Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now (USS Stark, Phalanx and CIWS)
Summary: Stark did too have Phalanx; why didn't it work?
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.050820.28870@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 17 Dec 90 05:08:20 GMT
References: <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec13.032943.18680@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)

tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes:

> .... CIWS (is) also known as Phalanx .... 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).

This is wrong.  The Stark was equipped with Phalanx, which was 
never used during the incident in which it was struck by an Iraqi-launched
French-made Exocet missile, resulting in much damage and many casualties.

This was very widely reported and
discussed.  I remember news photos of the actual Phalanx turret on the 
Stark.   There was a lot of questioning about why Phalanx was not used, 
since the Stark situation was exactly the situation that Phalanx was 
designed for.   

I vaguely recall something to the effect that the ship's
superstructure was between the Phalanx turret and the incoming missile, and
there wasn't enough time to bring the ship around.  Surely some sci.military
reader knows what the conclusion was.

Or does "the Stark did not have..." comment refer just the CIWS electronics?

- Jon Jacky, jon@gaffer.rad.washington.edu, University of Washington