Talk:Missile defense systems by country

Excellent work.

I have been patrolling related articles, adding minor edits. Gathering some citations for various national defence systems. Cool work! Irondome (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. I'm honored. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

China's Evolution on Ballistic Missile Defense

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/08/23/china-s-evolution-on-ballistic-missile-defense/dkpj

RS for claims? Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's RS for what? I mean what claim do you intend to back with it? Except for the first few lines, I don't think this ref contains any significant info that is not currently touched by the article or ought to be included in the article. But I may be mistaken, feel free to clarify your position. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The thesis is that PRC's stance on the issue has evolved over time to embrace the concept. Hcobb (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are best suited for this, so please go ahead and include a gist of the ref in the PRC section of the article. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:03, 24 August 2012 (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.naval-technology.com/projects/naval-barak-8-surface-air-missiles/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b 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 ^Notify_Online 12:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

re: Criticism section

This section doesn't seem accurate in terms of attributing the criticisms to "France", or of being technically accurate.

1. "Some consider missile defense to be destabilizing." Who? A key distinction must already be made: tactical, theatre, or strategic missile defense? Do you mean strategically destabilizing?

2. "French policy makers consider the 1972 ABM Treaty and the doctrine of MAD to be the cornerstones of strategic stability".

Which policy makers? Who specifically? Because France is heavily involved in the design and construction of the Aster missile family, including a missile designed specifically for ballistic missile intercept.

3. "Some French analysts..." Which ones?

4. "...jeopardizing both the doctrine and the Treaty". Already done. The US pulled out of it in 2001, so it is already defunct, de facto and de jure.

5. "risking a new arms race ..." Already in progress. Consider the development history of the Iskander missile.

6. "Additionally, experts question the accuracy and reliability of these systems." Which experts? There are many on both sides.

7. "Moreover, French security experts doubted the technological feasibility of ballistic missile defense." Which experts? And so why did France produce the Aster missile system, including designs for an ABM version?

8. "Some think..." Who? Weasel words.

9. "Ordinary missile defenses are vulnerable to supersonic missile vehicle which travel at speeds high enough to outmaneuver missile defenses."

Qualify "ordinary" missile defenses. Cite specific systems. Missile defense systems since the Cold Ware era were specifically designed to counter supersonic threats, and there are even more today. Outmaneuving missile defenses is not just a matter of speed, but ability to maneuver at that speed, which is technically different, and not a capability present in all supersonic missiles.

10. "China is among the countries pursuing supersonic vehicles as missile delivery systems." Supersonics have been around for decades. If you mean the WU-14, then you mean HYPERsonic. And I think you just mean missile. A missile delivery system would refer to the missile launch platform or infrastructure.

11. "Critics of missile defense" Who?? "also state that just as with nuclear weapons, the US infatuation with missile defense will cause other nations to desire this expensive technology." Sorry, "infatuation" is not the demand driver for this type of technology, it is proliferation of offensive missile threats and the industrial production base. Argantael (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Notes for fixing up the article:

1. The citation names Zhu Chenghu (China) for voicing the view, and Joseph Circincione (U.S.) for the observation that MDA could be construed to be strategically destabilizing.

2. A Request for Proposal for the Eurosam consortium would naturally cover this point, and could serve as citation. See also France's Presidents Chirac, and later, Sarkozy, 2008 Defense and Security White Book, Cited in Gruselle (Nov 2010).

3. Those analysts, for example those participating in the defense forums. Gruselle 2010 states "most French security experts doubted the technological feasibility of ballistic missile defense. "

4. Done, only edits are required to update the section

5. Done, only edits are required to update the section

6. See Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

7. I found Bruno Gruselle's retrospective view, (Nov 2010) "Missile Defense in NATO: a French Perspective"

8. There are some obvious sources, such as North Atlantic council (atlantic council.org), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists thebulletin.org, the Pugwash council, Anti-nuclear organizations, the European and regional counterparts to the US-driven viewpoint.

9. I think that 'maneuver' is not the correct verb. After all you can have aircraft which jink and dive all day, as long as they are manned. But missile guidance is another story. (Command, control, communication, computation, etc.)

10. The hypersonic edits are questionable as they seem ignorant of the physics and engineering history.

11. we have to examine each argument in turn. If the physics and engineering are wrong, the pov is irrelevant. The next factor is the time scale and funding for system development, each factor/system in turn. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

---

re: 9. I think maneuver is the correct verb. Something more general like "evade" might fit better, but it really is about the raw kinematic ability of the attacking missile to physically evade an interceptor.

re: 10. The speed range for supersonics is about M1 to M5.5; hypersonics are M5.5 and higher. China's WU-14 can glide at up to M10, the design goal being specifically to achieve a speed greater than M5. Can you expand on "ignorance of physics and engineering history"?

re: 11. I don't understand the response. The original statement attributes economic demand for missile defense to something described figuratively as "infatuation". I don't understand what that really means.

re: This whole section. What I find inaccurate about this section is that as a reader, I came away with the (attempted) impression that all of France is generally against proliferation of missile defense technology, which is completely incoherent with the French participation in this arms race documented earlier in the article with the presentation of the Aster missile system. SOME French analysts may be against it, but obviously SOME other French analysts (and government branches) disagree to the point of actually building and selling such systems.

That is why I would like to see viewpoints explicitly attributed to specific analysts (of French or any other nationality), instead of trying to give the impression that France is the only country which considers missile defense destabilizing. There are plenty of US experts who are against missile defense too, and they are clearly not the same people involved in approving the development of PATRIOT, THAAD, AEGIS, GMD, etc. Each nation is clearly not a monolithic block of ideology or physical action, so I don't see why France is presented this way. Argantael (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I agree with your general statement. It appears that together we can modify the section in a constructive manner. The US is open about authorship, so we can cite authors during the rework.

I personally do not see how the WU-14 (is that a US-assigned name?) can maneuver in the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds without breaking up. If it sits as payload on a multi-stage rocket, I can see a WU-14 changing course above the atmosphere. I can even see a WU-14 gliding in the atmosphere. But not jinking like a fighter plane, at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere. Does a WU-14 present a bluff body at re-entry? How could it protect its structure from breakup? Does it even need to? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific words like infatuation are easy to fix.

I found a citation for 'the French viewpoint' ( p.5 ). It is a cold war metaphor for 'high intensity political management of an escalating and perhaps unsustainable conflict'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

OK, cool! WU-14 is indeed the US assigned name. Endoatmospheric maneuver for reentry vehicles at M8 was achieved with the Pershing II (US ICBM) in the late 70's - early 80's. Even very small angle trajectory changes at hypersonic speeds will drastically change ABM intercept solutions, so the reentry vehicle doesn't need to jink like a dogfighter, it just needs to be able to divert its trajectory a bit. This paper '[1]' suggests that a turn of up to 90 degrees or more may be possible. The purpose of hypersonic glide vehicles is precisely the ability to follow a non-ballistic, less predictable trajectory with reduced apogee, spending less time in space at a lower altitude, and more time in the atmophere. For this class of trajectories, atmospheric reentry is performed with a nose down attitude, like a normal reentry vehicle, but then it uses control surfaces to perform a pull-up maneuver and flatten out the trajectory into a glide, effectively using the atmospheric glide to convert more of the potential energy from the ballistic launch apogee into increased downrange and cross-range travel at hypersonic speed (around M10), instead of into high velocity (around M20) at impact. A sketch of this type of trajectory can be seen on this page '[2]'

Hypersonic glide vehicles typically two types of body shapes: a cone with wing flaps (like a regular RV, but with fins on the back), or a high speed lifting body with a sharp nose (like the images in the second link). Reentry attitude is nose first; I don't know what the pull up AOA is, but it may be very large as the trajectory sketch indicates a tight reversal of direction (from ballistic nose down to atmospheric nose up) "bounce" before converging to the flat glide (for the Pershing II MARV, this was a 25G pull up maneuver). Publicly availably images for the US hypersonic glide vehicle show a sharp nosed, flat bellied lifting body with little fins at the back. Argantael (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

@Argantael, we might now embark on the list 1-11 changes: I propose using the Christopher Yeaw (1 Apr 2015) testimony to the USCC, Bruno Gruselle (Nov 2010) , and Lora Saalman's (23 Aug 2012) Carnegie Endowment essay as basic citations. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the Criticism section has been revised, but I still find it technically inaccurate and biased. The criticism seems to be mainly against defense from strategic nuclear missiles and does not address the growing strategic impact of what are technically tactical non-nuclear missiles, as well as what are technically tactical missile interceptors - this distinction and the current blurring of the distinction is not clearly made. What I find biased is that this section tries to give the impression that France is currently against ballistic missile defense (not true) and against missile defense technology in general (not true) based on incomplete citation of source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argantael (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Argantael, have your latest edits added enough balance? I tried more recent searches for Bruno Gruselle, and the same 2010 citation shows up. (Atlantic Council seems more preoccupied with the incursions from Southwest Asia now; for example Terrorism, Security and the Power of Informal Networks) Might we find other sources? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis Hey I guess it's good for now, thanks for help. Argantael (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not break existing sections with partial work

Please check your edits before saving partial work. It's breaking the citations. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Missile defense systems by country. 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/20080202110808/http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20061211/defence.shtml%26SET%3DT to http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20061211/defence.shtml%26SET%3DT
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091014103446/http%3A//missilethreat%2Ecom/missiledefensesystems/id%2E10/system_detail%2Easp to http://missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.10/system_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150731092044/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf to https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219195340/http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/27568/india-unveils-missile-interceptors.html to http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/27568/india-unveils-missile-interceptors.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720083017/http://missilethreat.com/systems/ to http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229203013/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missile defense systems by country. 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/20150402101357/http://fortblissbugle.com/monitor/2014/10october/101614/pdf/101614part2a.pdf to http://fortblissbugle.com/monitor/2014/10october/101614/pdf/101614part2a.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Israeli anti missile systems

Why isnt there anything on all the other isreli systems e.g.iron dome, davids sling, iron beam etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.235.199 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read the article; 2 of 3 are in it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's now 3 of 3. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks! theres also the barak 8, i would put it in my self but i dont realy know how to edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.170.231 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That one is in the article already. The phased array radar capability mentioned in the citations is capable of supporting anti-missile defense, but there needs to be more material about theater defense in order for the capability to be meaningful. Currently the US offers this capability. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)