<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GCV Solicitation Brings Industry Teaming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/land_forces/gcv-solicitation-brings-industry-teaming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gcv-solicitation-brings-industry-teaming/</link>
	<description>Your Source for Defense and Military News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:18:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Year In Defense &#124; U.S. Army Year in Review: Resetting the Balance</title>
		<link>http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gcv-solicitation-brings-industry-teaming/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>The Year In Defense &#124; U.S. Army Year in Review: Resetting the Balance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theyearindefense.com/?p=1588#comment-84</guid>
		<description>[...] on FCS, the change left the Army without a new tank program and with a possibly longer wait for next-generation vehicles across the board. However, the Army’s senior military and civilian leaders pushed to “spin [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on FCS, the change left the Army without a new tank program and with a possibly longer wait for next-generation vehicles across the board. However, the Army’s senior military and civilian leaders pushed to “spin [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

