It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SPRINT Missle

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
IBM

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I am wondering why the SPRINT missle was scrapped. It is a counterpart to the Spartan Antiballistic missile of the 60's. The SPRINT missle is a high speed terminal defense missle. In my opinion this is an exceptional missle. Is there a superior missle that has replaced it? Or is the technology obsoloete. Current Antiballistic efforts rely on intercepting a missile in the Boost, and Midcourse phase, but I have yet to see a terminal phase project. I believe that terminal interceptors are needed for the simple reason of what if one of the buggers gets through. Not only that, the terminal interceptor will not have to distinguish from decoys because only the true war heads would be entering the atmosphere and acquiring the target. Any thoughts or comments.






posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
I am wondering why the SPRINT missle was scrapped. It is a counterpart to the Spartan Antiballistic missile of the 60's. The SPRINT missle is a high speed terminal defense missle. In my opinion this is an exceptional missle. Is there a superior missle that has replaced it? Or is the technology obsoloete. Current Antiballistic efforts rely on intercepting a missile in the Boost, and Midcourse phase, but I have yet to see a terminal phase project. I believe that terminal interceptors are needed for the simple reason of what if one of the buggers gets through. Not only that, the terminal interceptor will not have to distinguish from decoys because only the true war heads would be entering the atmosphere and acquiring the target. Any thoughts or comments.




The problem with the entire ABM system that the US devloped in the 60's (as well as the Russian system still in place around Moscow) is that the technology was not available to directly hit incoming targets. So the missiles (both Sprint and Spartan) had thermonuclear warheads. Since the US ABM system was put in near Grand Forks ND, the high altitude bursts from the ABM missiles would probably shut down every non-hardened electrical system in the US, and quite possibly the hardened systems of the ICBM's the system was to protect (they aren't designed to withstand large numbers of high altitude EMP bursts).

The missile was quite fast, even by todays standards, but it lacked the guidance and control neccisary today (i.e. PAC 3).



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Don't forget that the 1972 ABM treaty essentially ended these type missiles for the U.S. The whole system was quite impressive for the day and accuracy was less important that speed esp if equiped with a small nuclear warhead.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Don't forget that the 1972 ABM treaty essentially ended these type missiles for the U.S. The whole system was quite impressive for the day and accuracy was less important that speed esp if equiped with a small nuclear warhead.



The ABM treaty allows for one regional system and a limited number of radars. The US scrapped it anyway. Russia still has an active ABM system around Moscow.

The ABM treaty continued to be a problem with regards to radar systems however, as any radar capable of supporting an ABM system had to be positioned near the border and face outward. This is why the US's space capable radar systems are positioned where they are (Cape Cod, California, Florida, North Dakota, Alaska).

On a side note, Russia tried to raise a stink about the radar site at RAF Flylingdales (an advanced 360 degree radar system), but since the UK never signed the ABM treaty there was not much they could do. Russia also tried to put in a radar system that would violate the ABM treaty in the 80's (it was like 1500 miles inside their border), but they were persuaded against it when they realized it would negate their ability to complain about the US's proposed "star wars" program.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join