<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.css" media="screen"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/feed/bypass/styles/feed.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">

	<channel>
	  <!-- main channel info -->
        <title>USN Standoff ASW </title>
        <link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/5250/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[ I know Sea Lance got cancelled, and that Subroc, as an analog weapon, couldn&#39;t be fitted to any of the later submarine classes that had digital fire
control (688 on up).


Sea Lance was ostensibly cancelled for technical reasons and the usual spiraling cost, as well as the diminishing Russian threat. The last one I sort of
understand, but the first two I don&#39;t. If the Russians were able to field not one but two multi-platform (sub and surface) standoff ASW weapons (SS-N-15
and... ]]>
        </description>

		<!-- optional elements -->
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2006, Yuku</copyright>
		<managingEditor>feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster)</webMaster>
		<!-- note: dates need to be RFC 822 formated "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:00:01 GMT" -->
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:51 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:46:15 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Yuku Feeds 1.0</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<!-- <cloud domain="rpc.yuku.com" port="80" path="/RPC2" registerProcedure="pingMe" protocol="soap"/>-->
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		<!-- feed image -->
		
		<rating>
		{pics-1.1 &quot;http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) &quot;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 ))
		</rating>
		<textInput>
			<title>Search</title>
			<description>Search Domain</description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://yuku.com/search/direct/</link>
		</textInput>
		<!-- skip
		<skipHours>
			<hour>23</hour>
		</skipHours>
		<skipDays>
			<day>Monday</day>
			<day>Wednesday</day>
			<day>Friday</day>
		</skipDays>-->
		<!-- extensions -->


		<!-- channel items -->
		<!-- descriptions should be shorter than 500 char to be polite -->
		<!-- html shoud be stripped or escaped -->
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/74737/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html#reply-74737</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ What, like both of them? : ) ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (jua)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/74737</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:46:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/74624/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html#reply-74624</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote>
  <strong class="quote-title">seasick wrote:</strong>
  <hr>
  The USN still maintains RUM-139 (VL-ASROC) in inventory. Japan still actively uses it and for Japan it is still in production. SUBROC was retired in 1982 by
  the Navy because it only had a nuclear payload. The Navy didn&#39;t fight very hard to keep sea lance. I don&#39;t think the submarine community really wants
  one [Standoff ASW weapon].
  <br>
  <br>
  The Mk48 ADCAP is one mean torpedo. The VL ASROC uses the... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (BenRoethig)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/74624</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:35:59 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/74457/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html#reply-74457</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;m not sure about the Mk.48 ADCAP, but from what I&#39;ve heard from a friend of a friend in the know about these things, the Spearfish certainly IS that
good, and I understand (someone please correct me if I&#39;m wrong) the 2 are approximately equal in capabilities.... I think the term &quot;scary&quot; was
used to describe its performance, along with ....&quot;it&#39;s a weapon that breaks the legal limit on the motorway and can hit a something the size of an
artic at 35 miles&quot;... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Craiglxviii)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/74457</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2026 21:06:39 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/67441/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html#reply-67441</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ &quot;I know the ADCAP is good, but is it that good?&quot;
<br>
<br>
Yes.
<br>
<br>
Kevin ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (drunknsubmrnr)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/67441</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:18:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/67430/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html#reply-67430</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The USN still maintains RUM-139 (VL-ASROC) in inventory. Japan still actively uses it and for Japan it is still in production. SUBROC was retired in 1982 by
the Navy because it only had a nuclear payload. The Navy didn&#39;t fight very hard to keep sea lance. I don&#39;t think the submarine community really wants
one [Standoff ASW weapon].
<br>
<br>
The Mk48 ADCAP is one mean torpedo. The VL ASROC uses the Mk50 lightweight as its payload. Unlike the earlier ASROC the VL-ASROC can upload... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (seasick)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/67430</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:48:45 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ USN Standoff ASW  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/5250/t/USN-Standoff-ASW.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I know Sea Lance got cancelled, and that Subroc, as an analog weapon, couldn&#39;t be fitted to any of the later submarine classes that had digital fire
control (688 on up).
<br>
<br>
Sea Lance was ostensibly cancelled for technical reasons and the usual spiraling cost, as well as the diminishing Russian threat. The last one I sort of
understand, but the first two I don&#39;t. If the Russians were able to field not one but two multi-platform (sub and surface) standoff ASW weapons (SS-N-15
and... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Michael Hoddy)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/5250</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
    <!-- end items -->

  </channel>
</rss>