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

[[R_H]]

The Hill

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.

Incredible. Would building a pipeline be a plausible solution? What about shipping the fuel in from another 'stan?

[MKSheppard]

Now, see; this is what the Nuclear Powered Fuel Depot would have been nice for.

You place a portable nuclear power plant down, and with some cheap transportable in precursor chemicals, produce ammonia from easily obtainable materials like the air. The only drawback is you have to modify combustion engines to burn it, and the exhaust smells like shit; but those problems can be fixed.

[Sea Skimmer]

A pipeline would last ten minutes before the Taliban blew it up and eighty seven different points. It would also be incredible expensive to build and not by able to handle other types of material. Supplies already do flow in from the Stans but this is more an aid to NATO forces then the US as most US forces are in the south of the country and as far as 375 miles (straight line too, much longer on the actual roads) away from it, a very long haul for trucks.

The only real solution is to extend the Soviet built military railroad which currently runs only about a kilometer in Afghanistan at Hairatan all the way to Kabul. This was proposed back in 2004, but final design work only now is work on the first 40 mile section to Marzar-e Sharif. Tracklaying is supposed to start early 2010.

You can see its envoirmental impact report here, which gives the alignment of track
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Environmen ... FG-IEE.pdf

While the Taliban can certainly damage a railroad track as well as they can a pipeline, trains have the advantage that the track can be kept repaired for a short period, and then several trains quickly run over it under escort, before ceding control of difficult to defend stretches back to the wildness of the country.

Afghanistan has long had a need for railroads, but none (except one short and short lived track at Kabul) were ever built before the Soviet invasion because the rulers of Afghanistan feared that building railroad would only allow for foreign invasions………

Lines could be extended in from Pakistan at several points as well, particularly near Kandahar (the British kept material stockpiled to do this before WW1, feared Imperial Russia) but the Taliban is too active in those regions for construction to be realistic now.

[[R_H]]

While the Taliban can certainly damage a railroad track as well as they can a pipeline, trains have the advantage that the track can be kept repaired for a short period, and then several trains quickly run over it under escort, before ceding control of difficult to defend stretches back to the wildness of the country.

Afghanistan has long had a need for railroads, but none (except one short and short lived track at Kabul) were ever built before the Soviet invasion because the rulers of Afghanistan feared that building railroad would only allow for foreign invasions………

Lines could be extended in from Pakistan at several points as well, particularly near Kandahar (the British kept material stockpiled to do this before WW1, feared Imperial Russia) but the Taliban is too active in those regions for construction to be realistic now.

What about the trains themselves, especially with IEDs and RPGs being a dime a dozen?

[Sea Skimmer]

Well if you read the parts of my post that you didn’t quote, I already pointed out that you can secure a railroad track for a short period, run a couple trains over the tracks end to end, and then ignore it until the next trains need to pass. This is what the Germans did to keep the raillines functioning in Russia in WW2, and they faced a far greater insurgent threat then anything the Taliban can muster in northern Afghanistan.

Only the bridges, tunnels if any and large cuttings would need constant guarding, which would be ideal job to hire local militia for, and bridges can be minimized by using embankments pierced by many small culverts whenever possible. Locomotives can be easily armored, and since unlike a truck convoy every single railcar is not manned the rest of the train is basically expendable.

All and all it’s really not any worse a security job then defending the roads. Afghanistan has so few decent roads and so many constricted mountain passes that we can’t gain much of an advantage from having an unpredictable route by using them. This being the only real downside to railroad track.

[Shroom Man 777]

Perhaps with the sheer predictability of the railway and its 'vulnerability', American and Coalition forces can actually anticipate and rely on the Taliban ambushing incoming trains and prepare in advance counter-attacks and counter-ambushes to spring on the Taliban forces? Get some airborne/heliborne troops ready, or even just some fighters, while having UAVs cover the railway and upon detection of an incoming Taliban attack, deploy those rapid troops or planes to ruin the shit out of the Talibanis? It would be using the trains as bait, basically.

[open_sketchbook]

This may be a little off-topic, but do automated trains exist? I have a feeling a civilian engineer might not be too happy being 'bait' for Taliban attack.

[Serafina]

This may be a little off-topic, but do automated trains exist? I have a feeling a civilian engineer might not be too happy being 'bait' for Taliban attack.

Why would you want to automate it?
You need to guard it anyway - and driving a railroad is not all that complicated, so you can propably teach it to some soldiers while you are building the railroad.

[open_sketchbook]

I was under the impression that driving a locomotive is quite complicated for some reason.

[folti78]

I was under the impression that driving a locomotive is quite complicated for some reason.

As far as my experience with train engines and drivers go*, it's more on the boring side after you got used to the fact that you are controlling a multi-tens/hundreds/thousands of tons fixed track vehicle which only could accelerate or decelerate**, it's "only" keeping an eye on the track (and the signals other safety systems along the track if they are exists) and follow the posted signs, operating the dead man's switch and keeping eye on the engine. If the last is more labourous (depending on engine type/age) usually there will be another engineer/mechanic for that. Oh and you can use some train sims to get some very basic handling training on the cheap.

* only once, back in 2001 when the only option to get to home was to sit in the engine of a freight train because the Rail higher ups decided that that day the last connection won't run due to switching to holiday schedule. At about 21:00, 5 minutes before the said train departed. MÁV.

** you watch the track for obstacles, pull the brake if you see something and wait for the crash, if it's something big, try to run behind the heavier parts of the engine before impact.

[Sea Skimmer]

Perhaps with the sheer predictability of the railway and its 'vulnerability', American and Coalition forces can actually anticipate and rely on the Taliban ambushing incoming trains and prepare in advance counter-attacks and counter-ambushes to spring on the Taliban forces?

That they could. Right now our supply trucks driving through Pakistan cannot enjoy US armed escort for about 75% of the trip through hostile territory. The rest is in Pakistan. While traveling in Pakistan the trucks are not guarded by the Pakistani army either, they are guarded by thousands of local militia driving technicals hired indirectly by contractors.

With a rail line from the north and improved highways to go alongside it we get to escort 100% of the journey through hostile territory. This would soak up some manpower, but a large amount of manpower guards supply lines already. Extending the line all the way to Kabul is unrealistic right now, but every mile of truck convoying that can be removed is a bonus. Railroad work and commerce would also just be a huge economic boost to anyone close to the tracks.

This may be a little off-topic, but do automated trains exist? I have a feeling a civilian engineer might not be too happy being 'bait' for Taliban attack.

Its not that hard to find people willing to do jobs like that, the US already has thousands of civilian contractors driving trucks with minimal or no armor around. The US Army also does still have one railroad operating battalion around, though it isn’t at full strength. I forget if its Army Reserve or National Guard.

The matter of physical protection was covered by the South Africans 20 years ago by building several of these armored railcars with blast deflecting hulls.


With the weights of locomotives to work with providing protection for a driver isn’t going to be hard at all ,and we can attach a couple armored railcars with machine guns and grenade launchers for close in defense. Train speeds would be kept low to avoid really bad derailments. But basically each train can move as much as several hundred large trucks, and while burning far less fuel in its own right so some losses are fine. It is a war.

[TheLostVikings]

The matter of physical protection was covered by the South Africans 20 years ago by building several of these armored railcars with blast deflecting hulls.


With the weights of locomotives to work with providing protection for a driver isn’t going to be hard at all ,and we can attach a couple armored railcars with machine guns and grenade launchers for close in defense. Train speeds would be kept low to avoid really bad derailments. But basically each train can move as much as several hundred large trucks, and while burning far less fuel in its own right so some losses are fine. It is a war.

It's interesting to see how closely those trains match the design of the MRAPs, etc, in use in Iraq right now.

[Shroom Man 777]

Also, if the rails would lure more insurgents and Talibanis because of the irresistable targets, and if the US has to post more troops to man the supply lines in order to engage these ambushing insurgents, would it not be a good thing that now the insurgents are attacking more predictably and that they would be more easily killed by US forces who simply have to lie and wait for the inevitable insurgent attack on an incoming shipment (which would undoubtedly be covered by a shitload of UAVs to detect any whiff insurgent activity from up high)? More insurgents killed is good, rite?

To attack the trains, the insurgents would have to attack on the US' terms.

But then again, if the Talibanis and insurgents just attack random patches of railroad and then ambush the incoming repair teams and stuff...

Maybe using those heavy-lifting cargo zeppelins would be a better solution?

[Winston Blake]

Now, see; this is what the Nuclear Powered Fuel Depot would have been nice for.

That was my first impression too. But really, this is a 'last mile' problem. If you still need to fly your fuel around by helicopters, you may gain very little. Not to mention the very low energy density by volume of ammonia or hydrogen.

With a rail line from the north and improved highways to go alongside it we get to escort 100% of the journey through hostile territory.

Are highways really necessary? I recall photos of Eastern bloc trains with T-72s or similar sitting on freight cars. Also I think they put AA guns on those trains too - a very Soviet solution to arming trains - just park a bunch of AFVs on it.

Canister shot and Vulcan cannons would surely ruin the day of any Taliban assault team. I can't think of any suitable American vehicles though. The Abrams is expensive, and I don't know if the U.S. uses gatling guns on AFVs any more...

It's interesting to see how closely those trains match the design of the MRAPs, etc, in use in Iraq right now.

IIRC the South Africans invented the modern V-hull - current mine-resistant vehicles are more-or-less descended from South African designs.

[Sea Skimmer]

Are highways really necessary?

By highways I mean good all weather roads, not western style limited access divided freeways just to be clear, and yeah they are necessary. They’ll be required to support construction of the rail lines, to support escorts who need to search more then just the track bed, and to provide an auxiliary supply route from the north in the event the rail line is blocked for a protracted period. Since Afghanistan already does have roads along the main routes we’d want to use the highway requirement can probably be met by paving and improving existing ones, with a minimal of all new construction required. Some work to this end has already been done, but since its so expensive to haul in materials like asphalt (boy would a train help with that) it hasn’t gone far.

Paved roads are much harder to mine too.

I recall photos of Eastern bloc trains with T-72s or similar sitting on freight cars. Also I think they put AA guns on those trains too - a very Soviet solution to arming trains - just park a bunch of AFVs on it

The Germans invented that idea; German armored trains in WW2 normally had two flatcars with ramps, each of which held a light tank so they could deploy a force to maneuver against ambushers and patrol away from the tracks. Since the US Army is 100% mechanized already (very unlike the Nazi hoards or even the Soviet Army before the 1960s) it doesn’t really make sense to tie a heavy escort force to the trains movements like that anymore.

Canister shot and Vulcan cannons would surely ruin the day of any Taliban assault team. I can't think of any suitable American vehicles though. The Abrams is expensive, and I don't know if the U.S. uses gatling guns on AFVs any more...

They would, but if on the other hand the Taliban stand on the reverse slope of a hill and bombard the train with mortar fire then a couple tanks parked on flatcars can’t do jack crap against them. You could add mortar or howitzer wagons… but this gets pointless quick compared to having road and helicopter mobile response forces.

IIRC the South Africans invented the modern V-hull - current mine-resistant vehicles are more-or-less descended from South African designs.

That they did, in the late 1970s in response to heavy losses from normal landmines in Angola. The US Army and Marines began buying these kind of vehicles direct from South Africa around 2002 (but only for special engineer units), and we then had US manufactures clone the protective features from 2005 on into US built chassis to make the MRAPs for use enmass by the poor bloody infantry.

This rail car itself was built in the 1980s and is one of two produced for the South African Railway Police to guard a major station in IIRC Johannesburg.