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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?

Where? You'd have to posit China lobbing an ICBM at a target being used
by
the US during a third-party operation? I don't think that is realistic
enough to worry about--somewhere in the same category as say, "Protect
against RN Trident attack against US target". As to staging areas where
we
would be operating against the PRC, maybe Australia? But that is in IRBM
range. Anything in their own periphery they could hit with a shorter
range
missile. Which IMO takes you back to the "only US-proper targets have to
be
defended from ICBM".

Hard to say. Let's not forget two things: 1. China isn't the only
country out there of questionable status who is trying to develope
ICBMs (Iran, India, etc.)

So what? I have seen nobody (other than you) postulate any potential ICBM
threat to US forces deployed outside the US; the ICBM threat is being
considered against the US proper.

and 2. THAAD isn't the result of a "we
need terminal defenses against ICBMs for the entire US" but a theater
defense missile *that happens to have some anti-ICBM capability*.

And we do need a defense capability against TBM's for contingency forces--no
argument there. But again, nobody is claiming there is an ICBM threat
against deployed US forces, are they?


snip



http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefens...tors/KEI/index.
html



I don't do the "go to links" bit unless it looks like it is something
worth
bothering with--a sysnopsis of the pertinent info is usually given with
the
link.


Too good for it or does it strain your brain too much? My guess is
you want an abstract with the link so you can not go to it anyway and
still pretend like you did.

No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster. Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?

Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me. I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Adios.

Brooks

snip

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Translation being, "I am too dumb to be able to read more than three
paragraphs at a time, and have nothing of substance to add to the discussion
topic anyway."

If I have little to add to a discussion of THAD, it doesn't mean I
wouldn't like to learn. Of course if you are not concerned that anyone
read your postings, you are excused from the cohort of the
communication-capable. I certainly don't need to read the same thing
several times or to waste time digging out a new line or two embedded in
paragraphs of old info. But hey, if NG conventions are too restrictive
for one of your stature, so be it.

The pepper isn't worth separating from the fly****.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
m...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

Translation being, "I am too dumb to be able to read more than three
paragraphs at a time, and have nothing of substance to add to the
discussion
topic anyway."

If I have little to add to a discussion of THAD, it doesn't mean I
wouldn't like to learn. Of course if you are not concerned that anyone
read your postings, you are excused from the cohort of the
communication-capable. I certainly don't need to read the same thing
several times or to waste time digging out a new line or two embedded in
paragraphs of old info. But hey, if NG conventions are too restrictive
for one of your stature, so be it.

What "convention"? It is left to the individual poster as to how he snips.
Half the folks hereabouts do so without acknowledging such snips--bad form
IMO, but not a "convention". Since I tend to delete threads quite
frequently, it is sometimes a bit easier to go back and reread previous
statements made in the thread if I have not engaged in widespread snippage.
Case in point being this very thread--I was able to go back and determine
that I had indeed misunderstood the original posters intent vis a vis the
use of THAAD for CONUS defense. If you don't like that, tough cookies. You
could have just kept your trap shut, but instead you had to opine as to the
common sense level of the folks whop were doing the discussing, and
therefore controlled how the snippage was done or not done. If you ain't in
the kitchen, pipe down and accept what you are given at the table, pal.


The pepper isn't worth separating from the fly****.

I doubt you could taste the difference either way.

Brooks



Jack

Kevin Brooks wrote:

If you ain't in the kitchen, pipe down and accept
what you are given at the table, pal.

You have defined yourself for us, Kevin.

Good luck in the future.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
m...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

If you ain't in the kitchen, pipe down and accept
what you are given at the table, pal.

You have defined yourself for us, Kevin.

Good luck in the future.

I'll be looking forward to reading your "Universal Conventions of Usenet"
treaty, once you get it ratified and all...Maybe next time you won't come
out of your dark corner winging accusations about folks lacking common
sense, eh?

Brooks



Jack

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:18:28 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

I have been following this thread recently. As a retired Lockheed
engineer who did performance studies on THAAD, I can clear up a few
things.

1. THAAD is not currently an anti-ICBM system. It does not have the
performance (except on a lucky shot) to shoot down ICBMs consistently.
They travel too fast for THAAD's performance envelope. Specific numbers
would be classified.


So is it's residual ABM capability something like Hawk did - before
they made the modifications? The impression I'd gotten with Hawk is
they went "hey let's try it against a missile" and it worked. After
that they made some changes to the system to make it a little better
in the ATBM role.





2. THAAD had some development problems. They did not have even the
second team working on the original design. It appeared that a lot of
the design was made by people who had not taken "Missile Design 101." A
lot of the problems were simply stupid design and manufacturing errors.
We can only hope that those problems have been cleared up.

That would explain why AW&ST said the configuration of THAAD is quite
a bit different now than those test vehicles.







3. THAAD should be an effective TBM defense. That is what it is designed
for, and simulations show that it can hit a variety of targets.

4. An anti-ICBM missile would be a completely new, much larger design,
which would probably use only the basic interceptor technology, not the
same hardware.


I don't think the idea has ever been to have THAAD as a dedicated ABM.
It's more like a bonus. ATBM as you said is the role it was designed
for. All I've ever seen written suggested that they just not let that
residual capability go to waste.

No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster.


Why the hell would I want to retype the thing when all you have to do
is click once and get the whole thing? And a quick glance at the link
and context should tell you what the thing is going to be about
anyway. If you want to talk laziness "too hard to click on a link"
takes the cake.





Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent. Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.





Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me.

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?





I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link). Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:58:07 GMT, Jack wrote:

Can't anybody in this thread exercise a little common sense and snip the
extra crap? It might have been enlightening, but NO, you can't be bothered!


God knows I tried. :-)





The only apparently knowledgeable person, O. Fairbairn, has done exactly
that, and restored some order, thankfully.


Jack

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


snip


Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in
this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort
towards
civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent.

Considering you *started* this thread with the *ICBM * bit (look at the
freakin' subject line you came up with, for gosh sakes), it is not that hard
to imagine someone thinking along those lines.

Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.

Look, you got an apology. be gracious about it, for gosh sakes.

snip

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
cite says in some form or other. I have had folks give blind links that
resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
for you?


I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
(and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link).

That is you, this is me.

Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
blind link is provided. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

Brooks

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
cite says in some form or other.


I'm not talking about reading the link. I'm talking about reading
what I wrote. If you're going to comment on it I'd think you'd at
least want to know what it is you're commenting on.



I have had folks give blind links that
resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
for you?


I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
(and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link).

That is you, this is me.

Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
blind link is provided.


In the first case you were talking about problems with BPI and I said
in effect "here's a link to a pdf that discusses the problem in
detail". It wasn't even to support any point, it was just a "hey you
might find this interesting since we're on the subject". I couldn't
find a link so I posted it to my ftp. I'd have thought you be
interested in learning more on the topic.





I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

I wouldn't think you would. On the other hand there is so much crap
to wade through on the net I'd think you be interested when someone
posts links to a few gold nuggets.