Politics

[mdwest]

@mdwest the range you cited for the F-16 sounds more like the ferry range, not the combat radius. Regardless of the number, I’ve got to believe the aircraft Ukraine uses will be confined to Ukrainian airspace.

absolutely correct.. its combat radius is about 350 miles if its loaded up for a heavy bombing mission.. it can go a bit further if its flying for an air to air role..

From the center of Kiev to the Russian border is about 230 miles though.. so they could definitely strike at least a hundred miles into Russia, and strike anywhere they want inside their own borders..

ASSUMING they get the Gripens, the combat radius opens up significantly.. The Gripen has a combat radius of almost 800 miles when geared up for air to air.. and 500 miles when loaded for air to ground..

 

[rookhawk]

Im not @Red Leg .. but my assessment is... "it depends"...

Russia has a limited number of 5th Generation fighters (SU-57).. which appear to be pretty far behind in terms of quality of our 5th Gen aircraft (F35 and F22).. that said, there is no doubt that the SU-57 is a superior aircraft to older mid 70's tech found in the early Gen 4 F16 models and the Gen 4 Gripen..

But there is much more in play than just the aircraft itself.. maintenance is a HUGE issue with fighter aircraft (not just the quality of maintenance, but also being able to keep up with maintenance requirements at all).. the F16 isnt a maintenance hog.. but.. it is also not an easy aircraft to keep maintained.. the Gripen was specifically built to be low maintenance and also specifically designed to operate in extreme cold environments (the F16 was not).. Im not sure how well SU57's endure exteme cold like the Ukrainian winter that will be upon them soon.. or what the log chains or maintenance issues might be associated with the SU-57 if they were to deploy them to Ukraine..

As I understand it, the primary fighter aircraft that the Russians are deploying in Ukraine is the SU-35, which is SUPPOSEDLY the Russian equivalent of the F16 (multi-role, twin engine, single seat, 4th Gen, etc)...

I am NOT a fighter pilot.. but.. the fighter pilots I do know (I know quite a few.. nature of my industry and all).. tell me that the F16 is the superior aircraft in a dog fight between the two.. but.. that the SU-35 has better stand off fight capability, and that this is how the Russians would likely try to engage the F16's..

So much of it I would think would depend on how the F16 is used (shoot down Russian aircraft? bomb Russian ground targets?) and then once it does engage enemy aircraft or ground targets, what tactics do the Ukrainians use vs the Russians use in those engagements..

Thanks @mdwest, I wasn't discounting your knowledge because I found the post really interesting. I figured redleg might know a bit on the value of these particular f16s from on the job experience. As I understand it, not all F16s are the same, some are the worthless trash we gave allies and others are very updated weapons with excellent weapons payloads. As a non-military background John Q Public, I was curious if this is a PR move or if the west actually gave a deadly weapon to the Ukrainians that changes the theater of combat significantly.

 

[steve white]

EV tech works only in lala fantasy land like in the tiny town of Leisureland NM in the movie Downsizing or going to and from the bridge match at Sun City or for about 18 holes on the golf course. For the foreseeable future, pretty much green folly, nothing more. Unless mistaken, I think currently some small diesel vehicles can get 90 mpg. Explain how that would be a larger environmental foot print than that of an average EV. ???

Find me a 90 mpg tiny p/u--I'll buy it!!!!

 

[Tanks]

...

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

...

My electric bill for last month was $550 and I had AC at 72F. This is of course in CA with peak rates. Wonder how much daily use of Level 2 or 3 would add to that

 

[Red Leg]

it looks like Ukraine will be getting some F16's after all.. The Netherlands and Denmark just agreed to send them 19 F16's, and may potentially send them more (they have a total of 42)..

The Netherlands were among the first countries to buy the F16.. all of theirs are among the oldest and earliest F16A and F16 blocks.. But, I would think if they are employed correctly.. they will have a pretty serious negative impact on Russia.. and with a range of 2600+ miles they certainly have the ability to strike deep into the motherland and cause some pain to Russian cities and military installations that prior to now have been difficult to touch..

Netherlands, Denmark commit to delivering F-16s to Ukraine

The Netherlands and Denmark will supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine with first deliveries due around New Year, the prime ministers of the two NATO countries announced on Sunday during visits by Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy.

www.reuters.com

If Sweden follows through like they are talking about and donates Gripen's (also a 4th generation fighter with similar capabilities to the F16).. things might start getting a bit dicey for the Russians in a few months (its going to take a while to get all of these aircraft into Ukraine, figure out how to secure them from just getting shelled and cruise missiled by the Russians prior to ever deploying them, get mechanics and ground crews trained up, etc.. )... I doubt any of these aircraft are fully ready to be deployed before winter sets in this year.. but.. I think early 2024 might be very interesting to watch how things unfold..

@Red Leg , what's your military assessment of the F16 as an offensive or defensive weapon for Ukraine against Russia? Are these outdated technology gifted as a grand gesture, or are they providing actual field supremacy against Russian capabilities?

As @mdwest noted earlier, it depends on the model and whatever upgrades have been incorporated over the years. For instance, though the Dutch and Danish aircraft are some of the first procured by a NATO country, all those remaining have been through the Mid-Life Update (MLU) which brings them to block 30/40 standard and makes them a very capable gen 4 fighter. The MLU includes upgraded cockpit, radar, target acquisition and engagement, FLIR, etc. They are NATO standard in every way.

As such they are far superior to Ukraine's MIG 29 fighters and roughly equivalent on paper to the Russian SU 27 and Su-35 (which structurally have more in common with the F-15). Currently Ukraine still operates a few SU-27's with their remaining 29's. Neither have the ability to acquire Russian aircraft before they themselves are targeted. This will at least no longer be the case when the F-16's are operational.

I find it extremely unlikely that they would be used for deep strikes against Russian targets. First of all, they will be a very rare asset for quite a while to come. Challenging Russian S300 and S400 SAM batteries without the sort of electronic attack US forces can employ would be extremely risky. The real game changer from a bombing perspective will be the tactical employment of JDAM bombs (GPS guided 500 and 1000 pound bombs with glide capability). Because of their defensive suites, they will be able to operate far closer to the forward edge of the battlefield (FEBA) than UA's former Soviet aircraft currently can. That means they will be able to launch JDAM munitions much deeper into the Russian defensive zone at key targets. The F-16 can also carry the air launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Assuming they are eventually provided, they could put the Black Sea surface fleet in great jeopardy.

Finally, the F-16's lookdown shootdown capability is exceptional. Cruise missiles have never yet been a real threat to US forces, but Ukraine battles them constantly. The F-16 has the ability to see and target them with AMRAAM missiles. Also a pair of F-16's operating at some distance from the FEBA would have ability to see and engage Russian KA-52 attack helicopters operating at low altitude or at night to avoid shoulder fired surface to air missiles.

All in all, two or three squadrons of F-16's (24 - 36 aircraft) could make a dramatic difference both in the tactical battle and in stopping Russian strategic cruise missile strikes against both infrastructure or civilians. They would end any hope of Russia obtaining air superiority over any portion of the battlefield.

Sadly, I doubt if Ukraine will have an operational squadron before next summer or fall at the earliest.

 

[Red Leg]

With respect to the SU-57 - Russia's long awaited Gen 5 fighter - It still hasn't really gone into actual full rate production. The few existing platforms are essentially hand built pre-full rate production prototypes. Getting that line up an running has become increasingly difficult with sanctions and the conventional war expense in Ukraine.

 

[Alistair]

My electric bill for last month was $550 and I had AC at 72F. This is of course in CA with peak rates. Wonder how much daily use of Level 2 or 3 would add to that

At 32 cents per KWh and 1000 miles a month, roughly $91.50. (286 extra KWh). Less if you charged overnight (off-peak), more if your household does more mileage.

How much did you spend on gas last month? CA has expensive electricity, but expensive gas as well, as I recall?

 

[WAB]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

I’m an engineer with a background running oil refineries and ag chemical complexes and companies. As such, I am likely more rigorously trained in safety issues and, due to many real life experiences, more attuned to risk than most. The thought of the average consumer connecting and disconnecting 480V systems gives me the willies. If you’ve ever seen 480V ground fault you know exactly what I mean.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at current grid demand levels, that an EV might very well make good sense for an urban vehicle in many areas. However, I think most of us here are extremely skeptical of their utility in much of flyover country. I also don't think most of us are persuaded by acceleration that is irrelevant in our daily lives.

This is a summary of Tesla's own charging guidance.

Tesla chargers and charging types are divided into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 chargers are 120-volt trickle chargers, which add 2 miles of range per hour and use the NEMA 5-15 adapter.

Level 2 chargers run on 240 volts, and charge times vary based on amperage. At up to 80 amps, a Level 2 Tesla charger will add between 9 and 52 miles of range per hour and take between 6 and 30 hours to charge completely. Most public charging stations are Level 2.

Level 3 chargers are Tesla’s remarkable Supercharger stations. These charge at 480 volts and at 300 amps, making charging a breeze. The fastest superchargers add around 200 miles of range in 15 minutes, and standard superchargers add 170 miles in around 30 minutes.

It is not really practical for many to install a level three charger in their home, and the level 1 charger (regular 120 current) is so slow as to be essentially useless if the car is being driven more than once every week or two without a nearby Tesla charging point.

My problem with 240 volt, which most homes could support, is the charging variance time. I was just a history major, but I am not sure 9-52 miles per hour of charging is a particularly useful planning figure.

A level three charger is nice if my company has a bank of them and not too many employees with EVs. We installed 10 at my Northrop Grumman building employing 250 - as long as they are a novelty, no problem. But the notion of getting into a line while the guy in front of me takes 15 to 30 minutes charging while I await my turn to spend a half hour at the "pump" is something that does not interest me in the slightest.

Finally, a data point that I do not have is regular overnight charging costs of hours long 240 current.

Now my skepticism may indeed be due to my lack of intellectual agility. But I see nothing personally compelling in the above operating parameters.

Wow, Level 2 @ 80 amps. Like probably 90+% of the homes in the US, I have a 100 amp breaker box, so I'd have to get Brandon to buy me a 200 amp box through his Infrastructure and Economic Recovery Scam. I'm sure they cost a couple of thousand dollars? And 300 amps for a level 3? Where is all of the electricity going to come from when many "banks" of these are being used in a small geographical area when everyone is running their AC in the summer?

 

[Dirtdart]

The relation of voltage and current are indirectly proportional. A device with a 120 volt input will require 4 times the current (use any unit of measure you want current/watts that is what you pay for) of a device using an input of 480 volt for the same load.

As voltage increases, current decreases when all else is equal as far as the load is concerned. This is an oversimplification of OHM's law of course but the limit of human understanding of electricity.

I have no reason to doubt the data that @rookhawk has posted so lets work with that.
The charging rate of the type of station appears to be directly proportional to the input voltage.

If we can't figure out a way to safely install a residential service with a higher input voltage than 240VAC then we have do have serious problems.

Those skinny little wires along the road that provide primary voltage to that transformer to your home are on the low end 13,800VAC before, stepping it down to 240VAC. Much higher voltages are commonly present.

Keep in mind when you are sticking that "adaptor" in the wall in Namibia to charge your phone that it is 220VAC phase to GROUND. The same service suppling that is 380VAC phase to phase in the residence.

One day who knows?

 

[fourfive8]

Find me a 90 mpg tiny p/u--I'll buy it!!!!

I believe VW had one such vehicle proven and ready to go a few years ago and the swamp greens, politicians and bureaucrats nixed import so no business. Also I am sure it was powered by a small diesel. Mention diesel so some and you'd think you had just suggested feeding toxaphene to kids. IIRC it was a small mini or urban compact type vehicle. Something about emissions??? Which is kind of loony if you think about it. Get 10 mpg fuel economy and if the emissions are judged to be below some arbitrary threshold, good to go. Get 90 mpg with emissions not held below some arbitrary comparison threshold, the plan is nixed. Don't ask me to make sense of it

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Ford comes out with a F-150 Lightning, which appears to be a dud.

Is Ford pivoting? My prediction, just another miss. CEO needs to be fired. He has all the marketing savvy of the Bud Light folks.

Ford CEO: It's the 'right time' to build the Mustang GTD supercar

The automaker is taking the supercar recipe to its everyday Mustang pony car, with a price of around $300,000.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

It takes me about 5 minutes to visit the restroom and buy a giant Dr. Pepper and a beef stick. That’s the length of time I will give a charging device to charge up from 5% to full. And I want to go 500 miles pulling a stock trailer before I need to recharge. Oh, and a battery needs to have a 10 year/100k useful life. And cost <5k to replace. Until then, they can keep

@Doug3006 I've got to raise the BS flag on you. Manufacturers routinely exaggerate on the mileage they can get, but there is no way you or anyone else is going to drive a solid 500 miles if you have a giant Dr. Pepper.

 

[CoElkHunter]

@Doug3006 I've got to raise the BS flag on you. Manufacturers routinely exaggerate on the mileage they can get, but there is no way you or anyone else is going to drive a solid 500 miles if you have a giant Dr. Pepper.

Maybe he could if he had a 24oz Bud Light?

 

[Doug3006]

@Doug3006 I've got to raise the BS flag on you. Manufacturers routinely exaggerate on the mileage they can get, but there is no way you or anyone else is going to drive a solid 500 miles if you have a giant Dr. Pepper.

Busted! These days 25 miles is an accomplishment!

 

[Red Leg]

Back to the Chernihiv atrocity one last time. These are the vile people and culture who many in this country would ignore, even assist, in achieving their goals.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693362411384824285

 

[Doubleplay]

I’ve known countless executives in NY, LA, Chicago, Miami that have travelled 100+ miles a day for work that have owned Teslas for a decade now. As I’ve said previously, the use case for the Series S was just that, white collar workers that were contemplating a BMW 345i or an Audi A8 sedan as their commuter and leisure car. A Tesla Series S is significantly faster off the line, (fastest car you can buy for under $250k…let that sink in) equally or better equipped with luxury sedan features, as a higher resale value, and costs HALF as much. HALF as much even with the removal of the Federal EV subsidy that expired for Tesla about 5 years ago.

These are not leftist people I might add, not one of them bought a Series S because they thought they were saving the planet. These are white collar workers that need a vehicle for city to suburb driving, plus a lot of expressway use, and has the curb appeal and amenities that would be suitable for country club, civic org, opera, charity benefit, and other evening activities.

I’ve never, ever said an EV is the right use case for everyone, but I find there is a subset of this board that cannot wrap their mind around the idea that their vehicle requirements are highly unusual, whereas many other people do just fine with EVs.

Series S - Excellent white collar vehicle
Series 3 - Excellent commuter / suburb / blue collar car

If Tesla made a one-ton diesel pickup, I would buy one as well. They happen to make really good vehicles whereas my Ford gas SUV is a complete turd.

Well said but some here think all the EV owners are liberals and all the hunter/gun owners are against it just because.

 

[Doubleplay]

With regard to electric cars- gleaned from the above comments I calculate that a charging station that operates at 240v and 80a = 19,200 w (19.2kwh) which moves the car 52 miles. Using the average of 1,000 miles per month a car would use 369kwh per month.

The average electricity use in the US is 886kwh per household per month.
If the households had one car and it was driven 1,000 miles per month the electricity use would increase from 886 to 1255kwh, a 42% increase in electrical use.
Just considering the increase load on the power grid (not counting all the infrastructure involved) I do not see that a mass changeover to electric cars is even in the realm of possibilty

Your math is right with the current technology not the future. Also there'll be tremendous energy savings from the closure of oil related industries such as refineries, gas stations etc..

 

[Hunter4752001]

Putting aside all the other pros and cons re EVs. When the radical green delusionalists get their way and ban all non-electrically powered devices (cars, stoves , heaters etc), the cost of electricity will sky rocket due to the fact there's no alternative.

 

[Ray B]

Question for those familiar with government protocol- If country A attacks country B would proper etiquette for Country A to first declare war on country B? I don't recall reading anything about Russia making such a declaration prior to the attacks of over a year ago. Regardless of whether or not this was done, since it is clear that there is a state of war between Russia and Ukraine, has Ukraine responded to the attacks with a declaration of war against Russia? And whether or not that has been done, it doesn't seem to me that there would be limitations on Ukraine preventing it from taking the offensive against Russia, as has been done for hundreds of years. However, there seems to be a great deal of resistance on the world stage seeking to prevent Ukraine from taking reciprocal action against Russia. Is it fear of nuclear exchanges that has the various governments willing to allow a one sided war? It is my perception that it is.