President Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have lost touch with reality. Claiming that climate change will cause global instability, Biden has issued an Executive Order directing the Pentagon to make climate change a national security priority.
“The Department will immediately take appropriate policy actions to prioritize climate change considerations in our activities and risk assessments, to mitigate this driver of insecurity,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement. [emphasis added] (1)
I won’t even address the questionable concept of climate change. That’s a topic for some other blog.
Instead, let’s address the idea of prioritizing climate change over warfighting, maintenance, training, readiness, etc.? To those of you who would suggest that it won’t be prioritized over those items but, rather, will be co-prioritized, that’s a patent absurdity. You can’t prioritize everything. If you do that than nothing is really prioritized, is it? This is analogous to trying to train for multiple missions. You can’t. You can only train to be good at one mission. We’ve discussed this many times.
Not only is this focus on climate change a case of stupidity writ large, it is bordering on treason. Using the military to push some kind of climate control agenda at the expense of warfighting preparation is a betrayal of the trust, duty, and obligation of the government and military to defend the United States against its enemies. It is a betrayal of the oath these people take.
Biden’s order directs the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to include climate risk assessments in developing a new National Defense Strategy, due in 2022, along with the Defense Planning Guidance, the Chairman’s Risk Assessment, “and other relevant strategy, planning, and programming documents and processes.”
The order gives the Pentagon and other federal agencies 120 days to produce “an analysis of the security implications of climate change (Climate Risk Analysis) that can be incorporated into modeling, simulation, war-gaming, and other analyses.” (1)
Currently, the US military is struggling and losing the arms and readiness race with China and the ability of the military to protect our country is becoming more and more suspect every day. Any action – meaning prioritizing climate change - that dilutes the military’s focus on warfighting is a gross mismanagement, at best, and a betrayal of trust and oaths, more likely, at a time when the military cannot afford to be distracted from preparing for war.
Half our aircraft are unavailable for combat and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
Our ships are falling into disrepair and look like rusty barges and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
Our ships can’t sail without colliding with commercial ships or running aground and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
The Marines have dropped tanks and artillery and have gone off the deep end and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
We’re building and commissioning ship after ship that can’t fight and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
We have a looming submarine shortfall and Biden wants to prioritize climate change?
There are two possibilities regarding climate change:
If you don’t believe climate change is a real threat then this is an improper use of the military and a treasonous betrayal of the trust of the people.
If you believe climate change is a real threat then the military is not the organization or means to deal with it and is an improper use of the military and a treasonous betrayal of the trust of the people.
Biden is betraying his oath and the country by putting our national security at risk and SecDef Austin is meekly falling into line.
Note: This topic needs to be addressed but the potential for veering into pure partisan politics or pointless climate change debate is too high to allow open commenting. Instead, I’ll be moderating any comments before publishing and only substantial, informative comments will be allowed. Honestly, I don’t expect many, if any, comments to be allowed. We’ll resume normal commenting with the next post.
________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense website, “Biden Orders Pentagon To Include Climate Change In New Strategy & War Games ”, Paul McLeary, 27-Jan-2021,
While I agree that making it a priority is a bit of a stretch since that would mean putting it on par with fighting enemies, I do believe a point can be made to evade unnecessary pollution.
ReplyDeleteAn example where climate change considerations is actually for a greater good is the green airfuel tested on Gripen fighters. https://www.aerosociety.com/news/gripen-goes-green-with-biofuel/
For a country without any oil production and not a NATO member, being able to produce synthetic biofuel and being able to run ships and aircraft has a rather high strategic value.
This doesn't have a direct bearing on the US Navy but then again I have no idea what they're actually going to do once they've made it a priority.
I do suspect the sub-killing marine attack divers have a low enough carbon footprint and can be made to attack even higher value targets.
/IED
" evade unnecessary pollution."
DeleteSure. Who wouldn't want to avoid unnecessary pollution? However, that's not really climate change and it shouldn't be the military's priority.
Similarly, biofuels are not really a climate change issue. They're an economic issue and, possibly, a case could be made that for certain countries under certain circumstances, they're a strategic interest and/or a military enabler but, again, not climate change and not a priority.
An argument could be made that climate change could (emphasis on "could") lead to geopolitical instability and is therefore relevant to the military, I guess.
ReplyDeleteOf course, pretending that should be a military priority is the sort of idea one needs booze to come up with, usually.
Now, to be fair, I doubt that Biden or Austin actually believe in this stuff, it's just a show to gain political points, which is a different kind of poor behavior.
" I doubt that Biden or Austin actually believe in this stuff, it's just a show to gain political points, "
DeleteYou make an excellent point that is certainly possible but that's almost worse since that would mean they're willing to jeopardize national security for political gain … which would be treason.
I read it as this:
ReplyDeleteBiden’s order directs the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to include climate risk assessments in developing a new National Defense Strategy, due in 2022, along with the Defense Planning Guidance, the Chairman’s Risk Assessment, “and other relevant strategy, planning, and programming documents and processes.”
Biden is telling the Pentagon to use future climate change projections in their future planning. Maybe that means sea level rise. Maybe China's artificial islands are going to be going back underwater and we won't have to worry about them. Maybe more likely, China will have to deal with massive instability due to migrating populations on their borders/food insecurity/etc. and that could cause China to lash out. Maybe if we didn't plan for climate change, we'd actually be under-representing the risk of a near future war, and this order will actually drive the pentagon to prioritize war readiness instead of (insert your distraction here).
The order gives the Pentagon and other federal agencies 120 days to produce “an analysis of the security implications of climate change (Climate Risk Analysis) that can be incorporated into modeling, simulation, war-gaming, and other analyses.” (1)
Nothing here says the Navy needs to stop maintaining ships or training its sailors. All it says is for the Pentagon to take its head out of the sand and actually plan for the future we expect instead of the one we hope.
That is the most optimistic assessment possible of Biden's order and I don't for a moment believe it is true or even a little bit applicable. Still, it's a worthy alternative view for readers to consider.
DeleteYou're also glossing over the 'priority' aspect which, by definition of the word priority, relegates ALL other activities to a lesser status. As I noted in the post, you can't have multiple co-equal priorities because, if you do, then none of them are actually priorities.
So that's why the Corps got rid of tanks, climate change! The Army is going the other way, making their tanks several tons heavier. This news made me laugh.
ReplyDelete“The Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 upgrades introduce suitability concerns,” the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation wrote in a recent report covering the program’s full operational test and evaluation and some live fire testing. “Weight growth limits the tank’s tactical transportability. The M1A2 SEPv3 is not transportable by current recovery vehicles, tactical bridges or heavy equipment transporters.”
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/01/26/creeping-weight-of-abrams-tank-concerns-pentagons-chief-weapons-tester/
I know you won't publish this: Please consider this a private message to you.
ReplyDeleteI love your blog and truly believe it has an impact on the naval community. You are the canary in the coal mine, screaming an objective, thoughtful warning that resonates because of the logical consistency and thorough analysis.
Showing your political bias (like this post) diminishes the blog.
Biden's actions are not worse than the the failures of the previous 3 administrations on concurrency or the constantly changing priorities, all of which have gotten us in our current mess. But this is the first time I have seen Treason in your title.
Treason has been popular in the media recently due to the Republicans' attempt to throw out the election results and accusations of a national conspiracy of thousands to steal the election (despite Republicans in the states in question certifying the results). The storming of the capital to prevent the counting of electoral votes has also conjured the word 'treason' into many discussions. Yes, I have my own opinions, which also have no place in this blog. Your use of 'Treason' connects directly to this recent partisan conflict, and highlights the political nature of your post.
I think you wrote this post quickly, with emotion. Your own 'note' at the end shows you recognized that you were treading further into politics than you probably wanted to. Please consider your own bias as you moderate the comments. And in the future, if you feel like you have to add a political bias note at the end of a post, walk away for 24 hours before posting.
I send this to you respectfully, with only good intentions.
Your fan,
Dan
Your comment is actually thoughtful and well written. Now, to the specifics …
Delete"Showing your political bias (like this post) diminishes the blog."
When I started this blog, I made the conscious decision to avoid politics because, as you point out, such discussion diminishes the value of the blog. The point you're missing, in the case of this post, is that the post is NOT political. It's a reaction to stupidity and would have been the same regardless of which party came up with the idea.
"Biden's actions are not worse than the the failures of the previous 3 administrations on concurrency or the constantly changing priorities, all of which have gotten us in our current mess."
And, I have made no claim that they are.
"Your own 'note' at the end shows you recognized that you were treading further into politics than you probably wanted to."
No, it was exactly how far I wanted to go but I do/did recognize that it would stir up political aspects - hence, the moderating. On the plus side, I do very few of these political-adjacent posts and they won't become a habit so, not to worry!
"I send this to you respectfully, with only good intentions."
Accepted as such!
Just a few ideas, more applicable to the Army than the Navy but never mind.
ReplyDelete1- Having a hybrid MBT could be useful, think about the fuel consumption of an M1 Abrams when standing still on the battlefield (sure they've sorted it out with an APU but that's one more thing to maintain), stop and start would sort it out and maybe reduce the noise when moving at slow speed. Now there is one potential big issue : Lithium-ion batteries in a combat environment with fire hazard. But it may be worth investigating.
2- The powerful batteries developped for cars and now even trucks could have some use to power rail guns and lasers (the fact that they are not operational now is another issue). How about using them on jammers, assuming that you do not need them at full power for long enough to empty them : I remember that fuel consumption of the EA 18G was more than expected at IOC, if you can reduce the size of the RAM turbine then you can gain range.
3- The Type 45 had a rather deficient powerplant to say the least, the progress made on electric cars and the knowledge available now could have avoided this.
4- Noise : electrical motors are a lot less noisy than ICE ones or turbines (it is even dangerous for pedestrians crossing the streets), couldn't that be of some use when combined with powerful batteries.
True this is only using green technologies to improve warfighting abilities.
D614-D623
You're talking about efficiency improvements which I'm all for, assuming they also provide combat improvements.
DeleteClimate change is a different matter and has nothing to do with improving combat capability which is the only thing the military should be focused on.
Nothing can ever take priority over effectiveness in the military. Not climate change, not efficiency, not even safety.
ReplyDeleteAfterburners would NEVER be allowed on a commercial airliner because of their inherent safety issues (and Lord knows they're NOT green), but military fighters have afterburners because of one reason only: effectiveness.
You can be green all you want. You can be safe all you want. You can be efficient all you want, but if you are defeated in battle it will mean nothing.
Those other priorities, of course, have their place, but they can never be above effectiveness.
"You can be green all you want. You can be safe all you want. You can be efficient all you want, but if you are defeated in battle it will mean nothing."
DeleteVery well said.
"Those other priorities, of course, have their place, but they can never be above effectiveness."
If they're not above effectiveness then, by definition, they aren't priorities … and, as you said, they shouldn't be.
If our politicians even understood how our own government worked anymore, they would give a task on 'fighting climate' over to something like NOAA, Dep of Interior, NASA, and the NSF ..and leave the military completely out of the climate issues.
ReplyDeleteThink it would be only right for Navy to show good faith in in Biden's #1 priority of climate change and immediately withdraw and decommission all Ticos and Burkes. Ticos and Burkes are all GT powered, GTs are gas guzzlers unless operating at 90% plus rpm, so very bad for the climate :)
ReplyDeleteNavy did have a program to retro fit a HED system on 34 Flight IIA's to increase their shortish range, in an operational context would have used HED 50 percent of the time to increases time on station by as much as 2.5 days between refueling. Initially six systems were funded by Congress for $100 million, Navy cancelled the HED program March 2018. Only one ship was converted USS Truxtun (DDG-103), Congress once again in the NDAA FY2021 pressed Navy to install the five remaining HED systems in Burkes, Navy not cooperating.
Latest, GAO letter to Congress "Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers: Observations on the Navy’s Hybrid Electric Drive Program" November 5, 2020
Here's the problem I see with this proposal. The military, and in particular the Navy, is a tiny part of total fossil fuel consumption. We are potentially sacrificing a primary military objective--national defense--to accomplish an almost immaterial part of at best a secondary objective.
ReplyDeleteThe HED system for Burkes actually makes some sense. It would facilitate quieter tuning for ASW, which really shouldn't be a Burke's primary mission, but since we don't have anything else, they have to do it. What we really need is a bunch of ASW frigates like ComNavOps's proposed ASW escort (at the Fleet Structure tab) with IEP or CODLAG or COGLAG. We could look at converting a number of ships to, and building new ones with, such propulsion.
"CODLAG or COGLAG"
DeleteThe problem with any form of Combined Diesel/Turbine/Warp/Whatever propulsion is that we can't seem to make it work reliably (or at all!). The LCS combined system is a dismal failure.
Why are we pursuing combine shit/crap/poop propulsion? For the sake of a few percent fuel savings or some hoped for magic combination of quiet and speed. Who cares?! Saving a few percent on our fuel budget is insignificant relative to the Navy's total budget and our pursuit of that miniscule savings is rendering our ships unreliable, unworkable, and unrepairable at sea. We're crippling combat effectiveness for a miniscule savings. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Forget combination propulsion systems. Pick one function and optimize for it. If you want the ship to perform ASW then give ONE propulsion system that is quiet. If you want a ship to travel at high speed (not sure why …) then give it ONE high speed propulsion system. We need to stop trying to make every ship a multi-function magic ship. If we'll stop doing that we'll find that ships cost less, operate more reliably, have lower maintenance costs, and have lower operating costs - all from the benefit and wisdom of single function ships with focused, optimized designs.
"The HED system for Burkes actually makes some sense."
How? A HED system appears to cost over $2M each (not including installation costs which would, I suspect, double or triple the cost since installing any major component into an existing ship is hideously expensive since you have to take apart and then rebuild the ship) which likely cancels out any fuel cost savings. HED directs excess electrical energy to the propulsion system but it's still the same propulsion system and won't change the noise level, as I understand it. Props will still beat and cavitate, shafts will still turn and make noise, and so on.
According to GAO, the Navy found that HED would provide a payback in 12-17 years and that's using the Navy's always ridiculously optimistic and incorrect assessment. No commercial industry considers a 12-17 year payback as a justifiable business case.
We certainly have not been able to make the propulsion system work on the LCSs. But that may be more the US Navy's ability to screw things up than inherent systemic problems.
DeleteFrance and Germany seem to have made CODLOG/CODLAG work reasonably on their FREMMs. The RN has CODLOG in the Type 23s and IEP in the Queen Elizabeth and the Type 45s and they seem to work okay, except that the Type 45s had some problems with overheating in warmer climates (since addressed, I believe). But cruise lines are using IEP and azipods just fine, including in the tropics. And even the USN seems to be making CODLOG work on the Makin Island and the new LHDs, which may be pretty worthless as amphibs, but not because of their propulsion system.
I don't see the payback for converting older Burkes, but building new ones with hybrid propulsion seems a reasonable possibility. On a $1.8B ship, $2MM is a drop in the bucket. Save some fuel, stretch out the legs a bit, be able to run silent for ASW, and also be able to muscle up dash speed if/wen needed. And depending on how much battery capacity you put in it, you would be able to get one on electric if something happens to your gas turbines, or go on gas turbines if something happens to your electric motors.
As far as noise reduction, as I understand it, the diesels and gas turbines and associated gearing can be rafted to reduce noise transmission, and the electric motors don't need the reduction gears that are a major source of noise.
Where we could really use IEP or CODLAD/CODLOG/COGLAG is ASW frigates. Dash speed to get to the engagement area, then quiet running on electric.
If you can go green and add operating capability at the same time, that looks like a win-win. Going green for the sake of going green, with no operational advantage, seems a loser, and giving up operational capability is a decided loser.
" be able to run silent for ASW"
DeleteI don't think this is the case. I'm far from knowledgeable on this but from looking at generalized schematic drawings, the electric motor appears to run gears which are added into the main reduction gear setup. Thus, instead of the turbine (or diesel) turning the main reduction gear, the electric motor does. Thus, there is no noise reduction. Here is a link to a schematic which illustrates the arrangement: http://www.bergermaritiem.nl/img/b16dcc6e1f16e466f6db5ec5036a5361.png
Also, the electric motor is not silent. The drive portion of the electric motor runs on some type of fuel and that motor generates noise just like a turbine or diesel. Which of those three is loudest/quietest, I don't know but none are silent.
You're either misinformed about the Burke silencing or I'm completely missing something and, if so, by all means educate me!
As far as other ship types using combination propulsion, I would offer this thoughts: we don't know what problems other countries have with the units because there is no equivalent of our DOT&E or our press.
Electric cars are significantly quieter than traditional ones, but I'm not sure whether the difference would be appreciable on a warship.
DeleteThe schematic I've seen shows basically direct drive from the electric motors. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel-electric_and_gas#/media/File:CODLAG-diagram.png
DeleteAnd pretty much no reduction gear in IEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel-electric_and_gas#/media/File:Type_45_Power_Distribution.jpg
Those are both from Wikipedia which may not be the most authoritative, but the diagrams are consistent with what I've read.
The generators, whether diesel or gas turbine, are noisy, but they can be rafted on rubber mounts so the noise and vibration don't translate to the hull.
I do know that the Royal Navy went with CODLAG on the Type 23s to be quieter than the gas turbine Type 21s and 22s for ASW, and I understand the same was true for the FREMMs.
I'm not sure about the Burke HED system, but it would be just like the Navy to go green without gaining the noise advantages.
Either way, I think it is pretty clear that the electric motors are quieter than gas turbines, but what is not clear is how much sound deadening that allows to be done with the diesel/turbine generators and main engines.
The two schematics you show are EXTREMELY simplified. The first actually shows the electric drive going into some sort of main/reduction gear assembly (which is what's crippling the LCS). The second is not even a schematic. It's more of a flow diagram and, regardless, is not what the Burke HED is.
DeleteThe HED, as I understand it, simply augments the existing turbine with excess electric power routed via the existing gear mechanisms. Thus, all the same noise makers are present. If there's enough electric power to shut down the turbines, that would eliminate that noise source but the electric drive would still be a 'gas' driven engine of some sort unless you're operating off giant banks of batteries which is not the case for the Burkes, again, as I understand it. Whether the gas engine for the electric power is quieter than the turbines, I don't know.
Yes, those are simplified diagrams but they're all I could turn up in a hurry. In the CODLAG diagram, the reduction gears are between the gas turbines and the clutches that engage to connect them to the main shaft. When declutched, the reduction gears do not turn. The electric motor is a direct drive to the main shaft, and the gearing on that shaft merely provides a connection to the gas turbine for turbine operation. For IEP the electric motor is connected directly to the main shaft, so no reduction gear is required. That's the way it has been explained to me. Maybe we need one of those Royal Navy engineer officers to explain it better. They have been doing CODLAG with the Type23s and IED with the Type 45s for some several years now, and probably have a good handle on how they work.
DeleteWhat I do know to be well established fact that those navies with CODLOG/CODLAG plants run on electric for ASW because it is quieter. So somehow or other, it achieves that result. My understanding is that the engines (diesel or gas turbine) that drive the generators are mounted on rafts with rubber dampers that dampen the noise and vibrations making it to the hull.
If your description of the Burke HED is correct, then it is complete nonsense.
Joke about the RN engineering officer aside, this is actually the sort of situation I have in mind with that concept. Sone whiz kid can draw something up on a CAD terminal, but it takes somebody who has been in the fleet to have a perspective on whether it can work or not. But it was really a more comprehensive concept. Engineering officers run the sip and deck/warfare officers navigate and fight the ship. So all of the internal workings of shipboard machinery are under the supervision officers who know their stuff, and the guys driving the boat are fully knowledgeable of the Rules of the Road, tactics, and strategy, which our OODs simply often times aren't. Their engineer officers can all get advanced engineering degrees, and their deck/warfare types all qualify for commercial masters certificates. I think that makes for a better run ship, and fewer Fitzgerald/McCain/Port Royal incidents. The BuShips idea come because the engineering types can't have command at sea, so they need some equivalent senior billets, and command of major shore activities like construction or repair facilities and positions in something like BuShips seem logical and reasonable.
"If your description of the Burke HED is correct, then it is complete nonsense."
DeleteIt's not my description, it's the Navy's!
"generators are mounted on rafts"
As I understand it, all the Burke propulsion system components are acoustically isolated so it's unclear to me why the generator for an electric motor would be quieter other than, perhaps, it's smaller.
The link I provided IS the Burke HED, as I understand it. Here's a link showing the USS Makin HED schematic:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/USS-Makin-Island-LHD-8-Hybrid-Electric-Drive_fig7_235159520
Again, it clearly shows the electric motor as a supplemental addition to the main turbine drive unit and it 'enters' through the main reduction gear. Again, no indication to me that it would be any quieter and, indeed, the Navy makes no such claim that I'm aware of. The Navy's claim is fuel savings.
Regarding the Royal Navy use of combination propulsion systems, we have no assessment one way or the other. The mere fact that they've been using them for awhile proves nothing. We've been using the LCS combination system for awhile and yet it's garbage. We know it thanks to DOT&E, primarily. If there's an RN equivalent to DOT&E, I'm not aware of it and haven't seen any reports on the subject. They may work just fine … or they may not. Common sense would suggest that they have their share of problems and we're just not aware of them.
I'll ignore the last paragraph as we've already addressed that subject.
"What I do know to be well established fact that those navies with CODLOG/CODLAG plants run on electric for ASW because it is quieter."
DeleteI've looked at the Type 23 CODLAG and I can see how it would be quieter on electric power since the turbine and the main gear are decoupled. That makes sense. The Burke HED, however, is not designed that way, as you can see from the schematics, I linked. This, too, is understandable as the HED is an add-on system rather than purpose designed and has to 'tap' into the existing drive system.
I don't think quieter running is an objective of the Makin Island system. It is with the Type 23s. And what we do know is that they have been able to deploy for 30 years without having to be towed home, so whatever they are doing obviously works better than the LCS. A description of the Type 23 system, with a schematic showing the electric motor after the reduction gear, is at https://www.gepowerconversion.com/sites/gepc/files/MARINE_GEA20356%20-%20Type%2023%20-%20Case%20Study.pdf. I will quote briefly,
ReplyDelete"In order to further minimize mechanical noise during quiet operations, the [electric] propulsion motor is positioned on the propeller shaft aft of the gearbox. The rotor is supported by the gearbox bearing and a shaft bearing.
The gearbox is clutched out when operating in quiet diesel electric mode and is clutched in for gas turbine operation when higher speeds are required. Maximum power is achieved by adding the DC motor in tandem with the gas turbine."
"The HED, as I understand it, simply augments the existing turbine with excess electric power routed via the existing gear mechanisms."
ReplyDeleteIf that is truly the case, and given the US Navy, it may well be, then it is not traditional CODLAG/CODLOG, and makes no operational sense that I can see. I don't even see how it saves any significant amount of fuel.
The problem as I understand it is that reduction gears make a lot of noise, and because they have to be connected directly to the main shaft you can't really isolate them acoustically. I you can connect a relatively slow-turning electric motor directly to the main shaft behind the reduction gears, and declutch the reduction gears when running electric, you can reduce noise substantially. I think that is what the CODLOG/CODLAG schematic I referenced earlier shows.
Interestingly, as I understand it, at the time the Type 23s were designed, there were no AC electric motors capable of meeting their requirements, so the propulsion motors are DC and the rest of the ship is AC, which requires some interesting converters.
The other reason that some are looking at CODLAG/CODLOG designs, as understand it, is that some proposed future weapons have use energy demands, so beefing up electric generation and/or storage capacity is a major design consideration, and some of that energy can also be available for propulsion.
I think we've about reached the limits of both our understanding of these systems. In the RN scheme, I would probably have been either deck/warfare or weapons engineering, so not a main propulsion snipe.