Future of alternative fuels in the military
- Thread starter Rish
- Start date
Aviation wise there is nothing on the horizon. As jet engines remain at a constant speed most of the time their efficiency cannot be improved greatly. Ion propulsion, magnetic levetation or any other exotic form of propulsion is WAYYYYY off.
Marine propolsion, they already have Nuclear ships with unlimited range, but i could imagine it will even start appearing in the smaller ships. If all the Navy ships were nuclear powered then refueling and logistics would be significantly reduced.
Army vehicles will see spin offs from the automotive industry. Hybrid electric vehicles will be the next big thing. 50% reduction in fuel consumption with increased burst performance. A small diesel engine running a generator to keep the batteries charged with the electrical engines running off the batteries are what is currently being tested. This means provides the following advantages.
1) The diesel engine is running at a constant speed reducing fuel consumption.
2) The electrical engines can provide acceleration as quick as a sports car.
3) The vehicle can run off batteries for short periods of time for stealth operation.
4) Electrical engines dont need to be warmed up or started, instant acceleration when required.
5) Far superior drivetrain. A small electrical motor on each wheel provides excellent traction on rough terrain. These same electrical motors act as brakes too actually recharging the batteries when the vehicle slows down.
4) The vehicle can remain stationary with all systems running for days monitoring the enemy.
So Hybrid military vehicles will be excellent. They halve the fuel consumption and doubles the range while offering a huge increase in acceleration with the ability of silent running.
An idea i just thought of. The US has always planned of making a huge blimp to lift 1,000 tones of cargo. The use of a small nuclear reactor and electrical props would give it unlimited range and exceptional speeds. The electricity can also be used for the air pumps too. For those that dont know is that the design was to use normal air as ballast using pumps. No idea if it would actually work.
Marine propolsion, they already have Nuclear ships with unlimited range, but i could imagine it will even start appearing in the smaller ships. If all the Navy ships were nuclear powered then refueling and logistics would be significantly reduced.
Army vehicles will see spin offs from the automotive industry. Hybrid electric vehicles will be the next big thing. 50% reduction in fuel consumption with increased burst performance. A small diesel engine running a generator to keep the batteries charged with the electrical engines running off the batteries are what is currently being tested. This means provides the following advantages.
1) The diesel engine is running at a constant speed reducing fuel consumption.
2) The electrical engines can provide acceleration as quick as a sports car.
3) The vehicle can run off batteries for short periods of time for stealth operation.
4) Electrical engines dont need to be warmed up or started, instant acceleration when required.
5) Far superior drivetrain. A small electrical motor on each wheel provides excellent traction on rough terrain. These same electrical motors act as brakes too actually recharging the batteries when the vehicle slows down.
4) The vehicle can remain stationary with all systems running for days monitoring the enemy.
So Hybrid military vehicles will be excellent. They halve the fuel consumption and doubles the range while offering a huge increase in acceleration with the ability of silent running.
An idea i just thought of. The US has always planned of making a huge blimp to lift 1,000 tones of cargo. The use of a small nuclear reactor and electrical props would give it unlimited range and exceptional speeds. The electricity can also be used for the air pumps too. For those that dont know is that the design was to use normal air as ballast using pumps. No idea if it would actually work.
a significant number of military land vehicles in the front echelon are already multi-fuel. - and thats been the case for quite a while. its a logistics ideal to be able to multi-fuel your principle fighting vehicles.
some submarines and more specifically UUSV/USV/UUV/ROV's are already using alternative engine types (lithium/hydrogen etc)
the current surface warfare programmes are also seeing newgen propulsion engines being trialled. (eg HLT engines)
some submarines and more specifically UUSV/USV/UUV/ROV's are already using alternative engine types (lithium/hydrogen etc)
the current surface warfare programmes are also seeing newgen propulsion engines being trialled. (eg HLT engines)
There are several IMVs being trialled with hybrids,
The Splittersjyddad Enhets Platform, or SEP is a tracked or wheeled Hybrid APC. It has a speed of 100KM/hr and a range of 1000KM, for the wheeled, and 85km/hr for the tracked(no idea in miles/hour) and uses two 5 cylindar 2.3L Diesel engines, with a second demonstrater offering 6 cylindar 3.2L Diesel
The US is also trialling Humvee Hybrids, but has thus far come up to expensive and unatainable with the Iraq war. The war has seen many research projects cut or their budgets slashes, one of these is alternate fuel systems, so until their is more funding, Europe may have to lead in this field, and perhaps with more civilian cars being made in order to reduce fuel, something may come up, i'm thinking along the lines of the car that uses Fish and chips shop oil to power its way across the country^_^
The Splittersjyddad Enhets Platform, or SEP is a tracked or wheeled Hybrid APC. It has a speed of 100KM/hr and a range of 1000KM, for the wheeled, and 85km/hr for the tracked(no idea in miles/hour) and uses two 5 cylindar 2.3L Diesel engines, with a second demonstrater offering 6 cylindar 3.2L Diesel
The US is also trialling Humvee Hybrids, but has thus far come up to expensive and unatainable with the Iraq war. The war has seen many research projects cut or their budgets slashes, one of these is alternate fuel systems, so until their is more funding, Europe may have to lead in this field, and perhaps with more civilian cars being made in order to reduce fuel, something may come up, i'm thinking along the lines of the car that uses Fish and chips shop oil to power its way across the country^_^
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
According to a recent article the RN and FN CVF development group are also looking at the possibility of alternative energy for the carriers, because of its larger size I doubt this will come to fruition, the new LHA 8 the Iwo Jima has gas turbines rather that 1-7 which use steam boilers... So that could maybe be a posibility
Oh yeah I just got a feeling that I may of read the new propulsion for the CVF in a thread if i did credit to that person
Oh yeah I just got a feeling that I may of read the new propulsion for the CVF in a thread if i did credit to that person
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
wow..I can't believe that they aren't preparing now.hmm one question..why is india buying jets/tanks if they wont be usable in 30-50 years? because from what I've seen india tends to use its military equipment for 40+ years and to spend $15 billion on jets and $3 billion on tanks to use them for only 20yrs is kind of a waste. Oh and why build nuclear powered DDG's? dont you think that it would be unwise to send in a nuc powered DDG ahead of the fleet in times of war? considering the environmental effects if one was sunk *especially when DDG's are sunk from countries that do not have the level of nuclear tech that the US has
Well, most modern Forces don't have 30+ tanks and jets, without upgrade, the oldest in the US would be the B-52, and thats been reworked a 100 times. The Abrams is from 1978, and has gone through 3 upgrades and reworks, for it to last another 10-15 years, although current budgeting may make it longer.
Most jets are out of date 5 years after introduction, let alone 30. They will phase out and replace in another 20-25 years, this is normal practice to keep up to date, imagine if Britain kept their spitfires?
As for the nuke power, their in subs and Carriers because they are harder targets, carriers normally travel in fleets, protected by large escort of DDGs and subs. The problem of nuke subs was evident in the Kursk sinking, with fear it was carrying Nuke warheads and could explode when being raised but most nuke subs are safe and carry a money back guarantee!
exdropfrog
New Member
Hi all,
I feel that the original question has been lost in amongst these excellent and thought provoking replies. Alernative fuels are normally considered as non-fossil, non-nuclear and carbon neutral. Ethanol for example is usable in most multi-fueled vehicles of today; with some modification it can be used in COGAS powered ships. The real question is why are the alternatives (such as hydrogen cell batteries - as used by the new German Submarines) being looked at? The answer must be: that the major oil companies are intertwined with the major defence players. I predict that within the next few years there will be a significant and irresistable shift in public opinion in the acceptability of carbon fuels. While there is not much to report on at the moment, I would say, whatch this space...
There are few alternatives to carbon fuel, as it packs a lot of energy pr. pound. Nuclear power is interesting when carbon fuels can't be used (subs) or massive amounts of energy is needed - so much that shielding and such stuff can be "paid" for.
I once heard that the Leopard tanks engine can run on salad oil - due to some shortage problems the German army had during ww2.
One thing I think we can safely say: No submarine diving under 200 meters will use solar power panels.
I once heard that the Leopard tanks engine can run on salad oil - due to some shortage problems the German army had during ww2.
One thing I think we can safely say: No submarine diving under 200 meters will use solar power panels.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
well what I meant was that india specifically has aircraft that are 30+ years and because it is not able to buy large amounts of aircraft every 20-25 yrs I would expect them to plan ahead for any road blocks that may appear. I understand that they could replace the engines with ones that burn different fuels but considering (to the best of our knowledge) that no country has done large amounts of research on alternative fuel burning engines why does india even bother spending money on aircraft that will be only flying for 20 years? wouldnt they be better off spending it on r&d?Well, most modern Forces don't have 30+ tanks and jets, without upgrade, the oldest in the US would be the B-52, and thats been reworked a 100 times. The Abrams is from 1978, and has gone through 3 upgrades and reworks, for it to last another 10-15 years, although current budgeting may make it longer.
Most jets are out of date 5 years after introduction, let alone 30. They will phase out and replace in another 20-25 years, this is normal practice to keep up to date, imagine if Britain kept their spitfires?
As for the nuke power, their in subs and Carriers because they are harder targets, carriers normally travel in fleets, protected by large escort of DDGs and subs. The problem of nuke subs was evident in the Kursk sinking, with fear it was carrying Nuke warheads and could explode when being raised but most nuke subs are safe and carry a money back guarantee!
as for the whole thing about subs and carriers what i was saying was wouldnt it be unrealistic to send out DDG's that are nuke powered because they are in the heat of the action and have a good chance of being attacked and/or destroyed?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
Just a question, but why would public opinion shift in favor of carbon fuels if they are trying to find alternatives?
from what i've seen most major oil companies are moving away from oil and supporting alternative fuels in some way or another. wouldnt ethanol be uneconomical considering how much we would have to do to produce it? i heard awhile back taht making/transporting of ethanol pollutes enough to get rid of the benefits of using it as an alternative. and does ethanol release enough energy to be used in military aircraft?
The vehicles that can switch quickly to alternative fuels are diesel powered ones.
Diesel engine can run on biodiesel with minor modifications, and yes, the vast majority of diesel engines can even run on vegetal oils. The problem with these is that the fuel has high viscosity, and in cold temps the fuel tank must be warmed, in order for the engine to work.
As for acohols (ethanol, methanol, IPA, etc.) replacing gasoline, for ground vehicles, there is already one major market with sucess for 30 years, Brazil, in normal commercial vehicles, dunno Military ones. As for Jet engines or turboprop engines for military/civilian aircraft, never heard of ethanol being used..
Jet engines use high octane fuels (kerosene, Jet A1), and i guess it has something to do with octanes and boiling points of ethanol that prevents the use of ethanol on these engines.Don´t know the specifics of that.
As someone has already pointed, Hybrid vehicles are probably the most likely technology to succeed. They have many advantages. We just have to wait to see good battery technology arriving, and then these vehicles will take off, commercial and military alike.
The best part of all, getting rid of dependency of unreliable sources of supply for fuels, and selling the need for new vehicles to politicians all over Europe and Us, saying "...but look, they even are ecological when operating, despite their high ability to destroy the enemy!" Imagine all those Eco fanatics and political parties, they might even push for those purchases.
I don´t think that fuel cell powered vehicles will be used in military aplications, too many disavantages, right now.
Does anyone know of any other alternate fuel technology, wich is feasable in the near future?
.pt
Diesel engine can run on biodiesel with minor modifications, and yes, the vast majority of diesel engines can even run on vegetal oils. The problem with these is that the fuel has high viscosity, and in cold temps the fuel tank must be warmed, in order for the engine to work.
As for acohols (ethanol, methanol, IPA, etc.) replacing gasoline, for ground vehicles, there is already one major market with sucess for 30 years, Brazil, in normal commercial vehicles, dunno Military ones. As for Jet engines or turboprop engines for military/civilian aircraft, never heard of ethanol being used..
Jet engines use high octane fuels (kerosene, Jet A1), and i guess it has something to do with octanes and boiling points of ethanol that prevents the use of ethanol on these engines.Don´t know the specifics of that.
As someone has already pointed, Hybrid vehicles are probably the most likely technology to succeed. They have many advantages. We just have to wait to see good battery technology arriving, and then these vehicles will take off, commercial and military alike.
The best part of all, getting rid of dependency of unreliable sources of supply for fuels, and selling the need for new vehicles to politicians all over Europe and Us, saying "...but look, they even are ecological when operating, despite their high ability to destroy the enemy!" Imagine all those Eco fanatics and political parties, they might even push for those purchases.
I don´t think that fuel cell powered vehicles will be used in military aplications, too many disavantages, right now.
Does anyone know of any other alternate fuel technology, wich is feasable in the near future?
.pt
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAJust a question, but why would public opinion shift in favor of carbon fuels if they are trying to find alternatives?
wouldnt ethanol be uneconomical considering how much we would have to do to produce it? i heard awhile back taht making/transporting of ethanol pollutes enough to get rid of the benefits of using it as an alternative. and does ethanol release enough energy to be used in military aircraft?
You really think they are trying to find "alternative" fuels, if it doesn't come at the same price as current petroleum, or make as much money for them, they don't care. The ultimate smoke screen, while you write a $250,000 for research, your company just made $25million, while you were signing the cheque
. Be careful what you see. More likely the CSIRO and other major research centres contribute more(and also the smaller ones)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAJust a question, but why would public opinion shift in favor of carbon fuels if they are trying to find alternatives?
You really think they are trying to find "alternative" fuels, if it doesn't come at the same price as current petroleum, or make as much money for them, they don't care. The ultimate smoke screen, while you write a $250,000 for research, your company just made $25million, while you were signing the cheque
. Be careful what you see. More likely the CSIRO and other major research centres contribute more(and also the smaller ones)This is very good actually. India in 15-20 years time will buy another 100 of the latest probably stealthy fighters which then sends the suhkoi's to a secondary role. This is brilliant as it gives a "High-Low" combat mix and brings the amount of aircraft to an acceptable level and requires fewer new aircraft to bring the numbers up. So it doesn't need to buy "large amounts of aircraft every 20-25 yrs" it needs to buy a moderate amount of aircraft every 20-25years. This would cost the same as buying a large amount every 30-40years. Good move by India.
Australia stuffed that up greatly, with its Hornets and F-111's they are all at the end of their life so all of them have to be replaced at once. So Australia will of course be forced to buy a high end aircraft and we will not have enough money to replace the aircraft 1 to 1. Australia will be lucky if we can replace every two of a current aircraft with a single JSF.
Also remember you only need stealth or high levels of agility for a small number of missions. So an older aircraft can perform some missions just as good as the brand new expensive aircraft, however you have to plan ahead so the aircraft have enough flying hours left. If Australia had of purchased a second lot of C model Hornets in the 90's, we could have used the hornets to perform the "Low" part of a "High-Low" mix, this would cost more in the short term but then we would have only needed half as many JSF's which would have saved us in the long run.
So India is doing fine like this.
The US has stuffed up like Australia has. Their older aircraft have run out of flying hours and have to be retired and the US cant buy new more expensive aircraft at a 1:2 replacement let alone a 1 to 1 replacement. As the US cant buy enough high end aircraft its forcing the retirement of 50 aircraft just to get a single F-22. Sure the F-22 is good but its not the correct answer to the problem.
When budget runs thin you dont develop 5 different types of aircarft and buy 20 aircraft of each type. That brings a total of only 100 aircraft. If you canceled 3 of those aircraft you could buy the two remaining aircraft in bigger numbers and end up with nearly twice as many aircraft and a much more powerful air force!!
The JSF should be the aircraft on the chopping block. If it was canceled the US would be able to buy 1000 F-22's and 1,000 new F-16's, for the same price as 200 F-22's and 1000 JSF's. You'd have enough F-22's to perform all the stealthy missions required of the JSF, and enough F-16's to perform the non stealthy low-tech conflict missions. You'd then have a 800 more aircraft in total which then allows for all the older aircraft to be retired without sacrificing numbers.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
i dont know how business works in australia, but here in america if businessmen see that they're going to go out of business in 30 years they're going to do something about it. either prevent it or sell off the business to make a profit. i know they're greedy, but they arent stupid. comeon what would you do if you controlled a large part of the worlds fuel supply. i dont think you'd be stupid enough to let that slip out of your hands. also i said that oil companies are supporting research on finding alternative fuels in some way or another. i never said that they are contributing large amounts of money. $250,000 is better then nothingHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You really think they are trying to find "alternative" fuels, if it doesn't come at the same price as current petroleum, or make as much money for them, they don't care. The ultimate smoke screen, while you write a $250,000 for research, your company just made $25million, while you were signing the cheque
Last I heard was that Australia was purchasing F-18 Super Hornets at a good deal from the U.S, you can rest assured that we do not have a crisis puchasing aircraft, if they serve a role why not keep them around, the more technology advances that you have in a aircraft the less that you need to get the job done. I would think Going to alternate/multi fuels should not be a issue with helicopters seeings how the motor on a M1 tank is basically a Blackhawk helicopter engine, this engine will handle gasoline, alcohol,diesel and JP 4 aviation fuel.
Since when?