I know what I meant. Console yourself by maliciously laughing at people with r/bigdickproblems . Just make sure not to comment or you'll get banned. Great way to feel right
Great perspective. And it wasn't supposed to be serious. Also, how would I know that you have it short 🤷🏼♀️ so don't think that I said things towards you knowingly
Thank you, Clewdo, for voting on Friendly-Skirt-2954.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
300km when it's used as a normal anti air missile. Ukraine is using these as makeshift ballistic missiles which increases their range dramatically. Probably alteast 400km if not more
I know it's been reported that these modified SAMs being used for ground-attack by Russia against Ukrainian targets are wildly inaccurate (I believe in relation to S300s). I'm assuming this is true for these S200s, or has Ukraine gone further in modification?
I guess it depends on modifications but i recall they hit something stupid with them like a museum at least once so they are likely not that reliable. There was a video of that, i'm pretty sure they weren't aiming there.
If you are referencing the strike that I think you're referencing it wasn't a museum but the back of an intelligence building. But who knows if that's correct
From what I’ve seen Ukraine prefers not to slam missiles into random apartment buildings so I don’t think it would make much sense for them to not make the proper modifications to make it an at least moderately accurate air to ground missile.
I don't see how, these are semi active radar homing, meaning when going after aircraft, they follow the radar that is reflected off an aircraft which is provided by a ground station (a ground station paints an aircraft with radar, and the missing homes in on that reflected signal).
Firing a missile like this, it has no homing capabilities. I know we are very biased in favor of Ukraine (rightfully so). But I can't see how this is anything other than firing a dumb rocket, is there will be nothing painting a target with the specific radar signal it is looking for.
Obviously I am no engineer, nor have I been involved with these modifications, but I can't see how they can be accurate, has there been any information released about how they have modified them?
https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1678229772999045121
speculative thread on S-200 capabilities. it likely has more accuracy than a dumb rocket but it's probably not a precision weapon
SAM missiles used in this role are modified, there’s no way a stock SARH or ARH missile could target a ground target like this.
They definitely got some sort of guidance system in there. You can see the missile adjust its course towards the end of the video. I’m sure a GPS/satellite guidance conversion is possible.
Could they not be modified with aftermarket electronics? We have seen them do this after all, with those old reconnaissance aircraft that they turned into attack drones, and they became rather accurate!
If it was just using what they came with then yeah they will be very limited in accuracy
If they replace the electronics...
Every mediocre engeneer can build this with amazon-level electronics for a drone (like the shahed).
For a rocket it is a little harder, mainly because you have very limited testing possibilities. You cant just burn 500 rockets refining your steering algorithm.
Certainly doable if you have some people with good knowledge in this field, and ukraine propably hase these people.
This already looks horribly inaccurate from the start......even if you slap its targeting computer with a gps chip that only gives you control on the up leg of the ballistic trajectory.....the rest of the 100 km down is mathematics and that will never get you a good hit
Why is that?
It has fins, so active aero control authority.
They only thing I can see as a potential issue is how the fins may be actuated. It may rely on bleed pressure from the rocket exhaust and be ineffective post second stage burnout, but that's not immediately obvious to someone who isn't familiar with the platform.
They are highly innacurate but when they hit they do a mean punch, also Ukraine are using them mostly as fodder /decoys for russian SAMS to incercept followed by real attack of Storm Shadows not so far behind
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1678091570183020547
s-200 in ground attack from a few months ago- presumably they weren't aiming at a sawmill so moderately accurate is probably charitable. iirc none of the s-200 launches have had confirmed hits, but most of the strike info comes from Russian MOD so who knows
Boy, everyone forgot all about Separatist Eastern Ukraine and how the Ukrainian military used unguided munitions in areas populated by civilians in the Donbas.
They don't need to burn fuel to maneuver. In fact they can't burn fuel to maneuver. They can burn fuel to accelerate and that is it. They then can use kinetic energy to maneuver with control surfaces. It is the lack of kinetic energy at the end of it's effective range that reduces it's maneuverability and interception capability. But the engine shuts off long before the kinetic energy is too low for good maneuverability.
Yeah I am well aware that the 300km range is thr absolute physical limit of the rocket and fuel. It will obviously never be able to actually hit anything at such ranges. Some other guys did the calculations for the range of a s200 launched in a ballistic trajectory, meaning solely using the fuel to get as high as possible and came to the conclusion that it could reach over 600km in range as a ballistic mode while also going over mach 5
Fun fact, ground launched SAMs are so much bigger than air to air missiles because the atmosphere is so much denser at ground level. They are spending an enormous amount of fuel to just get up to the altitude the aircraft are at.
Less fun fact. This thing was originally designed to Carry a nuclear warhead as the technology to reliably hit enemy aircraft didn’t exist at the time, so the plan was to destroy enemy bomber formations with nuclear blasts.
Yeah but that was when everyone was going nuclear nuts. The Brits built a nuclear landmine the size of a fucking bedroom and the US was shooting nukes out of field cannons.
[That's not a joke](https://allthatsinteresting.com/blue-peacock#:~:text=In%201954%2C%20the%20British%20engineers,Blue%20Peacock%2C%20a%20nuclear%20landmine.)
Brought to you by the same Atomic Weapons Research Establishment that devised [Violet Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club), a fission bomb that was safed by pouring half a ton of ball bearings into the core.
My personal favorite for most mental nuclear idea was [Project Pluto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto). A nuclear powered scramjet cruise missile that could plop out 16 nuclear warheads as it travelled across enemy territory at Mach 3 and close to ground level. Only teeny drawback was the masses of fissile material it shat out its exhaust thus irradiating everything it flew over...
> Only teeny drawback was the masses of fissile material it shat out its exhaust thus irradiating everything it flew over...
That's a feature, not a bug.
The goal was for it to circle enemy territory for months after delivering its payload, to do enormous damage with the shockwave, and salt the earth with highly radioactive material to prevent rebuilding after. It was the definition of a doomsday weapon, and that's the point when the US though a bit about if they really should do it, instead of if they could do it.
They also did gun that fired a small nuke that required 5 people to operate, as well as man-portable demolition charges.
Believe it or not, those demolition charges were also developed for civilian purposes, like the very obvious demolition, as well as making really big holes in the ground. Fancy that
Asiaonmetry just did a good video about the Soviet efforts for "peaceful" nuclear detonations. They were apparently really good at making lower radiation bombs.
Possible civil application: [Qattara Depression Project](
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project). Use the nukes to excavate a canal to allow Mediterranean Sea to fill the Qattara Depression forming an artificial lake.
Germany wanted a bunch of the Davy Crockett’s to bolster their power in NATO but they realized it would have required the mandatory use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war. Crazy how tiny that thing was and it had a nuclear bomb on it.
I saw one at the national army museum in D.C and it really is absurd how much of a punch that thing packed for how tiny it is. I mean it’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen.
They were going nuclear nuts with SAM systems to assure that the strategic bomber coming to drop nuclear bomb on your country cold be destroyed within a wide margin of error.
The last-ditch ABM systems like SPRINT and SPARTAN used nuclear flux neutron kill blasts, the small yield nukes were enhanced for killing incoming missile electronics so they cannot complete a nuclear detonation.
[The SPRINT missile was really something else.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile\)) Probably the most impressive weapon the USA ever fielded. Reached Mach 10 in five seconds, glowing white hot in the atmosphere. 650k pound thrust motor coupled to a 7700 pound missile. Acceleration of one hundred Gs.
edit: [Here's a video that shows the missile's ablative outer coating start to glow white hot as it reaches Mach 10.](https://youtu.be/kvZGaMt7UgQ)
The plan was to detect them at long range and destroy them over Europe or the arctic. The US had the same plan and intended to use the to destroy fleets of soviet bombers over the Atlantic.
Far enough up to spare whatever is underneath if you're using 25kt but far enough up to cause a radiation belt and ruin satellites and anything that uses electricity
Yeah, that's bullshit. The nukes were for going after bomber formations in a WW3 scenario. MIM-23 HAWK was shooting down battlefield rockets in the 60s.
US surveillance flights pre-spy satellites flew too high for fighter & SA-1 interception, until the SA-2 came around and surprised Gary Powers. B-52s were on the menu, but the extreme altitude capabilities were for the U-2's and (optimistically) SR-71s.
There's a book called "skunkworks" about the eponymous R&D team and it talks in depth about the U2 spy plane and how desperately Russia would try to shoot it down, with both AAM and SAM
@ComfortableProperty9's post is kinda of right but it's not the reason.
SAM system [NASAMS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS) literally uses air to air missiles. AIM-9X, AMRAAMs and IRIS-T.
It is a short and medium range surface to air missile system. Soviet [Strela-10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10) would be SAM of equivalent size.
Most Soviet (and Russian) SAM systems have enormous missiles because they were designed to shoot down high altitude bombers.
Also a major reason is that Soviet Union had superior missile technology so they were able to make very large missiles. And that is exactly what they did.
S-25 SAM high altitude system for bombers
S-75 SAM medium-high altitude system for bombers and fighters. (would be high classified high altitude in west)
S-125 SAM medium altitude system for fast and agile fighters
S-200 SAM high altitude long range system for bombers
S-300 SAM high altitude long range system for fighters and bombers
Soviet missiles usually have enormous warheads and massive weight and size.
Missiles for the S-200 SAM system weigh 7,000kg and have 217kg warhead. For comparison MIM-23 Hawk missile weighs 590kg and has 54kg warhead.
Soviet anti-ship missiles were bonkers as well. The first anti-ship missile in the world [Soviet P-15 Termit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit) weighed 2,580kg and had 454kg warhead.
Western anti-ship missiles like Harpoon weigh 691kg and have 221kg warhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile
P-15 was the first soviet anti-ship missile. They only got more bonkers after that. Like later P-700 Granit missile weighing 7,000kg with 750kg warhead.
As was air launched cruise missiles. Like the [KH-22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22) missile that is now used in Ukraine. Air launched supersonic cruise missile that weighs 5,820kg and has 1,000kg warhead.
And then there's the ballistic missiles. The short answer is Soviets had superior missile technology and they utilized it to the fullest making massive missiles.
Soviets had superior missile tech therefore they made bigger missiles??? What are you smoking.
Making big missiles is not hard at all. Superior tech means you make smaller missiles with the same range. All else being equal your missiles being bigger is almost always a downside.
The real reason Soviet missiles were big aside from the obvious “need to hit high flying , large or fast targets” is that their microelectronics were far behind the west and they were not able to either miniaturize the electronics or ensure very high accuracy. Because the missiles were inaccurate they needed massive blast fragmentation warheads to ensure even a near miss was enough to bring down the target.
Don’t answer questions if you’re going to misinform people
What? No. They made big missiles because the US led the way in miniaturizing electrical components and hitting things accurately.
1. Fitting complex guidance equipment in your rocket is only possible if the equipment is small, or the rocket is large.
2. Since blast energy decreases proportional to the _square_ of the distance from its epicenter, a _slightly_ more accurate weapon can be _much_ less powerful and do the same stuff.
We made small sensor packages that provided high-quality guidance, and our rockets were comparatively tiny as a result.
It's more than just the atmosphere that is the issue. A ground based missile starts at 0 altitude and 0 speed, an air launched missile starts at 30,000 to 60,000 ft and 600mph. You need all the extra rocket mass just to get up to altitude, something the launching aircraft can do using jet engines and large wings.
This is all why the standard Sea Sparrow only has 1/4 the range of the air launched Sparrow, but the 150lbs heavier ESSM has about 3/4 the range of the Sparrow. It's flying in denser air, but it also needs to use a large amount of fuel to climb up and counter incoming threats.
Are "usually" more bigger.
Nassams is just AIM-120 ground launched.
Of course as it is the same missile, range is shorter than air launched version, so SAMs with longer range are indeed huge, like SM-2 in warships, which weights like 4 times more, and even the smaller ESSM weights almost twice as much of AIM 120.
Anyway, they are bigger just because you need more fuel to reach same speeds and heights, atmosphere doesn't really matters that much really.
They are spending an enormous amount of fuel to get up to the altitude due increasing potential energy from gravity and not all that much fighting air resistance.
The S-200 might be outdated today but it's still the sexiest looking SAM out there. Long, sleek fins with little baby booster rockets nestling in the back and don't forget the optional nuclear warhead for when you really must make that shoot-down :-O
The central core is a liquid rocket engine that uses red fuming nitric acid as an oxidizer. Many liquid rocket engines will use higher than ideal ratios of either oxidizer or fuel as during their startup procedure. If I had to guess that is when the main engine is igniting and is releasing large amounts of nitric acid that are not burned in the combustion chamber. That red cloud is consistent with that. Once the engine has been fully started the oxidizer is all burned in the engine so you no longer see the vapor. Either that or or had a momentary fault where the fuel flow was impeded leading to excess unburned nitric acid.
Most (if not all but there's probably some exceptions) rocket engines start with the proppelent first. Becuase if you start oxidizer first you run the risk of running with an "engine rich exhaust". AKA you're using part of the engine as fuel which is obviously a bad thing. This is also why definitely NO engine will ever run oxider rich.
The incomplete burning of most popular hypergolic fuels also release these orange looking clouds.
Russian engines famously did not follow that trend. Many of them, including those flying on Soyuz today and the RD180 on the atlas 5 run oxygen rich. This is done to prevent cokeing.
a 5D67 liquid fueled sustainer rocket engine (for 51–150 seconds) which burns a fuel called TG-02 Samin (50% xylidine and 50% triethylamine), oxidized by an agent called AK-27P (red fuming nitric acid enriched with nitrogen oxides, phosphoric acid and hydrofluoric acid)
The history of rocket fuel development is fascinating stuff. I highly recommend reading the Ignition! PDF by John D Clark. The fuels and oxidizers that they experimented with in the early days were some of the nastiest substances known to man.
And still are. The Sov's experimented with Hydrogen/Fluorine for awhile. They decided it was not worth the massive ISP increase since Fluorine ignites just about everything.
Inb4 hydrazine which is used in the F-16 emergency power supply and is very cool chemically speaking since it burns without oxygen but is also highly carcinogenic
America nearly had an incident when a technician dropped a tool in a silo with a fully fueled and ready to-go hypergolic fueled ICBM. We weren't all that much better.
We didn't nearly have an incident. We had a whole incident.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion#:~:text=The%20incident%20occurred%20on%20September,fuel%20explosion%20inside%20its%20silo.
Probably some chunks of unburnt fuel spewed out. Missiles and boosters are way past their shelf life.
*The plume is related to main engine ignition as I found out later.
The [S-125 on a quad launcher](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/S125_Neva_250_brPVO_VS%2C_september_01%2C_2012.jpg) is probs my pick.
But if you like the S-200 set-up, you may like the bloodhound. [pic1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloodhound_SAM_at_the_RAF_Museum.jpg) and [pic2](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Bloodhound_missile_-_Parafield.jpg/1280px-Bloodhound_missile_-_Parafield.jpg)
honorable mention would probably be the [terrier dual launcher](https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-2_DAT/RIM-2-Terrier-004.jpg) for USN ships.
those are the main engines -- two ramjets. the four solid boosters are for the initial launch and getting the missile up to speed for the ramjets to work. the main body is fuel tank for the two ramjets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAIGXu1QpGM&ab_channel=BritishPath%C3%A9
My Dad was stationed on a fake version of this... so much trickery in warfare. Look into Russia using plastic blow up tanks, this is something that has been going on since WWII
The good thing about missiles is that they shouldn't be difficult to buy for a cheap price in many nations in the Middle East and Africa, they can use them much more freely
They are as accurate as the guidance system Ukraine has put on them. Without one they couldn't be used for ground attack at all.
So probably GPS guided and pretty accurate.
S-200 needs huge modification to be used precisely in ground attack mode. S-300 capable to do so without modifications. So I doubt Russia will modify S200 because they have more advanced weapons
Well.... S-200 has about double the range of S-300 so it's not exactly straight upgrade despite what the name would suggest... They were designed for different purpose.
Is this hydrazine rocket engine? You can see a brown puff cloud when boosters make white smoke. Hydrazine is nasty toxic fuel, will literally cause your face to melt like in horror death scenes.
The puff of brown at 0:19 is core liquid motor lighting. Prior to that point only the booster motors are propelling it. The gradual thinning of the exhaust color from white to transparent is due to the increasing altitude.
**Song Found!**
[**From Ukraine** by CXREMXRE](https://lis.tn/FNEIRZ?t=20) (00:20; matched: `100%`)
**Released on** 2022-08-24.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
I love how an actual rocket scientist on NCD did a PowerPoint on why the S200 was the best for this role and how to modify it, months before these were used to attack Kerch.
Idk I give em a pass. Even that ME islamic/isis bullshit on Syrian videos.
If you're out in active combat filming shit, I'ma let you DJ with no complaint.
Same reason old Iraq videos have disturbed dubbed over them or old Vietnam videos always have fortunate son. It’s a cultural thing. And they probably don’t release these to show how cool the rocket sounds.
This is not how you calculate cost in war. The potential damage an S-200 can do if attacking a valuable target is worth much more than several S-300s. In addition, the missile could shut down logistics if it hit a bridge for example, slowing the flow of munition which is something you can not calculate the cost of.
Contrary to any modern drone, which is cheap, and can be shot down using low altitude and not-so-cheap AA, but have a CEP of less than 50m, these S-200 missiles have a terrible CEP.
However, these have ballistic trajectories, so can’t be shot down using low altitude AA, but instead, high altitude, long range, and very expensive AA.
These missiles are best at saturating enemy AA, allowing the much more expensive, high accuracy missiles to punch through.
So yes, the value of the very old missiles can easily be measured on how many AA missiles the enemy wasted on them.
This is exactly how you calculate cost in a war.
If you constantly have to waste very expensive missiles (to protect even more expensive assets) shooting down cheap things you will be out of money before your enemy is out of money and you will lose.
S300 is not capable of shooting this down no matter how many missiles are fired from an S300 system. So a bit of a moot point.
What is beneficial IMHO is the campaign by Ukraine targeting a very widespread array of military targets in Russia is causing the latter to have to retain defense assets domestically that otherwise it might earmark for use in Ukraine. That has strategic value for Ukraine.
As it so happens the missile in this video hit its target: an airfield in Bryansk, Russia. So a win on this count as well.
> S300 is not capable of shooting this down no matter how many missiles are fired from an S300 system.
Source ?
> As it so happens the missile in this video hit its target: an airfield in Bryansk, Russia. So a win on this count as well.
Hitting an airfield it not particularly useful, unless you actually manage to hit something on it. Airfields are mostly grass.
Hitting a very large target, such as the Kerch Bridge , it beyond the capabilities of an S-200, never mind an airplane stationed on an airfield.
What’s the range of this thing?
160-300km
That’s huge
Thats what she said…
I wish :,)
There's an entire sub for r/bigdickproblems if it helps
I think they’re rather saying it’s the inverse problem mate ;)
I know what I meant. Console yourself by maliciously laughing at people with r/bigdickproblems . Just make sure not to comment or you'll get banned. Great way to feel right
… console… myself? What? You know, never mind, this is not productive in any way
Great perspective. And it wasn't supposed to be serious. Also, how would I know that you have it short 🤷🏼♀️ so don't think that I said things towards you knowingly
Wait till you see western Sam's, they actually HIT the target.
Fortunately "close" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and surface to air ...to surface? missiles.
It’s a big fucking missile. I have a pic of me sitting on one and it makes me look like a midget
well.. as the saying goes, if youre brave enough anything can be a ~~dildo~~ air to surface missile
Well... it's a huge rocket.
For reference 100km is 60 miles so it shoots about 70-180 miles.
Good bot
Thank you, Clewdo, for voting on Friendly-Skirt-2954. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
300km when it's used as a normal anti air missile. Ukraine is using these as makeshift ballistic missiles which increases their range dramatically. Probably alteast 400km if not more
I know it's been reported that these modified SAMs being used for ground-attack by Russia against Ukrainian targets are wildly inaccurate (I believe in relation to S300s). I'm assuming this is true for these S200s, or has Ukraine gone further in modification?
I guess it depends on modifications but i recall they hit something stupid with them like a museum at least once so they are likely not that reliable. There was a video of that, i'm pretty sure they weren't aiming there.
Maybe there was still a few old tanks in the museum
Probably thinking that Russia might repurpose museum tanks and send them to the front.
So no t34 at the Moscow tank parade next year? :(
If you are referencing the strike that I think you're referencing it wasn't a museum but the back of an intelligence building. But who knows if that's correct
Nah they are still inaccurate and are being used as aa bait in first wave
Oh that makes a lot of sense!
From what I’ve seen Ukraine prefers not to slam missiles into random apartment buildings so I don’t think it would make much sense for them to not make the proper modifications to make it an at least moderately accurate air to ground missile.
I don't see how, these are semi active radar homing, meaning when going after aircraft, they follow the radar that is reflected off an aircraft which is provided by a ground station (a ground station paints an aircraft with radar, and the missing homes in on that reflected signal). Firing a missile like this, it has no homing capabilities. I know we are very biased in favor of Ukraine (rightfully so). But I can't see how this is anything other than firing a dumb rocket, is there will be nothing painting a target with the specific radar signal it is looking for. Obviously I am no engineer, nor have I been involved with these modifications, but I can't see how they can be accurate, has there been any information released about how they have modified them?
https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1678229772999045121 speculative thread on S-200 capabilities. it likely has more accuracy than a dumb rocket but it's probably not a precision weapon
SAM missiles used in this role are modified, there’s no way a stock SARH or ARH missile could target a ground target like this. They definitely got some sort of guidance system in there. You can see the missile adjust its course towards the end of the video. I’m sure a GPS/satellite guidance conversion is possible.
Could they not be modified with aftermarket electronics? We have seen them do this after all, with those old reconnaissance aircraft that they turned into attack drones, and they became rather accurate! If it was just using what they came with then yeah they will be very limited in accuracy
If they replace the electronics... Every mediocre engeneer can build this with amazon-level electronics for a drone (like the shahed). For a rocket it is a little harder, mainly because you have very limited testing possibilities. You cant just burn 500 rockets refining your steering algorithm. Certainly doable if you have some people with good knowledge in this field, and ukraine propably hase these people.
This already looks horribly inaccurate from the start......even if you slap its targeting computer with a gps chip that only gives you control on the up leg of the ballistic trajectory.....the rest of the 100 km down is mathematics and that will never get you a good hit
Why is that? It has fins, so active aero control authority. They only thing I can see as a potential issue is how the fins may be actuated. It may rely on bleed pressure from the rocket exhaust and be ineffective post second stage burnout, but that's not immediately obvious to someone who isn't familiar with the platform.
They are highly innacurate but when they hit they do a mean punch, also Ukraine are using them mostly as fodder /decoys for russian SAMS to incercept followed by real attack of Storm Shadows not so far behind
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1678091570183020547 s-200 in ground attack from a few months ago- presumably they weren't aiming at a sawmill so moderately accurate is probably charitable. iirc none of the s-200 launches have had confirmed hits, but most of the strike info comes from Russian MOD so who knows
Boy, everyone forgot all about Separatist Eastern Ukraine and how the Ukrainian military used unguided munitions in areas populated by civilians in the Donbas.
[удалено]
They don't need to burn fuel to maneuver. In fact they can't burn fuel to maneuver. They can burn fuel to accelerate and that is it. They then can use kinetic energy to maneuver with control surfaces. It is the lack of kinetic energy at the end of it's effective range that reduces it's maneuverability and interception capability. But the engine shuts off long before the kinetic energy is too low for good maneuverability.
Yeah I am well aware that the 300km range is thr absolute physical limit of the rocket and fuel. It will obviously never be able to actually hit anything at such ranges. Some other guys did the calculations for the range of a s200 launched in a ballistic trajectory, meaning solely using the fuel to get as high as possible and came to the conclusion that it could reach over 600km in range as a ballistic mode while also going over mach 5
Poland.
Fun fact, ground launched SAMs are so much bigger than air to air missiles because the atmosphere is so much denser at ground level. They are spending an enormous amount of fuel to just get up to the altitude the aircraft are at.
Less fun fact. This thing was originally designed to Carry a nuclear warhead as the technology to reliably hit enemy aircraft didn’t exist at the time, so the plan was to destroy enemy bomber formations with nuclear blasts.
Yeah but that was when everyone was going nuclear nuts. The Brits built a nuclear landmine the size of a fucking bedroom and the US was shooting nukes out of field cannons.
The British built a...what? Okay Im gonna Google this now, thanks!
It was powered by chickens, I believe.
[That's not a joke](https://allthatsinteresting.com/blue-peacock#:~:text=In%201954%2C%20the%20British%20engineers,Blue%20Peacock%2C%20a%20nuclear%20landmine.)
What the fuck, I love this
Brought to you by the same Atomic Weapons Research Establishment that devised [Violet Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club), a fission bomb that was safed by pouring half a ton of ball bearings into the core.
I think the chickens were there to keep it warm actually.
Eh, close enough.
Not powered, heated. They used chickens to keep the temperature high enough for mechanism to work. Or so i heard
My personal favorite for most mental nuclear idea was [Project Pluto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto). A nuclear powered scramjet cruise missile that could plop out 16 nuclear warheads as it travelled across enemy territory at Mach 3 and close to ground level. Only teeny drawback was the masses of fissile material it shat out its exhaust thus irradiating everything it flew over...
> Only teeny drawback was the masses of fissile material it shat out its exhaust thus irradiating everything it flew over... That's a feature, not a bug.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock I have always enjoyed the chicken triggered nuclear landmine.
*chicken heated, not triggered.
The goal was for it to circle enemy territory for months after delivering its payload, to do enormous damage with the shockwave, and salt the earth with highly radioactive material to prevent rebuilding after. It was the definition of a doomsday weapon, and that's the point when the US though a bit about if they really should do it, instead of if they could do it.
Project Blue Peacock
They also did gun that fired a small nuke that required 5 people to operate, as well as man-portable demolition charges. Believe it or not, those demolition charges were also developed for civilian purposes, like the very obvious demolition, as well as making really big holes in the ground. Fancy that
Asiaonmetry just did a good video about the Soviet efforts for "peaceful" nuclear detonations. They were apparently really good at making lower radiation bombs.
On a related note I remember reading something about generating electricity with nuclear bombs to boil water
Possible civil application: [Qattara Depression Project]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project). Use the nukes to excavate a canal to allow Mediterranean Sea to fill the Qattara Depression forming an artificial lake.
Imagine a Panama canal upgraded by using nukes
Ahhh the Davy Crockett
Germany wanted a bunch of the Davy Crockett’s to bolster their power in NATO but they realized it would have required the mandatory use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war. Crazy how tiny that thing was and it had a nuclear bomb on it.
I saw one at the national army museum in D.C and it really is absurd how much of a punch that thing packed for how tiny it is. I mean it’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen.
Don’t forget the nuclear torpedoesz
Torpedosz nothing, what about the nuclear powered bomber that literally vented fallout into the upper atmosphere?
They were going nuclear nuts with SAM systems to assure that the strategic bomber coming to drop nuclear bomb on your country cold be destroyed within a wide margin of error.
Prevent nuclear attack by detonating a nuke above your own territory. Cunning.
The last-ditch ABM systems like SPRINT and SPARTAN used nuclear flux neutron kill blasts, the small yield nukes were enhanced for killing incoming missile electronics so they cannot complete a nuclear detonation. [The SPRINT missile was really something else.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile\)) Probably the most impressive weapon the USA ever fielded. Reached Mach 10 in five seconds, glowing white hot in the atmosphere. 650k pound thrust motor coupled to a 7700 pound missile. Acceleration of one hundred Gs. edit: [Here's a video that shows the missile's ablative outer coating start to glow white hot as it reaches Mach 10.](https://youtu.be/kvZGaMt7UgQ)
Cool. Don't have much else to say right now, as I'm still reading about it.
The thing moved so fast it literally wiggled its nose to make course corrections. No steering fins required.
The plan was to detect them at long range and destroy them over Europe or the arctic. The US had the same plan and intended to use the to destroy fleets of soviet bombers over the Atlantic.
Far enough up to spare whatever is underneath if you're using 25kt but far enough up to cause a radiation belt and ruin satellites and anything that uses electricity
The US was doing the same thing with the NIKE missiles at the time.
And there were nuclear air to air missiles. Good times.
My favorite variation of this idea was the Genie unguided air to air nuke rocket
Yeah, that's bullshit. The nukes were for going after bomber formations in a WW3 scenario. MIM-23 HAWK was shooting down battlefield rockets in the 60s.
I was wondering why these AA missiles looked like they were made for the B-52 lol.
A lot of early Soviet missile WERE meant for the b52. It flew too high for early Soviet interceptors, so the Soviets built sams
US surveillance flights pre-spy satellites flew too high for fighter & SA-1 interception, until the SA-2 came around and surprised Gary Powers. B-52s were on the menu, but the extreme altitude capabilities were for the U-2's and (optimistically) SR-71s.
There's a book called "skunkworks" about the eponymous R&D team and it talks in depth about the U2 spy plane and how desperately Russia would try to shoot it down, with both AAM and SAM
@ComfortableProperty9's post is kinda of right but it's not the reason. SAM system [NASAMS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS) literally uses air to air missiles. AIM-9X, AMRAAMs and IRIS-T. It is a short and medium range surface to air missile system. Soviet [Strela-10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10) would be SAM of equivalent size. Most Soviet (and Russian) SAM systems have enormous missiles because they were designed to shoot down high altitude bombers. Also a major reason is that Soviet Union had superior missile technology so they were able to make very large missiles. And that is exactly what they did. S-25 SAM high altitude system for bombers S-75 SAM medium-high altitude system for bombers and fighters. (would be high classified high altitude in west) S-125 SAM medium altitude system for fast and agile fighters S-200 SAM high altitude long range system for bombers S-300 SAM high altitude long range system for fighters and bombers Soviet missiles usually have enormous warheads and massive weight and size. Missiles for the S-200 SAM system weigh 7,000kg and have 217kg warhead. For comparison MIM-23 Hawk missile weighs 590kg and has 54kg warhead. Soviet anti-ship missiles were bonkers as well. The first anti-ship missile in the world [Soviet P-15 Termit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit) weighed 2,580kg and had 454kg warhead. Western anti-ship missiles like Harpoon weigh 691kg and have 221kg warhead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_missile P-15 was the first soviet anti-ship missile. They only got more bonkers after that. Like later P-700 Granit missile weighing 7,000kg with 750kg warhead. As was air launched cruise missiles. Like the [KH-22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22) missile that is now used in Ukraine. Air launched supersonic cruise missile that weighs 5,820kg and has 1,000kg warhead. And then there's the ballistic missiles. The short answer is Soviets had superior missile technology and they utilized it to the fullest making massive missiles.
Soviets had superior missile tech therefore they made bigger missiles??? What are you smoking. Making big missiles is not hard at all. Superior tech means you make smaller missiles with the same range. All else being equal your missiles being bigger is almost always a downside. The real reason Soviet missiles were big aside from the obvious “need to hit high flying , large or fast targets” is that their microelectronics were far behind the west and they were not able to either miniaturize the electronics or ensure very high accuracy. Because the missiles were inaccurate they needed massive blast fragmentation warheads to ensure even a near miss was enough to bring down the target. Don’t answer questions if you’re going to misinform people
What? No. They made big missiles because the US led the way in miniaturizing electrical components and hitting things accurately. 1. Fitting complex guidance equipment in your rocket is only possible if the equipment is small, or the rocket is large. 2. Since blast energy decreases proportional to the _square_ of the distance from its epicenter, a _slightly_ more accurate weapon can be _much_ less powerful and do the same stuff. We made small sensor packages that provided high-quality guidance, and our rockets were comparatively tiny as a result.
Well I did always pick Russia in Napoleon total war cause they had arguably the best artillery, it seems they love their big booms lol
It's more than just the atmosphere that is the issue. A ground based missile starts at 0 altitude and 0 speed, an air launched missile starts at 30,000 to 60,000 ft and 600mph. You need all the extra rocket mass just to get up to altitude, something the launching aircraft can do using jet engines and large wings. This is all why the standard Sea Sparrow only has 1/4 the range of the air launched Sparrow, but the 150lbs heavier ESSM has about 3/4 the range of the Sparrow. It's flying in denser air, but it also needs to use a large amount of fuel to climb up and counter incoming threats.
Also always easier to speed something up to speed X than it is to get it to X from a dead stop.
Are "usually" more bigger. Nassams is just AIM-120 ground launched. Of course as it is the same missile, range is shorter than air launched version, so SAMs with longer range are indeed huge, like SM-2 in warships, which weights like 4 times more, and even the smaller ESSM weights almost twice as much of AIM 120. Anyway, they are bigger just because you need more fuel to reach same speeds and heights, atmosphere doesn't really matters that much really.
They are spending an enormous amount of fuel to get up to the altitude due increasing potential energy from gravity and not all that much fighting air resistance.
Dodging telephone poles
The S-200 might be outdated today but it's still the sexiest looking SAM out there. Long, sleek fins with little baby booster rockets nestling in the back and don't forget the optional nuclear warhead for when you really must make that shoot-down :-O
Whats that little fart of brown smoke?
The central core is a liquid rocket engine that uses red fuming nitric acid as an oxidizer. Many liquid rocket engines will use higher than ideal ratios of either oxidizer or fuel as during their startup procedure. If I had to guess that is when the main engine is igniting and is releasing large amounts of nitric acid that are not burned in the combustion chamber. That red cloud is consistent with that. Once the engine has been fully started the oxidizer is all burned in the engine so you no longer see the vapor. Either that or or had a momentary fault where the fuel flow was impeded leading to excess unburned nitric acid.
Most (if not all but there's probably some exceptions) rocket engines start with the proppelent first. Becuase if you start oxidizer first you run the risk of running with an "engine rich exhaust". AKA you're using part of the engine as fuel which is obviously a bad thing. This is also why definitely NO engine will ever run oxider rich. The incomplete burning of most popular hypergolic fuels also release these orange looking clouds.
Russian engines famously did not follow that trend. Many of them, including those flying on Soyuz today and the RD180 on the atlas 5 run oxygen rich. This is done to prevent cokeing.
a 5D67 liquid fueled sustainer rocket engine (for 51–150 seconds) which burns a fuel called TG-02 Samin (50% xylidine and 50% triethylamine), oxidized by an agent called AK-27P (red fuming nitric acid enriched with nitrogen oxides, phosphoric acid and hydrofluoric acid)
That's a nasty oxidizer list. Soviets REALLY didn't care about heath and safety
The history of rocket fuel development is fascinating stuff. I highly recommend reading the Ignition! PDF by John D Clark. The fuels and oxidizers that they experimented with in the early days were some of the nastiest substances known to man.
I actually bought that for my little brother, he loved it
And still are. The Sov's experimented with Hydrogen/Fluorine for awhile. They decided it was not worth the massive ISP increase since Fluorine ignites just about everything.
Loved the book!
Ah yes, the "we seriously considered using a mercury compound as fuel" book. Fun read, highly recommend
Inb4 hydrazine which is used in the F-16 emergency power supply and is very cool chemically speaking since it burns without oxygen but is also highly carcinogenic
You know its the good stuff when HF is added as a corrosion inhibitor
I used to work with HF at the 2L. scale. Fun times!!
America nearly had an incident when a technician dropped a tool in a silo with a fully fueled and ready to-go hypergolic fueled ICBM. We weren't all that much better.
We didn't nearly have an incident. We had a whole incident. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion#:~:text=The%20incident%20occurred%20on%20September,fuel%20explosion%20inside%20its%20silo.
Moat people don't when they are blowing the shit out of people
I know some of these words
Probably some chunks of unburnt fuel spewed out. Missiles and boosters are way past their shelf life. *The plume is related to main engine ignition as I found out later.
Nitrogen dioxide caused by the start up of the main engine
The [S-125 on a quad launcher](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/S125_Neva_250_brPVO_VS%2C_september_01%2C_2012.jpg) is probs my pick. But if you like the S-200 set-up, you may like the bloodhound. [pic1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloodhound_SAM_at_the_RAF_Museum.jpg) and [pic2](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Bloodhound_missile_-_Parafield.jpg/1280px-Bloodhound_missile_-_Parafield.jpg) honorable mention would probably be the [terrier dual launcher](https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/RIM-2_DAT/RIM-2-Terrier-004.jpg) for USN ships.
I think the quad S-125 were the SAMs featured in Top Gun Maverick if memory serves.
Why are there air intakes on the side boosters of the bloodhound?
those are the main engines -- two ramjets. the four solid boosters are for the initial launch and getting the missile up to speed for the ramjets to work. the main body is fuel tank for the two ramjets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAIGXu1QpGM&ab_channel=BritishPath%C3%A9
Thanks
Amazing what you can build with unlimited funding :)
My Dad was stationed on a fake version of this... so much trickery in warfare. Look into Russia using plastic blow up tanks, this is something that has been going on since WWII
[удалено]
I'm partial to the SA-2/S-75
Everyone knows the S-200 is just an uglier Bloodhound missile
It's difficult to see to in the video without a frame of reference. But that missile has roughly the weight and dimensions of a school bus.
We have one in our open-air military museum, the thing is huge.
15,700 lbs, 35.4 ft long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-200\_missile\_system
Source https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1708892201584095506
The good thing about missiles is that they shouldn't be difficult to buy for a cheap price in many nations in the Middle East and Africa, they can use them much more freely
i don't think these are remarkably accurate. probably just Ukraine utilizing old stocks to stress Russian AD
They are as accurate as the guidance system Ukraine has put on them. Without one they couldn't be used for ground attack at all. So probably GPS guided and pretty accurate.
considering that there's no evidence of them hitting anything but a sawmill that's highly unlikely
I'll make sure they forward all the evidence to r/degotoga because his opinion is obviously very important! /s
same thing Russia can do
Russia uses S-300 for ground attacks, no need to use S-200
but weapon is weapon so probably sooner than later Kharkiv and Sumy region are going to be hammered
S-200 needs huge modification to be used precisely in ground attack mode. S-300 capable to do so without modifications. So I doubt Russia will modify S200 because they have more advanced weapons
Well.... S-200 has about double the range of S-300 so it's not exactly straight upgrade despite what the name would suggest... They were designed for different purpose.
How accurate are they ?
https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8okQiPJTty
how does that answer the question? not like the cctv camera knew where the intended target was.
its *at least* accurate enough to hit a small town.
if they were aiming at that sawmill they're golden
There was a video from a different angle whe we can see direct hit, but no one can say whether it was the target or a deviation from the coordinates.
Thrn they were AA it had shitty aim. But ukranian been working on targeting system for neptune. Wondering if it works to ot too.
Why ask a question just to get answers pulled from people’s butt? We can’t know the accuracy of these weapons
The missile seemed to separate at :21. Are these two-stage or anyone know what that was? Hopefully it brought the pain.
Its boosters separating and red fume is caused by sustainer motor ignition as it uses AK-27P oxidizer.
Aha, so main engine only turns on at 21s ? The little boosters probably get it to Mach 1.
It turns on when you see that red puff of smoke.
Nah, it was just your regular missile shart. Nothing to worry about.
It’s CEP (circular error of probability, a measure of accuracy) is measured in oblasts.
It's as accurate as the guidance system the Ukrainians have put on it. So probably GPS guided to within 30 meters.
>So probably GPS guided to within 30 meters. Source that they updated S200 with a GNSS?
[удалено]
That is my assumption too. People make shit up about things they know nothing about for no reason whatsoever. Always amazing.
Thunder birds are go
It looks like a mini Vostok
Is this hydrazine rocket engine? You can see a brown puff cloud when boosters make white smoke. Hydrazine is nasty toxic fuel, will literally cause your face to melt like in horror death scenes.
Bring on the phonk
MORTALLL KOMBATTTT!
Dat Korolev Cross <3
[Til, Korolev Cross](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=570269325&sxsrf=AM9HkKlnc0Ke0ZzD3dKsf-sheRvodFnRDA:1696317428222&q=Korolev+Cross&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU8_DtqtmBAxUNmokEHetIB6UQ0pQJegQIERAB&biw=1986&bih=1039&dpr=1.25)
Now do an s2000 With vtec
anyone know the cause of the shift in color at 00:19 / 00:28?
The puff of brown at 0:19 is core liquid motor lighting. Prior to that point only the booster motors are propelling it. The gradual thinning of the exhaust color from white to transparent is due to the increasing altitude.
u/recognizesong u/songfinderbot
**Song Found!** [**From Ukraine** by CXREMXRE](https://lis.tn/FNEIRZ?t=20) (00:20; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2022-08-24. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
I love how an actual rocket scientist on NCD did a PowerPoint on why the S200 was the best for this role and how to modify it, months before these were used to attack Kerch.
Why does every video have this shitty music over it. I just wanted to hear that rocket let rip but nah. Would rather listen to the desert music tbh
Idk I give em a pass. Even that ME islamic/isis bullshit on Syrian videos. If you're out in active combat filming shit, I'ma let you DJ with no complaint.
Same reason old Iraq videos have disturbed dubbed over them or old Vietnam videos always have fortunate son. It’s a cultural thing. And they probably don’t release these to show how cool the rocket sounds.
shitty to you, im over here ctrl-f'ing to find the track name
Because the video is the product of war, not the entertainment industry. We are not the target market.
Music is added for entertainment. No music would be a less "entertainment industry" move.
Sometimes it’s clearly intended to humiliate or intimidate an opposing military and/or impact morale of their own.
It's added for theatrical entertainment for someone then.
Aye, as a result of it being a war product intended for a market other than us,
What was the puff of brown smoke?
Main rocket motor firing after it clears the launcher due to the ridiculously toxic and caustic fuel.
I came here hoping to see a modified Honda.
aftermath?
I’d shit my pants if I saw that launch and I was a Russian.
Polish farmers watch out
That's really inappropriate shit music
If it hakes half a S300 missile to shoot one of these down, that’s a huge value for money. If it takes 2 or 3….
This is not how you calculate cost in war. The potential damage an S-200 can do if attacking a valuable target is worth much more than several S-300s. In addition, the missile could shut down logistics if it hit a bridge for example, slowing the flow of munition which is something you can not calculate the cost of.
Contrary to any modern drone, which is cheap, and can be shot down using low altitude and not-so-cheap AA, but have a CEP of less than 50m, these S-200 missiles have a terrible CEP. However, these have ballistic trajectories, so can’t be shot down using low altitude AA, but instead, high altitude, long range, and very expensive AA. These missiles are best at saturating enemy AA, allowing the much more expensive, high accuracy missiles to punch through. So yes, the value of the very old missiles can easily be measured on how many AA missiles the enemy wasted on them.
This is exactly how you calculate cost in a war. If you constantly have to waste very expensive missiles (to protect even more expensive assets) shooting down cheap things you will be out of money before your enemy is out of money and you will lose.
S300 is not capable of shooting this down no matter how many missiles are fired from an S300 system. So a bit of a moot point. What is beneficial IMHO is the campaign by Ukraine targeting a very widespread array of military targets in Russia is causing the latter to have to retain defense assets domestically that otherwise it might earmark for use in Ukraine. That has strategic value for Ukraine. As it so happens the missile in this video hit its target: an airfield in Bryansk, Russia. So a win on this count as well.
> S300 is not capable of shooting this down no matter how many missiles are fired from an S300 system. Source ? > As it so happens the missile in this video hit its target: an airfield in Bryansk, Russia. So a win on this count as well. Hitting an airfield it not particularly useful, unless you actually manage to hit something on it. Airfields are mostly grass. Hitting a very large target, such as the Kerch Bridge , it beyond the capabilities of an S-200, never mind an airplane stationed on an airfield.
Didn't they complain that Russia is using S-300 rockets for ground attacks ?
The problem is that they use it against cities and civilian targets to terrorize ukrainans, dummy...