Air Force's Latest Thinking on Energy

Recent DOD Energy Blog posts have shown that the Army is working to bring energy considerations to the forefront of its thinking in operations and installations. The Navy and Marines too, are trying to find ways to run much tighter ships where fuel demand is concerned. But as the tighter ship metaphor probably doesn't work for AF types, here's a new term that's just landed from AFRL: "energy optimized aircraft" (thanks to Steve Iden via Ollie). The goals of the EOA program are to bring more efficient systems to planes and in-so-doing, reduce both fuel requirements and heat signatures in future systems. Nice!

Meanwhile, the Air Force seems to be making progress in the present as well, with some good sounds coming from new Undersecretary Conaton, and leaders past and present, at USTRANSCOM. All of these statements come from "Air Force: to save Fuel, we must change how we Fly" in the July edition of National Defense.

First, Erin C. Conaton, Undersecretary of the Air Force:

We realize it’s ambitious, but it’s incredibly important to set specific goals for reducing demand.

Air Force General Duncan J. McNabb, CC USTRANSCOM points to comparative cost as a major driver for the process-change actions described in the article:

It costs 10 times as much to move stuff by air as it does by surface. Transportation Command has spent nearly $80 million on computerized systems that help plan transportation routes more efficiently. What you have to do is marry the technology with the concept of operations.

And here's an eye opener for you, from McNabb's predecessor, retired Air Force General John Handy:

Moving cargo by sea takes longer but is far less expensive. A single “roll-on roll-off” military cargo ship can carry 300 C-17 aircraft’s sorties worth of equipment.

Numerically speaking, Duncan's 10 to 1 is a major attention getter. But Handy's 300 to 1 is a mind blower. Often, the equations and metrics used to illustrate DOD's energy demand challenges are complex and hard to translate for regular folks. In these statements at least, Conaton, McNabb and Handy make it clear to everyone why the Air Force has fuel on its mind.

Hat tip to USAFA classmate, now USAF BG Ian Dickinson for forwarding this article.

Photo Credit: David Brewster@ Flickr.com

Another Energy Implications Update from the Air Force UAV Files

I don't have numbers that describe drone fuel demand, but we can assume that being smaller, lighter and slower, they get many more MPG than F-15s, F-16s and A/F-18s. However, you also want to factor in the fact that a UAV typical sortie can be five times as long as a fighter sortie, so that may serve to balance things out a bit.

You'll have to sort through some of the variables in your head to imagine future fuel demand implications ... things like:

• how many concurrent, continuous global UAV sorties (40 is the number today)
• how big and heavy are some UAVs going to become
• at what speeds and altitudes will they fly
• will the DOD UAV inventory be counted in the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands ... or even higher
• will jet fuel remain the primary fuel source
• will new airframe efficiencies (like those described briefly in the previous post) bring a significant reduction in fuel demand per vehicle

This recent article in the Washington Post paints the UAV's future with a bit more resolution, even as it joins the chorus questioning the viability of the Air Force as an independent service. In this excerpt, the author is referencing some of the different UAV use cases and deployment configurations developed by Colonel Eric Mathewson, principal author of last years's "USAF Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 2009-2047":

The plan that Mathewson produced for the Air Force envisions unmanned planes not only providing surveillance and striking targets, but also hauling cargo around the world. Instead of flying just one plane, a single pilot would probably control as many as four or five planes simultaneously. "If I am doing a surveillance mission where the plane is literally just staring at the ground or at a road for eight or ten hours, I don't need a pilot actively controlling the plane," he said. "So maybe I have a squadron of 40 aircraft but I only have four or five people monitoring them." The Air Force and Mathewson have already demonstrated in training that one pilot can fly as many as four Predators.

There are a lot of organizational culture issues in the Post article, and how they play out may be as important in predicting the future as are the technology factors. With so many variables, it's still too early for me to imagine the energy demand consequences. But it's necessary (and a little fun) to think about it now.

Photo Credit: Zach Tumin on Flickr

Airframe Fuel Efficiency: NASA Attempts to Crack one of the Toughest Nuts to Crack

Hat tip to Ollie - he's been cranking 'em out lately, including an excellent pointer to this article about logistics travails in Afghanistan making Iraq look like a day at the beach. In the meantime, whether they be flown by man, woman, or machine, big things that fly drink a heck of a lot of fuel. GE's been reporting progress on engine efficiency; now here's NASA pushing on the airframe itself:

NASA says the ability to cut drag by controlling the amount of laminar flow— or smoother, boundary-layer air over a wing surface—offers potential improvements in fuel efficiency, range and payload that “far exceed” any known single aeronautical technology. Possible fuel savings of up to 30% for subsonic commercial aircraft have been suggested, should a successful passive natural laminar flow (NLF) or active hybrid laminar flow system be developed.

There's more here in this Aviation Week article. The DOD fuel burden impact of even single percentage point improvements would be massive. Efficiency investments here could yield huge returns: less fuel per mission, or longer but fewer missions. Or more 24/7 eyes and ears in the skies to help our guys on the ground.

Image Credit: Standford University

Fuel Efficient Future Fighters

As is increasingly the case, thanks to Ollie keeping his finger on the quickening pulse of energy innovation in DOD. Sometimes having separate services field overlapping or redundant capabilities is an organizational efficiency buzz kill. Other times, sibling rivalry drives them further/faster than they might otherwise go.

Here are recent announcements from the Navy on its ambitious F/A-18 Green Hornet biofuel fighter program and the Air Force looking at bringing ADVENT efficient jet engine technology to the F-35. Maybe they Army has something up its sleeve with helo's?

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Future Aircraft Technology: Reviewed, Considered, Critiqued

Thanks to Ollie for pointing this one out. Personally, I'm less concerned about the aviation industry's ability to comply with emissions targets, and more interested in how evolving policy and technology will impact how the Air Force does its job. We've talked about blended wing body and other future concepts here before. This recent article in MIT's Technology Review reminds us of the incremental nature (and limitations) of many of the technologies now on the table.

With these limitations in mind, by 2020, new technologies could make aircraft about 20 percent to 35 percent more efficient, on average, than planes today. Fuselage coatings and adjustable wings, among other things, could reduce drag. Engines that run hotter and at higher pressures would use less fuel, as would engines that use gears to optimize the speeds of different parts of a turbine, and open-rotor designs that resemble and have some of the efficiency advantages of turboprops.

And they're not even beginning to address potentially massive new fuel burdens from ubiquitous and perpetual UAV deployments. We better hope there's a breakthrough in either Star Trek transporter technology or Harry Potter flue powder, because evolving-but-traditional jet planes simply aren't keeping up with the future.

Image: Gizmodo

Future Planes on Approach for DOD Service

OK, they won't be arriving tomorrow, but somewhere between the X-Prize for automobiles and the X-Prize for private low-earth orbit private spacecraft, lies NASA and the CAFE Foundation challenge for "Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency."

Combine the quest for more efficient airframes and engines with new fuels and fuel types, with the explosion of UAVs across the mission spectrum and who knows what the hell airplanes, let alone ours and other air forces, are going to look like in a couple of decades.

One thing's for sure: it won't be a simple extrapolation beyond where we are today from where we've been. Using a 75kW electric motor using brushless technology, the all-electric lithium polymer powered plane pictured here just reached 250 KPH. Do you suppose future tankers, fueled with JP-8 or electricity, will dangle extension cords to re-charge power hungry manned and unmanned aircraft?

Photo: DigiSky

Update on USAF Oil Reduction Strategies

The Admiral Moorer Energy Security Forum held at NDU last December began with a fantastic talk from  an oil industry insider, PFC Energy's Chairman and Founder Robin West. His presentation included many sobering insights for eager advocates of renewable energy. In particular, one word from West communicated more than any other spoken that day, and it was "Scale" ... as in a current global appetite for oil of "85 million barrels/day." Nothing on the new energy road map looks like it's anywhere close to being a replacement for a tenth of that, let alone the expected peak supply of 95 million barrels/day.

Well, while some of that oil, especially for electricity production, can eventually be replaced by other means including nuclear, wind, solar, etc., the majority of it is consumed by the transportation sector, including autos and trucks, airlines, commercial air freight and the largest single user in the Federal government: the US Air Force.  Nothing else has the energy density of petroleum. Sohbet Karbuz's recent piece called "US Air Force Energy Plans" provides an early/mid-course update on how the service is doing with its efforts to reduce its oil demand. In particular, he goes into detail describing the ill health of syn-fuels companies who are trying to create jet fuel out of other sources like coal, natural gas and biomass. Short take: at this point in time, there's not much reason for optimism that a solution is anywhere close. Better keep at it.

Photo courtesy of Rob Shenk @ Flickr

Meet the Jetsons: 1-Man VTOL Now in Development

A Manassas, Virginia firm is creating a small plane with no pilot on-board. And no human joystick jockey in a remote SCIF either. With Air Force funding, multiple mission options for "Excalibur" are still being explored. But one of them includes serving as a shuttle for one troop: injured for evacuation, or healthy for insertion.

If adopted, the implications for fuel requirements are huge, but also highly uncertain. Would Excalibur help keep larger planes and helicopters on the ground thereby saving tons of fuel? Or would it be a supplement to (or replacement for) what we have already ... like substituting a commuter car for public transportation? What'll be the net energy impact? Inquiring folks should keep an eye on this.

Photo courtesy of Aurora Flight Sciences

Gearing Up for Jet Fuel Savings

As noted previously, the Air Force is proving its planes will fly on a half JP-8/half synth fuel blend. This is good news because the synthetic fuel half is derived from non-oil sources, which also means less foreign oil required to keep USAF jets in the air. The bad news is it appears it takes a hell of a lot of energy to make that synth fuel out its various sources, including natural gas, and especially coal.

As Dr. Sohbet Karbuz explains repeatedly on his energy blog, the primary key for DOD is not in switching fuels, but rather, in reducing the amount of fuel that's needed.

Enter the Pratt & Whitney PW8000 turbofan engine. Long in development, its novel use of gears allows it to use 10% less fuel and it brings other costs savings as well. I'm not saying the Air Force's approach is bad. In fact, in an energy security scenario where the US is cut off from its foreign suppliers, it's essential prep work. But there's no debating the merits of more efficient planes (like the 787) and more efficient engines. We've got to keep pushing the efficiency (and conservation) buttons because synth fuels alone are energy intensive to make, and dollar intensive to buy.

DOD Energy Tech Update: Boeing's Blended Wing Body (BWB) Design

One of the 3 new technologies touted by the 2008 Defense Science Board (DSB) report as key to reducing the Air Force's (and therefore DOD's) dependence on oil is a new approach to aircraft design. Like their commercial jet siblings, military transport planes and bombers have employed the tried and true "tubes with wings" design for more than half a century. But although much R&D remains for Boeing and NASA among others, the advent of the B-2 flying wing bomber signals change is coming.

What's fueling the desire for change? Well, the high cost of jet fuel of course. The Air Force spent tens of billions of dollars on fuel last year, and every time a barrel of oil goes up $10, AF fuel costs rise over $600 million. In addition to pushing for more UAVs and new synthetic fuels, lately, more than ever, they've considered how to do the job without flying as many hours.

Most studies show 20 - 30% fuel savings are possible, and that equates to a huge amount of money DOD could put towards other critical requirements. The DSB report says BWB:

... offers the possibility of 2x gains in range and payload, and of 5-10x in system level fuel efficiency. If the technology can be successfully applied to both tankers and bombers, the potential exists for far fewer sorties needed to accomplish a given mission. The enhanced range of both bombers and tankers would offer the possibility of far fewer aircraft devoted to a single mission, freeing aircraft to conduct other missions or to focus more firepower on a given target.

So clearly, it's about fuel and money savings, but the range improvements have substantial mission implications as well. For a sampling of material on this topic, here are a few additional links:

• Boeing Press Release X-48 BWB First Flight

• NASA BWB Factsheet 1997

And although you may receive notice via the web that we are very close to seeing these craft come to fruition, this link from a fact-checking site confirms that there is a large amount of work left to be done before these planes are ready for prime time. Consensus seems to be 2015 or 2020, so although I wish it were otherwise, that likely means 2025.

X-48 Photo courtesy of Boeing, Inc.