Dear all,
I'm writing a thesis on the issues of reliance on fossil fuels (environmental impact, supply & cost uncertainties) for the Singapore military establishment and I would like to invite further discussion amongst the military tech enthusiasts here regarding my proposed topic.
It is interesting that the United States and Australian governments are actively pursuing research & development in alternative fuel and propulsion technologies, and while I managed to pick up some scraps of information about such activities here, the push for these technologies does not seem to be discussed in the local literature.
Does anyone have any leads as to where I could unearth more information? I would also love to hear your views on this topic!
on my side...
we're not doing anything to reduce our consumption.
still have to meet the same flying hours, with the same aircraft.
they chop men at the bottom, they pay more to the top.
1G - 1 man, 1 job
2G - 2 men, 1 job
3G - 1 man, 3 jobs
Nothing happening in the air force then?
I wonder if they are exploring other options in the land forces. An acquaintance mentioned that I shouldn't be surprised if the military had already looked into this issue. He mentioned "water" and refused to reveal anything else.
Hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen-derived fuels perhaps?
Maybe in year 2025, we will upgrade our F-35A to F-35(S) for Solar powered!
When they developed alternate fuels, i don't think they are so concerned about the 'environment', but rather if they have 'lighter' fuel, potentially can build better performing combat platforms.
What about the cost factor?
After all, Singapore does not have any natural resources and although we are a major refining hub we import all of our energy.
As we have it now the cost of a barrel of oil is easily 50-70% more than it was this time last year.
Should alternative fuels be looked at more seriously because of this, or should we continue to pay whatever the market rates for fuel?
Sorry, but alternatives to fossil fuel is at least 20 to 30 years away.
Read on DefenseNews.com that US Army is actively exploring this as fuel may be in short supply/run out in next war.
Another 2 advantages of hybrid fuel cell are: when you engage it alone, it is silent (tactical advantage); and the hybrid fuel cell can generate electricity for the command post, or anything requiring electricity when engine is off, saving fuel.
Here's an interestng report:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-02-13-humvee_x.htm
Also, a historical perspective: In WWII, after the Allies bombed the Romanian oilfields and blockaded German ports (~1943), Germany's oil supply was almost completely cut off. The Germans created synthetic fuel to run their vehicles and planes, and made ethanol (made from sugar beet) and diesel (made from coal gas). The V-2 rocket was powered by ethanol and liquid oxygen.
It is time that the Singapore military establishment begin to pay attention to the fuel bill that it is incurring - considering the high tempo of military activities conducted by the SAF across the globe even when the SAF is not at war.
With the report that the US Defense Department paying a cost of US$13 Billion for Year 2006, and the US Military fuel consumtpion being 1.5 per cent of the entire US fuel demand - what will be the amount spent by the Singapore Armed Forces ?
Besides the cost of fuel to the SAF, it should also be in Singapore's strategic interest to look at the future of 'alternative synthetic fuel' processing - if Singapore intend to maintain the position of being one of the few major refining centres on this globe.
If some other centers should emerge to become a major player in processing "synthetic fuel" - it can under-mine Singapore's strategic postion as a refinery center, when alternative synthetic fuel can be produced cheaper then fossil fuel.
It seems that large scale commercial - industrial processing of synthetic fuel can bring the cost of such fuel from its present "stratospheric" pricing to about US$55 per barrel - compared to current crude oil prices of US$130 per barrel.
The following report shows the origin and process of synthetic fuel, its present day use, and a test by the USAF to determine the feasibility in the use of synthetic fuel for military jet aircrafts that breaks the sound barriers.
Originally posted by spencer99:Maybe in year 2025, we will upgrade our F-35A to F-35(S) for Solar powered!
When they developed alternate fuels, i don't think they are so concerned about the 'environment', but rather if they have 'lighter' fuel, potentially can build better performing combat platforms.
Lighter fuels? My friends, how are they supposed to help? A lighter fuel means a lower hydrocarbon density and hence a lower density of stored energy. In order to store and output the same amount of energy a vehicle or aircraft will require a larger tank and routing. Completely counter-productive. If anything, a denser fuel should be pursued.
Solar-powered F-35? That's plain silly. You can't convert sunlight into jet exhaust. I hope you were kidding about it.
Have you all actually ignored some of the less glamourous alternative fuels like biodiesel? It's not remarkably cutting edge, which is probably why you all fail to take that into account, but the truth is that it's one base already covered for the diesel engines, which power a large proportion of any armed forces.
The Germans in WW2 resorted to syn fuels simply because their petroleum supplies were all but cut off. They had no other choice despite the expense.
With alternative fuels you need to start with NG or coal or biomass, all of which are because of their bulk need to be processed, by necessity, close to their source. Secondly, with current technology, the cost of conversion is still very very high. Future technologies hold promise but are still a long way off.