If North Korea uses H-bomb, 'ultimately' Trump's decision on any military action: Tillerson

ABC News ^ | September 22, 2017 | Morgan Winsor

[usconservative]

[trisham]

Agreed.

[G Larry]

“return’???

We’ve been watching those launches from space for 45 years!

DSP and now SBIRS.

PAC is “designed” to hit what it is aimed at.
There are many targeting assist systems.

As for your assertion that the rocket is too fast and too high when it clears the mountains, I declare nonsense!

Those liquid fueled missiles are quit slow out of the gate, while our interceptors are quite fast.

[caww]

.....”I don’t think the US will take any military action against NK until NK engages in military action first. So far it is all talk and missile tests. We will see what happens.”.....

I agree ...though our Military and Japans are certainly ‘speaking’ to Kim with their fly overs north of the DMZ.

[PIF]

Please read the article. PAC is designed to hit on descent. Not assent. And PAC must be stationed inside the target area to hit.

[G Larry]

Please think about how targeting works, rather than limiting to the advertised use.

It’s like arguing that your revolver can only be used for defense and could never be applied offensively.

Sat’s acquire the target and hand that continuously updated information to the missile system, the system plots an intercept course and the missile flies that course.

The limits are launch point, closure rates, and fuel on-board.

[PIF]

Again, the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system cannot hit a missile target unless the target (the NOKO missile) is on descent and is the PAC is located in the area being targeted by the NOKO missile.

Wishful thinking will not change those limitations. Other systems can hit on ascent, but not that one. It is for aircraft, cruise, and tactical ballistic missiles NOT IRBMs OR ICBMs (which we are discussing). See here:
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)

I know how targeting works ... you must understand the difference in designed features for each system deployed, each has a specific use as well as limitations. The sat can tell the missile anything it chooses, but that will not enable it to accede the designed-in limitations.

Specific systems have specific radar acquisition configuration which differ from area radars. The area radar may see the missile. but the targeting and acquisition radars cannot lock on until certain conditions are met. Missile on descent is one of those conditions.

[G Larry]

Watch and learn.

We WILL knock one down on ascent/coast.

[PIF]

Lots of fear there I see. If it is knocked down and launched from the mountous region in the west on assent, it will not be by a PAC-3 battery from their station in western Japan.

[G Larry]

I never mentioned or suggested a Japan launch point.

[PIF]

PAC is currently deployed in Japan.

[G Larry]

>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451891/united-states-navy-north-korea-intercontintal-ballistic-missiles-defense-aegis<

Yes, the U.S. Navy Can Shoot Down North Korean ICBMs

Not PAC-3, but the point remains.

[PIF]

Thanks for the link. However, the discussion was about the PAC, not other systems like the Aegis - which may be able to take out a NOKO missile, even though there are two fewer ships limiting area coverage and redundancy.

[G Larry]

From my post #22:

Kim’s IRBMs and would be ICBMs are pretty slow through 100,000 ft.

We have a variety of weapons capable of catching and killing during ascent, given strategically positioned ships or aircraft.

Those weapons aren’t designated as anti-ICBM because we typically can’t get into position for an ascent assault.

Not so with the NORKs.