<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/936555</link>
		<description>Comments by Dark_Sentry</description>
<item>
<title>Defense Tech : GAO Flags LCS Missile Problems</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/03/30/gao-flags-lcs-missile-problems/#IDComment65012820</link>
<description>The NLOS missile is the only one under development that can fit. Most ship borne missiles are VLS (Vertical Launch System) missiles. There launchers are very tall and so they would not fit in the LCS hull design. Not only would it be additional cost, it is neary impossible to design these missiles in without making them a permenant feature, thus removing LCS&amp;#039;s supposed flexibility (though that is questionable in itself) </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/03/30/gao-flags-lcs-missile-problems/#IDComment65012820</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Defense Tech : NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy&#039;s LCS</title>
<link>http://defensetech.org/2010/03/18/nlos-ls-fail-could-impact-navys-lcs/#IDComment62977208</link>
<description>The General Dynamics LCS was superior in design but Lockheed Martin bid lower (though their cost is greater now due to &amp;quot;accidental&amp;quot; underbidding) It was a tri-hull, making it in all likelihood faster than the Lockheed design but it isn&amp;#039;t know or released, all classified, but in the civilian sector, tri-hulls are faster. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://defensetech.org/2010/03/18/nlos-ls-fail-could-impact-navys-lcs/#IDComment62977208</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>