Question for missile experts

In the theater ballistic missile defense mission, what are the drawbacks of simply using a land based version of the SM3 missile that the AEGIS ships use vs. some of the missiles that have been tested with less spectacular results. Is it a matter of cost, or performance specification for the land based interceptors?

More a question of geography, I believe: you don't want to intercept a missile too close to your homeland if you can help it.

Wembly got most of your answer...you want to intercept as close to launch as possible...it keeps any 'mess' closer to the folks that launched it, gives you more time to analyze the results of your first shot and take a second or third, and also makes the target easier to intercept (particularly if you an hit it during boost phase).

There's also another reason...the "theater" you want to defend may not have any handy islands with pre-built ABM sites....so you bring your own. It's an extension of the idea behind the CV (No airfield? No problem...we bring our own).

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Wembly got most of your answer...you want to intercept as close to launch as possible...it keeps any 'mess' closer to the folks that launched it, gives you more time to analyze the results of your first shot and take a second or third, and also makes the target easier to intercept (particularly if you an hit it during boost phase).

There's also another reason...the "theater" you want to defend may not have any handy islands with pre-built ABM sites....so you bring your own. It's an extension of the idea behind the CV (No airfield? No problem...we bring our own).

So the THAAD has a longer range than the SM3? I wasn't sure of the kinematic performance between the 2 systems, though I'm aware it's better to intercept in boost phase rather than reentry.

The SM-3 has shown to be successful so why not modify to mobile launchers like THAAD in addition to having a sea based version of it? This way you can also have a land based, highly mobile, long range boost and reentry upper tier ABM system. Frankly unless there is a technical reason, it should be done.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The SM-3 has shown to be successful so why not modify to mobile launchers like THAAD in addition to having a sea based version of it? This way you can also have a land based, highly mobile, long range boost and reentry upper tier ABM system. Frankly unless there is a technical reason, it should be done.

Even if you don't have mobile launchers- my point was if you're gonna have fixed sites, like the THAAD uses, why not just use a missile that has been shown to work very well. You'd still need the shorter range tactical systems too like PAC 3, etc..

reply to post by BlueRaja


THAAD is mobile, if it was fixed it would not be as effective, and a ground version of the SM-3 would only make sense if it was mobile. The GBI, with it's superior range and speed is fixed as it is too large and complex to transport.

SM3 is an exo atmospheric interceptor - which thanks to the rogue i mean errant test , erm satellite - shows teh world the US ABM works


what there isn`t - is a modern version of the `Sprint` missile - PAC-3 isn`t the same , and to be honest thats what is needed now - an ultra high speed , ultra fast reaction time system.

the US had it then scrapped it.


and read the report about PAC-1/2 in GW1 , they missed most of the time (

Originally posted by Harlequin
what there isn`t - is a modern version of the `Sprint` missile - PAC-3 isn`t the same.

The THAAD and PAC-3 work in tandem to fill the terminal aspect of the ABM concept. While not as "fast" as the Sprint they still offer significant capability, without the nuclear warhead.

Originally posted by Harlequin
and read the report about PAC-1/2 in GW1 , they missed most of the time

(

Not quite true, but still irrelevant, to this thread and to the PAC-3. It has been discussed on here before.

sprint though was shown not to actually need a nuclear warhead - as it showed hit-to-kill 30 years ago in teh terminal phase - and speed is the key with terminal intercepts , as from re-entry to impact

as we know thaad is a theatre defence and pac is a tactical defence - and IMO pac hasn`t got a hope in hell`s chance of terminal intercept - at MAX you have 30 seconds from re-entry interface to impact at ground level , 20 if its nuclear and an air-burst.

I think the real reason for THAAD vs Standard is cos the Army funded their own projects. With hindsight Standard would be a good choice but too lae as far as the tax payer is concerned.