 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Military's fuel costs spur look at gas-guzzlers By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
The Pentagon hasn't emphasized fuel efficiency for its aircraft, ships and vehicles, despite shortages that slowed U.S. troops in the two Iraq wars and warnings from its own experts.
"Although significant warfighting, logistics and cost benefits occur when weapons systems are made more fuel-efficient, these benefits are not valued or emphasized" in any of the services, the Defense Science Board, the Pentagon's most prestigious technical advisory panel, concluded in 2001. That's still true, said Jacques Gansler, the undersecretary of Defense who sponsored the study. Since the end of the Cold War, the military's mission has changed. Instead of M1 Abrams tanks racing forward from well-supplied bases to stop a Soviet attack in Europe, the military now fights far from supply depots. Often, troops and equipment have to travel on short notice. Commanders who buy the military's weapons haven't changed with the mission, said Gansler, now a professor at the University of Maryland. That may be changing. With fuel costs nearing $3 a gallon, the military risks squeezing its procurement budget just to pay for fuel for current operations, Gansler said. (Related story: Military accelerates energy efforts) A pig that flies By any measure, the venerable B-52 bomber is a gas hog. It burns 3,334 gallons per hour through eight jet engines that were designed in the 1950s, when the B-52 first entered service. Although the B-52 remains the Air Force's main big bomber, the service has rejected proposals over the past decade to replace the plane's eight engines with four new, efficient jets. The Air Force said spending $4 billion on new engines would only save a net $400 million and then only if the plane kept flying for another 40 years. The Science Board study, however, said the Air Force incorrectly calculated fuel costs. Each gallon of jet fuel was priced as if the airplanes were filled up by tanker trucks at the B-52s' main home at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. However, about 10% of the fuel is delivered by aerial tanker, which costs about 10 times more than regular fueling. In addition, many of the planes flying with a full load, such as those in use over Afghanistan today, take off from remote bases, such as Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, where special fuel shipments are required. The Science Board's study of replacing the B-52 engines estimated $9 billion in savings, and that was when fuel prices were half their current level. One benefit would be that regular missions from Diego Garcia to Afghanistan could be done without aerial refueling. Such refueling, which involves a tanker plane extending a fuel line to the B-52 flying below, is often dangerous and exhausting for pilots. It also slows the mission. The Army also calculates fuel costs without considering often-extreme delivery problems, the Science Board study said. The study noted that fuel accounts for 70% of the cargo tonnage in most supply convoys.
In Iraq, fuel convoys to remote bases must be guarded by combat troops on the ground and attack helicopters above. The Science Board study said the ultimate cost could be hundreds of dollars per gallon. That also doesn't count the cost in lives of soldiers lost to roadside bombs and other insurgent attacks on the convoys, which are prime targets. One of the Army's biggest gas-guzzlers is the Abrams tank, which features turbine engines that were designed in the 1960s and never upgraded. While quiet and powerful, the engines burn fuel faster than any other combat vehicle, more than 1 gallon per mile. The Army had a program to replace the engines with more fuel-efficient diesels but canceled it because it was too expensive, said Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, manager of the tank program. Fitting a different engine would have required redesigning much of the tank, Flanagan said. Instead, the Army will spend about $1.2 billion in the next five years to refurbish the current turbine. To save fuel while idling — an Abrams burns 12 gallons an hour standing still — a small generator or battery pack has been fitted to some of the tanks. Savings at sea The Navy, which is the second-largest consumer of fuel after the Air Force, has had a conservation program since 1977. The Navy estimates its ships burn 15% less today than 10 years ago, through a combination of improvements. Skippers get cash bonuses for conserving fuel. As new ships with the latest power plants come online, they could be twice as efficient, said Lt. William Marks, a Navy spokesman. The Science Board recognized those efforts but said more could be done, especially in modernizing the ships' power plants. The war in Iraq has complicated Army and Marine Corps efforts to save fuel, because the services have added extra armor to their vehicles. Humvees with the latest armor burn more fuel than those without armor. The Army is also trading hundreds of Humvees for ASVs, large four-wheeled armored vehicles that burn more fuel. From 2004 through 2005, fuel consumption by the Army and Marine Corps increased by more than one third, largely because of Iraq. |
|||||||||||||||
