Posted on 04/23/2015 12:25:25 AM PDT by familyop
What goes up, must come down! Russian army’s rocket launch test goes terribly wrong when missile drops straight back down and explodes in front of them [Whole title.]
S300 barely takes off before plunging back to the ground Minute-long clip shows people dashing for cover as rocket hits ground Mishap comes shortly after footage of crash killing missile engineers
Embarrassing footage has emerged of a missile launch going spectacularly wrong in Russia.
The minute-long clip shows the S300 rocket barely managing to take off before plummeting back down to earth.
A small thud can be heard and bits of debris fly off as the weapon makes a feeble attempt to launch at the military base in an unknown part of Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That’s the S-300 anti-aircraft missile being sold to Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McbCwSW2moo
A fair percentage seem to occur within a rocket's length of the pad.
Ping.
Test of S-300 being sold to Iran.
Considering Mossad’s expertise in such things...
You have to wonder.
Too bad it wasn’t deployed to Iran first.
Let’s be rational... First, test failures do not translate into the final product.. they are required to tweak and perfect. Second, it’s Russia.. Could it be possible they are selling a fully functional, lethal weapon to Iran while we make fun of their “test footage”? I call it propaganda.
The S-300 is no joke. It is significantly faster and has much longer range than the Patriot, and is also anti-missile and has some capability against stealth.
It is probably the best SAM in the world.
That’ll teach ‘em to make deals with Wile E. Coyote, representative of the Acme Rocket Company.
Looks like the booster failed to ignite.
Forgot to pull out the failsafe engine ignition keylock pin. Sorry.
Can’t say it is the case here, but often times launching a containerized missile involves the use of an low power expeller charge that propels the missile clear of the launcher. The purpose of the expeller charge is to provide a standoff distance to protect the crew and launcher from blast damage when the much more powerful main rocket motor kicks in.
If the main rocket motor doesn’t kick in, why get what the video recorded.
In the West, IIRC, these containerized missiles are what they call “certified rounds.” This means they have a shelf life during which they are supposed to be able to fire/operate without any special preparation. Basically, just attach them to the launcher and fire. However, there are usually servicing intervals where the missiles are to undergo inspection, adjustment, and testing (non-firing, obviously) to ensure they will still operate properly.
Sometimes older certified rounds are pulled from storage and fired specifically to determine whether or not the specified time frame between servicing is accurate. Of course, if this can be combined with unit training, it is a two fer situation; the missiles are expensive, so units don’t get to fire many of them for practice. Judging by how the soldiers are dressed, the casual vehicle positioning, the lack of any obvious special facilities, etc. I suspect this might be the case here; a regular air defense unit deployed out to a range somewhere to conduct live fire training.
Well, this will be an interesting entry in the after action report. Hope the transporter erector launcher (TEL) crew was alright.
The two missile families use different technologies and have different purposes. The comparisons published by the Russians and disseminated by their proxies are irrelevant.
Soviet propaganda methods haven’t appreciably changed, though. It works much like the following.
https://youtu.be/q2DJB3iGh0I?t=1m6s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.