<?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>Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day) </title>
        <link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6066/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[  Does anyone have a concept for an shore bombardement vessel, modern day version? Using existing tried and true technology, and trying to make it about as
simple and inexpensive as possible. Something similar to a Tic class cruiser, but downscaled some, using only self defense weapons or weapons optimized for
attacking land targets.


 Basically the outlines for the vessel, or requirements, is that it have two 5&quot; guns, one fore and one aft, a single Mk 41 VLS cell for Tomahawk land... ]]>
        </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>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:40:04 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 18:29:45 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: Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/78209/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html#reply-78209</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Skip the gun-based CIWS altogether. With supersonic, small-profile anti-ship missiles, they&#39;re not effective enough. More RAM.
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Terminus1973)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/78209</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 18:29:45 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/77687/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html#reply-77687</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;m looking for a ship that would be laid down, say, in the year 2000. Spruance class isn&#39;t bad, but it&#39;s a bit overkill on what I&#39;m looking
for. No ASROC or Sea Sparrow capability is needed on the ship, and 64 cells are a bit much for an economical ship. Halve that number to 32 and 30 of them
equipped with Tomahawk, with 2 cells equipped with ESSM quad packs for minimal air defense. Phalanx CIWS should be replaced with the more modern goalkeeper.
That, and have some stealth... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Joshua Kintner)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/77687</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:36:24 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/77668/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html#reply-77668</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ How about this,
<br>
<br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruance_class_destroyer
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (BSmittyVA)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/77668</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/77658/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html#reply-77658</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <img src="http://kustflottan.tripod.com/kustflottan/naval-aviation/kungkarl.jpg" alt="image">
<br>
<br>
Is it something like this you want? She is laid down around 1980.
<br>
<br>
<pre>
Kung Karl, Sweden LSD laid down 1950

Displacement:
  17 724 t light; 18 223 t standard; 22 001 t normal; 25 024 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
  625,31 ft / 590,55 ft x 98,43 ft x 19,69 ft (normal load)
  190,60 m / 180,00 m x 30,00 m  x 6,00 m

Armament:
      6 - 5,98&quot;... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Psilander)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/77658</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:58:09 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/77602/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html#reply-77602</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ How modern do you want? There are some really promising LFS designs from the mid-1980s in Friedman&#39;s <em>US Amphibious Ships and Craft</em>, based around
various permutations of 8-inch Major-Caliber Lightweight Guns and MLRS launchers. They didn&#39;t have helo hangars, though.
<br>
<br>
I would say that 28 knots is too fast -- the design target should be to keep pace with amphibious forces, which means 22-24 knots would be sufficient. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (taschoene)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/77602</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:14:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Amphibious Support Cruiser (Modern Day)  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6066/t/Amphibious-Support-Cruiser-Modern-Day-.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <p> Does anyone have a concept for an shore bombardement vessel, modern day version? Using existing tried and true technology, and trying to make it about as
simple and inexpensive as possible. Something similar to a Tic class cruiser, but downscaled some, using only self defense weapons or weapons optimized for
attacking land targets.
<br>
<br>
 Basically the outlines for the vessel, or requirements, is that it have two 5&quot; guns, one fore and one aft, a single Mk 41 VLS cell for Tomahawk... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Joshua Kintner)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6066</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:40:04 GMT</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

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

  </channel>
</rss>