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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
news

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/new...s/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