A more energy efficient Defence? Maybe not

Australian Defence should be more energy efficient; so says this Canberra Times opinion piece which uses this comparison.

"The US Navy has committed to having half of its energy needs provided by non-fossil fuel sources by 2020 for its combat ships, aircraft and land vehicles."

Another comparison I will add: the Air Force is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the whole U.S military.

Australian Defence will have a lot of work ahead of them if pressed to burn less fossil fuel.

Clean energy efforts are useful but it won't make up for the frightful fuel consumption of some of our current and future weapons systems planned by Australian Defence.

As an aside for force structure planning: Australia will never have credible weapons systems that can take on high end threats. So any green force structure has to be based around the idea of second tier-threat war fighting.

For fossil fuel consumption the path ahead does not look good.

To illustrate, we just retired the F-111 for no valid reason. This aircraft had distance and persistence and growth room for more modern air-to-ground weapons. This aircraft would use less or no air-to-air refueling assets to perform its mission. Traditional fighter aircraft cannot beat the F-111 for its utility.

(click image to make larger-source: http://www.ausairpower.net)

How about fighter aircraft? Australia has scores of second-tier, short range fighters that burn a lot of fuel.   The F-18 family of fighter aircraft are the shortest range in their class and will require more tanker gas. Fuel is always more expensive (per liter/gallon) when air refueling.

Australia doesn't need air warfare destroyers and large amphibious ships. These ships will burn more fuel than frigates and smaller (scalable) amphibious transports.

Australia acquired used M-1 tanks from the U.S.; to use for what I am not sure. This particular class of tank with its turbine engine burns up fuel at an alarming rate.

The helicopter road map for Defence (If it is big, bloated, under-tested, risky and slow to field to the warfighter it must be good) also is hard to take seriously in the area of consuming less fossil fuel.

I am not convinced that--besides platitude and side-show--Australian Defence has a handle on its fossil fuel use. Any claims to be more fuel efficient will need significant proof.

Ideas for U.S. strategic control of the Pacific Rim--Part 3--Energy

Our ability to pay for and use large amounts of fossil fuel in the future will be strategically limiting.

This is already showing now. For instance, a few years ago during a price spike in oil, we had some U.S. Navy ships go dead in the water for parts of the day to save fuel.

Because of its industry, China consumes much more fossil fuel as a portion of the world supply.

For any U.S. deterrent effort to work, we need platforms that address this problem. This means we need to develop a nuclear powered destroyer for the main purpose of escorting our aircraft carriers. This way a carrier strike group (carrier,surface escort and subs) is all nuclear powered.

We need a frigate class ship that is energy efficient (more details on this later on the topic of force structure). Woe be it to us that we have wasted money on two energy inefficient and strategically worthless ships; the DDX and LCS.

Burning up fuel on sort-range fighter aircraft (and the associated air-to-air refueling resources) also has little strategic worth in the Pacific. The United States Air Force is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the DOD. We need to employ these resources sparingly and only where they contribute to deterrence.

Driving expensive amphibious groups around the Pacific (or elsewhere) eats up a tremendous amount of fossil fuel. The days of Tarawa and Iwo Jima are over. How we show the flag and respond with ground forces will have to change.

One of the prime considerations of our basing in the Pacific has to be how much fossil fuel they consume vs. their strategic value. Host nations pay for some of this, but, in the bigger picture, not all of it.

If we do not realign our force structure as it pertains to fossil fuel consumption, our deterrent ability in the Pacific Rim will be limited. This increases the possibility of war.



Ideas for U.S. strategic control of the Pacific Rim-
Part 1, Strategic Strike for Anti-Access Threats
Part 2, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)