"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 we "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.