Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: point and area defense Message-ID: <1990Dec19.010814.25980@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Dec 90 01:08:14 GMT References: <1990Dec15.011604.12543@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: In article <1990Dec17.051203.29418@cbnews.att.com>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) says: > > >[regarding CIWS] Couldn't someone program it not to shoot at anything moving >at less than (oh, say, ..) 300 mph? > They did, but consider this: a helicopter based on a CIWS ship flies at less than 300 MPH, but its rotor blades don't. How do you program that? >If not, how far apart do the ships have to be? > I don't know offhand what range CIWS has, but I wouldn't want to be inside it. >Also, how effective are CIWS systems. Are they estimated at 50%, 80%, or >hopefully even better? > I don't remember how effective they claim CIWS to be, but remember it's designed as a last-ditch kind of defense if missiles or 5-in. guns have not already taken out the incoming cruise missile. The real limiting factor is the weapon's ammunition load. Each Phalanx only holds enough ammunition to take out a few missiles, it can't go all day. But when it comes down to it, I'd rather have CIWS than not have it. --- L. GORDON PAISLEY, PAISLEY@AUVM.AUVM.EDU THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, DC USA