Talk:Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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

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)

Yes check.svg 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)


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

  1. ^