Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: point and area defense Keywords: missile ship anti aircraft Message-ID: <1990Dec17.051203.29418@cbnews.att.com> Date: 17 Dec 90 05:12:03 GMT References: <1990Dec15.011604.12543@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton In article <1990Dec15.011604.12543@cbnews.att.com> cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes: > >1. The Stark's defensive system (including the humans) exhibited serious >flaws, starting with command and control. Threat assessment failed. >CIWS failed because the automatic mode can't be used if there are any >radar-reflective targets within its acquisition range (i.e., it tends >to shoot up any local friendlies or enemies). Some of the shortcomings >have been fixed. My opinion: similarly equipped ships are in trouble if >area defense fails. Is this true? Couldn't someone program it not to shoot at anything moving at less than (oh, say, ..) 300 mph? If not, how far apart do the ships have to be? Also, how effective are CIWS systems. Are they estimated at 50%, 80%, or hopefully even better? -Randy -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================