Talk:Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|A news item involving Terminal High Altitude Area Defense was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 8 March 2017.|
- 1 VfD dicussion
- 2 THAAD and PAC-3
- 3 One major problem......
- 4 Formatting
- 5 Mass without fuel
- 6 Hawaian deployment
- 7 Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
- 8 Counterfeit Microchips
- 9 Compared to Patriot
- 10 ER
- 11 North Korea threat
- 12 Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017
- 13 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,
- 14 The AN/TPY-2 radar has two modes
- 15 Definition of ICBM
- 16 Salvo of four aimed at the waters off Guam, mid-August 2017
Delete. Uninformative substub.— Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 2 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... 188.8.131.52
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.184.108.40.206 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.  Joema 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
end moved discussion
THAAD and PAC-3
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......
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?
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)
Mass without fuel
that information is classified.
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
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\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
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.
Compared to Patriot
- 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)
North Korea threat
Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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,
<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.
<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
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. 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
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 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)
Salvo of four aimed at the waters off Guam, mid-August 2017
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, in an 18-minute trajectory, passing over Hiroshima on the way.
- Sovereignty issues aside, this could serve as a practical drill for the THAAD battery currently stationed on Guam, 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.
- 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) Would a Patriot be needed?  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.) A lot would be going on for ten minutes.
- Basic information on Guam
- 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" in the North Korean publicity photo, which names the generals in the photo.
- The parabolic trajectory of Hwasong-12 from North Korea to Guam
- The risks of this possible test are documented.
On 14 August 2017 the North Korean plan to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs is said to be undergoing active discussion, 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. At that moment, DoD's options to "take out the missiles" would include Aegis SM-3s, or THAAD interceptors.
On 15 August 2017 the North Korean plan to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs was put on hold.