HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 2/3  >  >>
Watashi
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Logistical Tail
Watashi   2/6/2013 6:01:07 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree that when considering weapons for a particular mission the overriding theme should be kills per dollar spent.  With the way we fight all the low intensity/counterinsurgency ops going on; the cost per kill goes way up thanks to the 'precision weapons revolution'.

I am a big fan of the civil war Gen. W.T. Sherman.  He had a simple philosophy: War is hell, so you make it as bad as you can; the faster the enemy surrenders, the faster you can make friends.

I say use the big, dumb, cheap bombs and accept the colateral damage.  Overkill is OK.  It is all the extra damage that makes the enemy reconsider his life choices.

But don't forget that we still have peer adversaries. China is not an honest actor and Putin would love nothing less than to go back to his Soviet roots. We still need the big ticket items to counter their advances.

Cabe Atwell
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Logistical Tail
Cabe Atwell   2/6/2013 4:56:31 PM
NO RATINGS
Whatever cuts the military budget, I cool with. It seems so silly to spend billions on advanced tech that never gets used. Most combatants the USA faces are irregular/rebel/civilian militants with simple weapons.

C

Watashi
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Logistical Tail
Watashi   2/6/2013 4:00:36 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree on all points

Wind and solar definitely make boring targets.  You just can't get the impressive secondary detonations that give you a warm fuzzy during BDA.

I was just speaking strictly form factors - Petroleum can be more readily distributed and concealed (admittedly a lot of effort) than the high output wind and solar technologies that I am aware of.  Wind can't get away from having tall structures (or kites).  Solar is highly reflective and requires a lot of area.

However, with the growing backlash against wind and solar partly because of these reasons, perhaps solutions will be found.  I just believe it is more appropriate to have civilian/private R&D work these issue.

sensor pro
User Rank
Gold
Re: Logistical Tail
sensor pro   2/6/2013 3:06:36 PM
NO RATINGS
this is clear. I'm just looking for the logic behind it. To make an engine that is like one size fits all in my opinion not too realistic. I may be wrong !?

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Logistical Tail
TJ McDermott   2/6/2013 2:42:40 PM
NO RATINGS
Multi-fuel engines, as the article stated, are not efficient and that is the goal of this particular study.

But the research seems well behind the times, and the fuel expensive and limited.

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Logistical Tail
TJ McDermott   2/6/2013 2:41:53 PM
NO RATINGS
To be fair, I bet there's no more enticing target for a pilot than a fuel tank farm.  The phrase "The ensuing fireball" would have to be a favorite of theirs.  Blowing up solar arrays  would be the same as dropping bombs on any piece of empty desert.

Solar and wind energy just do not give the same energy density that petroleum fuel has.

 

sensor pro
User Rank
Gold
Re: Logistical Tail
sensor pro   2/6/2013 2:34:13 PM
NO RATINGS
I agree with you. WASTE WASTE WASTE.

I would feel that an engine that can run on various fuels would be more useful in a military environment.

It just does not feel logical to me.

Watashi
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Logistical Tail
Watashi   2/6/2013 2:08:10 PM
NO RATINGS
Fuel 'diversity' is the best policy as TJ notes.  Nothing stops a modern military faster than lack of go-go juice.

Solar and wind for military applications is very misguided.  The large arrays required to get adequate energy will make a good target when used downrange.  I know that I would like our enemies to mark their locations as provacatively.  

Military R&D budgets have been used too often to perform research on things that have no practical use on the battlefield.  In my opinion, the military should not be looking into things unless they can be used in harm's way. 

Sorry, but we have to draw a line somewhere and that seems a reasonable restriction for military R&D.  Considering the defense cuts coming our way; I would hate to see some of our useful and fieldable war technology get budget pressure because of something that has little benefit to the mission.

bob from maine
User Rank
Platinum
Re: One fuel, many applications
bob from maine   2/6/2013 10:22:30 AM
NO RATINGS
Navy ships do a significant amount of re-fueling at sea, often from tankers, occasionally from carriers. Naval aircraft use JP5, which has a different specific gravity than diesel, plus different BTU/gal lubricity and burn characteristics. Aircraft are less tolerant of fuel differences than perhaps a diesel engine or a stationary Gas Turbine so having one single diesel-ish fuel is the best answer even though it is likely a compromise in some applications. U.S. environmental laws have regulated our diesel fuel to remove some desirable characteristics to the detriment of longevity of the engines burning it. This is notable when reviewing the stated standard overhaul period for engines used in the U.S. versus the same engine being used in Europe. I'd guess much of the research into diesel fuel is to find a way to restore some of those desirable characteristics.

Battar
User Rank
Platinum
Re: One fuel, many applications
Battar   2/6/2013 9:52:57 AM
NO RATINGS
Bob, not sure about the "Navy takes a different method" approach. I know of at least one class of naval ship (details classified) powered by diesel and gas turbine engines (diesel for cruise, GT for combat). The gas turbines in these vessels burn diesel, not kerosene, to simplify fuel storage, supply and delivery.

<<  <  Page 2/3  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
A bold, gold, open-air coupe may not be the ticket to automotive nirvana for every consumer, but Lexus’ LF-C2 concept car certainly turned heads at the recent Los Angeles Auto Show. What’s more, it may provide a glimpse of the luxury automaker’s future.
Perhaps you didn't know that there are a variety of classes, both live and archived, offered via the Design News Continuing Education Center (CEC) sponsored by Digi-Key? The best part – they are free!
Engineer comic Don McMillan explains the fun engineers have with team-building exercises. Can you relate?
The complexity of diesel engines means optimizing their performance requires a large amount of experimentation. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a very useful and intuitive tool in this, and cold flow analysis using CFD is an ideal approach to study the flow characteristics without going into the details of chemical reactions occurring during the combustion.
The damage to Sony from the cyber attack seems to have been heightened by failure to follow two basic security rules.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
12/10/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
11/19/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
11/6/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Jan 12 - 16, Programmable Logic - How do they do that?
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  67


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service