Wikipedia

Talk:Ballistic Missile Early Warning System

Latest comment: 7 months ago by BarrelProof in topic Article title
Learn more about this page

BMEWS vs PAVE PAWS

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This list three sites as part of BMEWS. According to this page, however, there are two others. Are these not part of BMEWS too?

  • Cape Cod Air Force Base [1]
  • Beale Air Force Base [2]

TreveXtalk 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Those are PAVE PAWS sites. Global security BMEWS and Global security SSPARS might help explain things. I think that the list of only 3 sites refers to the original BMEWS sites that consisted of the older AN/FPS-50 detection radar and AN/FPS–92 tracking radar. The 3 original sites have all been converted to Phased Array systems. If I have read things correctly, after the phased array systems were installed, the sites were no longer technically BMEWS sites and today there are no active BMEWS sites with original BMEWS radar equipment. [3] --Dual Freq 15:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

LanceBarber 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the Clear AFB website [4], accessed today, "Clear is Site II of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS). Site I is at Thule AB, Greenland, and Site III is at RAF Fylingdales-Moor in United Kingdom. Along with the PAVE PAWS radar sites at Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Beale AFB, California and the PARCS radar at Cavalier AFS, North Dakota, the BMEWS sites provide continual ground-based missile warning to defend the United States and Canada against intrusion by ICBMs and SLBMs."--agr 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that BMEWS is a function, more than anything else. That function is to detect Ballistic Missiles coming over the pole. The function was originally performed by AN/FPS-50 detection radar and AN/FPS–92 tracking radar at 3 locations, Thule, Clear and Fylingdales. Since then the sites have dumped the older radars and all have phased array radars, Thule a two-faced AN/FPS-120, Clear a two-faced AN/FPS-123, and Fylingdales a three-faced AN/FPS-126. The PAVE PAWS were originally two-faced AN/FPS-115 but are now AN/FPS-123. They were installed to cover the other directions as a backup for satellite detection and defense against FOBS and SLBMs. So, I gather that even though BMEWS uses PAVE PAWS-like radars (In fact Clear is a former PAVE PAWS radar) they will probably always be called BMEWS because thats what they were when they were built. --Dual Freq 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, the original BMEWS sites are still in use and their primary mission hasn't changed, but the military is fond of renaming things. Presumably all the sites mentioned above are working as a unified system these days. PAVE PAWS was originally built as a supplement to BMEWS to address the SLBM threat, and the other two BMEWS sites are using different radars, so PAVE PAWS would not appear to be an appropriate name for the combined system, either.--agr 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm probably confusing the issue with radars and functions, etc. I agree that they are all part of the US space warning system. BMEWS, PAVE PAWS, Cobra Dane and PARCS all provide space warning and tracking. The image of coverage is interesting as well, except that only RAF Fylingdales has 360° coverage. The rest of the PAVE PAWS types only have two faces which cover, I would guess, less than 240°. PARCS and Cobra Dane (not depicted) have only one array and probably cover only 120°. That is why this page has broken lines behind the 2 faced sites. --Dual Freq 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Map

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

The Thule website[5] seems to be saying they are still calling themselves part of BMEWS. Clear in Alaska was apparently BMEWS and then switched to PAVE PAWS. I uploaded that map today but I made the mistake of assuming they were all 360 degrees like Fylingdales. I'll try to correct that tomorrow! TreveXtalk 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

BMEWS and PAVE PAWS now all use very similar radars and have similar functions. However, I believe the original BMEWS sites will always be called BMEWS no matter what radar they are using. It confused me at first because the radar is identified as a PAVE PAWS radar in this article. It was a PAVE PAWS radar, (AN/FPS-123), that is now part of BMEWS. I would call Clear a BMEWS site despite the radar type it is using. Maybe somebody who works for the USAF Space command could clarify this. --Dual Freq 23:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay I've updated that map (see article). Has anyone any idea which direction the respective radars are pointing in? Assistance appreciated! TreveXtalk 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I found the lat/long of the radars using USA Photomaps, which uses Terraserver USGS aerial photos. I posted the positions on the PAVE PAWS page. The photos were taken before the completion of the Clear site, so it might be hard to calculate. However, the Cape Cod and Beale should be easy to get a direction on. Thule has no detailed images, so I can't help with that one. After looking at Beale, it looks like one array points directly south or close, I'd say 180-185 degrees true. The other appears to be 295-300 degrees true. That gives a coverage of about 120-360 degrees true. --Dual Freq 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Based on the aerial photo, I'd say Cape cod has one array facing 45 deg the other about 170. --Dual Freq 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Page 8 of a 51 page PDF says of Cape Cod: one array faces 47 and the other faces 167, combined they cover "347 degrees to 227 degrees by the compass". So my estimate was fairly accurate. They go quite in depth with coverage because of the local community and a cancer cluster that locals were trying to blame on the radar. --Dual Freq 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
90 page PDF has Clear, Beale and Cape Cod coverages mapped. --Dual Freq 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Page 38 says Beale covers 126-006. My guesstimate was only 6 degrees off. --Dual Freq 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Clear AFS Environmental impact Page 39 says, 164 to 64 degrees for the Clear radar. --Dual Freq 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay I've updated the three on US territory on my copy of the map using those PDFs. I now need to know about Thule, Cobra Dane and PARCS in North Dakota. How many arrays do they have and where they are pointing? Maps are probably better than degrees, as it's easier to gauge relatively as the map projection distorts directions anyway. TreveXtalk 10:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just uploaded the version with updates for Clear, Beale and Cape Cod. TreveXtalk 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing more that I can find right now on Thule. Looking at the aerial photo of the PARCS its a single faced array pointing about 8 degrees true. Maybe you can find more here. Cobra Dane has a single face and I would guess it points mostly west based on the description on the Cobra Dane page. --Dual Freq 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, the map is still wrong. Clear is very much a BMEWS site and not part of the PAVE PAWS system. Correct Clear was upgraded with a dual faced SSPAR which was an old PAVE PAWS RADAR but that did not make it a PAVE PAWS site. Additionally Clear is a dual faced RADAR covering 297-177 degrees and not 360 degrees as shown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.66.148 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Missing OTH Sites

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Missing from this article nad Pave Paws article are the older (now shuttered ??) sites for OTH systems ?

Can these systems be included ? /s/ Willy F3 Rula ...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.7 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2006.

PAVE PAWS article lists them. In addition, two other facilities were shuttered by the Air Force in 1995: Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia (32°34′52″N, 83°34′09″W), and Eldorado, Texas (30.979° N 100.554° W). What other ones are you talking about? --Dual Freq 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

USSR/Russia?

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The similar system was developed in the USSR around the same time, where is a mention of it? There is a corresponding article in the Russian Wiki [6]. Interestingly, both this and Russian article lacks any mention of another side's system. And both articles lack corresponding interwikis. Cmapm 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that a story about the Soviet system would be very interesting, though I can't read russian. It would deserve its own article here since this article is about the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), not ballistic missile warning systems in general. Unfortunately for us the Soviets were not all that free with information about their systems. I guess even the US didn't give much out about their own systems, but it's hard to hide a big radar in the UK like Fylingdales. It wasn't that hard to hide a radar in the northern part of the Soviet Union during that time period. If you want a place to start, try global security's article on Russian radars. There are also US DOD estimates, drawings etc at DOD media, try the keywords Soviet radar. At the bottom of the first page there are coverage cones and types of radars as well as artist conceptions of those radars. Maybe there is an article on Wikipedia, but it's just not called by the name we are thinking of. If you make one, or find one feel free to add it to the see also section. Thanks. --Dual Freq 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
If it's about US system, OK. But then, I think, this should be mentioned in the lead, because the article sounds like such system is unique. I don't intend to do any work on other systems. Just to say, that it would be interesting to have a description of such systems in general in some Wiki article. Even if some "nuclear" countries don't develop such systems, this fact about them would be quite interesting to know, I think. Cmapm 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I was not involved with this article's creation, but based on the current intro and body, it appears to be discussing a specific system with radars located in Clear, Alaska, Thule, Greenland and the UK. The name of the system was BMEWS or Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. I don't know any Russian, but babelfish translates the ru article as "Warning system about the rocket attack". Does that article discuss a specific Russian / Soviet-era system or does it discuss general early warning systems targeted at ballistic missile detection? As far as I can tell the sole purpose of this article is to describe a specific single system called BMEWS. Using Google search terms Ballistic Missile Early Warning system yields links related to the specific US system with the same name, so it seems plausible that this article would have a similar focus. Early warning radar seems to have a broader focus. --Dual Freq 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, as I said, that RU article is only about the Soviet/Russian system and its development since the 1950s. It has no mention neither of the US system, nor of any other existing/non-existent ones. Cmapm 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP:MILHIST Assessment

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Based on the pictures, and the excellent introduction, I was quite surprised to scroll down and find nearly nothing more. Surely, this can be expanded? At least a full page of text as detailed and well-written as the intro. LordAmeth 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

coverage accuracy on map?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

further to a similar note placed on the PAVE PAWS page:

the map for this page, and for that one, despite seemingly made in a similar style (but centred on different spots / using different projections) show different coverage angles and areas for the various radar sites. which one is correct? In particular the BMEWS systems appear to have less overlap in this version, but PAVE PAWS has far more (and the opposite on the PP page itself). 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's possible that both are similarly accurate. It's a bit troublesome that the maps are constructed maps derived from two reports, one which apparently isn't linked at the moment. Coverage criteria might be different for each source map or the radar systems might even have changed between reports. Or there might be some level of disinformation in the maps. Both maps come from environmental assessments which indicates both that the military might have some leeway to distort the coverage for the maps. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Missing from the current coverage map is the area covered by the AN/FPQ-16 PARCS at Cavalier Air Force Station which could perhaps be indicated in yellow or green.Graham1973 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Air Force Base vs Air Station or Air Force Station

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clear, Alaska is a full Air Force Base, as evidenced by the sign at the gate. It is on US Territory, even though some say it is considered to be Overseas. So this article needs to be corrected such that every place Clear is referenced it should say AFB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.175.177 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. 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:

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) 06:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article title

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion

It strikes me that this is a descriptive name that is being capitalised for emphasis or distinction (MOS:SIGNIFCAPS) or to define the acronym (MOS:EXPABBR). Notifying at WT:MOSCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

After skimming the article, it looks like the article is about the RCA 474L Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, which is a ballistic missile early warning system. I think the current title is ok, but might instead by RCA 474L Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, which is more clear. Maybe there's a rule about when to use the code and when to use the name, but I don't remember it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
SchreiberBike, If the name (in full) is RCA 474L Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, as in the lead, I could see a reasonable argument to capitalise the full and formal name but not a shortened version, even if it is still long. This would be comparable to capitalising the committee when referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee or the regiment for the Royal Australian Regiment. There have been discussions at WT:MOSCAPS that we don't cap shortened forms of the full formal name. While slightly less concise, I could agree that RCA 474L Ballistic Missile Early Warning System is probably a better name, if that is what you are suggesting. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

BMEWS or Ballistic Missile Early Warning System is how this system is known to history. Every weblink capitalizes this if you search for it. I think it is very rare to include RCA 474L in the name. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was generic in early sources such as this book. But I agree that the article is about the particular system that RCA built, and that their product/contract name for it was Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. Product proper names are often separable this way from their maker and model designators, so I think it's not quite as simple as the "committee" or "regiment" case. I'd leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. This article about the BMEWS (which also has a longer and geeky name nearly no one knows, which we should not use as the title per WP:COMMONNAME). But it is not about the general concept "ballistic missile early warning systems".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree. Leave it as it is (or prefix it with "RCA" or "RCA 474L"). Per comments above, the article is about a specific product that has this name, not about the general concept of a ballistic missile early warning system. And these commenters are well-known lowercasers, so when they say to use uppercase, that's a pretty good indication we should use uppercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ballistic_Missile_Early_Warning_System&oldid=1223643967"