Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: hall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WHat happened to USS Stark (was Re: Anti-Balistic Missiles Now)
Keywords: Abandon Ship
Message-ID: <1990Dec20.015602.28414@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 20 Dec 90 01:56:02 GMT
References: <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec17.051322.29553@cbnews.att.com> <1990Dec19.010704.25797@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Milpitas, CA.
Lines: 45
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: hall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark)

In article <1990Dec19.010704.25797@cbnews.att.com>, daver!cypress!murf@decwrl.dec.com (Colin Murphy) writes:

>> 6) The actual detection of the missile didn't occur until about six seconds
>> before impact, when the Exocet active radar engages.  This radar would be
>> detected by the ESM aboard the ship -- and probably was....

  Yes the SLQ-32(V)2 should of detected it, but, one of the problems in the
 Persian Gulf is that it is an extremely RF cluttered atmosphere. Therefore
 the EW watch sup. needs to have the threats memorized. Unfortunately 6 sec.
 or 3600 yds. is not enough time to react to a threat. I'm sure they knew what was going to eat their lunch, because the seeker for the Exocet has a very 
 unique signature and would be very hard to miss I.D.
 
>Well actually it was worse than that, Iraqi weapon systems were not
>programmed into the ESM (SLQ-32, if memory serves), and so may have not
>been detected or perceived as a threat if detected.  Remember that the plane
>had to illuminate the Stark before letting go his missile.  The Stark should
>have come to some kind of higher degree of alertness when this occured, and
>the lookouts alerted.  If this had occured the lookout would most likely
>have reported smartly when he saw the dot.

  In reality the crews posture towards Iraq was too nonchalant. If I was
 in an area where two countries were at war and conducting sorties with
 live weapons. I wouldn't even feel comfortable being in the same geo-
 graphic area.
   
>> That last point is conjecture on my part.  The systems on STARK are fully
>> capable of dealing with such a threat; the crews are similarly proficient.>	
>As usual, humans fail when the writers of specs and the designers of systems 
>set them up to fail.  The system that required only specific, pre-programmed
>threats to be monitored, would seem to me to be the root cause.

 The systems were fine it was the Combat Systems crew that screwed up



  Scott Hallmark Ex EW1(BB-63)(FFG-30)(CG-30)(CG-33) or Brew Drinkin, Dart
 Throwin Squid and World Traveler.



 Just some more of my opinionated rantings, not Sun Micro's.