If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Weeks Solution and Weeks Special | Mirco | Aerobatics | 0 | October 2nd 04 04:11 PM |