2.68 score from hupso.pl for:
informationdissemination.net



HTML Content


Titleinformation dissemination

Length: 25, Words: 2
Description professional discussions covering topics including foreign policy, maritime strategy, emerging technology, and military affairs.

Length: 128, Words: 14
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name pusty
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 4598
Text/HTML 26.81 %
Headings H1 0
H2 7
H3 5
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
H2
thursday, april 20, 2017
friday, april 7, 2017
thursday, april 6, 2017
tuesday, march 7, 2017
friday, march 3, 2017
contributors
blog archive
H3
the ship is an "electronic" being
thoughts on syrian strike
on the navy and oversharing
a brief update
question of the week february 27 - march 3, 2017
H4
H5
H6
strong
b
i
em
Bolds strong 0
b 0
i 0
em 0
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name exist
Pliki zewnętrzne 14
Pliki CSS 2
Pliki javascript 12
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 219
Linki wewnętrzne 10
Linki zewnętrzne 209
Linki bez atrybutu Title 172
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

- //www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogid=7336109314142259809&widgettype=html&widgetid=html4&action=editwidget§ionid=sidebar-right-1
- //www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogid=7336109314142259809&widgettype=blogarchive&widgetid=blogarchive1&action=editwidget§ionid=sidebar-right-1
- //www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogid=7336109314142259809&widgettype=html&widgetid=html2&action=editwidget§ionid=sidebar-right-1
- //www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogid=7336109314142259809&widgettype=html&widgetid=html1&action=editwidget§ionid=sidebar-right-1
- //www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogid=7336109314142259809&widgettype=attribution&widgetid=attribution1&action=editwidget§ionid=footer-3

Linki zewnętrzne

- http://www.informationdissemination.net/
the ship is an "electronic" being http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/the-ship-is-electronic-being.html
assistant secretary of the navy for research, development and acquisition, http://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/pages/default.aspx
the ship is a steam being https://books.google.com/books?id=zfvxaaaaqbaj&pg=pa204&lpg=pa204&dq=the+ship+is+a+steam+being,+sir+edward+reed&source=bl&ots=mtthrtznts&sig=cv4bpsj__ycpeoepqg6ievfuezo&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewjn6lsppyhtahvi8imkhxpqag4q6aeihdab#v=onepage&q=the%20ship%20is%20a%20steam%20being%2c%20sir%20edward%20reed&f=false
similar, 1877 report by the u.s. navy’s chief engineer https://archive.org/stream/cu31924005009638#page/n29/mode/2up/search/cost
first sea lord admiral sir john fisher https://archive.org/details/memoriesbyadmira00fishuoft
the rn’s budget from 1905-1911 remained less than that of 1904 https://books.google.com/books?id=zvt5agaaqbaj&pg=pp68&lpg=pp68&dq=british+naval+estimates+1905+fisher&source=bl&ots=8ij1noc-rk&sig=sjwpynxl_lihhn2xy1_j8fjaoym&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewjs-umh4bdtahum4omkhtggdkgq6aeiozaf#v=onepage&q=british%20naval%20estimates%201905%20fisher&f=false
2006 rand corporation study https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/rand_mg484.pdf
a 2015 rand report on surface ship maintenance http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/rr1100/rr1155/rand_rr1155.pdf
rail guns http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8594/watch-the-u-s-navy-test-fire-its-much-touted-railgun
directed energy weapons https://news.usni.org/2016/06/23/moran-directed-energy
“on the shelf https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/d0026416.a2.pdf
“from thesea/forward from the sea” concept http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/docs/v/1103%20us%20naval%20strategy%20in%20the%201990s.pdf
“defeat one / deny or deter another http://www.jcs.mil/portals/36/documents/publications/2015_national_military_strategy.pdf
maritime strategy https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/zhukov/files/19.pdf
clear strategy from the age of “fighting sail” through the end of the second world war https://books.google.com/books?id=esnal24kd30c&pg=pa383&lpg=pa383&dq=british+naval+strategy+in+the+age+of+empire&source=bl&ots=dvlphm5k8m&sig=zqc9zk7o2nv3ebxrkmo6ckclp4a&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewiegtlqq7ttahuo84mkhuxla0y4chdoaqgqmam#v=onepage&q=british%20naval%20strategy%20in%20the%20age%20of%20empire&f=false
the 30 year shipbuilding plan https://news.usni.org/2016/07/12/20627
the littoral combat ship (lcs) class https://www.navy.com/about/equipment/vessels/littoral
outright pause from 2007-2009 and the cancellation of the original lcs 3 and 4 https://news.usni.org/2017/03/27/document-report-congress-littoral-combat-shipfrigate-program-3
a deep-seated congressional and naval culture that believes that a frigate must be a “light destroyer” to be successful http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/28/mccain-wants-scrap-navys-frigate-plan-open-design-competition.html
combined the functions of the battleship and the armored cruiser into the hybrid battlecruiser https://books.google.com/books?id=nxzgj9_b_rwc&pg=pa407&lpg=pa407&dq=development+of+the+battle+cruiser,+fisher&source=bl&ots=zv0s2izcpn&sig=lsy6jytdfylatrtuxteowvbraum&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewjh7_bphlhtahui94mkhcxwa6y4chdoaqhqmak#v=onepage&q=development%20of%20the%20battle%20cruiser%2c%20fisher&f=false
supports unmanned vehicles and other off-board systems http://www.janes.com/article/66862/surface-navy-2017-cusv-to-support-lcs-mcm-mission
the dd 963 hull was used as the basis for the cg 47 class https://books.google.com/books?id=nosq20uxu38c&pg=pa58&lpg=pa58&dq=dd+963+as+basis+for+cg+47&source=bl&ots=w4jwwf5fgm&sig=awc1daregqkmsmjxk0vxnu6hpy8&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewjx947hhbhtahvl7omkheqadzaq6aeindad#v=onepage&q=dd%20963%20as%20basis%20for%20cg%2047&f=false
“monopsony relationship https://books.google.com/books?id=wgqjcqaaqbaj&pg=pt139&lpg=pt139&dq=monopsony+in+us+shipbuilding&source=bl&ots=e50du6yqwv&sig=j6z4wtajk6gfz6cgb2cx9fhd654&hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewi9p5uehrhtahxjxymkhefabauq6aeiljac#v=onepage&q=monopsony%20in%20us%20shipbuilding&f=false
lazarus https://www.blogger.com/profile/11640239339632184002
11:28 pm http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/the-ship-is-electronic-being.html
no comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467
links to this post http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/the-ship-is-electronic-being.html#links
- https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467&target=email
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467&target=blog
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467&target=twitter
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467&target=facebook
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=3953642126087995467&target=pinterest
thoughts on syrian strike http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/thoughts-on-syrian-strike.html
- https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fncqr5fjvlc/wocqxhm4gli/aaaaaaaamjw/nghonocbbkwmeovazkhcck2_m42wlbzyqclcb/s1600/porterlaunch.jpg
nikki haley's speech in the un https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/apr/06/nikki-haley-speech-united-nations-syria-chemical-attack-video
removed a considerable amount of chemical weapons from syria via mv cape ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/destruction_of_syria%27s_chemical_weapons
galrahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/14681891607184284048
2:00 am http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/thoughts-on-syrian-strike.html
no comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762
links to this post http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/thoughts-on-syrian-strike.html#links
- https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762&target=email
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762&target=blog
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762&target=twitter
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762&target=facebook
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=6678144950813415762&target=pinterest
offshore balancing http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/offshore%20balancing
syria http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/syria
on the navy and oversharing http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/on-navy-and-oversharing.html
iscussed yesterday by sydney freedberg http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/navy-officials-overshared-sensitive-info-on-navy-readiness-stackley/
navy demonstrates synthetic guidance technology with tomahawk missile http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.navairnewsstory&id=5833
here is usni's story on the subject from the very next day.  https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/secdef-carter-confirms-navy-developing-supersonic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers
in a post here on id a little over a year ago http://www.informationdissemination.net/2016/01/reforming-navy-secretariat-bureaucratic.html
the conservative wahoo https://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162
11:31 am http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/on-navy-and-oversharing.html
no comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166
links to this post http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/on-navy-and-oversharing.html#links
- https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166&target=email
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166&target=blog
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166&target=twitter
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166&target=facebook
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=7932235614900785166&target=pinterest
the conservative wahoo https://www.blogger.com/profile/17818674434286683162
a brief update http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/03/a-brief-update.html
galrahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/14681891607184284048
11:00 pm http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/03/a-brief-update.html
no comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008
links to this post http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/03/a-brief-update.html#links
- https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008&target=email
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008&target=blog
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008&target=twitter
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008&target=facebook
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=9018913674943226008&target=pinterest
blogging http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/blogging
question of the week february 27 - march 3, 2017 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/02/question-of-week-february-27-march-3.html
question of the week http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/question%20of%20the%20week
galrahn https://www.blogger.com/profile/14681891607184284048
5:00 pm http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/02/question-of-week-february-27-march-3.html
no comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743
links to this post http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/02/question-of-week-february-27-march-3.html#links
- https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743&target=email
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743&target=blog
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743&target=twitter
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743&target=facebook
https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogid=7336109314142259809&postid=4455901342816964743&target=pinterest
manpower http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/manpower
question of the week http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/question%20of%20the%20week
unmanned systems http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/unmanned%20systems
older posts http://www.informationdissemination.net/search?updated-max=2017-03-03t17:00:00-05:00&max-results=5
home http://www.informationdissemination.net/
posts (atom) http://www.informationdissemination.net/feeds/posts/default
april 2017 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/04/
march 2017 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/03/
february 2017 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/02/
january 2017 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2017/01/
march 2016 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2016/03/
february 2016 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2016/02/
january 2016 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2016/01/
december 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/12/
november 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/11/
october 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/10/
september 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/09/
august 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/08/
july 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/07/
june 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/06/
may 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/05/
april 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/04/
march 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/03/
february 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/02/
january 2015 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/01/
december 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/12/
november 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/11/
october 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/10/
september 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/09/
august 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/08/
july 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/07/
june 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/06/
may 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/05/
april 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/04/
march 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/03/
february 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/02/
january 2014 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/01/
december 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/12/
november 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/11/
october 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/10/
september 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/09/
august 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/08/
july 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/07/
june 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/06/
may 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/05/
april 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/04/
march 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/03/
february 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/02/
january 2013 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/01/
december 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/12/
november 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/11/
october 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/10/
september 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/09/
august 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/
july 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/07/
june 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/06/
may 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/05/
april 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/
march 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/03/
february 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/02/
january 2012 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/01/
december 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/12/
november 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/11/
october 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/10/
september 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/09/
august 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/08/
july 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/07/
june 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/06/
may 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/05/
april 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/04/
march 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/
february 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/02/
january 2011 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/01/
december 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/
november 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/11/
october 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/10/
september 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/09/
august 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/08/
july 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/
june 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/
may 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/05/
april 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/04/
march 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/03/
february 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/02/
january 2010 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/01/
december 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/12/
november 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/11/
october 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/10/
september 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/
august 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/08/
july 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/07/
june 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/06/
may 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/05/
april 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/04/
march 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/03/
february 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/02/
january 2009 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/01/
december 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/12/
november 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/11/
october 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/10/
september 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/09/
august 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/08/
july 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/07/
june 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/06/
may 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/05/
april 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/04/
march 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/03/
february 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/02/
january 2008 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/01/
december 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/12/
november 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/11/
october 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/10/
september 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/09/
august 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/08/
july 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/07/
june 2007 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2007/06/
get id by email http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifysubmit?feedid=1759844&loc=en_us
- http://feeds.feedburner.com/informationdissemination
blogger https://www.blogger.com

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 13
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 12
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 13
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2t5fgjdo/sj7duntciki/aaaaaaaagze/bh5osotlmm0/s750/idlogo2.jpg
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fncqr5fjvlc/wocqxhm4gli/aaaaaaaamjw/nghonocbbkwmeovazkhcck2_m42wlbzyqclcb/s640/porterlaunch.jpg
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/informationdissemination?bg=efefef&fg=000000&anim=0
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fncqr5fjvlc/wocqxhm4gli/aaaaaaaamjw/nghonocbbkwmeovazkhcck2_m42wlbzyqclcb/s640/porterlaunch.jpg
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/informationdissemination?bg=efefef&fg=000000&anim=0
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

thursday, april 20, 2017 the ship is an "electronic" being in a 19 january 1877 letter to the times of london, the former chief naval constructor (and then member of the british parliament), sir edward reed attempted to explain some of the reasons for the rapidly rising cost of british capital ships. the battleship hms devastation had been completed in 1871 at a cost of 361,438 pounds, but the cost of hms inflexible, launched in 1876 and nearing completion at the time of reed’s letter was to cost 812,000 pounds. parliament was naturally concerned about these apparent, skyrocketing costs. reed, whose former position as chief naval constructor, as position roughly analogous to that of the u.s. assistant secretary of the navy for research, development and acquisition,) explained the cost increase as this: “every war vessel is now a steamer, and some of our most powerful and valuable ships have not a sail upon them, but, on the contrary, are huge engines of war put into activity of every part by steam and steam alone. the main propelling engines are worked by steam. a separate steam engine starts and stops them. steam ventilates the monster, steam weighs the anchors, steam steers her and steam pumps her out if she leaks. steam loads the gun, steam trains it. steam depresses or elevates it…the ship is a steam being.” reed went on to explain that the use of steam in so many areas of modern ship operation as a replacement for the wind and muscle power utilized in age of fighting sail warships, along with advanced products of the industrial revolution such as rifled, breech-loading cannons and compound steel armor had combined to significantly increase the cost of the modern battleship. a similar, 1877 report by the u.s. navy’s chief engineer echoes reed in that it stated, “year by year the thickness of armor and the weight of naval artillery go on increasing together. mechanical appliances have more and more replaced manual labor, and at the same time the forms of the ships have been adapted to the work they have to do and the conditions under which they must act.” the royal navy was able to slow and eventually reverse the growth in its overall budget estimates in the first decade of the 20th century, but only through the radical actions of first sea lord admiral sir john fisher. the cantankerous and combative senior uniformed leader of the rn opted for quality over quantity and produced fewer, but larger and more powerful warships as the means to reduce the budget and increase combat capability. as a result, the rn’s budget from 1905-1911 remained less than that of 1904. still, the rising costs of the british naval armaments race with germany exceeded fisher’s capacity for cost savings and british naval estimates again increased in 1911. the royal navy did not regain control over the escalating costs of its capital ships until the interwar period of the 1920’s and early 1930’s when a combination of naval arms limitation treaties and appalling economic conditions forced such conditions. a similar process may be underway in the increased costs of u.s. surface warships over the last four decades at a rate greater than inflation. a 2006 rand corporation study suggests that key indicators for modern warship cost center on a vessel’s ratio of electrical power generating capacity to its light ship (with no fuel ammunition, stores or other consumables aboard) weight. it appears that just as the industrial revolution’s steam and steel products drove up warship costs in the 19th and early 20th centuries, today’s rapidly advancing electrical and electronic equipment now account for significant increases in 21st century warship costs. the rapid advance of electronic equipment and its operating software, as well as new technologies like rail guns and directed energy weapons suggests that ship cost increases will continue for the foreseeable future as they did during the industrial revolution. given this data, today’s warships might echo reed’s comment and can be construed as “electronic beings” with electrical and electronic systems and associated software just as integral to the rising costs of 21st century warship as steam and steel products were to its 19th century counterpart. the rand study’s potential solutions for reducing these costs include keeping ship designs less complex, more stable over time, and a consideration to physically separate expensive capabilities in the form of modular components to the main hull. the study also emphasized the unstable nature of u.s. naval shipbuilding, starting: “many shipyards have a monopsony relationship with the government—that is, the government is their main, if not only, customer. at the same time, fluctuating ship orders from the navy, with initially forecast orders typically exceeding what is ultimately purchased, discourage shipyards from making investments that could ultimately reduce the cost of ships.” rand noted that unless these costs are brought under control that the u.s. would be hard-pressed to field even 260 ships by 2035. the rand study was released in 2006 and now the u.s. struggles to maintain its current fleet of 287 ships. it is vital for the u.s. to reduce these costs moving forward into the middle 21st century. a 2015 rand report on surface ship maintenance suggests that the current readiness crisis is just the beginning of potential troubles, as deferred maintenance and mid-life upgrades in existing warships will grow over the next twenty five years. unlike admiral fisher, the u.s. cannot now afford to reduce its overall number of ships, and solutions to qualitatively increase fleet firepower such as rail guns and directed energy weapons require significantly more, expensive development. what can the u.s. do to slow the growth of its own “electronic being” fleet? it should develop a maritime strategy that is a worthy successor of its 1980’s-era predecessor. that strategy product was put “on the shelf” by then cno nominee admiral frank kelso in june 1990. it was replaced by the “from thesea/forward from the sea” concept that assumed an extended period of operational maneuver from the sea against rogue and in support of failed states around the greater eurasian littoral. that time where great power competition was a relic of the past is gone and has been replaced by a hybrid period of both great power competition and growing non-state actors. concepts like “defeat one / deny or deter another” are not strategy and represent operational art raised to strategic levels. a maritime strategy with operational characteristics that can be activated from phase zero start to a phase 4 conclusion needs to be in place. it will help shape global naval force deployment, and fund the units needed to carry out the strategy and its operational elements. great britain’s royal navy had a clear strategy from the age of “fighting sail” through the end of the second world war. it was the shield of imperial trade and commerce and the sword that attacked those of its enemies and enabled the operational maneuver of british ground combat forces from the sea. the u.s. navy does not have a similar clear purpose that can be easily articulated to congress, u.s. allies, and potential opponents. instead, the u.s. speaks of strategy in terms status quo, the 30 year shipbuilding plan and other force structure management processes. the navy needs a product and not a process to shape the size, design and operation of its 21st century force and perhaps prevent the technological creep that has contributed to the price increases on navy ships as documented in the rand report. the littoral combat ship (lcs) class tried to affect some of the changes suggested by the rand. lcs was supposed to be less complicated than other combatants through the separation of its major capabilities in surface, subsurface and mine warfare into modular components bought and developed separately for the class. “teething” issues in the first four experimental lcs units and the shipyards that produce them caused significant program delays, including an outright pause from 2007-2009 and the cancellation of the original lcs 3 and 4. the shipyards producing lcs have matured as have the designs and lcs has made significant progress in terms of capability and production cost maintainability since being placed under program executive officer (peo) management in 2011. despite those successes, troubles with the first four lcs units, uncertainty over operational costs, and a deep-seated congressional and naval culture that believes that a frigate must be a “light destroyer” to be successful have combined to make lcs the defense press’ poster program for poor acquisition management. despite widespread dislike, the lcs program still offers to solve some of the problems that dogged both the british navy of the 19th century and the u.s. navy in the present. admiral fisher combined the functions of the battleship and the armored cruiser into the hybrid battlecruiser that had the speed and range to overhaul and destroy surface raiders, and the firepower and advanced fire control needed to engage any opponent at long range. lcs still offers the ability to combine multiple small ship functions of patrol, mine warfare and the traditional combatant surface and subsurface warfare missions as interchangeable capabilities on one hull. lcs also supports unmanned vehicles and other off-board systems much better than the conventional frigates proposed to replace it. one lcs frame, like that of the world war 2 sherman medium tank, that supported multiple variants is a better choice than building new, separate, separate mine warfare, patrol, and small surface combatant units, which will need to happen if the “frigate” category is taken by a high end design. the rand study touted the benefits of stability in design as a cost saving measures. one of the reasons for the selection of an lcs hull as the basis for the new frigate class is an attempt to improve stability through the use of the same basic hull, much as the dd 963 hull was used as the basis for the cg 47 class. if seen through to the construction phase, this choice would support the shipyards that produce both lcs and the projected frigate. the u.s. elements of the firms that produce the lcs have a “monopsony relationship” with the u.s. government as described in the rand report and have little civilian business as compared with more traditional shipbuilders who also construct warships. the maintenance of stability in construction might allow these companies to avoid the layoffs that happen when the u.s. cannot make up its mind about which design to accept. this is not “corporate welfare,” but a vital issue in the maintenance of an effective industrial base to support the navy in both peace and war. the electronics revolution that has driven up the cost of u.s. warships over the last half century bears a remarkable resemblance to that of the industrial revolution, whose steam and steel products so substantially increased the cost of british navy units in the 19th and early 20th centuries. the 2006 rand study on warship costs suggested ways the u.s. might slow that growth. lcs was one possible solution, but problems with early units, and opposition from cold war cultures of ship size, lifespan, manning, sustainability, and intra-service parochial interests have combined to make lcs less of a success. while visions of larger, very capable fleets for the future may dazzle they eyes of some, the realities of rising fleet maintenance costs, the budget deficit, and internecine political warfare on capitol hill effectively combine to strangle such visions in their think tank cradles. the navy will likely have to make due with a smaller force for the time being, and effective strategy, not massive firepower, could determine victory in the event of significant naval conflict. like the royal navy of the mid and late 19th century, the u.s. must mitigate the accelerating costs of technological revolution and develop cost effective, operational solutions in support of defined maritime strategy. some of the concepts pioneered in the lcs program can aid in that endeavor and should be given a chance to succeed. given current challenges, lcs and its frigate variant are likely to be the only small surface combatants the u.s. navy will receive for the foreseeable future. posted by lazarus at 11:28 pm no comments: links to this post email thisblogthis!share to twittershare to facebookshare to pinterest friday, april 7, 2017 thoughts on syrian strike uss porter launching cruise missiles towards syria. i watched nikki haley's speech in the un on social media this morning, and i quickly realized two things: america was pissed off. the world was now aware america was pissed off. if you haven't seen that video yet, the stare she gives the russian ambassador makes it must see viewing. i was impressed. when president obama gave syria a red line on chemical weapons back in 2013, and assad crossed that red line, you may remember i was quite uncomfortable with how everything had gone down. i was uncomfortable with the president giving the red line, and i was uncomfortable with the idea the us would have to attack syria. president obama took a lot of criticism for addressing that incident in 2013 with diplomacy, but the united states ultimately removed a considerable amount of chemical weapons from syria via mv cape ray and over time i came to appreciate the decision by president obama. until this past week, there had been no clear evidence of chemical weapons use by the assad regime in syria against civilians, including for the entire remainder of the obama administration. in my mind, what president obama did at the time was the right thing. but when news broke about chemical weapons use in syria this week, particularly in the context of what is happening on the korean peninsula, in my mind president trump had a very serious choice to make. he either attacked syria for breaking their agreement with president obama, or the united states retreated from the role as the leader of the global security construct the world has enjoyed since the end of the cold war. assad left trump no choice, and actually gave the trump administration exactly what they needed in many ways. the strike by the united states against syria on thursday checks multiple strategic boxes that needed to be checked given the checkered beginning of this presidential administration. in one stroke, president trump was able to: support a policy championed by president obama with a limited use of military force thereby proving that domestic political disagreements do not represent a weakness in us foreign policy. send a clear signal of us resolve to the dictators globally like bashar al-assad and kim jong un that the us is not to be tested. reassert us influence in a region of the world dominated by russia at this point and time. send a clear message to world powers like china, at a time trump is meeting with xi jinping, that the us led by president trump will use military force when forced to. these are not small things. president trump's action reinforces the security framework rule sets led by the united states that many, including myself, have been concerned that president trump might not be willing to stand up for under his administration. i'm not really sure what actual tactical military impact 60 tomahawk cruise missiles may or may not have had hitting some random targets in syria, and my gut tells me the tactical impact is probably very little. but sending 60 tomahawks into syria isn't about tactical effects, the way to measure this military action will be to observe strategic effects. i'm sure in the near future cable tv will find some political science mouth breather ready to do battle damage tactical assessments on use of tomahawks as if the military action taken thursday has something in common with trying to win some battle against syria. firing tomahawks into syria isn't about winning a battle though, it's about shaping the conduct of a war, which is a continuation of the policy set forth by president obama specific to chemical weapons and a necessary escalation in response to assad for challenging the agreement syria made with the last administration. only time will tell if the strategic communication sent on thursday was sufficient, or whether a new challenge to president trump is forthcoming to test the us resolve on this issue. as this event relates to naval strategic theory, i will be observing this event as an early test of the trump administrations naval focused offshore balancing strategic theory. the ability to send an effective strategic communication with the execution of a tactical missile strike was a staple of both the reagan and clinton administrations, but both of those president's enjoyed a large us navy capable of acting globally in massive force in response to any incident. today's us navy is significantly smaller than the navy of those two presidents, and while an arleigh burke class destroyer can send the initial volley of cruise missiles to send a strategic message, i am not as confident regarding how things might unfold if there was blow back from this type of military action. posted by galrahn at 2:00 am no comments: links to this post email thisblogthis!share to twittershare to facebookshare to pinterest labels: offshore balancing, syria thursday, april 6, 2017 on the navy and oversharing earlier this week i attended the navy league's annual "sea-air-space" symposium, and among the thousands of attendees were a number of my friends in the navy trade press. quite independently, three working journalists each brought up what one of them called the "cno's gag order"--recently released guidance by the cno to navy leadership discussed yesterday by sydney freedberg in a piece that also features the cno's memo. i was unfamiliar with the memo, but not with the sentiments cno expresses in it. his dissatisfaction with the amount of information getting out has been a popular topic of recent conversation, but i wasn't in on the memo. but now that i am, i have a few thoughts on the subject. there is no doubt in my mind that the navy is "oversharing". there is also no doubt in my mind that it is "undersharing". there is furthermore, no doubt in my mind that the navy is "inefficiently-sharing". the plain truth is that the navy is incapable of figuring this out because it is not organized to address it. so when freedberg opines in the column above that "many of my fellow reporters here at the navy league’s sea-air-space conference said they’d felt a chilling effect from the cno’s memo", no one should be surprised at the wholly foreseeable reaction that cno's memo caused among his flag and civilian leaders--even though he stated that "....i am not asking you to throttle back engagement with the media or with the public." in the absence of actual, specific guidance, their instinctual reaction is simply to clam up. this is how one avoids running afoul of the cno, but this is not in the long-term interests of the navy, american seapower, or national strategy. ultimately, the cno must take responsibility for this and begin to advocate for necessary change. and that change must occur within the staff of his boss, the secretary of the navy, and within the opnav staff. before i get to this weightier subject, some vignettes. in february of 2015, i had my hip replaced, and i was convalescing in an opioid-induced fog at home rolling through my twitter feed, when i came upon this press release from the naval air systems command announcing that "navy demonstrates synthetic guidance technology with tomahawk missile". had i been physically capable, i would have jumped out of my chair. in this test, what had previously been solely a long range land attack missile had demonstrated the capability to act as a long-range anti-ship missile targeted against a moving target. having been involved in the creation of the concept of "distributed lethality" within the surface force, i found myself wondering how it was that this important component thereof found its way into the open press. who made this decision? why was it made? what was the process that created it? nearly a year to the day later, i was again at home rolling through my twitter feed (ok, i spend too much time on twitter) when i came across tweets from the osd account announcing that the sm6 missile was being modified to provide a supersonic anti-ship capability. knowing that -- or at least thinking that -- this information was classified, i began to write to some of my friends in the pentagon wondering what was happening. why was this capability being announced? why now? as i watched my timeline roll on, more and more information ensued. here is usni's story on the subject from the very next day. now, back to the problem and what to do about it. the bottom line here is that we are re-entering a period of great power contention, but the department of the navy is still acting like it is 1996 and there aren't any real threats--at least at the level of how to communicate strategically. in a post here on id a little over a year ago (and just days before secretary carter spilled the sm6 beans), i advocated for a series of reforms of the navy secretariat, one of which was to bring some rigor to its strategic communications efforts. clearly, if the secretary of defense decides he wants to declassify something, it is likely within his authority to do so. in this case though, there was no service position from which to advise him. and this is because there is no formal or organizational method of achieving such a position. if the navy were serious about actual strategic communications, it would begin to think deeply about what it means to do so. the cno's well-intentioned memo is the antithesis of effective strategic communications--in that the wholly foreseeable outcome of it is for the service to simply clam up, and in the process miss out on important opportunities to shape behavior of both potential adversaries and friends alike. effective strategic communications planning would necessarily involve (at a minimum) public communcations (chinfo), legislative communications (ola), executive communication (osd), capabilities (syscoms) and operational objectives (fleet). this function would have a modest staff to serve as an administrative tool for teeing up subjects and tracking decisions to completion. the bottom line here is that a concerted effort to achieve message alignment requires both organization and action, and in their absence, lurches in unanticipated directions will disturb the illusion of calm created by enforced silence. every single program manager has a list of milestones for his or her program. those milestones include tests and demonstrations of new or innovative capabilties. every single one of these tests is an opportunity to communicate a message--yet we have no effetive mechanism for determining which ones should be released, which ones shouldn't, how information should be shared, what should be stressed, to what end, and how will that end be measured. we need to get serious about this end of the business. there will be times where we want to rock our contenders back on their heels. there will be times when we wish to be coy. there will be times when we wish to remain silent. how we distinguish among these times should not be left up to chance. it is time for the navy to get its strategic communications act in gear, and it isn't going to happen without the cno making it so. posted by the conservative wahoo at 11:31 am no comments: links to this post email thisblogthis!share to twittershare to facebookshare to pinterest the conservative wahoo i am a forty-something year-old graduate of the university of virginia. i spent a career on active duty in the us navy, including command of a destroyer. during that time, i kept my political views largely to myself. those days are over. tuesday, march 7, 2017 a brief update when i restarted the blog, i was serious. i really do intend to write a lot in the near future. the hick-up in consistency is completely my fault... basically, work came to me the first week of february and said they would spend a whole bunch of money for me to take a certification exam on march 10th if i was interested. i said yes. then the rule of three came fast and furious. basically, three different family members had three very different, serious health problems over a three week period. things are better now, but i am cramming for a test i will either pass because i'm both lucky and brilliant, or fail because i did not commit the time one would normally commit to be successful. given the circumstances, i choose to be thankful health has returned to my family, and i'll live with the test results. so forgive me while i cram work and studies through friday, and appease me just once as i rant in the other post today. things will get back to normal next week, or at least that's the plan. thank you for your patience. v/r, raymond posted by galrahn at 11:00 pm no comments: links to this post email thisblogthis!share to twittershare to facebookshare to pinterest labels: blogging friday, march 3, 2017 question of the week february 27 - march 3, 2017 each week information dissemination will present a question of the week for professional consideration and discussion. the question will remain at the top of the blog from monday at 12:00am until friday 5:00pm. please scroll down for new contributions. this weeks question: how should reduced manning concepts on ships and the move to unmanned aviation platforms impact graduating classes of usna that currently graduate 1,200 students to fill pilot/nfo billets that will be directly impacted by reduced manning concepts being deployed to the fleet? posted by galrahn at 5:00 pm no comments: links to this post email thisblogthis!share to twittershare to facebookshare to pinterest labels: manpower, question of the week, unmanned systems older posts home subscribe to: posts (atom) contributors blog archive april 2017 (3) march 2017 (2) february 2017 (13) january 2017 (13) march 2016 (1) february 2016 (3) january 2016 (6) december 2015 (8) november 2015 (6) october 2015 (5) september 2015 (14) august 2015 (5) july 2015 (12) june 2015 (18) may 2015 (7) april 2015 (16) march 2015 (19) february 2015 (18) january 2015 (21) december 2014 (25) november 2014 (23) october 2014 (32) september 2014 (10) august 2014 (10) july 2014 (12) june 2014 (8) may 2014 (15) april 2014 (18) march 2014 (26) february 2014 (21) january 2014 (17) december 2013 (19) november 2013 (24) october 2013 (24) september 2013 (26) august 2013 (11) july 2013 (17) june 2013 (22) may 2013 (18) april 2013 (16) march 2013 (27) february 2013 (20) january 2013 (37) december 2012 (13) november 2012 (11) october 2012 (8) september 2012 (28) august 2012 (31) july 2012 (36) june 2012 (28) may 2012 (28) april 2012 (45) march 2012 (42) february 2012 (19) january 2012 (22) december 2011 (21) november 2011 (42) october 2011 (47) september 2011 (51) august 2011 (56) july 2011 (59) june 2011 (59) may 2011 (76) april 2011 (69) march 2011 (113) february 2011 (78) january 2011 (62) december 2010 (87) november 2010 (72) october 2010 (52) september 2010 (58) august 2010 (50) july 2010 (32) june 2010 (51) may 2010 (43) april 2010 (27) march 2010 (27) february 2010 (59) january 2010 (86) december 2009 (79) november 2009 (47) october 2009 (69) september 2009 (100) august 2009 (97) july 2009 (67) june 2009 (95) may 2009 (62) april 2009 (121) march 2009 (87) february 2009 (100) january 2009 (98) december 2008 (90) november 2008 (90) october 2008 (115) september 2008 (70) august 2008 (103) july 2008 (93) june 2008 (83) may 2008 (98) april 2008 (88) march 2008 (78) february 2008 (93) january 2008 (99) december 2007 (65) november 2007 (67) october 2007 (64) september 2007 (67) august 2007 (67) july 2007 (50) june 2007 (28) get id by email awesome inc. theme. powered by blogger.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 4693

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.88% (370)
and - 2.94% (138)
for - 1.75% (82)
that - 1.43% (67)
his - 1.11% (52)
hip - 1.07% (50)
ship - 1.04% (49)
this - 0.98% (46)
her - 0.85% (40)
are - 0.85% (40)
was - 0.81% (38)
navy - 0.75% (35)
with - 0.72% (34)
rate - 0.7% (33)
war - 0.7% (33)
act - 0.7% (33)
cost - 0.62% (29)
one - 0.6% (28)
not - 0.53% (25)
its - 0.53% (25)
time - 0.53% (25)
end - 0.51% (24)
ratio - 0.49% (23)
will - 0.47% (22)
able - 0.47% (22)
have - 0.45% (21)
out - 0.45% (21)
but - 0.43% (20)
from - 0.43% (20)
u.s. - 0.43% (20)
day - 0.43% (20)
here - 0.43% (20)
red - 0.43% (20)
lcs - 0.4% (19)
can - 0.4% (19)
over - 0.4% (19)
steam - 0.36% (17)
president - 0.36% (17)
ships - 0.36% (17)
use - 0.34% (16)
some - 0.34% (16)
syria - 0.32% (15)
post - 0.32% (15)
power - 0.3% (14)
2013 - 0.3% (14)
age - 0.3% (14)
costs - 0.3% (14)
get - 0.3% (14)
2015 - 0.3% (14)
has - 0.3% (14)
strategic - 0.3% (14)
main - 0.3% (14)
march - 0.3% (14)
what - 0.3% (14)
2009 - 0.28% (13)
february - 0.28% (13)
had - 0.28% (13)
like - 0.28% (13)
force - 0.28% (13)
there - 0.28% (13)
may - 0.28% (13)
2011 - 0.28% (13)
naval - 0.28% (13)
form - 0.28% (13)
warship - 0.26% (12)
art - 0.26% (12)
2014 - 0.26% (12)
2012 - 0.26% (12)
2010 - 0.26% (12)
2008 - 0.26% (12)
ability - 0.26% (12)
april - 0.26% (12)
week - 0.23% (11)
rand - 0.23% (11)
january - 0.23% (11)
cno - 0.23% (11)
when - 0.23% (11)
sea - 0.21% (10)
increase - 0.21% (10)
surface - 0.21% (10)
2017 - 0.21% (10)
about - 0.21% (10)
effect - 0.21% (10)
trump - 0.21% (10)
now - 0.21% (10)
blog - 0.21% (10)
once - 0.21% (10)
june - 0.21% (10)
strategy - 0.21% (10)
operation - 0.21% (10)
miss - 0.21% (10)
very - 0.21% (10)
more - 0.21% (10)
being - 0.19% (9)
action - 0.19% (9)
communication - 0.19% (9)
century - 0.19% (9)
october - 0.19% (9)
both - 0.19% (9)
should - 0.19% (9)
been - 0.19% (9)
any - 0.19% (9)
on, - 0.19% (9)
how - 0.19% (9)
would - 0.19% (9)
july - 0.19% (9)
august - 0.19% (9)
september - 0.19% (9)
november - 0.19% (9)
these - 0.19% (9)
december - 0.19% (9)
combat - 0.17% (8)
class - 0.17% (8)
which - 0.17% (8)
into - 0.17% (8)
press - 0.17% (8)
our - 0.17% (8)
she - 0.17% (8)
reed - 0.17% (8)
than - 0.17% (8)
2007 - 0.17% (8)
twitter - 0.17% (8)
test - 0.17% (8)
need - 0.17% (8)
missile - 0.17% (8)
obama - 0.17% (8)
operational - 0.17% (8)
through - 0.17% (8)
who - 0.15% (7)
weapons - 0.15% (7)
administration - 0.15% (7)
significant - 0.15% (7)
year - 0.15% (7)
battle - 0.15% (7)
new - 0.15% (7)
early - 0.15% (7)
program - 0.15% (7)
product - 0.15% (7)
effective - 0.15% (7)
led - 0.15% (7)
electronic - 0.15% (7)
british - 0.15% (7)
see - 0.15% (7)
support - 0.15% (7)
again - 0.15% (7)
fleet - 0.15% (7)
even - 0.15% (7)
warships - 0.15% (7)
they - 0.15% (7)
communications - 0.13% (6)
frigate - 0.13% (6)
make - 0.13% (6)
units - 0.13% (6)
military - 0.13% (6)
design - 0.13% (6)
back - 0.13% (6)
assad - 0.13% (6)
world - 0.13% (6)
line - 0.13% (6)
clear - 0.13% (6)
revolution - 0.13% (6)
those - 0.13% (6)
concept - 0.13% (6)
comment - 0.13% (6)
many - 0.13% (6)
their - 0.13% (6)
email - 0.13% (6)
memo - 0.13% (6)
send - 0.13% (6)
reduce - 0.13% (6)
win - 0.13% (6)
construct - 0.13% (6)
replace - 0.13% (6)
combine - 0.13% (6)
small - 0.13% (6)
under - 0.13% (6)
great - 0.13% (6)
study - 0.13% (6)
must - 0.13% (6)
mind - 0.13% (6)
other - 0.13% (6)
work - 0.13% (6)
sent - 0.13% (6)
hull - 0.11% (5)
shipyards - 0.11% (5)
posted - 0.11% (5)
long - 0.11% (5)
industrial - 0.11% (5)
comments: - 0.11% (5)
facebookshare - 0.11% (5)
less - 0.11% (5)
links - 0.11% (5)
every - 0.11% (5)
question - 0.11% (5)
you - 0.11% (5)
first - 0.11% (5)
happen - 0.11% (5)
develop - 0.11% (5)
three - 0.11% (5)
times - 0.11% (5)
chemical - 0.11% (5)
grow - 0.11% (5)
separate - 0.11% (5)
uss - 0.11% (5)
twittershare - 0.11% (5)
also - 0.11% (5)
information - 0.11% (5)
maintenance - 0.11% (5)
thisblogthis!share - 0.11% (5)
period - 0.11% (5)
given - 0.11% (5)
tactical - 0.11% (5)
future - 0.11% (5)
though - 0.11% (5)
might - 0.11% (5)
pinterest - 0.11% (5)
cruise - 0.11% (5)
it. - 0.11% (5)
thursday - 0.11% (5)
just - 0.11% (5)
against - 0.11% (5)
states - 0.11% (5)
real - 0.11% (5)
sure - 0.11% (5)
position - 0.11% (5)
came - 0.11% (5)
placed - 0.11% (5)
event - 0.11% (5)
mine - 0.11% (5)
things - 0.11% (5)
late - 0.11% (5)
19th - 0.11% (5)
such - 0.11% (5)
aid - 0.11% (5)
serious - 0.11% (5)
warfare - 0.11% (5)
process - 0.11% (5)
tomahawk - 0.11% (5)
capability - 0.11% (5)
report - 0.11% (5)
them - 0.11% (5)
way - 0.11% (5)
global - 0.09% (4)
start - 0.09% (4)
air - 0.09% (4)
political - 0.09% (4)
problem - 0.09% (4)
fire - 0.09% (4)
destroy - 0.09% (4)
range - 0.09% (4)
part - 0.09% (4)
subject - 0.09% (4)
roll - 0.09% (4)
choice - 0.09% (4)
used - 0.09% (4)
combatant - 0.09% (4)
fisher - 0.09% (4)
still - 0.09% (4)
ones - 0.09% (4)
rising - 0.09% (4)
remain - 0.09% (4)
ships. - 0.09% (4)
produce - 0.09% (4)
including - 0.09% (4)
engine - 0.09% (4)
capable - 0.09% (4)
made - 0.09% (4)
needed - 0.09% (4)
friday - 0.09% (4)
near - 0.09% (4)
take - 0.09% (4)
(18) - 0.09% (4)
administration. - 0.09% (4)
week, - 0.09% (4)
combined - 0.09% (4)
steel - 0.09% (4)
(28) - 0.09% (4)
capabilities - 0.09% (4)
did - 0.09% (4)
potential - 0.09% (4)
were - 0.09% (4)
secretary - 0.09% (4)
message - 0.09% (4)
21st - 0.09% (4)
large - 0.09% (4)
actual - 0.09% (4)
replaced - 0.09% (4)
systems - 0.09% (4)
concepts - 0.09% (4)
foreseeable - 0.09% (4)
impact - 0.09% (4)
begin - 0.09% (4)
because - 0.09% (4)
admiral - 0.09% (4)
change - 0.09% (4)
products - 0.09% (4)
leader - 0.09% (4)
(67) - 0.09% (4)
only - 0.09% (4)
budget - 0.09% (4)
cno's - 0.09% (4)
release - 0.09% (4)
current - 0.09% (4)
present - 0.09% (4)
united - 0.09% (4)
ultimately - 0.09% (4)
royal - 0.09% (4)
within - 0.09% (4)
plain - 0.09% (4)
attack - 0.09% (4)
navy, - 0.09% (4)
guidance - 0.06% (3)
issue - 0.06% (3)
little - 0.06% (3)
least - 0.06% (3)
i'm - 0.06% (3)
member - 0.06% (3)
basic - 0.06% (3)
something - 0.06% (3)
measure - 0.06% (3)
too - 0.06% (3)
civilian - 0.06% (3)
tomahawks - 0.06% (3)
isn't - 0.06% (3)
doubt - 0.06% (3)
think - 0.06% (3)
then - 0.06% (3)
labels: - 0.06% (3)
explain - 0.06% (3)
staff - 0.06% (3)
lot - 0.06% (3)
uncomfortable - 0.06% (3)
among - 0.06% (3)
home - 0.06% (3)
syria. - 0.06% (3)
missiles - 0.06% (3)
strike - 0.06% (3)
friday, - 0.06% (3)
america - 0.06% (3)
chief - 0.06% (3)
galrahn - 0.06% (3)
component - 0.06% (3)
policy - 0.06% (3)
said - 0.06% (3)
while - 0.06% (3)
gag - 0.06% (3)
agreement - 0.06% (3)
destroyer - 0.06% (3)
decision - 0.06% (3)
mid - 0.06% (3)
myself - 0.06% (3)
likely - 0.06% (3)
tank - 0.06% (3)
why - 0.06% (3)
plan - 0.06% (3)
time, - 0.06% (3)
(8) - 0.06% (3)
government - 0.06% (3)
2016 - 0.06% (3)
solutions - 0.06% (3)
(19) - 0.06% (3)
increases - 0.06% (3)
rapid - 0.06% (3)
advance - 0.06% (3)
(21) - 0.06% (3)
(13) - 0.06% (3)
manning - 0.06% (3)
deter - 0.06% (3)
phase - 0.06% (3)
shape - 0.06% (3)
battleship - 0.06% (3)
maritime - 0.06% (3)
own - 0.06% (3)
next - 0.06% (3)
top - 0.06% (3)
firepower - 0.06% (3)
(27) - 0.06% (3)
electrical - 0.06% (3)
conditions - 0.06% (3)
slow - 0.06% (3)
growth - 0.06% (3)
sail - 0.06% (3)
forms - 0.06% (3)
same - 0.06% (3)
modern - 0.06% (3)
armor - 0.06% (3)
significantly - 0.06% (3)
weight - 0.06% (3)
20th - 0.06% (3)
(59) - 0.06% (3)
last - 0.06% (3)
four - 0.06% (3)
2006 - 0.06% (3)
suggests - 0.06% (3)
similar - 0.06% (3)
forced - 0.06% (3)
increased - 0.06% (3)
control - 0.06% (3)
until - 0.06% (3)
war. - 0.06% (3)
released - 0.06% (3)
units, - 0.06% (3)
unmanned - 0.06% (3)
much - 0.06% (3)
multiple - 0.06% (3)
function - 0.06% (3)
problems - 0.06% (3)
solve - 0.06% (3)
so. - 0.06% (3)
better - 0.06% (3)
service - 0.06% (3)
building - 0.06% (3)
friends - 0.06% (3)
management - 0.06% (3)
stability - 0.06% (3)
created - 0.04% (2)
ago - 0.04% (2)
communicate - 0.04% (2)
(47) - 0.04% (2)
level - 0.04% (2)
(17) - 0.04% (2)
days - 0.04% (2)
(51) - 0.04% (2)
(11) - 0.04% (2)
former - 0.04% (2)
involve - 0.04% (2)
(22) - 0.04% (2)
wholly - 0.04% (2)
sea-air-space - 0.04% (2)
(42) - 0.04% (2)
important - 0.04% (2)
1877 - 0.04% (2)
(24) - 0.04% (2)
(78) - 0.04% (2)
osd - 0.04% (2)
spend - 0.04% (2)
freedberg - 0.04% (2)
day. - 0.04% (2)
each - 0.04% (2)
sm6 - 0.04% (2)
(93) - 0.04% (2)
press. - 0.04% (2)
(90) - 0.04% (2)
(98) - 0.04% (2)
memo. - 0.04% (2)
(100) - 0.04% (2)
reaction - 0.04% (2)
address - 0.04% (2)
(69) - 0.04% (2)
now, - 0.04% (2)
(62) - 0.04% (2)
(87) - 0.04% (2)
(50) - 0.04% (2)
feed - 0.04% (2)
recent - 0.04% (2)
few - 0.04% (2)
bottom - 0.04% (2)
(10) - 0.04% (2)
constructor - 0.04% (2)
normal - 0.04% (2)
announcing - 0.04% (2)
tests - 0.04% (2)
cram - 0.04% (2)
(and - 0.04% (2)
thank - 0.04% (2)
down - 0.04% (2)
reduced - 0.04% (2)
list - 0.04% (2)
anti-ship - 0.04% (2)
milestones - 0.04% (2)
rolling - 0.04% (2)
commit - 0.04% (2)
command - 0.04% (2)
wahoo - 0.04% (2)
conservative - 0.04% (2)
want - 0.04% (2)
rock - 0.04% (2)
graduate - 0.04% (2)
basically, - 0.04% (2)
fail - 0.04% (2)
health - 0.04% (2)
family - 0.04% (2)
different - 0.04% (2)
before - 0.04% (2)
found - 0.04% (2)
(16) - 0.04% (2)
public - 0.04% (2)
simply - 0.04% (2)
clam - 0.04% (2)
(12) - 0.04% (2)
absence - 0.04% (2)
(at - 0.04% (2)
wish - 0.04% (2)
(32) - 0.04% (2)
letter - 0.04% (2)
stated - 0.04% (2)
wondering - 0.04% (2)
(5) - 0.04% (2)
posts - 0.04% (2)
(3) - 0.04% (2)
5:00 - 0.04% (2)
write - 0.04% (2)
move - 0.04% (2)
single - 0.04% (2)
organization - 0.04% (2)
serve - 0.04% (2)
(6) - 0.04% (2)
advocate - 0.04% (2)
effort - 0.04% (2)
(26) - 0.04% (2)
ways - 0.04% (2)
cannot - 0.04% (2)
beginning - 0.04% (2)
parliament - 0.04% (2)
forward - 0.04% (2)
number - 0.04% (2)
ships, - 0.04% (2)
fleet? - 0.04% (2)
more, - 0.04% (2)
require - 0.04% (2)
moving - 0.04% (2)
vital - 0.04% (2)
orders - 0.04% (2)
relationship - 0.04% (2)
monopsony - 0.04% (2)
concerned - 0.04% (2)
making - 0.04% (2)
maintain - 0.04% (2)
brought - 0.04% (2)
could - 0.04% (2)
maneuver - 0.04% (2)
where - 0.04% (2)
shipbuilding - 0.04% (2)
terms - 0.04% (2)
forces - 0.04% (2)
attacked - 0.04% (2)
size, - 0.04% (2)
technological - 0.04% (2)
capital - 0.04% (2)
suggested - 0.04% (2)
littoral - 0.04% (2)
trade - 0.04% (2)
needs - 0.04% (2)
gone - 0.04% (2)
past - 0.04% (2)
competition - 0.04% (2)
reed’s - 0.04% (2)
hybrid - 0.04% (2)
hms - 0.04% (2)
represent - 0.04% (2)
completion - 0.04% (2)
hull. - 0.04% (2)
components - 0.04% (2)
capability. - 0.04% (2)
means - 0.04% (2)
larger - 0.04% (2)
powerful - 0.04% (2)
capacity - 0.04% (2)
vessel - 0.04% (2)
light - 0.04% (2)
development - 0.04% (2)
greater - 0.04% (2)
century, - 0.04% (2)
decade - 0.04% (2)
fighting - 0.04% (2)
put - 0.04% (2)
went - 0.04% (2)
engines - 0.04% (2)
advanced - 0.04% (2)
estimates - 0.04% (2)
overall - 0.04% (2)
upon - 0.04% (2)
today’s - 0.04% (2)
equipment - 0.04% (2)
designs - 0.04% (2)
include - 0.04% (2)
software - 0.04% (2)
“electronic - 0.04% (2)
stable - 0.04% (2)
consideration - 0.04% (2)
modular - 0.04% (2)
expensive - 0.04% (2)
physically - 0.04% (2)
echo - 0.04% (2)
costs. - 0.04% (2)
rail - 0.04% (2)
well - 0.04% (2)
account - 0.04% (2)
guns - 0.04% (2)
directed - 0.04% (2)
during - 0.04% (2)
whose - 0.04% (2)
energy - 0.04% (2)
combatants - 0.04% (2)
subsurface - 0.04% (2)
sir - 0.04% (2)
ray - 0.04% (2)
via - 0.04% (2)
amount - 0.04% (2)
right - 0.04% (2)
happening - 0.04% (2)
enjoyed - 0.04% (2)
security - 0.04% (2)
either - 0.04% (2)
incident - 0.04% (2)
quite - 0.04% (2)
pissed - 0.04% (2)
two - 0.04% (2)
media - 0.04% (2)
off. - 0.04% (2)
rapidly - 0.04% (2)
line, - 0.04% (2)
reasons - 0.04% (2)
gave - 0.04% (2)
left - 0.04% (2)
to: - 0.04% (2)
administrations - 0.04% (2)
challenge - 0.04% (2)
tell - 0.04% (2)
response - 0.04% (2)
offshore - 0.04% (2)
balancing - 0.04% (2)
2:00 - 0.04% (2)
initial - 0.04% (2)
acting - 0.04% (2)
necessary - 0.04% (2)
specific - 0.04% (2)
russia - 0.04% (2)
globally - 0.04% (2)
resolve - 0.04% (2)
rule - 0.04% (2)
really - 0.04% (2)
forth - 0.04% (2)
set - 0.04% (2)
though, - 0.04% (2)
watched - 0.04% (2)
porter - 0.04% (2)
cruiser - 0.04% (2)
functions - 0.04% (2)
offers - 0.04% (2)
acquisition - 0.04% (2)
engage - 0.04% (2)
opponent - 0.04% (2)
traditional - 0.04% (2)
patrol, - 0.04% (2)
thursday, - 0.04% (2)
defense - 0.04% (2)
successful - 0.04% (2)
since - 0.04% (2)
caused - 0.04% (2)
class. - 0.04% (2)
executive - 0.04% (2)
despite - 0.04% (2)
culture - 0.04% (2)
costs, - 0.04% (2)
troubles - 0.04% (2)
taken - 0.04% (2)
saving - 0.04% (2)
massive - 0.04% (2)
smaller - 0.04% (2)
hill - 0.04% (2)
strategy. - 0.04% (2)
chance - 0.04% (2)
thoughts - 0.04% (2)
future. - 0.04% (2)
variant - 0.04% (2)
visions - 0.04% (2)
interests - 0.04% (2)
seen - 0.04% (2)
attempt - 0.04% (2)
basis - 0.04% (2)
construction - 0.04% (2)
elements - 0.04% (2)
cold - 0.04% (2)
avoid - 0.04% (2)
business - 0.04% (2)
oversharing - 0.04% (2)
of the - 0.96% (45)
in the - 0.64% (30)
the navy - 0.4% (19)
at the - 0.4% (19)
the u.s. - 0.34% (16)
for the - 0.3% (14)
with the - 0.28% (13)
and the - 0.28% (13)
to the - 0.28% (13)
from the - 0.23% (11)
that the - 0.21% (10)
as the - 0.21% (10)
by the - 0.19% (9)
on the - 0.19% (9)
president obama - 0.15% (7)
the cno - 0.15% (7)
the us - 0.15% (7)
strategic communication - 0.15% (7)
cost of - 0.15% (7)
and in - 0.13% (6)
president trump - 0.13% (6)
if the - 0.13% (6)
that i - 0.13% (6)
to this - 0.13% (6)
the cost - 0.13% (6)
the ship - 0.13% (6)
the rand - 0.13% (6)
some of - 0.13% (6)
of its - 0.13% (6)
will be - 0.13% (6)
navy is - 0.11% (5)
my mind - 0.11% (5)
should be - 0.11% (5)
have a - 0.11% (5)
strategic communications - 0.11% (5)
this is - 0.11% (5)
that a - 0.11% (5)
costs of - 0.11% (5)
no comments: - 0.11% (5)
thisblogthis!share to - 0.11% (5)
to pinterest - 0.11% (5)
post email - 0.11% (5)
comments: links - 0.11% (5)
the time - 0.11% (5)
chemical weapons - 0.11% (5)
facebookshare to - 0.11% (5)
to facebookshare - 0.11% (5)
posted by - 0.11% (5)
twittershare to - 0.11% (5)
to twittershare - 0.11% (5)
ship cost - 0.11% (5)
links to - 0.11% (5)
this post - 0.11% (5)
email thisblogthis!share - 0.11% (5)
is for - 0.09% (4)
one of - 0.09% (4)
there is - 0.09% (4)
to make - 0.09% (4)
the united - 0.09% (4)
by president - 0.09% (4)
united states - 0.09% (4)
send a - 0.09% (4)
is not - 0.09% (4)
u.s. navy - 0.09% (4)
the world - 0.09% (4)
use of - 0.09% (4)
royal navy - 0.09% (4)
through the - 0.09% (4)
the main - 0.09% (4)
steam and - 0.09% (4)
that of - 0.09% (4)
in that - 0.09% (4)
the first - 0.09% (4)
over the - 0.09% (4)
period of - 0.09% (4)
warship cost - 0.09% (4)
21st century - 0.09% (4)
industrial revolution - 0.09% (4)
to reduce - 0.06% (3)
doubt in - 0.06% (3)
2007 (67) - 0.06% (3)
no doubt - 0.06% (3)
the last - 0.06% (3)
military action - 0.06% (3)
pinterest labels: - 0.06% (3)
of ship - 0.06% (3)
and steel - 0.06% (3)
mind that - 0.06% (3)
cruise missiles - 0.06% (3)
within the - 0.06% (3)
the 19th - 0.06% (3)
navy of - 0.06% (3)
me the - 0.06% (3)
mine warfare - 0.06% (3)
when i - 0.06% (3)
a similar - 0.06% (3)
secretary of - 0.06% (3)
of u.s. - 0.06% (3)
the royal - 0.06% (3)
question of - 0.06% (3)
of british - 0.06% (3)
us navy - 0.06% (3)
with a - 0.06% (3)
have to - 0.06% (3)
i came - 0.06% (3)
was the - 0.06% (3)
effective strategic - 0.06% (3)
in syria - 0.06% (3)
of both - 0.06% (3)
2012 (28) - 0.06% (3)
uncomfortable with - 0.06% (3)
the british - 0.06% (3)
the same - 0.06% (3)
the week - 0.06% (3)
combined to - 0.06% (3)
the lcs - 0.06% (3)
rising cost - 0.06% (3)
a clear - 0.06% (3)
by galrahn - 0.06% (3)
ability to - 0.06% (3)
and early - 0.06% (3)
and its - 0.06% (3)
into the - 0.06% (3)
at least - 0.06% (3)
the form - 0.06% (3)
the navy, - 0.06% (3)
suggests that - 0.06% (3)
to its - 0.06% (3)
needed to - 0.06% (3)
end of - 0.06% (3)
reduce the - 0.06% (3)
there will - 0.06% (3)
these costs - 0.06% (3)
is that - 0.06% (3)
warship costs - 0.06% (3)
the shipyards - 0.06% (3)
can be - 0.06% (3)
great power - 0.06% (3)
the sea - 0.06% (3)
steel products - 0.06% (3)
be times - 0.06% (3)
it was - 0.06% (3)
would have - 0.06% (3)
do so. - 0.04% (2)
of those - 0.04% (2)
missiles to - 0.04% (2)
to get - 0.04% (2)
to communicate - 0.04% (2)
2013 (24) - 0.04% (2)
not as - 0.04% (2)
2011 (59) - 0.04% (2)
that end - 0.04% (2)
a year - 0.04% (2)
which ones - 0.04% (2)
position from - 0.04% (2)
in response - 0.04% (2)
every single - 0.04% (2)
2008 (93) - 0.04% (2)
serious about - 0.04% (2)
means to - 0.04% (2)
is the - 0.04% (2)
the near - 0.04% (2)
trump is - 0.04% (2)
us resolve - 0.04% (2)
2010 (27) - 0.04% (2)
ones should - 0.04% (2)
2009 (100) - 0.04% (2)
2008 (90) - 0.04% (2)
on this - 0.04% (2)
this event - 0.04% (2)
there was - 0.04% (2)
manning concepts - 0.04% (2)
the wholly - 0.04% (2)
my friends - 0.04% (2)
begin to - 0.04% (2)
the process - 0.04% (2)
what was - 0.04% (2)
wish to - 0.04% (2)
when we - 0.04% (2)
i watched - 0.04% (2)
home rolling - 0.04% (2)
the sm6 - 0.04% (2)
time on - 0.04% (2)
at home - 0.04% (2)
my twitter - 0.04% (2)
to act - 0.04% (2)
a long - 0.04% (2)
through my - 0.04% (2)
announcing that - 0.04% (2)
in this - 0.04% (2)
conservative wahoo - 0.04% (2)
been a - 0.04% (2)
the problem - 0.04% (2)
back to - 0.04% (2)
present a - 0.04% (2)
the bottom - 0.04% (2)
line here - 0.04% (2)
(16) march - 0.04% (2)
2017 (13) - 0.04% (2)
rolling through - 0.04% (2)
march 3, - 0.04% (2)
week i - 0.04% (2)
isn't about - 0.04% (2)
the cno's - 0.04% (2)
amount of - 0.04% (2)
the subject - 0.04% (2)
friends in - 0.04% (2)
among the - 0.04% (2)
said they - 0.04% (2)
2014 (10) - 0.04% (2)
and develop - 0.04% (2)
would be - 0.04% (2)
what is - 0.04% (2)
beginning of - 0.04% (2)
guns and - 0.04% (2)
directed energy - 0.04% (2)
capabilities in - 0.04% (2)
the rising - 0.04% (2)
energy weapons - 0.04% (2)
and directed - 0.04% (2)
the foreseeable - 0.04% (2)
and electronic - 0.04% (2)
just as - 0.04% (2)
a maritime - 0.04% (2)
replaced by - 0.04% (2)
ships as - 0.04% (2)
and operation - 0.04% (2)
lcs was - 0.04% (2)
modular components - 0.04% (2)
lcs units - 0.04% (2)
and other - 0.04% (2)
age of - 0.04% (2)
has been - 0.04% (2)
support of - 0.04% (2)
power competition - 0.04% (2)
or deter - 0.04% (2)
that can - 0.04% (2)
rail guns - 0.04% (2)
the rapid - 0.04% (2)
such as - 0.04% (2)
the use - 0.04% (2)
of naval - 0.04% (2)
more and - 0.04% (2)
and at - 0.04% (2)
cost increase - 0.04% (2)
chief naval - 0.04% (2)
reasons for - 0.04% (2)
naval constructor - 0.04% (2)
the battleship - 0.04% (2)
had been - 0.04% (2)
a cost - 0.04% (2)
forms of - 0.04% (2)
have been - 0.04% (2)
19th and - 0.04% (2)
2006 rand - 0.04% (2)
early 20th - 0.04% (2)
electrical and - 0.04% (2)
electronic equipment - 0.04% (2)
british naval - 0.04% (2)
rising costs - 0.04% (2)
able to - 0.04% (2)
the growth - 0.04% (2)
in its - 0.04% (2)
the budget - 0.04% (2)
shipyards that - 0.04% (2)
in terms - 0.04% (2)
red line, - 0.04% (2)
was pissed - 0.04% (2)
was uncomfortable - 0.04% (2)
of chemical - 0.04% (2)
over time - 0.04% (2)
pissed off. - 0.04% (2)
america was - 0.04% (2)
thursday, april - 0.04% (2)
the mid - 0.04% (2)
in support - 0.04% (2)
7, 2017 - 0.04% (2)
thoughts on - 0.04% (2)
weapons use - 0.04% (2)
the end - 0.04% (2)
led by - 0.04% (2)
at this - 0.04% (2)
military force - 0.04% (2)
are not - 0.04% (2)
60 tomahawk - 0.04% (2)
of military - 0.04% (2)
was able - 0.04% (2)
the trump - 0.04% (2)
against syria - 0.04% (2)
on thursday - 0.04% (2)
administration. in - 0.04% (2)
navy will - 0.04% (2)
in their - 0.04% (2)
small surface - 0.04% (2)
than the - 0.04% (2)
need to - 0.04% (2)
of stability - 0.04% (2)
cost saving - 0.04% (2)
surface and - 0.04% (2)
the ability - 0.04% (2)
navy in - 0.04% (2)
make lcs - 0.04% (2)
admiral fisher - 0.04% (2)
functions of - 0.04% (2)
still offers - 0.04% (2)
basis for - 0.04% (2)
support the - 0.04% (2)
that has - 0.04% (2)
an effective - 0.04% (2)
warships over - 0.04% (2)
to that - 0.04% (2)
have combined - 0.04% (2)
maintenance of - 0.04% (2)
u.s. cannot - 0.04% (2)
lcs and - 0.04% (2)
produce the - 0.04% (2)
lcs have - 0.04% (2)
the maintenance - 0.04% (2)
into syria - 0.04% (2)
to facebookshare to - 0.11% (5)
to this post - 0.11% (5)
email thisblogthis!share to - 0.11% (5)
thisblogthis!share to twittershare - 0.11% (5)
this post email - 0.11% (5)
twittershare to facebookshare - 0.11% (5)
comments: links to - 0.11% (5)
post email thisblogthis!share - 0.11% (5)
links to this - 0.11% (5)
to twittershare to - 0.11% (5)
in my mind - 0.11% (5)
of the navy - 0.11% (5)
the cost of - 0.11% (5)
no comments: links - 0.11% (5)
facebookshare to pinterest - 0.11% (5)
the united states - 0.09% (4)
at the navy - 0.09% (4)
the u.s. navy - 0.09% (4)
some of the - 0.09% (4)
to pinterest labels: - 0.06% (3)
doubt in my - 0.06% (3)
posted by galrahn - 0.06% (3)
by president obama - 0.06% (3)
that the navy - 0.06% (3)
that the us - 0.06% (3)
is for the - 0.06% (3)
that of the - 0.06% (3)
pm no comments: - 0.06% (3)
steam and steel - 0.06% (3)
end of the - 0.06% (3)
will be times - 0.06% (3)
question of the - 0.06% (3)
of the week - 0.06% (3)
at the wholly - 0.04% (2)
when we wish - 0.04% (2)
its strategic communications - 0.04% (2)
mind that the - 0.04% (2)
in the near - 0.04% (2)
reduced manning concepts - 0.04% (2)
my friends in - 0.04% (2)
march 3, 2017 - 0.04% (2)
the secretary of - 0.04% (2)
through my twitter - 0.04% (2)
here is that - 0.04% (2)
the bottom line - 0.04% (2)
bottom line here - 0.04% (2)
to do so. - 0.04% (2)
the wholly foreseeable - 0.04% (2)
friends in the - 0.04% (2)
or at least - 0.04% (2)
effective strategic communications - 0.04% (2)
we wish to - 0.04% (2)
be times when - 0.04% (2)
rolling through my - 0.04% (2)
at home rolling - 0.04% (2)
send a clear - 0.04% (2)
directed energy weapons - 0.04% (2)
rail guns and - 0.04% (2)
electrical and electronic - 0.04% (2)
the 19th and - 0.04% (2)
at the same - 0.04% (2)
guns and directed - 0.04% (2)
that can be - 0.04% (2)
a maritime strategy - 0.04% (2)
great power competition - 0.04% (2)
warships over the - 0.04% (2)
of the british - 0.04% (2)
secretary of the - 0.04% (2)
to that of - 0.04% (2)
reasons for the - 0.04% (2)
of the industrial - 0.04% (2)
more and more - 0.04% (2)
the rising costs - 0.04% (2)
in the first - 0.04% (2)
forms of the - 0.04% (2)
shipyards that produce - 0.04% (2)
to be successful - 0.04% (2)
uncomfortable with the - 0.04% (2)
and i was - 0.04% (2)
was uncomfortable with - 0.04% (2)
america was pissed - 0.04% (2)
of chemical weapons - 0.04% (2)
the trump administration - 0.04% (2)
the near future - 0.04% (2)
syria isn't about - 0.04% (2)
by the united - 0.04% (2)
the lcs program - 0.04% (2)
in support of - 0.04% (2)
the reasons for - 0.04% (2)
navy of the - 0.04% (2)
have combined to - 0.04% (2)
as the basis - 0.04% (2)
the use of - 0.04% (2)
combined to make - 0.04% (2)
cost of british - 0.04% (2)
over the last - 0.04% (2)
the ability to - 0.04% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.