OSINT: History not to be repeated

Back in the 30's (and earlier) nations competed all over the world for resources. In the case of Japan rising needs drove them both west and south in an attempt to create the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. In the case of todays resource crunches, military forces are starting to look at other ways to meet their needs. Thats learning from history - a thing seldom done.

Hat tip to Peter Johnson at Sikorsky Aircraft for spotting this.

Oil prices prompt search for fuel alternatives
Cost pressures on military budgets, caused in part by last year’s rocketing oil prices, are pushing the UK and other leading powers to consider alternative fuels and propulsion technologies.

Fuel costs accounted for $17bn of the combined budget for the world’s top 20 military spenders last year, and the sharp increase in the price of oil added $6bn to the bill, according to estimates in a Jane’s Industry Quarterly study last month.

The US, the world’s biggest military spender, spent $12.6bn, or 2 per cent, of its total budget on fuel.

In the UK, where rising oil costs added £120m-£130m to its fuel bill between 2006 and 2008, the government spent $1.06bn (£740m) last year.

France called off three naval exercises during the summer of 2008 as a result of escalating fuel costs.

“The burden placed on militaries by fuel demands is significant,” said Guy Anderson, editor of Jane’s Industry Quarterly. Even putting budgetary burdens aside, the reliance on petroleum products exposed militaries to the vagaries of the international energy markets and security concerns relating to dependence on foreign suppliers, he added.

In the UK, the Ministry of Defence last year set up an internal fuel forum to look at all aspects of fuel usage, including efficiency. Several initiatives are under way: expanding use of simulator-based training for armed forces; optimising fuel usage during live training (for example conducting fast-jet training without unnecessary underslung equipment); and improving fuel storage.

Separately, the Royal Navy says it recycles ships that are no longer seaworthy, where possible, and is in the process of installing updated waste disposal methods on ships.

The navy’s two new £4bn aircraft carriers, which are due to come into service in the next few years, will have diesel generators while current carriers are having “anti-foul coating systems” applied to their hulls to improve fuel efficiency.

Longer-term solutions are also on the horizon. The US defence department views hybrid electric drive as the most attainable military propulsion technology in the near term.

HED vehicles offer fuel savings of 30-40 per cent over diesel systems, according to Mr Anderson. But to be widely ready for military use in the next 15 years, the primary challenge for HED developers will be “to continue to keep development costs down while at the same time maturing the technology”, says Jane’s.

Another alternative is biofuels, such as biodiesel, which is a product of feedstocks such as soyabeans and palm oil. However, there are drawbacks to using biofuels in the military. Not least of these is that current biofuels are 25 per cent lower in energy density than military jet fuel.

Researchers are also trying to increase the endurance of unmanned aerial vehicles, a big growth area for the military and already used extensively for intelligence and surveillance.

According to Mr Anderson, the US is the only market even close to large enough to drive change.