The true cost of fuel on a modern battlefield

[Vindex]

The most underestimated element of war is logistics and the biggest job of logistics is usuallly the delivery of fuel.

To quote from Goliath (I seemingly can't post URLs)

Goodman said that the true cost of fuel is much higher than what is recognized in today's military accounting systems. "In fact, the cost in the accounting system is $1 or so a gallon, but the true cost of fuel delivered to the battlefield is closer to $17. You must consider that there are also other hidden costs related to the impact on logistics force structure and manpower requirements," she said.

The U.S. Army's top officer in charge of logistics operations agreed. Gen. Paul Kern, head of the Army Materiel Command, recently told an industry conference that the true cost of fuel can range anywhere from $1 to $400 per gallon, depending on how it's delivered. "We have become kind of sloppy about fuel economy in this country, compared to many other nations," Kern said in a speech to the 2002 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference, in Monterey, Calif.

"We've making decisions perhaps based on the wrong metrics for the cost of a gallon of fuel," said Kern. "The Defense Science Board noted that. In our cost analysis, we price fuel at $1 per gallon, but that is not the cost of delivering a gallon of fuel to the battlefield. Most of the cost of delivering includes the trucks, the people, drivers and mechanics."

The detailed study is here: /www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf

This shows just how hard it is to figure out the hidden costs of an action or of a process. I personally will never understand why the M1A2 is still moved by that old odd piece of an engine. I had some pro's a long time ago but now...

By the way: when the study was written the oil price was around 37$ per barrel...

 

[winnyfield]

The most underestimated element of war is logistics and the biggest job of logistics is usuallly the delivery of fuel.

To quote from Goliath (I seemingly can't post URLs)



The detailed study is here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf

This shows just how hard it is to figure out the hidden costs of an action or of a process. I personally will never understand why the M1A2 is still moved by that old odd piece of an engine. I had some pro's a long time ago but now...

By the way: when the study was written the oil price was around 37$ per barrel...

Are you talking about the gas turbine and the JP8 'jet fuel' that it often used? The reason for its continued existence is that it beneficial for the US Army to operate as many JP8 fueled engines as possible (AFVs and helicopters). They would only have to bulk carry a single type of fuel. If your fleet is as big as the US Army's, it matters a lot (hidden costs as it were) - similar reasons for a nuclear Navy.

PS: They forgot to factor in the costs of happiness.

 

[eckherl]

Engine is also multi fueled which would make more sense to run diesel fuel due to its flash point versus JP types, also diesel fuel is what is run in the majority of U.S ground vehicles. Other rational reasons would be exhaust signature and noise level of engine. Just hope your oppenents are not set up with thermals.

 

[Vindex]

Are you talking about the gas turbine and the JP8 'jet fuel' that it often used? The reason for its continued existence is that it beneficial for the US Army to operate as many JP8 fueled engines as possible (AFVs and helicopters). They would only have to bulk carry a single type of fuel. If your fleet is as big as the US Army's, it matters a lot (hidden costs as it were) - similar reasons for a nuclear Navy.

As Eckherl pointed out most modern vehicles of an army run on diesel. Given that certainly all those vehicles share far more elements among them than tanks with helicoptes they are usually maintained by similar units. Those are also the units which benefit the most by common standards and tools.

So also from this point of view it makes absolutly no sense at all that the Abrams still uses a gas turbine and jet fuel.

P.S: According to the aforementioned study 70% of all the tonnage burdening the logistic network is fuel. See:

• Fuel comprises 70% of Army tonnage shipped
– Armored division consumes approx. 600,000 gal/day
– Air assault division requires approx. 300,000 gal/day
• Future battlefield scenarios will likely impose severe fuel
availability constraints
– Global geopolitical environment
– Short lead time for deployment preparation
– Fuel requirements pose a major obstacle to exercising deployment options
• During Desert Shield, if the Abrams tanks had been 50% more fuel
efficient, and if we had chosen to take correspondingly less fuel and
infrastructure, the build up would have taken 20% less time time. (Five
months, rather than six).

How can the consumption of fuel be reduced?

Army Combat Vehicles
• Army Future Combat Vehicle (FCV)
– Reduce support requirements by 90%; unrestricted transportability
– Single Concept to be Chosen December 2005
• Future Scout and Calvary Systems
– Fuel Efficiency Not a Specific Requirement
• Force XXI Systems
– No Planned Upgrades Specifically Targeting Fuel Efficiency
– Upgrades that are planned will have small fuel efficiency impacts, either
positive or negative
• Fuel Efficient Army After Next (FEAAN) identified fuel
economy improvements over baseline platforms for two cases:
– Modified Existing Subsystems (Abrams 35%, Others 17%)
– Completely new Subsystems (Abrams 61% - 81%, Others 32%)

Quit impressive. It shows also why - among other factors - the FCS could be a very big step forward, if it greatly reduces fuel consumption...

 

[lobbie111]

I just came across this, The ProPulse Hybrid diesel and electrical engine, if they could scale it up to 1500 HP instead of 750 it would be great for the Abrams if its claims are true (40% more efficiency) plus silent running as well as the fact that you can use electrical power for static running this would be great for tanks.