ILF: Interim Progress Report
Jess Kaizar, Hong Tran, Tariq Islam
Agenda
• Problem Statement
– Background and Assumptions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scenarios
Technologies
Cost Estimation
Model Development
Analysis
Results
WBS Status
EVM Chart
2
Problem Statement
This project will serve to provide a background study on past wars in
terms of their fuel usage, and compare them to the metrics of modern
day warfare. What is needed, and what will be answered here
subsequently is that given various future warfare scenarios, how will
helicopters be leveraged and used in those scenarios? The largest
issue being fuel efficiency, the efficiency of helicopters from a tactical
perspective as well as a design perspective will need to be applied to
each of the future scenarios to provide feasibility guidance in the next
10 to 20 years of helicopter production by vendors, specifically
Sikorsky.
Approach and Methodology
1. Survey the use of energy in warfare throughout history and develop
energy consumption metrics
2. Identify a range of representative scenarios
•
•
Primary missions
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force
3. Identify technologies for inspection and characterization
4. Conduct cost estimation of fuel prices in 2021 and 2031
5. Model Scenarios
6. Analysis
•
•
•
Vary fuel price
Apply technologies
Conduct excursions for potential changes in future warfare
7. Provide insight and recommendation for the impact of fuel
efficiencies and rotary aircraft
Background Research
Metrics
Metrics capture how fuel is expended and any benefits of increased
fuel efficiency
• Time to complete mission
– Reduced mission time by removing the need to refuel eliminating delays
– Lighter aircraft may move faster
• Lift capacity
– Carrying less fuel or building a lighter aircraft may allow additional lift
capacity (up to the structural limitations of the aircraft)
• Time on station (TOS)
– Move efficient fuel/aircraft may extend legs or increase TOS
• Cost
– Less fuel burned = lower cost
– Alternate fuel = lower price?
– All metrics will be translated into cost as well
• $/mile
• $/lb lift
• $/flight hour
Identify Representative Scenarios
FORCE
US Army
US Navy
US Marine Corps
US Air Force
UH-60
Airborne
Assault
MH-60
ASW
HH-60
CSAR
(Anti-Submarine
Warfare)
CH-53E
Heavy Lift
Shore
Assault
CAS
ASuW
(Close-in Air
Support)
(Anti-Surface
Warfare)
HELO
MISSION
POTENTIAL
EXCURSION
(Combat Search
and Rescue)
HADR
(Humanitarian Aid
and Disaster
Relief)
N/A
U.S. Navy
• Scenario over 1 Day of Navy ASW Operations
• 1 CSG
• 12 MH-60R per strike group (11 squadron + 1 on LCS)
– 5 on CVN
– 6 on CRUDES 2 per platform
– 1 independent deployer on LCS
• Total of 63 flight hours per day
– 4.5 hours spent refueling
12
US Marine Corps
• Lift scenario over 15hours of delivering power from sea
to shore
– 3 waves of vehicles
– 4 refueling sorties
• 2 Squadron of CH-53E launched from sea
– 14 CH-53E per sqaudron
• 10 ready to fly
• 1 back-up
• 3 in maintenance
• 20 CH-53E Heavy Lift
– 13 Single external vehicle lift (65%)
– 7 Double external vehicle lift (35%)
• 4 CH-53E Refueling
– Internal fuel bladders
13
Identify Technologies for Inspection
Alternate Energy Sources
1. Electricity
2. Hydrogen Fuel Cells
3. Biofuels
•
•
•
Convert fuel consumption cost into energy (Joules) cost, create a common metric
Map alternate energy outputs back to liquid fuel efficiencies gained
This will provide parameters for the executable model
– What if we hit a scenario where hydrogen fuel cells give an increased energy
output?
Rotary Craft Design -- Trending technologies, progress,
feasibility
1. Air-hybrid engine
2. Diesel-Electric Propulsion system
Algae Biofuel
• Algae Characteristics
o
o
o
o
o
Freshwater Algae
Grows Rapidly in Open “Raceway Pond”
Generates Oil which Becomes
Biofuel/Biogas/Biohydrogen/Hydrocarbon/Bioethanol
Uses Liquid Waste from Wastewater Treatment Plants or other Nontoxic Liquid
Waste sources
Requires CO2
• Testing & Production Progress Status
Solazyme signed Contract w/ DOD to Provide 150,000 Gallons of Algae Biofuel
(September 2010) for Testing and Certification Purposes
o Continental Airline Airplane Flew Two Hours Using 50 % Blend of Fuel Made from
Algae and Jatropha (Jan 2008) (Test Data Indicated 4% Increase in Energy
Density).
o DARPA Led Contract to Identify Highly Efficient System to Produce Low-Cost
Algal Oil Production and Conversion to JP-8 (2010). One Contract Metric is
<$3/gallon production cost of JP-8 based on capacity of 50 Million gallons/yr
o Diamond Aircraft Powered by Pure Algae Biofuel Developed by EADS (Fuel
Consumed 1.5L/hr Less than Conventional J-A1in 2010)
o
16
Solar & Battery Power
• Characteristics
o
o
o
Solar Cell and Composite Integrated into the Airframe & Rotor Structures
Lithium Batteries to Fly at Dusk
UAV applications
• Adapted from Single-Seater Sunseeker II Technology
o
o
o
o
Integrate Solar Cells into Wing Structure
Use Battery Power to Take Off (Four Packs of Lithium Polymer Batteries in Wings
Electric Motor of 5kW. Two have been built.
A Design of Two-man Seat is in Work (20kW Electric Motor)
• Adapted from QinetiQ’s Zephyr UAV Technology
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
High Altitude (70kft) Long Endurance (14n days) UAV
Flies by Day and Night Powered by Solar Energy.
Lithium-Sulphur batteries are Recharged during Day Using Solar Power (Paper
thin United Solar Ovonic Solar Arrays Fixed to Transparent Mylar-Sheet Wing)
Silent Flight
Seven UAVs have been Produced
Contract w/ DOD to Perform In-Theatre Evaluation and possible Low Rate
Production
Potential Applications in Defense, Security and Civil Requirements
Electric Motor of 1.5KW
17
Electric Power
• Conventional Lithium Ion Battery
• Lithium Air Battery
– Rechargeable?
• Most ideal for shorter flight times
• Not ideal for heavy lift / long flight missions
– Still very relevant and applicable
– Greatest benefit
• Ideal for ISR scenarios / craft
• Drive-trains…?
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
• Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM)
• Need more efficient fuel cell stacks
– Or allow for large quantities of stacks onboard
• Very lightweight, no moving parts, can be isolated.
• Can be used in conjunction with electric powered motors
and battery support
• Very dependent upon future power outputs and fuel cell
designs
• Not viable for sole power resource for operational helos
EADS Diesel-Electric Hybrid
• Engine Components
o
o
o
Two Diesel-Electric Motor-Generator Units
A Pair of Batteries
Power Electronics Unit
• Propulsion System Characteristics
o
o
o
Safe
 Four Independent Sources of Energy Provide System Redundancy
Fuel Efficient via:
 Less Aerodynamic Drag in Cruise Due to the Tilting
Main Rotor and Its Electrical Drive
 Modern, Weight-Optimized Electrical Motors Driving
Rotors Whose Speeds Can Be Adjusted & Controlled Individually
 Taking Off and Landing Utilize only Electrical Power
 OPOC Engines Operates at Most Fuel Efficient Operating Point
Offer Fuel Economy Improvement of Up To 30% as Compared to Current
Helicopter Turbine Engines
Optimum Speed Rotor (OSR)
• Characteristics
o
o
o
o
Rotor Speed (Revolution per Minute) Can Be Adjusted Depending on External
Condition (Altitude, Gross Weight & Cruise Speed) to Yield Optimum
Rotation. This Technology Saves Fuel Consumption and Maximize Time Aloft
RPM Could Be Reduced to More Than Half its Maximum (140-350 RPM) in LowSpeed and Low-Weight Flight Which In Turn Reduces Fuel Efficiency
Composite Airframe (Metal in Nose Frame, Bulkheads & ISR Payload Struss
Structure)
 Keep Structure Frequency Outside of Rotor Frequency
Rotors Blades Design Complements the OSR System
 Varying Stiffness and Cross Section along the Length
 Rigid, Low-Loading & Hingeless Design
• Adapted from Boeing A160 Hummingbird UAV
o
o
o
o
Intelligence Gathering
Dropping Supplies (2500lbs) to Frontline Troops
Engine Power of 426.7kW (572shp)
Fuel Efficient—1.5 Hrs of Fuel Remain After 18.7 Flying Hrs w/ 300lbs Payload
Model Development
• Excel based model
• Average fuel consumption for individual rotary aircraft at
cruise speed and sea level
– Total fuel capacity / Maximum Endurance = Burn Rate in lbs/hr
• Determines total expenditures per day for each scenario
• Variables
–
–
–
–
–
–
Aircraft available
Burn rate
Reserve (now at 10%)
Available flight time
Fuel cost per gallon
Fuel weight per gallon
– Aircraft weight
– Lift capacity
– Cruise speed
23
Model
CSG Fuel Expenditure per Day
Inputs
Helo Info
Helo Type
Number of Aircraft
Lbs of fuel tank
Gallons of fuel
Max Fuel Usage
Cruise Speed kts
Burn Rate lbs/hr
MH-60R
CRUDES
6
3982.5
590
0.9
n/a
1194
MH-60R
CVN
5
3982.5
590
0.9
MH-60R
LCS
1
3982.5
590
0.9
1194
1194
Flight Schedule
-48-42-36-30-24-18-12 -6 0 -54-48-42-36-30-24-18-12 -6 0 6 12
M
I T
H-R1B
M
I T
H-R1B
M
I T
H-R1B
M
I T
H-R1B
M
I T H-R1B
M
I T H-R1B
M
I T H-R1B
M
I T H-R1B
R1B External Loads
begin to be staged
and preped fr lift
Scenario Info
Aircraft weight
Flight Altitude
Average Speed
Mission Performance
Distance
Total Flight Time available
Time spent refueling hr/day
Lift weight
22420
Sea level
cuise/hover
22420
Sea level
cuise/hover
22420
Sea level
cuise/hover
N/A
9
1
N/A
N/A
6
0.5
N/A
N/A
6
0.5
N/A
12
12
12
6.75
6.75
6.75
32238
$386,856
n/a
176.8888889
N/A
N/A
$2,123
n/a
10
35820
$429,840
n/a
176.8888889
N/A
N/A
$2,123
n/a
6.5
7164
$85,968
n/a
176.8888889
N/A
N/A
$2,123
n/a
6.5
Prepositoned
Prepositoned
R1B Ex
for pick
T
T
H
H
M
M
T
T
L/R/I
L/R/I
E
E
H
H
H
H
Outputs
Cost
Cost ($ per gallon) of fuel
Fuel
Fuel conversion lb/gal
Output
Total Gallons Expended
Total Cost
Gallons per nautical mile
Gallons per hour
Gallons per lift pound
$/nautical mile
$/hr
$/Lift lb
Mission Time
Fuel Expenditure in Gallons over 5
Days
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Gallons Baseline
Gallons Excursion
0
1
2
3
4
5
24
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
•
Army scenarios
Air Force scenarios
Assimilation into a campaign
Application of technologies
Application of costs variance
25
Results
• Determine baseline fuel consumption
• Assess technological alternatives to find the trade-space
in lowering fuel expenditure:
–
–
–
–
Potential cost savings
Additional time on station
Additional lift capacity
Decreased mission time
Decrease Cost
Baseline
Lower/Replace Fuel Consumption
Gallons Baseline
Increase Performance
100000000
80000000
60000000
Additional Lift , TOS, or Mission Completion
40000000
20000000
0
0
1
2
3
Trade-offs
4
5
Operational Advantages
Decrease refueling needs
27
WBS Status
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Optimization of Liquid Fuel Decisions
1.0 Project Management
1.1 Project Structure
1.1.1 WBS/Task Creation
1.1.2 Project Schedule Derivation
1.1.3 Team Meetings
1.1.3.1 Peer Review of Deliverables
1.1.3.2 Dry Run of Interim Progress/Final Presentation
1.1.4 Sponsor Meetings
1.1.5 Website Design
1.2 Proposal Deliverable
1.2.1 Project Definition
1.2.2 Project Proposal
1.3 Delivery of Final Product
1.3.1 Completion of Final Report
1.3.2 Completion of Final Presentation
2.0 Project Design
2.1 Background Research and Metrics
2.1.1 Scoping fuel consumption
2.1.2 MoE/MoP Metrics
2.2 Identify Representative Scenarios
2.2.1 Scope missions
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 13
Week 14
5
9
2
1
1
15
5
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
5
5
9
9
18
18
15
5
15
3
2.2.2 Map missions to forces (Army, Navy, Air Force)
2.2.3 Choose representative set
2.3 Identify Technologies for Inspection
2.3.1 Scope viable fuel technologies
2.3.2 Eliminate unsuitable solutions
2.3.2 Characterize technologies for modeling
2.4 Develop Fuel Cost Estimation
2.4.1 Project future cost of fuel
2.4.2 Bound the cost with a confidence interval
2.5 Model Development
2.5.1 Model fuel consumption in scenarios
10
2
10
10
10
2
3
5
5
2
10
3
10
3
10
9
3
3
5
3
5
2.5.2 Create user interface for variables and sensitivity analysis
2.5.3 Create output for MoE
3.0 Analysis
3.1 Baseline
3.1.1 Run baseline analysis
3.1.1.1 2021 Fuel cost estimation
3.1.1.2 2031 Fuel cost estimation
3.1.2 Verify model and output
3.2 Application of Technologies
3.1.1 2021 with projected fuel efficiency
3.1.2 2031 with projected fuel efficiency
3.3 Sensitivity Analysis
3.3.1 Run parametric sensitivity with fuel efficiency
3.4 Analyze Potential Cost Savings
5
5
5
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
2
5
2
5
10
3
3.4.1 Determine require fuel efficiency to pace inflation
3.4.2 Evaluate potential techinical and operation impacts
3.5 Insights
3.5.1 Cyber warfare ramifications
3.5.2 Role of rotary aircraft
Totals
Week 12
20
22
38
37
32
34
34
31
33
35
5
9
1
3
7
1
3
7
33
34
41
43
Planned
Total
467
EVM
Website
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10785975/798website/ilfwebsite/in
dex.html
References
• http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aer
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ospacedaily&id=news/FUEL111109.xml&headline=Report%20Says%20
DOD%20Fuel%20Use%20A%20Security%20Concern
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=593
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA233674
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-022602932101_x.htm
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gasanother-cost-of-war-in-afghanistanhttp://www.trackpads.com/forum/point-counterpoint-politics/154121helicopter-units-revert-vietnam-era-tactics.html
http://www.ndia-mich.org/workshop/Papers/NonPrimary%20Power/Roche%20%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Modeling%20And%20Simulation%20(M&
S)%20to%20Support%20Military%20Systems%20Acquisition%20and%
20Planning.pdf
BACK-UP
32
Background / Assumptions /
Methodology
33
Background Research
• 175% Increase in Gallon of Fuel Consumed
per Soldier per Day since Vietnam War
• Fuel Consumption of 22 Gallons/Soldier/Day in
Iraq/Afghanistan War w/ a Projected Burn Rate
of 1.5%/Year through 2017
Background Research
• Defense Energy Support Center (US Military's Primary Fuel Broker)
•





•
•
•
•
•
has contracts with the International Oil Trading Company; Kuwait
Petroleum Corporation and Turkish Petrol Ofisi, Golteks and
Tefirom. Contracts with these companies range from $1.99 a gallon
to $5.30 a gallon.
DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units.
$3.51 a gallon for diesel
$3.15 for gasoline
$3.04 for jet fuel
Avgas -- a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial
vehicles -- is sold for $13.61 a gallon
Fuel Protection (from Ground & Air)
Accidents/Pilferage/Weather
IEDs
Inventory/Storage Due to Many Types of Fuel
Final Delivery Cost of $45 -$400/gallon to Remote Afghanistan
(lack of infrastructure, challenging geography, increased roadside
attacks)
Background Research
• 2001 DSB Report Recommends the Inclusion of
•

•

fuel efficiency in requirements and acquisition
processes.
Target fuel efficiency improvements through
investments in Science and
Technology and systems design
The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense signed a memo stating “…include fuel
efficiency as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP)
in all Operational Requirements Documents and
Capstone Requirements Documents.”
Past War Research
37
Scenarios
38
Technologies
39
Cost Estimation
40
Model Development
41
Analysis
42
Results
43