But here is the "LMI" institute mentioned in the article:
http://www.lmi.org/careers/publicpolicyfellows.aspxAnd the Pentagon's "Office of Force Transformation and Resources":
http://www.oft.osd.mil/resources.cfmWould have like to see the Actual report before commenting, but the big question is HOW can the Military reduce fuel use? The options are limited for example:
1. The Navy can build more Nuclear ships and mothball its Conventional ships (and maybe even convert some of its Nuclear Carriers to troops ships). The problem is that most wars we can expect to fight in the future will be more like Iraq and Afghanistan than Desert Storm or WWII. Given the nature of these types of war Nuclear powered ships will be of limited usability.
2. Nuclear power planes? In the 1950s the US Air Force did run a small Nuclear plant in a B-36 Bomber. This was to test the interaction of the planes electronics and the Nuclear power plant. The B-36 used its conventional propulsion source (i.e. Oil) and the nuclear plant just ran inside the plane. The bigger problem was building a small enough power plant to fit inside a plane. You might be able to propels something like a 747, but anything smaller the power needed to lift the Nuclear power Plant exceeded the ability of the power plant to provide power. You can only make a nuclear power plant so small before its power efficiency starts to drop in relation to the weight of the necessary shielding. Given that the push since the 1950s has been to SMALLER bombers (and larger Fighters, to make today's Fighter-Bombers) Nuclear Power planes have NOT been considered since the 1950s.
3. One way unmanned planes. Over the next 20-50 years you will see a merger of Planes and Missiles as electrics improve. Within 20 years the Air Force may meet a situation where it would be cheaper to fly an unmanned missiles on a one way mission to a target, rather than send in a manned plane to get close to the Target. This will save energy in several ways, first by only having to go one way, you only have to carry only about 1/3 of the fuel of a plane on a two way mission. Remember fuel weighs about a pound a pint. This adds up and on many missions the plane will have to use 1/3 of the fuel on the plane to carry the fuel to get the plane BACK HOME (i.e. 1/3 of the fuel used ot get to the target, 1/3 to get back, and 1/3 used to carry the fuel needed to get back home). One way missions will thus use 1/3 the fuel of today's planes.
4. The lack of a pilot Saves weight and space. If you get rid of the pilot, the plane can be made smaller, you do not need oxygen for him, you can get rid of the cockpit (or fit it with fuel). The armor around the Cockpit can be removed, saving weight and fuel (Or better placed to protect the plane as a whole as opposed to protecting the pilot). Get rid of the pilot you save weight and thus fuel usage (and by getting rid of the pilot the plane can be one way, saving even more fuel).
5. Get rid of Armor. When it comes to ground forces this is the best way to eliminate fuel usage. Unlike the Air Force, which do to increase Air Defenses, may be forced to get rid of Pilots even if fuel was NOT a concern within the next 20 years, Ground forces will still have to operate. Such forces MUST have food, water and Ammunition supplied ot them. Automation may reduce human losses when such supply lines are attacked, but does NOTHING to reduce fuel usage of such supply lines. Thus the best way the Army and Marines can reduce fuel usage is by going to lighter tanks and wheeled and unarmored trucks. You will see increase deaths of US Soldiers, but that is the cost of reducing Fuel when you cut back armor.
6. Think about using other means of supply i.e. instead of four wheel trucks right to the line, instead use two wheel trucks to a central location on paved highways and then horse drawn wagons from that point to the troops (This was the German Solution to its Fuel Shortage 1942-1945). You may want to force the troops to carry more supplies via hand carts (The US AirBorne Solution to this problem doing WWII). You may want to transport the troops on Bicycles instead of Trucks (The Japanese Solution to this problem in Malaysia doing WWII). The biggest problem is all of these methods carry less cargo at slower speeds than Four Wheel Tricks.
What I foresee? That depends on how bad the fuel Situation gets. The best solution is to withdraw from the Middle East, and tell Americans that they MUST reduce fuel usage themselves rather than fight for oil.
On the other hand, we MUST look into the Future and accept the fact that the US MAY have to fight a war in the Future. Hopefully our leaders accept the concept of Peak Oil and accept it and get the American People to solve the problems produced by Peak Oil through peaceful means, but war is a good possibility thus I will address what the US military should look into when it comes to fighting a war in a oil short environment.
First, get rid of the M1 Tank, it is to heavy and uses to much fuel. Adopt something like the Russian BMP-3 (Which the Russians call a "Infantry Combat Vehicle", but I suspect that was to get around the limitations set forth as to "Tanks" in the Conventional Forces Reduction treaties of the 1980s). The BMP-3 is a Light Tank, it has a 100mm Gun (The US could use the 105s Cannon used in the old M60s series of tanks), it is amphibious, it is light weight so uses much less fuel than the M1. It is UNDER Armored so when hit by anything of an Antitank variety it will be stooped, but it can provide good direct fire support for infantry. If you do not have fuel even for the BMP-3, the Army better think in terms of a 75mm horse draw cannon (like the old French 1897). It had great range, lethal, can knock out anything except post-WWII era tanks, gives great fire support to the infantry and can be hauled by a term of horses. The Choice between the BMP-3 and the 1897 shows you the problem with predicting the future, how short will the Army be?
Second, look into giving each infantrymen a bicycle and a trailer to haul his equipment, Ammunition and food for a week. Such a set up would cut back fuel usage by cutting out the need for daily re-supply (or for trucks to be attached to the unit just to haul such supplies around). Hopefully the Army will NOT make the mistake the British did in Normandy during WWII. Having been burned by the Japanese in Malaysia two years before, the British decided to equip some of its troops with Bicycles. The problem was there was NOT enough bikes to equip whole units, so the British gave them out to every unit which then give them out to individuals in each unit. Since the whole unit did not have bicycles, the Bicycles equipped troops could not move faster then the troops on foot. Thus the Bikes were viewed as extra weight and thrown away in Normandy. In Malaysia the WHOLE Japanese army had been equipped with bikes and used them to outflanked the road depended trucks of the British Army. In Normandy the British had NO units of Bicycle Troops, but troops with bikes in each infantry section (The British term for what the US Army calls a "Squad"). Furthermore the Germans were NOT permitting any flank maneuvers by the Allies so the ability of the Bikes to go anywhere a man can carry them was of little advantage, for the Germans left no Flank for the Bikes to exploit with their speed (Unlike the British in Malaysia where the British, tied down to heir trucks, left the Japanese constantly outflank them with bicycle movements).
The lesson on bicycles are simple. First ALL Troops in a unit must have bicycles. Second, the bikes are used to transport the soldiers and supplies NOT to fight from. When combat is expected the troops should dismount and store the bikes (and their Supplies) in a safe secure place (Like the baggage train of armies before the Railroads i.e. pre-1800 Armies).
Third, look into the use of Mules and horses, and at what point in the upcoming fuel shortage would it be better to transport supplies via mules, horses and wagons as opposed to trucks. This is the big issue, how to do supply for the troops in the field? Do you convert the Navy's Nuclear carriers to Troop transport, then use them as supply depots for the troops in the field? Do you build Railroads do so trains greater fuel efficiencies, or do you stay with trucks? Do you supply the troops via trucks or railroad, trucks then horse draw wagons (Or hand drawn Carts)? The problem with this is dependent on HOW BAD THE FUEL SITUATION GETS. Furthermore this may vary from Army to Army. For example the Germans had a severe Fuel Shortage from 1942-1945 with its Infantry units getting as little as 10% of what those units had access to in 1939-1941 (The biggest two suppliers of Oil during WWII was the US and the USSR). On the other hand the Armies the Germans were facing had little or no fuel shortage except when the units outran their supply lines (As Patton did in France). In many ways the Germans lost WWII when they lost their access to fuel when they invaded Russia in June 1941 (And many people think Stalin was planning to attack Hitler's forces in Poland, so Hitler's attack on Russia can be viewed as the first "oil" War, for without Oil Hitler could NOT continue to fight Britain).
Russian action during WWII gives some guidance for Russia did NOT suffer from a Fuel Shortage (it was producing all the oil it needed) but limitations as how to use such oil (i.e. limitations as to Trucks, Roads and Trains). Thus the Russians continue dot use Horse mounted Calvary till 1945, when it was withdraw from Europe and shipped to Asia to Attack Japan (Europe had been poor calvary territory since at least the 1600s do to all the roads towns and other restrictions as to movement, thus Russian Calvary was effective till January 1945 but as Russian Troops entered Germany from Poland, the Calvary's ability to maneuver was limited and the Russians had access to good roads, so the Calvary units were removed from the front (At the same time the Germans converted its last Calvary Unit to Armor for the same reason).
The Russian lesson is to be fixable. This was also seen in Italy during WWII, where the US Scout Units reverted to using horses (locally drawn and locally equipped) when the terrain was to rough for their wheeled Vehicles. The Scouts could do so for all of them had been horse trained (Through equipped with Jeeps and other Vehicles when their were shipped out). The same can be done today, trained our troops in the use of Bicycles, Hand draw Carts and Horses in addition to using Trucks and Tanks. Thus if the troops get in a fuel short situation they can quickly convert like the US Scouts in Italy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
