$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan

[tricky]

Some insight into the true cost of war and why just throwing troops at the problem (kinda like how the conservatives always complain about "Socialists/Communists/Democrats throwing money at problems) will not solve the situation there.

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan


By Roxana Tiron - 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.
The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.
Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.
“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.

Any additional troops and operations likely will have to be paid for through a supplemental spending bill next year, something Murtha has said he already anticipates.

Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.

A landlocked country, Afghanistan has no seaports and a shortage of airports and navigable roads. The nearest port is in Karachi, Pakistan, where fuel for U.S. troops is shipped.

From there, commercial trucks transport the fuel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, sometimes changing carriers. Fuel is then transferred to storage locations in Afghanistan for movement within the country. Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air.

One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.

The cheapest way to transport fuel is usually by ship. Other reasonable methods to provide fuel are by rail and pipeline. The prices go up exponentially when aircraft are used, according to congressional sources.

The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”

“The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.

The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.

“These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.

The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.

And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.

Energy consumed by a combat vehicle may not even be for actual mobility of the vehicle, Geiss said, but instead to run the systems onboard the vehicle, including the communications equipment and the cooling systems to protect the electronics onboard.

Some 8o percent of U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are due to improvised explosive devices, many of which are placed in the path of supply convoys — making it even more imperative to use aircraft for transportation.

According to a Government Accountability Office report published earlier this year, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan in June 2008 alone.
High fuel demand, coupled with the volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications for the Department of Defense’s operating costs, the GAO said. The fully burdened cost of fuel — that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving and protecting fuel in systems during combat — has been reported to be many times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself, according to the report.
The Marines in Afghanistan, for example, reportedly run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That reflects the logistical challenges of running the counterinsurgency operations but also the need for fuel during the extreme weather conditions in Afghanistan — hot summers and freezing winters.

With the military boosting the number of the all-terrain-mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (M-ATVs) in Afghanistan meant to survive roadside bombs, the fuel consumption will likely rise even higher, since those vehicles are considered gas-guzzlers.

The Pentagon comptroller’s office did not return requests for comment by press time.


Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...n-afghanistan-

[Dionysos]

That price would drop significantly if they cut down on mid-air refueling. The last time I read the Air Force's stats(about 2 years ago) mid-air refueling was less than 25% of their fuel delivery method but engenders 90%+ of their fuel delivery costs.

There was another study that showed putting a simple battery system in the Abrams tanks would double their fuel efficiency because they could turn off the engine and still run the A/C. I don't believe that was ever implemented.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

There was another study that showed putting a simple battery system in the Abrams tanks would double their fuel efficiency because they could turn off the engine and still run the A/C. I don't believe that was ever implemented.

Where would they put them?

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Where would they put them?

I'd have to go back & look for specifics, but it wasn't a large battery system so the size wasn't an issue. Basically it was enough that it kept them from having to idle the turbines to get the air circulating inside the cabin, but that's about it.

[matias pecile]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

That price would drop significantly if they cut down on mid-air refueling. The last time I read the Air Force's stats(about 2 years ago) mid-air refueling was less than 25% of their fuel delivery method but engenders 90%+ of their fuel delivery costs.

yea come on fellas .. just cut down on mid-air refueling, like dionysos said. it's not complicated

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by matias pecile

yea come on fellas .. just cut down on mid-air refueling, like dionysos said. it's not complicated

Do you even realize the most common reason they do mid-air refueling, or are you just talking out of your ass again? I'll give you a hint: it usually happens right after take-off, not in the middle of a mission.

[matias pecile]

I just, for whatever reason, get the feeling that they've probably cut down mid-air refueling as much as possible and they are not being generous and liberal about the money they spend on it. I'm trying to say that the <25% stat you provided is probably pretty damn near the floor that stat could possibly become

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by matias pecile

I just, for whatever reason, get the feeling that they've probably cut down mid-air refueling as much as possible and they are not being generous and liberal about the money they spend on it. I'm trying to say that the <25% stat you provided is probably pretty damn near the floor that stat could possibly become

And I'm saying things based off Air Force reports & stats, whereas you're speaking firmly out of your ass. Their job isn't to save money, their job is to kill people and they're refueling after take-off because taking off w/ less fuel allows them to load the jet down with more munitions. But it costs a shit-ton of money to refuel mid-air.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

That price would drop significantly if they cut down on mid-air refueling. The last time I read the Air Force's stats(about 2 years ago) mid-air refueling was less than 25% of their fuel delivery method but engenders 90%+ of their fuel delivery costs.

You are quite correct that mid-air refueling is super expensive, but it's not really used nearly as much as it used to be. We have plenty of places to land after leaving Baghram, Kabul, Baghdad, Mosul, Kuwait City, etc. The stealth bombers however, have always had to get mid-air refueling due to their homebase location.

US marines in Afghanistan run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That’s a higher burn rate than during an initial invasion, and reflects the logistical challenges of running counter-insurgency and other operations in the extreme weather conditions of Afghanistan. “We need to understand where the fuel goes,” Conway told a Marines Corps energy summit today. “The largest growing demand on the battlefield today is for electricity and how we create that.” He added: “We are going to more efficient. We have got to be.”

In Afghanistan, 56% of the Marine fuel powers generators that run air-conditioning and heating units for troop quarters. That’s one reason the U.S. military has invested so much money lately trying to figure out how to insulate tents.
There might be a better way. In 2007, an Air Force study examined how renewable energy could make forward operating bases leaner. The problem is, even a relatively small base—a 1,100-person air base—requires a mini power station that gobbles almost 5,000 gallons of fuel a day, or 59 tanker trucks every month. In the Air Force, 59% of the fuel goes to keeping folks climate-controlled.


WSJ: Aug09

Originally Posted by Dionysos

There was another study that showed putting a simple battery system in the Abrams tanks would double their fuel efficiency because they could turn off the engine and still run the A/C. I don't believe that was ever implemented.

It sounds like a great idea.. but It may not have been implemented due to several safety issues. Off the top of my head; it would have to be guaranteed to hold enough power to run the sensors and relays to keep the HALON fire-supression system functioning no matter the situation, and there are serious power requirements to run the howitzer main gun and targeting system... I'm sure they could run the A/C with no problem... but the other stuff might be hampering the stringent testing.

Not to mention the fact that the Army & Marines are run by the government. Nothing happens fast, absolutely nothing.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

Some insight into the true cost of war and why just throwing troops at the problem (kinda like how the conservatives always complain about "Socialists/Communists/Democrats throwing money at problems) will not solve the situation there.

You are wrong on several fronts, but the most important is:

-Fuel is not the cost of war... This is:

Even if Fuel is $10,000/gal it's never the real cost of the war.