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

"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 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)

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