think it would have made a difference.

[@ryanl1293]

I'm not willing to bet my life that all their nukes are junk.

[@stevehill4615]

Looking at the images and the stock photos of other Sarmat launches it appears the missile is fuelled using hypergolic propellants (the red smoke makes me think of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide or dimethylhydrazine) and the explosion in the silo reminds me of the Damascus Titan missile explosion in 1980.

[@lazerwolf952]

I once made a joke that if Russia ever launched missiles or nukes, it would probably either not take off or explode before leaving the silo.... I WASN'T FUCKING SERIOUS!!!

[@RDBean]

Pho

[@videomaniac108]

Putin is rethinking his country's contract with the Three Stooges Missile Technology Services on the design and operation of their ballistic missiles.

[@HerbertShooler]

reliability is always key,the USA is and always has been ahead of Russia in this regard,they can pick a minuteman out at random and it fires perfectly with a near 100% rate,liquid fuelled rockets are notorious...better with solid fuel...Sticking 10 warheads on one rocket i not good either,rocket fails 10 warheads lost.Russia still has a cold war mentality with ICBMS....big liquid fuelled lumps.USA has superior systems much better CEP and reliability,the trident 2 remains the premier counterforce weapon of the world.

[@emptiester]

Im no expert and i have no real data but id be impressed if americas icbm fleet approached 99percent. Simply based on what weve seen with falcon 9's impressive performance. Id expect any existing expendable system to be closer to 95%. Which is still pretty good.

[@terrondt]

Our Minuteman 3 ICBMs are no slouch but point taken. Our Trident 2 D-5 SLBMs are where most of our firepower lays

[@brianjordan-5357]

The liquid fuel seems to be z-stoff and t-stoff......

[@Davethreshold]

DOORmat!

[@Akaneblaze1345]

😂

[@jmurray0482]

Sar-not

[@NathanDean79]

Nonsense. It’s just another ballistic missile. It can’t do anything that our ballistic missiles can’t do. It can lift more weight or deploy more warheads that’s it. The Minute Man 3 can deploy 3 warheads. The Peacekeeper ICBM that we retired in 2005 could deploy 10 warheads. We retired it because it wasn’t needed and was too expensive. Our MM:’s are old but have been upgraded through the years and will perform as good today as the day they were put into those silos. We test launch one every year. The guidance systems in all of them have been replaced and upgraddd since 1970. The MM3 has a range of more than 8800 miles which means it can hit any target inside Russia or China. The new Sentinal ICBM that is being built will be more accurate and have a range in excess of 9800 miles. It will have an accuracy of within 100 feet or about 30 meters. Right now the MM3 accuracy is within 300 feet which is still very accurate. The Russians claim this is a super weapon it is not. It’s just a bigger ballistic missile. What makes ballistic missile distinct is their range and how much weight they can lift. The MM3 can hit a target within 100 meters on the other side of the world.

[@jpmangen]

It is reliable. It reliable fails all the time.

[@djoswald9128]

What they get for naming them Satin.

[@macharper8214]

Does any Russian military equipment work?

[@1stbn8thmar]

Soyuz

[@Converse-o4d]

Yes Nasa depends on Russian Engines to go to space

[@dirusso3030]

​@Converse-o4d 😂😂🧌 👹🇷🇺💯🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@terrondt]

A lot of em apparently not

[@BMD765]

​@@Converse-o4d in your dreams or when someone effected by russian vodka

[@jason1440]

China keeps water in their missles. Russia puts hope in their missles.

[@625as-pj5mg]

Now that the ICMB has been launched, are you going to promote the China threat theory again?

[@dannyblackwell2426]

Blimey we don't know what fuel mixture they used but from the size of that crater they got it wrong. but the maybe with all the corruption in the Russian military i'm not surprised more failures are happening. rushing things and cutting corners Cleary are not helping

[@oculosprudentium8486]

While solid fuel is reliable, but the tradeoff is that it has far less energy compared to liquid fuels engines by a huge factor! It's like being able to lift 3000 pounds vs 40,000 pounds Note how the Sarmat carries 12 warheads at 2000 pounds each.

[@dannyblackwell2426]

@@oculosprudentium8486 oh thanks for info 🙂

[@robertpendzick9250]

This was not a failure of the Sarmat missile. It was a failure of installation. They put the pointy side down.

[@rjs1138]

As an armchair expert on ICBM matters, i would like to point out an error. The missile actually has an effective range of 0 miles. 🤷‍♂️

[@d3vilz_lair666]

As someone once said"pray for the survivors as the lucky ones are dead"😢

[@allanbaldoque2578]

I dont believe it can penetrate airdefence, this is a giant missile which easy to detect by airdefence

[@kennydings3879]

I’m not going to be able to sleep tonight after watching this. Not as funny as Jim Gaffigan but this is still pretty damn humorous 😂 !!

[@jason4275]

AKA Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

[@machdaddy6451]

Seems very similar to the Nedelin catastrophe of 1960.

[@mototom9086]

The chief developer preferred to buy a ship in Mongte Carlo for his budget

[@XX-qd6ke]

The Russian SARMAT ICBM has a range of 14,000 kilometers per design... however, the Russian SARMAT ICBM has range of only 4 kilometers in all directions around their missile silos in actual application...

[@woodstocknation1961]

Top secret missile silo and launch site destroyed by Ghosts of Gorbachev

[@markbrisec3972]

Failure to launch such an advanced missile isn't the problem, our ICBM test launches are known to fail too. But what is the problem is that the Russians introduce their new missiles, proclaiming them operational, after a single or maybe two successful launches. We would call that the start of testing and the missile would still be a few years from becoming operational.. That's why our weapons and missiles in general, tend to be order of magnitude safer and with much less chance of failure.. Until recently Russians didn't care. Putin just called some weapons operational and invincible.. Now when they think they'll actually need the nuclear weapons they've started to care about the operational availibility and the assurance of launching.

[@bobwilson758]

Also , remember - do not underestimate your enemy . Ok ✅

[@YuanWu-i4q]

the flux capacitor was grounded

[@jjhead431]

Why liquid fuel and not solid fuel? Because Russia MIC can't deliver?

[@oculosprudentium8486]

Solid fuel tech is hard to perfect But Russia preference is always bigger vs precise Liquid fuels engines can lift a lot more weight than the solid fuel ones, See also the compassion between gasoline vs diesel engines. Gas engines dies out at 100,000 miles though some well designed ones can last over 300,000 miles. Diesel engines are in big trucks and stuff to haul very heavy stuff. The biggest engine in the world are those in huge ships that carry over 100,000 tons of cargo and people

[@JonathanDickson-w2g]

Yeah well I'm sure the other ones work so we don't need to find out

[@FeldwebelWolfenstool]

...Boeing must have made some of the parts...

[@leg414]

Nothing is 100% but with Nuclear weapons...It does not have to be....Peace

[@davidpalmer4184]

So with the nuclear payload that this incredible Russian weapon has, how much destructive power will this have on the launch site?

[@jonmurph589]

QC much?

[@canadianmonte]

The Visitors caused this.....they know he's desperate enough to use that crap, so they took it off the board.

[@AlanAdler-b9t]

I'm surprised they can even get into space 😂

[@Converse-o4d]

Nasa can't do it with out the Russians😂

[@AlanAdler-b9t]

@@Converse-o4d true. Disappointed with NASA. thanks

[@alberthowe7895]

It will unable to do any of these wonderful things (hypersonic, maneuvering, multiple warheads and decoys) if it never leaves the launch pad because it explode! Hmmmm!

[@mabotiyn]

How is it the most powerful if it cannot even launch? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️…. If someone tells you a weapon will beat “future” air defense system they know nothing about, they are lying to you

[@Jaka515]

really it's liquid fueled? lmao just what you want when you attempt a retaliatory strike waiting for the damn thing to be fueled.

[@JohnWilliamNowak]

Hard to say. If it's fueled with room-temperature hypergolics (which it seems to be) the missile can be stored in a fueled state, like the American Titan II that was retired in the late 1980s. If it uses a nitric acid oxidizer then as you say, the missile will need to be fueled before launching.

[@linguist8623]

@DefenseUpdates: As regards the Russian economy, actually their economy per GDP is expected to be around the 3.+ percent, as it is restructing it's economy within it's banks and within BRICS, and circumventing sanctions. I stated prior Feb. 2022, in fact, in at least Dec. 2020, that Russia would move to dedollarize and move a lot of it's assets East, and to the "Global South". There only a few fellow experts that also proved to be correct about such. So in short, their economy isn't going bad overall.

[@stischer47]

OK Ivan. Yes, Russia is "de-dollarizing" and "yuan-izing" becoming a colony of China. A real step up...not.

[@robertoopao5953]

Sabotage ,,..smart move coz they not want killing people,.. failures is always,..

[@Dcthrg6]

Whoops, let’s revise the nuclear document again, lol 🥵🥵

[@todg-69]

Chinese parts much cheaper than 883 parts using Walmart parts to build his arsenal I see

[@auro1986]

then they will shoot their old missiles made before 1991 first till they get solid fuel rockets for sarmat

[@TheTritan408]

It’s a test launch so it doesn’t have to be successful. Even at failure, they will still use the data for future development. They will keep testing until they get it right but just hope they don’t.

[@verdebusterAP]

Wrong The basis of Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is showing your enemy that you have posses the same ability to respond as they can High failures with the RSM-56 as well this failure with the RS-28 puts serious doubt about Russia's nuclear missile arsenal effectiveness

[@brianmurray1395]

I wouldn't worry about Russias rocket testing. Pretty sure they know what they are doing.

[@UnconfinedConfusion]

id agree if this was a conventional weapn, but nuclear weapons literally have to ALWAYS work or your side of mutually assured destruction doenst hold up

[@j.erickson8571]

@@brianmurray1395 Actually, they don't. The test should be successful; otherwise, they are in danger. We need to emphasize this because Medvedev won't be able to stop threatening the world with nuclear destruction.

[@davidlambert1102]

@@brianmurray1395 If they knew what they are doing it would have been a successful test wouldn't it?

[@nathanharris1445]

God prevented that people need to quit playing with his creation

[@woodstocknation1961]

U.S. is 100% responsible but ain't saying anything

[@stischer47]

LOL...still have your tin hat on?

[@Colors.TF1]

What if it wasn't a test?

[@DarrellCook-gx1tq]

Call it whatever you will if it fits the facts or you have to save your neck or bury evidence. Words no longer have more weight than a huge crater where dreams evaporated. Blah blah blah. Cover your ass. Mmmm.

[@woodstocknation1961]

Yet another failure buy Putin and Ruzzia😂. Aliens have landed 😂

[@The_Penguin_City]

Actually, missile range is 0km 😂

[@scarvasal]

washin machine chip failure.

[@FC_Dobbs48]

The narration is always disapointing. Its like common words are being seen for the first time.

[@Ecobomb]

@6:42 "pursued by Russia" not "persuaded" ?

[@DIN-nh6jb]

The West must be very happy with a failed test? Will there be time to change the diapers?

[@grxwpr20725]

Why would it has pager onboard 🤣 BEEp BABY BEEp your rocket gone🫣

[@robertdelay7826]

Sucks when the brain of your nuc missiles was made in Ukraine. LOL!

[@DarrellCook-gx1tq]

And aircraft construction.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

3:46 - the full US DoD/NATO designation is the SS-X-30 Satan II and once it's in production the SS-30.

[@linguist8623]

@DefenseUpdates: The R-28 Sarmat (Р-28 Сармат) is nonetheless a clear and present danger. It's good you stated "seems unreliable", instead of "is unreliable". It is a reliable platform, as is any nuclear deterrent. It's common for tests to fail, until certain success, especially one's already deployed, hence why they're deployed already. Nonetheless, nuclear weapons, in my view, are almost pointless. Not always, but in most situations, and almoat always unethical to use. It's better to design high kinetic weapons instead of nuclear ones. Innocent people should never pay the consequences of people that love to wage war, destroy good, etc...

[@dz7786]

🤣 no it is unreliable.... A 20% success rate out of 5 Missiles when the Trident has a 97% out of almost 400?🤣 Him trying to flex on NATO is a complete failure🤣

[@stischer47]

How is it a "clear and present danger" if it doesn't work?

[@bloodpootin]

Yeah, Sarmat is a clear and present danger to Moscow and St Petersburg 🤣

[@woodstocknation1961]

Yall keep deleting my comments because I am correct

[@Spartanwarrior75-j8r]

Now Hiring Openings for Our Strategic Rocket Service due to accidents Low wages and high turnover Apply at your local military base 😂😅😊

[@Alberto-u1t]

I wonder if putin is a special mental person a graduate of a special school that is why he is really a funny comedian

[@-TheOracle-]

More careless smoking from your military again, Putin?

[@jonlybonly9843]

I dont believe that happened if the missle was in a silo underground the hole would be way bigger and shit wouldn't be standing around it looks like a pipe bomb some kid set off in his yard see how big those things are no way that is what cause the crater

[@metatechnologist]

How radioactive is the area??

[@brianmurray1395]

They never used a nuke warhead lol.

[@j.erickson8571]

@@brianmurray1395 As comical as the question might suggest, they are already building a nuclear missile. It is never too crazy in Mother Russia.

[@verdebusterAP]

radioactive no toxic very very much While the West uses safer chemicals for rockets, the word safe doesnt exists in soviet russian. They use fuels that deliver high performance but toxic as god knows what

[@bryanpayton1168]

No more than normal background radiation, nobody uses live nukes in a test.

[@nicholasmaude6906]

It's not radioactive, test missiles NEVER carry live nuclear warheads.

[@qball6520]

😂

[@danythrinbell1596]

too many failures in the amurikan nuclear delivery systems , even they failed to reach the moon recently

[@bryanpayton1168]

We made orbit, Russia's full on rammed the moon. We have more launches and a better success rate than the Russians. Try again...

[@GaryMonday-kr7it]

Garbage

[@nigeluter9668]

Click Bait BS

[@SarahFarahmand-o5t]

Fake news 😂

[@rogerwilco5918]

What part was "fake"?

[@evertonmclean10]

It wasn't a failure it was successful, the type of flames that you all see it was from the missile when it ignite . Russia is capable of tricking it's enemies, however the test was a success . Long live Russia

[@rogerwilco5918]

How do you explain that huge crater? 😆 🤣 😂 "Everything is going according to plan"!!!!!! 😆 🤣 😂

[@evertonmclean10]

Respect 👍🏽 my friend for the likes to my comment long live Russia nuff blessings 🙏🏽 and respect 👍🏽 from Jamaica 🇯🇲❤️

[@rogerwilco5918]

@@evertonmclean10 is your translator malfunctioning? Or were you just too embarrassed to even acknowledge the question.

[@evertonmclean10]

@@rogerwilco5918 ok no problem no need fuss it's all in the game just let us pray for peace and that the senseless war will stop by the grace of GOD . My peace I leave with you 👍🏽❤️🙏🏽

[@rogerwilco5918]

@@evertonmclean10 I have no idea who you're even trying to talk to. Let's just start over. 2nd time.. How do you explain that huge crater? 😆 🤣 😂 "Everything is going according to plan"!!!!!! 😆 🤣 😂

[@kittyfrisco7681]

Old news! about 48 hours ago! = 2 days+

[@isstechnz1021]

😂Russian rusty leaking nukes

[@flicmartin9305]

Hmmm. Seems unlikely. As the building 100 yards away is untouched...hmm🫢

[@Jaka515]

It carried no nuclear payload as it was a test. It's own liquid fuel was the explosion.

[@flicmartin9305]

@Jaka515 right... but the trees are burnt behind it. 😆 Must be one of those car incinerator, tree avoidance fires.