The Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engine has helped the Royal Air Force and industry partners to carry out a world-first 100% sustainable fuel flight using a military aircraft of its size, and the first of any aircraft type in the UK.
The firm say here that an RAF Voyager – the military variant of an Airbus A330 – took to the skies over Oxfordshire powered entirely by 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), paving the way for a range of possibilities for the future of flying military and civilian aircraft.
“The flight, which took place on Wednesday, was a joint endeavour between the RAF, DE&S and industry partners Rolls-Royce, Airbus and AirTanker, with the fuel supplied by Air bp. Rolls-Royce has played a vital role in enabling the flight to take place, by securing the technical approval for sustainable aviation fuel use on the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engine which powers the RAF Voyager fleet.
Prior to the Voyager flight, Rolls-Royce conducted a number of successful trials with sustainable aviation fuel on aircraft powered by their engines. This forms part of the organisational commitment to demonstrate sustainable aviation fuel compatibility on their products as part of the organisation’s net zero roadmap.”
Alex Zino, Executive Vice President Business Development and Future Programmes, Rolls-Royce said:
“Across Rolls-Royce we are committed to partnering with our customers to help them become more resilient to climate change. Ensuring our engines are compatible with sustainable aviation fuel is just one of the ways we are doing this. his flight demonstrates what we can achieve through effective collaboration between industry and our armed forces customers, and I am delighted to see that those partnerships have enabled this achievement to take place.”
Defence Minister Baroness Goldie said:
“The Royal Air Force has flown the UK’s first military air transport flight using 100% sustainable aviation fuel on one of their operational Voyager aircraft. They should be rightly proud of this achievement; it is a breakthrough moment for the RAF and an exciting development for the MOD. Through the RAF’s pioneering spirit, expertise and partnership with UK industry, British science and engineering is leading the way in improving operational resilience and developing future operating capability in a climate-changed world.”
Slightly off topic, but keeping with the Voyager, this months Airforces monthly has an article on air refueling operations over Eastern Europe after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
“Topping up the Tanks”
In the first six months following the invasion of Ukraine on Feb 24, 22 Airbus A330 MRTTS provided air refueling during NATOS air policing missions
During this time the MRTTS carried out 497 air-refueling support sorties logging 3615 flying hours.
RAF Tankers in action
When the war in Ukraine began, The Royal Air force had six of its Voyager KC2 and KC3 tankers cofigured for air refueling , but as the patrol missions performed by the RAFs Typhoon FGR4s and F35B Lightnings were increased two more Voyagers were adapted and jointed others to support them.
The ten Voyagers KC2 and KC3s of Nbr 10 and 101 Sqns based at BZ and RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus flew 1754 hours of air refueling support missions in 242 sorties
Why a larger fleet is needed when you need it!
Hello is that Thomsons, we need our a330s back tomorrow. Sorry holiday makers.
So I assume the first set of figures for 22 mrtts tankers is any airbus 330 tankers including the raf?
Give me a while and I will download the article for all
What is sustainable aviation fuel?
NA wrote:
What is sustainable aviation fuel?:
Taken from here
Ah thanks, pretty sure my dad was already doing that on the early naughties by using cooking oil instead of petrol in his old astra. Made the street smell like a chippy when someone torched it.
World supply of Used Cooking Oil is such that the airlines would be unable to get more than a few days worth per year. And that would be at the expense of biodiesel where it is currently used.
Should we perhaps stop.pretending that it is a newly discovered source of sustainable fuel.
I think you can mix up to about 50% cooking oil in an old Diesel car without impacting performance. I say ‘old’ because you void the engine warranty- and I suspect the fuel pump doesn’t like it either.
So long as it is green it’s ok. That ethanol they make in the USA from crops isn’t that green. Last thing I read said it’s worse than just using normal fuel.
I used to know a guy that used cooking oil for fuel. He used to give a £5 for 25 litres
Pointless greenwashing.
Recycled fuels have different vaporisation and atomisation as well as gelling and hygroscopic characteristics…..so different burn characteristics….
If you wanted to reduce soot from vehicle exhaust diesel you would remove all the recycled garbage – which you can smell on a cold morning.
I bought cheap kerosene for my greenhouse heater because paraffin is so expensive and my cucumbers went brown. Where can I get some of this green kerosene?
I saw these solar heater things for green houses. I don’t know how great they are on their own.
I looked at solar panels with a battery system to run a heater, but we don’t get enough sun here in the winter to make them worthwhile and they don’t store enough juice to work all night. Tnx 4 the suggestion tho.
Relocate from the caves, Gollum!
😉
Yeah f**k the climate let’s just keep burning fossil fuels. Global warming is a myth, I read that in the daily mail so must be true. The Donald said it as well 😀
I read about climate change all the while so it must be true… As for Electric cars dont make me laugh, touted by the virtuous as planet savers they are another dieselgate waiting to happen & its not just burning the fossil fules thats the problem there are many derivatives from oil that are also used daily which need to be redeveloped.
Not as simple as the tree hugging, traffic stopping ,art desicrating ‘climate warriors’ would have you believe. Still litlle Tarquin and Tabitha with their momimys and daddies money buyng the latest mobiles and laptops tell me all the time so they must be right.
Even some in the Green party are ‘warming’ to nuclear energy’ …when they are allowed their own voice of course amidst all the shouty people.
Actually global warming is backed up by almost all credible scientific observation and study since the mid 1980s…Esso had actually proven it through observations in the 1970s but decided for the sake of humanity and selling oil to lock the findings away and spend the next 35 years trying to discredit and cast doubt on something they had already discovered ( it’s likely to be the great crime against humanity ever and even now is probably causing excess deaths somewhere between 100,000 to 250,000 a year).
As for electric cars, again all the peer reviewed evidence suggest that changing out an ICE car for an electric car starts to pay dividends in reduced carbon somewhere between 3-5 years, depending on usage and how your electricity is generated.
Beyond the global warming the public health benefits if electric cars are huge. With car exhausts from ICE cars causing around 360,000 excess deaths a year from. So while your driving around in you just remember you doing you little bit to increasing respiratory disease and helping kill a load of people….even before we get to global warming…
before you say oooohhh what you’ve read In the guardian..all my information comes from peer reviews studies as I’m by training both an environmental scientist, health care professional and risk manager..so I spend all my time studying what kills us.
1M children die from malnutrition every year.
500,000 die from malaria every year.
Where are the COP 202X for them?
That’s a bit meaningless, it’s like saying we should not prevent heart disease because more people have diabetes. It’s not an and or question…it’s a we need to ensure food and water security for all and managing climate change is part of that.
I’m not saying it’s either or. I’m saying we have a heart attack victim now but we are worrying about getting diabetes in the future.
It isn’t that the latter isn’t important but the former is critical and a deadly problem now.
great commentary Grizzler- well said! They never present a balanced view to the debate/discussion. Always a presenting an alarmist view. I enjoy the vocal outcry of generation y,z, millennials as to the state of the planet and global environment . Never mind their blissful fueling (no pun intended) of the climate problem. Consider their individual energy consumption foot print and consumer product demand.
As ever these things are more complex than a simple belief mechanism.
I have
– changed all of the company vehicles to EV
– changed all the small plant and machinery to BEV
– fitted solar panels to my house
– fitted solar panels to the office
– fitted heat pumps to the office
– offer free EV charging to employees
– upgraded my home insulation
– fitted heat pumping to my house
– have a very sophisticated energy management system at home
I do believe that burning fossil fuel in cars and trucks (when a viable replacement is available) is stupid as it is a valuable natural resource but I’m also concerned about the particulates which cause more immediate and real harm than any concept of warming is as it is probably killing and harming people.
If I had power I would force the removal of all the greenwash additives to diesel which provably increase particulate emissions from older vehicles. My concern about this initiative is that it puts more of different pollutants exactly where they do the greatest harm to the ozone layer.
So I walk the walk even if I don’t 100% talk the talk and I’m not a blind believer in everything!
A very sensible and actually really good response to what is needed. Your also right poor air quality is actually killing more people at present than global warming ( and for the U.K. air quality is the big public health issue over climate change at present). Go balm warming will take over at some point…but bad air is killing around twice as many people as global warming at present…the fact the same things combat both is golden.
When the seas rise, or places become too hot to live in, people will migrate. Certain areas will be opened up for agriculture others will have to change what’s grown.
I doubt there will be significant loss of life. Unfortunately, I think climate change can and is being used to explain or justify everything and anything – which undermines the core message that should be taken away from it.
That’s not to say the changes won’t be transformational and hard. Russia might get a large influx of newcomers and reverse its population decline.
No most will actually just die, do the populations of African counties all up and move during famine events or do they just starve, do the populations of countries shattered by flood ing pop over and move to a new county.
your vastly overestimating the ability and will of the world to move at risk populations. population movement depends on infrastructure if that’s collapsed you cannot move people.
But yes there is likely to be large numbers of people moving. In 30-70 years time China will be faced with mass food insecurity, will it just leave eastern Russia or will it take those empty spaces..transformational movement is never peaceful and planned, we just don’t do that…removal of food and water security will simply lead to war.
Yeah. What’s the worst that could happen 😂😂
Look on the bright side, we can only go extinct once and unless we tip the planet into a Venus event life will go on, the plant repair and it will all be lovely until at some point some other intelligence species comes along and fucks it all up again.
Global human extinction event–are we arguing from the glass half full, or half empty, perspective? 🤔😳😉
I suppose it depends if your a complete environmental nutter..the ultimate way to protect the biosphere of the planet is to remove humanity…..but you would have to be way out there to be cheering that on. I do think there are a few more people who would like to see a lot less people on the planet as long as it’s not them or theirs being disappeared ( although mother-in-law 🤔🤔🤔).
There’s a real need for population control worldwide but it’s a toxic issue. Even just 2 adults having 2 children at least stops it’s growing. The developed world seems to be doing ok at that. Hopefully if the whole world keeps developing having massive families will become less appealing.
The other case is trying to make each person emit less emissions so as a whole as the population grows it’s impact is less.
All these are really world wide problems and it’s really easy to talk about when we have better conditions to live in than most of the world. Action is much harder to achieve.
Although consensus changes slowly, over population isn’t the problem. In every region of the world, except one, population growth is under control or coming under control. The West, South Korea, Japan, probably China is looking at depopulation. The key determinant is women’s education.
Moreover, more modern population growth analyses, not based on older assumptions, predict a gradual fall that turns into a population dropping off a cliff and never recovers until the population stabilises at fractional levels around the 1bn mark, if I recall the text rightly. They expect a global population peak in the 2040s that doesn’t get neat 10bn and then the decline kicks in.
The question then will be, who will pay for the health care and pensions of the billions or retirees? People don’t save nearly enough for their old ages. Most public pensions are paid for out of taxation. But, what happens as the workforce shrinks and economic growth stalls because people aren’t having families (which drives consumption) and the elderly don’t need stuff? Economists have calculated the optimum number of workers to support one pensioner is 6. We’re closing in on 3:1. We might be able to forestall judgement day with mass immigration but in the decades to come every nation will be trying to attract young, fertile people so whether or not we will remain competitive is yet to be seen.
Before 2100, when climate change models have temperatures above 1.5 to 2 degrees or so, the global population will be dropping precipitously. So, who will inherit the Earth.
BTW, that one region bucking the trend is the Middle East.
It’s an interesting conversation.
Sri Lanka. Given their upbringing and culture, Lankans will travel on packed trains – sardines have an easy time in tins – for 4 hours a day to work in Colombo, every day of their working lives.
Actually, with a decent government, the line from Negombo to Fort would have been electrified a long time ago – and the same journey in London would take 20 – 30 minutes per day under an electrified railway. The connectivity would deliver profound changes in both productivity, family life and pollution.
Given their natural bio mass production – power generation would result in a substantial reduction in fuel imports. Alas, poor government.
In isolation, the Furness Line and Cumbrian Coast line run alongside the A590 and A595.
At Ulverston their are extant sidings next to a new retail park.
At Barrow – BAE Systems – nuc sub production – there are sidings. No rail delivered materials for 10s of thousands of tonnes – how many HGVs at on the A590?
At the small, Millom Tesco – there is a siding NEXT to the store.(17 HGVs per day)
At the large, Whitehaven Tesco – there is a siding NEXT to the store.
Our wonderful MP for Copeland was a PPS to Bluffer. Then a Transport Minister.
Given the conversion of 319s to flex and the advent of Orion train services, why are not seeing:
Roller cages being delivered to the TESCO stores?
Raw materials to BAE Systems?
Retail parks next to extant rail sidings being given planning permission where rail delivers value for money cages where pollution is part of the VFM matrix?
Alas, an awful, failing, flailing Government.
Two examples, where poor Government delivers zero improvement to the environment, fails to deliver competitive advantage to industry and is abysmal in improving the quality of life for their citizens.
I don’t care which half so long as it’s an instant death. Cant be bothered fighting 100’s of people for the last apple or rabbit in the Forrest slowly dying of hunger.
No cases of the IPCC report have climate change nearly coming to an extinction level event.
And although climate change is a huge problem many economists don’t put it in the top three of things to worry about.
But, the polar opposite of the “deniers” (what a derogatory and marginalising term), the… “extremists” have whipped many in a state of panic that climate change doesn’t actually warrant.
Especially since the world, albeit slowly, is starting to change its ways.
Actually there are many models and potential outcomes. All we really are able to do is some very basic modelling and observation to know we are creating the warming effect. We know that anything over 2 degrees creates problems, anything over 4 Degrees creates essential mass harm with many areas of the planet no longer functionally able to support large human populations. 6 degrees plus’s is hitting the extinction level.
What happens very much depends on both human actions and some significant unknowns around feedback mechanisms. What we don’t know is when these feedback mechanisms will trigger. The IPPC report is very much dependent on the human race actually not shooting itself in the head and acting in a rational way and reducing our impact keeping the temp increase as low as possible, if we don’t 4-6 degrees is a likely outcome the higher it goes the more chance the is of triggering a feedback process creating an runaway warming and if we trigger that the human race will be dead that is pretty much accepted. The question is under 2 degrees, 2-4 degrees, 4-6 degrees or run away climate change. How many millions of deaths over the the next century depend on action not hope and pretending it will all be ok.
Most climate scientists present the most rational likelihood, but the outcome of an irrational act by humanity is still there and it’s awful ( I’ve seen the EU risk assessments, that they quietly popped away a few years ago, as they were very scary).
🤷🏻♂️ Grizzler thinks it will all be fine, he said he read a book one time so I think he must be right and all those scientists with their satellites and the UN climate panel and all that must be wrong.
I went to Iceland and seen this glacier that use to be massive in 1930 and now it’s like several miles shorter but that can’t be global warming because there is no such thing.
Personally I think powering my car with electricity generated from a wind turbine 10 miles from my house is a s**t idea as well. I would much rather prop up some despot in the Middle East to keep my car running on dead plants and animals which I’m sure will never run out.
To be honest I have never really been a fan of this internal combustion engine malarkey (invented by a German you know and who trusts them)
I’m seriously considering converting my Jaguar in to a coal power vehicle using a reciprocating steam engine invented by a decent British engineer.
I actually believe in global warming I dont believe electrics cars will be the green nirvarna many seem to believe , as I dont believe green energy will either. Oil will be part of our consumables for many decades to come like it or not – as willl Nuclear power.
I have no time for virtue signallers…or arseholes.
Jim, no doubt the planet is warming, however there is a wealth of informed opinion, that there are natural forces at play as well, considering the planet has had several cycles of warming and cooling. The truth of the thing is that man made contribution is accelerating change, so I broadly buy into the strategy of curbing emissions.
I remain a fan of natural gas bein front and center for the immediate future, along with nuclear.
😂Morning James. On a more serious note, when a plant based alternative is found instead of fossil fuel, the downside is that often, as with Palm nut oil, vast swathes of indigenous vegetation are replaced by a monoculture which is hugely(biggly) damaging to the environment
Good one Geoff! And there in lies the truth of the thing. Western neo -liberals dictating to developing nations what they can and can’t do in their own back yards. And so to the the irony of thing- demand for palm oil et al is driven of the consumption of these products by these same liberal western economies, so who fault is that!.
I’m certainly not advocating the wholesale destruction of the natural environment , but a struck balance is surely answer. Orangutans in Indonesia and Tigers in Bangladesh are just going to have accept that protected game reserve sanctuaries are the best option for survival of their species!
Lastly, I am stunned by the vocal outcry of generation y,z, millennials as to the state of the planet and global environment . Never minds their blissful fueling (no pun intended) of the climate problem. Consider their individual energy consumption foot print and consumer product demand- the hypocritical ungrateful little sh**ts! Compare that to our generation grown up in the 1960/.70/s. Ahh yeah , that right – it’s all our fault!😂
don think SB meant that at all Jim.
I think they have started to get to a point where the emissions levels for SAF are the same as hydrocarbons, so in theory if you get it all correct you can reduce the whole through life carbon emissions. The issue is that this fuel can come from a lot of different feedstocks and if you get it wrong you can actually increase the through life emissions.
so things like Forestry waste, straw or Algae as feedstocks can work, but using animal fat, vegetable or plan oils that could be used for food, can either increase the need for food production or actual create more emissions through life.
But it’s all al but marginal and as you say probably more about green washing the aviation industries so they can keep burning jet fuel than developing sustainable flight.
If someone can come up with a way that’s at least as good or better than the current airplane travel it will take over the current method quickly. Just like electric cars. They were available for ages but were rubbish low range, slow charge, slow speed, badly made. Then battery tech and charging skills improved to make it viable.
The bottom line question to be answered is do the differences in fuel characteristics affect reliability, maintainability, etc., of RR Trent 700 engine? 🤔
One off flight can be dismissed as PR exercise. Log 500K-1,000K miles, then present the findings.
SAF aviation fuel is a blending of different fuels to achieve the desired the desired characteristics just like normal aviation fuel is a blend to stop it freezing.
I wonder how much of this fuel can be actually made using the process. There must be limits on how much used cooking oil is available and the other ingredients. I don’t know much about it so don’t know if this is a niche product or if it is a viable alternative to actual jet fuel for all aircraft
Whilst that is true you balance off viscosity/temperature with clean burn/temperature.
The two curves are generally not compatible.
Pointless or not (and I don’t believe it’s pointless) Net Zero by 2050 is the law and the military must comply just like everyone else.
Net zero is pointless because it is unachievable except by sophistry.
Reprocessing used oils uses a lot of energy.
I’m afraid there is about 20% of energy usage you can’t decarbonise.
If you said net 20% by 2050 then I’d be on board.
The biggest problem is that China and India simply don’t care and India is too poor and too corrupt to do anything about it.
The alternative is to shutter all our heavy and manufacturing industry in the face of crazy energy prices. That is the real short term output of this crazyness.
Passing strange that very few ever advocate for cooperation w/ nature; reforestation w/ appropriate drought and disease resistant species, is probably the single best carbon sequestration mechanism available for the foreseeable future, and significantly less expensive than tech at the margin. Probably would add significantly to global GDP. One does ponder what passes for human wisdom occasionally…🤔😳
We are spending £Bn’s building nuclear plants that will cost everyone loads when a National rollout of roof top solar with battery smoothing would remove a huge amount of demand from the grid.
It wouldn’t take a lot of incentive to and a five year commitment to the domestic roof top solar industry to get a big roll out going.
Another good option, however, would vastly prefer not enriching slimeball ChiComs who control solar panel manufacturing, at least in the States. UK have a viable solar panel manufacturing base?
Nope – nothing I’m aware of.
nicely put SB- some sound commentary. “net 20% by 2050″ seems a practical achievable target. You are spot on re China and India , a 20% target would be more palatable for their economies to digest.
Ok, as long as it does not reduce the mission effectiveness of these military planes, along with their safety.Some of our virtue signalling politicians will always put their green credentials before the capability of our armed forces and indeed the safety of our forces personal. Make no mistake, we have to watch this sort of thing very carefully, especially service people themselves.
In 20 years only sustainable fuel will be commercially available so better switch now.
👍👍
Sustainable fuel that costs more than the regular stuff ,good Fing grief when is this insanity going to end {never}
watched the Forces new piece on it interesting but as the RAF spokesman slipped into the convo COSTS MORE . But hey it’s not like budgets aren’t under pressure or anything
Aye We really do have the looneys running the asylum…..
🏴🇬🇧
I know “net” about fuel but I presume this is good. Well done RR anyway.
Bear in mind that in 30 years from now, you get sustainable fuel only. So the military better adapts to it as you will need it in future wars. Apart from that, training missions do use lots of fuel too, so this is also good in peace times.
Why will it be the only fuel in 30 years time? I’m genuinely asking as I don’t know the answer.
At some point hydro carbon extraction will become un economic as supplies are in very hard to reach places and the global market is reduced ( no more ICE cars, electricity generated by other means etc) so you will have niche markets for a produce thats really difficult to get at….or you can make it from straw, forestry waste Biomass ect…
It will be the same with petrol for cars, at some point the balance of electric vehicles vs ICE cars on the road will make it uneconomic to keep the petrol supply infrastructure running. If you consider by 30 all new vehicles in the U.K. will be electric or other and an ICE car a a probable life of 10 years that mean by 2040 there will be no point having petrol forecourts as there will be to few ICE cars. It will possibly happen before this as Tesco etc will stop investment before it becomes uneconomical and you will see a trend of forecourt closures after 2030. People will become reluctant to buy ICE cars ( as they will see them as having no future ect)..I’m betting there is a mathematical formula somewhere for when ICE and petrol station forecourts die ( but I’m betting it’s somewhere between 2035 and 2040).
I see what you mean. I was thinking is there some proposal to not sell oil
Based products in the world in 30 years time. If in the next 30 years the uk can generate all its energy from other means that would great. Most vehicles maybe able to be run of battery or other means. Main issue will be aviation. Batteries aren’t capable enough yet.
The electricity generation and distribution needs massive improvement world wide for it to be possible on a world scale.
Things like geothermal are interesting. How much heat can be taken out of the earth before it has adverse effects.
Geothermal energy generation is a big thing here in NZ. The Govt however was inexplicably fixated on wind farm energy generation, which struck me as weird.
Some interesting predictions from Air NZ that their regional turbo prop fleet will be electric powered in 10 to 15 years. So will be interesting if this translates into significant air fare reductions.
I personally think natural gas has a role to play, it gets an undeserved bad rap from environmentalists . It’s carbon foot print is nothing like that of other fossil fuels- oil and coal. The only glimmer of hope for me from COP27 is that natural gas is seemingly becoming viewed as a viable transition option on the accelerating journey to a carbon free society.
I’m of the view that bio mass and plant based fuels are a non-starter, given you need massive amount of arable land and product to get ROI, all competing for the need to feed us. However, I’m mindful that every bit does help!
It will be interesting to see how climate change will affect plant production. Modelling from the left environmentalist brigade peddles a narrative of doom and gloom. They completely ignore the possibility of current arid landscape receiving future rainfall and transforming into arable land.
Hi klonkie, the big problem with natural gas is leakage. It’s actually more of a greenhouse gas if you don’t burn it as methane is possibly the worst offender. So if you have shit drilling and piping it’s very bad news.
good insight Jonathans, thanks for the info.
Aviation industry has pledged net zero by 2050. If they are not sustainable they are likely to be banned.
So net zero means as a company overall there needs to be no emissions and if there is any from production, operations etc It has to be offset by planting trees etc?
I just want to check I’ve got it right
yeah its a bit like Elton John excusing the use of his private jet for Harry and Meghan by saying its OK – he planted a couple of trees to offset..you get the picture.
Its an interesting point you raise, re planting pine tress to offset carbon . In NZ, overseas corporates are buying up arable farmland for conversion into Pine tree estates. So much local opposition to this from both the greenies and local Maori iwi (tribes).. Their view is to rather restore the land to it’s previous native state.
Absolutely right . Rather than virtuous , pointless, lies …i mean come on i plant a tree to offset my private jet …to fullfil net zero carbon…how with that work – over how many years…do they think we are all idiots….
Well said G!
RR and Easy jet have just tested a hydrogen jet engine. This article is also great news. But we all know it’s more about reducing the cost and reliability of OPEC. The “environmental factor” is the beneficiary that can be used for PR. At the end of the day, I’m more concerned about what comes front than the back when it comes to the military.
Great as a demonstration, there are two issues. Cost, and availability of feedstock.
Synfuels (made from hydrogen and captured carbon) are essentially unlimited but they will be even more expensive to produce. Rolls Royce do understand this problem hence their foray into civil Nuclear.
The linked article does also mention recycling cooking oil. There is currently a refinery being built at Immingham that will refine waste into jet fuel. British Airways and Shell have invested in Velocys‘ plant. Rolls Royce, along with a partnership with EasyJet, has just tested a hydrogen-powered turbo-fan engine.
There are many issues with Hydrogen powered that mean it is not something that will be acheieved anytime soon as RR detailed in their recent release.As for recyclable fuel – as SB said pointless greenwashing.-any who think only recyclables wil be avaliable in the near future will be dissappointed
Volume. You may get enough old cooking oil for a test flight, but I doubt there is enough for all the World’s airlines & airforces.
I never claimed that the RR engine would be ready anytime soon. I was only pointing out that it wasn’t just feedstock mentioned in the article. I also never claimed that other fuel sources were effective alternatives and that there are other fuel related projects happening. It’s more about the RAF PR of the exercise. I just want to make that clear.
Would it not be better to switch new MRTT from the A330-200 CEO, to the new A330-800 NEO? That way you get better fuel economy & lower emissions. However, Airbus did say it would take them 7 years to do all the trials/tests/paperwork, before a A330-800 MRTT could be fully in service.
Technology marches on as they say. This is the future. Even Formula 1 are going to 100% sustainable fuels from 2026. Good to see the work undertaken by RR and BP 🇬🇧
Doesn’t the Voyager use its own fuel supply to refuel fighters ?
There aren’t separate tanks for the fuel they pass on ?
So if the tanks are full of this biofuel then the fighters it refuels will also need to be able to run on the same fuel.
Is there a plan to run Typhoons and F35B on this fuel anytime soon – or is this just a tick box exercise for the transport role the Voyager undertakes ?
It does look like it’s pulled from the main stores.
They are developing and testing several low-carbon fuels in aircraft, last year a small RAF aircraft flew using 100% artificial fuel (made from water and atmospheric carbon dioxide) that they are testing for introduction to fast jets, you also have Rolls Royce testing a commercial Jet engines on 100% SAF recently.
The LMXT version of the A330 MRTT, that is being offered to the USAF, will have a cargo bay fuel tank/s for 25,000 lb of extra fuel.
I doubt this flight was doing refuelling. That is another thing that will take a lot of testing etc before that can happen. A tanker could need to refuel any aircraft. If this test was to be rolled out it would just be for transport mode first.
Is this good for the RAF, MoD, or something?😔
There is a video on Forces News on this very topic.
Defence Select Committee on being told that in the event of war Eurofighter would take 4 years to be built from scratch and F-35 7 years asks BAE to prepare a plan for warm storage and wartime reactivation upgrades of the Tranche 1 Typhoon.
https://www.forces.net/technology/weapons-and-kit/bae-systems-asked-explore-bringing-retiring-typhoons-back-life-crisis
Yep superiority in the quality of weapons is great as Ukraine has shown, but as some have said before numbers in their own right are a form of quality. No point having a 4 or 5 to 1 rate of loss if over time you still run out of weapons before the enemy do, In the end WW2 weapons would be better than no weapons at all.
Sound good in theory keeping aircraft but they also need to keep all the spares, manuals, people who know how to operate the aircraft and so on. It is possible as we have seen with the sea kings to bring things back from retirement.
Anyone know what’s happened to the tornadoes? I know they’re old but you’d think an asset definitely worth keeping hold of for a while. Would be bloody useful for the Ukrainians right now
Broken up for parts (and probably sold to Germany) apart from a couple of gate guards donated to museums.
We don’t keep reserve qualified Typhoon pilots and engineers though.
Im sure theres plenty in the private sector that would return in time of war and if the money was good enough,
Super, smashing, great and fantastic news for the planet? So, when will the RAF be switching to SAF, on all types of aircraft? How much will it cost to convert, said aircraft, and how much of this SA Fuel is readily available?
Bottom line-the REAL answer to most of this is for people to stop breeding with the goal of at least halving the worlds population. Everything good follows from that.
the good news is that the trend line global average is definitely heading in that direction. But highly unlikely the number will start going backwards (regrettably).
For this to work properly the fuel has to be made in the UK, does anyone know exactly where air BP gets it’s “sustainable” fuel from?
Brings it over from China…in really big tankers…using copious amounts of diesel in the process.
I’m making that up BTW…I hope….
I wonder what this ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ is? Assuming it’s something with the same basic characteristics as Jet-A, can it actually be produced affordably? If not then it’s a non-starter, and if so- given that Diesel fuel and Jet-A are practically the same thing- why is government still trying to promote battery-powered cars?
It’s horrendous green-wash.
SAF is a development of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO) is commonly being used in diesel vehicles because it requires only little modification to run on existing engines. And it does run cleaner as the fuel has fewer contaminants (like sulfur).
But, the feedstock isn’t all waste. And waste does not scale with demand for said waste. Because then, it’s not waste!
And the big greenwash, where does the hydrogen come from? Natural gas! Grey (dirty) hydrogen is standard and sees the CO2 elements from cracking natural gas released. Blue hydrogen allegedly captures these emissions. Green hydrogen at scale from Renewables is expensive and way, way below scale at this time (circa a few 100MW of generation available in Europe).
Balfour Beatty have already identified these shortcomings in the sustainability claims.
A question. Is the war going to have any affect on climate change? Rockets, shelling, old Russian inefficient tanks, planes, helicopters all burning vast quantities of fuel. Will all the effort, time and money spent on making the world a little bit safer have been wasted?