Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Not to say it's unnecessary (Score 1) 480 480

When you find the missiles don't work, don't track, and can't keep up with a next-gen fighter, what do you do? Call it names?

A cannon has the benefit of always working, only physically moving out of the way helps, but the rounds are fast enough to make that a challenge.

The gun is also useful against ground targets, you run out of guided missiles and bombs really fast, but a good gun with a lot of ammo can take out a lot of ground vehicles.

The F-35 doesn't have enough ammo to be useful anyway, they either need 600+ rounds in there or drop the idea of the gun.

Comment: Re:Talk about fighting the wars of the past!!!! (Score 1) 480 480

What fucking planet do these military industrial parasites and hawks live on where they believe that the next War of Any Size will involve dogfighting? Fucking unbelievable the complete and total disconnect from reality.

Go look in the mirror... you might be shocked at who is disconnected from reality...

If we end up, for whatever reason, going to war with Russia or China, there will be a LOT of dogfighting involved to control the skies.

The Russians have some very nice planes that can do that, and can stand up to our F-15 and F-16.

Our F-22 is likely better than anything they have, but we simply don't have enough of them.

Comment: Re:Sunk Cost (Score 1) 480 480


Frankly, it would likely be much cheaper and just as effective to buy some of those for the US Air Force rather than the F-35.

The F-35 is too small to do all that it is asked to do. It doesn't carry enough bombs, it doesn't fly fast enough, it isn't stealthy enough, and it isn't a dogfighter.

Two engines, not one, are needed to really be an effective plane. Yes, the F-16 is a great airplane, once you already have effective control of the skies, but you need the F-15 to get that control.

The F-22 wasn't built in large enough numbers to provide that.

Comment: Re:Not to say it's unnecessary (Score 1) 480 480

But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII.

Really? WWII?

How about... A LOT!

Korea and Vietnam, they were a regular occurrence... Even in the first Gulf War we were in a bunch of dogfights the first week.

Sure, if we keep bombing third world countries, we don't need a modern fighter, but if we ever go up against anyone who has an actual air force, we're gonna wish we had one.

Comment: Re:Big giant scam ... (Score 1) 480 480

Sure, but we didn't buy enough F-22s.

The production line is gone, shut down, history...

We have fewer than 200 F-22s. Over time, attrition and accidents will wear that number down. If we have to fight someone who can actually fight back, such as Russia or China, those F-22s will simply be too few to do much.

We'll fall back on our fleet of F-15 and F-16 aircraft, which are still very good, but they will take losses as well.

Had we gone ahead and bit the bullet and bought 500 F-22s, the F-35 would not be such a problem.


Frankly, I'd rather have updated F-16s with conformal fuel tanks and the modern block upgrades than what the F-35 is today.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 1) 480 480

Look up the performance of the AIM-7 and AIM-120 in Iraq in both Gulf Wars and the time in-between.

It isn't bad, but it isn't nearly as good as the press makes it out to be.

BVR also doesn't help when the ROE require visual identification of the target anyway.

A gun with a decent ammo load is still a very useful thing.

Comment: Re:Dogfights?! What year is it?! (Score 1) 480 480

WTF?! When was the last time you've ever heard of a dogfight?
The days of air-to-air combat are long gone. And where air-to-air combat is still needed, long range missiles take care of it.

The same was said back when the F-4 was being developed, the first version didn't have a gun for that very reason.

It was a huge mistake and the reason for the creation of the Top Gun school.

Just point and shoot, right? Yea, that works sometimes, until it doesn't.

Bullets (or cannon rounds) don't require guidance that can be jammed.

Comment: Re:just let it go (Score 1) 480 480

...except they haven't "wasted a trillion dollars". The trillion dollar figure is for the cost of the plane for it's entire lifetime including the 20 or 30 so years from today it's supposed to remain operational.

Are you sure?

My understanding is that $1 trillion is what has been spent SO FAR in the past 10 years of development.

Comment: Re:Bolt will be cheaper than the average car (Score 1) 247 247

I'm sorry, this made me crack up because just yesterday I was arguing with a guy who was saying it's NOT the cost of the battery that's killing EVs. He kept insisting it's 'range anxiety' and that they're 'too slow to refuel'. He couldn't seem to understand that a bigger battery would fix both issues*, and the reason they don't put a bigger battery in is cost.

*You probably already know this, but you wouldn't need to charge a 300-600 mile battery as often and as a bonus you can put more watts into it, translating into more 'miles per minute' of charging.

Yes, given a large enough input source, you could add 50 miles of charging to a 500 mile battery really fast, maybe in 10 min or less. Of course household outlets won't do that, but a properly wired supercharger can probably do that.

Of course, such a 500 mile range battery for a 6,000lb SUV would cost... more than my entire SUV costs. :)

So we come back to price being the problem. Make that same battery $5,000 and most of these problems are solved really fast.

Comment: Re:diluting the market (Score 1) 247 247

Yep, like I said, for the deal you described, I understand why you took it.

I probably would as well, all things considered, if I was looking for that sort of vehicle.

I still maintain that such a deal can't be made widespread, due to the tax dollars being used to make it happen. 16.5 million cars and light trucks were sold in the US last year. Less than 1% of them were EVs. You couldn't have the government providing $10k rebates on millions of cars, so that program has to end if the uptake rises.

Still, it makes sense for you and you can't control all of the above, so more power to you.

BTW, if those numbers were the same without rebates, I think the uptake of EVs would take off like crazy. Price remains the primary problem, besides range of course, for EVs. We're a two vehicle household. Our primary truck is going to be gas for a long time, but we could make an EV work for our second car.

Comment: Re:diluting the market (Score 1) 247 247

Keep in mind that $200 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Fusion, which is a larger car than the Leaf. $150 a month with no downpayment will get you a Ford Focus, which is about the same size as the Leaf.

To be sure, they both use gas, abit not that much. The Focus is quite efficient.

What happens to the Leaf payment on that lease without the $7,500 tax credit? On a 36 month lease, it would add about $220 to the payment, give or take.

So the rest of us are paying half your lease payment for you. Needless to say, that can't happen at scale. It works because the number of Leaf's leased or sold is a rounding error, if they tried to sell 100,000 of them a year that credit would vanish really quickly.

Comment: Re:diluting the market (Score 1) 247 247

Impressive... If that is a 36 or 39 month lease, then your payment is, give or take, $250 a month or so.

The rebates and subsidies must be very good out there.

It would be interesting to see what the number would be without them, but I imagine you wouldn't have those numbers.

Since you can't control any of that, for the deal you described, I can see why you'd take it, that does seem pretty reasonable.

Comment: Re:Bolt will be cheaper than the average car (Score 1) 247 247

It would have to be quite a bit more expensive on the front end for the battery required.

Yes, and that is why I said I think we're a long way from that, the price of the battery is the real problem.

Would you be willing to consider a series hybrid?

I'm picturing something with about 30-60 miles of battery range, but also has a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel engine, or maybe even a small turbine* turning a generator providing a very constant output for maximum fuel efficiency. Hell, I once saw an article on a 2 stroke turbocharged diesel that was very efficient and still met EPA standards.

Would I? Sure, if it would do the same work as the current truck.

The challenge is that just yesterday I towed a 5,000lb trailer for 350 miles. My truck can tow up to about 8,000lbs total, and can do it all day.

Can the small engine in the series hybrid do that? Would the regenerative brakes act as engine braking on downgrades? Can the engine pull 8,000lbs up a 6% grade when the battery has run dry?

Honestly, I'm open to the concept, so long as I don't lose those abilities.

The reasoning: Most such vehicles as you describe have massively over-sized engines to get their loads started. You don't actually need much more than an econobox engine to keep it moving on the highway once you reach speed.

You're correct, until you're climbing an extended grade. :) I don't personally do that often, but there are places in Texas that have a 6% grade for short periods of time. If I could command the battery to retain charge for that, it would probably be fine, but the trick is driving in Colorado, I may need grade power for 20 min at times, and I imagine the battery wouldn't last long pulling a combined 14,000lbs up a 6% grade for anything other than a min or two.

Keep in mind that my engine runs on 4 cylinders when it doesn't need the extra power, it gets north of 20 mpg when cruising at 70 mph on the highway, without a load. Put the load behind it and it rarely can do that, fuel consumption goes way up due more to drag than to weight. Yesterday, driving on flat road, I was only getting about 14 mpg due to the drag of the trailer. Normally I can do 20 mpg or better without the trailer.


In fairness, the above is perhaps a corner use case, I get that. However people who buy such trucks expect them to be able to do it. That being said, towing RVs, boats, utility trailers, horse trailers, etc is not that unusual. Driving across Texas, a whole lot of pickups and full size SUVs have trailers behind them.

Perhaps it would make more sense to turn stuff like the Ford Explorer and Toyota Highlander into full EVs first, since they are not used to tow nearly as often (but they can, up to 5,000lbs)

Comment: Re:Bolt will be cheaper than the average car (Score 1) 247 247

As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!

Something else to consider...

So many people lease new cars, including EVs.

If you're comparing a 3 year lease on a EV to a 3 year lease on a gas powered car... really, MX isn't even a consideration.

The only think the gas car needs in the first three years is a few oil changes. Many dealers will include those for free at the time you buy your car if you ask for it.

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.