Pentagon evaluating U.S. West Coast missile defense sites - officials

As tensions with NK escalate, the Pentagon is looking at various sites on the West Coast to bolster missile defense. THAAD batteries are one of the system they are looking at finding a site for.

They issue is you would need multiple batteries to cover major cities on the west coast. San Diego LA Area, San Francisco, Portland, and the Seattle Area. You could perhaps station an BMD Ticonderoga class or Burke class can in the ports of these cites as well.

There is the other issue of the latest NK ICBM. THAAD is not really able to intercept an ICBM and seems to be for my money a last ditch, better than throwing rocks, option

You do have the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Interceptors at Ft. Greely, Alaska and at Vandenberg AFB in California, but I'm not sure how many are at Vandenberg

www.reuters.com... N1DX04W

a reply to: FredT

Interesting times that we would actually have to consider missile defense again.

Hopefully we can actually defend if one does come our way.

a reply to: FredT
Well if THAAD won't cover it, then we need the Israeli's help deploying Arrow-3. After all, we helped pay for and develop it through Boeing and IAI.

Oh man, almost had a heart attack, thought the title said, "Evacuating", like damn...

a reply to: Arnie123

Didn't we have the Nike Ajax and Hercules missile systems in the 60's and 70's?
How were they able to target incoming ballistic missiles?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: FredT
Well if THAAD won't cover it, then we need the Israeli's help deploying Arrow-3. After all, we helped pay for and develop it through Boeing and IAI.

The Arrow system while impressive, is f a similar capability as a THAAD system however, it does not use a hit to kill warhead, but rather an exploding type. It also would not be effective against a true ICBM. better than nothing mind you but still not ideal

a reply to: Arnie123

I read it the same way. Was all like "holy hell, here we go" lol

In fact, the line that just came to mind while writing this. ... "You finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Arnie123

Didn't we have the Nike Ajax and Hercules missile systems in the 60's and 70's?
How were they able to target incoming ballistic missiles?

The intimate expression of this was the Sentinel / Safequard program which used the LIM-49 Spartan for long range intercepts and the Sprint missile for close in. Both were armed with nuclear warheads so they just needed to get near to the incoming to destroy it rather than the hit to kill etc.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Thank you Mr trump. Dignitary extraordinaire.

TDS much?

This problem was around long before Trump and the can was kicked down the road. Where were you the last 8 years? Or even the last 64 years considering this has been going on pretty much all your life.....

On another notes hitting a Ballistic warhead is like shooting a .338 Lupua bullet out of the sky with a bb....from the side. This is getting to a breaking point for sure. Something will have to be done or deal with a Fat lil Kim armed with a war head.

originally posted by: FredT

The intimate expression of this was the Sentinel / Safequard program which used the LIM-49 Spartan for long range intercepts and the Sprint missile for close in. Both were armed with nuclear warheads so they just needed to get near to the incoming to destroy it rather than the hit to kill etc.

Dafuq? Ever hear the phrase "Pyrrhic victory"?

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Arnie123

Didn't we have the Nike Ajax and Hercules missile systems in the 60's and 70's?
How were they able to target incoming ballistic missiles?

The intimate expression of this was the Sentinel / Safequard program which used the LIM-49 Spartan for long range intercepts and the Sprint missile for close in. Both were armed with nuclear warheads so they just needed to get near to the incoming to destroy it rather than the hit to kill etc.

Thanks. I did know they had nuclear warheads as an option... I guess nuclear fallout raining down would be better than a direct nuclear explosion and firestorm.

When I lived in NJ, there were still the remnants of some of the radar / fire control sites and missile battery sites scattered around the state. In Ocean County, there was actually a fire at one of the Bomarc facilities on Route 539 in Plumstead near McGuire AFB and I believe a warhead caught fire and partially melted. The water from the fire fighters seeped into the groundwater and there's been a radioactive plume working it's way through the underground acquifier there ever since.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Thank you Mr trump. Dignitary extraordinaire.

Oh my GOD, what are you like 5?

Have you not been paying attention....WELL before trump was elected?

I am not a supporter of trumpy, BUT you cannot pin this crap on him. NK should have been handled back in the Clinton or Bush days.

You need to pull your nose out of the bum of the DNC (and RNC for you republicans) and realize you MUST stop following blindly as you do.

Dorian Soran 7.0.2v

a reply to: FredT
Arrow 3 is specifically designed to deal with exo-atmospheric threats, including as an anti-sat system, or at least that's what the developers say. The THAAD is not marketed as being developed for such purpose.

I think as far as taking on an ICBM, it is likely much more capable than the THAAD in that regard. Lets deploy Arrow 3 on the West Coast, it may prove to be better suited to handle the threat of NorthKO, Chinese, and/or Russian ICBM's .

Israel Aerospace Industries announced in June 2009, that the Arrow 3 patented[18] exoatmospheric interception method includes a two-stage interceptor, like the Arrow 2, but purely based on hit-to-kill technology.[19] Unlike most kill vehicles, which use liquid or gas propulsion, the new Israeli kill vehicle will be propelled by an ordinary rocket motor equipped with a thrust-vectoring nozzle.[7] It will also be fitted with a gimbaled seeker for hemispheric coverage. By measuring the seeker's line-of-sight propagation relative to the vehicle's motion, the kill vehicle will use proportional navigation to divert its course and line up exactly with the target's flight path.[7] Joseph Hasson, chief missile designer at IAI, who patented the new kill vehicle with his colleague Galya Goldner, says that the concept is relatively simple, reliable and inexpensive, and is based on mature technologies. Furthermore, the kill vehicle's divert capability and agility reduce the need for detection and tracking systems, which usually accompany remote sensor-assisted exoatmospheric kills.[7]

Arrow 3 should be able to intercept ballistic missiles, especially those carrying weapons of mass destruction,[21] at altitudes of over 100 km (62 mi),[22] and in greater ranges.[8] It could also be ship-based.[23] Arrow 3 is faster[8] than the Arrow 2 and slightly smaller,[7] weighing nearly half.[24]
An Arrow 3 battery is expected to intercept salvos of more than five ballistic missiles within 30 seconds. Arrow 3 can be launched into an area of space before it is known where the target missile is going. When the target and its course are identified, the Arrow interceptor is redirected using its thrust-vectoring nozzle to close the gap and conduct a "body-to-body" interception.[25]

It seems to me that the Israeli system provides the most sound solution to the ICBM problem today. Since we got like a 50% stake in that, I say we bring 'e, on over to protect the West Coast.

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Arnie123

Didn't we have the Nike Ajax and Hercules missile systems in the 60's and 70's?
How were they able to target incoming ballistic missiles?

The problem with those systems were they used nuclear warheads to take out incoming missiles.

After the systems were operational they were found to cause EMP and would have taken out there own radars and put out of action the system.

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: Arnie123

Didn't we have the Nike Ajax and Hercules missile systems in the 60's and 70's?
How were they able to target incoming ballistic missiles?

The problem with those systems were they used nuclear warheads to take out incoming missiles.

After the systems were operational they were found to cause EMP and would have taken out there own radars and put out of action the system.

Not to mention that you're setting off nuclear explosions to defend against nuclear explosions...

I would not worry, this is just a test and nothing will come of it. The thing is having a rocket to make the trip that is one thing, they would need a viable weapon that has both the range and means to get there, that is another. From what has been seen they have the rudimentary technology to do the job, but still are in the testing phase, of firing. However, what is not being shown is the targeting and guidance systems that would be required to make it a viable threat or that it can deliver a real payload and be a hot weapon.

So one would say that it is still in the testing phase and the engineering skills are not quite there yet. And then there is the matter of the amount of resources it can gather to do this. So that too is also at issue, and from what I can see, it does not have a strong fabrication base to make large numbers of weapons, having to purchase them from outside of their country.

I bet it flunks the test. Anyone want to wager? I'll bet a hundred stars.

Oh darn, just remembered, the government covers up problems like this, I withdraw my desire to bet.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

From what has been seen they have the rudimentary technology to do the job, but still are in the testing phase, of firing.

I have the rudimentary technology to make a molotov cocktail. Doesn't mean you want me practicing my aim at your front door. lol

a reply to: Eshel

While yes you are correct on that aspect, however, if you are going to start a war, would you want to make sure you can win it?

Lets take the example that you provided. You decide to launch a molotov cocktail at my door, knowing that it will mean that will respond. But you only have limited supplies and maybe enough to do that 4 times, while I have a much greater asset base and can return the favor 100 times over. Think it is a good idea to do such, or would you wait until you can do something and know you are going to win?