fox two Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 http://video.foxnews.com/v/1752340858001/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Par for the course the last couple of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I didn't see. How much of this fuel did we buy? Are we talking 1000 gallons to test in our engines? Or are we talking millions of gallons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 We should refuel the jets at COSTCO.We should take off min fuel and hit the tanker every sortie because that gas is free as long as you give a bogus tail number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Well, they have ops checked almost every MWS in the inventory so I'm guessing it was a ton of fuel. The theory is good since from what I understand this synthetic fuel is made mostly from coal, which we have in our country in large supply. Too bad the president has been unabashed in his desire to bankrupt the coal industry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 We should take off min fuel and hit the tanker every sortie because that gas is free as long as you give a bogus tail number. I think the boom might get suspicious when he refuels a 4 ship, tail numbers 6901, 6902, 6903, and 6969. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Well, they have ops checked almost every MWS in the inventory so I'm guessing it was a ton of fuel. The theory is good since from what I understand this synthetic fuel is made mostly from coal, which we have in our country in large supply. Too bad the president has been unabashed in his desire to bankrupt the coal industry. Except $59/gal biofuel >> $3.60/gal JP8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopyeast Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Except $59/gal biofuel >> $3.60/gal JP8. [sarcasm] But, but, but, it's good for the ENVIRONMENT![/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 The idea isn't so much to be green as it is to develop access to alternative fuel sources when traditional sources become too expensive or unavailable. Pretty sound strategery. Also makes for good/bad press depending on if you're MSNBC or Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Weaver Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 The alternative jet fuel debate is a chocolate mess of politics and bad gouge. I didn't see. How much of this fuel did we buy? Are we talking 1000 gallons to test in our engines? Or are we talking millions of gallons. 11K gal for RDT&E.. Well, they have ops checked almost every MWS in the inventory so I'm guessing it was a ton of fuel. The theory is good since from what I understand this synthetic fuel is made mostly from coal, which we have in our country in large supply. Too bad the president has been unabashed in his desire to bankrupt the coal industry. "Ops checked"= certified throughout entire envelope, with the exception of MQ-9 and CV-22, using up to a 50-50 synthetic blend based on coal/natural gas and JP-8. The carbon footprint of these blends is greater than standard JP-8 which the DoD, by law, can't buy for anything but R&D. That law was passed in '07. Blend in some biomass and the carbon footprint decreases,but you have to test it first. As we speak there's a "Great Green Fleet" in RIMPAC burning 450K gal of biofuel at $26/gal, and they want to repeat the demo in 2016 for an entire deployment. Not sure what that will accomplish other than to prove it can be done as long as cost is no object. Biofuels aren't ready for prime time, but you've got to start somewhere. USAF has the right idea: certify the fleet w/alternative fuel and be ready to buy when it becomes cost competitive. We're in the Navy's frag pattern because of energy politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 The idea isn't so much to be green as it is to develop access to alternative fuel sources when traditional sources become too expensive or unavailable. Pretty sound strategery. Also makes for good/bad press depending on if you're MSNBC or Fox News. Exactly. Also, its $59/gal because it's still in development. The price would drop significantly once you start to mass produce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 If they bought it just because it's "green", there [intentional spelling] retarded. If it was purchased such that the DOD could R&D with it that's different. At this stage, the DOD could request the modifications such that it's acceptable to military use. Then, when it becomes available (and cheap due to mass production), it already works. My guess is, however, that the government didn't plan it that way. I don't think I've seen a briliant plan come out of Washington in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 The idea isn't so much to be green as it is to develop access to alternative fuel sources when traditional sources become too expensive or unavailable. Pretty sound strategery. Also makes for good/bad press depending on if you're MSNBC or Fox News. It also matters if global warming is real and they actually are "fossil fuels". Look up fact vs theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Should've been $69/gal and no one would give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullet Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Exactly. Also, its $59/gal because it's still in development. The price would drop significantly once you start to mass produce it. Is it me, or does anyone else catch the irony of a user called LockheedFix using the same couple of sentences here as LM normally uses to explain the current costs for the F-35? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It also matters if global warming is real and they actually are "fossil fuels". Look up fact vs theory. Not sure what your argument is here. DOD doesn't care whether its fossil fuels, bio fuels, or otherwise. Global warming doesn't factor here. The point is that we have access no matter what. Politics are just clouding the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Is it me, or does anyone else catch the irony of a user called LockheedFix using the same couple of sentences here as LM normally uses to explain the current costs for the F-35? No, the irony is self contained within his username. We all got it with his first dozen posts or so. Welcome to bodn. The point that you make on the scope of trying to mass produce the price of a $59 product down to $4 is valid, however. Edited July 26, 2012 by BFM this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 We should refuel the jets at COSTCO. We should take off min fuel and hit the tanker every sortie because that gas is free as long as you give a bogus tail number. McChing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Weaver Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Not sure what your argument is here. DOD doesn't care whether its fossil fuels, bio fuels, or otherwise. Global warming doesn't factor here. The point is that we have access no matter what. Politics are just clouding the issue. DOD does care because it's the law (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). One desired outcome from DOD's Operational Energy Strategy: Contributing to national goals, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating innovation in the civilian sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Not sure what your argument is here. DOD doesn't care whether its fossil fuels, bio fuels, or otherwise. Global warming doesn't factor here. The point is that we have access no matter what. Politics are just clouding the issue. Did you look at the price man!! The only reason we would spend that much money is for some sort of "green" initiative, which I am arguing is cost prohibitive. Knock it off until the price comes down, and the government buying it will not make that happen. When it's CHEAPER, then buy it, I'd imagine that won't happen for 200 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundbounder Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 DOD does care because it's the law (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). One desired outcome from DOD's Operational Energy Strategy: Contributing to national goals, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating innovation in the civilian sector. Then DOD and the jackasses who write these stupid "laws" will just standby while everyone bitches about the cost of the military. It's a damn shame to watch pilots go without training time to let very few sorties burn fuel that costs that f-ing much. This "green" crap will be the death of our economy and therefore the worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Did you look at the price man!! The only reason we would spend that much money is for some sort of "green" initiative, which I am arguing is cost prohibitive. Knock it off until the price comes down, and the government buying it will not make that happen. When it's CHEAPER, then buy it, I'd imagine that won't happen for 200 years. Yep. It's called research and development. DOD is in the proving phase. I haven't heard anyone talking about wholesale replacing good ole JP-8 just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Weaver Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 This "green" crap will be the death of our economy and therefore the worlds. The more you know, the less certain you can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupe Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Did you look at the price man!! The only reason we would spend that much money is for some sort of "green" initiative, which I am arguing is cost prohibitive. Knock it off until the price comes down, and the government buying it will not make that happen. When it's CHEAPER, then buy it, I'd imagine that won't happen for 200 years. This isn't about cost....it's about having an alternative fuel that's been tested in our assets and a more mature alternative fuels industry should the shit hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The Germans were testing and using basically the same synthetic fuel in WWII when things got real ugly in their oil supply line. I'm glad we've already ops checked it should we ever need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now