Talk:Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

VfD dicussion
from VfD:

There is nothing in this article to indicate what it is. RickK 20:29, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC) waste of money?
 * Delete. Uninformative substub.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now the article actually says what it is. Needs NPOVification though.   &mdash; 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... 132.205.15.4
 * 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?) 132.205.15.4 03:01, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 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.192.91.147.34 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|&#9998; 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)


 * mim 401? https://www.dau.edu/cop/ammo/resources/terminal-high-altitude-area-defense-missile-thaad YEEETER0 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2024 (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?

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&#39;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)

Formatting
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
Can anyone cite THAAD missile mass without fuel (or its terminal mass)? Such information should be open, and it would greatly improve the article. ellol (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That information is classified.

That information may be deduced from road and bridge upgrades in Europe to bigger loads. European NATO countries are obliged to adapt their road system and bridges to the loads of new heavy weaponry. Slovakia took 18 years but now they are ready to host bases with heavy stuff. Nearly forgot why I came here, the last sentence is not dated.
 * ''In response, a retired Chinese general Wang Hongguang warned that if Taiwan were to start deploying THAAD systems then the People's Liberation Army would start the process to conquer Taiwan.[160]

'' Can't read the Chinese characters, but when this was said seems relevant to me. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:ED21:4F13:66A6:6702 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hawaian deployment
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
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:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/thaad/
 * Triggered by  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)

✅ 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
According to IEEE Spectrum these devices suffered from Counterfeit Microchips. Should we begin a section to address this? Aedazan (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Compared to Patriot
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)


 * 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  &#124; contribs) 12:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

North Korea threat
This section seems rather long; perhaps it should be stripped back to stuff that's directly relevant. Do we need all the history? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 8 March 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,


this sentence is wrong.

was (x)

were (o)

source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense



this sentence is correct.

Please correct it. Qwer0909 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not Done. The article is written in American English, not UK English. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; 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  &#124; contribs) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Palau radar
After the North Korean tensions, on 18 July 2017, the US broached a proposal to Palau, that the defense of Palau be enhanced. On 21 August 2017, Palau announced an agreement with the US for the deployment of radar towers to be located on the archipelago.

Wideband digital beamforming radar -- AN/SPY-6(V)
On 15 March 2017 the DoD's Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems announced a test result of AN/SPY-6(V)'s Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Data from multiple elements of a wideband beamforming array was used to successfully track and destroy a short-range ballistic missile.

Radar Modular Assemblies (RMAs)
An AMDR can be constructed with 2-foot wide modules, each a functioning radar, which can form an electronically positionable antenna, a phased array.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 06:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Aegis ashore deployment
An Aegis ashore radar, AN/SPY-1, is shown in a photo of an AAMDS deployment to Deveselu air base, Romania. AAMDS appears to have a smaller phased array than the one shown in a photo of the AMDR (AN/SPY-6(V)). A smaller array signifies lesser resolving power. An AMDR is configurable. Japan's interest in an Aegis ashore radar has been heightened by a North Korean IRBM Hwasong-12 overflight of Hokkaido on 29 August 2017. An AMDR was used during a successful intercept April 2017.

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  &#124; contribs) 07:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See: Trajectory of a projectile, Range of a projectile

Proposal to put this in article under 'Defense of the US'
I believe there is enough information to place in the article under 'Defense of Guam, USA'. There are citations for the defense of the US, and the attendant kill chain for anyone attempting an attack. THAAD is a piece of the chain, and 'overmatch' is a strategy that needs further explication in order to be understood by the reader or any nascent attacker, for that matter. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 22:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * this proposal is meant to set context for THAAD. Since it's a complicated subject, it is actually easier to explain in this article than it would be in the general case. Thus SBIRS is topical and timely here.  The pieces that are currently deleted from the article can be fit into context in the proposed section.--Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 18:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep Wingwraith (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Overmatch is one strategy for presenting multiple dilemmas to the enemy. —David G. Perkins
 * Overmatch signals that whatever the opponent may attempt, the alternatives will only make things worse for the opponent.
 * Early warning system
 * On 26 September 1983, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov helped avert nuclear war between the US and USSR based on a mismatch between computer assessments of "missile strike" and the non-corroboration by the ground-based radars (Duga, or perhaps Dnestr radar) of their Early Warning System, which reported 5 missiles rising. "When people start a war, they don't start it with only 5 missiles —Stanislav Petrov"
 * The false alarm was apparently triggered by sunglint off clouds in the sky.

Defense of Guam, United States
 * Target detection, signature, and identification
 * Satellite networks: SBIRS surveillance satellites, MILSTAR
 * Target tracking and trajectory
 * NORAD, Phased Array Warning System
 * Dispatch to combatant commander
 * delegation of authority
 * Handoff to THAAD
 * The BBC has analyzed 3 current options for North Korea, one of them a salvo of IRBMs in the direction of Guam, as of 22 September 2017.
 * THAAD intercepts the target(s)
 * as below
 * Debris tracking
 * Satellite networks verify destruction of physics package

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. 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.
 * 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) Re-loading a launcher takes 30 minutes. 12:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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
 * UDMH is under scrutiny as a strategic material. UDMH is a rocket fuel used by North Korea in its missiles. --08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The risks of this possible test are documented.

On 15 August 2017 the North Korean plan to launch 4 Hwasong-12 IRBMs was put on hold. On 21 August 2017, the eve of the semiannual exercise of the allies of the UN, US, and South Korea (ROK), after a series of meetings on the Korean Peninsula, the existence of a series of plans (the so-called Kill chain) in the event of the end of the Korean Armistice (1953) was put on the table for discussion. As of 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC), the agreement between the presidents of the US and ROK not to end the Armistice remained in force; the signs of a war footing are not yet visible to the populace of the respective nations.

On 3 September 2017 a summary (note especially the video clip's 3 Sep 2017 comments from Face the Nation) of the factors listed above, and in the THAAD article as well, lists the North's arguments for extorting money and power by building WMDs in a deliverable package for sale to other states. Gordon Chang implicates $3 billion in annual funding from Iran to the North for WMDs in a missile-deliverable package. Iran has observed all previous nuclear tests. --03:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In the opinion of Harry Kazianis, the North is only just now beginning to solve the problems of debugging the deliverable WMD. --23:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Kazianis expects another ICBM test by North Korea in the next several months, aimed in the direction of the US, but falling into the mid-Pacific. --10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Defense of the United States 00:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Angela Merkel points out that there is already a proven template for solving the crisis. This process trades nuclear testing in exchange for talks and negotiating. She will schedule her time for this if she is asked to participate. 12:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is premature to put this in the article right now. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 11:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) updated  14:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC), 15:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC), 23:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Defense of S. Korea
 * Protection of Seoul —Overmatch of an artillery barrage:


 * Firefinding radars determine the coordinates of an artillery piece within moments of fire AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR 2016) or AN/TPQ-53 2013
 * UAVs verify artillery sites visually during their 42-hour missions.
 * Minefields deter overland infantry invasion
 * The North has 750000 troops on the DMZ, out of 1.1 million in the military

U.S. approves possible $15 billion sale of THAAD missiles to Saudi Arabia.
U.S. approves possible $15 billion sale of THAAD missiles to Saudi Arabia http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-terminal-high-altitude-area-defense-and-related-support-equipment-and--Qrmoo3 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest contribution citing "In Russia 13:31, January 15, 2018 ..."
The latest contribution, as translated by Google translate, beginning "In Russia 13:31, January 15, 2018 ..." shows that the Russian Foreign Ministry's reaction lacks technical advice. The section describing the Standard Missile-3 modification IIA betrays the Foreign Ministry's misunderstanding of the antimissile defense system, in that, were Japan to purchase Aegis SM-3 Block IIA, the Japanese defenders would indeed be able to launch their own antimissile interceptors. The ballistic missile detection process is described very well in today's news about the Hawaiian false alarm scare. A missile enroute to a target in Japan would be intercepted by Japanese SM-3 interceptors with no US intervention (see J-Alert).

Note: this last citation is a US capability. Multiple detections of a targetted ICBM to be shot down, make its interception by antimissile interceptors more likely. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC), 01:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903045954/http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/05news0011.pdf to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/05news0011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618060304/http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0017.pdf to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0017.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720092249/http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0019.pdf to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/06news0019.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409101803/http://news.monstersandcritics.com/intelandterror/article_1288160.php/BMD_Focus_MDA%60s_new_THAAD_success to http://news.monstersandcritics.com/intelandterror/article_1288160.php/BMD_Focus_MDA%60s_new_THAAD_success
 * Added tag to http://frontierindia.net/thaad-weapon-system-conducts-successful-exo-atmospheric-interceptor-test/
 * Added tag to http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/06/ap_thaad_062608/
 * Added tag to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/08news0078.pdf/Missile
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811015330/http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0008.html to http://www.mda.mil/news/10news0008.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030070848/http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FTI_01_factsheet.pdf to http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FTI_01_factsheet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216022117/http://www.mda.mil/news/12news0011.html to http://www.mda.mil/news/12news0011.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327211648/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_11_05_2012_p37-512323.xml to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_11_05_2012_p37-512323.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326071939/http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/thaad1.html to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/thaad1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Subsonic cruise missile
If no citation is provided for the contribution asserting that a subsonic cruise missile is somehow equivalent in ABM defense capability to a Mach 8 interceptor within seven days of the date of that contribution, I intend to remove it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section
Hi all, please assist to expand the controversy section. Currently listed controversy is merely health concerns (chronic headaches, nausea), concerns around financial costs, and the selection of locations of deployment. Needs work.126.161.176.79 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, controversy sections are not recommended per WP:NPOV. The contents need to be merged into the relevant sections of the article. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When merging the points into the relevant parts of the article, the citations to a URL can be formatted with author, title, date. For example, the ref might contain (Bruce Gagnon, Will Griffin, and Ken Jones Veterans for Peace (2017) Statement Opposing U.S. THAAD ‘Missile Defense’ System Deployment in South Korea) --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

D-2 (THAAD) battery nomenclature
Here is the most recent citation for "D-2 (THAAD) Battery", now permanently stationed in Korea: https://www.army.mil/article/215518/ "D-2 conducts first THAAD missile redistribution exercise on Korean Peninsula" By 1LT Taylor John-Morton (December 27, 2018)

-- 03:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

and here is the precedent for "B-62 THAAD activated" so it's battery B (THAAD) in 62nd Regiment --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 08:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

THAAD in the News
This might be useful for editors...
 * A rare look inside the heavily guarded compound where Lockheed Martin builds the THAAD missile - CNBC - • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Talon missile name?
At a CSIS talk, Lt. Gen. Heath Collins, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, named the missile 'Talon': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDe55DKViwc&t=3167s (timestamp 52:47) Phongn (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reliable sources supporting that; this seems like a misinterpretation; as Task Force Talon is the name of the forward-deployed THAAD battalion. In any event, a single off-hand reference made in a live setting isn't sufficient here. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

MIM-401 designation
I've removed the inclusion of the MIM-401 designation as it's not confirmed. See. e.g. here, which claims: "Designation Note: No confirmed formal alphanumeric designation for the THAAD missile is known. While there are a few isolated references in Army logistics and training files to a "Guided Missile, Intercept-Aerial, THAAD MIM-401" and "Guided missile sub-system, intercept-aerial MIM-401B" (and -401C), it is far from certain, that the MDS designator MIM-401 has really been officially allocated to THAAD. The number 401 would be way out of sequence, and DOD MDS records up until mid-2018 don't include any MIM-401 designation. Also, the number is suspiciously close to XM400, the official Army nomenclature for the Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile. It cannot be ruled out, that the THAAD missile was to be designated (X)M401, and that this was somehow semi-officially converted to MIM-401, to look like a regular guided missile MDS." Given this lack of clarity, it's premature for us to cite MIM-401 as the designation in wikivoice. I'd potentially not be opposed to including it with some sort of qualifier statement, but at that point we should probably not be including it all -- there's simply not enough reliable sources stating with certainty that MIM-401 is the designation and none that I can see that formally announce it. — ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)