Op-Ed: Air lubrication at a crossroads: Why proof, not promises, will decide the future

Alex Routledge

by Alex Routledge, CEO of Armada Technologies

Clean technology solutions that deliver verified efficiency savings are critical to shipping’s decarbonization journey. In the absence of future forms of energy, efficiency is the ‘first fuel’ to power the industry’s sustainability transition. Air lubrication technology is part of that solution and recent industry figures indicate that more than 600 systems are now either on the water, or on order worldwide. On the surface, this may represent progress, but a backlog of orders is not the same as a track record of success.

The gap between systems ordered and systems delivering sustained value in service is a credibility challenge ship owners and energy-efficient technology (EET) manufacturers must confront. If these systems could perform across different vessel types, speeds and sea states, then I believe air lubrication will finally take its place as a mainstream solution in shipping’s decarbonisation toolbox. If they do not, the resulting loss of market confidence will be more damaging to the technology’s prospects than the slow adoption of the past twenty years.

Shipowners are, rightly, skeptical about the credibility of these solutions and their performance claims. Their perceptions have been shaped by experiences with first-generation systems in real-world situations – solutions that often perform well in calm seas and at specific speeds but that falter outside a narrow operating window. Their reliance on air compressors also generates significant parasitic load, which in some cases cancels out the promised savings. Others introduce maintenance burdens or struggle with integration onboard, creating resource, energy and time-consuming technologies that don’t work as promised. When benefits consistently fall short of projections, caution is only rational.

Rebuilding trust starts with technologies that deliver consistent, transparent and independently validated performance across a wide range of operating conditions. The industry has moved beyond the point where selective data, limited-scope testing or optimistic modelling can sustain confidence. The next-generation of air lubrication systems must demonstrate that lessons have been learned and shortcomings have been fully addressed. Manufacturers should treat this level of scrutiny not as a burden but as an opportunity to differentiate themselves and lead the market..

The transition now underway from first-generation to second-generation air lubrication technologies is a step change comparable to other major leaps forward in technology. The underlying physics of the newer technologies are fundamentally different. Most first-generation systems use compressed air injection to create bubble carpets beneath the hull; an approach that works effectively within defined parameters but faces inherent constraints from its reliance on mechanical compression. The reliance on pressurized delivery of air also responds poorly to vessel motion in rough seas, leading to inconsistent bubble generation when sea state disrupts carefully calibrated flow rates. These technologies can also generate vibration that creates maintenance challenges and, in comparison to compressor-free technologies, might contribute to underwater radiated noise, an increasingly important consideration as environmental regulations expand beyond emissions.

Second-generation thinking departs from this model. For example, instead of compressors, our passive air lubrication system uses the ship’s own forward motion to entrain air via the Venturi effect, creating a controlled air–water mixture for hull lubrication. This fundamentally different mechanism widens the operating window, providing more consistent bubble formation across speed, draft, and sea-state variations, while avoiding the parasitic energy load from compressors that has limited the net efficiency of earlier systems. At present, we are the only commercially available system using this passive Venturi-driven approach, making it a distinct alternative rather than simply an incremental improvement on existing technologies.

That said, even the most advanced concepts must demonstrate their value through evidence rather than assumption. The benefits of any air-lubrication technology—legacy or emerging—require transparent, independently validated testing. Shipowners should examine where and how testing was conducted, how measurements were taken, who validated the results, and whether the data truly represents the full operational envelope rather than selectively favorable conditions.

Rebuilding confidence in hull-lubrication solutions will depend on an open, evidence-based dialogue between shipowners and technology providers. Greater transparency, rigorous validation, and clear communication of limitations as well as strengths are essential if the sector is to achieve reliable emissions reductions, fuel-cost benefits, and meaningful compliance with evolving environmental regulations.

Greater transparency would also help shipowners and charterers reassess rigid payback period requirements and, where possible, give EET manufacturers more room to demonstrate performance over realistic operational timelines. Too often, EET makers have been pressured to align results with narrow project economics, while the split incentive between owners and charterers further complicates investment decisions. A more balanced approach – with clearer data, realistic ROI expectations, and shared accountability – can be another lever to unlocking genuine progress on efficiency gains and emission reductions.

In my view, raising the bar for technology validation serves the entire sector. It distinguishes credible innovation from optimistic claims, accelerates the adoption of solutions that truly work, and helps shipowners avoid previous missteps we have seen in earlier cycles. Most importantly, it gives air lubrication a real chance to become a scalable, trusted contributor to the industry’s decarbonization goals.