Talk:Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

VfD dicussion[edit]

from VfD:

There is nothing in this article to indicate what it is. RickK 20:29, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Uninformative substub. Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now the article actually says what it is. Needs NPOVification though. Gwalla | Talk 23:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's THAAD, Dad! I mean, Delete. Indistinguishable and uninformative. Ian Pugh 22:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I concur. Ian Pugh 03:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP, should be called a substub. It's THAAD, a high priced US miltiary antimissile defense project aimed at draining millions of dollars from public coffers while not offering an effective defence. THAAD should have high hit rate everywhere (16k on Google). It's related to SDI, the BMDO, ERINT (aka Patriot PAC-3), Corps SAM, the ABL, and other such stuff. In military terms, Theatre is a region where a war campaign takes place, hence the Pacific theatre of WWII. In US military projects, THAAD provides missile defence over the theatre from IRBMs. The next layer up is stuff like NMD, next layer down is the battlefield missile defence systems, like ERINT and AEGIS, then on down to unit defence like Corps SAM and then squad defence MANPADs...
    • So how hard is it to say all that in the article? RickK`
      • I'm biased on the issue (see the waste of money bit?) 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

waste of money?

a high priced US miltiary antimissile defense project aimed at draining millions of dollars from public coffers while not offering an effective defence.
The italics is a misguided POV statement. Budget numbers are in the article. For comparison sake, US Public Education has a total financial drain on the order of $300 Billion per year($90+ Billion Federal funding and $200+ Billion in state fundings). In other words, Public Education is three times the peak financial burn rate of the Iraq War; and the advocates argue that Public Education is funded oh so inadequately. Whereas many US public schools currently have teachers who teach children that intercepting an incoming missile is impossible, 20 years of MDA funding has given us a far more accurate, trustworthy and useful science education for a running total of less than just four months (assuming 12 equal months of spending with no summer breaks)of US Public Education spending. Never mind that teachers unions regularly pay millions of dollars into pro-homosexual lobbies and other items of educationally debatable value; and then complain that they are not paid enough. THAAD is relatively lower impact and higher yield for funding. 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is a rant. It is an outrageous comparison - would the author like to do away with the entire government-funded education system of the US, so all the money can go into a system that after billions of dollars, has only delivered a 24% kill ration? If I were to go along with this comparison, and judge public education by its success in producing students that are able to read, write and do some basic arithmetic, I think we would be looking at a "kill ratio" of more than 95%.By the way, I had to google the "budget numbers," because this article, so it could qualify as a stub, doesn't have them. ;-) Lavidia (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Good start. ElBenevolente 23:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep acceptable stub. -- Jmabel 00:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the "acceptable" stub to actually be acceptable to myself. Surprised me that this one didn't exist. -- Cyrius| 02:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the revised page (under Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and THAAD redir). Looking good now. -R. S. Shaw 06:59, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
  • What Shaw said. Ropers 22:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added more information 22:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The statement, "The THAAD missile does not carry an explosive warhead and destroys incoming missiles by colliding with them, utilizing hit-to-kill-technology, unlike the one used by the MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3," is incorrect. MIM-104 Patriot uses an explosive warhead and is built by Raytheon. Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) is built by Lockheed Martin, employs Hit-to-Kill technology and does not use an explosive warhead.

The original statement about PAC-3 having an explosive warhead is correct. Changed article to reflect this. The confusion is likely from PAC-3 mainly using a kinetic warhead, but also having an explosive warhead, often termed a "lethality enhancer." Prior Patriot versions used exclusively explosive warheads. [1] Joema 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

end moved discussion

THAAD and PAC-3[edit]

The Patriot PAC-3 as a missile has a designation as MIM-104. This article, THAAD describes a whole system, including missile, launcher, radar, control systems. The Missile alone should have its own designation - What is the designation of this missile? The radar alone does have its designation shown. Wfoj2 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

One major problem......[edit]

I have removed the last paragraph because it was uncited and not clear how it was relevant. So what if ballistic missiles can change their trajectory or THAAD will not deter a launch? Surely the whole point of the system is that it can track and intercept missiles regardless of how they move and that they do intercept missiles - it's not for show. In any case, how do we know THAAD will not deter anyone from launching attacks?

Unless someone can produce more in-depth, relevant and cited material to substantiate why that is a problem for this system it is irrelevant. John Smith's (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to check out the "Demonstration-Validation phase" section of the article you are discussing, where you will find out that, of 9 missiles fired at targets, only 2 hit them. And none of the targets changed their course as future versions of the Topol Russian ICBM are supposed to do. It doesn't help that one of the missiles that successfully hit its target did so in a "simplified test scenario." So surely there is ground to question the effectiveness of this system? Lavidia (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


I've updated a the first list of dates and test results to be a table. I'll do the same with the second in a little while. I suspect the two sections can be combined with early development under one heading called "Development" and just make them their own subsections. Darthveda (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've finished a massive round of reformatting the page. I'm a little unhappy with the THAAD diagram where it is. Darthveda (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass without fuel[edit]

Can anyone cite THAAD missile mass without fuel (or its terminal mass)? Such information should be open, and it would greately improve the article. ellol (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

that information is classified.

Hawaian deployment[edit]

dont know what thay deployed to hawaii, since A-4 is still sitting on its but in el paso.Brian in denver (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A-4 is just standing up, their either don't have all of their equipment or they don't have all the soldiers. Hawaii has the live missiles. so no deployment for A-4 according to my friends in El paso. Lyta79 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Counterfeit Microchips[edit]

According to IEEE Spectrum these devices suffered from Counterfeit Microchips.[1] Should we begin a section to address this? Aedazan (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Compared to Patriot[edit]

How does THADD fit into the mix with Patriot? i.e. what is the advantage of one over the other?Feldercarb (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The design ranges of the two are quite different - THAAD has a range of ">200km"; Patriot (PAC-3 MSE) an ABM range of "35 km". So the idea is that a small number of Patriot batteries can defend a city, and a small number of THAAD batteries can defend a country or a large US state. The practical merits of either (the extent to which they will work as advertised) remains to be seen. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The radar systems also differ, with the resolving power of a Patriot radar being less (it would be 'blurrier') than the resolving power of a THAAD radar (it would be 'sharper'). Thus tracking and intercepting a threat is an easier task for THAAD. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


Extended range? Kortoso (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

North Korea threat[edit]

This section seems rather long; perhaps it should be stripped back to stuff that's directly relevant. Do we need all the history? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017[edit]

Qwer0909 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The THAAD Radar and a variant developed as a forward sensor for ICBM missile defense, the Forward-Based X-Band – Transportable (FBX-T) radar were assigned a common designator,

The THAAD Radar and a variant developed as a forward sensor for ICBM missile defense, the Forward-Based X-Band – Transportable (FBX-T) radar were assigned a common designator,[edit]

<The THAAD Radar and a variant developed as a forward sensor for ICBM missile defense, the Forward-Based X-Band – Transportable (FBX-T) radar was assigned a common designator,>

this sentence is wrong.

was (x)

were (o)

source :

<The THAAD Radar and a variant developed as a forward sensor for ICBM missile defense, the Forward-Based X-Band – Transportable (FBX-T) radar were assigned a common designator,>

this sentence is correct.

Please correct it.

Not Done. The article is written in American English, not UK English. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The AN/TPY-2 radar has two modes[edit]

Modes are common radar terminology; it's not just THAAD that uses the word.

According to the vendor, the AN/TPY-2 radar has two modes, 1) for operating in the THAAD role -- terminal mode, for defense against descending missiles, and 2) for forward-based mode, which is the detection of ascending missiles.[1] In other words, it's one radar. Currently the THAAD radar in Korea can be used in its role to guide anti-ballistic interceptors, in one mode. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Definition of ICBM[edit]

It should be possible to explain the difference between an ICBM and its rival missiles for the encyclopedia, using high school algebra, and the distance data from the latest Reuters citation[1] which was just added to the article. Galileo's law of falling bodies is the key. If we follow Newton and approximate the trajectory of an ICBM with a parabola, we have the relationship between distance and velocity (cited as Mach 8) we need. I keep reading that a THAAD interceptor can achieve Mach 8 velocities. Especially if an ICBM is falling downward, my thought is that a THAAD should be able to intercept it. I haven't worked through the numbers yet. Feel free to beat me to it --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See: Trajectory of a projectile, Range of a projectile


Salvo of four aimed at the waters off Guam, mid-August 2017[edit]

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) has published what amounts to a test plan of the North Korean artillery: In mid-August, the proposal is to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs, aimed at the waters twenty miles east of Guam,[1] in an 18-minute trajectory, passing over Hiroshima on the way.[2]

  • Sovereignty issues aside, this could serve as a practical drill for the THAAD battery currently stationed on Guam,[3] for shooting down a salvo of four missiles.
  • There is going to be a test salvo of at least two target missiles according to the MDA, so the planned timing of that THAAD test would be accelerated forward from 2018 to next week.
  • THAAD has the capabilty to handle salvos.[3]
  • Patriot missiles have a re-load procedure, but is there a procedure for re-loading a THAAD launcher in ten minutes? (I doubt it)
  • What if a missile gets through the barrage? Can a THAAD fire control system handle this kind of data load? (Yes)[3] Would a Patriot be needed? [4] I read that human error was the cause of the SM-3 failure 21 June 2017 (Hawaiian time). (An operator hit the abort button in error.[5]) A lot would be going on for ten minutes.
  • Basic information on Guam[6]
  • Hwasong-12's get test-launched from Sinpo
  • A map of the air route from Sinpo to Guam. This map is named "Strategic Forces Firing Strike Plan"[7] in the North Korean publicity photo,[8] which names the generals in the photo.[9]
  • The parabolic trajectory of Hwasong-12 from North Korea to Guam
  • The risks of this possible test are documented.[10]

On 14 August 2017 the North Korean plan to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs is said to be undergoing active discussion,[11] while the DoD's Secretary of Defense stated that "within moments" of a launch from the North, the trajectory of the missile(s) would be known to the DoD (Department of Defense), and its impact point(s) would be known, and whether or not the missiles were headed toward US territory.[12] At that moment, DoD's options to "take out the missiles" would include Aegis SM-3s, or THAAD interceptors.[8]

On 15 August 2017 the North Korean plan to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs was put on hold.[13]

I think it is premature to put this in the article right now. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) updated 14:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ North Korea Answers Trump's Vague Threats With Specific Ones
  2. ^ The Wall Street Journal (Aug 9, 2017 9:21 p.m. ET) North Korea details plan to fire missiles toward Guam, says ‘only absolute force’ will work with Trump
  3. ^ a b c How to Stop a Nuke: The Army’s 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade does a dress rehearsal of a nuclear attack.
  4. ^ (Currently unable to verify that a Patriot battery is stationed on Guam. Practically speaking, a Patriot missile would be the last line of defense, but not for an impact point outside the territorial waters of Guam. --11:50, 11 August 2017‎
    • The Patriot missiles that Japan is deploying to the flight path that the North is planning over Hiroshima would be useful only if the Hwasong-12s were to be aimed at Japan. If the Hwasong-12s were aimed at Guam, their trajectories would be too high up for the Japanese Patriots to reach. --05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. ^ Alabama-made missile failed after sailor's error, investigation finds (28 July 2017 11:21 AM)
  6. ^ Guam Map: Where It Is Relative to North Korea
  7. ^ (15 August 2017) North Korea maps out detailed plan for missile launches to sea off Guam
  8. ^ a b North Korea's Kim holds off on Guam missile plan; Seoul says will prevent war by all means (05:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  9. ^ (15 August 2017) Kim Jong Un Inspects KPA Strategic Force Command Element
  10. ^ Catastrophic casualties, Any new Korean war could quickly escalate to catastrophe
  11. ^ North Korea's Kim to Trump: It's your move (14 August 2017 11:56 PM ET)
  12. ^ (14 August 2017, 7:00 PM ET) Kim reviews Guam strike plan as Mattis issues stark warning
  13. ^ North Korea Says It Won't Fire Missiles At Guam, After All (7:27 AM ET 15 August 2017)