Navy Tests Mean Green Killing Machine

The U.S. Navy recently announced that it had successfully flown the first unmanned biofuel flight of an MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Take-Off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle at its base near Patuxent River, Md.

The Fire Scout is manufactured by Northrop Grumman and is fueled by a combination of JP-5 aviation fuel and plant-based camelina. The biofuel blend reduces carbon dioxide output by 75 percent when compared to conventional aviation fuel. Camelina,  grown principally in Montana, appears to be the military’s aviation biofuel of choice. Camelina blends have been tested by the Air Force in F-22 Raptors while the Navy has used blends in seven different aircraft, including the high-profile Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron.

fire scout

image via US Navy

The Fire Scout, an imposing, futuristic, unmanned craft, provides the Navy with critical situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting data to the forward-deployed warfighter. The aircraft can reach speeds of 115 knots, can remain airborne for up to eight hours and has a ceiling of 20,000 feet. It is capable of carrying Hellfire missiles, Viper Strike laser-guided glide weapons and the “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS),” a laser-guided 70 millimeter folding-fin rocket, which the military sees as ideal for the modern battlefield.

The Army is interested in using the Fire Scout to carry up to 200 pounds of emergency supplies to troops in the field. The Fire Scout is designed to operate from all air capable ships and is currently providing support during its first land-based deployment in U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, which covers the “central” area of the globe and consists of 20 countries – Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

The Navy plans to deploy a “Great Green Fleet” by 2016. The Great Green Fleet will consist of an aircraft carrier and all of its escorts, also known as a Carrier battle group, powered entirely by non-fossil fuels. The Air Force is also planning on using 50 percent biofuels in its aircraft by 2016.

Steve Duda lives in West Seattle, WA with three dogs and a lot of outdoor gear. A part-time fly fishing fishing guide and full-time writer, Steve’s work has appeared in Rolling Stone, Seattle Weekly, American Angler, Fly Fish Journal, The Drake, Democracy Now! and many others.

    • clj

      How much does this biofuel cost per gallon and how much does the fossil fuel it replaces cost?

      • TonygS50

        In addition, what is the reduction (if any) in efficiency compared to fossil fuel.u00a0 One example is kerosene.u00a0 It get’s half the mileage of fossil fuel because it doesn’t burn as well.

        • chemicalali

          Kerosene is a fossil fuel-one of the older ones in use-remember “kerosene lanterns” from the 19th century? Jet fuel and diesel are very similar to kerosene,and the 1st stage of the Saturn V rocket that took us to the moon was kerosene fueled-it is very energy dense,more powerful by weight and volume than gasoline. Ethanol,by volume, is only aboutu00a02 thirdsu00a0as powerful as gas [though lighter in weight] but can be boosted to higher compression in turbochargers without detonation,so the power difference can be made up for in some cases. [Indy 500 racers run it because at extremeu00a0engine speeds it is more efficient]u00a0

    • Boris Badenov

      The cost of the fuels from its raw materials to it sfueling of ships and aircraft is staggering !!!nnOur military, expecially Naval Leaders are not but politically correct cronies to Congress and this farce of a President.nnFrom one who lived and served on these carriers and all but two types of naval aircraft from enlisted through officer, it is time to present the facts. More interesting is to follow the money flow from Congress thru the DoD and DON to these Montana biofuel sources. It merits a FBI investigation as Congress rarely polices its own.

      • Vigilant Satyr

        If the cost of this biofuel were less than that of today’s fossil fuels nthey would be doing more to make widespread use of it now. However this ntest which raises the scale of production, is one of the exercises that nwill eventually lower the cost of this type of fuel or show that this ntype is not viable. There are economies of scale that can be exploited nbut at the same time there can be showstoppers that only become evident nwhen production scales up.

      • david mowers

        I’ve heard that aircraft carriers burn 1 million dollars of fuel for every mile traveled.

        • Dean

          Not true… Aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and do not fuel in a traditional manner.

        • Just Using Common Sense

          do you even think about how absurd that comment is as you type it?nuse some common sense and dont spread nonsense figures around.nnaccording to your comment above – Carrier CVW-7 (AG) which steamed more than 50,000 miles during the 140 days from 2/18/2000 to 8/18/2000 spent more than $50,000,000,000u00a0 *just in fuel* u00a0during that time?

          • Darthvader

            actually most new caries use nuclear reactors in them so they don’t use anything at all except for fuel rods and jet fuel for the planes.

        • Jblow

          idiot

        • Accmret

          Carriers dont burn fuel they are Nuclear powered. Aircraft obviously do

        • RGR41

          Aren’t most aircraft carriers nuclear powered?u00a0 Can’t those fuel rods work for years and years?

        • Proud White

          And the moon is made out of green cheese.

        • Cole Stevens

          They have nuclear reactors and can go around the world on a teaspoon of radioactive material.u00a0 You need to do some research before you make any more asinine statements.u00a0 My head now hurts just reading your inane, idiotic, moronic comment.

    • Anonymous

      Subsidized at about $100 per ton, with a typical acre yield of about a ton, cost is still not competitive with wheat. So, in order for the boondoggle to continue, you can safely bet that the Obama administration is doing more Solyndra style dealing to push it.u00a0 This Green initiative is bullshit looking for a field to fertilize.

    • Topdog

      Just use a knife to slaughter more arab women and children, its more green then bomb.nit a guaranteed green killing machine. bravo USA

    • Anonymous

      You want green? nnJust inoculate all non-socialist Westerners against smallpox and release the virus, you cant get greener than that.

    • Anonymous

      Is the mission to intimidate and kill America’s enemies or subsidize fat cat politically connected corn growers and bio-fuel operators at taxpayer expense? The answer is obvious. Congress is about as corrupt as any government in the arab middle east.

      • Just to note, this biofuel uses camelina, notncorn. Purdue University reports that “camelina possesses unique agronomicntraits which could substantially reduce and perhaps eliminate requirements forntillage and annual weed control. The compatibility of camelina with reducedntillage systems, cover crops, its low seeding rate, and competitiveness withnweeds could enable this crop not only to have the lowest input cost of anynoilseed, but also be compatible with the goals of reducing energy and pesticidenuse, and protecting soils from erosion. Camelina is a potential alternativenoilseed for stubble systems, winter surface seeding, double cropping, or fornmarginal lands.”

        • Eric

          Industrial Hemp does much more that that.

          • Then I say bring it on!

          • Anonymous

            says the pothead dip that lives in his mommies basement.

        • Anonymous

          The poor will have to eat less. We need to crop land for war.

        • josefbh

          u00a0I’m sure Monsanto is already finding ways to make this “Roundup Ready.” Not long before they introduce a version that is sterile, so farmers, and us will again be completely dependent on them. “Monsanto, Exxon-Mobil of Tomorrowland.”

      • Matthew

        Look I dont see the United states forcing a women to marry her rapist or for that matter shouting what nations there going to destory; (IRAN). So know what hell your taking about smarty pants.n

        • Anonymous

          No we do not do that, but we bomb countries back to the stone age so their societies are unable to evolve away from such behaviour. We bomb their schools and hospitals then tell them to give rights to women. Rights are not gained at the point of a gun. Only social evolution can do it. When you bomb Afghans in the name of their women you make life much worse for the women.u00a0

          • Anonymous

            Therefore,u00a0it was worse for the black slaves because the northu00a0fought the south to free them?u00a0u00a0You mean all those people died in the US Civil War for nothing?u00a0 In a mere 100 years or so that followed, the slaves would have been freed without any “bloodshed”?u00a0That would be better? u00a0Are you as intellectual as you sound?u00a0 Have you learned anything after your public education?

            • Robertwb70

              Wow, you think the civil war was about freeing slaves???

            • Falonia

              I think it was totally about slavery…..What do you think it was about? u00a0If you think it was about states rights that’s very old school and no longer a widely held belief. u00a0Check it out!

            • Robertwb70

              It was about MONEY, just like every war before and since…nice to think there were ideals involved but in the end it’s always about money (and power, but money=power)

            • Cole Stevens

              You are right money had a lot to do with the Civil War.u00a0 The southern slave owners were fearful that they would lose their slaves if Lincoln got in the White House.u00a0 All those slaves cost a lot of money and their back-breaking labor to pick that cotton and other crops at slave wages made a lot of cash for those gentlemen farmers.u00a0 States rights…yeah blah, blah blah, yadda, yadda , yadda.u00a0 States rights so that they could own slaves.u00a0 The Missouri Comprimse and the Kansas-Nebraska act were all about slavery and owning human beings.u00a0 That’s what the Civil War was about SLAVERY/MONEY six and one half dozen of another.

            • literocola

              Wrong, the civil war was primarily about maintaining the union of all the states, and not allowing the southern ones to secede. Slavery was certainly a contributing issue, but it is not the cause.nnAlso, consider the emancipation proclamation. Many people mistakenly believe that Abraham Lincolns address “freed the slaves,” while in fact all it did was declare that all slaves in regions NOT controlled by the Union were to be considered freed. It did not address the status of any slaves in states within the Northern Union, or even slaves in regions that were originally part of the Confederacy at the start of the war, but controlled by the North at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.nnFor you slow people, thats kind of like the US government declaring that all Mexicans no longer need to pay taxes to the Mexican government.

            • Jtiffany

              nnExecutive Mansion,nWashington, August 22, 1862.nnnHon. Horace Greeley:nDear Sir.nnnI have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself throughnthe New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, ornassumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I donnot, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it anyninferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do notnnow and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable nin it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deferencento an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.nnnAs to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have notnmeant to leave any one in doubt.nnnI would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way undernthe Constitution. The sooner the national authority can benrestored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”nIf there be those who would not save the Union, unless theyncould at the same time save slavery, I do not agree withnthem. If there be those who would not save the Union unless theyncould at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree withnthem. My paramount object in this struggle is to save thenUnion, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. IfnI could save the Union without freeing any slave I wouldndo it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slavesnI would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leavingnothers alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, andnthe colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save thenUnion; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do notnbelieve it would help to save the Union. I shall do lessnwhenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts thencause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doingnmore will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors whennshown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as theynshall appear to be true views.nnnI have here stated my purpose according to my view of officialnduty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personalnwish that all men every where could be free.nnnYours,nA. Lincoln.

            • Ktw_atl

              And Blacks would not really freed for another 100 years. u00a0After the Civil War, Jim Crow and segregation was started. u00a0Blacks would not be fully freed for another 100 years until the Civil Rights movement occurred.

          • Coleman

            They already live in the stone age.u00a0 We cannot bomb them forward.u00a0 And you are extremely naive if you think there will be any social evolution for women in ANY islamic country.u00a0 They are treated as chattal.u00a0Livestock have more rights and freedoms than any woman under a veil.

            • Zadigsplace

              It was like that here once for women. When my mother was born she did not have the right to vote, and her mother was among the first women to drive a car. Both those points are illegal many arab countries. It is not the same issue as slavery, since the victim is also a participant. Should it be our place to right these wrongs? We could be at war for a long time in many places, and only be hated for our trouble.For our own part, we evolved socially, and today women who do not join the southern baptist convention or the mormons are relatively free.

            • Fitz

              nnnHow old are you?u00a0 Yourndates donu2019t add up.u00a0nYour motheru00a0would have to have been born before 1899u00a0u00a0 Although, no oneu00a0has theu00a0right to vote before they are of voting age.(age 21, prior to 26th Amendment; 1971) Womenu2019s right to vote in the US -19th Amendment, Aug 26, 1920.nSmall scale automobile factory line production was started in 1902. (Still realitively small output,unless you were very wealthy.)u00a0 Large scalenautomobile mass production was not perfected until 1914 by Henry Ford.u00a0u00a0 nWhen you conjecture your (families) experiencenand do not use realisticu00a0information, it greatly reduces your authenticity.u00a0 Why atttack beliefs held by others?u00a0 That just shows bigotry and intolerence.u00a0 To which, how are you different from the posts you are attempting to debate?

          • Kuf

            Yeah, and kumbayah ya fuckin’ idiot!

            • Third_stone

              Boy, your response lacks literacy. Do you have anything to say?

          • Birdmanphil4

            Actually all of the rights you are currently accorded were gained at the point of a gun. Does the revolutionary war mean a damn thing to you? The guns were pointed at us(My side. Not sure if it was or is your side!) mostly. The history is clear. Read it instead of making rather uneducated efforts on some damn forum. I am only a mere a high school graduate.We won’t talk IQ but my guess is mine is a good bit above yours. That is if no real consequence though. You and I are both ignorant. But on this point you seem to be a bit more so.u00a0 I see things as they are rather than how a professor may have wished them to be. I may be incorrect but I think that the first reference I can remember to Third stone(Earth) minus the underscore would have been a Hendrix song. If that is where you you derived your screen name I am ashamed! Hendrix was a paratrooper. They carried guns! Watch the scene in the Hendrix film “Rainbow Bridge” where Jimi takes out an environmentalist professor! Hilarious!!

    • TonygS50

      I’m surprised at essence of most of these comments.u00a0 This isn’t about our current President, Congress, or the local dog catcher.u00a0 Fossil fuels pollute, which is a fact.u00a0 Whether it’s called “green house gasses” or something else, it produces stuff that’s lethal (in sufficient quantities) to people, and has been contributing to climate change in large amounts.u00a0 Add that to a finite amount of fossil fuels worldwide, and we have some pretty compelling arguments for the government to be testing alternatives.u00a0 It’s not about left or right, blue or red, it’s about being practical.nnBesides, do you want to be the middle-east terrorist that gets waxed by an unmanned aircraft that’s running on the extract of a weed?u00a0 There’s a bit of irony in this idea that’s really fitting,

      • bdc

        Great point, TonygS50. u00a0The irony is beautiful. u00a0 Not needing oil is a more potent weapon than anything in our arsenal, and it’s a refreshing strategy regardless of where the money is flowing, as it’s always going to flow somewhere. u00a0The money we spend on oil does nothing but enable our enemies. u00a0

      • Yourestupid

        youre a dumbass

    • david mowers

      Foreign countries, Please, please give up all military plans and infrastructure. The United States Government has gone crazy and clearly intends to use your capabilities as a never-ending excuse to build a war machine which is wasting a large portion of world resources and human effort on nothing. How different this world would be if we stopped the military drive and went head first into space exploration and colonization. Sad.

    • YHVHes

      Holy smokes

      • Kuf

        Well said!

    • Anonymous

      Lord knows that when you send in an unmaned aerial war fighter which kills civilians indescriminately, saidu00a0agressor should have the amount of Co2 immissions clearly atu00a0the lowest levels that technology can be attained.

    • Paul

      thier space exporation is the same as here on earth , every planet, moon asteroid is loaded with minerals ( metals) all your planets have massive all types of energys , ethane, methane, oil, gases in addition to minerals,u00a0 they have some desires of space colonization, even though most planets and moons are in habitable,u00a0 but thier wildest dreams is to reap the eternal riches of space minerals energy,s ect,u00a0 it is the same a the shale gas, there is a massive amount of gas and riches to be extracted , but as thier comments are that only four or six company’s will be able to extract the riches, u00a0 can’t have inexperience company’s polluteing the ground water,u00a0 can we Mr BP, Mr Exxon and friends,

    • mike d

      Listen up complainers, the reason for this is they built two semi secret plants to produce bio-fuel in case of war.u00a0 It is asummed the next one cough cough IRan oil will cease to flow meaning we have our output, the stratigic reserve and our bio fuel plants so the nation can continue to function and fight.nnThats why this is happening and it is a requirement for new equipment to allow the use of mixed fuels.

      • Peble

        this is the only comment that makes sense

      • Glennrobert

        u00a0 War with Iran?u00a0 Not sane.

        • Anonymous

          It would be a cake walk Glennrobert!

      • Yourestupid

        youre a dumbass – we buy no oil from iran…

    • Dwinst1956

      The reality is the best fuel is ground up moon dust.

      • Kuf

        or maybe the dingleberries from your ass…

    • John Home-Douglas

      How can we look forward to world peace,when we are spending time and money on finding ways to kill people more efficiently and in greater numbers,and in one shot ?.

      • Energyrebel

        Remember nukes?u00a0 We have since backed down from that doomsday weapon. Mostly.u00a0 The part about killing more efficiently IS, however, correct.nn(World) peace is only for the most powerful nations, sometimes not even them… Foreign wars don’t count.nnUnless we change the game we are ALL playing.u00a0

    • Anonymous

      with seven billion hungry people reproducing like rabbits we are going to need all the land for food production unless the weapons are used to thin the population . . .

      • Energyrebel

        Why do you think the “powers that be” spend so much money and effort making weapons?u00a0 Was this UAV designed to airlift food to impoverished nations, or to blow them up?

    • Seraph77787

      all wickedu00a0 menu00a0u00a0 have no 1u00a0 tou00a0 carry their nameu00a0u00a0 whenu00a0u00a0 they dieu00a0 the cure for their foolishnessu00a0u00a0 isu00a0 they getu00a0 their nameu00a0u00a0 wipe off theu00a0u00a0 earth when they die sou00a0 wickedu00a0u00a0 peopleu00a0u00a0 haveu00a0u00a0 fun kill asu00a0 many people as you likeu00a0u00a0u00a0 andu00a0u00a0u00a0 spend youru00a0u00a0 money likeu00a0u00a0 judas in hisu00a0u00a0u00a0 graveu00a0u00a0u00a0 thatu00a0 cliff you will fallu00a0 off

      • Anonymous

        So is this a word game?

        • Kuf

          No, it’s a commercial for medical marijuana.

    • Lorenzo

      What would Patton have said about biofuel?

      • Woody

        He would have run his machinesu00a0 on anything he could get. Eisenhower gave his fuel to Montgomery That’s why he didn’t get to enter Paris first-Monty did. Made the Brits happy.

      • Energyrebel

        He would have seen the strategic advantage of an independent fuel source, no matter where it came from.

    • Neil Kuchinsky

      There is a certain irony in designing a weapons system with concern for the environment that is tasked to kill human beings in the environment.u00a0 The same irony applies in humanely putting people to sleep in exercising the death penalty.u00a0 I’m all in favor of excellent weapons systems, as well as the death penalty; why must we engage in these efforts to mitigate the true meaning of what we are trying to accomplish?u00a0

      • someone

        u00a0think being switching from fossil fuels might have a secondary advantages such as less time refueling etc…

      • Fladabosco

        u00a0You seem to forget that one of our basic rights is that the government doesn’t treat us cruelly, so capital punishment by being skinned alive is probably out. I personally believe that sticking a needle in someone’s arm and poising them to death is cruel. If that makes me a bleeding heart so be it.

    • LolDems

      Thank you liberals for helping pave the way for lower environmental footprint killing machines. Your patrotism will not go unrewarded or unnoticed. Please continue to push the envelope so America may become the most efficient, advanced, and environmental friendly nation in the world.

      • Anonymous

        Yes thank you liberals for doing everything you can to dilute our Military as well as our Country! u00a0Thank you for helping the N.Vietnamese with their efforts in turning public opinion against the efforts of liberating Vietnam and preventing the genocide which ultimately took place once America abandoned the people of South Vietnam. u00a0Thank you for removing God from our country and especially our schools and thank you for empowering criminals in this country and providing loop holes for thieves, rapist and murderer’s. u00a0Thank you for creating SOCIALIST UNIONS in this country that have forced American companies to offset the cost of American labor by leaving this country. u00a0Thank you Liberals for voting in a President that now has the distinction of increasing our National Debt more than the last 6 presidents combined. u00a0Thank you Dodd/Franks the poster children for all liberals for assuring America on September 10, 2003 that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae were perfectly financially sound and stating the Republicans are only trying to create panic. u00a0Yes you liberals have so much to be proud of!

        • Fladabosco

          I would like to thank the republicans for allowing the investment banks to put their cronies into power who changed the rules to suit them, bet against their own companies when they purposely drove them into the ground and ruined the world economy. I’d also like to thank them for spending more money than anyone else in history while screaming that the dems spend too much, destroying our surplus, starting wars for personal revenge and generally turning the military, energy and health care industries into personal fiefdoms for the ultra-rich while finding every single way to drain the wealth of the middle class.nnWe can also thank them for reducing our civil liberties, destroying our educational system, gutting pollution laws and so much more. You must be doubly proud.

          • Anonymous

            I dont disagree that Bush in his second term spent money like a drunken sailor however you can thank the collapse on our economy to The repeal of the Glass-Steagel Bill and it was repealed by bill Clinton also you can blame Franks and Dodd for their efforts in extortion loans from banks on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. u00a0Sept 10, 2003 Franks told the world that Bush was trying to create panic after Bush said they were concerned about Mac and Mae’s solvency. u00a0You can thank the Democrats for pouring money in to a school system that has done nothing but decline in education standards because they have the teacher’s unions support. u00a0You can thank OBONKERS for stealing 1 trillion dollars with a guarantee the unemployment would not rise above 8% which is now at 10%. u00a0Thank OBONKERS for giving loans to FAKE energy companies…..Starting 2 more wars. u00a0I am not proud of either part however if I wanted to be a communist I would have moved to China! u00a0Comrade OBONKERS is doing his best to convert this nation to communism.

            • Energyrebel

              Wow, you really have lost it huh?nnI guess it all depends on your perspective, but the Obama wouldn’t have spent a third as much while in office if THE POLITICAL RIGHT OF THIS COUNTRY HADN’T RUINED THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!u00a0 And THEY started the wars, not Obama…u00a0 THEY caused this financial collapse, and THEY probably conspired to bring down a couple of large buildings in NY.u00a0 nnThe blame doesn’t stop there, Dems are bad too!u00a0 Just get it right when you point a finger!nnhigh unemployment—NOT Obamas fault.u00a0 Might be 20% if bailout hadn’t stopped it.nfailed education system—NOT Obamas fault. Been that way a looong time.nFannie Mae/Freddy Mac—They were cooking the books!! Yes, Congress is to blame for not catching it, but NOT specifically Dodd and Franks.u00a0 nBad investments in energy companies–Prolly Obamas fault! (bad research or kickbacks for friends)nnnFace it, our country’s political system is a corrupt mess and both sides share the blame!nnObama himself—-NOT a communist or a socialist you effing twerp!u00a0 He’s an AMERICAN POLITICIAN!!!u00a0 Who are you, McCarthy?nnIf only CAPITALISM were seen as a bad word too, it’s the real enemy.nnI for one am glad GOD has no place in schools, ever hear of separation of church and state?u00a0 He’s just an idea anyhow, but some of his believers cause great harm to the world.u00a0 So do believers (extremists) in the prophet Mohammed.u00a0 And so do dictator-megalomaniacs!nnnCool new killing machine though.u00a0 Eco friendly!

            • Anonymous

              I think its time for you to exit the “CRACK DEN”! u00a0nnAll economic experts say the stimulus worsened the economy!nnObama assured everyone with the stimulus the unemployment would not exceed 8%n(Its at 10%)nnClinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which contributed to the meltdown along with Franks and Dodd’s greed stating the Republicans were trying to frighten everyone with their prediction of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie.nnOBONKERS added two more wars with Yemen and Libya which neither were a threat to the U.S.nnObama is known as a socialist and his parents were both avowed communistsnnObama gave over 80 billion in loans (taxpayer money) to the auto unions and companies and recently the UAW gave bonus’s and raises and have yet to pay back the loansnnONE NATION UNDER GOD!nnChina and N.Korea are looking for good COMRADES….give’em a ringnn

            • Anonymous

              Sounds just like a redneck racist hooked on meth.

            • Anonymous

              Wow…Impressive response! u00a0I hope you didn’t strain that “PEA BRAIN”

            • Anonymous

              I guess when you can’t counter the facts you’re pretty much left with comments like yours….Now back to the “Den” with ya!

        • Anonymous

          For all your effusive thanks my heartfelt reply is: You’re welcome!

          • Kuf

            You’re a fucking fool Marty.

    • Wildagreen

      i don’t care what fuel the u.s. military uses. i just want therm to have lots of it and plenty of aircraft to use it in and i want everyone everywhere to s*** their pants when they hear the u.s. is coming for them.

      • James Jenkins

        They are coming for you next!

        • BigJohn5

          Who is coming James?

      • Bbb

        congratulations; you just wont he dumbass award.

        • Bayousaint58

          a dumbass is someone who cares about green when it comes to military effectiveness

      • The

        Wow, you really don’t understand that their ultimate target is us, do you?

        • Kuf

          You stupid shit…

      • ted

        Took the words out of my mouth

    • Anonymous

      Folks, don’t you find a bit of irony in this story?u00a0 Here we have the Navy proudly pronouncing that they are now using a ‘biofuel’ to presumably, reduce the emissions, and again — presumably to save lives.u00a0 The vehicle to use the biofuel is a vehicle to blow folks to smithereens!u00a0 Amazing!

      • Thetexasjack

        And your point is?

      • bubba

        well at least they are trying to save on gas too when blowing up the bad guys….how cute!!!u00a0 :0)

      • Guest

        you’re an idiot

      • Bugmenot

        Granny, If you had a clue as to other than how to bump your gums you would understand that the MOST successful projection of force makes its use unnecessary, and therefore life-saving. Gnaw on that a bit.

    • RikS

      and in the meanwhile the soldiers get fat….i see soldiers returning fatter and chubbier than ever from every tour of duty.

      • Anonymous

        Except for those missing limbs.

        • Energyrebel

          Malaprop, you have a ruthless wit.u00a0 I actually feel for them.u00a0 nnOh and RikS, WTF does this have to do with a Naval drone chopper???

    • Anonymous

      there is a two pronged reason for this. first this is show casing a new weapon which the military likesu00a0 to do.second this is telling the oil producing countries that we have a fuel that we can process from our own resources, so look down the road when your existance won’t be relevant to the west.

    • Swaabby

      yes,i say,burn more weed

      • Kuf

        Of course you would.

    • Stacker2005

      Uhmm, for all you people who call this a killing machine, where are the guns? The bombs? Hmmm…don’t see any. The only way this particular drone is going to kill anyone is if it falls out of the sky and hits them on the way down. Some stupid comments! The military is going towards biofuel not because of the environment, but because one day, we will run out of oil. If the military is to survive, it must find a different fuel source. We WILL run out of oil. That is the only reason!

      • From the story: “It is capable of carrying Hellfire missiles, Viper Strike laser-guided glide weapons and the ‘Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS),’ a laser-guided 70 millimeter folding-fin rocket, which the military sees as ideal for the modern battlefield.”

      • Energyrebel

        So you cannot imagine the weapons they will put on it after this media parade?u00a0 Whose comments are stupid? Answer-YOURS.

    • Kint Verbal

      Since biofuel is an even worse threat to the environment than normal fuel (imagine, killing the soil to make fuel and drive cars; oh an 10% of the fuel goes on agriculture…), it makes sense for the military to use it… military intelligence is a sad term.nnAnyway, what I fail to see is an “imposing, futuristic” craft. What I see, and correct me if I’m wrong, is an ugly piece of metal that looks like an video game still in production stages.

      • Fladabosco

        u00a0It’s not what the vehicle looks like that matters. If that were the case our soldiers would be driving Batmobiles.

        • Khattsr

          Discussion sounds like the Tower of Babelnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

      • Moequisha

        Are you really that stupid or do you just need attention?

        • I_NEED_ATTENTION

          Well, uh…

          • I think….ummmm.ahhh lets see””’

    • Yourestupid

      camelina – is that a play on words…?

    • Williestoker

      They are paying over $15 a gallon for that fuel, another one of Obama’s paybacks to one ofu00a0 his supporters, which is now being investigated. It’s not like we can’t afford the extra cost, they can print more money when they need it.

      • Ken Lord

        u00a0It’s better than being dependent on the Saudis and Iranians for gas… I’d rather pay more for gas than pay the people shooting at our troops for the gas to get them there.

      • Chonburi Sam

        Like anything new, it costs more to produce. Give it time, and we could see productionu00a0efficiencyu00a0increase and cost lowered. The point here is it’s not going to be cheap finding better cleaner energy. We can’t be relying on oil forever. Producing biofuels means we can do that right here in the US and cut out dependence on foreign oils.u00a0

    • JudgeMental

      CO2 scam to the max. u00a0$15 a gallon in a bankrupt country. u00a0Perpetrators of fraud should be indicted.

    • Anonymous

      This is an interesting development. Those who have been out here fight the war long enough will remember Dwight Eisenhower telling the nation governors conference that “if we lose Viet Nam we will lose the space race”. That was because Viet Nam had titanium. The war ended when carbon fiber came into use in space, replacing titanium. Now as we wind down in Iraq, the military is showing it can work without oil. Next we will see them making the bacteria that make bio diesel top secret.

    • Dept. of Self-Promotion: Those interested in the topic of the U.S. military’s continuing investments in clean energy development might be interested in my recent column for EarthTechling:u00a0nhttp://www.earthtechling.com/2011/12/clean-energy-military-engagement-a-positive-action/

      • Dave Lacks

        Self-promoting little phuqer, aren’t you?

    • Usaf-ret

      And how much of the savings achieved by using bio-fuels go into Obama’s pocket?

      • Chonburi Sam

        None if it’s $15 a gallon. If anything, it’s money OUT of his pocket since he’s most likely not getting any kick backs from big rich oil companies for using biofuels instead of oil! I think you’veu00a0mistaken him for George Bush.u00a0

    • Bobby McAuliffe

      o boy fuel only costs us about 16.00 $ a gallon, what a crazy ass idea. Mabus you are an idiot

    • BioDiesel Aircraft…BAD IDEA!!!!!! Either all of the seals with burst, killing the crew, or the machine will require major upkeep. BAD IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

    • Mastro63

      I hear it has Solandra solar panels…

    • dockywocky

      Obama’s financing buddies are producing so-called “biofuels” at about ten times the cost of fossil fuels and somewhere along the line, are going to cost a lot of casualties when the supposed superiority doesn’t pan out.nnThis so-called president is entirely willing to use the armed forces as guinea pigs – al la Solyndra and other boondoggles solely related to Obama’s closest pals.nnWhile it is nice to have alternatives, does the extremely higher cost really justify Obama’s forcing its use on our military?nn

      • The military’s pursuit of biofuels solutions well predatesnObama. Here’s a story –u00a0u00a0http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/us-military-in-hunt-for-biobased-jet-fuelu00a0–u00a0fromnAugust 2007 noting how the the Department of Defense “is pumping millionsnof research dollars into projects to turn mustard plants, algae, waste animalnfats, and a host of other organic matter into jet fuels.” As for biofuelsncausing casualties, I don’t know what you base that assertion on. Everything we’ve reported on so far has been carefully monitored tests by the military, even though U.S. airlines have used these fuelsnto transport thousands of passengers in recent months.

        • Chonburi Sam

          It’s okay Pete, some people just like to complain without any real facts.u00a0

    • Russ

      They keep looking for victims to justify the vast expenditures of our “Defense Industries.”

    • Centrist

      ” Cenral area of the globe” really ?

      • That’s the way the military characterizes it:u00a0nhttp://www.centcom.mil/about-u-s-central-command-centcom

    • Sam

      How much does this cost the tax payers 5 Billion each

      • The cost had been estimated at $2.8 billion for 175 of these vehicles — $16 million apiece. But there have been some additional contracts, so I’d guess the cost at around $20 million each. Here’s a link that provides some info:nhttp://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Unmanned-Rotorcrafts/MQ-8B-Fire-Scout_a000557002.aspxu00a0

    • Question Mark

      Well this is an interesting article……………..but something is missing.u00a0 Oh, they grow the plant Camelina transport it to a processing plant, process it and transport it again, then mix it.u00a0 What is the cost of processing it?u00a0 Then to transport it, not via pipe line, but by truck or train.u00a0 Oh, are the farmers being subsidized for this product?u00a0 When mixed with aviation fuel, is the new fuel as efficient or more efficient as regular aviationu00a0 fuel?u00a0 So I guess what is missing is $$$$$.

      • On the question of efficiency, it does appear as though the blends the military has been using are just as efficient as conventional fuels. As for being cost-effective, there’s no question that these new fuels are much more expensive than conventional fuels. Will they remain so if a broader market and industry develops? I’m skeptical:u00a0nhttp://www.earthtechling.com/2012/01/its-time-to-move-past-ethanol/

    • That’s funny, the world biggest polluter and organized crime syndicate (US military) is ‘going green’. The Navy kills humans and whales, and someday when you all wake up you will be so ashamed to have been part of that.