ILF Interim Progress Report Jess Kaizar Hong Tran

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 2. Apply technologies 3. Conduct excursions for potential changes in future warfare 1. – Provide insight and recommendation for the impact of fuel efficiencies and rotary aircraft

Background Research

Metrics capture how fuel is expended 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

U. S. Navy • Scenario over 1 Day of Navy ASW Operations • 1 CSG • 12 MH-60 R 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 15 hours of delivering power from sea to shore – 3 waves of vehicles – 4 refueling sorties • 2 Squadron of CH-53 E launched from sea – 14 CH-53 E per sqaudron • 10 ready to fly • 1 back-up • 3 in maintenance • 20 CH-53 E Heavy Lift – 13 Single external vehicle lift (65%) – 7 Double external vehicle lift (35%) • 4 CH-53 E 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 – Air-hybrid engine – Diesel-Electric Propulsion system

Algae Biofuel • Algae Characteristics 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 CO 2 • 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. 5 L/hr Less than Conventional J-A 1 in 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 o Integrate Solar Cells into Wing Structure Use Battery Power to Take Off (Four Packs of Lithium Polymer Batteries in Wings Electric Motor of 5 k. W. Two have been built. A Design of Two-man Seat is in Work (20 k. W Electric Motor) • Adapted from Single-Seater Sunseeker II Technology o o o • Adapted from Qineti. Q’s Zephyr UAV Technology o o o o High Altitude (70 kft) Long Endurance (14 n 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. 5 KW 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 Safe § Four Independent Sources of Energy Provide System Redundancy o 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 o Offer Fuel Economy Improvement of Up To 30% as Compared to Current Helicopter Turbine Engines o

Optimum Speed Rotor (OSR) • Characteristics 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 o RPM Could Be Reduced to More Than Half its Maximum (140 -350 RPM) in Low. Speed and Low-Weight Flight Which In Turn Reduces Fuel Efficiency o Composite Airframe (Metal in Nose Frame, Bulkheads & ISR Payload Struss Structure) § Keep Structure Frequency Outside of Rotor Frequency o Rotors Blades Design Complements the OSR System § Varying Stiffness and Cross Section along the Length § Rigid, Low-Loading & Hingeless Design o • Adapted from Boeing A 160 Hummingbird UAV o o Intelligence Gathering Dropping Supplies (2500 lbs) to Frontline Troops Engine Power of 426. 7 k. W (572 shp) Fuel Efficient— 1. 5 Hrs of Fuel Remain After 18. 7 Flying Hrs w/ 300 lbs 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 Inputs Flight Schedule Outputs 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 Baseline Decrease Cost Lower/Replace Fuel Consumption Increase Performance Additional Lift , TOS, or Mission Completion Trade-offs 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 Mo. E/Mo. P Metrics 2. 2 Identify Representative Scenarios 2. 2. 1 Scope missions Week 4 Week 5 2 1 1 15 5 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 2 1 3 15 5 week 7 5 9 Week 6 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 5 5 15 3 10 2 9 9 18 18 9 3 3 5 3 10 10 3 3 5 3 3 3 2 5 3 10 10 10 2 3 5 5 2 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 3 10 5 2. 5. 2 Create user interface for variables and sensitivity analysis 2. 5. 3 Create output for Mo. E 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 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 2 5 1 22 38 37 32 34 34 31 33 35 3 7 1 20 9 3 7 33 34 41 43 Planned Total 467

EVM

Website • http: //dl. dropbox. com/u/10785975/798 website/ilfwebsite/in dex. html

References • http: //www. aviationweek. com/aw/generic/story_generic. jsp? channel=aer ospacedaily&id=news/FUEL 111109. xml&headline=Report%20 Says%20 DOD%20 Fuel%20 Use%20 A%20 Security%20 Concern • http: //www. acq. osd. mil/dsb/reports/ADA 477619. pdf • http: //www. envirosagainstwar. org/know/read. php? itemid=593 • http: //www. dtic. mil/cgibin/Get. TRDoc? Location=U 2&doc=Get. TRDoc. pdf&AD=ADA 233674 • http: //www. usatoday. com/news/washington/2008 -04 -022602932101_x. htm • http: //thehill. com/homenews/administration/63407 -400 gallon-gas-another -cost-of-war-in-afghanistan • http: //www. trackpads. com/forum/point-counterpoint-politics/154121 helicopter-units-revert-vietnam-era-tactics. html • http: //www. ndia-mich. org/workshop/Papers/Non. Primary%20 Power/Roche%20%20 Fuel%20 Consumption%20 Modeling%20 And%20 Simulation%20(M& S)%20 to%20 Support%20 Military%20 Systems%20 Acquisition%20 and% 20 Planning. 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