Military Squeezed at the Pump

[El Duderino]

I was always curious about how much fuel the military burned. 128.3 million barrels, or $8.8 billion worth last year according to the article. And I thought $20 - $25 a tank was high.

Pentagon battles high fuel costs

[Guest V1vaLaRob]

Originally posted by El Duderino:

I was always curious about how much fuel the military burned. 128.3 million barrels, or $8.8 billion worth last year according to the article. And I thought $20 - $25 a tank was high.

Pentagon battles high fuel costs

Well when you consider the amount asked for by President Bush for the Iraq war so far. $8.8B isnt that big of a number. Considering all of these planes that fly which certainly arent fuel friendly.

-Rob

[ACCBoomer]

Darn, I thought this was going a discussion on why the price at the AAFES pump is the same as the 7-11 outside the gate, yet we do not pay tax on it! Now what gives with that crap!

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by 509thBoom:

Darn, I thought this was going a discussion on why the price at the AAFES pump is the same as the 7-11 outside the gate, yet we do not pay tax on it! Now what gives with that crap!

What gives is a law that protects local and small businessmen around military bases. The stipulates that AAFES gas station prices cannot be more that a certain percentage lower that an average of local gas stations.

In some ways it sucks for us, but in general protects the community and local economy.

[Guest skipplet]

So what does AAFES do with that extra cash? pocket it? I bet they like that law.

[Guest V1vaLaRob]

Originally posted by Karl:

So what does AAFES do with that extra cash? pocket it? I bet they like that law.

I could have swore I heard that AAFES wasnt allowed to actually make money.

-Rob

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by Karl:

So what does AAFES do with that extra cash? pocket it? I bet they like that law.

The profit is given back in other areas. Most of the BX's will have a sign inside the front door describing how much they have given back to the base in the form of morale and welfare projects and construction.

[drewpey]

most of the profit made from AAFES goes back to the military in one fashion or the other. Mostly into MWR programs.

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by drewpey:

most of the profit made from AAFES goes back to the military in one fashion or the other. Mostly into MWR programs.

Echo echo echo....

[ACCBoomer]

Sorry El Duderino, I did not mean to hijack your thread. Did not figure my reply would take off like it did.

[Toro]

Back to the original topic -

Along with this article, we had a memo come out several weeks ago basically telling us to conserve fuel by any means possible. I want to say it was a COMACC memo, but it had stuff like flying fuel conserving airspeeds to and from the area, not dumping fuel unless absolutely necessary, and not flying sorties unless necessary.

[ClearedHot]

I read an interesting report about putting new engines on the B-52. There have been at least three major studies and a GAO REPORT that looked at the cost benefit of replacing the eight TF-33’s with four engines of another variant.

The USAF even arranged for private financing of the project (first time ever), where a third party lender would provide the money for the effort then take payment over time from the savings…almost like a municipal bond for the USAF.

The biggest roadblock to the project was the cost versus return. When the USAF did the analysis they computed the fuel savings based on the cost of delivering fuel to the aircraft via fuel truck. Using those cost figures, the fuel saved by using more efficient engines would NOT pay for the project. The GAO report mentioned above determined the USAF computed the fuel costs incorrectly. The GAO said that a large percentage of B-52 fuel is actually delivered via aerial tanker, which raises the delivery cost to 15 TIMES that of fuel truck delivery. Using that math, the effort would more than pay for itself.

I don’t know how the recent B-52 cuts will affect the math, but it would certainly save a lot of fuel to retire the TF-33 and going to something more efficient.

[Guest sickels101]

Speaking of the B-52 and the ridiculous amount of gas we burn, I decided to do some 8th grade math.

With a typical fuel load of 200,000lbs you could fill up a 20 gallon tank once a week for the next 30 years. That's just in one sortie!

[Flare]

Originally posted by Toro:

Back to the original topic -

Along with this article, we had a memo come out several weeks ago basically telling us to conserve fuel by any means possible.........and not flying sorties unless necessary.

Interesting......I can understand the other ideas, but if you started not flying sorties, now you start messing with the flying hour program....and I don't see how they could press that...especially already halfway through the FY.

[HeloDude]

Originally posted by Toro:

...and not flying sorties unless necessary.

I love this logic. So what do the bean counters consider 'necessary sorties'? I technically see that as actual missions (other than training) as well as the minimum amount of training sorties needed to maintain currency. I guess we don't need to be proficient anymore...current will do. As the flight hours as well as manpower are cut throughout the Air Force in the near future, it will be interesting to see if there will be an increase in aircraft mishaps as well.

[Guest txaggie_99]

Good point HeloDude. It's all a big numbers game. Someone just needs to put logic behind it before they start jumping the gun based on punched numbers by some a-hole.

[Guest Hoser]

Originally posted by HeloDude:

I love this logic. So what do the bean counters consider 'necessary sorties'? I technically see that as actual missions (other than training) as well as the minimum amount of training sorties needed to maintain currency. I guess we don't need to be proficient anymore...current will do. As the flight hours as well as manpower are cut throughout the Air Force in the near future, it will be interesting to see if there will be an increase in aircraft mishaps as well.

[Techsan]

I saved 300 lbs today by flying long-range cruise. Doing my part 1 pound of fuel at a time. However, I did fly with the spoilers out the other day so that I didn't have to circle heavy-weight, which is 15,000 lbs for the C-21.

[C17Driver]

An FCIF just came out from AMC/TACC (couple weeks ago now) that talked about fuel conservation. Now, when leaving from some locations, if the Aircraft Commander decides more than 10,000 lbs of additional fuel is required (above what's been calculated + some other additions), than we have to get AMC A3 waiver! Talk about micro-managing the mission.

[Guest AirGuardian]

C17Driver on the money -micro, micro, micro,

Talk about I don't have the number to the AMC A3...hmmmm - nor do I care as long as I'm not drastically burning fuel to carry it after further calc... Mwa still to blame since I Mickey Moused the FCIF.

Always add the 10,000 and not a drop more or plus up as we feel. When called out on it: Doing the AE run with criticals on board I'd rather shoot a few approaches and get lucky with a low ceiling than just head to Moldihall... Rather lucky than good I say so we've been that so far... Maybe not book right, but common sense helps us sneak in from time to time in Germany...

I'm actually surprised they added the ice burn off (as min as it is), just like the 141s I used the blu book for back in the day. Every bit helps!

[ 28. March 2006, 12:07: Message edited by: AirGuardian ]

[busdriver]

Helodude, this fuel conservation nonsense doesn't really apply to us as 60 drivers. Fours hours training for just over 4k of gas is probably the cheapist operational aircraft in the inventory.