Favorite Diesel Fuel Additives

[buickanddeere]

With proven F-18F flyaway at $61 million today and the problematic F-35 topping $100million a copy someday when in production. Then the higher overhead for the F-35 over it's lifetime vs the F-18F. It's a no brainer. Proposed orders for the F-35 have been fading away and F-18F's have already been purchased and are in service by those same operators while the F-35 struggles to "get off the ground".
The S-300 SAM is not in position everywhere. Ground targets can be engaged outside of the range of a S-300 SAM with surface to surface or air to ground gps, inertial or laser guided munitions. In fact the S-300 SAM it's self, support equipment and personal can be engaged with a cluster bomb payload.
25 and 75 miles range appears to be the more common S-300 missile models.
The S-300 SAM is going to have challenges getting a lock on a stealthy F-18F.
Few targets can not be dispatched with 250 and 500lb JDAM munitions dropped from 40,000ft and 10-15 miles away then glide a guided path to target.
Even the A-10 Warthog airframes should be refurbished with the latest electronics and engines. Instead of sinking $$$ into a F-35.
We can get to the place where the each division of the armed forces has a single $50 billion do everything airplane to protect the entire world.
Simple, reliable and redundant wins while a ultra high tech weapons system with glitchy software or hardware sits on the ground hoping the enemy doesn't know where the sitting duck is located.

 

[cruz54982]

I live in Wisconsin and the gelling problem happens when my tractor has summer fuel due to not being used enough to burn it up before cold weather so I use an additive until I need fuel and then the local winter blend from the station works just fine.

 

[nova3930]

With proven F-18F flyaway at $61 million today and the problematic F-35 topping $100million a copy someday when in production. Then the higher overhead for the F-35 over it's lifetime vs the F-18F. It's a no brainer. Proposed orders for the F-35 have been fading away and F-18F's have already been purchased and are in service by those same operators while the F-35 struggles to "get off the ground".

Look back at some of our most successful weapons systems of the last 40 years, and you'll see the same types of arguments used over and over and over again. If people making your argument won out, we'd still be flying F-4s instead of developing the F-15, arguably the most successful air superiority fighter ever produced. I can say the same thing for nearly every staple system of our military.

And the fact is, you don't have any idea what the lifetime operational cost of the F-35 will be. It could be more but based on history I'd say it will probably be less. People lost their minds over the variable cost per flight hour of F-22s being a few thousand over the F-15. Said it was too expensive, never thinking that the aircraft was still on the part of the curve where costs are reduced over time. Since that comparison was made the VCPFH has dropped significantly as reliability has improved and the cost of the F-15 has increased as aging airframes require more maintenance.

Once again, you and others on your side are criticizing a system that's still in development based on factors that change significantly over the course of development. You're making invalid comparisons to existing mature systems. As I said earlier it's a gross misunderstanding of how the procurement process works along with misunderstanding trends in key metrics as systems mature.

The S-300 SAM is not in position everywhere. Ground targets can be engaged outside of the range of a S-300 SAM with surface to surface or air to ground gps, inertial or laser guided munitions. In fact the S-300 SAM it's self, support equipment and personal can be engaged with a cluster bomb payload.

It or systems with similar or better capability are in enough hands that DoD considers them a threat to design systems specifications around. Not to mention you can't just plan for current threats, you have to anticipate future threats.

You can talk about "engaging" the threat all you want but the fact is that's a dangerous job. Wild Weasel tactics were developed during Vietnam and against much less sophisticated system, suffered pretty serious losses. In a lot of your arguments you seem more than happy to subject valuable pilots to far more risk than necessary.

25 and 75 miles range appears to be the more common S-300 missile models.

And which one's do you think are guarding the types of deep penetration high value targets we're talking about going after? The short rangers or the long rangers? DoD thinks it's the long range missiles.....

The S-300 SAM is going to have challenges getting a lock on a stealthy F-18F.

And you know this how? You know what type of radar system frontal aspect only stealth is most vulnerable too? AESA radar. Do you know what type of radar system the S-300 has? AESA.

Few targets can not be dispatched with 250 and 500lb JDAM munitions dropped from 40,000ft and 10-15 miles away then glide a guided path to target.

At 10-15 miles you're well inside the engagement envelope of these missile systems. That's foolhardy.

Even the A-10 Warthog airframes should be refurbished with the latest electronics and engines. Instead of sinking $$$ into a F-35.

I agree the A-10 needs upgrades. I also think it should be transferred to the service that actually wants the CAS mission, namely the Army. That being said, there is no either/or tradeoff between the 2. There are quite a few B-1s that aren't getting certain functional upgrades and are thus operationally restricted that could be retired and the $ used to upgrade A-10s. We've basically only been using the B-1s for CAS for the last decade anyway so why not put the money in a real CAS platform.

We can get to the place where the each division of the armed forces has a single $50 billion do everything airplane to protect the entire world.

We could but we won't because there are limiting factors in place. I'd also like to point out once again that I'm advocating a high/low mix of systems instead of a one size fits all "lets just buy more F-18s" strategy.

Simple, reliable and redundant wins while a ultra high tech weapons system with glitchy software or hardware sits on the ground hoping the enemy doesn't know where the sitting duck is located.

It can in high enough numbers. M-4 Shermans beat Panthers and Tigers in WWII....at significant cost in lives lost. Simple MiG-21s shot down a lot of our fighters in Vietnam, but even with them going up against functionally obsolete F-105s, we still killed twice as many of theirs as they did ours, again they paid the price is blood. Your argument is a perfectly legit one to make, just make sure you understand exactly what that argument entails.....

 

[DeereMann]

Mil talk is interesting, but I'd rather talk fuel additives this time of year, jus' sayin'.

Filled the 6 gal portajug with light blended fuel this weekend, chart stated -10F gel point. I keep tractor in a low heat barn (45F), and spike with antigel/water separator addivitve (Optilube XPD). Already ran some through the engine during our 12.5 inch snow deluge last week.

Now we are on track for record cold and 'the coldest November recorded since 1880'. Sheesh - wasn't it enough to have a terrible/long winter last year with no spring? Now we have an early record cold November?

:cold:

 

[buickanddeere]

I'm yes, no and maybe with you. It's just the F-35 in particular I have a beef with. Canada's all or nothing airforce needs long range F-18F's and not F-35's.

 

[Egon]

Talking about the F35. Are not the day of dogfight's over? Long range missile deployment seems to have taken over. One plane for multiurposes use just don't work. It's like trying to make a top sprinter and long distant runner out of one person.

The day of the drone is here.

 

[buickanddeere]

Around here it's flying F-18's with extra fuel for range while either search and rescue spotting . Or escorting Bear Bombers back to the border.

 

[nova3930]

I'm yes, no and maybe with you. It's just the F-35 in particular I have a beef with. Canada's all or nothing airforce needs long range F-18F's and not F-35's.

Canada is a whole different ball game. Different strategies, different missions, different budgets, etc etc. Not being terribly familiar with those from the perspective of Canada I'll refrain from offering an opinion on the merits.

Talking about the F35. Are not the day of dogfight's over? Long range missile deployment seems to have taken over. One plane for multiurposes use just don't work. It's like trying to make a top sprinter and long distant runner out of one person.

The day of the drone is here.

Yes and no. With the current level of tech, drones are ideal for some missions and not so much for others. Sensor fidelity and data transfer limitations make missions where rapid reaction to the current situation is required very difficult. Air to Air combat for example. If you ever played flight simulators, you know how difficult it is when looking through the "soda straw" view that a computer monitor provides....difficult even though designers program in "cheats" to even the playing field a bit.

The track the USN is taking is probably the smartest at the moment. Their concept is one of drones like the X-47 working in tandem with manned aircraft, essentially acting as missile/bomb carriers. A stealthy drone can screen ahead of the manned aircraft, utilizing the manned aircrafts sensors via secure LOS data link, taking shots on command at targets that believe they're out of range.

Around here it's flying F-18's with extra fuel for range while either search and rescue spotting . Or escorting Bear Bombers back to the border.

Honestly, for those missions the Silent Eagle concept might work better. About the same empty weight and 20k more MGTOW. More fuel, more payload, etc etc and overall a better air superiority fighter for CAP against TU-95s and the like....

 

[buickanddeere]

The latest and greatest versions of the venerable F-15 do have lots of appeal with the range in particular. As range is one of the primary considerations. The carrier strengthened Hornet can land and take off from a cow pasture or dirt road that an Eagle would best avoid. Difficult choice.

 

[Egon]

Air to air combat will be out of sight electronically activated systems. No more Vickers machine guns getting lined up.

Don't worry about the Bear. It's got cousins that are just a little beefier and faster and don't get a lookin from the 18's. The bear just ruffles feathers and gives interceptors air time.