"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