An ADF Advanced Operational Energy Centre
Because something is happening
here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones
But you don’t know what it is
Do you Mister Jones
Bob Dylan, “Ballad of a Thin
Man”
The
old paradigm of energy predominantly being created by the consumption
of matter and generally used instantaneously, is declining. The new
model developing to replace it is, increasingly, one of the capture
of existing energy, its storage when not consumed at creation, and
use when needed. This transformation is occurring through the
development of a range of technologies, each with their own
requirements, performance and potentials whilst carrying implications
or presenting opportunities. The Australian Defence Force needs a
mechanism to understand and best utilise these emerging technologies.
The Impact of a Transforming Energy Paradigm on Military Operations
This blog originated as a study into
propulsion options for the RAN’s next generation of submarines, the
Attack class program. The chief issue here was that the acquisition
strategy for the program left the first-of-class, HMAS Attack,
without the benefit of light metal main battery storage over a time
scale where other conventional submarines were likely to enjoy the
substantial performance advantages of these superior energy storage
systems.
The benefits promised by the rate of
improvement in light metal battery performance are so great, when
applied to conventional submarine propulsion, that finding a way to
integrate this technology into the Attack class is mandatory, if the
program is to achieve its objectives of producing regionally superior
submarines. However, advanced battery technologies are only one
aspect of a widespread revolution in energy production, management
and consumption that is in the process of transforming the way an
advanced economy works. These technologies are likely to become so
widespread and pervasive that they will change the way a military
force deploys operational assets.
Fortuitously, improved access to
electrical energy will assist deployed military assets to operate the
range of digital systems increasingly central to meeting operational
tasks. Sustaining the “I” of an increasing number of artificial
intelligence systems will require military forces shaped to provide
the energy requirements of the electrified battle space.
The Example of Conventional Submarine Energy Storage
Our discussion of the application of
advanced light metal battery technology in conventional submarines
(ASPI The Strategist: Future-proofing the Attack class, Part 1, Part
2 & Part 3) concluded that, after a century of effectively zero
evolution in submarine (lead acid) battery technology, rapid
improvement in the performance of lithium ion batteries from about
2016 had made possible a radical improvement in conventional
submarine energy storage and management. More significantly, the
technology opened the prospect for a thorough re-thinking of the
nature and roles of conventionally powered submarines.
Lithium ion main battery storage is
beginning to be adopted by submarine operators and designers (W&J
Media Release #2)
for entry to service from the late 2020s, from when improvements in
indiscretion rates and more flexibility in power use over wider speed
ranges are expected. Higher performance should allow lithium ion
batteries to be managed with less stress than their lead acid
counterparts across the range of operational profiles, permitting the
development of superior safety regimes.
Of greater consequence is the
projected rate of improvement in lithium ion battery performance,
this being sustained into the future through research into more
advance battery chemistries (ABC
News, 8 January 2020)
for which there are multiple options with comparatively low barriers
to entry. Present calculations are that battery performance is
currently expected to double every six years or so.
Consequently, submarines could
emerge from each full-cycle docking with a new generation main
battery providing substantial performance and other enhancements.
These would be greater than could have been obtained through design
of a new class of conventional submarine during the period of lead
acid main batteries but will be attained within a much shorter
development schedule.
Analysis of current battery
development suggests that this process will advance to the stage
where a new concept of conventional submarine will be possible before
the end of the Attack class construction program, due in about 2045.
This design, the gigabattery submarine, will have so much stored
energy on board that it will need to carry no machinery for
generating electricity.
The Accelerating Pace of the Renewable Energy Economy
Our assumptions on energy storage
options for conventional submarine main batteries are strengthened
because technological progress in this area is but a part of a
significant major industrial transformation now in its initial
stages. This is a diametric opposite to the circumstances of
submarine energy storage during the 20th century, where
lead acid batteries were something of a technological backwater. In
contrast, the prospects of light metal batteries meeting their
developmental goals are underwritten because they are part of the
revolution in renewable energy and electrification
of all sectors of the global economy.
These technologies have been
developing for several decades and are becoming more than a means of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The decades of research into
renewable energy technologies are providing electricity that is more
efficiently produced and becoming cheaper, more abundant, more widely
applied and more flexibly distributed than ever before.
With technological advance has come
a rate of adoption that keeps outstripping expectations and defying
adverse political environments. In the United States, projections
were made in 2011, 2012 and 2013 to estimate the extent of renewable
energy adoption across that nation as a whole over the succeeding
decade. These have proved wildly inadequate. By 2019 the level of
national adoption projected by those studies instead was being
attained by individual, medium sized states (Greentechmedia.com,
04 December 2019). In
Australia, Queensland (thought to be dedicated to coal fired
electricity) has the highest uptake of roof top solar energy panels
in the country. Demand for energy storage, predominantly using
batteries, grows with the increased output of renewable energy.
This trend is part of a new
industrial paradigm replacing the model developed during the
industrial revolution of the mid-18th century
when the water wheel was replaced by the steam engine. For the
succeeding centuries energy was created by the consumption of matter
and, because of the nature of this process, was generally used
instantaneously. The new industrial age is one where existing energy
is capture, stored when not consumed immediately and used when
needed, harnessed digitally to create new product or stored to power
transportation and other activities.
In
Australia’s case the trends in the development of renewable energy
so favour the nation’s circumstances that they support policies to
develop Australia into an energy superpower. Ross Garnaut, who
studied the interaction of climate change and energy generation
policies for the Australian government in 2007 and 2011, recently
returned to the issue in Superpower:
Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity
(Black
Inc. Books, 2019).
He finds that the trends identified in the earlier studies have been
sustained but have accelerated to the point that they enhance policy
options and both
economic and environmental outcomes.
No
other developed country has a comparable opportunity for large-scale
firm zero-emissions power, supplied at low cost beyond domestic
consumption requirements.
Garnaut’s
conclusion is that by the 2030s renewable energy will meet all of
Australia’s needs so economically that the country will have a
global advantage in supporting high energy industries.
If
we seize this opportunity, Australia will be the locus of a historic
expansion of internationally oriented energy-intensive industry.
Such
a move will both require and facilitate a massive expansion of
electrical generation capacity, which is unusually to Australia’s
benefit.
(There
is) potential for expanding Australian electricity demand by more
than 200 per cent over the next decade or so to meet the needs of
minerals smelting and electrification of transport. Clever
facilitation of the new will provide opportunities for reducing the
costs from the old – sooner
through integration of electric transport, and later from the support
that can be provided by new transmission systems built for new
industry.
It
should also be observed that the benefits of an ‘electrified’
Australia exceed direct market comparative advantage. Many potential
outcomes could have significant consequences. Should abundant power
justify the benefits of ‘burning the dirt on site’ and shipping
the metal, opportunities will be opened for employment in remote
regional Australia.
Electrification
of Australian transport would largely free the nation from foreign
oil dependence, simplifying a major security issue and saving $20-30
billion in
foreign exchange. Electrifying agriculture would significantly reduce
input costs and improve the balance of trade for agricultural
exports.
The Implications for the ADF
The manifestation of these
developments in defence and national security is being seen in the
proliferation of electronic, electrically powered and, potentially,
electrically armed systems which offer the prospect of gaining
superiority in the modern battle space but create huge challenges in
creating and sustaining the amount of electrical energy needed.
This challenge has been titled
“Powering
the Electrified Battlespace”
in a report recently released by British defence R&D
company QinetiQ.
This investigates the increasing manner in which contemporary
military capability relies upon electric energy to operate the raft
of equipments that support operationally deployed forces. The report
declares that, “The fundamental enabler for all future warfare is
electric power” and describes the change in the combat environment
thus:
Historically,
electrical technologies have been little more than useful additions
to military capability, designed to augment the primary mechanical
equipment and human fighters at the heart of warfare. That is now
changing….
…Countermeasures,
platforms and situation awareness tools are evolving at an astounding
pace in response to changing threats and tactics. Directed energy
weapons will soon knock out enemy communications or neutralise swarms
of low value targets at very low cost. Unmanned systems will resupply
troops and deliver humanitarian aid, minimising human exposure to
dangerous contested areas. Networks of smart sensors will collect and
prioritise data to provide the fighter with a wide-ranging
situational awareness picture, without causing cognitive overload….
However,
all of these revolutionary technologies rely on electrical energy, so
can only be as effective as their power sources allow.
As technology develops, the demand
on these power sources seems to be ubiquitous and insatiable. As
currently generated, providing electrical energy to meet these needs
is a logisticians nightmare. Already, the demand for a US Navy
company-sized base is around 1000kWh a day (QinetiQ report:
“Operating bases”).
Examples of emerging technologies
that could be usefully evaluated by the ADF to gain an early
understanding of the future strategic and operational implications of
“battlespace electrification” include:
- electric powertrains for wheeled and tracked land vehicles (Qinetiq article “How electric propulsion will shape the next generation of military vehicles” October 2018)
- all-electric light utility vehicles (CarAdvice article “10 electric utes on the horizon”, February 2020)
- directed energy weapons systems (Defence News article “3 reasons why now is the time for directed energy”, August 2018)
- deployable large scale energy capture and storage systems (5B Maverick rapid low-cost solar deployment, US DoD “Air Force Develops New Deployable Energy Systems”, April 2017)
Before now, we have focused our
attention on submarine main battery systems for the Attack class.
This is a large, expensive and strategically critical issue. But it
can be seen that the challenges posed by staying abreast of
developments in submarine energy systems are not isolated issues for
the ADF. Such is the potential for military forces to benefit from
the evolution of electrical systems that the research of potential
applications, evaluation of options, preparation of logistics,
training and control systems and re-evaluation of concepts of
operation would seem mandatory tasks to maintain the effectiveness of
military forces over the next few decades. Given the long lead time
for construction of HMAS Attack, this program will probably
not be the first to see modern electrical technologies adopted by the
ADF.
Getting to the Future – What the ADF Does Now
The knowledge acquired by the
Defence science community is used routinely to evaluate developing
technologies and support the defence acquisition programs that might
thereafter arise. The Defence Science and Technology Group usually
has the requisite expertise to provide such assistance from within
its existing divisions. Sometimes, however, a program impinges on
areas of technology little known in Australia, let alone in the ADF.
A little forethought is then required to ensure that the expertise is
available should the acquisition program come to need it.
An example of this occurred with the
Collins submarine program when it became clear that the level of
expertise and technical support needed during trials to evaluate the
acoustic performance of the boats did not exist in Australia. Oscar
Hughes, the initial Director of the Collins program, negotiated with
the Materials Division in the then Defence Science and Technology
Organisation to set up the Ship Noise and Vibration Group in 1989.
The Group had no direct role with the Collins program over the
succeeding half decade but by the end of that period had built an
internationally comparable body of expertise. It was able to use this
to play a major role in overcoming the noise propagation problems
that became apparent when HMAS Collins went to sea (Peter Yule and Derek Woolner, The Collins Class Story: Steel, Spies and Spin, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 2008, p. 236ff).
The Defence Organisation has taken
similar steps at a structural level. Like many large entities at
around the turn of the century, Defence had considerable trouble
implementing complex integrated information and communications
technology programs. The notorious Personnel Management Key Solution
project (PMKeyS), wound up in 2002, (SMH,
27 August 2005) was
archetypal in being over budget, behind schedule and underperforming.
The department accepted that an integrated, enterprise-wide strategy
was required to allow effective control of ICT activities but by 2010
its Chief Information Officer still controlled only around half of
the Defence portfolio’s information technology spending
(Computerworld
Australia, 26 March 2010).
Ultimately, such inertia was swamped
by the logic of the digital transformation. This brought the
realisation that the Defence ICT objective was not to managed
hardware and systems but to control knowledge and that its outcome
was not management efficiency but information superiority for the
21st century battle space and the support of joint operations through
providing a force multiplier to the ADF order of battle (Defence
ICT Strategic Direction 2016-2020,
p6).
Consequently, the current Chief
Information Officer Group within the Department of Defence now
exercises central coordination and control of the management and
development of Defence ICT systems through the Single Information
Environment to support both military and management objectives. This
includes communication standards and spectrum management for military
requirements (ADF
CIOG – What We Do).
These models should prove instructive as Defence comes to contemplate
the looming onset of renewable energy as the next transformational
technological change facing the world.
However, for the moment, Defence
fails to see matters surrounding the management of energy supply,
particularly for deployed forces, as ones of policy. Questions to do
with the impact of energy issues on performance, particularly of
operational equipment, may be separated for closer consideration,
predominantly from a technological perspective. Hence, a typical
Defence response to support the development of new ADF capability
would generally involve the creation a research program, mostly
likely within DSTG. The small team researching the safety of lithium
ion battery use in submarines is illustrative of this approach.
Progress under this model usually involves developing a more tightly
targeting direction of research. Thus, the DSTG consideration of
lithium ion battery safety has led to research of the performance of
non-Newtonian fluids in lithium ion chemistry, as these are
inhibitors of combustion.
In 2016 Defence began an attempt to
broaden its access to emerging technologies by drawing on ideas from
industry to identify and, eventually, introduce new capability into
ADF service. Managed by the Defence Innovation Hub this approach
focuses on discrete programs, guiding development from initial
concept to operational clearance and is funded with several hundred
million dollars to the middle of the 2020s.
At the same time, Defence sought to
better position its technological research by managing funding under
the Next Generation Technologies Fund. Run by DSTG, this initiative
is intended to prioritise research connected with emerging defence
technologies. The fund has officially identified a number ‘of
transformational technology areas of particular interest’. All of
the areas of technology identified pose particular challenges to
provide their energy requirements, particularly in deployed
operations, yet maintaining the energy required to sustain these
technologies in the battle space has not been identified as a
specific area of study (2016
Defence Industry Policy Statement).
Getting to the Future – What the ADF Could Do Instead
Unsurprisingly, technical studies in
unrelated fields of science do little of themselves to create an
awareness of how these advances can be used to create a new
environment. Whilst DSTG is well positioned to coordinate research
programs, it is not the body most invested in unleashing those
technologies on the future battle space.
There is currently much discussion
of defence topics (both lay and professional) that is laced with
mentions of technologies with claimed transformational capacities –
whether platforms, sensors or under the all-pervasive caption of “AI”
(artificial intelligence). However, as in the past, effective
military application of an emerging technology is likely to rely on
the concepts that guide the technology’s development into a
military system.
This was the case with the
all-big-gun ‘dreadnought’ battleship developed by the Royal Navy
in the 1910s. HMS Dreadnought’s unprecedented cost and risk
was justified as much because it rendered obsolete capital ships of
competing navies as by its level of performance. The high-powered
monocoque fighter aircraft of the late 1930s became effective bomber
interceptors in RAF service because of the work of the “Air
Fighting Committee” of the Air Ministry in developing (amongst
other things) the specification for an eight gun armament. And, of
course, both the French and Germans had armour and tactical assault
aircraft in 1940 but only the Germans had blitzkrieg.
The
electrification of the battle space is going to require much the same
clear sighted and incisive thinking. The deeper that Defence can
consider how the emerging electric systems will be powered,
sustained, supported, integrated, controlled and deployed, the more
effective is likely to be the ADF’s use of them.
Usually,
the rule for deciding who should be responsible for getting such work
properly done is to select someone who can be ‘shot for getting it
wrong’. In other words, the responsibility for researching,
developing and codifying (that is ‘writing the book’ on) how the
ADF adapts to the electrified battle space should be the operational
force elements that will have to work within it. In the Australian
Defence Organisation this gives the job to the Vice-Chief of the ADF.
VCDF
is responsible for preparedness of the current ADF for operations,
and for the development of the force that supplements and eventually
replaces it. We would argue that there is such a cluster of complex
issues surrounding the development of the future electrified battle
space that the process requires dedicated support, which we see as an
agency we would title the ADF Advanced Operational Energy Centre
(ADFAOEC).
This
agency would be an appropriate fit within the Force
Design Division of the VCDF organisational structure and
represents a technology-driven extension of its brief to develop and
test force options. However, the Centre is likely to require an
activist interventional dynamic if it is to assist in integrating the
elements of the new energy paradigm across ADF operational forces.
Many
areas of the ADF will have difficulty in finding the means to chart a
direction toward electrification. Surprisingly, one of these lies
with the RAN’s future submarine capability, the topic we have
discussed at length in this blog. It seems apparent from the recently
released Auditor General’s report (Auditor-General
Report No.22 2019–20)
that the Future Submarine Program (HMAS Attack)
has had all of its resources absorbed by the acquisition task (that
leaves the design focused on obsolete lead acid battery systems). All
in all, the Program seems likely to have insufficient capacity to
plan for a transition of the FSP to the advanced light metal battery
systems that we have argued will be the standard by the time Attack
enters service, and will be required if the Program is to provide a
potent capability for the ADF.
Hence
an entity such as the ADFAOEC would be responsible for ensuring that
the evaluation, decision making and management, and whatever else is
needed to prepare an option for an advanced battery system design,
will be available for integration into the Attack Program as soon as
is feasible.
This
need, to sometimes be ahead of the thinking in specific acquisition
programs, is something that will be enduring. The spread of
electrical energy systems seems likely
to continue for many decades, in turn influencing developments in the
economy and society. This process in turn will most probably continue
to offer challenges and opportunities to advanced defence forces
seeking to maintain superiority in the battle space.
Having
access to and an understanding of the most important technological
changes driving the future economy is an important element in the
future development of the ADF. It’s a task more likely to succeed
with an effective and responsive organisational structure.
Derek
Woolner and David Glynne Jones
04
March 2020
Comments
Post a Comment