This thread is for people to post the best missile launch and missiles in flight pictures they can find. Rockets could qualify, although they are a tad borish to be honest.
The wikipedia has quite a few in their library. An example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Sea_Sparrow_surface-to-air_missile_launch.jpg
The missiles can be launched from about any source: underwing, overwing, underwater, ship, surface, etc. I do ask one thing; please don’t post photoshops.
By: googeler - 18th May 2010 at 18:17
FOX 2 MAGIC 2
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania—Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-21MF-75-Lancer/1581868/L/
By: NIWININON - 16th May 2010 at 20:43
I’ve got these :
MANPADS FIRE for the first one
ASTER VERTICAL LAUNCH for the second
enjoys
better with pics 😎 sorry
By: NIWININON - 16th May 2010 at 20:41
I’ve got these :
MANPADS FIRE for the first one
ASTER VERTICAL LAUNCH for the second
enjoys
By: Deepcold - 14th May 2010 at 20:20
S-300 exploding
On the same page as the S-300 youtube video posted by Rookh above is an amazing video of an S-300 exploding just after launch at 1:55.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnp9nG9SCYA&feature=related
I am surprised at the large number of missiles being fired and that people who appear to be in casual clothing are allowed in the middle of an operational missile battery.
By: Rookh - 1st May 2010 at 15:41
Well, how would it matter if Iraq were to figure out that an ICBM is headed its way.. or for that matter the Taliban/OBL to figure out that its coming to get them ?
Detection of the ICBM would in itself be a BIG thing for such adversaries, and even if they managed it, it wouldn’t really matter what ever they thought about it.
i.e. mistaking it as a nuke or whatever.
As they would be in no position to do anything about it anyway …. except running for cover !It would be a great weapon to have in the arsenal for very HIGH value/time bound targets across the globe.
It’s not so much targets such as Iraq or Afghanistan that I was referring to. I’m sure both the Russian’s and Chinese would be concerned if the US began lobbing in conventional ICBMs near their vacinity, and I’m sure they would want to track such launches.
By: pesho - 1st May 2010 at 14:19
Good old Su
By: Vetinari - 1st May 2010 at 02:25
Topol-M night launch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzXI-mlJjs
By: nirav - 30th April 2010 at 22:36
…
What about the issues of mistaking a conventional ICBM launch for a nuclear strike, or vice versa, disguising a nuclear ICBM launch as a conventional strike?
…
Well, how would it matter if Iraq were to figure out that an ICBM is headed its way.. or for that matter the Taliban/OBL to figure out that its coming to get them ?
Detection of the ICBM would in itself be a BIG thing for such adversaries, and even if they managed it, it wouldn’t really matter what ever they thought about it.
i.e. mistaking it as a nuke or whatever.
As they would be in no position to do anything about it anyway …. except running for cover !
It would be a great weapon to have in the arsenal for very HIGH value/time bound targets across the globe.
By: djcross - 30th April 2010 at 17:27
I don’t doubt the programme ever existed, what I do doubt is whether you can win a conventional war using just ICBMs. How many Minutemans would it take to achieve the same level of air campaign in GFI and GFII?
What about the issues of mistaking a conventional ICBM launch for a nuclear strike, or vice versa, disguising a nuclear ICBM launch as a conventional strike?
No wonder the idea was dropped.
The technology required a suborbital maneuvering bus that would bleed energy and release conventional PGMs at less than M2. The suborbital bus would be launched from “conventional only” launchers based in locations that never based nukes. The missiles/launchers would be subject to inspection to assure nukes are not present and fly depressed trajectories instead of high-arc nuke ballistic trajectories to facilitate identification while in flight.
By: mrmalaya - 30th April 2010 at 14:26
right, but similar adaptations are a justification for the UK to maintain a proper Vanguard replacement i would say.
By: Rookh - 30th April 2010 at 10:35
Bush killed the program in the late spring of 2001, before 9/11.
I don’t doubt the programme ever existed, what I do doubt is whether you can win a conventional war using just ICBMs. How many Minutemans would it take to achieve the same level of air campaign in GFI and GFII?
What about the issues of mistaking a conventional ICBM launch for a nuclear strike, or vice versa, disguising a nuclear ICBM launch as a conventional strike?
No wonder the idea was dropped.
By: MadRat - 30th April 2010 at 07:45
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_S1Gu2hX9S6c/Ssl9AI3zbII/AAAAAAAAOTA/AEFpa2a0wSc/s800/mig29-fulcrum-fighter.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3DlJiU57xB0/SwUk7Jz1S7I/AAAAAAAAAQA/I-spsnVTFuY/s1600/MM40L3.jpg
http://middle-watch.com/images/Weapons/Exocet_launch.JPG
http://www.falcon5.nl/images/foto/f16_amraamshot.jpg
http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/photos/us-air-force/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-42
By: djcross - 29th April 2010 at 23:52
That’s a bit far fetched…to put it mildly…
Bush killed the program in the late spring of 2001, before 9/11.
By: Rookh - 28th April 2010 at 00:43
They can put smart munitions on target travel half way around the planet in less than 45 minutes. If such a capability existed in August 1990, Saddam’s forces could have been pounded at the border as they crossed into Kuwait. There would have been no need for Desert Shield, or Desert Storm, or no fly zones, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, or thousands of lives lost and $billions spent.
That’s a bit far fetched…to put it mildly…
By: djcross - 27th April 2010 at 20:32
But isn’t it a bit of a waste to use ICBMs for conventional use? What can be done with ICBMs that can’t done by aircraft, particularly considering US dominance in their current theatres? It’s a bit overkill to use against a few Afghans in mountains isn’t it?
They can put smart munitions on target half way around the planet in less than 45 minutes. If such a capability existed in August 1990, Saddam’s forces could have been pounded at the border as they crossed into Kuwait. There would have been no need for Desert Shield, or Desert Storm, or no fly zones, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, or thousands of lives lost and $billions spent.
By: Rookh - 27th April 2010 at 16:34
No, its already here. The Russians were playing dumb when they were proposed, saying they might mistake them for a launch against their assets. As a compromise, yet to be ratified by the Senate, we trade one conventional-ICBM launch for one nuclear weapon per the last treaty.
But isn’t it a bit of a waste to use ICBMs for conventional use? What can be done with ICBMs that can’t done by aircraft, particularly considering US dominance in their current theatres? It’s a bit overkill to use against a few Afghans in mountains isn’t it?
By: MadRat - 27th April 2010 at 16:25
Nice re-entry videos. I like the one showing strikes on the atoll; they put the energy of each warhead vehicle into perspective. I imagine in a conventional role they’ll convert a whole warhead bus to strike a target and use some kind of DU-tipped fletchette round to take out a conical area.
Something tells me you’re not joking when you say that…
No, its already here. The Russians were playing dumb when they were proposed, saying they might mistake them for a launch against their assets. As a compromise, yet to be ratified by the Senate, we trade one conventional-ICBM launch for one nuclear weapon per the last treaty.
Edit: Answering the question below “But isn’t it a bit of a waste to use ICBMs for conventional use?”
If you could send a single missile – with less than 35 minutes of flight time to traverse the entire globe – to kill an Osama Bin Laden and neuter Al Queda with a staggering blow like that, why would that be a waste? In the past they’ve had the capability to prosecute important targets across the globe, but an aircraft was well over 35 minutes away; more like four hours. Sometimes extreme targets call for extreme measures. This is a capability, not something that will necessarily ever be used.
By: Rookh - 27th April 2010 at 15:27
Would be interesting to see what lay ahead when they convert some over for the WoT.
Something tells me you’re not joking when you say that…
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th April 2010 at 15:22
ICBM re-entry? Watch this! It even has camera shots on the receiving end where you see dirt fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY
Amazing stuff, I knew this thread would produce results! Thanks for that 😀
A similar video:
By: djcross - 27th April 2010 at 15:00
I do believe video is nothing but a stream of pictures, so it qualifies. I really enjoyed the S300 video. Always enjoyed antiship missile strike videos myself. What I’ve always wanted to see and never found were ICBM re-entry shots. Would be interesting to see what lay ahead when they convert some over for the WoT.
ICBM re-entry? Watch this! It even has camera shots on the receiving end where you see dirt fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY
Sign In
April 25, 2010 at 10:12 pm
