Sprint & HiBEX ABM

[KJ_Lesnick]

The missile seemed really amazing in almost every respect, from the freaky acceleration it had, to the structural tolerances it was designed to (supposedly to allow it to fly through a nuclear blast, or at least the shockwaves).

I'm curious if anybody has anything about

• What kind of guidance system did it have?
  
• Was it designed to fly through a nuclear blast, or through the resulting shockwaves?
  
• Why did they have to de-tune the guidance system?
  

[pyro-manic]

http://www.nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html

[Gondor]

WOW 

Gondor

[Steel Penguin]

geep !   that's some rather impressive performance numbers,  and a Hittile as well

[KJ_Lesnick]

Pyro-manic

I read the link... just to be absolutely clear about a few details
... The ability to withstand shocks of 25,000g: This was to allow it to survive the shockwaves of nearby-blasts and/or heat too?  I assume this capacity to handle this shock was short-term like a football player taking a 50-70g hammering once for a fraction of a second
... I'm not sure I understand what they mean by fluid-injection: Does this mean extra fluid was shot into one nozzle to vary thrust?
... Why would it be bad to hit the RV directly

[pyro-manic]

Pyro-manic

I read the link... just to be absolutely clear about a few details
... The ability to withstand shocks of 25,000g: This was to allow it to survive the shockwaves of nearby-blasts and/or heat too?  I assume this capacity to handle this shock was short-term like a football player taking a 50-70g hammering once for a fraction of a second

Pure conjecture, but I suspect it was to allow the missile to survive detonations of other Sprints in the area? If you've got a cluster of incoming warheads and you launch several interceptors, you don't want the first one to destroy all the others following behind it. Sprint was nuclear, after all. Shock is a momentary effect, yes - the energy is delivered all at once. As the missile was ablative coated to withstand the air friction of M=10 speeds, I assume that would also protect it from nuclear flash.

... I'm not sure I understand what they mean by fluid-injection: Does this mean extra fluid was shot into one nozzle to vary thrust?

Yes. Injecting a fluid (air, for example) into the exhaust will disrupt and alter the shape of the exhaust plume, causing a resultant force that will change the course of the missile as the thrust line does not run through the centre of gravity. There are some dry academic/military .pdfs on google if you search "fluid injection thrust vector control".

... Why would it be bad to hit the RV directly

No idea. I assume that for testing purposes there might have been some telemetry from the RV that could have been useful? I don't know. Perhaps given that it was a nuclear warhead, actually hitting the target was not desirable, a near miss being preferred? I'm assuming there would be a proximity fuse on the missile, or command detonation via the ground control station (which would calculate proximity of the target and interceptor from the tracking radar?). I really have no idea.

I'd recommend a documentary called "Nukes in Space: The Rainbow Bombs" which covers Sprint a bit, as well as lots of high-altitude nuclear tests and suchlike. Quite interesting (if all a bit frightening), and narrated by William Shatner. It's probably on Youtube.

EDIT: Yep, here you go: http://youtu.be/_AJPpHnBJiY

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic

Pure conjecture, but I suspect it was to allow the missile to survive detonations of other Sprints in the area?

Probably...

Shock is a momentary effect, yes - the energy is delivered all at once.

Okay, that's fairly simple

As the missile was ablative coated to withstand the air friction of M=10 speeds, I assume that would also protect it from nuclear flash.

How much heat would nuclear flash impart?

Yes. Injecting a fluid (air, for example) into the exhaust will disrupt and alter the shape of the exhaust plume, causing a resultant force that will change the course of the missile as the thrust line does not run through the centre of gravity.

I gotcha...

No idea. I assume that for testing purposes there might have been some telemetry from the RV that could have been useful? I don't know. Perhaps given that it was a nuclear warhead, actually hitting the target was not desirable, a near miss being preferred?

More damage from a proximity detonation than a physical hit...

EDIT: Yep, here you go: http://youtu.be/_AJPpHnBJiY

Does this include like the argus effect?

[scooter]

EDIT: Yep, here you go: http://youtu.be/_AJPpHnBJiY

Does this include like the argus effect?

It goes into all the upper atmosphere tests, along with some other rather fascinating things about the early nuclear arms race.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Everybody

According to the site that I pointed out, it mentioned there were several ideas for improving the Nike Spartan

• Improved Spartan: The idea was to improve the performance of the missile so as to produce a faster response time (was around 30 seconds as is), greater acceleration and maximum velocity, and a loiter capability (i.e. the ability to shut down the engines, reposition and refire the motor allowing for greater accuracy and a 1MT warhead instead of a 5MT warhead)
  
• SDI Proposal: It would instead of carrying a 5MT warhead, it would carry several optical guided, non-nuclear warheads (it violated SALT limits)
  

.
Provided it's not classified, how does optical guidance work?  Are they talking about IR/EOTS?


Scooter

I saw the video: Fascinating

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking of somethings

1. About the Sprint: It used an enhanced radiation warhead (a neutron bomb): I'm wondering since it's operational altitude was around 5,000 to 100,000 feet, wouldn't that kill as many people as the enemy?

2. How enforceable was the treaty?

[Captain Canada]

Wow is right ! That thing is wicked ! Looking forward to watching the film. Thanks guys !

[RLBH]

I was thinking of somethings

1. About the Sprint: It used an enhanced radiation warhead (a neutron bomb): I'm wondering since it's operational altitude was around 5,000 to 100,000 feet, wouldn't that kill as many people as the enemy?

If deployed to defend cities, it would go hand-in-hand with a large-scale shelter program, since you'd be relying on low-altitude bursts in any case. Out in the ICBM fields, collateral casualties would be small - there'd probably be more from friendly ICBM stages coming back to earth.

2. How enforceable was the treaty?

Not at all. The Soviets broke it in reality, the US knew they'd broken it, and nobody could do anything about it. Any SAM system capable of dealing with an aircraft in the B-70 or SR-71 class is automatically capable of dealing with ICBMs, provided that the command and control network is up to it.

[rickshaw]

Not at all. The Soviets broke it in reality, the US knew they'd broken it, and nobody could do anything about it. Any SAM system capable of dealing with an aircraft in the B-70 or SR-71 class is automatically capable of dealing with ICBMs, provided that the command and control network is up to it.

I would suggest that neither signatory to the ABM treaty were exactly "honest actors" in what they did.   The Soviets built the radar at Abalakova, near Krasnoyarsk, in central Siberia, which the US claimed was in breach of the treaty.   The US upgraded it's radars at Thule and at Fylingdales.  In all three cases, the radars had possible dual uses.  The US under Reagan was determined to paint the fUSSR in the worst possible light, the Soviets reacted in a similar fashion.   A study by the British Joint Intelligence Committee considered that, while the Soviets may have a "case to answer", it was "unlikely" that the radar had been designed for ABM missile guidance. In 1985 the Soviets offered to stop work on the PAR at Abalakova if the US abandoned the upgrading of the radars at Thule and Fylingdales. The US rejected the offer.

It could be claimed that the US was not interested in obeying the spirit of the treaty any more than the fUSSR was IMHO.

[RLBH]

Not disagreeing - but the Soviets had the missiles to go with the radar system too. S-200 gave the entire USSR a thin ABM shield, not enough to be decisive but enough to complicate strike planning.

[rickshaw]

Not disagreeing - but the Soviets had the missiles to go with the radar system too. S-200 gave the entire USSR a thin ABM shield, not enough to be decisive but enough to complicate strike planning.

The CIA believed otherwise.  To them the S-200 was purely a SAM system.   Frank Gaffney's "Centre for Security Policy" is it seems the main source for pushing the idea it was an ABM system and I'm sorry, his claims don't seem to cut it as far as I can tell and post-date the fall of the Soviet Union, so they can't have had any effect on US ABM perceptions.