Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now
Message-ID: <1990Dec18.015037.4397@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Dec 90 01:50:37 GMT
References: <1990Dec15.011829.12906@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll)
>From arrvid@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson):
> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
> 
>>    Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems)
>>       installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships).
>>       CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles.
> 
> Yes, but don't these only work against missles that come in "on the deck"?
> Sort of leaves you exposed to "death from above" don't it?

My impression was that the exact opposite was true. My brother has 
witnessed a number of Phalanx tests and from his accounts, they do the 
tests against targets at altitude because it does very well picking out 
targets silhouetted against the sky, but not so well picking out targets 
down on the deck.


-- 
William R. Carroll  (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL)
wcarroll@encore.com         uunet!gould!wcarroll
"The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me