Exclusive-U.S. assesses up to 60% failure rate for some Russian missiles, officials say

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States assesses that Russia is suffering failure rates as high as 60% for some of the precision-guided missiles it is using to attack Ukraine, three U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence told Reuters.

The disclosure could help explain why Russia has failed to achieve what most could consider basic objectives since its invasion a month ago, such as neutralizing Ukraine's air force, despite the apparent strength of its military against Ukraine's much smaller armed forces.

The U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the information, did not provide evidence to support the assessment and did not disclose what precisely was driving high Russian missile failure rates.

Reuters was unable to independently verify the figures.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/exclusive-u-s-assesses-up-to-60-failure-rate-for-some-russian-missiles-officials-say/ar-AAVsGHu

[uponit7771]

1. Same with their nuke arsenal most likely. Oligarchs, generals and RU mafia stole money ...

... supposed to be used for ongoing maintenance for some bullshit.

Lets say they didn't for the nuclear arsenal, I don't trust the Russians not to screw up the maintenance of the missiles.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. On Top Of That...

...there has long been suspicions that a 10-20% "did" rate has been considered success, for decades.
During the cold war, it may have been higher than 20%.
With that starting point, corruptly diverting just a little maintenance could make that value skyrocket. (Pun acknowledged, but not intended.)
Weapons designers have believed, at least since early 70s, that the USSR built quantity because they never believed in their own quality. Especially on the nuclear side.

[The Magistrate]

13. Just An Antiquarian's Note, Sir

During the Second World War, 'dud' rates typically ran about fifteen to twenty percent. Old stocks, like in the Philippines in '42, ran to about one in three, but the stuff dated back more than twenty years.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. We've Got 70 Years Of Design Expertise...

...and much better base technology.
Did rates are nothing close to those values and haven't been for decades.
Weapons designers expect our nuclear arsenal to have a >95% chance of every nuclear warhead would function.
Any design that jeopardized that standard would never go into production.
In addition, in WWII, our best weapons manufacturing personnel went to war. A huge percentage of the workforce took a couple years to get to the high competency that was sacrificed.
It's only natural during such a learning curve, that some categories of weapons would be less reliable than others.
But, your point is taken.

[The Magistrate]

19. The Things Were Simpler Then, As Well

I expect even fuses are a bit more complex, and there's so much more to fail with a missile and warhead. I don't think the claimed failure rate unthinkable.

[tanyev]

2. Good bet some of that missile money went into a yacht.

[LiberalFighter]

3. The funding for maintenance was misdirected.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. LOL.

That's a polite way to say the money was stolen.

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. More proof Putin has Potemkin-ized the Russian military.

You don't find $750MM USD for a pleasure craft or a $1BB luxury dacha without diverting money from somewhere.

[jcgoldie]

6. Seems like Putin's "all the best people"...

"Trumped" the Russian military.

[Kaleva]

8. Russian equipment has the reputation of being subpar

[poli-junkie]

9. Like their ugly cars

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. That was my experience back in the mid 90's

when we liaised with their equivalent of combat engineers, their equipment, at least that they didn't sell for booze/drugs, was in piss poor shape and they didn't seem to give a damn.

[Kaleva]

14. I have two brothers familiar with Russian military aircraft

Both consider RU aircraft to be junk. At least when compared to Western military aircraft.

[relayerbob]

11. Here's a photo of one their "hypersonic missiles" that was launched the other day

Seems it preferred taking a nap in a forest

[roamer65]

12. That missile should be sent to the United States.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Why?

The US has tactical missile that fly above Mach 5. Their technology isn't unique to their war industry.
There'll be nothing on that missile that would teach weapons designers a thing.
The media hyped up some of their tech, but "vacuum bombs" (a really dumb moniker) and hypersonic missiles are nothing new.

[relayerbob]

17. So we know to defeat it's electronics, for one thing

Jam, redirect, or disable the arming and detonation systems would make it utterly useless. Beyond that, I agree.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. We Likely Already Do

Russian R&D is not ahead of the west.

[NutmegYankee]

18. We should never pass up an opportunity to study potential enemy equipment

If even just to get an understanding of their design philosophy.