The British Royal Air Force has set a new standard for total, complete, utter loss of focus. They are planning to be the first military to operate a zero-carbon emission aircraft. According to a government Defence and Security Accelerator document,
The decision has been taken to ensure that the next generation aircraft will produce zero carbon emissions at the point of use. This target must be achieved through more environmentally sympathetic aircraft using a sustainable fuel source such as electric or hydrogen; the goal is to achieve the first military registered and certified zero-carbon aircraft in the world. (1)
Off hand, I can’t think of a more worthless goal than that although I’m sure the US Navy will come up with something, shortly. This is a complete failure to recognize their core reason for existence which is to fight an existential war.
With all the problems and challenges the RAF faces, this is what they’re focused on? On the list of priorities for the RAF, this shouldn’t even be on the list.
Let everyone else in society worry about the environment. The military needs to be laser focused on war and the most efficient way to fight it.
Stunning stupidity.
____________________________________
(1)Defense News website, “British Air Force aims to be world’s first service with certified zero-carbon aircraft”, Andrew Chuter, 30-Jul-2021,
I agree with you. (didn't mention it as this is a US blog). The lowering carbon thing will work it's way through the system anyway from the commercial world. The army is also playing with hybrid power, although this does have a small advantage in quietness / heat signature.
ReplyDelete"hybrid power, although this does have a small advantage in quietness / heat signature."
DeleteIf it produces a combat benefit, that's fine and should be pursued. If not, it's just stupid on a plate.
The US Navy is worried about pictures of the Sailors they select for promotion. Two of the strongest militaries in the world have gone belly up
ReplyDeleteThe UK ceased being a strong military in the late 1950's during the massive naval decommissioning in that time.
DeleteThe UK has been a third rate power since, just an aggressive one by getting involved in so many US adventures.
Leave the politics out of the blog.
DeleteAnd if the AMOC shuts down you don't think that will be a national security issue?
ReplyDeleteAMOC? Don't recognize that acronym.
DeleteThe Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is the zonally integrated component of surface and deep currents in the Atlantic Ocean.
DeleteAh … okay. What's the relevance of that to the post?
DeleteGlobal warming is considered the cause of that current current slowing down. Everything that burns carbon helps cause that. SO everyone trying to avoid burning carbon can help stop the golf stream from shutting down which will make the UK and France a winter wonderland.
DeleteI'll leave it at that since this is not the blog for discussions of global warming (or not).
Delete"using a sustainable fuel source such as electric or hydrogen"
ReplyDeleteI agree, this is stunning stupidity and corruption. One must burn something like coal to generate the power needed to produce electricity (battery power) and hydrogen.
I have pondered the value of a hybrid prop plane like the A-29. Just a small electric engine and battery to maintain a glide. One could shut off its hot and loud engine for 30 minutes to glide toward a target as it cools off to hide from IR sights and heat seeking missiles like the common shoulder fired ones. Then take photos or drop bombs or strafe. Then turn on the main engine to return home. This would also provide back up power in case of engine loss.
"I have pondered the value of a hybrid prop plane"
DeleteIf a military does it for combat reasons then that's great. If a military does it for social reasons, as the RAF is doing, that's an abject failure.
"One must burn something like coal to generate the power needed to produce electricity (battery power) and hydrogen."
This is the aspect that most environmentalists fail to grasp. Along that same line, what happens, environmentally, to all those millions of batteries that now have to be disposed of with their toxic chemicals?
There's no such thing as an isolated, clean power source. You may change where along the chain you pay the price and impact the environment but you inevitably do impact it.
While there are pollution costs for any method of energy production, some are worse than others. Take an example from paint, lead has much more pollution and health hazards than newer forms of paint. Are you really suggesting we should ignore the danger of lead in paint? Have you lived in an old house? Have you read about the people getting lead poisoning just from not thinking and sanding an old door frame?
Delete"Are you really suggesting we should ignore the danger of lead in paint?"
DeleteHow does this relate to the post?
I am trying to give you a non inflammatory example of why we should look at changing the fuel sources. I guess you are being literal and not going to look at reasons why we might want to see if we can limit the burning of JP-5.
DeleteThere is no combat advantage to some kind of green energy (assuming such a thing even exists when all the energy factors are accounted for) and since this is not the forum for a global warming discussion, we'll leave it at that.
DeleteTheir stupid greenies are even more influential than our stupid greenies, but just wait.
ReplyDeleteWow... Im almost speechless here. Our Navy is seriously hamstrung in their preservation efforts by so many federal, state and local regulations. And while I constantly scream for waivers and the like for the military, the idea of designing a weapons system around an environmental goal (that isnt the complete destruction of block sized pieces of real estate) is the heights (depths??) of idiocy. Where are the Brits that have warfighting as a priority??? Ive recently gotten the feeling that the Royal Navy, and their military overall was seeing a resurgence. Guess that was incorrect...
ReplyDeleteFrom the post quote,
Delete"environmentally sympathetic aircraft"
I didn't know that aircraft could be sympathetic. What's next … socially aware aircraft?
I am reminded of when someone in the USN said they wouldn't reactivate the Iowas because they looked scary, and because there was no place to put the girls' toilets.
DeleteComing, soon the USN Smiley Face and HMS Group Hug.
"What's next … socially aware aircraft?"
DeleteCareful with giving out potential ideas!! That could lead to inclusivity training for transgender aircraft and such...
Wonder what an F-35 looks like in pink??🤣🤣
Ok ill stop now....
"Operation Petticoat", circa 2021??
DeleteThis may be the dumbest idea that I have ever heard of.
ReplyDeleteOn the positive side--for once the USN isn't the one being stupid! Thanks UK!
ReplyDeleteDid we have the Great Green Fleet initiative or something a few years ago?
ReplyDeleteWe did! Fortunately, it appears to have gone away. I haven't heard anything about it for some time.
DeleteOne of the experimental things parked under that Green Fleet initiative was something I'd thought was promising - onboard machinery for turning seawater into fuel. Hopefully that's still being worked on - that, at least, I could see as being beneficial.
DeletePlacing my innate desire for snark aside, the examples of hydrogen and electric are the absolute worse ones for an actual combat vehicle. Let us put aside the fact their priorities are skewed, and look at what might actually happen if they did this.
ReplyDeleteLiquid Hydrogen is the least dense fuel conceivable--literally. Water is 1000 kg per cubic meter. Liquid hydrogen is 71 kg per cubic meter, roughly 7% as dense. It also must be at -257 degrees Celsius. Most jet fuel is about 8-10 times as dense as liquid hydrogen, and are liquid at a good range of temperatures that doesn't require insanely cold temperatures like LH2. As for its safety, many of us remember the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. This was caused by hot flame off a solid rocket booster cutting into the enormous LH2 tank. Boom. No imagine our LH2 fighter: since the fuel is now 1/8 the density of jet fuel it is no longer in small wing/fuselage tanks but a significant part of the fuselage, roughly like a tank the size of a business jet fuselage. No fire a guided missile at it. Did I mention that LH2 is also extremely high pressure? So no self-sealing tanks. Once punctured with something as simple as incendiary 12.7mm rounds the hydrogen plane goes completely Challenger. The explosion will also be energetic enough that we will at least save money on ejector seats as there won’t be a surviving pilot anyway. Added bonus: there is no hydrogen infrastructure or even large scale hydrogen production in the UK. So one would have to be created, costing more than the actual military budget of the UK.
Electric is also worse than jet fuel for a combat plane even one meant for cargo. The best batteries are lithium-based. If hit with incendiary rounds it would burn so hot that it would ignite the aluminum structure of most aircraft--not melt, ignite. Added bonus: burning lithium is toxic to people and the environment. Double bonus: most lithium used for batteries currently comes from China. So Britain’s plane production will rely on the nation they claim to be preparing to fight against.
I note they didn't mention Liquid Natural Gas (mostly methane) or propane, both of which are cheap, friendlier to the environment, safer, and actually produced by the UK.
A couple additions/corrections, although it doesn't really affect the basic point:
Delete"Did I mention that LH2 is also extremely high pressure?"
- Actually, no. Hydrogen can (at appropriate temperature) be a liquid at normal atmospheric pressure. So no high pressure tank needed. It does have to be super cold, however. And probably also needs significant insulation and/or refrigeration equipment on board to keep it cold, or all the fuel will evaporate.
In addition to toxicity, the more obvious problem with batteries is that they are VERY heavy for the amount of energy they store, compared to fossil fuels. Which would of course be a big problem for an airplane.
Note: I used "no" instead of "now" at least 3 times in the above text. Sorry. Never do a dissertation on a phone over lunch.
ReplyDeleteThere are environmental friendly ideas that also improve performance ~5%, like winglets. No one has bothered to add them to many older aircraft.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/how-things-work-winglets-2468375/
The "Great" Briton Navy has entered long decline. Last year, UK government even offered to lease out their carriers.
ReplyDeleteRemember what Austin said last week regarding the British carrier group? If he was not very unpleased, he would not say these words.
If you still hold hopes on past because of your ancestry, then, you need to wake up and face reality. UK is broke. Not only so, lots of its military spending don't go to real things. Its Army has more generals than tanks but last year said that they might scrap tanks - real reason was that they could not find money.
Unable to do real things, they can only beat around bush to attract attention.
Thankfully there does seem to be a push to rebuild that would see much better numbers in the next decade. Of course that is still being debated, and largely in the hands of their politicians, so hopefully they pull it off...
DeleteThe UK govt did NOT offer to lease their carriers to the US, or anyone else. There was an anonymous statement made by someone in the Army recommending it, largely due to Army vs Navy infighting over budget share. It got lots of press, reactions, and hype, but it was never somthing that was ever actually "on the table"...
DeleteIt will be the first ever zero emissions military defeat!
ReplyDelete"Remember what Austin said last week regarding the British carrier group?"
ReplyDeleteI missed that. You got a reference/link?
I wonder how many programs the Navy started a year on actual combat effectiveness like firepower and logistics compared to social programs and how many of them actually have a chance of working out.
ReplyDeleteI could only think of Hypersonic and the FFG(X) program last year as a big ticket program but I don't remember much else happening.
I think this is slightly unfair on the RAF.
ReplyDeleteThey do have a coherent focus on how they intend to fight going forward.
The UK industry has bet big on Tempest as the next manned fighter.
Meanwhile, the RAF has two complementary drone programmes in development: The Mosquito Loyal Wingman and the Alvina swarming drone.
They have just brought in the Protector UAV for CAS and will be trialling SeaFuardian as a complement to the P8 in the Summer.
They have developed in house a new C2 "combat cloud" system called Nexus.
The UK is building its own sovereign ISR satellite constellation that the RAF will deploy and manage.
They are in the process of clearing Spear for deployment on Typhoon and getting the F35 to accept Meteor and Spear. The Precision Effects weapon portfolio is probably one of those rare UK programmes that actually comes in on time, on budget and with good performance.
It's very much an information age, C2, AI, effects at range heavy focus... and I'm sure it's not the focus this blog would recommend, but it's a coherent focus nonetheless.
The net zero target is, I would argue, politically smart from the RAF who have always been a bit more tuned to that than the other British services. In a country where defence has to fight for every pound Sterling, where there is a national focus on reducing Greenhouse emissions by 2040, for the services to be still out there burning heavy carbon emissions would only make it harder to get political buy in to their programmes. Worth noting the British Army is also trialling some hybrid power trains on their light cavalry vehicles.
"I think this is slightly unfair on the RAF."
DeleteI think not. For a military force that is SEVERELY budget-constrained, spending even one cent on something that does not produce an enhancement in combat effectiveness is nearly a crime. As stated in the post, the entire rest of the country can focus on being as green and environmental as they wish but the one and only job and focus of the military is to fight wars. NOTHING ELSE.
So, no matter how good their plans for future warfighting are - and they're not good but I'll defer that argument for the time being - their utter loss of focus on their mission is appalling.
"It's very much an information age, C2, AI, effects at range heavy focus"
DeleteNow that's a statement that is not only unsupported by any facts but is actively contraindicated by actual events and history.
The Taliban have defeated the US military and are in the process of consolidating their hold on Afg as the US finishes its pull out. Did the Taliban have information C2, AI, and effects at range heavy focus? Quite the opposite.
The North Vietnamese / VC defeated the US. Did they have information C2, AI, and effects at range heavy focus? Quite the opposite.
Information, C2, AI, and effects at range are fools gold. Yes, there can be beneficial effects from some of that, at certain times and under certain conditions but basing an entire military doctrine on it is setting oneself up for epic failure.
Learn from history. Do not ignore it just because you're attracted to the shiny bauble of technology.
To be fair to the RAF I think they are securing future budget share by playing up to the government green policies. There is a drive by the armed forces to demonstrate the economic benefits to the UK. There is a lot of investment in sustainable aviation fuels as well as electric/hybrid aircraft technology companies in the UK. These statements are purely political. They allow the government to continue investing while keeping eco friendly voters happy. In a roundabout way the RAF is securing it's future with these aims by jumping on the green bandwagon as self promotion. It's not pretty but it is a strategy to keep the organisation as strong as possible.
ReplyDelete