Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.032943.18680@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Dec 90 03:29:43 GMT
References: <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec8.221641.27118@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup))
In article <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com>, swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes...
> 
> 
>       installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships).
>       CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles.
>

        My understanding is that most of the USN surface ships are being
equiped with CIWS (also known as Phalanx).PI once interviewed with General
Dynamics in Pomona CA, and got some interesting descriptions of the basic
principles behind Phalanx. The ammunition is mostly standard (20 mm ?) with
every 50th or so shell made of depleted Uranium to provide better tracking
of outgoing trajectory. The rate of fire is phenomenal - something like
5000 rounds per min. The system employs 2 radars. One to track the incoming
target, the other to track the outgoing bullets. The CIWS computer provides
aiming to make the two trajectories intersect - presto! no more incoming 
target. Good in theory. Have there been any known cases where a ship was 
saved by CIWS? We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding
is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this
mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster).

                                          Dave H.