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

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.

"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

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

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/committe.../subs/sub2.pdf


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

"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/committe.../subs/sub2.pdf


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

"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

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.

"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

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.

"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.