nickbert-
The articles I read suggested that THAAD hadn’t been tested against ICBM-speed warheads - I’m not sure if that is because it can’t intercept them because of some design constraint, or they don’t think its likely it will work. But I’m willing to go with you - we can assume if it hasn’t been tested, then it doesn’t work.
Hmm. I just had a thought. Perhaps THAAD could actually work against ICBMs, but DoD prefers not to test against them because if it actually worked, that would generate a whole lot of fuss. It thus can pretend its just for use against the slower, smaller missiles. But maybe I’m just paranoid.
Here’s an article on THAAD I found - specifically focused on the SK deployment. It includes radar coverages, SSPK numbers (oh look, a new acronym) and casualty estimates for a NK nuclear attack on Seoul.
http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/THAAD-031016-Michael-Elleman-and-Michael-Zagurek.pdf
I also saw a discussion of the Aegis/SM3 as a much more serious component of BMD, both in the late boost phase and also in defending the continental US. The US has a large number of Aegis ships floating around. Three, properly positioned and alerted, might actually be able to provide full ABM coverage of the continental US against a limited strike, but only if armed with the next generation SM3 missile - which seems to have a whole lot more promise than the rushed-into-deployment GMD.
Here’s a copy of a nifty slide showing the engagement ranges of the various Aegis missile variants; note the arcs of the more-capable Block II-A SM3 missile, which is in the testing phase right now (1 of 1 successful intercepts). The II-A is scheduled for deployment to NATO.
(https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2017/02/07/aegis-sm-3-block-iia-first-intercept-test-successful-but-testing-schedule-appears-to-be-slipping-february-7-2017/)
All this and more, found here:
https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2016/06/30/strategic-capabilities-of-sm-3-block-iia-interceptors-june-30-2016/
So maybe the Chinese do have something to worry about after all. Not today, perhaps, but later on if/when the SM3/IIA missile is deployed on all those Aegis cruisers that are floating all around the world acting as mobile BMD platforms. Say by 2020.
Why does a mainstream journal put this out? Is it genuine? Comments. Most of it all of us would agree with.
The Youtube channel where this video is found uses the name “The Economist” but the logo and other branding does not match that of the magazine you’re probably thinking of.
It’s definitely an interesting video but I highly, highly doubt that it’s from the magazine found at http://www.economist.com .
davefairtex,
Thanks for that link to the mostlymissiledefense.com site… even as someone with a good amount of knowledge in this field, there’s some good bits of information there that were quite new to me. It’s always interesting how much open source information there is out there on these topics… it’s no wonder so many intelligence agencies have large amounts of staffing dedicated to open source collection.
There certainly does seem to be a shift towards the Aegis systems these recent years, especially with the scrapping of GMD in Europe in favor of the Aegis Ashore installations there instead. Can’t say I blame them. If we’re already resigned to Congress throwing gobs of taxpayer money on missile defense, at least I’d rather get something more useful out of it and spend more on the more versatile Aegis platform (steadily expanding those capabilities as necessary), instead of GMD which IMO is somewhat of a boondoggle. Given the disparity in weaponry, in the future I see North Korea, Iran, or any other so-called ‘rogue states’ as much more likely to use any hypothetical nuclear weapons against their neighbors in regional struggles rather than firing nuclear-armed missiles at the U.S. And the idea of having enough interceptors to stop or severely blunt a Chinese or Russian ICBM nuclear attack within our lifetimes is probably a pipe dream, given the huge numbers involved and the relative ease of developing and using decoys. So I suspect more bang for the buck (no pun intended) would be obtained by focusing on defending against IRBM’s and theater-range missiles that are most likely to be used in any future global conflict (yes I admit I remain optimistic that we will manage to avoid large-scale nuclear exchanges in the future, despite the idiotic ‘poking the bear’ actions our sociopathic leadership and media engages in).
I suspect China’s real concerns are mostly about how this affects their ability to project force on a regional level, and not so much about the an imbalance of M.A.D. with America. Especially if these systems are sold to their neighbors, which I think is the driving force behind much of this in the first place. Always seems to come back to money, doesn’t it?..
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/blackhawk-helicopters-carry-ou…
What could possibly go wrong here.
Looks like a good time to stay out of Melbourne.