Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.050546.28490@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 17 Dec 90 05:05:46 GMT
References: <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: Anime Inc.
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)

In article <1990Dec13.032943.18680@cbnews.att.com> tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes:
>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).

I thought the Stark DID have the CIWS, but that it was not activated. The
System basically has off, stand-by, and on modes. It should be left in 
Stand-by when there is a chance of danger, radar needs to warm up. But in
the case of the Stark it was 'off'.

Does anyone remember for sure whether the Stark had CIWS or not?

###############################################################################
#  "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE           Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu    #
# MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ     Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry.  #
###############################################################################