The Iskander engine does not burn until the end of the flight. Iskander flies most of the time without propulsion. Maneuvering is done as in other missiles, with aerodynamic controls, as in SAM missiles, etc. Gasodynamic control is only in the initial phase of flight.
Who told you that?
Really... have you seen an Iskander missile... can you point out the movable control surfaces on the Iskander... we are talking about Iskander... not Tochka with the big grid fin control surfaces...
Gasdynamic flight controls are the only manouvering controls this missile has and how are you going to explain how the missile launches and takes off and gets to altitude and flight speed and then what... stops its solid rocket motor?
The Iskander does not fly a ballistic path, it climbs to altitude and speed and then it levels off and flys towards the target area and has sensors on board so if it detects radar signals or other EW signals associated with air defences... including ARH signals tracking the missile it starts to perform manouvers to avoid such radars and deploys jammers and decoys to distract enemy air defences and manouvers to evade anything launched to hit it, while still of course being able to hit the target... it does this with the motor running or it would not be able to manouver.
There is no old stock of such missiles. They were either used as target drones or destroy to make room for new stuff in storage.
Do you know that or are you just making an assumption?
Their tests for MiG-31BMs include tests using Granit missiles so I know they do test them, but they also make lots of missiles too... their stocks would rather exceed the number they would use for testing and exercises.
They made about 100,000 SA-1 missiles and by 2002 they had used about 13,000 as target practise according to their defence catalogue Russias Arms 2001-2002.
Few years ago some Lybian tried to launch an old styx or another soviet missile that was sitting there for years and it failed. Best case it just crash, worst case it crash in friendly area and kill your own people.
What sort of condition were those particular missiles in and what sort of expertise was used to get them out of storage and into use?
What sort of quality fuel did they have and were they able to make sure all the batteries and systems were working before they launched it... or did they just take it out of storage, fuel it up and fire it expecting it to work?
Correct, missiles need to be kept under maintenance or disposed of.
If ran by liquid propellant, the storage facilities and maintenance cycles are not trivial.
Yet when they are in service you need a decent number of the weapons so you don't run out because just keeping massive production capacity available but not being used is actually more expensive than just making lots and storing them.
With no fuel on board I would say storage is easy and relatively simple and preparation for use is fairly straight forward with the right equipment and fuels and batteries, which they will be doing with the older ships and land based batteries that still use the missiles.
That's why there is seldom a program to turn old AAMs into something else. R-40 f.e. is big enough to be a AGM.
But with requirements to store such a missile you won't have old batches once they become obsolete.
Funny, you picked the wrong missile because the R-40s continue to be carried by MiG-31s operationally because the IR version is still useful, but I do appreciate what you are saying.
I would say that an AA-2 might be useful as a cheap ARM if they put a broad band radar homing seeker on it, but they have many weapons specialised for that job... I suspect most of their older SAMs they sold/gave to export customers.
Things like SAMs they reuse as AD practise targets and also for testing like the S-200 was used to test scramjet motors.
How about just using tochka?
Pretty sure it is not just no longer in service but that most of their missiles have been transferred to Belarus.
use hand held flame throwers on these bunkers from WW2 era to burn the bassas out
they were highly effective weapons against bunkers and other fortifications
Russian Thermobaric weapons use a bursting charge to spread a liquid or powder fuel into the air which is then detonated and it spreads as it detonates, which is good for use against underground facilities.
Just look at how they took out Fort Drum. Shoot the cams with snipers. Get acetelyne tanks. Pump it in....some diesel as well. A few tanks of oxygen and its all over
There was no need to repeat those posts to post your own comment.
People.... am I going to have to remove the Quote option again? 
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
. Special military operation progress, stay tuned for tomorrow:
The Russian armed forces have repelled five Ukrainian attacks in the Zaporozhye region, the defence ministry has said;
@DDGeopolitics