This week's AW&ST: apparently THAAD will have some ABM (as in anti- *ICBM*) capability.

[Scott Ferrin]

I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered if
it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of "IRBM"
but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered if
> it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of "IRBM"
> but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
> would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
> Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
> though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.

From what I have read, THAAD has always been forseen to have an anti-ICBM
capability, but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
pretty small, and its primary role was intended to address the shorter range
ballistic missiles one would expect to encounter in theater defense role.
That said, I did see where one recent document noted that apparently the "T"
in the acronym has lately been changed from representing "theater" to now
representing "terminal"--take that for what it is worth.

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5679&sequence=2

Brooks

[Andreas Parsch]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> That said, I did see where one recent document noted that apparently the "T"
> in the acronym has lately been changed from representing "theater" to now
> representing "terminal"--take that for what it is worth.


This was changed in February this year. MDA's official memo is at

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/term.pdf .

From this, and some comments on the issue, it appears that the change
was purely "political" (to make it clear that THAAD is a part of the
US national missile defense effort, and not limited to deployment in
(foreign) "theaters").

Andreas

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:41:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>
>> I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
>> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
>> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered if
>> it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of "IRBM"
>> but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
>> would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
>> Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
>> though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.
>
>From what I have read, THAAD has always been forseen to have an anti-ICBM
>capability, but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
>pretty small,


When it was first designed it was right at the limit of what was
allowed under the ABM treaty. As for the footprint, terminal defenses
have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that. HEDI would have been
in the ballpark of Sprint most likely.



> and its primary role was intended to address the shorter range
>ballistic missiles one would expect to encounter in theater defense role.
>That said, I did see where one recent document noted that apparently the "T"
>in the acronym has lately been changed from representing "theater" to now
>representing "terminal"--take that for what it is worth.


They also mentioned in the article that THAAD may reveive a "kick
motor" and larger booster and would be able to defend the entire east
or west coast against barge-launched (or sub-launched I suppose) TBMs
with one battery. Unless they had launchers distributed up and down
the coast though I find it difficult to imagine a THAAD in Oregon say
being able to reach a TBM launched off the coast of San Diego in time.




On the subject of missiles this file has some great stuff on the SA-10
and -12 family

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub2.pdf


I had no idea the main radar for the SA-10 was that damn big! (Big
Bird)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:41:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
> >> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
> >> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered if
> >> it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of "IRBM"
> >> but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
> >> would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
> >> Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
> >> though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.
> >
> >From what I have read, THAAD has always been forseen to have an anti-ICBM
> >capability, but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
> >pretty small,
>
>
> When it was first designed it was right at the limit of what was
> allowed under the ABM treaty. As for the footprint, terminal defenses
> have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
> 25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
> than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that. HEDI would have been
> in the ballpark of Sprint most likely.

Yes, but Sprint was merely the lower tier of a two-tier system; Spartan had
a significantly longer reach. Trying to defend a large urban area (like you
find on the Left Coast) against ICBM attack with THAAD would require
sprinkling launch sites around like the old Nike Ajax did...and that ain't
gonna happen.

Brooks

>
>
>
> > and its primary role was intended to address the shorter range
> >ballistic missiles one would expect to encounter in theater defense role.
> >That said, I did see where one recent document noted that apparently the
"T"
> >in the acronym has lately been changed from representing "theater" to now
> >representing "terminal"--take that for what it is worth.
>
>
> They also mentioned in the article that THAAD may reveive a "kick
> motor" and larger booster and would be able to defend the entire east
> or west coast against barge-launched (or sub-launched I suppose) TBMs
> with one battery. Unless they had launchers distributed up and down
> the coast though I find it difficult to imagine a THAAD in Oregon say
> being able to reach a TBM launched off the coast of San Diego in time.
>
>
>
>
> On the subject of missiles this file has some great stuff on the SA-10
> and -12 family
>
>
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2002_2003/subs/sub2.pdf
>
>
> I had no idea the main radar for the SA-10 was that damn big! (Big
> Bird)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > That said, I did see where one recent document noted that apparently the
"T"
> > in the acronym has lately been changed from representing "theater" to
now
> > representing "terminal"--take that for what it is worth.
>
>
> This was changed in February this year. MDA's official memo is at
>
> http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/term.pdf .
>
> From this, and some comments on the issue, it appears that the change
> was purely "political" (to make it clear that THAAD is a part of the
> US national missile defense effort, and not limited to deployment in
> (foreign) "theaters").

Thanks, Andreas; sounds like you have read reasoning behind the change right
to me.

Brooks

>
> Andreas
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:35:56 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:41:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
>> >> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
>> >> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered if
>> >> it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of "IRBM"
>> >> but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
>> >> would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
>> >> Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
>> >> though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.
>> >
>> >From what I have read, THAAD has always been forseen to have an anti-ICBM
>> >capability, but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
>> >pretty small,
>>
>>
>> When it was first designed it was right at the limit of what was
>> allowed under the ABM treaty. As for the footprint, terminal defenses
>> have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
>> 25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
>> than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that. HEDI would have been
>> in the ballpark of Sprint most likely.
>
>Yes, but Sprint was merely the lower tier of a two-tier system; Spartan had
>a significantly longer reach.


Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and* Spartan.



> Trying to defend a large urban area (like you
>find on the Left Coast) against ICBM attack with THAAD would require
>sprinkling launch sites around like the old Nike Ajax did...and that ain't
>gonna happen.


Well not quite. Those were dedicated missile bases, each with a dozen
or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.
Quite different than say, three or four radars total and a launcher or
two per location operating out of military bases up and down the
coast. They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:35:56 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:41:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I was tempted to just copy/paste it but. . . Anyway. According to
> >> >> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
> >> >> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability. I'd wondered
if
> >> >> it was a typo and they'd inadvertantly typed "ICBM" instead of
"IRBM"
> >> >> but it was repeated several times throughout the article and that it
> >> >> would be tested against ICBM-type targets later in the test program.
> >> >> Also, the missile's configuration is apparently quite different now
> >> >> though whether that's just under the skin they didn't say.
> >> >
> >> >From what I have read, THAAD has always been forseen to have an
anti-ICBM
> >> >capability, but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to
be
> >> >pretty small,
> >>
> >>
> >> When it was first designed it was right at the limit of what was
> >> allowed under the ABM treaty. As for the footprint, terminal defenses
> >> have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
> >> 25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
> >> than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that. HEDI would have been
> >> in the ballpark of Sprint most likely.
> >
> >Yes, but Sprint was merely the lower tier of a two-tier system; Spartan
had
> >a significantly longer reach.
>
>
> Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and* Spartan.

How do you know what the engagement footprint is for THAAD in terms of
ICBM's? It apparently is NOT the advertised "more than 200 km" range/150 km
altitude advertised for it in the role of theater TBM killer. Spartan had a
reported max range of some 740 km! THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of 0.34
meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
outreach Spartan, think again.

>
> > Trying to defend a large urban area (like you
> >find on the Left Coast) against ICBM attack with THAAD would require
> >sprinkling launch sites around like the old Nike Ajax did...and that
ain't
> >gonna happen.
>
>
> Well not quite. Those were dedicated missile bases,

And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left Coast
with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing? The crews would
get kind of tired of eating at the Golden Arches every meal (thought they
might like the TDY pay....).

each with a dozen
> or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.

Those "LARGE" missiles were not much bigger than THAAD; about the same
diameter, and a 10 meter length versus a six-plus meter length. Max range
was about 50 km--and since we don't know *what* the max range is for THAAD
in an anti-ICBM role (but we do know it would probably be quite a bit less
than 200 km), your hypothesis seems to be a bit lacking.

> Quite different than say, three or four radars total and a launcher or
> two per location operating out of military bases up and down the
> coast.

OK, take a gander at the distribution of coastal military bases, and tell me
if they have a seperation of between one and one hundred fifty hundred
klicks, which is about as good as you can expect to get with THAAD against
an ICBM target. Once you have done that, I think you will see where your
holes are, and they will be large ones. That is a LONG coast line along the
Pacific, with a lot of population centers distributed along it.

They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
> entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
> suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.

That will be one hell of a booster, and it will no longer be a THAAD. Not to
mention that the radar would likely not be powerful enough to handle
coverage of the entire coast...

Brooks

[Scott Ferrin]

>> Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and* Spartan.
>
>How do you know what the engagement footprint is for THAAD in terms of
>ICBM's? It apparently is NOT the advertised "more than 200 km" range/150 km
>altitude advertised for it in the role of theater TBM killer.

Where did I say it was? Also I did mention NEW BOOSTER.




> Spartan had a
>reported max range of some 740 km!

Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.




> THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
>size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of 0.34
>meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
>outreach Spartan, think again.

Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.




>
>>
>> > Trying to defend a large urban area (like you
>> >find on the Left Coast) against ICBM attack with THAAD would require
>> >sprinkling launch sites around like the old Nike Ajax did...and that
>ain't
>> >gonna happen.
>>
>>
>> Well not quite. Those were dedicated missile bases,
>
>And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left Coast
>with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?

Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a Google
on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base with
a few missile launchers living there.





> The crews would
>get kind of tired of eating at the Golden Arches every meal (thought they
>might like the TDY pay....).


Why would they have to? Is there something inherently impossible
about stationing a couple THAAD launchers on an air base?



>
>each with a dozen
>> or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.
>
>Those "LARGE" missiles were not much bigger than THAAD


10,000 pounds and 41 feet (Hercules) vs 2000 pounds and 20 feet for
THAAD. You're right, they're damn near identical. How many Nike
Hercules you think they could squeeze onto a THAAD launcher? Ten?
Five? One?





>; about the same
>diameter, and a 10 meter length versus a six-plus meter length. Max range
>was about 50 km--and since we don't know *what* the max range is for THAAD
>in an anti-ICBM role (but we do know it would probably be quite a bit less
>than 200 km), your hypothesis seems to be a bit lacking.


It seems your reading comprehension is nonexistant. Why don't you go
back and reread everything I've written and then come back for
discussion. I don't know what the hell you're on but you apparently
misread something and ran with it. Off the deep end.





>
>> Quite different than say, three or four radars total and a launcher or
>> two per location operating out of military bases up and down the
>> coast.
>
>OK, take a gander at the distribution of coastal military bases, and tell me
>if they have a seperation of between one and one hundred fifty hundred
>klicks, which is about as good as you can expect to get with THAAD against
>an ICBM target.


Hey I didn't write the article. In fact if you had any reading skills
at all you'd see I was wondering about it myself.




> Once you have done that, I think you will see where your
>holes are, and they will be large ones. That is a LONG coast line along the
>Pacific, with a lot of population centers distributed along it.
>
> They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
>> entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
>> suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.
>
>That will be one hell of a booster, and it will no longer be a THAAD.


A Titan IV isn't a Titan I but it's still a Titan. An SM-3 isn't an
SM-1 MR but it's still a Standard. An AIM-9X isn't an AIM-9B but it's
still a Sidewinder. Need I go on?



>Not to
>mention that the radar would likely not be powerful enough to handle
>coverage of the entire coast...

Drop a 1200 mile diameter circle on the Pacific coast and that's your
coverage. And again *I'm* not the one claiming ONE battery could do
it. AW&ST is. I'd mention them needing three or four radars to do
it.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and* Spartan.
> >
> >How do you know what the engagement footprint is for THAAD in terms of
> >ICBM's? It apparently is NOT the advertised "more than 200 km" range/150
km
> >altitude advertised for it in the role of theater TBM killer.
>
> Where did I say it was? Also I did mention NEW BOOSTER.

Scott, it is getting sort of hard to tell exactly *what* you are saying. You
started this thread about THAAD and its ICBM intercept capability. When the
fact that THAAD will have a reduced range when/if it engages an ICBM was
pointed out, you brought Sprint into the equation, and when it was pointed
out that Sprint was however part of a two-tier system, you launched into NMD
(as a whole?). To keep it simple--yes, THAAD can apparently engage an ICBM,
but only at reduced range, which means you need a fair number of systems to
make it work. You mention new booster--great. But you are really not talking
about THAAD anymore when you do that (saying you are going to give it new
boosters and presumably new radars would leave you with a system that shares
rather little with THAAD, IMO).

>
> > Spartan had a
> >reported max range of some 740 km!
>
> Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.

Do you want to talk about GBMI or THAAD? Make up your mind.

>
> > THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
> >size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of
0.34
> >meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
> >outreach Spartan, think again.
>
> Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
> I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
> would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.

Which makes it (THAAD, not your postulated "Great Big Son of THAAD") a
pretty lousy ICBM protection system, right? How many 25-mile range missile
sites would you need just to cover the greater LA metropolitan area, much
less every other metro area along the coast?

> >
> >>
> >> > Trying to defend a large urban area (like you
> >> >find on the Left Coast) against ICBM attack with THAAD would require
> >> >sprinkling launch sites around like the old Nike Ajax did...and that
> >ain't
> >> >gonna happen.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well not quite. Those were dedicated missile bases,
> >
> >And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left Coast
> >with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?
>
> Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a Google
> on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
> info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base with
> a few missile launchers living there.

Bullpoopie. I lived just down the street from both a Bomarc and a Nike Herc
site as a kid; crap, my brother's first job in the Army was Nike Herc
crewman, for gosh sakes. The Nike herc site even included *housing* (the
Bomarc site did not because it was able to use nearby Langley AFB). Now, if
you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated launch
sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to cover
the metropolitan areas on the west coast.

>
> > The crews would
> >get kind of tired of eating at the Golden Arches every meal (thought they
> >might like the TDY pay....).
>
>
> Why would they have to? Is there something inherently impossible
> about stationing a couple THAAD launchers on an air base?

Gee, and I guess you are going to conveniently have an airbase located every
100 km or so along the coast? THAAD ain't gonna cut it as a metro defense
system covering the west coast; whether or not your Great Big Son of THAAD
will is another issue (maybe we ought to worry about getting the kinks
ironed out of vanilla THAAD first?).
>
> >
> >each with a dozen
> >> or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.
> >
> >Those "LARGE" missiles were not much bigger than THAAD
>
>
> 10,000 pounds and 41 feet (Hercules) vs 2000 pounds and 20 feet for
> THAAD. You're right, they're damn near identical. How many Nike
> Hercules you think they could squeeze onto a THAAD launcher? Ten?
> Five? One?

I said AJAX! You were arguing about AJAX sites. Compare Ajax and THAAD and
then get back to me, OK?
>

>
> >; about the same
> >diameter, and a 10 meter length versus a six-plus meter length. Max range
> >was about 50 km--and since we don't know *what* the max range is for
THAAD
> >in an anti-ICBM role (but we do know it would probably be quite a bit
less
> >than 200 km), your hypothesis seems to be a bit lacking.
>
>
> It seems your reading comprehension is nonexistant. Why don't you go
> back and reread everything I've written and then come back for
> discussion. I don't know what the hell you're on but you apparently
> misread something and ran with it. Off the deep end.

Well, being as you have bounced from a question about THAAD to GBMI, from
comparing Ajax siting requirements to hercules, etc., it appears my reading
comprehension may not be the problem here.
>
> >
> >> Quite different than say, three or four radars total and a launcher or
> >> two per location operating out of military bases up and down the
> >> coast.
> >
> >OK, take a gander at the distribution of coastal military bases, and tell
me
> >if they have a seperation of between one and one hundred fifty hundred
> >klicks, which is about as good as you can expect to get with THAAD
against
> >an ICBM target.
>
>
> Hey I didn't write the article. In fact if you had any reading skills
> at all you'd see I was wondering about it myself.

Then why are you so hellfire determined to argue that deploying THAAD to
cover west coast metro areas would really be 'no big deal', so to speak?

>
>
> > Once you have done that, I think you will see where your
> >holes are, and they will be large ones. That is a LONG coast line along
the
> >Pacific, with a lot of population centers distributed along it.
> >
> > They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
> >> entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
> >> suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.
> >
> >That will be one hell of a booster, and it will no longer be a THAAD.
>
>
> A Titan IV isn't a Titan I but it's still a Titan. An SM-3 isn't an
> SM-1 MR but it's still a Standard. An AIM-9X isn't an AIM-9B but it's
> still a Sidewinder. Need I go on?

No. As you have plainly lost the bubble already.

Brooks

>
>
>
> >Not to
> >mention that the radar would likely not be powerful enough to handle
> >coverage of the entire coast...
>
> Drop a 1200 mile diameter circle on the Pacific coast and that's your
> coverage. And again *I'm* not the one claiming ONE battery could do
> it. AW&ST is. I'd mention them needing three or four radars to do
> it.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Scott, it is getting sort of hard to tell exactly *what* you are saying.


Not to anyone with even a passing understanding of the English
language. Let's take it step-by-step and see where you went galloping
off into the sunset.


I made my first post stating that AvWeek mentioned terminal ABM
capability for the THAAD. I made no mention of any other missile.


In YOUR first post in reply

"but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
pretty small"


to THAT I said

" As for the footprint, terminal defenses
have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that."


Meaning essentially "so what, we're talking about TERMINAL
defense".

To which you wrote "Yes, but Sprint was merely the lower tier of a
two-tier system; Spartan had a significantly longer reach. "

Which is where you seem to have gotten lost. Who gives a **** about
Spartan? Spartan wasn't a terminal defense missile. We're talking
about terminal defenses.





>You
>started this thread about THAAD and its ICBM intercept capability. When the
>fact that THAAD will have a reduced range when/if it engages an ICBM was
>pointed out, you brought Sprint into the equation, and when it was pointed
>out that Sprint was however part of a two-tier system, you launched into NMD
>(as a whole?).

Ponting out that THAAD would ALSO be part of a tiered system. If me
saying "Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and*
Spartan." wasn't specific enough for you to follow well, that's not
really my problem. Maybe when I said "NMD" that's what threw you.
God knows they're are enough acronyms being tossed around about it.
For simplicity's sake I'm referring to
big-missile-in-hole-in-ground-in-Alaska."





> To keep it simple--yes, THAAD can apparently engage an ICBM,
>but only at reduced range


Hence the statement T-E-R-M-I-N-A-L. On numerous occasions.




>, which means you need a fair number of systems to
>make it work.


Which is what I've been saying. Which is why I was wondering how they
think ONE battery could defend an entire coast.





> You mention new booster--great. But you are really not talking
>about THAAD anymore when you do that (saying you are going to give it new
>boosters and presumably new radars would leave you with a system that shares
>rather little with THAAD, IMO).

Of course I'm talking about THAAD. An SM-2MR Block I and SM-3 could
hardly be more different but they're both Standards and they're both
associated with the Aegis weapon system.





>
>>
>> > Spartan had a
>> >reported max range of some 740 km!
>>
>> Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.
>
>Do you want to talk about GBMI or THAAD? Make up your mind.


I wanted to talk about THAAD but apparently you wanted to talk about
Spartan.





>
>>
>> > THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
>> >size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of
>0.34
>> >meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
>> >outreach Spartan, think again.
>>
>> Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
>> I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
>> would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.
>
>Which makes it (THAAD, not your postulated "Great Big Son of THAAD") a
>pretty lousy ICBM protection system, right?

Here you're just stating whatever the hell you feel like apparently.
That or you don't know what the hell "terminal phase" means. *I*
said that *AW&ST* said THAAD as it is RIGHT NOW (not the test vehicles
of years back but the ones being built NOW) has *some* anti-ICBM
capability in their terminal phase, and they will be tested against
ICBMs.

My specific words were: "According to
the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability."








> How many 25-mile range missile
>sites would you need just to cover the greater LA metropolitan area, much
>less every other metro area along the coast?

Here's where your reading comprehension, such as it is, breaks down
again. What I said was,

"They also mentioned in the article that THAAD may reveive a "kick
motor" and larger booster and would be able to defend the entire east
or west coast against barge-launched (or sub-launched I suppose) TBMs
with one battery. "


You do know the difference between a TBM and ICBM don't you? Even
the old version of THAAD had a 125+ mile range against TBMs. That 125
mile kill was at an altitude of 93 miles. So drop a 250 mile diameter
circle over LA and you'll see that even a battery of old model THAADs
would EASILY defend much more than the LA metro.







>> >And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left Coast
>> >with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?
>>
>> Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a Google
>> on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
>> info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base with
>> a few missile launchers living there.
>
>Bullpoopie.

So you ARE sayning a "dedicated" missile site is just a couple
launchers sitting at the end of an airbase?



> I lived just down the street from both a Bomarc and a Nike Herc
>site as a kid; crap, my brother's first job in the Army was Nike Herc
>crewman, for gosh sakes. The Nike herc site even included *housing* (the
>Bomarc site did not because it was able to use nearby Langley AFB).

EXACTLY. That's my point.




>Now, if
>you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated launch
>sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to cover
>the metropolitan areas on the west coast.



Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).



>
>>
>> > The crews would
>> >get kind of tired of eating at the Golden Arches every meal (thought they
>> >might like the TDY pay....).
>>
>>
>> Why would they have to? Is there something inherently impossible
>> about stationing a couple THAAD launchers on an air base?
>
>Gee, and I guess you are going to conveniently have an airbase located every
>100 km or so along the coast?


Get off the crack. That or learn some math. Even with the old THAAD
you'd have 50 miles of overlapping coverage if you stationed launchers
two HUNDRED MILES (over three times the distance you mention) apart.





> THAAD ain't gonna cut it as a metro defense
>system covering the west coast;


Well certainly not in the world *you* live in. For those of us who
can add and read it's EASILY a "metro defense system" (whatever the
hell THAT is).



> whether or not your Great Big Son of THAAD
>will is another issue (maybe we ought to worry about getting the kinks
>ironed out of vanilla THAAD first?).


Maybe you need to stay out of the sugar. It's not MY "Great big son
of THAAD".





>>
>> >
>> >each with a dozen
>> >> or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.
>> >
>> >Those "LARGE" missiles were not much bigger than THAAD
>>
>>
>> 10,000 pounds and 41 feet (Hercules) vs 2000 pounds and 20 feet for
>> THAAD. You're right, they're damn near identical. How many Nike
>> Hercules you think they could squeeze onto a THAAD launcher? Ten?
>> Five? One?
>
>I said AJAX! You were arguing about AJAX sites.

(Damn, I just sprayed my keyboard with Pepsi). We were arguing the
need for dedicated sites. And the Hercules use the same launch rails
and sites the Ajax did.




>Compare Ajax and THAAD and
>then get back to me, OK?

Let's see:

Ajax THAAD

Fixed site. 10 missiles on a mobile launcher
Mach 2.3 Mach 9.5
Range 30 miles 125+ miles (old THAAD- not today's)
Altitude 70,000 ft 93+ MILES

Yep, you're right. Exactly the same.



>Well, being as you have bounced from a question about THAAD to GBMI, from
>comparing Ajax siting requirements to hercules, etc., it appears my reading
>comprehension may not be the problem here.


LOL. You haven't even been able to follow your *OWN* comments let
alone mine.





>> Hey I didn't write the article. In fact if you had any reading skills
>> at all you'd see I was wondering about it myself.
>
>Then why are you so hellfire determined to argue that deploying THAAD to
>cover west coast metro areas would really be 'no big deal', so to speak?


I never said it was. I said *they* seem to think so and *I* want to
know what they're basing that assertion on.







>
>>
>>
>> > Once you have done that, I think you will see where your
>> >holes are, and they will be large ones. That is a LONG coast line along
>the
>> >Pacific, with a lot of population centers distributed along it.
>> >
>> > They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
>> >> entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
>> >> suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.
>> >
>> >That will be one hell of a booster, and it will no longer be a THAAD.
>>
>>
>> A Titan IV isn't a Titan I but it's still a Titan. An SM-3 isn't an
>> SM-1 MR but it's still a Standard. An AIM-9X isn't an AIM-9B but it's
>> still a Sidewinder. Need I go on?
>
>No. As you have plainly lost the bubble already.


How so? Perhaps a better example would have been the AA-10/ AA-10
"long burn". It's still the same basic missile.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Scott, it is getting sort of hard to tell exactly *what* you are saying.
>
>
> Not to anyone with even a passing understanding of the English
> language. Let's take it step-by-step and see where you went galloping
> off into the sunset.
>
>
> I made my first post stating that AvWeek mentioned terminal ABM
> capability for the THAAD. I made no mention of any other missile.
>
>
> In YOUR first post in reply
>
> "but its engagement footprint in that role is supposed to be
> pretty small"
>
>
> to THAT I said
>
> " As for the footprint, terminal defenses
> have never really had all that long of range anyway. Sprint was about
> 25 miles (although it could cover those miles a hell of a lot faster
> than THAAD :-) ) and HIBEX was less than that."
>
>
> Meaning essentially "so what, we're talking about TERMINAL
> defense".
>
> To which you wrote "Yes, but Sprint was merely the lower tier of a
> two-tier system; Spartan had a significantly longer reach. "
>
> Which is where you seem to have gotten lost. Who gives a **** about
> Spartan? Spartan wasn't a terminal defense missile. We're talking
> about terminal defenses.

Great, hope you are happy now; I generally prefer to talk about defenses
that *work*, and relying solely upon a very short range terminal defense
only is not probably the way to acheive that whole "works" goal--if you
doubt that, there is the FACT that the Sprint you brought into the equation
was merely a backup for Spartan, and there is the FACT that the military is
keenly interested in getting things like ABL and THAAD into service to
provide a higher tier for the current PAC-3 Patriot in the TBM defense role.
Given that an ICBM comes in from a lot higher, and one heck of a lot faster,
than TBM's, I'd posit that a terminal-only defense is not worth spit. You
know what? BMDO apparently agrees with that approach.

>
> >You
> >started this thread about THAAD and its ICBM intercept capability. When
the
> >fact that THAAD will have a reduced range when/if it engages an ICBM was
> >pointed out, you brought Sprint into the equation, and when it was
pointed
> >out that Sprint was however part of a two-tier system, you launched into
NMD
> >(as a whole?).
>
> Ponting out that THAAD would ALSO be part of a tiered system. If me
> saying "Well yeah. And NMD has a longer reach than THAAD *and*
> Spartan." wasn't specific enough for you to follow well, that's not
> really my problem. Maybe when I said "NMD" that's what threw you.
> God knows they're are enough acronyms being tossed around about it.
> For simplicity's sake I'm referring to
> big-missile-in-hole-in-ground-in-Alaska."

Great. Wonderful. So you want to use THAAD as the second tier. If it is
existing-THAAD, welcome to the world of Nike Ajax revisited (not in terms of
exact range, but *concept*), in the sense that you are going to need a lot
of missile sites to cover the very large metropolitan areas strung up and
down the coast. Maybe you mean your AvLeak "Son of THAAD"? OK. Now you are
talking about the world of Nike Hercules revisited, in that while not as
dense a system as Ajax was required, you still need a few launch sites
spread out along the coast. And if the threat comes in the form of an
advanced SLBM (and remember the Chinese are working on the JL-2 with an 8K
kilometer range), then you'd likely expand the number of sites required due
to having to cover more southerly approaches (and you'd probably require
another GBMI site too, 'cause Alaska may not serve that need).
>
>
> > To keep it simple--yes, THAAD can apparently engage an ICBM,
> >but only at reduced range
>
>
> Hence the statement T-E-R-M-I-N-A-L. On numerous occasions.

My point is that in this case it becomes pretty small, and with THAAD in the
anti-TBM role only offering some 200 km range, that means your anti-ICBM
range is going to be some (small) fraction of that--hence the need for that
whole Ajax-reminiscent deployment plan. Your Son-of-THAAD would ameliorate
that to some extent--if it works (and based upon past THAAD tests to date,
that road my be rocky).

>
> >, which means you need a fair number of systems to
> >make it work.
>
>
> Which is what I've been saying. Which is why I was wondering how they
> think ONE battery could defend an entire coast.

My guess is poor journalism--wouldn't be the first time. One battery
defending the entire coast would mean that in order to cover the farther
limits of its range envelope it would have to fire the interceptor pretty
darned early; that ICBM RV is moving in the neighborhood of six, seven, or
maybe a bit more km/sec, and a centrally located battery on the coast would
have to range out to some 1000 plus km in order to make that terminal kill.
Frankly, I don't see that being a very dependable scenario. I just read the
AvLeak article at Aerospace Daily, and did not see any reference to a single
battery being able to defend the western approaches, nor were any engagement
or detect/track range capabilites mentioned.

>
> > You mention new booster--great. But you are really not talking
> >about THAAD anymore when you do that (saying you are going to give it new
> >boosters and presumably new radars would leave you with a system that
shares
> >rather little with THAAD, IMO).
>
> Of course I'm talking about THAAD. An SM-2MR Block I and SM-3 could
> hardly be more different but they're both Standards and they're both
> associated with the Aegis weapon system.

OK, THAAD in its original concept was designed as a *theater* system, and it
is sized accordingly. Based upon open source range, you are talking about
triple or quadruple the range of the current system if it were to be able to
cover the entire coast, and that is using its current anti-TBM max range as
a guide. That does not appear to jive with the AvLeak mention that the
currently proposed longer-legged version would only reduce the missile load
per vehicle from 8 to 6.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > Spartan had a
> >> >reported max range of some 740 km!
> >>
> >> Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.
> >
> >Do you want to talk about GBMI or THAAD? Make up your mind.
>
>
> I wanted to talk about THAAD but apparently you wanted to talk about
> Spartan.

No, I want to talk about a system that works (or is likely to). Unless the
article you read was very different from the 20 Aug AvLeak piece in
Aerospace Daily, I think you have extrapolated some stuff that was not
there--I saw no mention of trying to cover the entire coast from one launch
site, and I saw no specific ranges mentioned. The only "could be" I saw was
mention of possibly emplacing the system to protect Hawaii "years earlier"
than 2009.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
> >> >size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of
> >0.34
> >> >meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
> >> >outreach Spartan, think again.
> >>
> >> Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
> >> I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
> >> would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.
> >
> >Which makes it (THAAD, not your postulated "Great Big Son of THAAD") a
> >pretty lousy ICBM protection system, right?
>
> Here you're just stating whatever the hell you feel like apparently.
> That or you don't know what the hell "terminal phase" means.

What *does* it mean to you? To me, a 25, or even 100 mile range for that
matter, is going to mean you are sprinkling launch sites up and down the
coast if you want to make it viable, and even then it is only viable *if*
your GBMI is available to cover the entire coast to provide that upper tier.
The folks doing THAAD are referring to its ICBM intercept capability as a
"residual capability"--not something I'd want to hang my hat on.

*I*
> said that *AW&ST* said THAAD as it is RIGHT NOW (not the test vehicles
> of years back but the ones being built NOW) has *some* anti-ICBM
> capability in their terminal phase, and they will be tested against
> ICBMs.

And as I mentioned to you before, you can find stuff available via a Google
that shows that it was already expected to have a *very limited* anti-ICBM
capability a few years back, albeit with a smaller range fan.

>
> My specific words were: "According to
> the article the data on THAAD in it's current incarnation indicates
> that it may have some terminal-phase ABM capability."

Yep, it does. But you need more of them to cover the same area that one
battery would cover in terms of the TBM threat. This is not anything new;
the range basket of Patriot PAC-2 against TBM's was smaller than it was
against air-breathing threats.
>
>
> > How many 25-mile range missile
> >sites would you need just to cover the greater LA metropolitan area, much
> >less every other metro area along the coast?
>
> Here's where your reading comprehension, such as it is, breaks down
> again. What I said was,
>
> "They also mentioned in the article that THAAD may reveive a "kick
> motor" and larger booster and would be able to defend the entire east
> or west coast against barge-launched (or sub-launched I suppose) TBMs
> with one battery. "

Not in the Aerospace Daily version. How fast do you think that puppy is
going to have to move to cover the entire coast from a central firing
location, and hit a target at the periphery? How soon in the target's flight
will you have to make that launch, and with the RV moving at 7 km/sec, how
far *back* along its trajectory will it be? Sounds pretty fishy to me.

>
>
> You do know the difference between a TBM and ICBM don't you? Even
> the old version of THAAD had a 125+ mile range against TBMs. That 125
> mile kill was at an altitude of 93 miles. So drop a 250 mile diameter
> circle over LA and you'll see that even a battery of old model THAADs
> would EASILY defend much more than the LA metro.

That is agianst TBM's!! They move one heck of a lot slower (and lower) than
ICBM's! Which is why your range basket shrinks when you try to make your
system defend against the faster ICBM. Do you remember how many Nike Herc
sites were required to defend large metro areas? There were *nine* Nike Herc
sites (one battery per site) protecting LA, with an eighty mile engagement
range. Let's assume that THAAD (right now) has an effective range against
ICBM's of, say, one half its range against TBM's, so your 125 mile range
becomes 75 miles, about the same as Nike Herc had against air-breathers.
Eliminate any requirement for sites guarding the "back door" (360-degree
protection was established by Nike around LA), you can cover LA with one
battery--barely. If you want to cover the San Diego through LA corridor (and
I don't see how you could not), then you are talking two and more likely
three launch sites to cover the area up through Burbank. You'll need another
one or (more likely) two batteries to cover the SF Bay area. Then you have
to cover Portland with another site, and the Puget Sound with three more,
which means you just covered *part* of the West Coast with, which gives you
a total of between seven and nine sites, with no overlapping coverage --and
you have left Sacramento, Salem, etc. with no coverage at all, something
those folks might be a tad resentful about.

>
>
> >> >And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left
Coast
> >> >with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?
> >>
> >> Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a Google
> >> on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
> >> info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base with
> >> a few missile launchers living there.
> >
> >Bullpoopie.
>
> So you ARE sayning a "dedicated" missile site is just a couple
> launchers sitting at the end of an airbase?

No, I am saying I used to live down the street from Nike Herc crewmen, and I
have clambered around their bases (I used to squirrel hunt on an old BOMARC
site back when I was in high school), and I am quite well aware of what they
were.
>
>
>
> > I lived just down the street from both a Bomarc and a Nike Herc
> >site as a kid; crap, my brother's first job in the Army was Nike Herc
> >crewman, for gosh sakes. The Nike herc site even included *housing* (the
> >Bomarc site did not because it was able to use nearby Langley AFB).
>
> EXACTLY. That's my point.

WHAT is your point? That those sites were not merely wide open spaces, I
hope. That they require acrage, and security, and siting of the radars so
they don't mess up Bob's satellite TV reception or make Bill's garage door
opener go berserk, and if they are not located near a military base that can
provide housing and subsistance, you have to do it some other way, as well,
I hope.

>
> >Now, if
> >you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated launch
> >sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to
cover
> >the metropolitan areas on the west coast.
>
>
>
> Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).

Fine. You go right ahead and keep thinking that THAAD can kill ICBM's at the
same range it kills slower TBM targets. This is obviously pointless.

Brooks
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > The crews would
> >> >get kind of tired of eating at the Golden Arches every meal (thought
they
> >> >might like the TDY pay....).
> >>
> >>
> >> Why would they have to? Is there something inherently impossible
> >> about stationing a couple THAAD launchers on an air base?
> >
> >Gee, and I guess you are going to conveniently have an airbase located
every
> >100 km or so along the coast?
>
>
> Get off the crack. That or learn some math. Even with the old THAAD
> you'd have 50 miles of overlapping coverage if you stationed launchers
> two HUNDRED MILES (over three times the distance you mention) apart.
>
>
>
>
>
> > THAAD ain't gonna cut it as a metro defense
> >system covering the west coast;
>
>
> Well certainly not in the world *you* live in. For those of us who
> can add and read it's EASILY a "metro defense system" (whatever the
> hell THAT is).
>
>
>
> > whether or not your Great Big Son of THAAD
> >will is another issue (maybe we ought to worry about getting the kinks
> >ironed out of vanilla THAAD first?).
>
>
> Maybe you need to stay out of the sugar. It's not MY "Great big son
> of THAAD".
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >each with a dozen
> >> >> or two launchers for LARGE missiles with quite a bit shorter range.
> >> >
> >> >Those "LARGE" missiles were not much bigger than THAAD
> >>
> >>
> >> 10,000 pounds and 41 feet (Hercules) vs 2000 pounds and 20 feet for
> >> THAAD. You're right, they're damn near identical. How many Nike
> >> Hercules you think they could squeeze onto a THAAD launcher? Ten?
> >> Five? One?
> >
> >I said AJAX! You were arguing about AJAX sites.
>
> (Damn, I just sprayed my keyboard with Pepsi). We were arguing the
> need for dedicated sites. And the Hercules use the same launch rails
> and sites the Ajax did.
>
>
>
>
> >Compare Ajax and THAAD and
> >then get back to me, OK?
>
> Let's see:
>
> Ajax THAAD
>
> Fixed site. 10 missiles on a mobile launcher
> Mach 2.3 Mach 9.5
> Range 30 miles 125+ miles (old THAAD- not today's)
> Altitude 70,000 ft 93+ MILES
>
> Yep, you're right. Exactly the same.
>
>
>
> >Well, being as you have bounced from a question about THAAD to GBMI, from
> >comparing Ajax siting requirements to hercules, etc., it appears my
reading
> >comprehension may not be the problem here.
>
>
> LOL. You haven't even been able to follow your *OWN* comments let
> alone mine.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Hey I didn't write the article. In fact if you had any reading skills
> >> at all you'd see I was wondering about it myself.
> >
> >Then why are you so hellfire determined to argue that deploying THAAD to
> >cover west coast metro areas would really be 'no big deal', so to speak?
>
>
> I never said it was. I said *they* seem to think so and *I* want to
> know what they're basing that assertion on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Once you have done that, I think you will see where your
> >> >holes are, and they will be large ones. That is a LONG coast line
along
> >the
> >> >Pacific, with a lot of population centers distributed along it.
> >> >
> >> > They said that with the different booster THAAD could cover an
> >> >> entire coast with one battery. Last I heard a THAAD battery was
> >> >> suppose to be something like ONE radar and 32 missiles or so.
> >> >
> >> >That will be one hell of a booster, and it will no longer be a THAAD.
> >>
> >>
> >> A Titan IV isn't a Titan I but it's still a Titan. An SM-3 isn't an
> >> SM-1 MR but it's still a Standard. An AIM-9X isn't an AIM-9B but it's
> >> still a Sidewinder. Need I go on?
> >
> >No. As you have plainly lost the bubble already.
>
>
> How so? Perhaps a better example would have been the AA-10/ AA-10
> "long burn". It's still the same basic missile.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Great, hope you are happy now; I generally prefer to talk about defenses
>that *work*, and relying solely upon a very short range terminal defense
>only is not probably the way to acheive that whole "works" goal--if you
>doubt that, there is the FACT that the Sprint you brought into the equation
>was merely a backup for Spartan, and there is the FACT that the military is
>keenly interested in getting things like ABL and THAAD into service to
>provide a higher tier for the current PAC-3 Patriot in the TBM defense role.
>Given that an ICBM comes in from a lot higher, and one heck of a lot faster,
>than TBM's, I'd posit that a terminal-only defense is not worth spit. You
>know what? BMDO apparently agrees with that approach.


You know what? Apparently you STILL need to go back and reread what I
said. I have NEVER said that THAAD could cover an entire coast
against *ICBMs*. I brought up Sprint because I am supposing THAAD's
range would be similar against an ICBM. 20ish miles. While the
Sprint had a much faster reaction time from a flight point of view, I
suspect that THAAD with more modern software/radar/etc. would know
*where* it needs to go sooner than Sprint did so it could launch
sooner than a Sprint could.






>Great. Wonderful. So you want to use THAAD as the second tier.

No. I'd want to use it in the terminal phase. "Second tier" and
"terminal phase" are not always synonomous.





> If it is
>existing-THAAD, welcome to the world of Nike Ajax revisited (not in terms of
>exact range, but *concept*), in the sense that you are going to need a lot
>of missile sites to cover the very large metropolitan areas strung up and
>down the coast.


Yeah, if we're talking about ICBMs. We're not. Or *I* never have
been anyway.





>Maybe you mean your AvLeak "Son of THAAD"?

Nope. I never mentioned that protecting an entrie coast against
ICBMs.




>OK. Now you are
>talking about the world of Nike Hercules revisited, in that while not as
>dense a system as Ajax was required, you still need a few launch sites
>spread out along the coast. And if the threat comes in the form of an
>advanced SLBM (and remember the Chinese are working on the JL-2 with an 8K
>kilometer range), then you'd likely expand the number of sites required due
>to having to cover more southerly approaches (and you'd probably require
>another GBMI site too, 'cause Alaska may not serve that need).


We're not even on the same page. Read my original post or two. I
never said anything other than THAAD has some ability in the terminal
phase against ICBMs and will be tested in such a role and that the
THAAD with a bigger booster will have the long range capability
against T-B-Ms.







>>
>>
>> > To keep it simple--yes, THAAD can apparently engage an ICBM,
>> >but only at reduced range
>>
>>
>> Hence the statement T-E-R-M-I-N-A-L. On numerous occasions.
>
>My point is that in this case it becomes pretty small,


Which is what "terminal" means. As I've mentioned (repeatedly)
terminal is in the last phase of flight -when then reentry vehicles
are entering the atmosphere- and it is SHORT range. Sprint, HiBEX,
and HEDI were all less than 30 miles range (and HiBEX about half
THAT).



>and with THAAD in the
>anti-TBM role only offering some 200 km range, that means your anti-ICBM
>range is going to be some (small) fraction of that--hence the need for that
>whole Ajax-reminiscent deployment plan.


Slow down. Find where I have EVER said THAAD could engage *ICBMs* at
long range and quote it for me. If I did say it then yeah it's my
mistake, but rereading my posts I've not said it and I certainly don't
think THAAD could take out ICBMs at long ranges. On the other hand if
you really think about it, against a purely ballistic target all you
have to do is be in the area when the thing is going to pass by.
Depending on how accurately they can predict the flight path and how
long it takes them you could conceivably have a THAAD in the right
place at the right time at longer ranges. Against an RV with even
minimal manuevering ability you'd be screwed of course.




> Your Son-of-THAAD would ameliorate
>that to some extent--if it works (and based upon past THAAD tests to date,
>that road my be rocky).


And we're still talking about TBMs remember.



>
>>
>> >, which means you need a fair number of systems to
>> >make it work.
>>
>>
>> Which is what I've been saying. Which is why I was wondering how they
>> think ONE battery could defend an entire coast.
>
>My guess is poor journalism--wouldn't be the first time. One battery
>defending the entire coast would mean that in order to cover the farther
>limits of its range envelope it would have to fire the interceptor pretty
>darned early; that ICBM RV is moving in the neighborhood of six, seven, or
>maybe a bit more km/sec, and a centrally located battery on the coast would
>have to range out to some 1000 plus km in order to make that terminal kill.
>Frankly, I don't see that being a very dependable scenario. I just read the
>AvLeak article at Aerospace Daily, and did not see any reference to a single
>battery being able to defend the western approaches, nor were any engagement
>or detect/track range capabilites mentioned.


"MDA already is planning upgrades for Thaad. Around 2008, the system
will receive new software to triple the engagement area. Moreover, two
years later Thaad may receive a kick-motor and a larger diameter
booster to provide a ten-fold increase in the area the system can
protect. Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast
against a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats
officials worry about. "



My thoughts on it are this. The radar has a 600 mile range they say
so I'd think you'd need at least a couple radars with the coverage
overlapping enough so there isn't a spot they could come in close to
the coast and shoot off a SCUD-type. There's no reason the missiles
have to be colocated with the radar so you could have launchers up and
down the coast. You're not talking about defending against barrages
of barge launched missiles so it's more a matter of deploying five or
ten launch vehicles and spreading them out enough to get the coverage
you want.






>
>>
>> > You mention new booster--great. But you are really not talking
>> >about THAAD anymore when you do that (saying you are going to give it new
>> >boosters and presumably new radars would leave you with a system that
>shares
>> >rather little with THAAD, IMO).
>>
>> Of course I'm talking about THAAD. An SM-2MR Block I and SM-3 could
>> hardly be more different but they're both Standards and they're both
>> associated with the Aegis weapon system.
>
>OK, THAAD in its original concept was designed as a *theater* system, and it
>is sized accordingly. Based upon open source range, you are talking about
>triple or quadruple the range of the current system if it were to be able to
>cover the entire coast, and that is using its current anti-TBM max range as
>a guide. That does not appear to jive with the AvLeak mention that the
>currently proposed longer-legged version would only reduce the missile load
>per vehicle from 8 to 6.

"The first operational Thaad equipment would be fielded in 2009, with
a radar, battle management suite, three launchers and 24 missiles. "
Which makes it eight still. And the current launcher has ten
missiles. I didn't see anywhere that it mentions how many
bigger-booster THAADs would fit on the truck. I know that when PAC-3
gets it's bigger booster it will reduce the number of rounds per
launcher. Which is why the European MEADS people aren't thrilled
about it.




>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Spartan had a
>> >> >reported max range of some 740 km!
>> >>
>> >> Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.
>> >
>> >Do you want to talk about GBMI or THAAD? Make up your mind.
>>
>>
>> I wanted to talk about THAAD but apparently you wanted to talk about
>> Spartan.
>
>No, I want to talk about a system that works (or is likely to). Unless the
>article you read was very different from the 20 Aug AvLeak piece in
>Aerospace Daily, I think you have extrapolated some stuff that was not
>there--I saw no mention of trying to cover the entire coast from one launch
>site,

It must be:

"...Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast against
a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats officials worry
about. "








and I saw no specific ranges mentioned. The only "could be" I saw was
>mention of possibly emplacing the system to protect Hawaii "years earlier"
>than 2009.


Just as a backup to NMD in the ABM role. In the case of Hawaii it's
small enough that you're talking terminal defenses again. It doesn't
NEED to have a real long range against ICBMs in this case.






>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
>> >> >size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter of
>> >0.34
>> >> >meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is gonna
>> >> >outreach Spartan, think again.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
>> >> I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
>> >> would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.
>> >
>> >Which makes it (THAAD, not your postulated "Great Big Son of THAAD") a
>> >pretty lousy ICBM protection system, right?
>>
>> Here you're just stating whatever the hell you feel like apparently.
>> That or you don't know what the hell "terminal phase" means.
>
>What *does* it mean to you? To me, a 25, or even 100 mile range for that
>matter, is going to mean you are sprinkling launch sites up and down the
>coast if you want to make it viable, and even then it is only viable *if*
>your GBMI is available to cover the entire coast to provide that upper tier.



You're still talking ICBMs (which I've never associated with the
defend-an-entire-coast idea).

The as-the-crow-flys distance between Loring AFB and Homestead AFB
(pretty much the furthest north and south points on the east coast) is
1634 miles. Old THAAD had a range of 125 miles. Today's THAAD?
Don't know. For sake of argument let's use the 125 mile range. Now
the future THAAD with a bigger booster (the one claimed to defend a
coast with one battery against TBMs N-O-T ICBMs) would supposedly be
able to defend an *area* ten times the size of the current THAAD.
Doing a little math today's= pi * 125 miles^2 times that by ten,
take the sqrt, divide by pi gives you a range of 223 miles. So with
that figure it gives you a circle 446 miles in diameter in which one
THAAD launcher can reach out and touch. With minimal overlap you
could cover that 1634 miles with four launchers (this may have been
the way the journalist came up with his one-battery-per-coast idea).
Of course you wouldn't want minimal overlap. So bump it to five
launchers and you get about 150 miles of overlap at each intersection.
((446x5)-1634)/4 = 149 miles.






>The folks doing THAAD are referring to its ICBM intercept capability as a
>"residual capability"--not something I'd want to hang my hat on.

Me either. Reminds me of Patriot's original ATBM capablility.


>
>*I*
>> said that *AW&ST* said THAAD as it is RIGHT NOW (not the test vehicles
>> of years back but the ones being built NOW) has *some* anti-ICBM
>> capability in their terminal phase, and they will be tested against
>> ICBMs.
>
>And as I mentioned to you before, you can find stuff available via a Google
>that shows that it was already expected to have a *very limited* anti-ICBM
>capability a few years back, albeit with a smaller range fan.

That I was not aware of.





>Not in the Aerospace Daily version. How fast do you think that puppy is
>going to have to move to cover the entire coast from a central firing
>location, and hit a target at the periphery?


That's why nobody in their right mind would put the launchers in a
little circle around the radar. They'd be WAY far apart.




>> You do know the difference between a TBM and ICBM don't you? Even
>> the old version of THAAD had a 125+ mile range against TBMs. That 125
>> mile kill was at an altitude of 93 miles. So drop a 250 mile diameter
>> circle over LA and you'll see that even a battery of old model THAADs
>> would EASILY defend much more than the LA metro.
>
>That is agianst TBM's!!


Well THAT's what I've been talking about from the very beginning. I
don't know WHERE the hell you got the idea I was talking about ICBMs.





They move one heck of a lot slower (and lower) than
>ICBM's! Which is why your range basket shrinks when you try to make your
>system defend against the faster ICBM. Do you remember how many Nike Herc
>sites were required to defend large metro areas? There were *nine* Nike Herc
>sites (one battery per site) protecting LA, with an eighty mile engagement
>range. Let's assume that THAAD (right now) has an effective range against
>ICBM's of, say, one half its range against TBM's, so your 125 mile range
>becomes 75 miles, about the same as Nike Herc had against air-breathers.
>Eliminate any requirement for sites guarding the "back door" (360-degree
>protection was established by Nike around LA), you can cover LA with one
>battery--barely. If you want to cover the San Diego through LA corridor (and
>I don't see how you could not), then you are talking two and more likely
>three launch sites to cover the area up through Burbank. You'll need another
>one or (more likely) two batteries to cover the SF Bay area. Then you have
>to cover Portland with another site, and the Puget Sound with three more,
>which means you just covered *part* of the West Coast with, which gives you
>a total of between seven and nine sites, with no overlapping coverage --and
>you have left Sacramento, Salem, etc. with no coverage at all, something
>those folks might be a tad resentful about.

True. If we were talking about ICBMs. Which we're not.



>
>>
>>
>> >> >And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left
>Coast
>> >> >with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a Google
>> >> on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
>> >> info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base with
>> >> a few missile launchers living there.
>> >
>> >Bullpoopie.
>>
>> So you ARE sayning a "dedicated" missile site is just a couple
>> launchers sitting at the end of an airbase?
>
>No, I am saying I used to live down the street from Nike Herc crewmen, and I
>have clambered around their bases (I used to squirrel hunt on an old BOMARC
>site back when I was in high school), and I am quite well aware of what they
>were.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I lived just down the street from both a Bomarc and a Nike Herc
>> >site as a kid; crap, my brother's first job in the Army was Nike Herc
>> >crewman, for gosh sakes. The Nike herc site even included *housing* (the
>> >Bomarc site did not because it was able to use nearby Langley AFB).
>>
>> EXACTLY. That's my point.
>
>WHAT is your point? That those sites were not merely wide open spaces, I
>hope. That they require acrage, and security, and siting of the radars so
>they don't mess up Bob's satellite TV reception or make Bill's garage door
>opener go berserk, and if they are not located near a military base that can
>provide housing and subsistance, you have to do it some other way, as well,
>I hope.


What I'm talking about is think Patriot launchers at the end of an
airbase in the middle east instead of dedicated missile sites that are
bases in and of themselves as the Nike bases were.






>
>>
>> >Now, if
>> >you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated launch
>> >sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to
>cover
>> >the metropolitan areas on the west coast.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).
>
>Fine. You go right ahead and keep thinking that THAAD can kill ICBM's at the
>same range it kills slower TBM targets. This is obviously pointless.


Well at least until you learn to read a little better it is. Quote
where I said "a single battery could defend an entire coast against
ICBMs".

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Great, hope you are happy now; I generally prefer to talk about defenses
> >that *work*, and relying solely upon a very short range terminal defense
> >only is not probably the way to acheive that whole "works" goal--if you
> >doubt that, there is the FACT that the Sprint you brought into the
equation
> >was merely a backup for Spartan, and there is the FACT that the military
is
> >keenly interested in getting things like ABL and THAAD into service to
> >provide a higher tier for the current PAC-3 Patriot in the TBM defense
role.
> >Given that an ICBM comes in from a lot higher, and one heck of a lot
faster,
> >than TBM's, I'd posit that a terminal-only defense is not worth spit. You
> >know what? BMDO apparently agrees with that approach.
>
>
> You know what? Apparently you STILL need to go back and reread what I
> said. I have NEVER said that THAAD could cover an entire coast
> against *ICBMs*.

You said that was what the article indicated, did you not?

I brought up Sprint because I am supposing THAAD's
> range would be similar against an ICBM. 20ish miles. While the
> Sprint had a much faster reaction time from a flight point of view, I
> suspect that THAAD with more modern software/radar/etc. would know
> *where* it needs to go sooner than Sprint did so it could launch
> sooner than a Sprint could.

And you are still talking about a rather small range fan, so you are back to
having to put quite a few sites into service if it is to be used as a
terminal defense against ICBM's for US targets. Off the top of my head, I
can't think of many places we'd *worry* about *ICBM's* hitting us other than
in the fifty states--in those other areas the threat will be TBM's, for
which THAAD should indeed be a capable response, as it has been designed for
that primary role.

>
> >Great. Wonderful. So you want to use THAAD as the second tier.
>
> No. I'd want to use it in the terminal phase. "Second tier" and
> "terminal phase" are not always synonomous.

You got three flight phases to deal with--boost, midcourse, and terminal. We
stand a reasonable chance of deploying a system that can handle TBM's in the
boost phase (i.e., ABL), but in many cases hitting an ICBM in the boost
phase is going to be kind of hard to accomplish (i.e., PRC). So yes, for all
intents and purposes, you are looking at a two-tier system against ICBM's,
GBMI and terminal. Unless you want to go to space based systems, which are a
bit out of reach at present.

>
> > If it is
> >existing-THAAD, welcome to the world of Nike Ajax revisited (not in terms
of
> >exact range, but *concept*), in the sense that you are going to need a
lot
> >of missile sites to cover the very large metropolitan areas strung up and
> >down the coast.
>
>
> Yeah, if we're talking about ICBMs. We're not. Or *I* never have
> been anyway.

You have and you haven't, so to speak. Your initial post was dedicated to
the question of using THAAD against ICBM targets. EVERYBODY knows (or should
know) that THAAD is intended to handle TBM's already--but tweaking it to
handle ICBM's is something that a lot of folks, including your's truly, was
unaware of (though it is obvious that it has been looked at as having *some*
kind of anti-ICBM capability at least as far back as 2000 IIRC, albeit with
a reduced range fan).

>
> >Maybe you mean your AvLeak "Son of THAAD"?
>
> Nope. I never mentioned that protecting an entrie coast against
> ICBMs.

I just went back and reread your posts, and no, you did not say that; you
instead forwarded AvLeak's posit that a single battery could deal with TBM's
launched against the coast. My apologies for misreading your statements, but
when you start out talking about THAAD in the anti-ICBM role, then it sort
of sets the stage for that being the threat being covered.

>
> >OK. Now you are
> >talking about the world of Nike Hercules revisited, in that while not as
> >dense a system as Ajax was required, you still need a few launch sites
> >spread out along the coast. And if the threat comes in the form of an
> >advanced SLBM (and remember the Chinese are working on the JL-2 with an
8K
> >kilometer range), then you'd likely expand the number of sites required
due
> >to having to cover more southerly approaches (and you'd probably require
> >another GBMI site too, 'cause Alaska may not serve that need).
>
>
> We're not even on the same page. Read my original post or two. I
> never said anything other than THAAD has some ability in the terminal
> phase against ICBMs and will be tested in such a role and that the
> THAAD with a bigger booster will have the long range capability
> against T-B-Ms.

And IMO THAAD in the anti-ICBM role is therefore a waste of spit; it is too
short legged, and nobody is going to budget and support emplacing the
required sites to handle the coast. Your Son-of-THAAD versus TBM's is more
interesting, but again IMO is not very likely to see the the light of
day--we apparently have outr hands full just getting vanilla THAAD to work
as advertised.

> >>
> >> > To keep it simple--yes, THAAD can apparently engage an ICBM,
> >> >but only at reduced range
> >>
> >>
> >> Hence the statement T-E-R-M-I-N-A-L. On numerous occasions.
> >
> >My point is that in this case it becomes pretty small,
>
>
> Which is what "terminal" means. As I've mentioned (repeatedly)
> terminal is in the last phase of flight -when then reentry vehicles
> are entering the atmosphere- and it is SHORT range. Sprint, HiBEX,
> and HEDI were all less than 30 miles range (and HiBEX about half
> THAT).

Spartan was also a "terminal" system, albeit one with a longer reach than
the lower tier Sprint. It only had a max engagement range of less than 500
miles, which kind of rules it out in the midcourse role, especially as it
was based nextdoor to the Sprints at the defended location. Look at it
another way--the USN has two "terminal" defense systems against anti-ship mi
ssiles, ESSM and Phalanx--one outreaches the other by quite some distance,
but it is still a terminal defense system. Vanilla THAAD will have a very
small range against ICBM's, making it of minimal use in the role.

>
> >and with THAAD in the
> >anti-TBM role only offering some 200 km range, that means your anti-ICBM
> >range is going to be some (small) fraction of that--hence the need for
that
> >whole Ajax-reminiscent deployment plan.
>
>
> Slow down. Find where I have EVER said THAAD could engage *ICBMs* at
> long range and quote it for me. If I did say it then yeah it's my
> mistake, but rereading my posts I've not said it and I certainly don't
> think THAAD could take out ICBMs at long ranges. On the other hand if
> you really think about it, against a purely ballistic target all you
> have to do is be in the area when the thing is going to pass by.
> Depending on how accurately they can predict the flight path and how
> long it takes them you could conceivably have a THAAD in the right
> place at the right time at longer ranges. Against an RV with even
> minimal manuevering ability you'd be screwed of course.

There are only two places we really have to worry about ICBM's--Hawaii, and
the West coast. Could THAAD play a role in Hawaii, where the defended area
is finite? Yep. Could it play such a role on the West coast? Not really. Is
anybody going to argue to deploy THAAD along the coast to defend against
ship-launched TBM's? Very doubtful, to say the least. This has all the
earmarks of some LMCO guy feeding a line to AvLeak in an effort to pump up
THAAD, and little to offer in terms of real usefulness.
>

>
> > Your Son-of-THAAD would ameliorate
> >that to some extent--if it works (and based upon past THAAD tests to
date,
> >that road my be rocky).
>
>
> And we're still talking about TBMs remember.

>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >, which means you need a fair number of systems to
> >> >make it work.
> >>
> >>
> >> Which is what I've been saying. Which is why I was wondering how they
> >> think ONE battery could defend an entire coast.
> >
> >My guess is poor journalism--wouldn't be the first time. One battery
> >defending the entire coast would mean that in order to cover the farther
> >limits of its range envelope it would have to fire the interceptor pretty
> >darned early; that ICBM RV is moving in the neighborhood of six, seven,
or
> >maybe a bit more km/sec, and a centrally located battery on the coast
would
> >have to range out to some 1000 plus km in order to make that terminal
kill.
> >Frankly, I don't see that being a very dependable scenario. I just read
the
> >AvLeak article at Aerospace Daily, and did not see any reference to a
single
> >battery being able to defend the western approaches, nor were any
engagement
> >or detect/track range capabilites mentioned.
>
>
> "MDA already is planning upgrades for Thaad. Around 2008, the system
> will receive new software to triple the engagement area. Moreover, two
> years later Thaad may receive a kick-motor and a larger diameter
> booster to provide a ten-fold increase in the area the system can
> protect. Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast
> against a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats
> officials worry about. "
>
>
>
> My thoughts on it are this. The radar has a 600 mile range they say
> so I'd think you'd need at least a couple radars with the coverage
> overlapping enough so there isn't a spot they could come in close to
> the coast and shoot off a SCUD-type. There's no reason the missiles
> have to be colocated with the radar so you could have launchers up and
> down the coast. You're not talking about defending against barrages
> of barge launched missiles so it's more a matter of deploying five or
> ten launch vehicles and spreading them out enough to get the coverage
> you want.

It is a heck of a lot easier to just take down the barges before they ever
get close enough.

> >
> >>
> >> > You mention new booster--great. But you are really not talking
> >> >about THAAD anymore when you do that (saying you are going to give it
new
> >> >boosters and presumably new radars would leave you with a system that
> >shares
> >> >rather little with THAAD, IMO).
> >>
> >> Of course I'm talking about THAAD. An SM-2MR Block I and SM-3 could
> >> hardly be more different but they're both Standards and they're both
> >> associated with the Aegis weapon system.
> >
> >OK, THAAD in its original concept was designed as a *theater* system, and
it
> >is sized accordingly. Based upon open source range, you are talking about
> >triple or quadruple the range of the current system if it were to be able
to
> >cover the entire coast, and that is using its current anti-TBM max range
as
> >a guide. That does not appear to jive with the AvLeak mention that the
> >currently proposed longer-legged version would only reduce the missile
load
> >per vehicle from 8 to 6.
>
> "The first operational Thaad equipment would be fielded in 2009, with
> a radar, battle management suite, three launchers and 24 missiles. "
> Which makes it eight still. And the current launcher has ten
> missiles. I didn't see anywhere that it mentions how many
> bigger-booster THAADs would fit on the truck. I know that when PAC-3
> gets it's bigger booster it will reduce the number of rounds per
> launcher. Which is why the European MEADS people aren't thrilled
> about it.

Look at the size. Current THAAD is a pretty small missile, and getting it to
the range mentioned is going to take some pretty serious size increase.
Compare MLRS, at twelve rounds per, to ATACMS, at two per; MLRS can reach
out to around 60 or more klicks, IIRC in its latest GMLRS form, while ATACMS
covers the 200-300 km gamut. One sixth the number of missiles.

> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Spartan had a
> >> >> >reported max range of some 740 km!
> >> >>
> >> >> Great. NMD is several THOUSAND *miles*.
> >> >
> >> >Do you want to talk about GBMI or THAAD? Make up your mind.
> >>
> >>
> >> I wanted to talk about THAAD but apparently you wanted to talk about
> >> Spartan.
> >
> >No, I want to talk about a system that works (or is likely to). Unless
the
> >article you read was very different from the 20 Aug AvLeak piece in
> >Aerospace Daily, I think you have extrapolated some stuff that was not
> >there--I saw no mention of trying to cover the entire coast from one
launch
> >site,
>
> It must be:
>
> "...Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast against
> a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats officials worry
> about. "

The only access I had does not indicate any of that:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/tha08204.xml

>
> and I saw no specific ranges mentioned. The only "could be" I saw was
> >mention of possibly emplacing the system to protect Hawaii "years
earlier"
> >than 2009.
>
>
> Just as a backup to NMD in the ABM role. In the case of Hawaii it's
> small enough that you're talking terminal defenses again. It doesn't
> NEED to have a real long range against ICBMs in this case.

Agreed, see above.

> >> >>
> >> >> > THAAD comes in at about *on-third* the
> >> >> >size of Spartan (6.2 meter length bversus some 16 meters, diameter
of
> >> >0.34
> >> >> >meters versus over one meter for Spartan. If you think THAAD is
gonna
> >> >> >outreach Spartan, think again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did I say that? I've said "terminal" and Sprint all along.
> >> >> I've never once mentioned Spartan. You did. I don't think THAAD
> >> >> would have any trouble at all reaching Sprint's 25 mile range.
> >> >
> >> >Which makes it (THAAD, not your postulated "Great Big Son of THAAD") a
> >> >pretty lousy ICBM protection system, right?
> >>
> >> Here you're just stating whatever the hell you feel like apparently.
> >> That or you don't know what the hell "terminal phase" means.
> >
> >What *does* it mean to you? To me, a 25, or even 100 mile range for that
> >matter, is going to mean you are sprinkling launch sites up and down the
> >coast if you want to make it viable, and even then it is only viable *if*
> >your GBMI is available to cover the entire coast to provide that upper
tier.
>
>
>
> You're still talking ICBMs (which I've never associated with the
> defend-an-entire-coast idea).
>
> The as-the-crow-flys distance between Loring AFB and Homestead AFB
> (pretty much the furthest north and south points on the east coast) is
> 1634 miles. Old THAAD had a range of 125 miles. Today's THAAD?
> Don't know. For sake of argument let's use the 125 mile range. Now
> the future THAAD with a bigger booster (the one claimed to defend a
> coast with one battery against TBMs N-O-T ICBMs) would supposedly be
> able to defend an *area* ten times the size of the current THAAD.
> Doing a little math today's= pi * 125 miles^2 times that by ten,
> take the sqrt, divide by pi gives you a range of 223 miles. So with
> that figure it gives you a circle 446 miles in diameter in which one
> THAAD launcher can reach out and touch. With minimal overlap you
> could cover that 1634 miles with four launchers (this may have been
> the way the journalist came up with his one-battery-per-coast idea).
> Of course you wouldn't want minimal overlap. So bump it to five
> launchers and you get about 150 miles of overlap at each intersection.
> ((446x5)-1634)/4 = 149 miles.

Whatever. I'll be looking for winged pigs the day THAAD is fielded in the
West Coast protection role, and if it can't handle the ICBM threat, it is an
utter waste.

>
> >The folks doing THAAD are referring to its ICBM intercept capability as a
> >"residual capability"--not something I'd want to hang my hat on.
>
> Me either. Reminds me of Patriot's original ATBM capablility.
>
>
> >
> >*I*
> >> said that *AW&ST* said THAAD as it is RIGHT NOW (not the test vehicles
> >> of years back but the ones being built NOW) has *some* anti-ICBM
> >> capability in their terminal phase, and they will be tested against
> >> ICBMs.
> >
> >And as I mentioned to you before, you can find stuff available via a
Google
> >that shows that it was already expected to have a *very limited*
anti-ICBM
> >capability a few years back, albeit with a smaller range fan.
>
> That I was not aware of.
>
>
> >Not in the Aerospace Daily version. How fast do you think that puppy is
> >going to have to move to cover the entire coast from a central firing
> >location, and hit a target at the periphery?
>
>
> That's why nobody in their right mind would put the launchers in a
> little circle around the radar. They'd be WAY far apart.

Which means multiple bases, in a region that is not surfeit with active
bases. We could bring back the Presidio...

>
>
> >> You do know the difference between a TBM and ICBM don't you? Even
> >> the old version of THAAD had a 125+ mile range against TBMs. That 125
> >> mile kill was at an altitude of 93 miles. So drop a 250 mile diameter
> >> circle over LA and you'll see that even a battery of old model THAADs
> >> would EASILY defend much more than the LA metro.
> >
> >That is agianst TBM's!!
>
>
> Well THAT's what I've been talking about from the very beginning. I
> don't know WHERE the hell you got the idea I was talking about ICBMs.

No, we have obviously been talking about two different things. I fixated on
your initial ICBM post--mea culpa. That said, I see little use in fielding
anything in that area that *can't* provide a relaiable defense against
ICBM's. Let's be real here--we know that everyone says we are not deploying
BMD to defend against the PRC, but *really*...
>
>
> They move one heck of a lot slower (and lower) than
> >ICBM's! Which is why your range basket shrinks when you try to make your
> >system defend against the faster ICBM. Do you remember how many Nike Herc
> >sites were required to defend large metro areas? There were *nine* Nike
Herc
> >sites (one battery per site) protecting LA, with an eighty mile
engagement
> >range. Let's assume that THAAD (right now) has an effective range against
> >ICBM's of, say, one half its range against TBM's, so your 125 mile range
> >becomes 75 miles, about the same as Nike Herc had against air-breathers.
> >Eliminate any requirement for sites guarding the "back door" (360-degree
> >protection was established by Nike around LA), you can cover LA with one
> >battery--barely. If you want to cover the San Diego through LA corridor
(and
> >I don't see how you could not), then you are talking two and more likely
> >three launch sites to cover the area up through Burbank. You'll need
another
> >one or (more likely) two batteries to cover the SF Bay area. Then you
have
> >to cover Portland with another site, and the Puget Sound with three more,
> >which means you just covered *part* of the West Coast with, which gives
you
> >a total of between seven and nine sites, with no overlapping
coverage --and
> >you have left Sacramento, Salem, etc. with no coverage at all, something
> >those folks might be a tad resentful about.
>
> True. If we were talking about ICBMs. Which we're not.

One of us was, and the other started this thread in that vein. To me, anyone
wanting to install a major missile system to cover the Left Coast that
*couldn't* deal with the greater ICBM threat is a bit shy in the area of
common sense.

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >And if you are going to try and protect the urban areas on the Left
> >Coast
> >> >> >with THAAD, don't you think you'd *need* dedicated basing?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. Do you even know what a dedicated missile site is? Do a
Google
> >> >> on "Nike Hercules" and you'll get back two million hits with lots on
> >> >> info. A dedicated missile site is NOT and Airforce or Army base
with
> >> >> a few missile launchers living there.
> >> >
> >> >Bullpoopie.
> >>
> >> So you ARE sayning a "dedicated" missile site is just a couple
> >> launchers sitting at the end of an airbase?
> >
> >No, I am saying I used to live down the street from Nike Herc crewmen,
and I
> >have clambered around their bases (I used to squirrel hunt on an old
BOMARC
> >site back when I was in high school), and I am quite well aware of what
they
> >were.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I lived just down the street from both a Bomarc and a Nike Herc
> >> >site as a kid; crap, my brother's first job in the Army was Nike Herc
> >> >crewman, for gosh sakes. The Nike herc site even included *housing*
(the
> >> >Bomarc site did not because it was able to use nearby Langley AFB).
> >>
> >> EXACTLY. That's my point.
> >
> >WHAT is your point? That those sites were not merely wide open spaces, I
> >hope. That they require acrage, and security, and siting of the radars so
> >they don't mess up Bob's satellite TV reception or make Bill's garage
door
> >opener go berserk, and if they are not located near a military base that
can
> >provide housing and subsistance, you have to do it some other way, as
well,
> >I hope.
>
>
> What I'm talking about is think Patriot launchers at the end of an
> airbase in the middle east instead of dedicated missile sites that are
> bases in and of themselves as the Nike bases were.

But we have been talking about defending the Left Coast, not an airbase in
the Middle East.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >Now, if
> >> >you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated
launch
> >> >sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to
> >cover
> >> >the metropolitan areas on the west coast.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).
> >
> >Fine. You go right ahead and keep thinking that THAAD can kill ICBM's at
the
> >same range it kills slower TBM targets. This is obviously pointless.
>
>
> Well at least until you learn to read a little better it is. Quote
> where I said "a single battery could defend an entire coast against
> ICBMs".

I already apologized for that misunderstanding. But I am still of the
opinion that installing a *TBM* defense for the West Coast that can't handle
ICBM's is ludicrous.

Brooks
>
>
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

>I brought up Sprint because I am supposing THAAD's
>> range would be similar against an ICBM. 20ish miles. While the
>> Sprint had a much faster reaction time from a flight point of view, I
>> suspect that THAAD with more modern software/radar/etc. would know
>> *where* it needs to go sooner than Sprint did so it could launch
>> sooner than a Sprint could.
>
>And you are still talking about a rather small range fan, so you are back to
>having to put quite a few sites into service if it is to be used as a
>terminal defense against ICBM's for US targets.

I never implied that was the plan. Nobody has except you. To have a
terminal defense for every area in the US no matter what missile you
used would be extremely expensive. All anybody is saying is "hey if
THAAD has reliable terminal defense capabilities against ICBMs it
opens up our options". In time of crises you could deploy them
wherever you thought you needed them (obviously you're limited by how
many systems you have on hand).





> Off the top of my head, I
>can't think of many places we'd *worry* about *ICBM's* hitting us other than
>in the fifty states--in those other areas the threat will be TBM's, for
>which THAAD should indeed be a capable response, as it has been designed for
>that primary role.

That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?






>
>>
>> >Great. Wonderful. So you want to use THAAD as the second tier.
>>
>> No. I'd want to use it in the terminal phase. "Second tier" and
>> "terminal phase" are not always synonomous.
>
>You got three flight phases to deal with--boost, midcourse, and terminal. We
>stand a reasonable chance of deploying a system that can handle TBM's in the
>boost phase (i.e., ABL), but in many cases hitting an ICBM in the boost
>phase is going to be kind of hard to accomplish (i.e., PRC).


There's an excellent report on that particular problem right here:

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/BPI-Full_Report.pdf

(tried to find the original link but not too hard)



>So yes, for all
>intents and purposes, you are looking at a two-tier system against ICBM's,
>GBMI and terminal.

You might not be familair with this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kei.htm

http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/MissileDefenseInterceptors/KEI/index.html




>I just went back and reread your posts, and no, you did not say that; you
>instead forwarded AvLeak's posit that a single battery could deal with TBM's
>launched against the coast. My apologies for misreading your statements, but
>when you start out talking about THAAD in the anti-ICBM role, then it sort
>of sets the stage for that being the threat being covered.


No prob. Sometimes I think one or the other of us could state the
moon is round and we'd still end up arguing about it.





>> We're not even on the same page. Read my original post or two. I
>> never said anything other than THAAD has some ability in the terminal
>> phase against ICBMs and will be tested in such a role and that the
>> THAAD with a bigger booster will have the long range capability
>> against T-B-Ms.
>
>And IMO THAAD in the anti-ICBM role is therefore a waste of spit; it is too
>short legged, and nobody is going to budget and support emplacing the
>required sites to handle the coast.

Nobody has ever suggested that. What they ARE suggesting is that it
could be used as a MOBILE terminal ABM. That gives you more options
than if it had no ABM capability. Nobody has suggested deploying it
like the Nikes were in the 50's and 60's.




>Your Son-of-THAAD versus TBM's is more
>interesting, but again IMO is not very likely to see the the light of
>day--we apparently have outr hands full just getting vanilla THAAD to work
>as advertised.

All of them had problems. The only one that's been mostly successful
from the get go is the FLAGE/ERINT/PAC-3. And I'd be more surprised
if the upgraded THAAD *didn't* see the light of day. It's cheaper to
upgrade what you've already got working than to start over from
scratch.



>Spartan was also a "terminal" system, albeit one with a longer reach than
>the lower tier Sprint. It only had a max engagement range of less than 500
>miles, which kind of rules it out in the midcourse role,

Depends how you define "midcourse". Since GBI and Spartan both go
after the RVs in space the only real difference is that Spartan
couldn't reach out as far. Distance isn't what determines what
"phase" a missile is in. You have the boost phase which is
self-explanitory but midcourse is considered the entire time the RV is
in space. That's where both GBI and Spartan were designed to kill
their targets. It doesn't become "terminal" phase until the RV is
reentering the atmosphere. That's pretty much how the "phases" have
been differentiated from day one.





> especially as it
>was based nextdoor to the Sprints at the defended location.

The Spartans and *some* of the Sprints were colocated mainly out of
convenience. If you check out this aerial if the Stanley R. Mickelson
Complex you'll see there are only 16 of the 70 Sprint silos located
there with the Spartans.

http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/HSafeguard.html



The Sprints were spread out somewhat. How much I don't know. Miles
or tens of miles would be my guess. Since the ABM site was only
allowed to defend one location by treaty you'd WANT the Spartans near
the defended target for best coverage.





>Look at it
>another way--the USN has two "terminal" defense systems against anti-ship mi
>ssiles, ESSM and Phalanx--one outreaches the other by quite some distance,
>but it is still a terminal defense system.

You find it's going to be an either/or in most situations. ESSM is
*replacing* Phalanx in some instances. RAM is replacing Phalanx in
others.




> Vanilla THAAD will have a very
>small range against ICBM's, making it of minimal use in the role.


But still better than none at all. If all it does is make an
adversary think twice then it's worth it.





>
>There are only two places we really have to worry about ICBM's--Hawaii, and
>the West coast.

Yeah, for now.




> Could THAAD play a role in Hawaii, where the defended area
>is finite? Yep. Could it play such a role on the West coast? Not really. Is
>anybody going to argue to deploy THAAD along the coast to defend against
>ship-launched TBM's? Very doubtful, to say the least. This has all the
>earmarks of some LMCO guy feeding a line to AvLeak in an effort to pump up
>THAAD, and little to offer in terms of real usefulness.

Well yeah, but five years ago if someone had tried to sell the idea of
shooting down airliners over the US it would have been met with
similar scorn.


>> My thoughts on it are this. The radar has a 600 mile range they say
>> so I'd think you'd need at least a couple radars with the coverage
>> overlapping enough so there isn't a spot they could come in close to
>> the coast and shoot off a SCUD-type. There's no reason the missiles
>> have to be colocated with the radar so you could have launchers up and
>> down the coast. You're not talking about defending against barrages
>> of barge launched missiles so it's more a matter of deploying five or
>> ten launch vehicles and spreading them out enough to get the coverage
>> you want.
>
>It is a heck of a lot easier to just take down the barges before they ever
>get close enough.


Come up with a way to determine which one has a missile before launch
and I'm sure you'll have everybody's attention.



>Look at the size. Current THAAD is a pretty small missile, and getting it to
>the range mentioned is going to take some pretty serious size increase.

Not really. Compare the dimensions of THAAD and SM-3 and SM-3 ranges
270+ miles. And according to the article they'll get a threefold
increase in coverage from software improvements alone with THAAD. As
far as size, even just a bump from 13" to 15" on the booster diameter
will give you a 33% increase in volume of propellant you can carry.





>Compare MLRS, at twelve rounds per, to ATACMS, at two per; MLRS can reach
>out to around 60 or more klicks, IIRC in its latest GMLRS form, while ATACMS
>covers the 200-300 km gamut. One sixth the number of missiles.

Not even remotely similar comparison. A more accurate would be
Sparrow and ESSM. Similar front end, bigger booster, same launcher,
double the range.




>> It must be:
>>
>> "...Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast against
>> a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats officials worry
>> about. "
>
>The only access I had does not indicate any of that:
>
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/tha08204.xml
>
>>
>> and I saw no specific ranges mentioned. The only "could be" I saw was
>> >mention of possibly emplacing the system to protect Hawaii "years
>earlier"
>> >than 2009.


Yeah, that's a completely different article.



>> The as-the-crow-flys distance between Loring AFB and Homestead AFB
>> (pretty much the furthest north and south points on the east coast) is
>> 1634 miles. Old THAAD had a range of 125 miles. Today's THAAD?
>> Don't know. For sake of argument let's use the 125 mile range. Now
>> the future THAAD with a bigger booster (the one claimed to defend a
>> coast with one battery against TBMs N-O-T ICBMs) would supposedly be
>> able to defend an *area* ten times the size of the current THAAD.
>> Doing a little math today's= pi * 125 miles^2 times that by ten,
>> take the sqrt, divide by pi gives you a range of 223 miles. So with
>> that figure it gives you a circle 446 miles in diameter in which one
>> THAAD launcher can reach out and touch. With minimal overlap you
>> could cover that 1634 miles with four launchers (this may have been
>> the way the journalist came up with his one-battery-per-coast idea).
>> Of course you wouldn't want minimal overlap. So bump it to five
>> launchers and you get about 150 miles of overlap at each intersection.
>> ((446x5)-1634)/4 = 149 miles.
>
>Whatever.

Whatever? Do the math.






> I'll be looking for winged pigs the day THAAD is fielded in the
>West Coast protection role, and if it can't handle the ICBM threat, it is an
>utter waste.

That's absurd. That's like saying if an F-35 can't outperform an F-22
in the air to air role it's an utter waste.









>> That's why nobody in their right mind would put the launchers in a
>> little circle around the radar. They'd be WAY far apart.
>
>Which means multiple bases, in a region that is not surfeit with active
>bases. We could bring back the Presidio...

You're telling me there aren't four or five active military bases on
each coast?





>No, we have obviously been talking about two different things. I fixated on
>your initial ICBM post--mea culpa. That said, I see little use in fielding
>anything in that area that *can't* provide a relaiable defense against
>ICBM's.

It's not *designed* to fill that role. Any ABM capability is a BONUS.
There's no sense in not using it in an emergency just because it
wasn't designed in from the beginning. Nobody would suggest taking
out helicopters with LGBs as a matter of course but it's been done.
If the ability is there it would be foolish not to take advantage of
it.





> Let's be real here--we know that everyone says we are not deploying
>BMD to defend against the PRC, but *really*...


Preaching to the choir.





>> True. If we were talking about ICBMs. Which we're not.
>
>One of us was, and the other started this thread in that vein. To me, anyone
>wanting to install a major missile system to cover the Left Coast that
>*couldn't* deal with the greater ICBM threat is a bit shy in the area of
>common sense.


That's not at all what they're talking about. One battery does not
constitute a "major missile system". All they're saying is "hey this
bigger THAAD will be able to cover a coast with one battery. Since
we're going to have the systems ANYWAY let's cover that potential
threat (the TBMs launched from ships) and kill two birds with one
stone".



>> What I'm talking about is think Patriot launchers at the end of an
>> airbase in the middle east instead of dedicated missile sites that are
>> bases in and of themselves as the Nike bases were.
>
>But we have been talking about defending the Left Coast, not an airbase in
>the Middle East.


Are you telling me you REALLY can't follow that analogy?




>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Now, if
>> >> >you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated
>launch
>> >> >sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them to
>> >cover
>> >> >the metropolitan areas on the west coast.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).
>> >
>> >Fine. You go right ahead and keep thinking that THAAD can kill ICBM's at
>the
>> >same range it kills slower TBM targets. This is obviously pointless.
>>
>>
>> Well at least until you learn to read a little better it is. Quote
>> where I said "a single battery could defend an entire coast against
>> ICBMs".
>
>I already apologized for that misunderstanding. But I am still of the
>opinion that installing a *TBM* defense for the West Coast that can't handle
>ICBM's is ludicrous.

So you'd rather park the missiles in a garage instead of using them?
Brilliant plan.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I brought up Sprint because I am supposing THAAD's
> >> range would be similar against an ICBM. 20ish miles. While the
> >> Sprint had a much faster reaction time from a flight point of view, I
> >> suspect that THAAD with more modern software/radar/etc. would know
> >> *where* it needs to go sooner than Sprint did so it could launch
> >> sooner than a Sprint could.
> >
> >And you are still talking about a rather small range fan, so you are back
to
> >having to put quite a few sites into service if it is to be used as a
> >terminal defense against ICBM's for US targets.
>
> I never implied that was the plan. Nobody has except you. To have a
> terminal defense for every area in the US no matter what missile you
> used would be extremely expensive. All anybody is saying is "hey if
> THAAD has reliable terminal defense capabilities against ICBMs it
> opens up our options". In time of crises you could deploy them
> wherever you thought you needed them (obviously you're limited by how
> many systems you have on hand).
>
>
>
>
>
> > Off the top of my head, I
> >can't think of many places we'd *worry* about *ICBM's* hitting us other
than
> >in the fifty states--in those other areas the threat will be TBM's, for
> >which THAAD should indeed be a capable response, as it has been designed
for
> >that primary role.
>
> That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
> say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?

Where? You'd have to posit China lobbing an ICBM at a target being used by
the US during a third-party operation? I don't think that is realistic
enough to worry about--somewhere in the same category as say, "Protect
against RN Trident attack against US target". As to staging areas where we
would be operating against the PRC, maybe Australia? But that is in IRBM
range. Anything in their own periphery they could hit with a shorter range
missile. Which IMO takes you back to the "only US-proper targets have to be
defended from ICBM".

> >
> >>
> >> >Great. Wonderful. So you want to use THAAD as the second tier.
> >>
> >> No. I'd want to use it in the terminal phase. "Second tier" and
> >> "terminal phase" are not always synonomous.
> >
> >You got three flight phases to deal with--boost, midcourse, and terminal.
We
> >stand a reasonable chance of deploying a system that can handle TBM's in
the
> >boost phase (i.e., ABL), but in many cases hitting an ICBM in the boost
> >phase is going to be kind of hard to accomplish (i.e., PRC).
>
>
> There's an excellent report on that particular problem right here:
>
> http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/BPI-Full_Report.pdf
>
> (tried to find the original link but not too hard)
>
>
>
> >So yes, for all
> >intents and purposes, you are looking at a two-tier system against
ICBM's,
> >GBMI and terminal.
>
> You might not be familair with this:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kei.htm
>
>
http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/MissileDefenseInterceptors/KEI/index.html
>
>

I don't do the "go to links" bit unless it looks like it is something worth
bothering with--a sysnopsis of the pertinent info is usually given with the
link.

>
>
> >I just went back and reread your posts, and no, you did not say that; you
> >instead forwarded AvLeak's posit that a single battery could deal with
TBM's
> >launched against the coast. My apologies for misreading your statements,
but
> >when you start out talking about THAAD in the anti-ICBM role, then it
sort
> >of sets the stage for that being the threat being covered.
>
>
> No prob. Sometimes I think one or the other of us could state the
> moon is round and we'd still end up arguing about it.
>
>
> >> We're not even on the same page. Read my original post or two. I
> >> never said anything other than THAAD has some ability in the terminal
> >> phase against ICBMs and will be tested in such a role and that the
> >> THAAD with a bigger booster will have the long range capability
> >> against T-B-Ms.
> >
> >And IMO THAAD in the anti-ICBM role is therefore a waste of spit; it is
too
> >short legged, and nobody is going to budget and support emplacing the
> >required sites to handle the coast.
>
> Nobody has ever suggested that. What they ARE suggesting is that it
> could be used as a MOBILE terminal ABM. That gives you more options
> than if it had no ABM capability. Nobody has suggested deploying it
> like the Nikes were in the 50's and 60's.

Which takes us back full circle to the "what targets would we want to
protect against ICBM threats other than those in the US" bit. I see great
utility in an anti-TBM capability to protect contingency forces in the
theater of operations, but I see danged little use for protecting them from
ICBM threats that would come from outside the T/O. If you change the focus
back to the US proper, then I still don't see a lot of gain in terms of
THAAD in the terminal defense role unless you want to build and deploy
enough of them to protect *every* target within the bad guy's range fan.
Protecting only SF, LA, and SEATAC merely means the bad guys hit Portland,
Monterey, and Eugene instead. Or maybe Sacramento. Or Phoenix (it is not as
if the PRC is going to limit their range of future systems to being able to
only strike the beach cities--witness that new SLBM they are developing with
a nearly 6K mile range).
>
>
> >Your Son-of-THAAD versus TBM's is more
> >interesting, but again IMO is not very likely to see the the light of
> >day--we apparently have outr hands full just getting vanilla THAAD to
work
> >as advertised.
>
> All of them had problems. The only one that's been mostly successful
> from the get go is the FLAGE/ERINT/PAC-3. And I'd be more surprised
> if the upgraded THAAD *didn't* see the light of day. It's cheaper to
> upgrade what you've already got working than to start over from
> scratch.

But from what I have read, we don't really have *THAAD* "working" (yet). As
of this past January, only two of the planned eight intercept tests were
successful. Not a great track record as of yet. Hopefully it will improve,
and it will turn out to be a bang-up anti-TBM system. Which would be great.
Until that time, however, I'd be wary of corporate-sponsored "we are ready
to stretch/enhance it so it can *also* do..." stuff.

>
> >Spartan was also a "terminal" system, albeit one with a longer reach than
> >the lower tier Sprint. It only had a max engagement range of less than
500
> >miles, which kind of rules it out in the midcourse role,
>
> Depends how you define "midcourse". Since GBI and Spartan both go
> after the RVs in space the only real difference is that Spartan
> couldn't reach out as far. Distance isn't what determines what
> "phase" a missile is in. You have the boost phase which is
> self-explanitory but midcourse is considered the entire time the RV is
> in space. That's where both GBI and Spartan were designed to kill
> their targets. It doesn't become "terminal" phase until the RV is
> reentering the atmosphere. That's pretty much how the "phases" have
> been differentiated from day one.

Take a gander at the max altitude that the *existing* THAAD acheives (at
least some 150 km), and by that reasoning it is a mid-course interceptor,
right? I don't think so.
>

>
> > especially as it
> >was based nextdoor to the Sprints at the defended location.
>
> The Spartans and *some* of the Sprints were colocated mainly out of
> convenience. If you check out this aerial if the Stanley R. Mickelson
> Complex you'll see there are only 16 of the 70 Sprint silos located
> there with the Spartans.
>
> http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/HSafeguard.html
>
>
>
> The Sprints were spread out somewhat. How much I don't know. Miles
> or tens of miles would be my guess. Since the ABM site was only
> allowed to defend one location by treaty you'd WANT the Spartans near
> the defended target for best coverage.

The Spartan's were tasked with "area" defense, the Sprints with point
defense. IMO, Spartan did not rise to what could be considered mid-course
intercept status.
>
>
> >Look at it
> >another way--the USN has two "terminal" defense systems against anti-ship
mi
> >ssiles, ESSM and Phalanx--one outreaches the other by quite some
distance,
> >but it is still a terminal defense system.
>
> You find it's going to be an either/or in most situations. ESSM is
> *replacing* Phalanx in some instances. RAM is replacing Phalanx in
> others.

OK, my bad example; consider Sea Sparrow and Phalanx, from the near
past--plenty of vessels had *both*.

>
>
> > Vanilla THAAD will have a very
> >small range against ICBM's, making it of minimal use in the role.
>
>
> But still better than none at all. If all it does is make an
> adversary think twice then it's worth it.

But it won't, unless we deploy them around virtually every target set he
could strike! As I pointed out earlier, take SF from his list and he
replaces it with Sacramento. Are you willing to give up one but not the
other? I doubt you are.
>
>
> >
> >There are only two places we really have to worry about ICBM's--Hawaii,
and
> >the West coast.
>
> Yeah, for now.

For the forseeable future, with the caveat that "West Coast" extends inland
through the depth that the DF-31 can strike, which just about gets them to
Phoenix. There are a *lot* of major urban areas west of that longitudinal
line.

>
>
> > Could THAAD play a role in Hawaii, where the defended area
> >is finite? Yep. Could it play such a role on the West coast? Not really.
Is
> >anybody going to argue to deploy THAAD along the coast to defend against
> >ship-launched TBM's? Very doubtful, to say the least. This has all the
> >earmarks of some LMCO guy feeding a line to AvLeak in an effort to pump
up
> >THAAD, and little to offer in terms of real usefulness.
>
> Well yeah, but five years ago if someone had tried to sell the idea of
> shooting down airliners over the US it would have been met with
> similar scorn.

Two successes out of eight intercept attempts, and that does not include the
earlier non-intercept goal failures. But they are ready to already start
*expanding* its capabilities? I don't think so.

>
>
> >> My thoughts on it are this. The radar has a 600 mile range they say
> >> so I'd think you'd need at least a couple radars with the coverage
> >> overlapping enough so there isn't a spot they could come in close to
> >> the coast and shoot off a SCUD-type. There's no reason the missiles
> >> have to be colocated with the radar so you could have launchers up and
> >> down the coast. You're not talking about defending against barrages
> >> of barge launched missiles so it's more a matter of deploying five or
> >> ten launch vehicles and spreading them out enough to get the coverage
> >> you want.
> >
> >It is a heck of a lot easier to just take down the barges before they
ever
> >get close enough.
>
>
> Come up with a way to determine which one has a missile before launch
> and I'm sure you'll have everybody's attention.

It would be a lot easier to set up an exclusion zone than it would be to set
up terminal defenses around all of the potential targets. You said we'd be
able to deploy these systems to protect these areas *when they are needed*,
right? So that rules out protecting against the "bolt from the blue"
scenario. If the threat is some scow launching a TBM, then taking out the
launcher is a heck of a lot more sensible than trying to take out the
missile after it is launched.

>
>
>
> >Look at the size. Current THAAD is a pretty small missile, and getting it
to
> >the range mentioned is going to take some pretty serious size increase.
>
> Not really. Compare the dimensions of THAAD and SM-3 and SM-3 ranges
> 270+ miles. And according to the article they'll get a threefold
> increase in coverage from software improvements alone with THAAD. As
> far as size, even just a bump from 13" to 15" on the booster diameter
> will give you a 33% increase in volume of propellant you can carry.

But aren't they talking about a three or four fold increase in range? You
are not going to get that by increasing the booster by 3 inches. As to the
software bit, that may refer to improving the radar and its capabilities,
for all we know.

>
>
> >Compare MLRS, at twelve rounds per, to ATACMS, at two per; MLRS can reach
> >out to around 60 or more klicks, IIRC in its latest GMLRS form, while
ATACMS
> >covers the 200-300 km gamut. One sixth the number of missiles.
>
> Not even remotely similar comparison. A more accurate would be
> Sparrow and ESSM. Similar front end, bigger booster, same launcher,
> double the range.

But you are not talking about doubling the range here. And why does the
MLRS/ATACMS comparison not meet the same criteria, or at least come darned
close?

>
> >> It must be:
> >>
> >> "...Then one battery should be able to protect each U.S. coast against
> >> a barge-launched ballistic missile, one of the threats officials worry
> >> about. "
> >
> >The only access I had does not indicate any of that:
> >
>
>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=n
ews/tha08204.xml
> >
> >>
> >> and I saw no specific ranges mentioned. The only "could be" I saw was
> >> >mention of possibly emplacing the system to protect Hawaii "years
> >earlier"
> >> >than 2009.
>
>
> Yeah, that's a completely different article.
>
>
>
> >> The as-the-crow-flys distance between Loring AFB and Homestead AFB
> >> (pretty much the furthest north and south points on the east coast) is
> >> 1634 miles. Old THAAD had a range of 125 miles. Today's THAAD?
> >> Don't know. For sake of argument let's use the 125 mile range. Now
> >> the future THAAD with a bigger booster (the one claimed to defend a
> >> coast with one battery against TBMs N-O-T ICBMs) would supposedly be
> >> able to defend an *area* ten times the size of the current THAAD.
> >> Doing a little math today's= pi * 125 miles^2 times that by ten,
> >> take the sqrt, divide by pi gives you a range of 223 miles. So with
> >> that figure it gives you a circle 446 miles in diameter in which one
> >> THAAD launcher can reach out and touch. With minimal overlap you
> >> could cover that 1634 miles with four launchers (this may have been
> >> the way the journalist came up with his one-battery-per-coast idea).
> >> Of course you wouldn't want minimal overlap. So bump it to five
> >> launchers and you get about 150 miles of overlap at each intersection.
> >> ((446x5)-1634)/4 = 149 miles.
> >
> >Whatever.
>
> Whatever? Do the math.

Why *bother* doing the math when the critter has yet to prove that it can
reliably acheive the *lesser* requirements already in place?! And why bother
when protecting only against TBM's, and only when you think they *might* be
used against you (I assume you are still saying that this would be a nifty
"deploy it only when you need to" system) is pretty much worthless?

>
>
> > I'll be looking for winged pigs the day THAAD is fielded in the
> >West Coast protection role, and if it can't handle the ICBM threat, it is
an
> >utter waste.
>
> That's absurd. That's like saying if an F-35 can't outperform an F-22
> in the air to air role it's an utter waste.

No, that is not the same thing. The F-35 is intended to perform a somewhat
different set of missions, at a cheaper cost. OTOH, what you seem to be
saying (using your F-35/F-22 model) is, "Hey, we should go ahead and plan on
giving the F-35 the same exact mission requirements we have set up for the
F-22--forget about the fact that it is a program that has yet to prove
itself capable of doing its current, more limited roles...expand the
envelope!" Two successes out of eight attempts ain't a very good place to
start expanding your envelope.
>
>
>
> >> That's why nobody in their right mind would put the launchers in a
> >> little circle around the radar. They'd be WAY far apart.
> >
> >Which means multiple bases, in a region that is not surfeit with active
> >bases. We could bring back the Presidio...
>
> You're telling me there aren't four or five active military bases on
> each coast?

Let's see, AFAIK Fort Ord is largely being passed over to the local
community as we speak, and there is nothing I know of between that location
and the Trident base up off the Puget Sound that meets your criteria. We
gave up those coastal artillery sites in between to the Park Service some
decades back... :-)
>

>
> >No, we have obviously been talking about two different things. I fixated
on
> >your initial ICBM post--mea culpa. That said, I see little use in
fielding
> >anything in that area that *can't* provide a relaiable defense against
> >ICBM's.
>
> It's not *designed* to fill that role. Any ABM capability is a BONUS.

No, it was designed from the outset as an ABM system, just not one aimed at
the longer ranged/faster missiles in the ICBM class.

> There's no sense in not using it in an emergency just because it
> wasn't designed in from the beginning. Nobody would suggest taking
> out helicopters with LGBs as a matter of course but it's been done.
> If the ability is there it would be foolish not to take advantage of
> it.

So you are saying it is a great system to have available if we get intel
that says Johnny Jihad is planning on putting up towards the coast in a dhow
with a Scud under a tarp, at which point we would presumable deploy our
THAAD systems around each and every possible target he could stike in that
manner? Sorry, but I still find that pretty lame. It is not going to be
worth spit against the unplanned-for launch, and it is not going to be worth
much against the more lethal (and just as likely) PLA DF-31 orPLAN JL-2 that
could threaten the region. IMO, let THAAD mature such that it can do what it
was intended to do--protect deployed forces from enemy TBM attacks. Anything
further is just buying into the contractor's change-order-yielded-profit
plan.

>
> > Let's be real here--we know that everyone says we are not deploying
> >BMD to defend against the PRC, but *really*...
>
>
> Preaching to the choir.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> True. If we were talking about ICBMs. Which we're not.
> >
> >One of us was, and the other started this thread in that vein. To me,
anyone
> >wanting to install a major missile system to cover the Left Coast that
> >*couldn't* deal with the greater ICBM threat is a bit shy in the area of
> >common sense.
>
>
> That's not at all what they're talking about. One battery does not
> constitute a "major missile system". All they're saying is "hey this
> bigger THAAD will be able to cover a coast with one battery. Since
> we're going to have the systems ANYWAY let's cover that potential
> threat (the TBMs launched from ships) and kill two birds with one
> stone".

Well, we also have to worry about the possibility that they could send it
*into* the US via cargo container, and launch it from *within* our borders,
right? yes, I know that is a bit fascetious, but the point is that we can't
*afford* to dump the inevitable few billion bucks it would take to turn
THAAD into Son-of-THAAD on the basis of wanting to protect against an
*extremely* unlikely threat category. Develop vanilla THAAD such that it
actually reliably works as it is supposed to, deploy it as required to
protect US forces in threat areas, let GBMI handle the ICBM threat, and take
those extra billions you saved by NOT developing THAAD into son-of-THAAD and
use them to enahnce our targetring capabilities, or our countermine
capabilities, or our ISR capabilites...the things that we DO need to do, and
for which plenty of threats do actually exist.
>
>
>
> >> What I'm talking about is think Patriot launchers at the end of an
> >> airbase in the middle east instead of dedicated missile sites that are
> >> bases in and of themselves as the Nike bases were.
> >
> >But we have been talking about defending the Left Coast, not an airbase
in
> >the Middle East.
>
>
> Are you telling me you REALLY can't follow that analogy?

See my earlier comments. Against a TBM threat to CONUS, either you have them
in place 24/7, or you are better off just planning on setting up that
exclusion zone while saving all of that additional R&D money.
>

> >> >>
> >> >> >Now, if
> >> >> >you are going to use THAAD in this role, you WILL need dedicated
> >launch
> >> >> >sites, and dedicated radar sites, and you will need a lot of them
to
> >> >cover
> >> >> >the metropolitan areas on the west coast.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not so. Read above (many times if you need to).
> >> >
> >> >Fine. You go right ahead and keep thinking that THAAD can kill ICBM's
at
> >the
> >> >same range it kills slower TBM targets. This is obviously pointless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well at least until you learn to read a little better it is. Quote
> >> where I said "a single battery could defend an entire coast against
> >> ICBMs".
> >
> >I already apologized for that misunderstanding. But I am still of the
> >opinion that installing a *TBM* defense for the West Coast that can't
handle
> >ICBM's is ludicrous.
>
> So you'd rather park the missiles in a garage instead of using them?
> Brilliant plan.

No, I am saying that you have not shown where there is, or is likely to be,
a sufficient threat of that nature (TBM's versus CONUS) that can't be more
easily addressed with other means.

Brooks (Who, while he has historically has been pro-BMD, is getting a bit
tired of it turning into an endless money pit that sucks funding away from
more readily available and vitally needed requirements, and sees this
contractor-initiated ploy as just another attempt to pad the corporate
nest).

[Scott Ferrin]

>> That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
>> say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?
>
>Where? You'd have to posit China lobbing an ICBM at a target being used by
>the US during a third-party operation? I don't think that is realistic
>enough to worry about--somewhere in the same category as say, "Protect
>against RN Trident attack against US target". As to staging areas where we
>would be operating against the PRC, maybe Australia? But that is in IRBM
>range. Anything in their own periphery they could hit with a shorter range
>missile. Which IMO takes you back to the "only US-proper targets have to be
>defended from ICBM".

Hard to say. Let's not forget two things: 1. China isn't the only
country out there of questionable status who is trying to develope
ICBMs (Iran, India, etc.) and 2. THAAD isn't the result of a "we
need terminal defenses against ICBMs for the entire US" but a theater
defense missile *that happens to have some anti-ICBM capability*.








>> >boost phase (i.e., ABL), but in many cases hitting an ICBM in the boost
>> >phase is going to be kind of hard to accomplish (i.e., PRC).
>>
>>
>> There's an excellent report on that particular problem right here:
>>
>> http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/BPI-Full_Report.pdf
>>
>> (tried to find the original link but not too hard)
>>
>>
>>
>> >So yes, for all
>> >intents and purposes, you are looking at a two-tier system against
>ICBM's,
>> >GBMI and terminal.
>>
>> You might not be familair with this:
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kei.htm
>>
>>
>http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/MissileDefenseInterceptors/KEI/index.html
>>
>>
>
>I don't do the "go to links" bit unless it looks like it is something worth
>bothering with--a sysnopsis of the pertinent info is usually given with the
>link.


Too good for it or does it strain your brain too much? My guess is
you want an abstract with the link so you can not go to it anyway and
still pretend like you did. Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.






>> >And IMO THAAD in the anti-ICBM role is therefore a waste of spit; it is
>too
>> >short legged, and nobody is going to budget and support emplacing the
>> >required sites to handle the coast.
>>
>> Nobody has ever suggested that. What they ARE suggesting is that it
>> could be used as a MOBILE terminal ABM. That gives you more options
>> than if it had no ABM capability. Nobody has suggested deploying it
>> like the Nikes were in the 50's and 60's.
>
>Which takes us back full circle to the "what targets would we want to
>protect against ICBM threats other than those in the US" bit.


You're missing the point entirely. Anywhere you park a THAAD you're
going to have terminal ABM capability. You're going to have it
whether you use it or not. This isn't a case of "what targets do we
need to defend and if there are none we won't build the system".




> I see great
>utility in an anti-TBM capability to protect contingency forces in the
>theater of operations, but I see danged little use for protecting them from
>ICBM threats that would come from outside the T/O. If you change the focus
>back to the US proper, then I still don't see a lot of gain in terms of
>THAAD in the terminal defense role unless you want to build and deploy
>enough of them to protect *every* target within the bad guy's range fan.


So essentially you're saying "since we arent' going to protect
everything we shouldn't protect anything"? Correct? And if not what
ARE you saying?









>Protecting only SF, LA, and SEATAC merely means the bad guys hit Portland,
>Monterey, and Eugene instead. Or maybe Sacramento. Or Phoenix (it is not as
>if the PRC is going to limit their range of future systems to being able to
>only strike the beach cities--witness that new SLBM they are developing with
>a nearly 6K mile range).

Great. That means we dictate what they DON'T hit. Pretty simple
concept isn't it? As for the SLBM it's more like 5000 miles and they
are not even CLOSE to fielding it.






>>
>>
>> >Your Son-of-THAAD versus TBM's is more
>> >interesting, but again IMO is not very likely to see the the light of
>> >day--we apparently have outr hands full just getting vanilla THAAD to
>work
>> >as advertised.
>>
>> All of them had problems. The only one that's been mostly successful
>> from the get go is the FLAGE/ERINT/PAC-3. And I'd be more surprised
>> if the upgraded THAAD *didn't* see the light of day. It's cheaper to
>> upgrade what you've already got working than to start over from
>> scratch.
>
>But from what I have read, we don't really have *THAAD* "working" (yet). As
>of this past January, only two of the planned eight intercept tests were
>successful. Not a great track record as of yet. Hopefully it will improve,
>and it will turn out to be a bang-up anti-TBM system. Which would be great.
>Until that time, however, I'd be wary of corporate-sponsored "we are ready
>to stretch/enhance it so it can *also* do..." stuff.

The way it seems to be scheduled is that we'd know if things were
working right before changing things. I'm guessing it would be
similar to the way they've done AIM-120. It's "pre-planned product
improvements" have been public knowledge for years.








>
>>
>> >Spartan was also a "terminal" system, albeit one with a longer reach than
>> >the lower tier Sprint. It only had a max engagement range of less than
>500
>> >miles, which kind of rules it out in the midcourse role,
>>
>> Depends how you define "midcourse". Since GBI and Spartan both go
>> after the RVs in space the only real difference is that Spartan
>> couldn't reach out as far. Distance isn't what determines what
>> "phase" a missile is in. You have the boost phase which is
>> self-explanitory but midcourse is considered the entire time the RV is
>> in space. That's where both GBI and Spartan were designed to kill
>> their targets. It doesn't become "terminal" phase until the RV is
>> reentering the atmosphere. That's pretty much how the "phases" have
>> been differentiated from day one.
>
>Take a gander at the max altitude that the *existing* THAAD acheives (at
>least some 150 km), and by that reasoning it is a mid-course interceptor,
>right? I don't think so.

I was thinking the same thing when I wrote that. The fact remains
though that Spartan has NEVER been considered a terminal phase
missile.






>>
>
>>
>> > especially as it
>> >was based nextdoor to the Sprints at the defended location.
>>
>> The Spartans and *some* of the Sprints were colocated mainly out of
>> convenience. If you check out this aerial if the Stanley R. Mickelson
>> Complex you'll see there are only 16 of the 70 Sprint silos located
>> there with the Spartans.
>>
>> http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/HSafeguard.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The Sprints were spread out somewhat. How much I don't know. Miles
>> or tens of miles would be my guess. Since the ABM site was only
>> allowed to defend one location by treaty you'd WANT the Spartans near
>> the defended target for best coverage.
>
>The Spartan's were tasked with "area" defense, the Sprints with point
>defense. IMO, Spartan did not rise to what could be considered mid-course
>intercept status.


That's fine. There are those who think the earth is flat and that the
moon landing was staged. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.






>>
>>
>> >Look at it
>> >another way--the USN has two "terminal" defense systems against anti-ship
>mi
>> >ssiles, ESSM and Phalanx--one outreaches the other by quite some
>distance,
>> >but it is still a terminal defense system.
>>
>> You find it's going to be an either/or in most situations. ESSM is
>> *replacing* Phalanx in some instances. RAM is replacing Phalanx in
>> others.
>
>OK, my bad example; consider Sea Sparrow and Phalanx, from the near
>past--plenty of vessels had *both*.


Sea Sparrow has a minimum range and that's the area Phalanx covers.
In that situation Phalanx is the terminal defense. Let's not forget
that Sea Sparrow is also great for smacking small ships in close. The
reasons Phalanx is being replaced and CAN be replaced by RAM and ESSM
are because the minimum range of RAM and ESSM is less than that of
Sparrow (admittedly that's pure speculation on my part), missile
reliability is getting better, and with today's faster missiles
Phalanx's utility is going down.





>
>>
>>
>> > Vanilla THAAD will have a very
>> >small range against ICBM's, making it of minimal use in the role.
>>
>>
>> But still better than none at all. If all it does is make an
>> adversary think twice then it's worth it.
>
>But it won't, unless we deploy them around virtually every target set he
>could strike! As I pointed out earlier, take SF from his list and he
>replaces it with Sacramento. Are you willing to give up one but not the
>other? I doubt you are.

Am I willing to give up SF to protect the Trident base up the coast?
HELL yeah. Atlanta over Washinton DC? Damn straight. You'd prefer
to lose both Atlanta AND Washington DC correct?





>>
>>
>> >
>> >There are only two places we really have to worry about ICBM's--Hawaii,
>and
>> >the West coast.
>>
>> Yeah, for now.
>
>For the forseeable future, with the caveat that "West Coast" extends inland
>through the depth that the DF-31 can strike, which just about gets them to
>Phoenix. There are a *lot* of major urban areas west of that longitudinal
>line.

Yeah. And?



>
>>
>>
>> > Could THAAD play a role in Hawaii, where the defended area
>> >is finite? Yep. Could it play such a role on the West coast? Not really.
>Is
>> >anybody going to argue to deploy THAAD along the coast to defend against
>> >ship-launched TBM's? Very doubtful, to say the least. This has all the
>> >earmarks of some LMCO guy feeding a line to AvLeak in an effort to pump
>up
>> >THAAD, and little to offer in terms of real usefulness.
>>
>> Well yeah, but five years ago if someone had tried to sell the idea of
>> shooting down airliners over the US it would have been met with
>> similar scorn.
>
>Two successes out of eight intercept attempts, and that does not include the
>earlier non-intercept goal failures. But they are ready to already start
>*expanding* its capabilities? I don't think so.


*Planning*. As I mentioned earlier AMRAAM's improvements were laid
down before it even entered service (I remember reading about them in
the 80's) too. I don't see what the problem is. It's business as
usual in just about every area of manufacturing/ product developement.
How successful do you think Intel would be if they didn't plan what
would come after the Pentium 4 until AFTER they'd decided they
wouldn't make anymore Pentium 4s? Same thing.






>
>>
>>
>> >> My thoughts on it are this. The radar has a 600 mile range they say
>> >> so I'd think you'd need at least a couple radars with the coverage
>> >> overlapping enough so there isn't a spot they could come in close to
>> >> the coast and shoot off a SCUD-type. There's no reason the missiles
>> >> have to be colocated with the radar so you could have launchers up and
>> >> down the coast. You're not talking about defending against barrages
>> >> of barge launched missiles so it's more a matter of deploying five or
>> >> ten launch vehicles and spreading them out enough to get the coverage
>> >> you want.
>> >
>> >It is a heck of a lot easier to just take down the barges before they
>ever
>> >get close enough.
>>
>>
>> Come up with a way to determine which one has a missile before launch
>> and I'm sure you'll have everybody's attention.
>
>It would be a lot easier to set up an exclusion zone than it would be to set
>up terminal defenses around all of the potential targets.


Factor in the necessary ships and infrastructure to intercept, detain,
and inspect probably THOUSANDS of ships and barges EVERY DAY and
you'll see how impractical that idea is.





>You said we'd be
>able to deploy these systems to protect these areas *when they are needed*,
>right? So that rules out protecting against the "bolt from the blue"
>scenario.

You're mixing and matching ICBM and TBM defense without any thought to
CONTEXT. The TBM defense one-battery-per-coast idea is an always-on
type of thing. The "let's move some THAADs to DC for a while to
protect against ICBMs" idea is a crisis thing. AFAIK there is no (and
has never been any) plan to deploy THAAD as a perminant ICBM terminal
defense system in any location.





> If the threat is some scow launching a TBM, then taking out the
>launcher is a heck of a lot more sensible than trying to take out the
>missile after it is launched.

Great. So what are you going to do, start sinking every ship off the
coast? Great idea.





>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Look at the size. Current THAAD is a pretty small missile, and getting it
>to
>> >the range mentioned is going to take some pretty serious size increase.
>>
>> Not really. Compare the dimensions of THAAD and SM-3 and SM-3 ranges
>> 270+ miles. And according to the article they'll get a threefold
>> increase in coverage from software improvements alone with THAAD. As
>> far as size, even just a bump from 13" to 15" on the booster diameter
>> will give you a 33% increase in volume of propellant you can carry.
>
>But aren't they talking about a three or four fold increase in range?

No. If you'd read what I wrote instead of saying "whatever" you'd see
they're not even looking at a TWO fold increase in range. They're
talking 223 miles vs 125.





> You
>are not going to get that by increasing the booster by 3 inches.

True, but they're not looking at increase in range of three or four
times. And BTW 15-13 is 2 not 3.



> As to the
>software bit, that may refer to improving the radar and its capabilities,
>for all we know.

No kidding?




>
>>
>>
>> >Compare MLRS, at twelve rounds per, to ATACMS, at two per; MLRS can reach
>> >out to around 60 or more klicks, IIRC in its latest GMLRS form, while
>ATACMS
>> >covers the 200-300 km gamut. One sixth the number of missiles.
>>
>> Not even remotely similar comparison. A more accurate would be
>> Sparrow and ESSM. Similar front end, bigger booster, same launcher,
>> double the range.
>
>But you are not talking about doubling the range here.

You're right. I'm talking about LESS than doubling the range.



>And why does the
>MLRS/ATACMS comparison not meet the same criteria, or at least come darned
>close?

Because ATACMs carries four times the payload five times the range.
We're talking about carrying the SAME payload maybe 80% further.






>Why *bother* doing the math when the critter has yet to prove that it can
>reliably acheive the *lesser* requirements already in place?!

Because then you wouldn't look like an idiot when you go off about
increasing the range by three or four times when that's never been
suggested.




>And why bother
>when protecting only against TBM's, and only when you think they *might* be
>used against you (I assume you are still saying that this would be a nifty
>"deploy it only when you need to" system) is pretty much worthless?


????






>> That's absurd. That's like saying if an F-35 can't outperform an F-22
>> in the air to air role it's an utter waste.
>
>No, that is not the same thing. The F-35 is intended to perform a somewhat
>different set of missions, at a cheaper cost.


Well DUH. The THAAD is intended to fulfill a different mission than
GBI. Just as the F-35 has some air-to-air capability, the THAAD would
have some anti-ICBM capability.





>OTOH, what you seem to be
>saying (using your F-35/F-22 model) is, "Hey, we should go ahead and plan on
>giving the F-35 the same exact mission requirements we have set up for the
>F-22--forget about the fact that it is a program that has yet to prove
>itself capable of doing its current, more limited roles...expand the
>envelope!

Nope. What I'm saying is that just because the F-35 isn't as good as
the F-22 in air-to-air doesn't mean it should be cancelled.





>> You're telling me there aren't four or five active military bases on
>> each coast?
>
>Let's see, AFAIK Fort Ord is largely being passed over to the local
>community as we speak, and there is nothing I know of between that location
>and the Trident base up off the Puget Sound that meets your criteria. We
>gave up those coastal artillery sites in between to the Park Service some
>decades back... :-)



Go here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/conus.htm





>>
>
>>
>> >No, we have obviously been talking about two different things. I fixated
>on
>> >your initial ICBM post--mea culpa. That said, I see little use in
>fielding
>> >anything in that area that *can't* provide a relaiable defense against
>> >ICBM's.
>>
>> It's not *designed* to fill that role. Any ABM capability is a BONUS.
>
>No, it was designed from the outset as an ABM system, just not one aimed at
>the longer ranged/faster missiles in the ICBM class.



That's part of your problem. ABM refers to missiles designed to take
out ICBMs. Thus the A-B-M Treaty. The ABM treaty didn't give a rat's
ass about missiles designed to take out tactical or theater missiles
as long as they couldn't hit an ICBM. In the literal sense a
catcher's mitt is an ABM. It stops ballistic missiles. (Go look up
the word "missile" if you're lost). "ABM" as it's used in the rocket
sense means a system designed to take out an ICBM.







>
>> There's no sense in not using it in an emergency just because it
>> wasn't designed in from the beginning. Nobody would suggest taking
>> out helicopters with LGBs as a matter of course but it's been done.
>> If the ability is there it would be foolish not to take advantage of
>> it.
>
>So you are saying it is a great system to have available if we get intel
>that says Johnny Jihad is planning on putting up towards the coast in a dhow
>with a Scud under a tarp, at which point we would presumable deploy our
>THAAD systems around each and every possible target he could stike in that
>manner? Sorry, but I still find that pretty lame.


I would too. However if you had any reading skills at all you'd see
that's never been suggested. What's been suggested is that with that
bigger booster it'd ALWAYS be online against that kind of threat.






> It is not going to be
>worth spit against the unplanned-for launch, and it is not going to be worth
>much against the more lethal (and just as likely) PLA DF-31 orPLAN JL-2 that
>could threaten the region.

Just as likely? How many terrorist attacks have their been in the
last five years? How many missiles has China launched at other
countries in the last five years?




> IMO, let THAAD mature such that it can do what it
>was intended to do--protect deployed forces from enemy TBM attacks. Anything
>further is just buying into the contractor's change-order-yielded-profit
>plan.

Those who fail to plan. . .






>> That's not at all what they're talking about. One battery does not
>> constitute a "major missile system". All they're saying is "hey this
>> bigger THAAD will be able to cover a coast with one battery. Since
>> we're going to have the systems ANYWAY let's cover that potential
>> threat (the TBMs launched from ships) and kill two birds with one
>> stone".
>
>Well, we also have to worry about the possibility that they could send it
>*into* the US via cargo container, and launch it from *within* our borders,
>right?


So we shouldn't defend against a threat that we CAN defend against
because a different threat is more difficult? Great plan. That's
like saying you're not going to put a smoke alarm in your house
because it wouldn't help if it got hit by a hurricane. Great plan.



> yes, I know that is a bit fascetious, but the point is that we can't
>*afford* to dump the inevitable few billion bucks it would take to turn
>THAAD into Son-of-THAAD on the basis of wanting to protect against an
>*extremely* unlikely threat category.

If you'd been reading (and retaining the words) you'd see that the
"few billion bucks" are going to be spent ANYWAY. As I've said before
(AISB from here on out) improvements to THAAD are going to happen to
make it function in it's ATBM role better regardless. The coastal
defence/ terminal ABM capability is a bonus result of those
improvemnts. If you make improvements to your car engine that are
designed to improve fuel economy are you going to complain if it
happens to make the engine more powerful in the process?





> Develop vanilla THAAD such that it
>actually reliably works as it is supposed to, deploy it as required to
>protect US forces in threat areas, let GBMI handle the ICBM threat, and take
>those extra billions you saved by NOT developing THAAD into son-of-THAAD and
>use them to enahnce our targetring capabilities, or our countermine
>capabilities, or our ISR capabilites...the things that we DO need to do, and
>for which plenty of threats do actually exist.

Apparently the US military doesn't share your assessment of the
threats.






>>
>>
>>
>> >> What I'm talking about is think Patriot launchers at the end of an
>> >> airbase in the middle east instead of dedicated missile sites that are
>> >> bases in and of themselves as the Nike bases were.
>> >
>> >But we have been talking about defending the Left Coast, not an airbase
>in
>> >the Middle East.
>>
>>
>> Are you telling me you REALLY can't follow that analogy?
>
>See my earlier comments. Against a TBM threat to CONUS, either you have them
>in place 24/7, or you are better off just planning on setting up that
>exclusion zone while saving all of that additional R&D money.

AISB. . .






>> So you'd rather park the missiles in a garage instead of using them?
>> Brilliant plan.
>
>No, I am saying that you have not shown where there is, or is likely to be,
>a sufficient threat of that nature (TBM's versus CONUS) that can't be more
>easily addressed with other means.


Describe those means.



>
>Brooks (Who, while he has historically has been pro-BMD, is getting a bit
>tired of it turning into an endless money pit that sucks funding away from
>more readily available and vitally needed requirements, and sees this
>contractor-initiated ploy as just another attempt to pad the corporate
>nest).

[Orval Fairbairn]

I have been following this thread recently. As a retired Lockheed
engineer who did performance studies on THAAD, I can clear up a few
things.

1. THAAD is not currently an anti-ICBM system. It does not have the
performance (except on a lucky shot) to shoot down ICBMs consistently.
They travel too fast for THAAD's performance envelope. Specific numbers
would be classified.

2. THAAD had some development problems. They did not have even the
second team working on the original design. It appeared that a lot of
the design was made by people who had not taken "Missile Design 101." A
lot of the problems were simply stupid design and manufacturing errors.
We can only hope that those problems have been cleared up.

3. THAAD should be an effective TBM defense. That is what it is designed
for, and simulations show that it can hit a variety of targets.

4. An anti-ICBM missile would be a completely new, much larger design,
which would probably use only the basic interceptor technology, not the
same hardware.

[Jack]

Can't anybody in this thread exercise a little common sense and snip the
extra crap? It might have been enlightening, but NO, you can't be bothered!

The only apparently knowledgeable person, O. Fairbairn, has done exactly
that, and restored some order, thankfully.


Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> Can't anybody in this thread exercise a little common sense and snip the
> extra crap? It might have been enlightening, but NO, you can't be
bothered!
>
> The only apparently knowledgeable person, O. Fairbairn, has done exactly
> that, and restored some order, thankfully.

Translation being, "I am too dumb to be able to read more than three
paragraphs at a time, and have nothing of substance to add to the discussion
topic anyway." Is that about right? Talk about lacking common sense...

Brooks

>
>
> Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
> >> say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?
> >
> >Where? You'd have to posit China lobbing an ICBM at a target being used
by
> >the US during a third-party operation? I don't think that is realistic
> >enough to worry about--somewhere in the same category as say, "Protect
> >against RN Trident attack against US target". As to staging areas where
we
> >would be operating against the PRC, maybe Australia? But that is in IRBM
> >range. Anything in their own periphery they could hit with a shorter
range
> >missile. Which IMO takes you back to the "only US-proper targets have to
be
> >defended from ICBM".
>
> Hard to say. Let's not forget two things: 1. China isn't the only
> country out there of questionable status who is trying to develope
> ICBMs (Iran, India, etc.)

So what? I have seen nobody (other than you) postulate any potential ICBM
threat to US forces deployed outside the US; the ICBM threat is being
considered against the US proper.

and 2. THAAD isn't the result of a "we
> need terminal defenses against ICBMs for the entire US" but a theater
> defense missile *that happens to have some anti-ICBM capability*.

And we do need a defense capability against TBM's for contingency forces--no
argument there. But again, nobody is claiming there is an ICBM threat
against deployed US forces, are they?


<snip>

> >>
>
>http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefense/MissileDefenseInterceptors/KEI/index.
html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't do the "go to links" bit unless it looks like it is something
worth
> >bothering with--a sysnopsis of the pertinent info is usually given with
the
> >link.
>
>
> Too good for it or does it strain your brain too much? My guess is
> you want an abstract with the link so you can not go to it anyway and
> still pretend like you did.

No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster. Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?

Just on this thread there have been
> numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
> big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
> providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
> the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
> can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
> apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me. I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Adios.

Brooks

<snip>

[Jack]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Translation being, "I am too dumb to be able to read more than three
> paragraphs at a time, and have nothing of substance to add to the discussion
> topic anyway."

If I have little to add to a discussion of THAD, it doesn't mean I
wouldn't like to learn. Of course if you are not concerned that anyone
read your postings, you are excused from the cohort of the
communication-capable. I certainly don't need to read the same thing
several times or to waste time digging out a new line or two embedded in
paragraphs of old info. But hey, if NG conventions are too restrictive
for one of your stature, so be it.

The pepper isn't worth separating from the fly****.


Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Translation being, "I am too dumb to be able to read more than three
> > paragraphs at a time, and have nothing of substance to add to the
discussion
> > topic anyway."
>
> If I have little to add to a discussion of THAD, it doesn't mean I
> wouldn't like to learn. Of course if you are not concerned that anyone
> read your postings, you are excused from the cohort of the
> communication-capable. I certainly don't need to read the same thing
> several times or to waste time digging out a new line or two embedded in
> paragraphs of old info. But hey, if NG conventions are too restrictive
> for one of your stature, so be it.

What "convention"? It is left to the individual poster as to how he snips.
Half the folks hereabouts do so without acknowledging such snips--bad form
IMO, but not a "convention". Since I tend to delete threads quite
frequently, it is sometimes a bit easier to go back and reread previous
statements made in the thread if I have not engaged in widespread snippage.
Case in point being this very thread--I was able to go back and determine
that I had indeed misunderstood the original posters intent vis a vis the
use of THAAD for CONUS defense. If you don't like that, tough cookies. You
could have just kept your trap shut, but instead you had to opine as to the
common sense level of the folks whop were doing the discussing, and
therefore controlled how the snippage was done or not done. If you ain't in
the kitchen, pipe down and accept what you are given at the table, pal.

>
> The pepper isn't worth separating from the fly****.

I doubt you could taste the difference either way.

Brooks

>
>
> Jack

[Jack]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> If you ain't in the kitchen, pipe down and accept
> what you are given at the table, pal.

You have defined yourself for us, Kevin.

Good luck in the future.


Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack" > wrote in message
m...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > If you ain't in the kitchen, pipe down and accept
> > what you are given at the table, pal.
>
> You have defined yourself for us, Kevin.
>
> Good luck in the future.

I'll be looking forward to reading your "Universal Conventions of Usenet"
treaty, once you get it ratified and all...Maybe next time you won't come
out of your dark corner winging accusations about folks lacking common
sense, eh?

Brooks

>
>
> Jack

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:18:28 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>I have been following this thread recently. As a retired Lockheed
>engineer who did performance studies on THAAD, I can clear up a few
>things.
>
>1. THAAD is not currently an anti-ICBM system. It does not have the
>performance (except on a lucky shot) to shoot down ICBMs consistently.
>They travel too fast for THAAD's performance envelope. Specific numbers
>would be classified.


So is it's residual ABM capability something like Hawk did - before
they made the modifications? The impression I'd gotten with Hawk is
they went "hey let's try it against a missile" and it worked. After
that they made some changes to the system to make it a little better
in the ATBM role.




>
>2. THAAD had some development problems. They did not have even the
>second team working on the original design. It appeared that a lot of
>the design was made by people who had not taken "Missile Design 101." A
>lot of the problems were simply stupid design and manufacturing errors.
>We can only hope that those problems have been cleared up.

That would explain why AW&ST said the configuration of THAAD is quite
a bit different now than those test vehicles.






>
>3. THAAD should be an effective TBM defense. That is what it is designed
>for, and simulations show that it can hit a variety of targets.
>
>4. An anti-ICBM missile would be a completely new, much larger design,
>which would probably use only the basic interceptor technology, not the
>same hardware.


I don't think the idea has ever been to have THAAD as a dedicated ABM.
It's more like a bonus. ATBM as you said is the role it was designed
for. All I've ever seen written suggested that they just not let that
residual capability go to waste.

[Scott Ferrin]

>No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
>tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster.


Why the hell would I want to retype the thing when all you have to do
is click once and get the whole thing? And a quick glance at the link
and context should tell you what the thing is going to be about
anyway. If you want to talk laziness "too hard to click on a link"
takes the cake.





>Now look
>here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
>acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
>thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
>civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent. Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.




>
> Just on this thread there have been
>> numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
>> big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
>> providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
>> the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
>> can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
>> apparently take an interest in.
>
>OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
>beyond me.

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?





>I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
>knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
>more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
>linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
>discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
>links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
>high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link). Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:58:07 GMT, Jack > wrote:

>Can't anybody in this thread exercise a little common sense and snip the
>extra crap? It might have been enlightening, but NO, you can't be bothered!


God knows I tried. :-)




>
>The only apparently knowledgeable person, O. Fairbairn, has done exactly
>that, and restored some order, thankfully.
>
>
>Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>

<snip>

>
> >Now look
> >here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
> >acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in
this
> >thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort
towards
> >civility that I have?
>
>
> I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
> tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
> the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
> when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent.

Considering you *started* this thread with the *ICBM * bit (look at the
freakin' subject line you came up with, for gosh sakes), it is not that hard
to imagine someone thinking along those lines.

Then you turn right
> around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
> have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
> you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
> after a while.

Look, you got an apology. be gracious about it, for gosh sakes.

<snip>

> I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
> tangent. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
cite says in some form or other. I have had folks give blind links that
resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
for you?

>
> >I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
> >knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
(and
> >more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
> >linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
> >discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
> >links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
your
> >high horse, OK?
>
> Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
> a link (that's WHY they provided a link).

That is you, this is me.

Most people read faster
> than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
> synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
> a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
blind link is provided. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

Brooks

[Scott Ferrin]

>> I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
>> tangent. Is that too much to ask?
>
>Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
>cite says in some form or other.


I'm not talking about reading the link. I'm talking about reading
what I wrote. If you're going to comment on it I'd think you'd at
least want to know what it is you're commenting on.



> I have had folks give blind links that
>resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
>the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
>for you?
>
>>
>> >I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
>> >knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
>(and
>> >more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
>> >linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
>> >discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
>> >links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
>your
>> >high horse, OK?
>>
>> Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
>> a link (that's WHY they provided a link).
>
>That is you, this is me.
>
>Most people read faster
>> than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
>> synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
>> a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.
>
>Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
>search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
>blind link is provided.


In the first case you were talking about problems with BPI and I said
in effect "here's a link to a pdf that discusses the problem in
detail". It wasn't even to support any point, it was just a "hey you
might find this interesting since we're on the subject". I couldn't
find a link so I posted it to my ftp. I'd have thought you be
interested in learning more on the topic.





>I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
>doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

I wouldn't think you would. On the other hand there is so much crap
to wade through on the net I'd think you be interested when someone
posts links to a few gold nuggets.