"Green"/Biofuel for USAF and Navy aviation...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Part of the big problem in T2k is of course the near lack of aircraft on either side...I imagine that what's left of the US military holds back some avgas for emergency contingency purposes here and there; at least in my head-canon, the handful of Tactical air units in Europe at least have scraped together enough to hold off an "end times, now-or-never" type counterattack, plus keep the engines periodically spun up.

Stateside there likewise might be a few B52s (3-5) and perhaps a B1 and B2 remaining in terms of strategic air power, but, again, held out for an absolute emergency situation.

There's been some talk over the last few years about "ATJ" or "Alcohol to Jet" biofuels, that are essentially the same as the "brewed" fuels (probably filtered to a higher purity, though) that are already in use in ground vehicles in T2k - so I would think that this could be discovered and put to use during the reconstruction phase in the US; the ability to shift supplies via air would be a huge, huge asset.

[.45cultist]

Part of the problem is that the heavies rely on altitude for part of their defense. T2013 stated a very low ceiling on such fuels.

[mikeo80]

IMHO, IF SAC kept some B-52's in reserve, there would also be some AGM-86 ALCM's held back. A BUFF can carry 20 of these things. There were 1700+ produced by 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

Plus, IIRC, B52 crews had practiced low level flight for some time by T2K. I would also think that some KC-135's would have been kept in reserve to serve the BUFF's.

This combination should overcome the problem with alcohol or "bio-fuel".

I can also see ANY refinery that Mil-Gov gets its' hands on will be producing jet fuel to keep the BUFF's full tanks.

My $0.02

Mike

[Olefin]

Keep in mind if you are playing the orginal game (and not 2013) that MilGov still has refineries working in Oklahoma and Illinois - and even the Robinson faciilty at 1 percent of capacity could still make a decent amount of avgas.

So aircraft in the US being operational is definitely still feasible and not just for last gasp operations. As "A River Runs Through It" stated there are still flights going to and from New England being staged thru the NJ airfields that MilGov controls - they are rare but they are being done - and they have enough gas to operate some aircraft on a limited basis

the real issue may be getting the fuel to where the planes are - i.e. if you have all your SAC assets sitting in Colorado and your refineries are in OK and IL then its not going to be easy to get them fueled up

the reality is that most avgas that will be used will be for transport flights except in places where you may need to fuel up attack planes - which in the US would be on the Oklahoma and California fronts against the Mexicans and Soviets and against New American forces in the Ozarks and Florida

thats why I never saw the Ozarks module as very realistic as to the air threat against MilGov units - not with the Robinson refinery as close as it is - wouldnt take long to make enough avgas to put a couple of planes in the air - and even an old P-51 would make short work of any ultralights and dirigibles

Let alone the fact that the 197th probably still has operational Stingers - they never went overseas and never face enemy air - and even one of them would blow the guts out of a dirigible

CivGov units on the other hand would be SOL - as far as I can see they dont control any working refineries

[rcaf_777]

the 197th probably still has operational Stingers - they never went overseas and never face enemy air - and even one of them would blow the guts out of a dirigible

Would a few 50's or M240 do the same thing, you could do it with a M-72 LAW if you great a luck shot

[pmulcahy11b]

All you really need to do to a dirigible is pop it a few times.

[Sanjuro]

The problem with alcohol-based fuels (so far) is not that the energy they hold is less than gasoline, but that their internal pressure is much higher: they start to boil at much lower temperatures, or much higher atmospheric pressure, than either avgas (aviation gasoline, for piston engines) or avtur (aviation kerosene, for turbine engines). Practical ceiling is much lower.
There is a way round the problem: pressurised fuel tanks. I don't know of any aircraft to have these- they would be heavy...

[Olefin]

Would a few 50's or M240 do the same thing, you could do it with a M-72 LAW if you great a luck shot

depending on the height you could even nail it with a tank or AFV gun - as long you can elevate to hit it - a few HE or HEAT tank shells (which the 197th have a bunch of) would make short work of dirigibles

and a LAW or RPG may be effective depending on the dirigibles height - they did score on helicopters in Vietnam with them

and any unit with an operational AA gun, especially radar controlled, and you can kiss New America's Ozark Air Power goodbye

[Schone23666]

All you really need to do to a dirigible is pop it a few times.

Well....yes and no. It depends partly on the overall design.

The dirigible, or more accurately, aerostats that I worked on for a year or so used an internal ballast tank, or bladder within the aerostat itself. This is basically a big gasbag within the blimp that holds lighter-than-air gas. The rest of the blimp's shape is provided by normal air pumped into it. Think of it as one big bag with one or more smaller bags stuffed into it.

Most aerostats these days use a helium/hydrogen mixture that's more helium than hydrogen, obviously. Nobody wants a repeat of the Hindenburg. Thus just shooting at it won't result in just a big fiery explosion either.

Hitting the main body of the blimps that use this design, aerostat, dirigible, whatever really won't do that much. To bring it down you need to tear open some good sized holes in the ballast bladder itself, and just a few pops from some Chinese/Russian AK-47's not going to do it. To illustrate, there was an "incident" some time ago (no, I won't say when or where) where an unmanned aerostat broke loose of it's tether and started drifting toward the Iranian border. Problem was these aerostats were used aerial observation and had a few sensitive pieces of equipment aboard. Naturally, the U.S. Army didn't want the Iranians getting their paws on this and sent up a Blackhawk with the minigun door gunners and they did a circle around the aerostat, blasting it with the minigun. Seems they didn't quite hit the ballast, as while it was well shredded, it just kept on floating. Finally, a pair of F16's (or F15's, not sure which) got diverted and brought it down with a shot from a pair of Sidewinder missiles. The problem was rectified in later models, should the aerostat ever lose it's tether, with the installation of a large capacitor attached to a set of wires along with a GPS and trip sensor. If the GPS sensed the unit was drifting away too far from it's current position, the capacitor fires and burns a huge clean hole in the ballast, causing the unit to lose ballast and eventually come back to earth.

Aerostats are still pretty susceptible to bad weather though, particularly high winds, more so than aircraft obviously as they are still basically just big balloons, a big floating lighter than air mass just begging to be smacked around by the storm gods if they get ornery, that IMO is one of their biggest flaws and why you don't see quite a mass deployment of them.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The point I was making about the fuel was that for jobs like moving recovery assets around by air, close-air-support (which, let's face it, is all you'd be doing in the CONUS), and so forth it'd be absolutely viable.

Do I mean wings of F22s available to the USAF No. Do I mean C130s delivering food where needed, or equipment, or evacuating people Or Apaches or A10s (or O-1s or OV-10s or A37s) available for closer air support Absolutely.

[Olefin]

The point I was making about the fuel was that for jobs like moving recovery assets around by air, close-air-support (which, let's face it, is all you'd be doing in the CONUS), and so forth it'd be absolutely viable.

Do I mean wings of F22s available to the USAF No. Do I mean C130s delivering food where needed, or equipment, or evacuating people Or Apaches or A10s (or O-1s or OV-10s or A37s) available for closer air support Absolutely.

Completely agree with you there on what biofuel could mean for CONUS - and in the current situation in the US those kind of aircraft are exactly what they need - I doubt the Mexicans have a single decent aircraft they can put in the air that would require an F-15 or F-16 to take out but anti-armor/ground support/transport/para missions - hell yes those are exactly what is needed

[pmulcahy11b]

Is there enough of a warm air mass to make it a viable target for a heat-seeking missile

[Olefin]

I think that would come down to what they are using for propulsion - the dirigible itself may not register but its engines sure would be a source of heat

[swaghauler]

Fuels for Blimps & Aerostats

While Virgin Airways proved that Jumbo Jets can fly on purified Biodiesel, most lighter-than-air craft won't need purified fuels. Indeed, if my proposed Electric Drive Motor concept were used, you could burn wood to produce the electricity to run the motors.

[aspqrz]

The other thing no-one mentions is that there are a LOT of civilian aircraft out there. One heck of a lot. And not all are sited at airports or airfields that will be hit by nukes.

Why is this an issue

Well, while civilian aircraft generally aren't designed to carry weapons, that doesn't mean that they cannot do so.

Consider the Biafran Airforce ... flying Mfi-9Bs/Blkow Bo 208 (light aircraft) which mounted six 68mm rockets under each wing.

Then there are ex-military trainers ... Biafra also flew a number of T-6 Texans forex.

Not all of these sorts of aircraft require avgas, some, at least, can run on normal petrol.

And then there are all those C-47s still out there ... 'Puff the Magic Dragon' AC-47s anyone

High performance jets or ground attack aircraft No. Strategic Bombers No. Helicopters (as fuel hogs) No.

But combat airpower Too useful to not have.

(Not huge numbers ... probably AF Squadrons would have as many of these converted aircraft as the Army units still had tanks ... i.e. maybe a single handful or less, rarely a double handful.)

It's one thing about TW:2000 that simply made no sense to me. Even just using them for recon would be a huge advantage ...

YMMV,

Phil