Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now
Message-ID: <1990Dec15.012155.13455@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Dec 90 01:21:55 GMT
References: <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec8.221641.27118@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec13.032943.18680@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Texas ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner)

>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).


The USS Stark does carry CWIS along with a 3 inch Gun and the ONE ARMED BANDIT
Missile Firing System.  I think you are a little mistake with your ship
configurations.  Along with all other PERRY class frigates the Stark was built
with CWIS installed.  The Crew did not have the Gun pplaced in a mode
capable of aquiring and knocking the incoming missile (also known as Vampires,
by sailors in training) down.

 
-- 

Robert Faulkner                              conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
            ///                  Recursion:     Thinking
        \\\///    University of Texas                 about
         \\//   Amiga Computers                     Thinking