<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Defense Tech &#187; Polmar&#8217;s Perspective</title>
	<atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/category/polmars-perspective/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://defensetech.org</link>
	<description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 20:06:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>LCS Near Selection</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/21/lcs-near-selection/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/21/lcs-near-selection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jnoonan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/09/21/lcs-near-selection/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an attempt to bring order to the Navys problem-plagued littoral combat ship (LCS) program, the Navy has announced that it will “down select” a winner from the two LCS designs.  The selection, in fiscal year 2010, will determine which design and hence which firms will be responsible for the construction of a planned 51 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/21/lcs-near-selection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Russian Defense Industry in Crisis</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/10/russian-defense-industry-in-crisis/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/10/russian-defense-industry-in-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/09/10/russian-defense-industry-in-crisis/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Russian defense industry may not have long to survive. Long the provider of massive amounts of weapons to the Soviet armed forces and those of satellite nations and much of the Third World, today some experts believe that only a massive infusion of funds from the Russian government can save the industry. Further, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/10/russian-defense-industry-in-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DDG 1000: On Target</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/03/ddg-1000-on-target/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/03/ddg-1000-on-target/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jnoonan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/09/03/ddg-1000-on-target/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amidst the Navy’s leadership attempt to explain — some would say rationalize — the massive cost increases and delays in several major shipbuilding programs, the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) program appears to be on cost and on schedule. Writing in Navy Times, Christopher P. Cavas observes, “Often overlooked in all the chatter is that, methodically, steadily [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/09/03/ddg-1000-on-target/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Threat to America… or?</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/08/11/a-threat-to-america-or/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/08/11/a-threat-to-america-or/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jnoonan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/08/11/a-threat-to-america-or/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two Russian nuclear-propelled attack submarines have appeared off the U.S. East Coast.  American newspapers and blogs have announced the deployment with headlines that ran from the words threat to ho, hum.  A few have even asked is this a return to the Cold War confrontations? The answer to the last is absolutely not.  The Cold [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/08/11/a-threat-to-america-or/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Cross Strait’ Relations Changing</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/07/17/cross-strait-relations-changing/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/07/17/cross-strait-relations-changing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jnoonan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/2009/07/17/cross-strait-relations-changing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite recent at-sea incidents off the coast of China — such as Chinese harassment of the U.S. research ships Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) and Victorious (T-AGOS 19), and alarmist press coverage of the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile effort — the probability of conflict involving China is decreasing rapidly. The threat of a Chinese assault against the island [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/07/17/cross-strait-relations-changing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A New ‘Submarine’ Threat?</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/09/a-new-submarine-threat/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/09/a-new-submarine-threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The increased use of semi-submersibles to bring drugs into the United States has raised the specter of similar craft being employed to transport terrorists, explosives, and elicit funds into the country. But the likelihood of terrorists going that route is extremely unlikely. Writing in The Washington Post (6 June), William Booth and Juan Forero said, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/09/a-new-submarine-threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Lehman’s Solution</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/04/john-lehmans-solution/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/04/john-lehmans-solution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987, has addressed “What the Navy Should Look Like” in response to the service’s current array of problems. Under Lehman’s guidance in the 1980s, the Navy almost reached his goal of 600 active ships, including 15 aircraft carriers and four battleships. He rejuvenated Marine aviation with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/06/04/john-lehmans-solution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shipbuilding Program is a Mess</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/05/27/shipbuilding-program-is-a-mess/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/05/27/shipbuilding-program-is-a-mess/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 13:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Navy’s shipbuilding program is a mess. That was the consensus of several highly qualified speakers at a recent Washington seminar sponsored by the Hudson Institute. And, it was agreed, the current Navy and congressional efforts will not rectify the situation. The fiscal year 2010 program recently presented to Congress calls for $14.9 billion in shipbuilding [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/05/27/shipbuilding-program-is-a-mess/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China’s ‘Increasing Naval Threat’ Overstated</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/27/chinas-increasing-naval-threat-overstated/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/27/chinas-increasing-naval-threat-overstated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[China’s Navy — officially the Peoples Liberation Army’s Navy — held an impressive naval review in the historic port city of Qingdao on 23 April, the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy. By any criteria, the event was a great success. Beyond a Chinese contingent of 2 nuclear and 2 diesel-electric submarines, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/27/chinas-increasing-naval-threat-overstated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gates Opaque on EFV Call</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/22/gates-opaque-on-efv-call/</link>
		<comments>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/22/gates-opaque-on-efv-call/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:19:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Polmar's Perspective]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the decisions not yet made by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is the future of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the new “amtrac” being developed for the Marine Corps. The EFV program was initiated in 1996 as a “high-speed” combat vehicle to carry Marines from amphibious ships offshore to the beach and, once [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://defensetech.org/2009/04/22/gates-opaque-on-efv-call/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

