ABM Spartan and Sprint

[therichardking4242]

Great system. But it was only going to defend the ICBM's, the people were on their own.

[cglehman]

Nike Sprint goes from 0 to 3000 mph in 5 seconds.

[openwheelmanic]

Great video...i was crazy for rocket and missile tech when i was a kid. the Spartan, Sprint and "Galosh"ABMs were something unique for sure.

[PS2djX]

hell of speed ! same to LOSAT ATkM KEP

[WINDCHIMES66]

A little research on the interent shows Sprint with U.S. Army markings. I guess that the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery had the ABM defense mission while the USAF had the offensive ICBM mission. The whole thing would have been a Joint Operation between the two services.

[StopMotionNAnimation]

This vid and its commentary are brlilliant.

There is not an extra word anywhere. Every single word tells its story. The cartoon of the Safeguard is accurate too,

Nice job, Great missile.

Weak strategy.

Ever thus.

[fldallyb]

After the program was shut down around 1976 He brought home a 16 mm film about 30 minutes long from their library for me to show at school and to do a school report on. It was an amazing film and an amazing missile for its time. I still remember allot of the stats.

[fldallyb]

I am glad I found this video. My father passed away this past march. He worked at Martin Marietta here in Orlando. His first job was the heat shielding of the nose of this missile. He later trained and was transfered to the print shop, were he printed allot of the ( I guess you would call them Color Brochures or spec sheets) for the sprint.

[OsanBlackCat5RS]

HOO YA! go 7th SWS BAFB!! my home xD

[StopMotionNAnimation]

Still one of my favourite you tubes.

For info:

1. PAR. Perimiter Acquisition Radar. ie Thule Alaska. Fylingdales in the UK. + some others. When the vid says 'at very long ranges' they meant it.

MSR. Missile site radar.

This was the onsite radar. Could steer the sprint missile even under nuke attack.

Not bad for the sixties!

[jumbojigo220]

Stil, it's a great video!

[SimonWallwork]

conotoxin. Defense IS a type of offense! If you can render yourself invulnerable to attack then plainly you are now in a position to attack anyone without fear of retribution. Mr Bush has often talked of starting wars 'to keep America safe' It was fear of obliteration that kept us safe during the cold war. It might have turned out differently if one side had been invulnerable. You might trust the US to behave itself but few outside of the USA would agree!

[SimonWallwork]

The ABM treaty didn't 'Kill' the Safeguard system. The ABM treaty limited each side to ONE system. Safeguard was the US one. The Russians put their ONE system in place to protect Moscow. Safeguard protested US Minuteman missile fields. The ABM treaty was designed to limit both sides expenditure on ABM s. Also to ensure neither side destabilised the situation, which was very tense,by becoming invulnerable to attack. It WAS a treaty- signed by both sides- but the US has renaged on it. Why?

[densityduckk]

My God, those Sprints can move.

[SimonWallwork]

chrisfigaro It WAS deployed. FOR ONE DAY!

[k4lpcm]

Amen brother! Congress deemed the project "obsolete" the first day of operation. Quite a shame. It was and still is the most impressive guided or unguided missile of all time, in my opinion.

[SimonWallwork]

k4 Its a shame that the US has renaged on the ABM treaty. Did you know that the treaty limited each side to one system? THe USSR put theirs 'round Moscow. The US put 'Safeguard' 'round the minuteman silos. The whole point of the treaty was (1)to save the huge amounts of money these systems absorb and (2) to avoid one side being able to protest itself from the other- thus ruining the MAD principle.

I know I know- but it worked!

[k4lpcm]

Yes the single active Safeguard base in ND was located adjacent to a minuteman emplacement. However that in no way means that all of them would have followed suit. Emplacements were planned in many strategic locations (and whats wrong with protecting your offense?). The ND location was pertinent for polar route incoming ICBMs. Had there been more than 4 months of operation you would have seen deployments in many areas, most of them not surrounding offensive missile systems.

[k4lpcm]

I forgot to mention... what does the 2002 treaty withdrawl have to do with safeguard?  Seems you are using a non-related conversation to push a personal political agenda. All I said was the missile was extremely impressive... but if you wanna start throwin stuff around, go for it. I have two safeguard engineers (one also a warhead specialist) living in my home... my data will not be incorrect.

[SimonWallwork]

K4. The whole point of the ABM treaty was that it limited each side to ONE installation. (Safeguard in the US). Now that the US has abandoned / withdrawn from the ABM treaty, it can proceed with 'Star Wars' or the placement of new ABMs in Poland- as it is trying to do. This would have been a clear breach of the ABM treaty. Thats all. I agree with you. it was all most impressive. It was ultimately a failure tho, as large numbers of decoy RVs simply outnumbered the missiles. Operational for 1 day!

[k4lpcm]

I still don't understand you continued pushing of a political agenda in response to a non political comment. If you feel that strongly about it, maybe you should spend less time on YouTube.

[SimonWallwork]

K4. I'm not posting 'political' agenda. I have little interest in politics. I'm simply pointing out the FACT that the US spent millions on Safeguard- for zero gain. And that these days remind me of todays post ABM treaty manoevrings. Did you know that there's a PAR in England? Hardened for attack? Thought not. The US breach of the ABM treaty is significant. Just bringing it to your attention- and hopefully to other youtubers.

[Thermactor]

this video possibly has the most awesome music ever

[chrisfigaro]

with nuclear warheads, this system would have worked well. Sprint almost had hit to kill in that one video!

Too bad everyone was more concerned about the 70's version of their tom tom's than the problems associated with massive nuclear attack.

[Gruntol5]

As I recall, Sprint left the silo at 2,000 mph and then continued to accelerate at 2,000 mph per second (about 100g), so that after 5 seconds it was travelling at 12,000 mph. Of course, it would probably have made it's intercept by then and be so many billion fragments. Amazing technology. Thank god they were never needed.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Your numbers are a bit over the top. Tens to hundreds of MPH (but probably sub-sonic) out of the hole, yes 100 g at times but not 2000 mph per sec per sec constantly. Top speed was probably on the order of 10,000 FPS... but not 12,000 mph. Remember the motors only burned for 3 or so sec I think, also.

[Gruntol5]

They were the numbers released by "Aviation Week" in the 1970's. As for your statement about N. Korea, you seem to be unaware that this system was developped ~38 years ago -long before N. Korea was a threat and the system doesn't exist now. It was only in service from 1975 to 1976, before the ABM Treaty killed it.

[k4lpcm]

The system was brought down the day it was operational... it was not in service over the course of two years. The ABM treaty had nothing to do with it... the liberal congress deemed it "obsolete" and ordered it decommissioned. Go figure.

[Thermactor]

i love the music

[SimonWallwork]

The safeguard system was operational for one day. The ]new ICBM or ABM thing is just so much shit. Spend your dollars if you wish. Ever thought about leaving the world alone?

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

How does shooting down nuclear weapons on the way to blowing up a city hurt the world? What is the problem with protecting people from nuclear attacks? I dont get your logic, fear you might just automatically react in a liberal direction without understanding the issue.

[chrisfigaro]

I personally think that its crazy that we never deployed this system.

All because people worried about EMP (as opposed to all out nuclear assualt, which is way better?), and because defeatists actually have us convinced that defending yourself is agression. Ahhh...it boggles the mind.

[Terranin]

Just people see what you do in the world without defence system now, so we can imagine what you could do if you feel fully protected... Bomb everybody and steal resources from everywhere?

[chrisfigaro]

So, we don't build a defense system in order to punish ourselves for bombing everyone and stealing resources?

I really don't see your point here.

[Terranin]

You are constantly trying to build, but your efforts are useless, because of Russian missiles. And if your goverment had this system, wow nobody safe in the world any more. Now you are at least afraid to mess with Russia...

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

But this system isnt to prevent a russian attack.  It is to protect us from isolated attacks from individuals, unstable nations like north korea, and also from accidental launches. It doesnt change the stability or suddenly make anyone want to kill millions of people.

[coldwar2008]

lol russians say it sucks yet it only protected us for 40 yrs

[millasvids]

The Sprint and Spartan missiles were only operational for a few months from the end of 75 to early 76. I don't know if Russia ever claimed that they "sucked".

[coldwar2008]

ok who are the russians and who are they americans?

[JangoFettaCheeze]

whaib87 is such a moron...anybody notice that the Sprint warhead almost scored a purely kinetic hit? Sprint moving at Mach 10, target probably at typical MIRV speed of 7 to 8 km/sec, target track orthogonal to Sprint flight path. whaib87 screws up again...Patriot was originally an AAM system, a "hittile" in missile talk. It was jury-rigged with minimal testing for the AIRBM role; that it actually worked for that purpose was amazing.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Looks like one person here knows his ABMs...

The rocket was often detuned to miss because it was making so many dummy test kinetic hits - it was too good! Unclear to this day why we dont just use this system or one similar to it. Hit to kill is needlessly hard (but possible) just use a 1 kt ER like sprint and that means you kill all the physics pacs and the decoys.

[Daggett1122]

Does anyone know what song that is in the background?

[EnigmaNZ]

I never tire of watching a sprint launch, man that thing can accelerate, hard to believe it is from 40+ years ago. Mind you, the magnetic pulse and radioactive fallout would have caused widespread damage anyway.

[whaib87]

Ha ha, and you Americans think you have no propaganda. The Russians had interceptors since the early 70s which were 75% successful at the beginning. Right now another country with successful interceptors (last 5 years) is Israel with the Arrow. US finally has successful interceptors BUT just now, 2006!!!! All these interceptors like the 'imagined' sprint (roughly 5% Success) and the 'controversial' patriot (2% Success - Battle tested...) are a scam, everybody knows it.

[zeroyon04]

what you are spouting is propaganda BS.

[SynerG4ce]

What BS whaib87. AMB missiles of the 50's, 60's and 70's variety had entirely adequate performance, thanks to nuclear warheads vastly increasing the kill radius. Back then ABM had to be fielded in CONUS thanks to idiotic treaties, the ABM treaty, that we pulled out of and I count as one of Busher's smarter decisions. (nowadys, we're putting ABM systems on planes, ships and ground vehicles abroad and at home)

[SimonWallwork]

Ahhhhhh. the ABM Treaty. The fantastic and expensive stuff on this short vid lasted........well how long do you US taxpayers who paid for it all would have expected it to last (protect you from the evil Russians) Tick a box.

A Decade? thats 10 years for US citizens

B A Century

C A minute

D A millisecond

E A day.

Correct answer is 'E'

[angryjapanesenigga]

sprint makes an incredible, near hairpin turn just milliseconds after launch, it must be at mach 2+ ? the acceleration is incredible. This is a real time video, not speeded up, right?

[zeroyon04]

the video is not sped up. The sprint has the higest impulse out of any missile ever made. It did 300Gs during first stage burn, and was supersonic before it left the launch tube. Amazing technology for the late-60s!!

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Only 100 gs under typical use, 300gs and you are talking Hibex.

[sprintisadefence]

sprint is a wicked missile i want one

[SimonWallwork]

100G acceleration got the sprint to mach 10 in about 5 secs. It was allegedly supersonic before it left the silo. The nose glowed red hot from air friction within 1 sec of launch. Quite good for today, never mind 1964.

[t239]

My God that thing is fast. It's amazing there are guidance systems that can keep up with it's movements.

[aibek]

what is that cartoon ?

[wjs1234]

The sprint missile could travel upto mach 10 ie 7700mph

in 5 seconds thats quick

[Astrofrank]

After months, I found this video of a Sprint test not

filmed in slow motion. Thamk you!

[engkngorks]

why wont they revive these missiles, i think these is more accurate than those patriots

[FelixA9]

No offense but you don't know what you're talking about. Both Sprint and Spartan used nuclear warheads to achieve their kills. However neither of these are in the same class as Patriot.  Patriot is an antiaircraft weapon. PAC-3 is a ATBM in that it goes after tactical ballistic missiles. Both would be useless against ICBMs.

[belrias]

Felix is correct. These weapons used nukes to destroy incoming warheads. The didn't even try to "hit a bullet with a bullet." Stopping an incoming BM is relatively easy. Doing so without doing something unacceptable (like detonating a hydrogen bomb over the US) is hard.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Shocking how there are so many levels of guys who think the guy before him is talking out of his element.

Sprints actually did have the ability to hit a bullet with a bullet - not that it needed to. But sprints had made several direct (dummy stage dummy warhead) hits on target missiles.

[M1903A1]

This system was well under development when the ABM treaty and Carter-era budget cuts cancelled the program in the late 1970s.

The Sprint was a helluva creation...if you look closely it was just a conic shape, no fins...it changed direction via gas jets like a spacecraft. IIRC, at full velocity it was moving at something like Mach 6.

[M1903A1]

Ironically, anti-nuclear commercials from the 1984 election used the clip of the opening blast doors and launch to depict an ICBM launch.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

It had fins on the upper stage...

At full velocity it was moving at up to mach 10.

[M1903A1]

Took another look and spotted the upper stage fins. I stand corrected.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

Doesnt matter. What I want now is a video of Hibex, a rocket even faster than sprint! Made to deal with warheads below 20,000 feet (see my blog for more info).  I think it hit 300 Gs on the way up.

[Astrofrank]

Most sources say 400 Gs, but I also want a video of HIBEX!

Perhaps the WSMR guys can find one.

[Astrofrank]

My posting was meant as a reply to the one from r0ck3tsm0k3,

but is shown as a completely new one. Strange.