Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now Message-ID: <1990Dec17.051045.29234@cbnews.att.com> Date: 17 Dec 90 05:10:45 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: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 26 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Allan Bourdius >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). All Perry (FFG-7) class frigates, including the USS Stark (FFG-31) were equipped with Vulcan-Phalanx from the dates of their commissionings. The Vulcan-Phalanx on the Stark was not turned on at the time of the Iraqi attack because the ship was not at General Quarters and the CIC watch officer did not believe that the vessel was under attack. If it's not turned on, it dosen't provide a very good defense ;-). Vulcan-Phalanx saw limited combat duty on the HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands conflict. I doubt if it ever had to fire on an incoming aircraft or cruise missile. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLC-JR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Come on you sons o'bitches, do you want to live forever?" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are they intended to, reflect the official policies/positions of DOD, DON, USMC, USN, NROTC, or CMU. Any information in this posting was obtained using unclassified material and/or personal intuition, analysis, or extrapolation.