Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-22 Rival Revised
SYSOP    10/23/2012 5:04:25 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
vahitkanig       10/23/2012 1:26:48 PM
---  F-35 Smaller  than T-50  so  more agile  and  easy ,more maneuvability  for  pilots.
--- Collapse  of  Sowiet  Union ; may be  Kremlin  could not afford arm  race  of  cold war  OR want  to  get  ride  of  some state  who  are not  donor  only  recipient  from  union like Türkmenistan  etc .So Russia  want  to  get  closer  to  the West  espaecially  to Norwey, Sweeden,wanted   to  optimize ,use  oil -gas  reserve advantage  againts  U.S..
 But dissappoinment  from  Baltic  States changed  the  route .
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon       10/23/2012 7:42:36 PM
" One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was the realization that they could not afford to develop 5th generation warplanes to stay competitive with America."
I suppose this is accurate, planes being one of many reasons, but I believe historians point to Reagan's SDI a.k.a. "Star Wars"  that broke the USSR's back. 
 
As to the Baltic states "disappointment" comment, the want for freedom is a bitch. FYI, oil can never be used against the USA, we are sitting on perhaps the biggest pool of oil than the whole middle east combined. We just don't tap it. Who knows, maybe the plan is to use everyone else's first. 
 
Quote    Reply

Evan    Oil   10/24/2012 7:54:33 PM
I tend to see the US whine over oil, just that, a whine by the left as they attempt to undermine is just as they did in Vietnam and in other small wars. 
 
wisdom would be to go after our oil and ignore the left and their green game which is a major failure, and do as President Reagan did with the B-1, reinstate the manufacture of the F-22 and send obama home, I am sure kenya could use all his lies. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Evan    Oil   10/25/2012 11:22:42 AM
Thats the green line, save it for later.  That is bull, the left wants us freed of oil use, not sure what they think is going to replace as they don't like any other energy source unless they can come up with one that does harm to the environment.
Add to that, that they want to follow the EU value set, even though they are continually on their butts financial and militarily along with any other value set you can dream up.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RtWingCon       10/26/2012 8:53:00 PM
Didn't know that's what the "green line" was, but it wouldn't matter. I believe we import middle east oil because it was the "sweet" variety which is easily and can be cheaply refined. I think the sour stuff has more sulfur. I've read in the past that the OPEC embargo of 1974 was a Henry Kissinger idea so the Shah would have the money to pay for F-14's. Sounds wild, but which region buys the most arms? But i digress. I think the cost effectiveness of refining sweet crude vs sour is the simplest answer as to why we import so much. Usually economics rules the day.  Once those economics swing the other way, we will be drilling domestically, regardless of green concerns. People forget the government can do whatever it wants(despite right or wrong and the courts) when "national security" is invoked.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       10/27/2012 3:59:58 AM
Didn't know that's what the "green line" was, but it wouldn't matter. I believe we import middle east oil because it was the "sweet" variety which is easily and can be cheaply refined. I think the sour stuff has more sulfur. But i digress. I think the cost effectiveness of refining sweet crude vs sour is the simplest answer as to why we import so much. Usually economics rules the day.  Once those economics swing the other way, we will be drilling domestically, regardless of green concerns.
Oil has a variety of properties. Sweet and sour generally refer to the sulfur content. Other common properties include light or heavy (which relates to viscosity and melting point), and asphaltic or paraffinic (which relate to the chemistry).
 
Most of the refineries were originally built for light sweet crude, mainly because it was the easiest to extract from the ground because sweet crudes tend to lighter than sour, and technology to extract and refine heavy crudes was mostly developed after WWII. All have been upgraded to take progressively heavier and sourer crudes as demand for the light sweet crudes outstrips the supply and the price gap between light sweet and heavy sour varieties increased.
 
Also, and oil field is not a pool of just one type of oil. Each field is made up of many reservoirs, each with its own characturists. The non-development of US oil fields is related more to patterns of sales of mineral rights and government regulation. Right now the combination makes it extremely unlikely to be able to be permitted develop any discoveries, much less a profit, so no one tries.
People forget the government can do whatever it wants(despite right or wrong and the courts) when "national security" is invoked.
No, the government can TRY to do whatever they want. Actually managing to do it is something else.
 
The governments record for doing things efficiently is abysmal.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/2/2013 5:51:35 PM
As a semi-engineer/designer, I find most talk of "Green" anything to be BS! Electric cars cause 10,000-30,000 times more direct polution than the typical gasoline powered car! Where does the electricity come from? Are they complete idiots and total ignoramuses? Then there is the polution caused by the manufacture of large and complex chemistry bateries and the heavy and light metal polution they cause. You never hear of any of this when they talk of green projects. Do not get me started on Wind mills! See link below!
https://www.google.com/search?q=windmill+fires&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=oLnkULTAIITYqQH_5oG4Dg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=722
All in all, I've never seen a so called "Green" Project that did not cause more polution than the cause it was supposed to fix!
  Thats the green line, save it for later.  That is bull, the left wants us freed of oil use, not sure what they think is going to replace as they don't like any other energy source unless they can come up with one that does harm to the environment.
Add to that, that they want to follow the EU value set, even though they are continually on their butts financial and militarily along with any other value set you can dream up.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/3/2013 4:57:27 AM
As a semi-engineer/designer, I find most talk of "Green" anything to be BS! Electric cars cause 10,000-30,000 times more direct polution than the typical gasoline powered car! Where does the electricity come from? Are they complete idiots and total ignoramuses? Then there is the polution caused by the manufacture of large and complex chemistry bateries and the heavy and light metal polution they cause. You never hear of any of this when they talk of green projects. Do not get me started on Wind mills! See link below!https://www.google.com/search?q=windmill+fires&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=oLnkULTAIITYqQH_5oG4Dg&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=722All in all, I've never seen a so called "Green" Project that did not cause more polution than the cause it was supposed to fix!
  Thats the green line, save it for later.  That is bull, the left wants us freed of oil use, not sure what they think is going to replace as they don't like any other energy source unless they can come up with one that does harm to the environment.
Add to that, that they want to follow the EU value set, even though they are continually on their butts financial and militarily along with any other value set you can dream up.
You might also want to check http://www.spiegel.de/internat.... Green energy caused a 50% hike in electric rates last October. In addition the electric grid has totally disrupted and ill conceived legislation is driving conventional power plants, required for backup, into bankruptcy.
 
You are wrong about electric vehicles, they only produce 130% to 160% of the pollution of a conventional vehicle, when they are working.  Of course, that is bad enough.
 
As for the bird cuisinarts, the less said the better.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 3:04:58 PM
 


  Thats the green line, save it for later.  That is bull, the left wants us freed of oil use, not sure what they think is going to replace as they don't like any other energy source unless they can come up with one that does harm to the environment.
Add to that, that they want to follow the EU value set, even though they are continually on their butts financial and militarily along with any other value set you can dream up.
You might also want to check http://www.spiegel.de/internat.... Green energy caused a 50% hike in electric rates last October. In addition the electric grid has totally disrupted and ill conceived legislation is driving conventional power plants, required for backup, into bankruptcy.
You are wrong about electric vehicles, they only produce 130% to 160% of the pollution of a conventional vehicle, when they are working.  Of course, that is bad enough.
The short end of the argument goes like this;
1. 56% of the electricity comes from coal fired power plants.
2. The cleanest coal fired plant in the Nation and possibly the entire World is in Bridger Wyoming and is 97% polution free!
3. About 85% of the electricity that is put into the car's battery is converted into chemical energy and stored. The rest is converted into heat and lost.
4. Depending on the rate at whitch the driver takes energy out of the battery, between 50-70% is converted into electricity. The rest is turned into heat again. Best case, drive slow, get more energy out.
5. Now the bad part, electric power transmission losses are; 1.5-2% in the firststage transformer, 2-3% per 100 Km of very high voltage transmission lines, 2-3% at the distribution transformer just out side of town, 3-4% per 10 Km of transmission loss over 6.6Kv lines to your home, 4-5% loss in the transformer in the Grey Can on the pole outside your home, 2-3% loss per 10 Meters of line between the pole and your home! Multiply all of these losses together and you get a BEST CASE scenario of 86.33% of the power into the line at the power plant gets to your home. (A worst case is 81.57% out for every 100% in and only IF the lines are only as long as the minimum distance quoted above! Longer distances mean bigger losses!)
6. When combined with the figures from the battery it self, the BEST CASE loss numbers are; 85%*86.33=73.38% in actual stored chemical energy inside the battery. Then multiply that by the efficience of getting the juce out of the battery and into the motor is 51.37% where the motor is 97% efficiant in turning that into movement. (49.82% Under the best possible case conditions!)
7. THE GOOD NEWS! This is still higher than the typical gasoline fueled car at ~30% efficiency.
But wait! The car has a catalitic converter on it that is the size of a stack of six do-nuts that removes most of the ploution from the exhaust! Passing "The Smog Test" requires that there be no more than 2.6 Parts Per Million polution, or the car fails in 49 of the 50 States.
8. Now the BAD Part. 97% polution free means that the 3% polution, measured in PPM is 30,000 PPM! So under thye best possible case, the typical electric car causes more than 10,000 times more polution than the typical gasoline powered car! You can work out the worst case scenario for you own home and conditions, since less than 1% of all Americans live with in those numbers above!

  
 
As for the bird cuisinarts, the less said the better.
I am sorry that I did not post all the various sources of transmission losses and in-efficiancies and the links to same, but a quick search of Wiki will fix that!
Sincerely,
Shooter.

 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/4/2013 6:07:32 AM
OK up to this point:
The short end of the argument goes like this;
7. THE GOOD NEWS! This is still higher than the typical gasoline fueled car at ~30% efficiency.But wait! The car has a catalitic converter on it that is the size of a stack of six do-nuts that removes most of the ploution from the exhaust! Passing "The Smog Test" requires that there be no more than 2.6 Parts Per Million polution, or the car fails in 49 of the 50 States.

The pollution being removed is CO, unburned hydrocarbons, NOx only.
The short end of the argument goes like this;
8. Now the BAD Part. 97% polution free means that the 3% polution, measured in PPM is 30,000 PPM! So under thye best possible case, the typical electric car causes more than 10,000 times more polution than the typical gasoline powered car! You can work out the worst case scenario for you own home and conditions, since less than 1% of all Americans live with in those numbers above!
The pollution from a coal plant consist of SO2 and NOx, fly ash (small particles of glass like material wafted on the riser air), and low boiling point materials (mostly mercury). Because combustion takes place with a large excess of air the quantity of unburned hydrocarbons and CO is far lower than for an IC engine, and mostly attached to the flyash. The 97% figure is for the SO2 and NOx. Flyash is almost completely removed. Removal for the mercury is, or soon will be, much higher.
 
SO2 and NOx, do not constitute the entire exhaust stream, which is mainly nitrogen and carbon dioxide. On a % weight basis you are talking less than 0.1%, so divide your number by 1000.
 
Still plenty high (10x) ! But the advocates assume that all the coal will be quickly phased out and be replaced with ‘pollution free’ wind and solar, which is totally unrealistic. (And pollution free is physically impossible as well.)
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics