[MB.]

The ultimate in high-ground 'aerospace' warfare lines of communication restriction weaponry is the 'aerospace' cruiser. This advanced weapon system would utilize a combination of conventional and advanced materials and systems of systems in engineering approach. Utilizing rocket propulsion and exotic (mega-watt class laser) weapons, the cruiser denies space-lane communication and deploys surveillance and weapons satellites. It is fully capable of Global Strike missions within a few hours of launch. It returns to friendly space-ports, terrestrial or orbital for refueling.

Right all I am saying is those dollars could have been better spend with the Arleigh Burke, and especially considering the cash we spend designing super high tech LCS's when it wasn't needed as a more cost effective ship would have served the role fine and in more numbers.

I think the cash would have been better not spent at all, but you are correct, the LCS and CVs and other advanced systems are a waste of money. They are only being built because of contractual obligations and corporate lobbying withing the US congress and senate armed service committees. Needless to say the president is also involved, directly and indirectly through his cabinet appointees.

Regardless, scaling down forces in both countries seems to be a real possibility, so I don't think it is unrealistic that US personnel could be scaled down without jeopardizing the missions in these regions beyond what the administration has called for. I support the idea of scaling down as the situation allows for.

What are the conditions for ending the war under your long-war strategy?

[Rilzik]

What are the conditions for ending the war under your long-war strategy?

Hell I don't know, without giving it much thought, I'd say a government that can sustain itself and remain democratic, or at least somewhat democratic. If you look at Korea or Taiwan, they didn't have the best of governments for a long time. I definitely don't have the schooling , or credentials to go to far into this discussion, but we have a obligation in my opinion to make sure that:

1 They remain democratic and 2 they are stable (relatively). No, I don't think we should leave and we should keep strong enough a US force to prevent a Somalia situation where we are run out.

In Afghanistan, I think people are wrong to assume we are leaving this year, or even a significant force reduction by 2012. We'll be there for a long time and any reduction will be small or even nonexistent, besides a reduction for media and appearances sake. In my opinion the 'surge' should and likely will continue until after the 2012 Taliban war season. Hopefully by then we can bring a significant portion of troops home. That is only speculation wishing for the best. As long as we have a few airports and willingness of the governments if not the people to carry out drone strikes we won't do so bad. If by 2013-14 if shit isn't settled then I say pull all but 50k from both places and bomb the shit out of them as needed (and requested) and cut personnel numbers to maintain strategic force of equipment and to get our national budget under control.

I think the cash would have been better not spent at all, but you are correct, the LCS and CVs and other advanced systems are a waste of money. They are only being built because of contractual obligations and corporate lobbying withing the US congress and senate armed service committees. Needless to say the president is also involved, directly and indirectly through his cabinet appointees.

I support the CV's actually, especially at the slow rate we build them. For CV's once you lose the capacity to build them the cost of restarting the F-22 will be minuscule by comparison. CV's still have a huge role to play if not around China's coast line which is a questionable as is. Everything outside of that including China's shipping lanes they are still king. Not to mention smaller countries, hopefully not like Iraq, but where we have a legitimate role to play. Our CV's ( a few of them) are getting damn old, our F-15's, F-18's, and F-16's as well as some of our cruisers and destroyers are becoming just too damn old. These things will need to be replaced.

The ultimate in high-ground 'aerospace' warfare lines of communication restriction weaponry is the 'aerospace' cruiser. This advanced weapon system would utilize a combination of conventional and advanced materials and systems of systems in engineering approach. Utilizing rocket propulsion and exotic (mega-watt class laser) weapons, the cruiser denies space-lane communication and deploys surveillance and weapons satellites. It is fully capable of Global Strike missions within a few hours of launch. It returns to friendly space-ports, terrestrial or orbital for refueling.

Is this the laser fitted destroyer/cruiser? I saw that recently and it's not something I would depend upon although I do think it is the future of warfare. When we have this weapon tech, then we should build a LCS type ship, or maybe it is best to build some prototypes.

[Zerogouki]

I think we should just build the fucking Death Star already.

[Rilzik]

A pretty good article on the J-20.

It more or less argues that the J-20 isn't made to go head to head with the F-22, but is a long range, super fast, missile platform to attack carriers and ships. It's mostly a Russian translation.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... craft.html

[Igor Antunov]

In my view the Chinese designers optimized their new jet for M=1.4-1.6. Here comes the clue: the J-20 is a missile launching platform able to evade enemy interceptors by means of a high cruise speed. The J-20 may prove a good interceptor, - very possibly. But its main task seems to be anti-shipping: firing missiles at enemy warships while denying their air defense cover.

One day it may happen that the new Chinese jets would be used in anger. On such a day People's Liberation Army would order its pilots to attack enemy warships off the coast of a freedom-loving island not far from the mainland China. In that sense the J-20 is a likely replacement for the JH-7A strike aircraft.

Seems that way.