At 8:36 a SRAM launches, the rotary launcher moves, and another SRAM launches. That's the first time I've seen a rotary launcher in action, and I've been looking.
The UGM-73 Poseidon SLBM (which was the fleet ballistic missile between Polaris and Trident) had a similar employment doctrine. While Polaris and the later Trident missiles carried multiple warheads designed to strategic use (warheads with yields between 100 kilotons and 1 megaton, with Polaris initially designed to target cities and Trident later designed for 'counterforce' targeting to hit ICBM silos, command and control systems, leadership bunkers, etc), the Poseidon missile with its ten to fourteen W68 40-kiloton warheads actually had a very similar role to SRAM or Hound Dog. Those 40-kiloton warheads were targeted at Soviet surface-to-air missile bases, interceptor airfields and radars. The ballistic missile submarines carrying Poseidon would use their missiles to clear a path for the B-52s to fly through by blasting the SAM missile sites and airfields that would stand in their way to their targets deep in the Soviet Union
I worked on the SRAM for 15 years. The system was great, though labor extensive. It did have its safety issues. Some of the issues and accidents were due to radical technicals who pencil whipped inspections, took unauthorized short cuts from proscribed technical procedures, lack of training, lack of integrity of some technicians, and poor supervision. I believe the USAF should develop another SRAM with the length of the ALCM. This additional size would give the new SRAM a fantastic capability and provide attacking forces a rapid and longer range defense.
Probably not needed anymore since we use low observability ALCMs for tactical and ASM purposes. However, there is one thing I was always curious about and you're the right guy to ask: Couldn't they have put in a conventional warhead and use them at the end of their service life at ODS against known big surface targets such as Iraqi airfields? Obviously the CEP is quite mediocre, but why not use the stuff one has and doesn't need against the Soviet Union anymore? Thanks for some insights.
@@Walterwaltraud ALCM are about the same speed as the aircraft firing it, making it less useful for holing enemy air defences. >Couldn't they have put in a conventional warhead and use them at the end of their service life at ODS against known big surface targets such as Iraqi airfields? Asides from the issues with the warheads in aircraft fires, the rocket motors had cracks in them. The risk of 1/100 exploding on firing might have been acceptable in a nuclear war when they needed to hole air defences, but not in Desert Storm. Also, the warhead was ~150kg. Not really big enough for non-nuclear use.
It took me a long time to wrap my head around the SRAM. I couldn't imagine blasting away air defenses with a bunch of multi-hundred kiloton missiles, not as a way to destroy primary targets, but just to allow the bomber to evade enemy air defenses on the way to the primary target. It seems crazy to put that kind of force on a few SAM sites.
"The SRAM was removed from service in 1993, by which time its mission was rendered obsolete by the introduction of the AGM-86, which could be launched from far outside the range of Soviet weapons, and no longer required the bombers to penetrate Soviet defenses." That statement is only partly correct as while the AGM-69A was obsolescent by 1993 it wasn't replaced by the AGM-86B ALCM as the latter missile had a much different, the AGM-69A was going to be replaced by the AGM-131A SRAM II ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-131_SRAM_II ) which was cancelled due to the end of the Cold War, IMO that was a very short-sighted mistake given how Russia has been misbehaving under Putin's rule.
The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) launched from B-52s. It was also to be fitted to the B-1B, but the Lancer lost its nuke mission in the 90s. "In 2008 the USA kept an inventory of 1,140 AGM-86 ALCMs and 460 AGM-129 ACMs." AGM-86 came into service in 1982, AGM-129 I'm sure a couple B-61 or B-83s could be stuffed into a few of the 59 F-117s that were built with the last production unit being delivered in 1990. F-117 reached IOC(Initial Operational Capability) in late 1983 with a first unit delivery in 1982.) Lets not forget that the B-2 has twin 8 weapon rotary launchers that could/can carry a total of 16 B-61 or B-83, but that capability would be after 1997'ish. Now we wait for AGM-181 LRSO(Long Range Stand Off). 2030'ish? Our conventional weapons are so accurate now that nukes often aren't required. Esp. with a pair of 30,000 lb MOP in a Very Low Observable(VLO) B-2.
The B-52 could carried 12 SRAMs on external pylons, another 8 on a compact rotary launcher, with space in the forward bomb bay for a clip of 4 nuclear gravity bombs. For 20 SRAM missiles and 4 high yield gravity bombs. Its a shame that the USAF didn't at least retain the smaller SRAM rotary launchers when the missiles were decommissioned. As JASSM, and MALDs would have fit the smaller launcher while leaving room forward for 4 2,000 L/JDAMs.
Highly unusual war configuration you posted. After B-52 OAS-CMI mods on the G / H models (someone correct me if needed) the ALCM was the primary external store with six pylon mounted missiles under each wing. Add the 8-pack AGM-69 and your choice of B-28 or B-61 clip in assemblies internally, and your SIOP compliant mission to "rearrange the rubble" (ICBM's would have gotten there 12 -18 hrs. before you hit the USSR) was complete.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM Ultimately replaced by the AGM-86. But man SRAM was a missile from hell. The solid motor propellant was also unstable and cracking due to cold hot cycling in storage.
Too bad there aren't better videos of these being flight tested. I worked on the AGM-69A and the AGM-86B and never got to see them launched for testing. One cool thing to note is that (if I am seeing it correctly) the AGM69A launched from the FB actually turns around and looks like it was going in the opposite direction---that was the faster of the two.
I actually work on the AGM-86B right now. Very cool weapons system. I came way too late to work on the AGM-69A, though some of our support equipment still references it. Nice to see another 2M0 in the wild.
The SRAM was capable on one "major maneuver" on the way to the target. As I was told by someone in the know, he witnessed a canyon launch where the missile flew ahead of the B-52, then changed direction and hit a target behind the bomber. I think this was termed, "over the shoulder" launch.
Feel so bad for all those who worked for Grumman and Northrop and got cancer because of all the insane materials they were exposed to... that's all this makes me think about
Well, it was the best system..... Until ALCM was conceived in 1982 and by the late 1980s improved SAM systems combined with the cracking and fatigue of its rocket motors led to its demise in 1993 after it was deemed unusable and unreliable in the modern standards, the AGM - 86 cruise missile still is in operational service to this day not just nuking purposes but also for conventional wars too.
Additionally, the W69 pit was not "fire-safe" and used non-IHE (Insensitive High Explosives) which made it a major hazard if there were a aircraft ground fire. There were rumors that if you placed an egg in an 8-pack (rotary launcher) it would be "cooked" in 24 hours. The alpha decay of the W-69 was such it caused reliability concerns with the old-school conventional explosives. Hot warhead. Mark Williams, USAF (ret) "Ammo Troop" Carswell AFB (SAC) 1984 -1988
@@markwilliams8488 this was the case when a b52 h in 1980 caught fire on ground with these unsafe missiles in them and burned on ground for hours until it was put out, had the wind changed blowing the fire towards the bomb bay it could have caused a conventional explosion, causing radioactive contamination on a wide scale, scary. p.s I think these missiles were paired up with a set of free fall bombs for their main targets and I don't think that these missiles were very accurate either?
@@kerbalfire2.052 Well, I was not aircrew nor an FB-111 "WSO," but the advertised yield and CEP of the AGM-69A was impressive. And, you're correct about the rocket motor issue, that, along with the aforementioned warhead concerns were the SRAM's killers. These were a bear to configure on the ADU-317 with the MHU-123 trailer. Missile safe status checks required a small framed person equipped with flashlight and inspection mirror. White "S" on green background (Safe/Arm indication) and a physical missile inspection from nose to tail was the rule of the day. Configured in an "8-pack" these missiles achieved "stealth" through a phenolic / bakelite type of nose / fin material and a thick rubber/silicone skin. Amazing weapon, replaced the "hound dog," AGM-28 (before my time).
@@rickt.1870 Agreed, Rick T. You are the resident expert here; 316 trumps 461 as far as critical knowledge, and you've got my undivided attention. Sir, tritium was never the issue: Plutonium was the alpha decay actor, at least in my studies (web sourced). The SRAM Kearfott inertial guidance was indeed advanced but in my mind, comparing the SRAM and ALCM is an "apples/oranges" argument: Remember, they carried BOTH for nuclear combat. Both were highly specialized; the ALCM's 1500 nm range was to take out high priorty targets; SRAM was to deal with the more immediate threats of SAM's / airfields. In most cases, the Buff's would have launched the ALCM's long before a SRAM would be considered...the SRAM cleared a path to targets the B28 / B61 gravity bombs were to destroy, and if they didn't fire the entire 8-pack, they could use the remaining AGM-69A's to deal with threats on their way out. You 316's were highly respected by we AMMO Troops! Thanks for your service, sir.
@@markwilliams8488 Dear mark williams if the sram system was still operational today would it have any match against modern sams such as the S-300/400 and others such as the tor system
At 8:36 a SRAM launches, the rotary launcher moves, and another SRAM launches. That's the first time I've seen a rotary launcher in action, and I've been looking.
A Gatling-nuke.
brrrraaappp turns into ::nuclear tornado from the sky that burns for 10 years:::
I love the concept of nuking your way to a target you are going to nuke. Multinuke bombers.
The UGM-73 Poseidon SLBM (which was the fleet ballistic missile between Polaris and Trident) had a similar employment doctrine. While Polaris and the later Trident missiles carried multiple warheads designed to strategic use (warheads with yields between 100 kilotons and 1 megaton, with Polaris initially designed to target cities and Trident later designed for 'counterforce' targeting to hit ICBM silos, command and control systems, leadership bunkers, etc), the Poseidon missile with its ten to fourteen W68 40-kiloton warheads actually had a very similar role to SRAM or Hound Dog. Those 40-kiloton warheads were targeted at Soviet surface-to-air missile bases, interceptor airfields and radars. The ballistic missile submarines carrying Poseidon would use their missiles to clear a path for the B-52s to fly through by blasting the SAM missile sites and airfields that would stand in their way to their targets deep in the Soviet Union
I worked on the SRAM for 15 years. The system was great, though labor extensive. It did have its safety issues. Some of the issues and accidents were due to radical technicals who pencil whipped inspections, took unauthorized short cuts from proscribed technical procedures, lack of training, lack of integrity of some technicians, and poor supervision. I believe the USAF should develop another SRAM with the length of the ALCM. This additional size would give the new SRAM a fantastic capability and provide attacking forces a rapid and longer range defense.
Probably not needed anymore since we use low observability ALCMs for tactical and ASM purposes.
However, there is one thing I was always curious about and you're the right guy to ask: Couldn't they have put in a conventional warhead and use them at the end of their service life at ODS against known big surface targets such as Iraqi airfields? Obviously the CEP is quite mediocre, but why not use the stuff one has and doesn't need against the Soviet Union anymore?
Thanks for some insights.
@@Walterwaltraud ALCM are about the same speed as the aircraft firing it, making it less useful for holing enemy air defences.
>Couldn't they have put in a conventional warhead and use them at the end of their service life at ODS against known big surface targets such as Iraqi airfields?
Asides from the issues with the warheads in aircraft fires, the rocket motors had cracks in them. The risk of 1/100 exploding on firing might have been acceptable in a nuclear war when they needed to hole air defences, but not in Desert Storm.
Also, the warhead was ~150kg. Not really big enough for non-nuclear use.
It took me a long time to wrap my head around the SRAM. I couldn't imagine blasting away air defenses with a bunch of multi-hundred kiloton missiles, not as a way to destroy primary targets, but just to allow the bomber to evade enemy air defenses on the way to the primary target. It seems crazy to put that kind of force on a few SAM sites.
Then imagine dropping a nuke just to get a couple of fighters off your tail
I remember this film from USAF nuclear weapons school in 1972..never got to work on it...
In the mid 80's it was also going to be used as a anti-satellite ASM135 ASAT launched from a F-15.
The minuteman looks cool af, like a rifle round.
"The SRAM was removed from service in 1993, by which time its mission was rendered obsolete by the introduction of the AGM-86, which could be launched from far outside the range of Soviet weapons, and no longer required the bombers to penetrate Soviet defenses."
That statement is only partly correct as while the AGM-69A was obsolescent by 1993 it wasn't replaced by the AGM-86B ALCM as the latter missile had a much different, the AGM-69A was going to be replaced by the AGM-131A SRAM II ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-131_SRAM_II ) which was cancelled due to the end of the Cold War, IMO that was a very short-sighted mistake given how Russia has been misbehaving under Putin's rule.
The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) launched from B-52s. It was also to be fitted to the B-1B, but the Lancer lost its nuke mission in the 90s. "In 2008 the USA kept an inventory of 1,140 AGM-86 ALCMs and 460 AGM-129 ACMs." AGM-86 came into service in 1982, AGM-129
I'm sure a couple B-61 or B-83s could be stuffed into a few of the 59 F-117s that were built with the last production unit being delivered in 1990. F-117 reached IOC(Initial Operational Capability) in late 1983 with a first unit delivery in 1982.)
Lets not forget that the B-2 has twin 8 weapon rotary launchers that could/can carry a total of 16 B-61 or B-83, but that capability would be after 1997'ish.
Now we wait for AGM-181 LRSO(Long Range Stand Off). 2030'ish?
Our conventional weapons are so accurate now that nukes often aren't required. Esp. with a pair of 30,000 lb MOP in a Very Low Observable(VLO) B-2.
The B-52 could carried 12 SRAMs on external pylons, another 8 on a compact rotary launcher, with space in the forward bomb bay for a clip of 4 nuclear gravity bombs. For 20 SRAM missiles and 4 high yield gravity bombs. Its a shame that the USAF didn't at least retain the smaller SRAM rotary launchers when the missiles were decommissioned. As JASSM, and MALDs would have fit the smaller launcher while leaving room forward for 4 2,000 L/JDAMs.
Highly unusual war configuration you posted. After B-52 OAS-CMI mods on the G / H models (someone correct me if needed) the ALCM was the primary external store with six pylon mounted missiles under each wing. Add the 8-pack AGM-69 and your choice of B-28 or B-61 clip in assemblies internally, and your SIOP compliant mission to "rearrange the rubble" (ICBM's would have gotten there 12 -18 hrs. before you hit the USSR) was complete.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM
Ultimately replaced by the AGM-86.
But man SRAM was a missile from hell. The solid motor propellant was also unstable and cracking due to cold hot cycling in storage.
Beautiful lifting bomb device. Oh baby
Too bad there aren't better videos of these being flight tested. I worked on the AGM-69A and the AGM-86B and never got to see them launched for testing.
One cool thing to note is that (if I am seeing it correctly) the AGM69A launched from the FB actually turns around and looks like it was going in the opposite direction---that was the faster of the two.
I actually work on the AGM-86B right now. Very cool weapons system. I came way too late to work on the AGM-69A, though some of our support equipment still references it. Nice to see another 2M0 in the wild.
The SRAM was capable on one "major maneuver" on the way to the target. As I was told by someone in the know, he witnessed a canyon launch where the missile flew ahead of the B-52, then changed direction and hit a target behind the bomber. I think this was termed, "over the shoulder" launch.
How could it overfly mountain ranges since it had no TFR ?
It did have TFR, according to the video
@@wiesenbefeuchter It had its own map programmed into it before launch. It then flew by its own radar/terrain contour mapping.
Feel so bad for all those who worked for Grumman and Northrop and got cancer because of all the insane materials they were exposed to... that's all this makes me think about
Are they just whipping that missile up and down just to show that it can do that, or is that actually supposed to happen irl?
Could serveral missiles individually be targeted by the FB-111 and how did the missile' s anti-radar mode work ?
Each missile could be programmed for a different target.
Well, it was the best system..... Until ALCM was conceived in 1982 and by the late 1980s improved SAM systems combined with the cracking and fatigue of its rocket motors led to its demise in 1993 after it was deemed unusable and unreliable in the modern standards, the AGM - 86 cruise missile still is in operational service to this day not just nuking purposes but also for conventional wars too.
Additionally, the W69 pit was not "fire-safe" and used non-IHE (Insensitive High Explosives) which made it a major hazard if there were a aircraft ground fire. There were rumors that if you placed an egg in an 8-pack (rotary launcher) it would be "cooked" in 24 hours. The alpha decay of the W-69 was such it caused reliability concerns with the old-school conventional explosives. Hot warhead. Mark Williams, USAF (ret) "Ammo Troop" Carswell AFB (SAC) 1984 -1988
@@markwilliams8488 this was the case when a b52 h in 1980 caught fire on ground with these unsafe missiles in them and burned on ground for hours until it was put out, had the wind changed blowing the fire towards the bomb bay it could have caused a conventional explosion, causing radioactive contamination on a wide scale, scary.
p.s I think these missiles were paired up with a set of free fall bombs for their main targets and I don't think that these missiles were very accurate either?
@@kerbalfire2.052 Well, I was not aircrew nor an FB-111 "WSO," but the advertised yield and CEP of the AGM-69A was impressive. And, you're correct about the rocket motor issue, that, along with the aforementioned warhead concerns were the SRAM's killers. These were a bear to configure on the ADU-317 with the MHU-123 trailer. Missile safe status checks required a small framed person equipped with flashlight and inspection mirror. White "S" on green background (Safe/Arm indication) and a physical missile inspection from nose to tail was the rule of the day. Configured in an "8-pack" these missiles achieved "stealth" through a phenolic / bakelite type of nose / fin material and a thick rubber/silicone skin. Amazing weapon, replaced the "hound dog," AGM-28 (before my time).
@@rickt.1870 Agreed, Rick T. You are the resident expert here; 316 trumps 461 as far as critical knowledge, and you've got my undivided attention. Sir, tritium was never the issue: Plutonium was the alpha decay actor, at least in my studies (web sourced). The SRAM Kearfott inertial guidance was indeed advanced but in my mind, comparing the SRAM and ALCM is an "apples/oranges" argument: Remember, they carried BOTH for nuclear combat. Both were highly specialized; the ALCM's 1500 nm range was to take out high priorty targets; SRAM was to deal with the more immediate threats of SAM's / airfields. In most cases, the Buff's would have launched the ALCM's long before a SRAM would be considered...the SRAM cleared a path to targets the B28 / B61 gravity bombs were to destroy, and if they didn't fire the entire 8-pack, they could use the remaining AGM-69A's to deal with threats on their way out. You 316's were highly respected by we AMMO Troops! Thanks for your service, sir.
@@markwilliams8488 Dear mark williams if the sram system was still operational today would it have any match against modern sams such as the S-300/400 and others such as the tor system
это аэробаллистическая ракета Aeroballistic missille
Algorithm.
Translate missile nickname to Polish 😆