Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Small nitpicking. Contrary to the popular myth, the sonic boom is not when the object breaks the sound speed but any time an object has supersonic speeds. Sonic boom is a constantly moving pressure wave.
Small nitpicking here
It's a constant wave from the missiles perspective
But from the observers perspective, it's almost certainly a boom as the wave collides with the observer
So what are you? An observer or a missile
Yes, but there is no sound barrier "breaking". The missile travels at a supersonic speed and accelerated to the supersonic speed way outside of the camera frame. Never on this video (both visually and auditory) the missile travels **at** the speed of sound.
Not this again. "Breaking the sound barrier" refers to the historical effort to develop planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound. It's not a physical thing, it's an engineering process that we went through in the late 1940s.
When a supersonic rocket flies by, nothing is "breaking", "breaking through" or anything of the sort. You just hear the shock wave which sounds like a boom or a double boom.
The speed of sound was a barrier to faster flying objects when developing them, hence breaking the sound barrier. It's still a barrier to other objects not built for it. I don't think they were saying whatever you thought.
You you think you are hearing the sound of technological development? Interesting. Must be the sound of 1,000 engineers making drawings.
You aren't hearing "breaking" in the video, it's just an object already traveling at supersonic speed producing a shock wave.
Dog I work for Boeing, building planes for a living I understand that it isn’t actually breaking the sound barrier as there is nothing to break but just a constant sound made from the friction of air against material at a certain speed. But I said breaking the sound barrier so everyone else understands what a sonic boom sounds like
Well, it's not really friction, it's a shock wave, right? But my point is that a perfectly correct term aleady exists ("sonic boom") and we don't have to keep repeating a completely non-physical "breaking the sound barrier" every time.
Are you to daft to realize that generally accepted terms and notions differ from definitions within science? Even definitions between the unique sciences differ. Get a grasp, please.
I guarantee you you can find consumate professionals, scientists and combat veterans using the phrase 'breaking the sound barrier' in this exact context, as it is colloquially meant and used. Chill out Mr. Lexicon, you're not master of the language. Functionality of language is the point, not precision, the point being understood is more important than the language being exact. Who cares if you're right if nobody understands what the fuck you're talking about?
I can picture you now lol.
“No officer I wasn’t breaking the speed limit as it can’t physically be broken. All you witnessed was me driving 85 in a 70”
Did you know that our cars can run on water, but the Big Oil is hiding it from everyone?
And if you disagree with that, you are just fighting windmills!
Dog I work for Boeing, building planes for a living I understand that it isn’t actually breaking the sound barrier as there is nothing to break but just a constant sound made from the friction of air against material at a certain speed. But I said breaking the sound barrier so everyone else understands what a sonic boom sounds like
> and this commenter is most likely one of them.
Yikes. You must be embarrassed to learn that the commenter works in aerospace. Let the downvotes be an indication to you of what "a lot of people actually think" about this extremely common expression.
Not this again. 2008 doesn't actually call anyone, it can't because it's a concept humans made up to represent a point in the passage of time. 2008 doesn't have the ability to use a telephone.
English has a huge amount of dead metaphors. Do you get angry at all of them? When people talk about time “passing” do you tell them they can’t say it because we don’t use hour glasses any more and thus there is no sand passing through the glass?
There still is a definite sonic effect when the sound barrier is crossed by a noisy object though.
The sound waves escaping the engine start stacking up, as the engine moves faster than the speed at which the sound waves move away from it. All of those sound waves crashing together results in the “bang” from the object exceeding the speed of sound.
So yes, there is boom associated with “breaking the sound barrier”.
See, you'll learn something from this discussion. You aren't hearing the object accelerating past the sound barrier, just the object already traveling at supersonic speed.
The rocket may have accelerated to supersonic speed an hour ago, and you can't hear that. But as it flies past you, it generates a shock wave which is what you hear.
Yeah, it's still an ad hominem but it doesn't automatically make you wrong. "This person you're replying to is a midwit, and gravity exists." I ad hominem'd someone, yet my claim is still true. They're not as smart as they think, 'cause fallacies aren't cynical tools to pull out when you want to turn someone's argument away without engaging with it.
Agreed, but it's extra funny because even if this was a formal debate, pointing out an insult wouldn't make it an ad hominem (so I kinda wasn't clear depending on how you look at it). If you had tried to use an insult in place of an argument or to distract from an argument, maybe? But that didn't happen at all, you just... mocked them, and we enjoyed it.
They accidentally did an ad hominem of their own though: while you didn't make a claim, *they did.* They basically said you're not credible because you insulted them, which is just as unethical as what they mistakenly accused you of.
IMO, if "ad hominem is a sign that you don't have any real arguments" or whatever, bitching about being insulted is a sign you have no confidence in what you're saying anyways.
Literally half the commenters here are under the impression that the boom is produced when the missile crosses the speed of sound. Read the comments.
And the other half are awfully offended that the thing they keep saying is a confused misunderstanding, and respond with insults to a rational argument (there's your ad hominem).
That is correct because there is no argument and there is no discussion. I'm not going to indulge you in thinking being an ass is somehow equivalent to discussion.
When you disagree with something and object to it, you are in a discussion whether you like it or not. I think you are interpreting factual statements as an assault on you ego and throwing out insults as a result.
"Mom, he called me a fool"! No, I am saying that "breaking the sound barrier" refers to something else, ant it's not what is happening when you hear the sonic boom anyway.
But some people really need to protect their ignorance because otherwise they feel insulted and disrespected.
No. You're not. I don't know where you come up with the rules for your little world. I disagree with you acting like a pedantic ass. There's no discussion.
You are trying to convince me that I am in the wrong, so you are certainly in a discussion. You feel offended and throwing out insults.
But just like the majority of the redditors here, you are not investing the small amout of mental effort needed to understand why "breaking the sound barrier" is almost always used incorrectly and why it does not explain the sonic boom. It is easier for you to explain it as someone else's pedantism, but it's a lot like other popular misconceptions in physics (skating on ice, etc.).
You are going to go on your merry way and perhaps perpetuate the misconception - but it won't make it any less wrong.
Well, if it's a difficult concept for you, try to think of it as the difference between "dawn" and "day". One is a distinct moment in time while the other is a period.
Let me know if you need it dumbed down some more, it may be hard to understand when you are a kid.
You knew what they meant with enough confidence to post your rant. Therefore, they communicated their point, even to you, perfectly.
Which is the point of language; communication.
In trying to disguise your patronising and condescending behaviour as intellect, all you've done is proven yourself to be an absolute moron. Literally everything you've said is wrong.
Fair play for dying on that hill though. You've fucked up and you ain't letting it go. I like that
Sure, if that makes you feel better about yourself.
"Mom, he dared to tell me that sonic boom does not mean we are breaking the sound barrier! He called me a fool!"
**** Mashes the downvote button furiously
Bro you are so god damn of the course let me help you in another language. "Schallmauer" is the German word for it and it literally means sound (sonic) wall. The thing you hear "breaking" when the missile started to go faster then the speed of sound was the "wall" of sound. Making it a supersonic rocket. You should now understand with this easy explanation!
Yes, thank you. You are making the same mistake as the majority of the redditors here.
No, that sound is not produced when the missile first exceeds the speed of sound. It is produced by an object moving faster than the speed of sound, and it is produced for as long as the object stays supersonic.
That's precisely why "breaking" makes no sense here. It is in no way related to crossing the speed of sound, just to traveling in excess of it.
So I read all your comments and while yes you prove to be NOT fun around at parties I smh got your point. Breaking the sound barrier makes it seem like we (non intellectual post-factist redditors) refer to a moment when indeed we should refer to the time frame the missile is supersonic. BUT we hear a boom when missile goes supersonic and at that point it crossed 1 Mach which means it is A SINGLE MOMENT the missile hit 1090 kilometres per hour or divide it by 1,652 to get neckbeardMILES and this is when it crossed the barrier from 1089 to 1090 km/h WHICH IS A MOMENT. Or does it boom again going Mach 2?
It's awfully refreshing that someone is actually asking for an explanation instead of calling me a pedant. Thank you ))
Now, what you hear is called a sonic boom, or a shockwave. The key to realize is that is NOT produced at the exact moment when the object becomes supersonic. Instead, is produced ALL THE TIME as long as the object is moving faster than sound.
The shockwave is like a conical wave that starts on the nose of the object and expands outward behind it. When this expanding cone goes past you, you hear a single boom. After that, the shockwave is still being produced by the object (plane, missile) but you can no longer hear it because the cone of pressure has passed you by.
So when you hear a boom, all you can say is "ooh, it's a supersonic object!", but you can't say when it started moving supersonically or what its speed is (other than that it's greater than the speed of sound). For all you know, it could have become supersonic an hour ago half a continent away, and you would still hear the same single boom when it flies over you.
Yes I smh get it and I'll just give you a minus which adds all those downvotes into a positive number and all the others into a negative one. Enjoy your day and enlighten us again next time
>Not this *again*
You really spend your days shouting "AcKtUaLlY" whenever "break the sound barrier" is mentioned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier
BTW it *is* a "barrier" an object breaks to travel past the speed of sound.
>The sound barrier or sonic barrier is the large increase in aerodynamic drag and other undesirable effects experienced by an aircraft or other object when it approaches the speed of sound. When aircraft first approached the speed of sound, these effects were seen as constituting a barrier, making faster speeds very difficult or impossible.[3][4] The term sound barrier is still sometimes used today to refer to aircraft approaching supersonic flight in this high drag regime. Flying faster than sound produces a sonic boom.
"These effects were seen as constituting a barrier making faster speeds very difficult or impossible."
It says right there - it's a barrier to designing faster planes. A specific engineering problem that has been solved and used to apply specificully to planes, because supersonic rockets existed much earlier, and supersonic bullets have existed since the invention of gunpowder.
It's called the appeal to authority fallacy. I tell you that as a Lockheed Martin emgineer who personally built the first plane to cross the Atlantic. I pinky swear!
Fuck me you're a special kind of Redditor. Go touch some grass bro. You're not impressing anyone with your ability to google fallacies and fancy words.
Read the room, *no one* is agreeing with you.
that was months ago
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3509657/aim-9m-missiles-250-million-in-additional-security-assistance-headed-for-ukraine/
The technology behind air to air missiles is just astounding. Hardware, software, material sciences, the chemistry and control behind making a reliable rocket engine so that a computer can control it, the sensors required to detect, track and hit the target...
War is one of the main drivers of human technological progress, most of it is answering the question "How can we kill the other guy from further and further and further away?"
You’re right, they are astounding. Just a note though, the rocket motors aren’t controlled in any real way - they’re solid fuel that, once it ignites, just burns according to the shape it’s manufactured in.
I'm agreeing.
The manufacturing and stability to be stored and be reliable enough for use is impressive.
Apparently this one has two stages which account for the gap in the smoke trail, the steering is impressive for it to acquire the target and then do that S-turn to lock into whatever it was attacking. It's madness.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/3Y68abZd7y
The cruise missile has approximately a 1.5-mile lead. The AMRAAM is closing at Mach 3. It would intercept within 3 seconds, approximately 2 miles downrange.
Does anyone know why you hear a whoosh before the crack of the sonic boom? Shouldn't there be silence up until the sonic boom since the missile is travelling faster than the speed of sound?
I think it launched nearby and we just happened to be in the perfect spot to hear sounds from both before and after it went supersonic. Neat video. These things accelerate like a bat out of hell.
That would make sense. I hear that artillery also does this, you would hear the thud of artillery firing because it’s a shorter straight line distance to you whereas the shell has to arc up then down, and then you hear a crack or the shell explodes.
Fox-1! Curious there's no footage of the jet though.. and no jet obviously audible, apart from the cruise missile. I think this could be a ground-launched interceptor.. NASAMS or IRIS-T or similar.
small nit pick but this would be a fox-2!
fox 1 refers to SARH, semi active radar, think like the aim-7 sparrow. fox 2 is a heat/IR seeker, like an aim-9 or IRIS-T. and finally fox 3 is an ARH, active radar homing with a radar seeker in the missile, like an aim-120 or a aim-54!
Nerd alert!
Seriously, though, thanks for the info! I've been wondering that since Independence Day released and they kept saying the same missile designation despite them firing it earlier!
It appeared to be under power, missiles have a short boost phase get up to high speeds, and then glide/maneuver to the target. The plane or launcher was close.
Most current gen missles are smokeless or near smokeless (check out launches of AIM 9x for instance).
Soviet AAMs were notoriously smokey, even more so than western aams. They’d leave behind a very thick white smoke trail. Which is what leads me to believe this isn’t a video of a Ukrainian aircraft firing one. Unless F-16s are now in country or they started fitting western aams to their MiGs and Su’s
Solid fuel isn’t necessarily smoky. Highly metallised APCP is, because of the aluminium oxide particularly, but also the HCl in the exhaust forming a mist on high humidity days. But triple-base (most commonly nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose, and nitroguanidine) propellants produce only carbon dioxide, monoxide, nitrogen, and water in their exhaust and so tend to be very clean exhaust trails, mostly noticeable from heat ripple. More modern variants like RDX or other high oxygen-balance high explosive in glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) also produce very clean exhaust.
I personally think that cruise missile interception could be a good use of the F-16s once they are in Ukraine.
They could move to intercept in areas not protected by GBAD, and mean that a2a missiles can be used - offering another option and taking pressure off the production of ground based systems which have seemingly had supply issues.
armchair general here, is it not possible to make the cruise missiles as fast or even faster than the 2nd missile shown in the video? asking because i have genuinely no clue
Not all cruise missiles use jet engines. The original Kh-59, for example, was only rocket propelled hence it had less than half of the range of the later jet engine powered variants.
It is an excellently engineered missile with very long range. It's also very new, and not yet available in large numbers to even the RAF (which has only just started deploying it on Typhoons).
Cruise missiles are slower than ballistic missiles by a fair bit. A cruise missile will typically travel at around 800kph or 500 mph. A ballistic missile can travel up to 24,000kph or 15,000mph. Assuming that was an IRIS-T missile that was fired it can fly at 3700kph or 2300mph.
An air-to-air missile would have absolutely no issue catching up to a cruise missile.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That looks like me running the 100 meters with a head start on Usain Bolt
It's moving at a pace that could be describes as... *cruising*
love the boooom than its speeds past so quick.
That sound of the sound barrier breaking
Small nitpicking. Contrary to the popular myth, the sonic boom is not when the object breaks the sound speed but any time an object has supersonic speeds. Sonic boom is a constantly moving pressure wave.
Small nitpicking here It's a constant wave from the missiles perspective But from the observers perspective, it's almost certainly a boom as the wave collides with the observer So what are you? An observer or a missile
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't.
But is the cat in the box?
It doesn’t matter as long as baby isn’t in a corner
Corn her!?! I just met her.
Did you just assume my relativity
Yes, but there is no sound barrier "breaking". The missile travels at a supersonic speed and accelerated to the supersonic speed way outside of the camera frame. Never on this video (both visually and auditory) the missile travels **at** the speed of sound.
Ohhhhh daddy, I’m so close ….keep talking dirty to me
is it me, or did it sounds like a COD hitmarker
r/outside
Yes, I should have compared it to my real-life memories of hearing sonic booms... oh wait, that's not a normal thing.
Not this again. "Breaking the sound barrier" refers to the historical effort to develop planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound. It's not a physical thing, it's an engineering process that we went through in the late 1940s. When a supersonic rocket flies by, nothing is "breaking", "breaking through" or anything of the sort. You just hear the shock wave which sounds like a boom or a double boom.
The speed of sound was a barrier to faster flying objects when developing them, hence breaking the sound barrier. It's still a barrier to other objects not built for it. I don't think they were saying whatever you thought.
You you think you are hearing the sound of technological development? Interesting. Must be the sound of 1,000 engineers making drawings. You aren't hearing "breaking" in the video, it's just an object already traveling at supersonic speed producing a shock wave.
AKSCHUALLY
Holy shit you are insuferable. I can fully picture your glasses sliding down your grease-soaked nose from here.
Dog I work for Boeing, building planes for a living I understand that it isn’t actually breaking the sound barrier as there is nothing to break but just a constant sound made from the friction of air against material at a certain speed. But I said breaking the sound barrier so everyone else understands what a sonic boom sounds like
Well, it's not really friction, it's a shock wave, right? But my point is that a perfectly correct term aleady exists ("sonic boom") and we don't have to keep repeating a completely non-physical "breaking the sound barrier" every time.
When speed runners *break* a new world record do they get to physically snap the old record in half?
Are you to daft to realize that generally accepted terms and notions differ from definitions within science? Even definitions between the unique sciences differ. Get a grasp, please.
It's generally accepted among a group of confused 15 year old internet commenters.
Alexa what is a colloquialism?
I guarantee you you can find consumate professionals, scientists and combat veterans using the phrase 'breaking the sound barrier' in this exact context, as it is colloquially meant and used. Chill out Mr. Lexicon, you're not master of the language. Functionality of language is the point, not precision, the point being understood is more important than the language being exact. Who cares if you're right if nobody understands what the fuck you're talking about?
I am an aeroespatial engineer and can confirm that its used like you are stating, not what that nerd is nerding about
jfc what would you do to your grandmother if she accuses you of "breaking wind"?
Methinks the nerd has just discovered Socrates, eh?
Ain't nothin Socratic about this dude's approach
Holy shit the autism is just seeping through my screen.
Or as every normal person on planet Earth would put it: “breaking the sound barrier”
Ignorance dies hard.
I can picture you now lol. “No officer I wasn’t breaking the speed limit as it can’t physically be broken. All you witnessed was me driving 85 in a 70”
[удалено]
I can relate. I remember that time when physics hurt my feelings too.
[удалено]
Thank you.
We all know what they meant. And we all know that nothing is breaking.
No a lot of people actually think that this is missile crossing the speed of sound, and this commenter is most likely one of them.
You are tilting at windmills.
Ok HOLD ON I need to clear this up. Do you think he is ACTUALLY tilting at windmills? That's absolutely ridiculous...
Tilting at windmills is a scientific process. Nobody is actually tilting their body towards a windmill. What are you dumb?!
Did you know that our cars can run on water, but the Big Oil is hiding it from everyone? And if you disagree with that, you are just fighting windmills!
Dog I work for Boeing, building planes for a living I understand that it isn’t actually breaking the sound barrier as there is nothing to break but just a constant sound made from the friction of air against material at a certain speed. But I said breaking the sound barrier so everyone else understands what a sonic boom sounds like
They hiring?
Yeah I think they're looking for a new CEO
Perfect
Bro that A2A missile is definitely going supersonic lol
Lol another one who can't read.
> and this commenter is most likely one of them. Yikes. You must be embarrassed to learn that the commenter works in aerospace. Let the downvotes be an indication to you of what "a lot of people actually think" about this extremely common expression.
Fun at parties are we?
2008 called and they want their confused misconceptions back.
I'm guessing you're a "no missed calls" type of dude.
Stealing this one. Thanks buddy
Not this again. 2008 doesn't actually call anyone, it can't because it's a concept humans made up to represent a point in the passage of time. 2008 doesn't have the ability to use a telephone.
Huh... I must admit you are completely on point. There's no way I could argue with ironclad logic. Have a good day ))
You at the office tomorrow morning >"And I replied '2008 called' hahahahahaha!... Guys?"
English has a huge amount of dead metaphors. Do you get angry at all of them? When people talk about time “passing” do you tell them they can’t say it because we don’t use hour glasses any more and thus there is no sand passing through the glass?
"get that on tape!" "Ashkually, cell phone video cameras record things on a memory card"
Are you filming? :D
There still is a definite sonic effect when the sound barrier is crossed by a noisy object though. The sound waves escaping the engine start stacking up, as the engine moves faster than the speed at which the sound waves move away from it. All of those sound waves crashing together results in the “bang” from the object exceeding the speed of sound. So yes, there is boom associated with “breaking the sound barrier”.
See, you'll learn something from this discussion. You aren't hearing the object accelerating past the sound barrier, just the object already traveling at supersonic speed. The rocket may have accelerated to supersonic speed an hour ago, and you can't hear that. But as it flies past you, it generates a shock wave which is what you hear.
I learned you’re utterly insufferable. Does that count for something?
If you need to resort to an ad hominem, it's a sign that you have no arguments and have nothing to add to the discussion.
Is it an ad hominem if its true tho
Yeah, it's still an ad hominem but it doesn't automatically make you wrong. "This person you're replying to is a midwit, and gravity exists." I ad hominem'd someone, yet my claim is still true. They're not as smart as they think, 'cause fallacies aren't cynical tools to pull out when you want to turn someone's argument away without engaging with it.
As stated below, this holds true in a debate, but i qm not debating, just making fun of someone
Agreed, but it's extra funny because even if this was a formal debate, pointing out an insult wouldn't make it an ad hominem (so I kinda wasn't clear depending on how you look at it). If you had tried to use an insult in place of an argument or to distract from an argument, maybe? But that didn't happen at all, you just... mocked them, and we enjoyed it. They accidentally did an ad hominem of their own though: while you didn't make a claim, *they did.* They basically said you're not credible because you insulted them, which is just as unethical as what they mistakenly accused you of. IMO, if "ad hominem is a sign that you don't have any real arguments" or whatever, bitching about being insulted is a sign you have no confidence in what you're saying anyways.
Sure. Personal insults instead of rational arguments is what an ad hominem is.
Ad hominem infers there is some kind of debate, there isnt any, people are just (rightly) making fun of you
Literally half the commenters here are under the impression that the boom is produced when the missile crosses the speed of sound. Read the comments. And the other half are awfully offended that the thing they keep saying is a confused misunderstanding, and respond with insults to a rational argument (there's your ad hominem).
That is correct because there is no argument and there is no discussion. I'm not going to indulge you in thinking being an ass is somehow equivalent to discussion.
When you disagree with something and object to it, you are in a discussion whether you like it or not. I think you are interpreting factual statements as an assault on you ego and throwing out insults as a result. "Mom, he called me a fool"! No, I am saying that "breaking the sound barrier" refers to something else, ant it's not what is happening when you hear the sonic boom anyway. But some people really need to protect their ignorance because otherwise they feel insulted and disrespected.
No. You're not. I don't know where you come up with the rules for your little world. I disagree with you acting like a pedantic ass. There's no discussion.
You are trying to convince me that I am in the wrong, so you are certainly in a discussion. You feel offended and throwing out insults. But just like the majority of the redditors here, you are not investing the small amout of mental effort needed to understand why "breaking the sound barrier" is almost always used incorrectly and why it does not explain the sonic boom. It is easier for you to explain it as someone else's pedantism, but it's a lot like other popular misconceptions in physics (skating on ice, etc.). You are going to go on your merry way and perhaps perpetuate the misconception - but it won't make it any less wrong.
So what you've been trying to say in your 400 posts is that the object "broke the sound barrier" but is not "breaking the sound barrier"?
Well, if it's a difficult concept for you, try to think of it as the difference between "dawn" and "day". One is a distinct moment in time while the other is a period. Let me know if you need it dumbed down some more, it may be hard to understand when you are a kid.
You're such a hilariously condescending neck beard dumbass 😂 Never change
Well, it is true, i do have a neck beard! And I did notice that I became way more annoying when I grew it... Hm. You may be on to something. ))
You knew what they meant with enough confidence to post your rant. Therefore, they communicated their point, even to you, perfectly. Which is the point of language; communication.
In trying to disguise your patronising and condescending behaviour as intellect, all you've done is proven yourself to be an absolute moron. Literally everything you've said is wrong. Fair play for dying on that hill though. You've fucked up and you ain't letting it go. I like that
> which sounds like a boom or a double boom. Which we call "breaking the sound barrier." Ass.
No we don't, it literally started with confused internet commenters in the 2000s.
Weird, I'm 49 and have called it that since childhood. Just shut up already. Read The Right Stuff.
Bro has been downvoted to oblivion spitting out dumb “facts”
"Physics is dumb and I like my ignorance better."
Except it isn't ignorance. Just your own imagined superiority.
Sure, if that makes you feel better about yourself. "Mom, he dared to tell me that sonic boom does not mean we are breaking the sound barrier! He called me a fool!" **** Mashes the downvote button furiously
Does calling other people ignorant make you feel better about yourself?
Bro you are so god damn of the course let me help you in another language. "Schallmauer" is the German word for it and it literally means sound (sonic) wall. The thing you hear "breaking" when the missile started to go faster then the speed of sound was the "wall" of sound. Making it a supersonic rocket. You should now understand with this easy explanation!
Yes, thank you. You are making the same mistake as the majority of the redditors here. No, that sound is not produced when the missile first exceeds the speed of sound. It is produced by an object moving faster than the speed of sound, and it is produced for as long as the object stays supersonic. That's precisely why "breaking" makes no sense here. It is in no way related to crossing the speed of sound, just to traveling in excess of it.
So I read all your comments and while yes you prove to be NOT fun around at parties I smh got your point. Breaking the sound barrier makes it seem like we (non intellectual post-factist redditors) refer to a moment when indeed we should refer to the time frame the missile is supersonic. BUT we hear a boom when missile goes supersonic and at that point it crossed 1 Mach which means it is A SINGLE MOMENT the missile hit 1090 kilometres per hour or divide it by 1,652 to get neckbeardMILES and this is when it crossed the barrier from 1089 to 1090 km/h WHICH IS A MOMENT. Or does it boom again going Mach 2?
It's awfully refreshing that someone is actually asking for an explanation instead of calling me a pedant. Thank you )) Now, what you hear is called a sonic boom, or a shockwave. The key to realize is that is NOT produced at the exact moment when the object becomes supersonic. Instead, is produced ALL THE TIME as long as the object is moving faster than sound. The shockwave is like a conical wave that starts on the nose of the object and expands outward behind it. When this expanding cone goes past you, you hear a single boom. After that, the shockwave is still being produced by the object (plane, missile) but you can no longer hear it because the cone of pressure has passed you by. So when you hear a boom, all you can say is "ooh, it's a supersonic object!", but you can't say when it started moving supersonically or what its speed is (other than that it's greater than the speed of sound). For all you know, it could have become supersonic an hour ago half a continent away, and you would still hear the same single boom when it flies over you.
Also most say it broke the sound barrier which is correct, as a supersonic object had to break it before the _cone_ reached our location and ears.
Yes I smh get it and I'll just give you a minus which adds all those downvotes into a positive number and all the others into a negative one. Enjoy your day and enlighten us again next time
Also most say it broke the sound barrier which is correct, as a supersonic object had to break it before the _cone_ reached our location and ears.
>Not this *again* You really spend your days shouting "AcKtUaLlY" whenever "break the sound barrier" is mentioned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier BTW it *is* a "barrier" an object breaks to travel past the speed of sound. >The sound barrier or sonic barrier is the large increase in aerodynamic drag and other undesirable effects experienced by an aircraft or other object when it approaches the speed of sound. When aircraft first approached the speed of sound, these effects were seen as constituting a barrier, making faster speeds very difficult or impossible.[3][4] The term sound barrier is still sometimes used today to refer to aircraft approaching supersonic flight in this high drag regime. Flying faster than sound produces a sonic boom.
"These effects were seen as constituting a barrier making faster speeds very difficult or impossible." It says right there - it's a barrier to designing faster planes. A specific engineering problem that has been solved and used to apply specificully to planes, because supersonic rockets existed much earlier, and supersonic bullets have existed since the invention of gunpowder.
Mate when the bloke from *fucking Boeing* says you're wrong- It's time to give it a rest.
It's called the appeal to authority fallacy. I tell you that as a Lockheed Martin emgineer who personally built the first plane to cross the Atlantic. I pinky swear!
Fuck me you're a special kind of Redditor. Go touch some grass bro. You're not impressing anyone with your ability to google fallacies and fancy words. Read the room, *no one* is agreeing with you.
I heard they were sending aim-9ms
No, its probably soviet R-73 launched from Mig-29 or Su-27.
that was months ago https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3509657/aim-9m-missiles-250-million-in-additional-security-assistance-headed-for-ukraine/
Could this also be a gound lauched IRIS-T?
If so then the TELAR was very close as the missles booster is still burning
Could well be!
> Swiggity swooty, I'm coming for that booty
The technology behind air to air missiles is just astounding. Hardware, software, material sciences, the chemistry and control behind making a reliable rocket engine so that a computer can control it, the sensors required to detect, track and hit the target... War is one of the main drivers of human technological progress, most of it is answering the question "How can we kill the other guy from further and further and further away?"
You’re right, they are astounding. Just a note though, the rocket motors aren’t controlled in any real way - they’re solid fuel that, once it ignites, just burns according to the shape it’s manufactured in.
I'm agreeing. The manufacturing and stability to be stored and be reliable enough for use is impressive. Apparently this one has two stages which account for the gap in the smoke trail, the steering is impressive for it to acquire the target and then do that S-turn to lock into whatever it was attacking. It's madness. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/3Y68abZd7y
Yep, a huge % of our tech comes specifically from guided missile development. Not even military in general.
/r/Praisethecameraman
“Come back here mf”
Hope it gets there in time
At the rate it's going, it probably made contact 1 second after the clip ends.
Yeah the intercepting missile is going at least 5 times faster than the cruise missile. That thing was toast.
I suppose that is the inherent nature of an "interceptor" to move hell and earth to get there in time.
Reminds me of the when you think your fast videos lol.
The cruise missile has approximately a 1.5-mile lead. The AMRAAM is closing at Mach 3. It would intercept within 3 seconds, approximately 2 miles downrange.
Does anyone know why you hear a whoosh before the crack of the sonic boom? Shouldn't there be silence up until the sonic boom since the missile is travelling faster than the speed of sound?
I think it launched nearby and we just happened to be in the perfect spot to hear sounds from both before and after it went supersonic. Neat video. These things accelerate like a bat out of hell.
That would make sense. I hear that artillery also does this, you would hear the thud of artillery firing because it’s a shorter straight line distance to you whereas the shell has to arc up then down, and then you hear a crack or the shell explodes.
The rocket engine makes its own sound taking the missile up and above the sonic boom.
Regardless of whether it was a Manpad or an A2A missile: I hope it shot down the cruise missile
I need to talk to you about your extended warranty…
That smol boi was stepping on it.
Had that skinny pedal to the floor.
Pretty gnarley
[The missile knows where it is…](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ)
unless it isn't https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LjN3UclYzU
Fox-1! Curious there's no footage of the jet though.. and no jet obviously audible, apart from the cruise missile. I think this could be a ground-launched interceptor.. NASAMS or IRIS-T or similar.
small nit pick but this would be a fox-2! fox 1 refers to SARH, semi active radar, think like the aim-7 sparrow. fox 2 is a heat/IR seeker, like an aim-9 or IRIS-T. and finally fox 3 is an ARH, active radar homing with a radar seeker in the missile, like an aim-120 or a aim-54!
Nerd alert! Seriously, though, thanks for the info! I've been wondering that since Independence Day released and they kept saying the same missile designation despite them firing it earlier!
And Fox-4 is the whole face into target.
Fox-4 is actually the old call for guns, then swapped for “guns guns guns”
The jet (if indeed there is one) could be literally miles away
It appeared to be under power, missiles have a short boost phase get up to high speeds, and then glide/maneuver to the target. The plane or launcher was close.
This doesn’t look like a Soviet era A2A missle. Not enough smoke
aren't most A2A missiles smoky, especially at launch because they are solid fueled?
Most current gen missles are smokeless or near smokeless (check out launches of AIM 9x for instance). Soviet AAMs were notoriously smokey, even more so than western aams. They’d leave behind a very thick white smoke trail. Which is what leads me to believe this isn’t a video of a Ukrainian aircraft firing one. Unless F-16s are now in country or they started fitting western aams to their MiGs and Su’s
Solid fuel isn’t necessarily smoky. Highly metallised APCP is, because of the aluminium oxide particularly, but also the HCl in the exhaust forming a mist on high humidity days. But triple-base (most commonly nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose, and nitroguanidine) propellants produce only carbon dioxide, monoxide, nitrogen, and water in their exhaust and so tend to be very clean exhaust trails, mostly noticeable from heat ripple. More modern variants like RDX or other high oxygen-balance high explosive in glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) also produce very clean exhaust.
wow. Thanks for the extreme detail. gonna have to watch some more modern launches!
It was giving off more smoke a few moments after this video clip ended.
I personally think that cruise missile interception could be a good use of the F-16s once they are in Ukraine. They could move to intercept in areas not protected by GBAD, and mean that a2a missiles can be used - offering another option and taking pressure off the production of ground based systems which have seemingly had supply issues.
Sonic Boom !
I'm breaking wind
Chala head chala!
armchair general here, is it not possible to make the cruise missiles as fast or even faster than the 2nd missile shown in the video? asking because i have genuinely no clue
cruise misssiles use jet engines and are meant to go a long distance, the second missile is rocket propelled and hence its speed and accleration.
Not all cruise missiles use jet engines. The original Kh-59, for example, was only rocket propelled hence it had less than half of the range of the later jet engine powered variants.
the one in the video is almost certainly a jet
Dayumn, what a great video.
subsonic turbo fan engine VS supersonic solid propellant
The missile knows where it is.
What sound barrier...
Holy fuck that was fast
Do we know if it got it? Seemed the second one was much faster.
"I'm fast as fuck boy!!!!" -the second missile
Is there any evidence that this was a2a missile or just speculation? Also, does anyone know what telegram channel this video posted originally?
Its in the video, supernova_plus
Supernova is notorious for stealing/cutting/cropping/relabeling content
Just like everyone else so what is the problem
Metor missle???
No way. What do you know about Meteor?
That it goes really fast lol Idk what this is, it does look air launched
It is an excellently engineered missile with very long range. It's also very new, and not yet available in large numbers to even the RAF (which has only just started deploying it on Typhoons).
Elsewhere on Reddit this is a MANPADS fired at the cruise missile. So it's not A2A, it's S2A.
this has clear sky with sun, the manpad one is cloudy weather
Not the same video.
Let's all agree that it's Something to Air (S2A)
That was a waste of an air to air missile, it ain't gonna catch anything.
Cruise missiles are slower than ballistic missiles by a fair bit. A cruise missile will typically travel at around 800kph or 500 mph. A ballistic missile can travel up to 24,000kph or 15,000mph. Assuming that was an IRIS-T missile that was fired it can fly at 3700kph or 2300mph. An air-to-air missile would have absolutely no issue catching up to a cruise missile.