Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate> ?p ?o. }

• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate abstract "There is an ongoing debate among the United States Navy, Marine Corps, Congress, and independent groups like the United States Naval Gunfire Support Association over what role naval gunfire support and naval surface fire support (NSFS) should play within the navy and how such a role can best be provided. At the heart of the issue is the role that naval gunfire support—the use of naval artillery to provide fire support for amphibious assault and other troops operating within their range—should play in the U.S. Navy of the 21st century.Although the debate at large traces its roots back to the end of World War II, the current debate began in 1992 with the retirement of the last active Iowa-class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), as a result of the reduced demand for naval artillery, the rise of ship and submarine-launched missiles and aircraft-launched precision guided munitions (such as laser-guided bombs, which can accurately strike and destroy an enemy target with a single strike). The most striking point of the debate in the United States centers on battleships: owing to the longtime maintenance and upkeep that the four completed Iowa-class battleships have undergone during their time in the navy's active and mothball fleets, many still view battleships as viable solutions for gunfire support, and these members have questioned if the navy can adequately replace the gunfire support provided by a battleship's main guns with the smaller guns on its current fleet of cruisers and destroyers.The debate has played out across a wide spectrum of media, including newspapers, magazines, web blogs, and congressional research arms like the Government Accountability Office. Each side has presented different arguments on the best approach to the problem, but most of the participants favor the continuation of the DD(X) program or the reinstatement of the Iowa-class battleships to the Naval Vessel Register. The Iowa-class battleships, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and Zumwalt-class destroyers have entered the debate as options put forward for naval gunfire support, while others advocate the use of specifically designed close air support planes and newer missile systems that can loiter in an area as a replacement for naval gunfire.".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate thumbnail USS_New_Jersey_firing_in_Beirut,_1984.jpg?width=300.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink ns99225.pdf.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink ns9991.pdf.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink d0539r.pdf.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink KBT.htm.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageExternalLink ah198704.pdf.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageID "18740953".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wikiPageRevisionID "604852608".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate align "right".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate quote ""DDG 1000 Zumwalt is [...] being developed by the Navy to serve as the backbone of tomorrow’s surface fleet. DDG 1000 Zumwalt provides a broad range of capabilities that are vital both to supporting the Global War on Terror and to fighting and winning major combatant operations. Zumwalt’s multi-mission warfighting capabilities are designed to counter not only the threats of today, but threats projected over the next decade as well."".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate quote ""In summary, the committee is concerned that the Navy has foregone the long-range fire support capability of the battleship, has given little cause for optimism with respect to meeting near-term developmental objectives, and appears unrealistic in planning to support expeditionary warfare in the mid-term. The committee views the Navy’s strategy for providing naval surface fire support as 'high risk,' and will continue to monitor progress accordingly."".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate source "(Evaluation of the United States Navy's naval surface fire support program in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007)".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate source "(Statement of the DD program on the United States Navy's Program Executive Office, Ships)".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate width "30.0".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate subject Category:Iowa-class_battleships.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate subject Category:Naval_artillery.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate comment "There is an ongoing debate among the United States Navy, Marine Corps, Congress, and independent groups like the United States Naval Gunfire Support Association over what role naval gunfire support and naval surface fire support (NSFS) should play within the navy and how such a role can best be provided.".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate label "United States naval gunfire support debate".
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate sameAs m.04gtbvc.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate sameAs Q7890796.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate sameAs Q7890796.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate wasDerivedFrom United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate?oldid=604852608.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate depiction USS_New_Jersey_firing_in_Beirut,_1984.jpg.
• United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate isPrimaryTopicOf United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate.