The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed that from 1 January 2025, all aviation fuel procured will include sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), aligning with the UK SAF mandate and the government’s net-zero aviation goals.
Responding to a written question from Richard Holden MP (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay), Defence Minister Maria Eagle explained:
“Due to the increasingly routine use of blended sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), the Department does not collate detailed information on which flights use blended SAF, nor the proportion of SAF used against individual flights.”
The Minister highlighted RAF Lossiemouth’s role in adopting SAF, noting: “RAF Lossiemouth took delivery of over nine million litres of blended SAF in 2024 for routine use in refuelling all aircraft at the Station.”
Broader Context
The integration of SAF, which reduces carbon emissions by up to 70%, is central to the MOD’s net-zero carbon goal for 2040. Aircraft such as Typhoon fighters and Poseidon submarine hunters at RAF Lossiemouth already operate on SAF blends.
This initiative follows updates to aviation fuel standards in 2020, allowing defence aircraft to use up to 50% sustainable sources in fuel mixes. The RAF has also achieved key milestones, including:
- The world’s first 100% SAF-powered flight of an RAF Voyager in 2022.
- Air-to-air refuelling using SAF blends with Typhoon and C-130 Hercules aircraft in 2023.
The mandatory inclusion of SAF in all military aviation fuel reinforces the UK’s commitment to sustainable defence operations while maintaining operational readiness. By integrating SAF into routine operations, the RAF is setting a benchmark for balancing military capability with environmental responsibility.
Pure propaganda.
Not in the news : how much it costs compared to “non sustainable”, what are the redundancies and availability? impact on performance, reliability and maintenance? how much more dependent or less from foreign resources and industry?
Precisely my concern. If this was being driven entirely by strategic and financial considerations to optimise military capability and resilience in the kind of high-end conflict we’re soon likely to be facing, then all good. If it is purely for the sake of ‘decarbonisation’ even if it compromises capability and resilience, then that is indefensible given the current geopolitical situation.
Fossil fuels need an infrastructure that is easily destroyed in a strategic war. And the production capacity will decline. Not that SAF production is easier, but certainly, compatibility to this fuel is vital for future operations. So I would not call it propaganda but a vital adoption to the future.
What a worthy undertaking for HMG to pursue eh? I mean Vlad, Xi and Rocket Man will be so, so impressed they may examine their own use of those evil carbon based fuels their militaries use….
Sustainability is a political ideology and has no basis in science/fact. Richard Feynman was called the ‘father of nanotechnology’ and he predicted that we would make any substance we liked by manufacturing at the molecular level. Graphene is the most publicized example so far but classified re breathing kit contains examples. Sustainability is like climate change – a useful band wagon upon which people make a fortune (hello Lord Deben).