@aviomaster Personally, I find CNN hopelessly biased, please don't base what you think of the US on them. Anyway, I mostly use Russian language sources for Russian equipment, since western sources don't provide the level of detail I like. I have never seen the Mr. Brzezinski book, but due to the era he was involved in, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he said the USSR should be completely quashed. It was politically acceptable then, but times have changed. But this is beside the point.
@aviomaster Closer to what I was referring to, Russia could simply swamp anything the US could throw at incoming RVs. The US has approx. 15 interceptors, based in Alaska. Russia has, by estimate, 2,500 RV's on 500 missiles it could throw at that shield. Do you really think that 15 missiles could kill anything near that sort of attack? Even with more liberal estimates of 50 interceptors, that still would not even make a dent on fatalities. Russia had a GIGATON of nuclear weapons aimed at NORAD.
@aviomaster Now, with the Iran/DPRC threat, yes, now the missiles have a really hard time going 200 feet, never mind 2000 miles, but they might someday, and (if it works) Taepodong-2 could theoretically reach California. Not that I would miss LA that much, but it is still something that I would rather avoid. I think that GMD could defend against that threat, and possibly a (very) limited strike by China, but the system isn't effective against superpower-level threats.
@aviomaster On the topic of Israel, there are two possibilities I think the Iranians are doing: First, they might just not have the capability. This I doubt, due to the DPRKs missile tests. The second reason, which I find more likely, is that they are not using then, since it would give the US and Israel a opportunity to invade Iran. I think that their missile system is mostly a deterrent system, not an offensive system.
@aviomaster Yes, I do have too much time. On the topic of propaganda, the Russian sources are not that good in terms of being unbiased. I have with probably more than my fair share of Russian television, and I an see definite signs of the USSR-era propaganda. While, yes, I admit CNN and the rest of the American networks are horrible, the Russian ones are not excellent. So please don't try to spew pro-Russia propaganda from them. I find that technical sources are far better sources of info.
The KEY to success is USA wants GLOBAL world domination.
But Russian Nuclear ICBM's need to be shut DOWN before they release deadly payload.
EVEN if USA missile shield is 60% effective which is SCIENCE Fiction 40% of Russian ICBM's will land on their Targets which are big cities 40 % of Russian Nuclear warheads will be destruction of MAJOR USA Above 500.000 people cities.
@aviomaster Well, yes, but ground based mid-course defense (GMD) was never supposed to defend against a superpower, like Russia or China. What the system is really supposed to defend against is the North Korea and Iran type threats, who would only have 1-2 missiles. A 50% kill rate (observed from tests) with one interceptor is acceptable if you can launch 3 per target. A nation with SSBN's could completely ignore GMD. SDI was SUPPOSED to be able to fend off the USSR. It couldn't.
Sprint is a 7,700 pound missile with a fist stage that has a thrust of 650,000 pounds, for a thrust/weight ratio of 85/1. Do you people really think this video is sped up, or do you just not believe that something can actually accelerate this fast? I suppose it could be worse; this could be a video about HIBEX, which had an acceleration FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT'S IN THIS VID.
@YetAnotherGH My uncle worked on HiBex, and just before his death he used to say, tongue in cheek, that it really wasn't a missile but a guided explosion with profoundly terminal results. He also said that of the four of five test vehicles launched, the sound they made when launched was similar to a high pitched note on a violin, so fast it barely registered to the eye. Would love to see some footage of it!
The Sprint was an amazing piece of equipment. The current generation of missile interceptors are more advanced in some ways, but they could really do well to try to revive some of the Sprint technology and design features. It was amazing. The damn thing could actually hit the payload, which was better than the best hopes of the designers. Initially they just wanted it to come close enough for a 5kt proximity detonation to destroy it, but it did far better.
Fu#@ing Russian commie bed wetters. Just a bunch of wanna be, 3rd world, bush league under achievers. Stick to what you know best: Penis envy of EVERYTHING American and squeezing "Wotka" from potatoes. You are an embarrassment to yourselves and anyone who is unfortunate enough to come in contact with you. Now....get on your rotary dial phone and call 1............8..........0............0.....W-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A.
Nike Sprint: 0-Mach 10 in 5 SECONDS, while sustaining over 100g's at launch. The radar was so accurate that it had to be DE-TUNED during tests so as not to actually HIT the reentry target. As for anti-missle missle technology,...we were light years...LIGHT YEARS ahead of "Ivan" and had, by 1964, already FIELDED the Nike Sprint, which even by todays standard is the most sophisticated missle EVER developed...while the F#*@ING Russians were still trying to figure out how to flush rivet aircraft.
100% correct hombre. I remember they put in a 100 meter deflection error to evaluate the predicted effect of its 5kt neutron warhead. On the other hand the Soviet Galosh-ABM-35 used a huge 3 megaton warhead that would have EMP killed their own fucking radar arrays. By comparison with our shit then and now they make farm machinery. I do remember a couple of Sprint test that were deemed failures because the missiles hit the warheads!!! And, the Sprint could detect and ignore decoys.
@1138thz Spoke true! The Sprint and Nike Hercules systems were the driving and motivating factor for the Soviets zeal to sign the 1972 ABM treaty. We were amused that the Soviet Galosh system used such large warheads, and being that they were intended to be point weapons, we knew they would do themselves more damage with the EMP degradation to their own equipment, we didn't raise a fuss. The Soviets would have EMP damage covering most of their strategic nuke bases, humorous actually!
Well said and their solution to the EMP damage was even funnier...they decided to stay with tube technology well into the 1980's. I guess they didn't know how to build a fucking Faraday cage.
And today when we compare the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and the latest Russian ABM missile it appears that they still are rather fond of farm machinery.
How fast exactly is the *initial* acceleration of these things? I've been trying to explain capabilities of rockets to a drag-racing friend of mine. Top fuel dragsters get to 100 mph in 0.8 seconds. I know these rockets achieve incredible acceleration, but how could they do in a quarter mile count-down/trigger situation?
@lasertuber Negating air resistance, the Sprint would finish 1/4 mile in .9 second. For the 0-100 question, the String would hit 100 in .045 second, or 17 times faster than the dragster. Pretty fast!
@macfanpro Whoops, forgot the piston. With the piston, the missile would be at 100mph in the silo! Also, The Sprint would be at 1/4 mile in .4 of a second. Sorry about the typo, String should be Sprint.
@lasertuber Well, the Sprint at +3 seconds from launch was already at Mach 4.7, at +7 is was at first stage burn-out and just a smidge under Mach 7.4, and at +10 seconds it was at Mach 10+ (nominal) with second stage burnout. Exterior temperature was just nigh of 2700F, with a kinetic energy equivalent of about 7.3 million horsepower. I think your drag racing buddies will understand those numbers!
@sakoshooter48 Thanks for the excellent numbers. Dragsters are concerned about the first tenths of a second from a dead stop. Does that 3 seconds start from a **COMPLETE** dead stop, or is there some kind of momentum or boost beforehand? Dragsters are all rev'd up when the Christmas tree lights start, so the warm-up part is okay. In any case, I like to point out to dragsters that rockets can literally blow dragsters off the track in a quarter mile! LoL
The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds. The first stage was exhausted after only 1.2 seconds, but produced 2900 kN (650,000 lbf) of thrust. The second stage fired within 1 - 2 seconds of launch. Interception at an altitude of 1500 m to 30000 m took at most 15 seconds. Air friction alone during flight of the missile generated temperatures of up to 3400°C (6200°F). Sprint was also constructed to withstand shocks up to 25,000Gs (nearby nuclear explosions).
@AvatarAlphaOmega If I am not mistaken, and I do admit that I don't always have the correct information, I thought the boost impulse was lengthened to allow the guidance the opportunity to "un-lag" making for a more accurate intercept. I did misquote temps, It should have been C.
I have personally seen original 8mm film of a Sprint launch. Nothing is sped up. It was that fast. The Russians here are just jealous... ;-) My father witnessed test firings at white sands during his nike hercules training and also confirms the speed in the video. Doubters, just shut up... you are only making yourself look more and more ignorant.
Sprint, like early soviet ABM are not interceptors. They explode a nuclear warhead in high atmosphere and disrupts electronics on incoming warheads. Both systems where shitty hammer-to-kill-flies. Now the SM and S400 systems are very different, very fine interceptors.
Actually, the first part of the video is slowed down to one-fifth speed to allow people to see the dynamics of the missile leaving the launch tube. And our interceptors can hit things just fine, Pasha - when was the last time Russia ran a test that wasn't staged??
heh u russian fan boys make me laugh, we know u all have a chip on your shoulder cos the comminism thing didn't work ok but the word never respected you then and there not going to with all this crap your throwing out, all very well if u have half decent intercepters you still dnt have the budget to use then. work on not being a 3rd world country then the technology
dude i am iraqi and i was in iraq in 1991 the patriot did nothing to scuds nothing nothing..it toook the american 10 years after that to shot down one scud.lol
In fairness, I understand the Patriot was intentionally made "inaccurate" (good enough to hit a plane but not a missile) before deployment...the politicians were afraid it might violate the ABM treaty.
Otherway round, the Patriot was designed to go for aircraft so would accurately hit the fuel tank of the missile. The missile fly past the Scud warhead before detonating and due to the closing speed the fragments would do bugger all to it.
The patriot needed adjustments to the guidence alogrithms (to strike head on), the warhead (bigger fragments) and the fuze (trigger earlier) to be effective against missiles.
Hey stupid, the 1991 Patriot was an antiaircraft missile with some missile intercept capability not an ABM system. It had a nearly 100% hit rate but a lame 10% warhead kill rate because it homed in on the center of a target not the warhead. The S-400 is better than the current PAC-3, its advantages are its longer range and speed but the PAC-3 is a small short range missile not a large over the horizon system and its launcher holds 16 missiles not 4. and the PAC-3 is cheaper.
PAC-3 is not a true ABM-optomized system. Comparing the S-400 to PAC-3 is really not a fair shoot-off. PAC-3 does a pretty good job, but a true ABM system would be AEGIS or THAAD.
Don't discount cost though. If it's cheaper that means you can build and deploy more, and having an overwhelming numeric advantage is a huge deal.
I agree but there is little else to compare it with that is presently deployed. I would rather have a battery of PAC-3's defending my ass because with more faster reacting missiles (48 - 64 missiles compared to 12) and its superior tracking and guidance my chances of survival are better. The S-400 system can be overwhelmed with decoys because of its high altitude intercept profile while the PAC-3 is immune to that because intercept takes place in the troposphere
Sprint left the silo at 2,000 mph. It then accelerated at a rate of 2,000 mph per second (about 100g). So after just 3 seconds it is travelling at ~8,000 mph. I don't think we need to speed up the video.
@PashaGolikov Pasha, you little commie bitch! Now you think the sprint missile video is sped up??? WTF is wrong with you? It is still one of the fastest atmospheric missiles ever flown. Please notice the interceptor glowing incandescently as it passes through the Mach 10 threshold. You Russian fanboys crack me the hell up. Get over it, you are still 25 years behind the west and with the introduction of Waverider, all of your air defense will be rendered obsolete.
Reguardless of the historical implications and the cold war, this is still an amazing video. It's not sped up: It actually goes that fast. Hence the name "Sprint"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
too badUS did not get it to the level of soviet ICBM interceptors ;)
And I love to read all those idiotic shit that you guys write, like railgun territory and so on. I wish peopel knew more physics. But I guess they don't teach it in US schools do they? I heard they stopped teaching evolution in US schools. I guess US leadership wants american even more stupid to manipulate them easier.
Ummm, Soviet ICBM interceptors were complete pieces of crap that used liquid-fuel, were unreliable, and nowhere near as accurate as missiles like the Sprint. This is one reason you guys were so anxious to sign the 1972 ABM treaty, whereas Pres. Nixon just saw it as a way to save budget dollars.
PS - I took physics during university, and did quite well, thank you. It's a shame they don't teach humility in Soviet - er, Russian schools. Step off, Comrade Golikov.
You seem to be a snotty fellow Golikov, losers should learn humility. Your missiles are lame, your aircraft are second rate copies(look at your PAK-FA copy of the F-22) , and your tanks suck. Thats why if countries have a choice they buy our shit. Why did Egypt buy 2000 M1A2's instead of 4000 T-90's? Why are the other Arabs set to buy 70 billion in new tanks and aircraft from the USA instead of Russian garbage? You guys should stick to making farm machinery and Vodka!!!
Now think about the tests that were necessary to get this thing into a close proximity to an enemy MIRV (that it was designed to intercept), taking into account something like "acceleration through rain" and you have the makings of an excellent operational test so the air force will buy the thing after it is demonstrated successfully. Intertesting work if you can find it these days.
In addition, a "plasma" would shroud that nose-cone and create a super-heated zone around the weapon...in other words...there was no way to communicate signals for guidance to it beyond a certain point.
The NIKE Sprint weighed around 7750lbs and used a highly compacted solid fuel to achieve it's thrust and energy. Though extremely accurate, it was not a 'kinetic-kill' weapon - it carried a small nuclear warhead to ensure target destruction. Thrust was in the range of 3000 kilo-Newtons (some sources report thrust as over 5000 kN). Pretty amazing today - totally mind boggling considering this was a '60s-'70s project.
It's too bad the clip doesn't go on a little longer, I think I've seen a similar clip where soon after the second stage goes off one can see the cone of the missile glowing from air friction.
that's true. in fact, if you were to aim an acetelyne torch at the nosecone during flight, the burning gasses from the torch would actually LOWER the temperature at the tip of the rocket.
@macfanpro - Americans are clueless cause they do not READ , they LISTEN.
aviomaster 6 months ago
@macfanpro - WHAT they are telling you on CNN and other USA government censored media is PILE of propaganda stories.
Book by Brzezinski and other USA war mongers confirmed and clearly identified their aim for control of Euraisa. Which is Russia.
North Korean missiles are still in the stone age they are not ICBM. Iranian missiles are not ICBM they can not reach Israel 1000 Km away.
RUSSIA has every right to protest and to take necessary actions.
aviomaster 7 months ago
@aviomaster Personally, I find CNN hopelessly biased, please don't base what you think of the US on them. Anyway, I mostly use Russian language sources for Russian equipment, since western sources don't provide the level of detail I like. I have never seen the Mr. Brzezinski book, but due to the era he was involved in, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he said the USSR should be completely quashed. It was politically acceptable then, but times have changed. But this is beside the point.
macfanpro 6 months ago
@aviomaster Closer to what I was referring to, Russia could simply swamp anything the US could throw at incoming RVs. The US has approx. 15 interceptors, based in Alaska. Russia has, by estimate, 2,500 RV's on 500 missiles it could throw at that shield. Do you really think that 15 missiles could kill anything near that sort of attack? Even with more liberal estimates of 50 interceptors, that still would not even make a dent on fatalities. Russia had a GIGATON of nuclear weapons aimed at NORAD.
macfanpro 6 months ago
@aviomaster Now, with the Iran/DPRC threat, yes, now the missiles have a really hard time going 200 feet, never mind 2000 miles, but they might someday, and (if it works) Taepodong-2 could theoretically reach California. Not that I would miss LA that much, but it is still something that I would rather avoid. I think that GMD could defend against that threat, and possibly a (very) limited strike by China, but the system isn't effective against superpower-level threats.
macfanpro 6 months ago
@aviomaster On the topic of Israel, there are two possibilities I think the Iranians are doing: First, they might just not have the capability. This I doubt, due to the DPRKs missile tests. The second reason, which I find more likely, is that they are not using then, since it would give the US and Israel a opportunity to invade Iran. I think that their missile system is mostly a deterrent system, not an offensive system.
macfanpro 6 months ago
@aviomaster Yes, I do have too much time. On the topic of propaganda, the Russian sources are not that good in terms of being unbiased. I have with probably more than my fair share of Russian television, and I an see definite signs of the USSR-era propaganda. While, yes, I admit CNN and the rest of the American networks are horrible, the Russian ones are not excellent. So please don't try to spew pro-Russia propaganda from them. I find that technical sources are far better sources of info.
macfanpro 6 months ago
The KEY to success is USA wants GLOBAL world domination.
But Russian Nuclear ICBM's need to be shut DOWN before they release deadly payload.
EVEN if USA missile shield is 60% effective which is SCIENCE Fiction 40% of Russian ICBM's will land on their Targets which are big cities 40 % of Russian Nuclear warheads will be destruction of MAJOR USA Above 500.000 people cities.
aviomaster 9 months ago
@aviomaster Well, yes, but ground based mid-course defense (GMD) was never supposed to defend against a superpower, like Russia or China. What the system is really supposed to defend against is the North Korea and Iran type threats, who would only have 1-2 missiles. A 50% kill rate (observed from tests) with one interceptor is acceptable if you can launch 3 per target. A nation with SSBN's could completely ignore GMD. SDI was SUPPOSED to be able to fend off the USSR. It couldn't.
macfanpro 7 months ago
Sprint is a 7,700 pound missile with a fist stage that has a thrust of 650,000 pounds, for a thrust/weight ratio of 85/1. Do you people really think this video is sped up, or do you just not believe that something can actually accelerate this fast? I suppose it could be worse; this could be a video about HIBEX, which had an acceleration FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT'S IN THIS VID.
YetAnotherGH 11 months ago
@YetAnotherGH Amen brother! Engineers compared HIBEX to a linear explosion that was guided! How wild is that!?
sakoshooter48 11 months ago
@YetAnotherGH My uncle worked on HiBex, and just before his death he used to say, tongue in cheek, that it really wasn't a missile but a guided explosion with profoundly terminal results. He also said that of the four of five test vehicles launched, the sound they made when launched was similar to a high pitched note on a violin, so fast it barely registered to the eye. Would love to see some footage of it!
sakoshooter48 4 months ago
The Sprint was an amazing piece of equipment. The current generation of missile interceptors are more advanced in some ways, but they could really do well to try to revive some of the Sprint technology and design features. It was amazing. The damn thing could actually hit the payload, which was better than the best hopes of the designers. Initially they just wanted it to come close enough for a 5kt proximity detonation to destroy it, but it did far better.
DrBuzz0 1 year ago
HIBEX > Sprint.
SeverEnergia 1 year ago
I read somewhere the sprint/spartan, not sure which, was supersonic before leaving the silo, and hit 400G of acceleration.
EnigmaNZ1 1 year ago
Well, during exercises rather all goes right, where as in war it is not the case
anisocoro 1 year ago
Fu#@ing Russian commie bed wetters. Just a bunch of wanna be, 3rd world, bush league under achievers. Stick to what you know best: Penis envy of EVERYTHING American and squeezing "Wotka" from potatoes. You are an embarrassment to yourselves and anyone who is unfortunate enough to come in contact with you. Now....get on your rotary dial phone and call 1............8..........0............0.....W-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A.
Imustfly 1 year ago
Nike Sprint: 0-Mach 10 in 5 SECONDS, while sustaining over 100g's at launch. The radar was so accurate that it had to be DE-TUNED during tests so as not to actually HIT the reentry target. As for anti-missle missle technology,...we were light years...LIGHT YEARS ahead of "Ivan" and had, by 1964, already FIELDED the Nike Sprint, which even by todays standard is the most sophisticated missle EVER developed...while the F#*@ING Russians were still trying to figure out how to flush rivet aircraft.
Imustfly 1 year ago
@Imustfly
100% correct hombre. I remember they put in a 100 meter deflection error to evaluate the predicted effect of its 5kt neutron warhead. On the other hand the Soviet Galosh-ABM-35 used a huge 3 megaton warhead that would have EMP killed their own fucking radar arrays. By comparison with our shit then and now they make farm machinery. I do remember a couple of Sprint test that were deemed failures because the missiles hit the warheads!!! And, the Sprint could detect and ignore decoys.
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz Spoke true! The Sprint and Nike Hercules systems were the driving and motivating factor for the Soviets zeal to sign the 1972 ABM treaty. We were amused that the Soviet Galosh system used such large warheads, and being that they were intended to be point weapons, we knew they would do themselves more damage with the EMP degradation to their own equipment, we didn't raise a fuss. The Soviets would have EMP damage covering most of their strategic nuke bases, humorous actually!
sakoshooter48 4 months ago
@sakoshooter48
Well said and their solution to the EMP damage was even funnier...they decided to stay with tube technology well into the 1980's. I guess they didn't know how to build a fucking Faraday cage.
And today when we compare the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and the latest Russian ABM missile it appears that they still are rather fond of farm machinery.
1138thz 4 months ago
the nosecone actually gets hotter than the core of the motor.. now thats some serious friction !
HackerGuitarist 2 years ago
How fast exactly is the *initial* acceleration of these things? I've been trying to explain capabilities of rockets to a drag-racing friend of mine. Top fuel dragsters get to 100 mph in 0.8 seconds. I know these rockets achieve incredible acceleration, but how could they do in a quarter mile count-down/trigger situation?
lasertuber 2 years ago
@lasertuber Negating air resistance, the Sprint would finish 1/4 mile in .9 second. For the 0-100 question, the String would hit 100 in .045 second, or 17 times faster than the dragster. Pretty fast!
macfanpro 1 year ago
@macfanpro Whoops, forgot the piston. With the piston, the missile would be at 100mph in the silo! Also, The Sprint would be at 1/4 mile in .4 of a second. Sorry about the typo, String should be Sprint.
macfanpro 1 year ago
@macfanpro Thanks. Those rocket-cars at drag racing events are nothing like that. They put on a nice light show though!
lasertuber 1 year ago
@lasertuber Well, the Sprint at +3 seconds from launch was already at Mach 4.7, at +7 is was at first stage burn-out and just a smidge under Mach 7.4, and at +10 seconds it was at Mach 10+ (nominal) with second stage burnout. Exterior temperature was just nigh of 2700F, with a kinetic energy equivalent of about 7.3 million horsepower. I think your drag racing buddies will understand those numbers!
sakoshooter48 4 months ago
@sakoshooter48 Thanks for the excellent numbers. Dragsters are concerned about the first tenths of a second from a dead stop. Does that 3 seconds start from a **COMPLETE** dead stop, or is there some kind of momentum or boost beforehand? Dragsters are all rev'd up when the Christmas tree lights start, so the warm-up part is okay. In any case, I like to point out to dragsters that rockets can literally blow dragsters off the track in a quarter mile! LoL
lasertuber 4 months ago
The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds. The first stage was exhausted after only 1.2 seconds, but produced 2900 kN (650,000 lbf) of thrust. The second stage fired within 1 - 2 seconds of launch. Interception at an altitude of 1500 m to 30000 m took at most 15 seconds. Air friction alone during flight of the missile generated temperatures of up to 3400°C (6200°F). Sprint was also constructed to withstand shocks up to 25,000Gs (nearby nuclear explosions).
AvatarAlphaOmega 2 years ago
@AvatarAlphaOmega If I am not mistaken, and I do admit that I don't always have the correct information, I thought the boost impulse was lengthened to allow the guidance the opportunity to "un-lag" making for a more accurate intercept. I did misquote temps, It should have been C.
sakoshooter48 4 months ago
Great fancy moses that thing is fast!
youtubasoarus 2 years ago
I have personally seen original 8mm film of a Sprint launch. Nothing is sped up. It was that fast. The Russians here are just jealous... ;-) My father witnessed test firings at white sands during his nike hercules training and also confirms the speed in the video. Doubters, just shut up... you are only making yourself look more and more ignorant.
k4lpcm 3 years ago 15
@k4lpcm now russia has the fastest buclear ICBM in the world ...
nfsmohpsp 7 months ago
Sprint, like early soviet ABM are not interceptors. They explode a nuclear warhead in high atmosphere and disrupts electronics on incoming warheads. Both systems where shitty hammer-to-kill-flies. Now the SM and S400 systems are very different, very fine interceptors.
C0mr4d3 3 years ago
S 400 is not a ICBM interceptor, it is a highly advanced SAM battery
Tomahawk1999 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And oh, funny thing is: some of you still keep claiming it is not a sped up video.
P.S. Soviet early interceptors used liquid fuel, not later ones.
And hey, pinnacle of guided missiles is S-400, which can actually intercept things, unlike american interceptors.
And if you want fastest thing in the world: Topol m warhead engaging target in terminal phase.
But of course gravitation helps.
PashaGolikov 4 years ago
Actually, the first part of the video is slowed down to one-fifth speed to allow people to see the dynamics of the missile leaving the launch tube. And our interceptors can hit things just fine, Pasha - when was the last time Russia ran a test that wasn't staged??
Cardsharp227 4 years ago 12
"Pasha - when was the last time Russia ran a test that wasn't staged?? "
Better yet where are the videos taken from the impacts. ;-)
FelixA9 4 years ago
heh u russian fan boys make me laugh, we know u all have a chip on your shoulder cos the comminism thing didn't work ok but the word never respected you then and there not going to with all this crap your throwing out, all very well if u have half decent intercepters you still dnt have the budget to use then. work on not being a 3rd world country then the technology
shackvan 4 years ago
"And oh, funny thing is: some of you still keep claiming it is not a sped up video."
It's not. Sprint could accelerate at 100Gs.
FelixA9 4 years ago 3
LOL SM-3 is the way to go. I was on the USS O'Kane DDG-77 we did the radar telemetry on them, hit to kill plenty of video to back it up too.
Scott11078 4 years ago 2
When was the last time that S-400 or S-300 was combat tested. Oh...it wasn't.
richcta 4 years ago
Well, maybe americans were? Oh, Patriot, right... 10% of intercepted stone age Scuds...
Terranin 4 years ago 3
dude i am iraqi and i was in iraq in 1991 the patriot did nothing to scuds nothing nothing..it toook the american 10 years after that to shot down one scud.lol
SAMTOMAS 4 years ago
In fairness, I understand the Patriot was intentionally made "inaccurate" (good enough to hit a plane but not a missile) before deployment...the politicians were afraid it might violate the ABM treaty.
M1903A1 3 years ago
Otherway round, the Patriot was designed to go for aircraft so would accurately hit the fuel tank of the missile. The missile fly past the Scud warhead before detonating and due to the closing speed the fragments would do bugger all to it.
The patriot needed adjustments to the guidence alogrithms (to strike head on), the warhead (bigger fragments) and the fuze (trigger earlier) to be effective against missiles.
adodgygeeza 2 years ago
@Terranin
Hey stupid, the 1991 Patriot was an antiaircraft missile with some missile intercept capability not an ABM system. It had a nearly 100% hit rate but a lame 10% warhead kill rate because it homed in on the center of a target not the warhead. The S-400 is better than the current PAC-3, its advantages are its longer range and speed but the PAC-3 is a small short range missile not a large over the horizon system and its launcher holds 16 missiles not 4. and the PAC-3 is cheaper.
1138thz 1 year ago
@1138thz
PAC-3 is not a true ABM-optomized system. Comparing the S-400 to PAC-3 is really not a fair shoot-off. PAC-3 does a pretty good job, but a true ABM system would be AEGIS or THAAD.
Don't discount cost though. If it's cheaper that means you can build and deploy more, and having an overwhelming numeric advantage is a huge deal.
DrBuzz0 1 year ago
@DrBuzz0
I agree but there is little else to compare it with that is presently deployed. I would rather have a battery of PAC-3's defending my ass because with more faster reacting missiles (48 - 64 missiles compared to 12) and its superior tracking and guidance my chances of survival are better. The S-400 system can be overwhelmed with decoys because of its high altitude intercept profile while the PAC-3 is immune to that because intercept takes place in the troposphere
1138thz 1 year ago
Sprint left the silo at 2,000 mph. It then accelerated at a rate of 2,000 mph per second (about 100g). So after just 3 seconds it is travelling at ~8,000 mph. I don't think we need to speed up the video.
Gruntol5 4 years ago
@PashaGolikov Pasha, you little commie bitch! Now you think the sprint missile video is sped up??? WTF is wrong with you? It is still one of the fastest atmospheric missiles ever flown. Please notice the interceptor glowing incandescently as it passes through the Mach 10 threshold. You Russian fanboys crack me the hell up. Get over it, you are still 25 years behind the west and with the introduction of Waverider, all of your air defense will be rendered obsolete.
sakoshooter48 11 months ago
Reguardless of the historical implications and the cold war, this is still an amazing video. It's not sped up: It actually goes that fast. Hence the name "Sprint"
DrBuzz0 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
too badUS did not get it to the level of soviet ICBM interceptors ;)
And I love to read all those idiotic shit that you guys write, like railgun territory and so on. I wish peopel knew more physics. But I guess they don't teach it in US schools do they? I heard they stopped teaching evolution in US schools. I guess US leadership wants american even more stupid to manipulate them easier.
PashaGolikov 4 years ago
Ummm, Soviet ICBM interceptors were complete pieces of crap that used liquid-fuel, were unreliable, and nowhere near as accurate as missiles like the Sprint. This is one reason you guys were so anxious to sign the 1972 ABM treaty, whereas Pres. Nixon just saw it as a way to save budget dollars.
Cardsharp227 4 years ago 6
PS - I took physics during university, and did quite well, thank you. It's a shame they don't teach humility in Soviet - er, Russian schools. Step off, Comrade Golikov.
Cardsharp227 4 years ago 10
@PashaGolikov
You seem to be a snotty fellow Golikov, losers should learn humility. Your missiles are lame, your aircraft are second rate copies(look at your PAK-FA copy of the F-22) , and your tanks suck. Thats why if countries have a choice they buy our shit. Why did Egypt buy 2000 M1A2's instead of 4000 T-90's? Why are the other Arabs set to buy 70 billion in new tanks and aircraft from the USA instead of Russian garbage? You guys should stick to making farm machinery and Vodka!!!
1138thz 1 year ago
@PashaGolikov
You are so full of shit! Knock back another bottle of Vodka spud brain.
1138thz 1 year ago
Now think about the tests that were necessary to get this thing into a close proximity to an enemy MIRV (that it was designed to intercept), taking into account something like "acceleration through rain" and you have the makings of an excellent operational test so the air force will buy the thing after it is demonstrated successfully. Intertesting work if you can find it these days.
ktnj609 4 years ago
In addition, a "plasma" would shroud that nose-cone and create a super-heated zone around the weapon...in other words...there was no way to communicate signals for guidance to it beyond a certain point.
ktnj609 4 years ago
I can tell you this much....it was supersonic when it left the container. I have that from a pretty reliable source.
ktnj609 4 years ago
under the right conditions, like high-humidity, you can watch the missile break the sound barrier half a second after the engine ignites.
Cardsharp227 4 years ago
I read it accelerated at 400G, almost 4Km/s/s, that is getting into railgun territory.
EnigmaNZ 4 years ago
Most sources state an average of 100 g, which would fit to
approximately 3000 kilo-newtons thrust and a lift-off mass
of 3.5 metric tons.
Astrofrank 4 years ago
how much did it weigh and what kind of fuel was that!?! that was insane!!!
jrmyrook 5 years ago
The NIKE Sprint weighed around 7750lbs and used a highly compacted solid fuel to achieve it's thrust and energy. Though extremely accurate, it was not a 'kinetic-kill' weapon - it carried a small nuclear warhead to ensure target destruction. Thrust was in the range of 3000 kilo-Newtons (some sources report thrust as over 5000 kN). Pretty amazing today - totally mind boggling considering this was a '60s-'70s project.
Cardsharp227 5 years ago
It's too bad the clip doesn't go on a little longer, I think I've seen a similar clip where soon after the second stage goes off one can see the cone of the missile glowing from air friction.
bitrex 4 years ago
that's true. in fact, if you were to aim an acetelyne torch at the nosecone during flight, the burning gasses from the torch would actually LOWER the temperature at the tip of the rocket.
Cardsharp227 4 years ago