ALKALI: The First Soviet AAM Broke Missile Design Conventions (But No Records)

[@alex3261]

14:40 -I took that picture, 30 years ago!

[@ptonpc]

Very cool :) Can you tell us about the circumstances?

[@retr0_fps]

@@ptonpcyes , please

[@dragonbutt]

Congratulations on being old lol

[@babboon5764]

You're Indian?

[@midnattsol6207]

@@babboon5764 it's a romanian one, look at the tail

[@cukrrak]

A note on the Alkali series - they could also be used as air to ground missiles, the later developed dedicated A2G missile Kh-66 was basically modified RS-2US.

[@justforever96]

That's not really the same missile then. I get what you are saying, but it's just the same vehicle, if it has a different seeker for a different purpose, it's not really the same missile. You can't take an AA-1 and fire it at either an air or a ground target. You can make an ARM out of the fuselage of a man AIM-9 but it's not really the same missile any more. There is no reason any missile couldn't be used as an AGM if you give it the right seeker and warhead. Although the opposite is less true.

[@cukrrak]

​@@justforever96 You missed my point - you CAN take AA-1 and fire it at either air or ground target. AA-1 also does not have a regular seeker, they are radar beam-riders, with the guidance system at the back of the missile, so if you point your radar fixed beam at a ground target, that's where the missile goes (Kh-66 has the same guidance system, but bigger warhead). I'm not sure if RS-2U was ever used like this in combat, but I do know that MiG-19PM pilots in Warsaw pact countries practiced using them on ground targets.

[@Lightning_Mike]

@@justforever96 Technically, it was little more than a K-8 with the seeker of a K-5

[@mikepette4422]

I've always had a bit of fascination with the design of the Alkali. Because It looks kinda cool with its very different shape from western missiles of the same vintage I always wanted more info on these things and I never seem to find enough but this video really gave me some new insights. Well done !

[@bigblue6917]

They always made me think of those old Sci Fi magazine illustrations.

[@mister_fjk1972]

Excellent content on some of the more obscure Soviet cold-war era weapons. Look forward to seeing more!!!

[@SuppressedOfficial]

I used to binge Wings on the Discovery Channel, back before it became all aliens all the time or whatever. Your channel is really scratching an itch for me.

[@macmedic892]

Likewise, I miss when channels like History, Discovery, TLC (The LEARNING Channel!), A&E (Arts & Entertainment!), etc. were educational and informative.

[@thomas316]

3:20 Wasn't this an episode of StarTrek where they set photon torpedoes to go in a helical or spiral pattern to find a cloaked ship?

[@yester8039]

Common search pattern for torpedoes to find submarines since the cold war tbh

[@RCAvhstape]

Balance of Terror was the episode name. IIRC the "pattern" they laid down with the photon torpedoes wasn't described in detail, but it felt like it was an obvious analog to a depth charge pattern used on subs in WWII by destroyers.

[@RaderizDorret]

You're thinking of Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country where they modified a torpedo with gaseous anomaly detection sensors to go after a Bird of Prey that could fire while cloaked

[@justforever96]

The only similarity is the description of the track as helical. In this case they are talking about a corkscrew as it flies along it's path, it rotates around an axis, and it's an undesirable side effect that reduces the chance of hitting a target that you can detect. What you are describing is more like a torpedo search track where you have it make a spiral track, usually starting with smaller circles but getting wider each time, so the track covers a wide flat circle of space, increasing the odds that it will contact the target you assume is somewhere in that area, or in the case of a acoustic torpedo it is searching for a sound to lock onto, at which point it just goes after the target. They aren't really similar in any way. It's also kind of nonsensical in a space application. Most of these shows ignore actual physics and have the ships behaving more or less like they are naval vessels kind of relatively stationary within a few miles of each other, while in reality a real space vessel would spend weeks accelerating constantly just to get up to a percentage of light speed, at which point it will still take you years to travel anywhere. If you happened to meet an enemy ship, unless you are both orbiting the same planet, and unless you just happen to both be on the same course and the same speed, you will be closing on each other at a speed of some significant fraction of 186,000 miles per second. You either have to detect the target millions or miles out and launch your weapons, with a phenomenal acceleration rate, to intercept that target while they are still in the envelope, or you have no chance to hit them. If you actually could only engage them within ten miles, you would have literally a fraction of a second before they are come and gone. In reality 1,000 miles is point blank range, anything closer is basically the same place. You need to be able to hit them a million miles away, or there is zero chance to detect and fire at them before you are both passed and gone. And then you have to spend days or weeks _slowing down_ just to come to a stop to start back after them again, which is hopeless. And they can also come from anywhere in a three dimensional space, they aren't just going to be floating in the same plane with you, they might come directly from above. And these speeds all assume you have developed some way to shield the crew from the massive acceleration forces, or it will take even longer. The only thing I ever read that really takes this all seriously is the Honor Harrington series, which manages to be very plausible and entirely implausible at the same time. The ships fly right but somehow also manage to parallel the tactics and organization of the Nelsonian Navy. Anyway, the idea of a spiral search pattern managing to contact an enemy space ship in open space is kind of silly. Unless for some strange reason he has decided to stop and sit entirely motionless in space. Which you still have to define. Motionless in relation to the nearest planet? Or star? Are you in a gravity well? The idea that any object would just stay in a relatively small space where a missile could come into actual contact with it by chance is remote. At least in a submarine you can be relatively sure the enemy is somewhere in a few thousand feet of vertical range, if you can just find his location in 2 dimensions.

[@cristiangarces5832]

I have always had questions about this missile, having my favorite KZbinr make a video on the subject is like a divine gift, thank you very much!

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

Thank you for this very thorough video on the Alkali. I have seen it mention in several books on soviet era fighters but never explained in detail. A+++ grade video my knowledge on cold war era Soviet Air to Air missiles has been greatly expanded today 👍😁.

[@jonathanhudak2059]

This was great! it still amazes me how missile designs were thought up in the 1950s and developed. Very cool Cold War era stuff, love your channel! 😊

[@cheekibreeki4638]

Great as I have come to expect. Cheers.

[@GenPatton0043]

Love your work on classic weapons like this, keep it up!👍👍

[@EATSxBABIES]

Comparing the Alkali to the Sparrow doesnt seem like the best comparison. Aim 4 Falcon or R530 Matra seem like much better parallels.

[@dubsy1026]

The original Sparrow is contemporary and has the same guidance (beam riding), it's fairly different to the later Sparrows which makes the comparison seem odd. Neither of the two missiles you name are beam riders, and the R530 is from a fair bit later.

[@blessthismessss]

He compares the Sparrow *One* with the Alkali here, which is perfectly well-founded. most people know the Sparrow in its Sparrow II or III forms, which have proper guidance autopilots and advanced capabilities compared to this, a beam-rider which wholly relies on one of the most simplest and rudimentary forms of guidance. but the Sparrow I actually used this too, waaaay back in the beginning of its life. a beam-riding design that kind of flies more similarly to high-speed ATGMs than that of any other type of A2A missile

[@otaviom6480]

The R.530 is superior to the early Sparrows and the Alkali, the closer equivalent would be the Matra R.511

[@rags417]

The reason that this missile wasn't exported is because no other nation had the problem of how to stop a high altitude strategic bomber on a nuclear strike mission.

[@martinjones3519]

Excellent work as always.

[@cliffalcorn2423]

Great job, thank you.

[@Christian762]

Loving the Cold War era stuff on your channel

[@randomexcessmemories4452]

Really interesting video on an oft-overlooked part of aviation history! Are you using some sort of noise suppression on your vocals? They're kind of muffled and inconsistently cut out at the starts and ends of some words. It made some parts hard to understand.

[@warhawk4494]

Great video.on a obscure missile

[@Sturminfantrist]

Built a MiG-17 with Radar and these Alkali`s in the 90s, thinK it was SMER`s 1:48 MiG-17 PF or PFU. Good Video wish to see more Vids about aircraft Missiles, Guns/Gunpods ect and big soviet PVO interceptors like the Su-15

[@georgeboyred]

Can you do a video on the AIM-4 Falcon? I sort of understand why it failed when up against the AIM-9, but not so much the AIM-7 and what made so different to it's rival missiles, did it really have no future, was it a technical dead end?

[@RaderizDorret]

The Falcons weren't a dead end. They eventually evolved into the Phoenix

[@dubsy1026]

Holding out for a Fireflash vid

[@Barabel22]

I’ve seen contradicting info as to whether it entered service or not, around 250-400 were produced(that includes test missiles), and its launch aircraft was the Swift. Maybe never official service, but could have been used if necessary.

[@richardwales9674]

Good video, enjoyed it. 🙂

[@nicholasmaude6906]

I wonder if a video has been done about the AA-3 Anab?

[@johnshepherd9676]

Nice shot of Jimmy Stewart.

[@PaleoWithFries]

Strategic Air Command, featuring a rather brand new B-47, the cockpit used in the film is on display at the March Field Air Museum

[@SpiritOfArchimedes]

Where did you find the technical drawing of the missile at 4:38??

[@rafaelaldana1503]

Excellent!!!

[@MemorialRifleRange]

Thank-you

[@Lightning_Mike]

Ouch, that little burn at the end!

[@nomar5spaulding]

So is that beam divergence thing also the reason why a lot of ATGMs spiral as they go down range? Beam riding was a common mode of ATGM guidance and a lot of those spiral down to the target.

[@justforever96]

I usually avoid these types of videos because they are often disappointing, just a guy quoting wikipedia with some pictures. But i had to bite because the interesting topic on this one, and it is well done.

[@womble321]

You show the actor Jimmy Stuart flying a B-47 he was actually a qualified B-47 pilot!

[@awathompson]

Good job, Ruth has always been a great book to study. The Hebrew word sata (h8354) basically means to drink but can mean to get drunk, interesting observation is that in the Septuagint drinking is absent but just says "his heart was content"

[@thegreyhound1073]

I love to see a video on the yak-25

[@pjotrtje0NL]

0:21 Does anybody know what air base this is?

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

13:50 According to István Toperczer latest book on VPAF MiG-21 operations, a number of unsuccessful launches (around 14) was performed throught April and May of 1966, without any success.

[@thesenate9919]

Could you please include metric units.

[@karoltakisobie6638]

Do you have a program about nuclear bombs used on Soviet fighters like Mig-21?

[@ralphe5842]

In other words the Soviets had a lot to worry about

[@TheGranicd]

They had other missiles at the time. like K-8

[@SMGJohn]

According to CIA evaluation of the 1960s and 1988, NATO had the most to worry about because they would not win a war against the Warsaw pact, two times did CIA recommend their nuclear scorched earth tactics, to turn Europe into nothing so the Reds would not capture anything of value. Twice was this strategy rejected.

[@wonjez3982]

0:00 is a jet assited take off? probably with hydrogen peroxide?

[@nodirips_8537]

1:17 Stalin died in March 1953

[@Damian-03x3]

Cool video, but it would be nice if you used the correct measurement system, so people who don't have a thing for feet could understand it better.

[@fonesrphunny7242]

1 meter = 3 feet It's not perfectly accurate, but enough to help understanding and easy to do in your head.

[@justforever96]

They make the videos for the target audience. Do it in meters and Americans will be complaining instead, and more Americans watch these videos than other people. And it's awkward to give both every time you have to give a dimension.

[@Damian-03x3]

@@justforever96 Just use units that the vast majority of the world uses and maybe have the incorrect units in a corner of the screen or something.

[@macmedic892]

If you don’t like how he does it, feel free to produce and upload your own videos.

[@Damian-03x3]

@@macmedic892 That's the most kindergarten-level argument I've heard in quite a while.

[@jakobole]

Glad I'm not number 2 taking off :)

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

It occurred to me while watching this video this rocket would make an interesting scale subject for model or amateur rocketry.

[@carloshenriquealvesdossant8855]

The Su-9 "Fishpot B" also used AA-1.

[@justforever96]

I think he was listing the jets that used the first generation missile, while the Su-9 used the second generation Alkali the he talks about after that. I was going to say the same thing.

[@Archie2c]

Hence boresight the radar not scan that way the radar rides right in.

[@edwardpate6128]

I think rather than comparing it with the AIM-7 Sparrow a better comparison would be with the AIM-4 Falcon.

[@TyrannoJoris_Rex]

The Sparrow 1 was a beam-rider. Falcons never had such a guidance system

[@TheGranicd]

@@TyrannoJoris_Rex Or proxy fuse.

[@bigblue6917]

I remember watching film footage in the 1970's of Soviet fighters simultaneously firing a heatseeking and radar guided missile at a target. The claim for doing this was that the NATO pilot would not be able to deal with both at the same time. What I did notice was how often the second missile shot across in front of the fighter as it locked onto the first missile before acquiring the target. Must have been a few nervous moments for the pilot when he pressed the fire button.

[@TyrannoJoris_Rex]

Thought they fired the heat-seeker before the radar-homer to so that wouldn't happen

[@nikolaideianov5092]

I think these missiles would be the R23, r24 , r27 missiles

[@RCAvhstape]

It looks like a baby V2 with some extra thingies attached to it.

[@koskok2965]

Maybe after one too many pints, viewed through the empty glass stained by the beer.

[@Chicagoan1]

The missile is also known as the R-4

[@billenright2788]

Love to see a MiG-19 show. Not much out there on that bird.

[@thevictoryoverhimself7298]

It looks a lot like a fritz-X.

[@johnabney3530]

The cover shot is an F-86 Sabre, not Russian...

[@nikolaideianov5092]

No? Its not A sabers wings is at the bottem of its fuselage

[@babboon5764]

Hard to avoid a suspicion the REASON their missiles were never supplied to client states was to ensure NATO never discovered quite how limited they were and how relatively easily they could be evaded?

[@TheGranicd]

Those missiles were supplied. All early missiles US and USSR were bad. Ppl seem to judge them by todays standard. Not standard of the day. And standard was beam riders or salvo of unguided rockets.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@TheGranicd the aim 9(1956) entered service 1 year before the aa1 (1957) The aim 7 in 1958

[@TheGranicd]

@@nikolaideianov5092 initial aim7 was a beam rider.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

@@TheGranicd doesnt really disprove my point

[@justforever96]

Funny how Western sources typically derided Soviets for using GCI so extensively when really its the ideal method. The ground radars are better and they can organize and plot their resources and interceptions more efficiently than individual pilots can. Not that the US didn't use extensive GCI systems themselves. Why spend billions trying to put the most advanced and complex radars into every aircraft when you can just vector them to the target where a simpler system would work just fine? Only worry is if they jam your radios or take out all your radar stations. In which case you probably already failed.

[@TheGranicd]

US planes of the time used GCI also. Even in Vietnam. because radars were short ranged. Later AWACS was used even if radars got better. But somehow berated USSR for it.

[@johnstirling6597]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[@AndreasGlad-rq7vx]

Miss-ile indeed....

[@mikepette4422]

I see what you did there.

[@AndreasGlad-rq7vx]

​@@mikepette4422Yes....i will see myself out...

[@onkelmicke9670]

Sound quality is rather worse than usual?

[@leocompot]

Stalin died 5th March' 53 not May

[@TheKeithvidz]

Read up weapons in general, of soviet AAMs, Alkali amongst. Suave how you present information.

[@MikeBracewell]

You need to check your facts before making your videos. Loads of basic errors here & why on earth you'd compare a 1st generation AA missile, like the Alkali, against a 2nd generation Sparrow missile (which didn't enter service until 1958), God only knows? The Sparrow, BTW was never a beam-rider but semi-active guided. It's a very different & more effective type of guidance. Look it up.

[@jfv2312]

The first variant of the Sparrow, the Sparrow I (later re-designated AIM-7A, but it was already out of service) was beam-riding, with the option of slaving the missile to the radar sight. It was used in a few US Navy aircraft in the mid-late 1950s

[@cheekibreeki4638]

Why would you post something that you could so easily verify as false?

[@ashestodust2313]

The first sparrow was beam riding. Look it up.

[@RCAvhstape]

You need to check your facts before posting comments. The early Sparrow 1 was a beam rider. Look it up. (I admit, I'm being a dick here, but it's kind of funny.)

[@MikeBracewell]

@@jfv2312 you're talking about the AAM-N-2 Sparrow (referred, to as the Sparrow 1, once the AIM-7 Sparrow II entered service). Although it had a similar configuration, the AAM-N-2 was, indeed a beam-rider & a very different weapon to the Sparrow II (which is clearly the version referred to in the video - why else claim it was so superior to the AA1?) The Sparrow 1 was deployed for a very limited time & was no more effective than the K-5 Alkali. It guidance was just as unreliable & it was, certainly more expensive to produce. Viewed as barely acceptable for service deployment, only 2000 were produced before the much superior Sparrow 2 entered the scene in 58.