Oil consuption of the US military.

[Mulholland]

I was just thinking about this, that the amount of oil consumed by a deployed and engaged US military must be absolutely massive. What does this mean for the future if a large scale conflict is to break out? What will Happen if Venezuela, Russia and the middle East refuse to continue sell oil to the US? Will consumers be forced to ration oil so the military can continue operations? Rolling blackouts?
Most of all what will power the all powerful American military when oil supplies dwindle because as we all know alomost every military vehicle uses fossil fuels as a means of propulsion.

http://www.energybulletin.net/29925.html
I stumbled across this website and the facts are indeed astounding.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

According to Pentagon spokesman Chris Isleib a $10 increase per barrel of oil increases Defense Department costs by $1.3 billion per year.

Since the military’s war machines burns fuel at such intense rates, it becomes impractical to talk about consumption in miles per gallon. That is why fuel use in military applications is shown in "gallons-per-mile," "gallons-per-hour," and "barrels-per-hour."

Here are some examples: Flying gas-guzzling bomber B-52 burns about 3300 gallon per hour, flying gas stations KC-135 and KC-10 (aerial refueling tankers) burn on average 2650 and 2070 gallons per hour respectively. Famous F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts burn about 1580 and 800 gallons per hour respectively.

Armored vehicles have very low fuel efficiency. For instance the Abrams tank can travel less than 0.6 mile per gallon of fuel, and Bradley fighting vehicle less than 2 miles on a gallon of fuel.

 

[nivi]

Don't you have some sort of reserve that could last for months?

 

[Whomp]

Several auto parts companies have said the US military is interested in hybridization of their vehicles due to better efficiency, reliability and they're faster. All attractive options with mission critical objectives.

Why?
70% of cargo tonnage in supply convoys are fuel. Fuel delivery to operations cost hundreds of dollars per gallon since convoys have to be guarded by troops and helicopters. The Financial Times reported the total cost of refueling a military vehicle in Afghanistan was $600 per gallon and $150 per gallon in Iraq.

The Abrams tank features turbine engines designed in the 60s. As a result, its engines burn one gallon per mile. Again according the the Financial Times it costs $60,000 to drive the Abrams from southern Iraq to Baghdad ($240 per mile). It even consumes 12 gallon an hour standing still.

Small wonder they're looking to deploy hybrid technology.

Blackouts are unlikely since we don't use much oil for electricity. Exxon and Conoco have already left Venezuela and are focusing on Canada.

 

[Patroklos]

Don't you have some sort of reserve that could last for months?

No. Our reserve can last for years, decades if we restrict civilian use.

 

[Mulholland]

So what does the US do with all the conventional combustion vehicles? Sell them to other nations? Surely most countries are seeing the liability in maintaining oil based militaries.

 

[Patroklos]

Those vehicles are like any other, when they get old or used up we replace them.

Your question would hold true for everyone elses vehicles too, what are we going to do with all those cars?

 

[emzie]

So does the military in Iraq import oil?

 

[Integral]

Yeah, the sheer oil consumption by the US military is massive. The Abrams main battle tank gets 3 gallons per mile--that's not a typo. Three gallons per mile. (I've got a source for that somewhere...) The rest of the fleet's not much better. Part of the problem is weight--the Abrams weighs something like 70 tons. It's hard to have fuel efficiency when the darn thing weighs that much.

And as Whomp said, the fleet is old. Most of the vehicles--Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and the like are from the 1980s or earlier. The M113 armored fighting vehicle was in use in Vietnam, and it is still in use today. That contributes to some of the fuel inefficiency, even in the upgraded/refitted models.

More to come later.

Edit1: From globalsecurity.org, the Abrams battle tank has an ideal fuel consumption of 0.6 miles per gallon. Each tank needs approximately 300 gallons per 8 hours during a mission/patrol/whatever. Since Iraq's not exactly an ideal place for a tank, the 0.33 miles per gallon estimated above is probably about right.

 

[Mulholland]

@Patroklos
Sell them on the used car market of course. Unless they are unfit to drive then off to the scrapyard.

If the 10% price of oil thing in the OP is right The US military really shot itself in the foot when invading Iraq didn't it. Increased costs by about 4 billion.

 

[Mulholland]

The US military is one hell of a money sink. Is it an issue in America, that so much of GDP goes into Military spending? Or is that just an issue for bleeding heart liberals? I.e would a politician shoot himself in the foot if reduction in military costs were a major part of his platform?

 

[ValentinianIII]

Boy, tell me about it, and it really suprised me when I joined the military. Most of our vehicles use heavy frames and armor so fuel consumption is always terrible. Even unarmored Humvees have low gasoline mileage.

What's scary is how much fuel America imports and how little we produce. We've been pumping less and less petroleum in America since the early 70's because we've exhausted our supply in many regions. And we rely on petroleum for so many other things, not just fueling cars but making fertilizers, pesticides, medicine.

 

[Masquerouge]

Several auto parts companies have said the US military is interested in hybridization of their vehicles due to better efficiency, reliability and they're faster. All attractive options with mission critical objectives.

Why?
70% of cargo tonnage in supply convoys are fuel. Fuel delivery to operations cost hundreds of dollars per gallon since convoys have to be guarded by troops and helicopters. The Financial Times reported the total cost of refueling a military vehicle in Afghanistan was $600 per gallon and $150 per gallon in Iraq.

The Abrams tank features turbine engines designed in the 60s. As a result, its engines burn one gallon per mile. Again according the the Financial Times it costs $60,000 to drive the Abrams from southern Iraq to Baghdad ($240 per mile). It even consumes 12 gallon an hour standing still.

Small wonder they're looking to deploy hybrid technology.

Blackouts are unlikely since we don't use much oil for electricity. Exxon and Conoco have already left Venezuela and are focusing on Canada.

Yeah. There is a good chance that the best innovations will come from army vehicles, since reducing the dependence on fuel - and thus the dependence on your supply lines - is critical.

 

[nivi]

Yeah. There is a good chance that the best innovations will come from army vehicles, since reducing the dependence on fuel - and thus the dependence on your supply lines - is critical.

But then they'll probably label it top secret for a couple of decades.

 

[Integral]

The US military is one hell of a money sink. Is it an issue in America, that so much of GDP goes into Military spending? Or is that just an issue for bleeding heart liberals? I.e would a politician shoot himself in the foot if reduction in military costs were a major part of his platform?

$510 billion dollars went into the military last year, out of a GDP of around $13 trillion and government spending of ~$4 trillion. That's ~3.9% of GDP, and ~12.75% of government spending.

Really, that's not a bad sum considering that the USA is at war in two countries and is pouring money into shiny, high-tech "Future Combat Systems" that are unlikely to help out in any war between now and 2025.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA tables

Integral

 

[Masquerouge]

But then they'll probably label it top secret for a couple of decades.

True... Too bad the USSR isn't there anymore or we could expect them to copy the technology in like 5 days

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, the sheer oil consumption by the US military is massive. The Abrams main battle tank gets 3 gallons per mile--that's not a typo. Three gallons per mile. (I've got a source for that somewhere...) The rest of the fleet's not much better. Part of the problem is weight--the Abrams weighs something like 70 tons. It's hard to have fuel efficiency when the darn thing weighs that much.

And as Whomp said, the fleet is old. Most of the vehicles--Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and the like are from the 1980s or earlier. The M113 armored fighting vehicle was in use in Vietnam, and it is still in use today. That contributes to some of the fuel inefficiency, even in the upgraded/refitted models.

More to come later.

Edit1: From globalsecurity.org, the Abrams battle tank has an ideal fuel consumption of 0.6 miles per gallon. Each tank needs approximately 300 gallons per 8 hours during a mission/patrol/whatever. Since Iraq's not exactly an ideal place for a tank, the 0.33 miles per gallon estimated above is probably about right.

Slightly wrong. A large number of our armored fighting vehicles over there right now are Strikers and that fleet is most certainly not old.

For instance, the Bradleys are not a pre-1980s vehicle. The first fieldings were in 1983 and design modifications/improvements continued until the full production rate was achieved in 2 quarter of fiscal year 2000. Thats not that old.

The Abrams are not as old as you think either. Fielding of the first Abrams M-1s didnt start until 1980, and it has undertaken two major block modifcations resulting in the M1A1 and M1A2 versions of the tank. Also, while you may think these tanks are old, there are also programs to completely disassemble old tanks and rebuild them to a zero milage like new status. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-os.htm Also there are plans in upgrading current engines with newer, more powerful/fuel efficient engines.

Also, I am interested in why you think Iraq is a less than ideal place to operate a tank? And what would impact its fuel use to that extent?

 

[Integral]

Weren't the Abrams/Bradley vehicles designed to operate best in a Western European-like environment? Or am I completely wrong on that? I've heard that the sand, in particular, reduced the ability of the Abrams. Not necessarily fuel efficiency, but overall battle effectiveness.

Thanks for the info on rebulding the fleet. Speaking of the Stryker, how useful are they? And how do they compare against the upgraded M113's?

Integral

 

[MobBoss]

Weren't the Abrams/Bradley vehicles designed to operate best in a Western European-like environment? Or am I completely wrong on that? I've heard that the sand, in particular, reduced the ability of the Abrams. Not necessarily fuel efficiency, but overall battle effectiveness.

I dont think the tanks were designed with any particular environment in mind. They operate pretty much in any environment in which they are needed.

The only thing that I have been told that effects the tanks over there is the dust or extremely fine sand. But this results in increased preventive maintenance to ensure air filters are cleaned more often, not really a decrease in the tanks effectiveness due to the environment.

Thanks for the info on rebulding the fleet. Speaking of the Stryker, how useful are they? And how do they compare against the upgraded M113's?

Well, this pretty much sums it up from Global security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm

The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost.

 

[Merkinball]

Why is the military a money sink? By and large, I'd say it isn't. The money in the military, is generally money that's already been earned. And then it goes to people who are actually doing something. Whether it be paying for people actually in the service, paying people to construct new facilities, paying companies to provide fuel, so on and so forth.

If the money wasn't spent here, it'd just be spent elsewhere in the hands of the taxpayers anyway.

I'm a little more concerned about the half trillion or so that comes out of social welfare programs for people that aren't doing anything, than the half trillion or so that goes into people involved in the military, military construction, and development of military vehicles.

I do wish that there was better oversight within military contracts though.

 

[Mulholland]

Why is the military a money sink?

Just the cost of maintaining such a large military is incredible. When one also takes into account the whole thing is going to have to be retrofitted to more efficiently use oil we run into ballooning costs. It's akin to buying an old house that in addition to needing new windows and a roof, also needs a new foundation. The next generation will inherit a white elephant. It's too bad really. Everyone's saying social security is crumbling and will present a future crisis while military spending is ballooning and few questions are being asked.