NORFOLK
For Navy vessels, operating at sea has taken on a different feel.
Some nights, sailors cut the engines and the warship just floats.
“We did a lot of that on deployment,” said Cmdr. Michael Junge, skipper of the Whidbey Island.
The practice helped make Junge’s amphibious ship, which spent six months in the Persian Gulf region, one of the most fuel-efficient in the fleet, he said.
With fuel prices reaching record heights, the Navy has looked for creative ways to curb costs without compromising missions. Conservation efforts are expected to save the Navy about $325 million this year.
But in July, the military bumped up oil prices to $170 per barrel from $127 to reflect true costs. The increase will wipe out the Navy’s entire annual savings in just three months. Fuel costs are an issue for all the service branches.
The military is the country’s largest single consumer of energy. It spent $13.6 billion in 2006, almost double the amount since 2003, the start of the Iraq war. Every $10 increase for a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense $1.3 billion, according to military statistics.
The Air Force is the top consumer within the military, and the Navy is second.
The Navy expects to spend $3.8 billion to power its ships and aircraft this fiscal year, a 42 percent jump from last year.
For the fleet, cutting the engines during down periods is just one way to conserve.
The Whidbey Island is powered by four 16-cylinder diesel engines capable of steaming at more than 20 knots. Steaming on one engine or two whenever possible cuts costs, Junge said. Planning transit time, speed and destination also maximizes efforts.
When the engines are shut down , the crew takes precautions, such as posting additional watches, to maintain security.
The pressure to save fuel “hasn’t had an immediate impact on training,” said Capt. Arthur “Chip” Cotton, branch head for fleet training and readiness reporting at the Pentagon.
Leadership has looked for other ways to cut costs and still perform missions. Synthetic training – through computer simulations of ship, submarine and aircraft operations – can reduce, though not eliminate, the need for live time, Cotton said.
The Navy simulates training with its foreign partners in NATO, he said.
The French navy nixed plans to send the warship De Grasse for joint training exercises this summer along the East Coast because of the high cost of transit.
A task force planned by the chief of naval operations would seek to make the Navy consider fuel costs when acquiring new systems. Some in Congress are pressing the Navy to build more nuclear-powered vessels.
The task force also would establish conservation goals and investigate the use of alternative fuels, Cotton said.
It would work on securing the energy network afloat and ashore.
The Department of Defense has a similar task force.
About three quarters of the Navy’s costs go toward running the fleet and aircraft, with the rest spent on installations.
The Navy recently finished a year-long study of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet operations, looking to squeeze further efficiencies into operations , said Cmdr. Jim Nichols, an F/A-18 pilot and air wing readiness officer at the naval air force in Norfolk.
The issue has taken on more importance in the fighter jet community, he said.
“The word is out that it’s very important that naval aviation conserve its fuel resources.”
The study considered knotty, real-world problems that sound like standardized test questions. For example, is it more efficient to send two planes with five tanks of fuel or three planes with two tanks? Should a few planes fly long missions, or should several planes fly more frequent short missions?
The answers usually depend on the mission and safety factors, he said. Fighter jets must meet a weight limit to land on a carrier deck, and pilots sometimes dump fuel to lighten up.
The study’s results are expected to help squadrons make better decisions on planning and operations, Nichols said.
Louis Hansen, (757) 446-2322, louis.hansen@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Fair is fair . . .
Okay, then move the Navy jets under the Air Force. The families will rejoice, as there is a far less chance of being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan as a USAF person than as a Navy person right now!!! Cheers, MGM
I have an excellent way. .
Close Oceana, and move the jets to Langley!! Very smart move, as there are too many bases around here. We can beat BRAC to it.
Actually CS you're not too far off the mark...
Jimmy Carter did create the Windfall Profits tax so what did our oil companies do? They stopped even more drilling in the states and went elsewhere. So we got 99cent a gallon gas for years because the cheap price they were able to import it for and still pay the tax Mr. Carter levied on us. Prior to this we only imported 30 to 40% of our Oil and most of it from Canada.
After the tax we imported 60%+ still with Canada providing most of the imported oil.
It was only towards the end of the Reagan Administration did the Windfall profits tax get lifted. And we see a steady rise in the cost of Oil from around that point on because of the emerging Third World becoming more middle class.
How
Avoid jack rabbit starts. Keep the windows up as it is more aerodynamic. Use cruise control and maintain a constant reasonable speed. Make sure the engines are kept in tune. Don't leave the ship idling in the morning to warm up. Run lighter oil. Avoid running the ship into the wind (try to keep the wind at the back). Keep the props clean and straight. Keep the bottom cleaned of barnacles, etc. Don't "gun" the engine when waiting for a passing ship. Lighten the load, throw unnecessary items overboard or better yet, don't pack frivolous items in the first place. This should do it.
correction to last post
i ment gh bush not gw bush
getlaxguy
Please keep in mind that most of us were alive and able to read and process information during the years and events you reviewed. As a person who intends to vote for both parties in the upcoming election, I am bothered by your lazy linking of cause and effect. The letter is nonsensical and a child could poke holes in your timeline. It is letters like this and fervent "anti-anybody who doesn't agree w/ me on the military" views such as Carolyn that will cost republicans at the polls. It's not helping your cause anymore than some of the doozies the Obamaites post on these boards.
do some research people
Facts are facts!!
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.49 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations o'seas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST 2 YEARS:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION
DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another
Now it makes since.
Speaker Peolosi, Sen. Reid and the other Democrat Leadership don't want to drill for oil because it might help our military be more combat ready. They can't have that!
For the reasonable Democrats out there, can't you get someone other than Nancy Pelosi to lead your party? And also, when you Obama supporters go vote in November, make sure your tires are "inflated".
France lol
Gas is too high, so they do not trian with us. Good, Im sure they have no plans on fighting with us anyway.
That settles it
I am retiring and moving to my own little island in the South Pacific.
interservice rivalry
At the risk of stirring the pot... I'd love to see how much money the Air Force spends on fuel for the Raptor, which hasn't deployed to combat yet (airframe looking for an enemy).
Comments . . .
So many comments and only 5 of them are addressing the issue raised in the article (military use/conservation of fuel)? Interesting. Seems to me like the Pilot's articles are more and more becoming jumping off points for everyone's favorite rants, whether on topic or not.
My Air Force brother got cut off defending his service. Him I would like to hear more from, because my USAF compadres in my joint unit were used in 2003 in Iraq, but not since then. Cheers, MGM
Ira
I agree with you on this one. Was disappointed to see BO go that route. The gas tax holiday and calls to open the strategic reserves are pandering. Short of raising CAFE standards on new autos(which i believe the Rs fought for 20 years), anyone claiming they can reduce oil prices is a snake oil salesmen.
cs
What was the price of oil and gasoline during the Clinton administration? What is it now, and what was the price at the beginning of the Bush administration? Nice try, but you can't pin this one on Clinton. And jasona57192, the price of oil is not determined by "millions of buyers and sellers" -- the biggest player in determining the price of oil is a cartel - OPEC.
it's the peanut farmer's fault
I think I'll blame it on Jimmy Carter. After all, he was president during the last oil crisis.
Campaign Spending
How about the candidates stay home and campaign, instead of going overseas and meeting with world leaders before they rteally have something to say, and trying to shove this one world government crap down our throats...
"People of the World"...as quoted by Obama in Germany.
And now, MCain wasting fuel going to Sturgis to try to get support from veterans who know better.........
RE: CS
Please don't try to make something more out of my statement than there was. I am not saying that the Dems are completely innocent for they aren't. I am not saying that this hasn't been a long time in coming but if I recall correctly, the former President Bush didn't do much to help alleviate the problem either. There is blame on both sides of the aisle but one cannot blame one side without blaming the other.
Oh brother...here we go
I just love how this article has somehow turned into a political debate mixed in with a conspiracy therory or two; toss in claims, speculation, rumors, baseless claims, false rumors, links to websites that claim the "truth", etc. And then placing blame on one candidate or the other(past and present)...oh brother!
Confusing
Now Obama says that he wants to open our reserve to lower the cost of fuel. Doesn't that put him in line w/ others who have opted to use this "gimmick?" Every single Obama supporter on this site blasted Hillary and McCain for an attempt at temporary relief. If Obama draws down the reserve at a vulnerable time in our history; who will be re-filling it if we need it? Per the article we know who NEEDS it.
marym63204's comments on the USAF
I beg to differ on marym63204's assertions about the US Air Force. I fail to see what in the world absorbing the Air Force back into the Army would accomplish in cutting fuel, or what the recent firings of our leadership has to do with my Service's efforts to cut down on fuel costs and consumption. The mere fact that the US Air Force consumes more fuel annually than the other branches of service only means our core function, which is to provide the combatant commander air power requires more fuel to accomplish our mission. The Air Force is not just out "joy riding" around in multi-million dollar aircraft and burning up more than its fair share of fuel in the DoD. In case you were not aware, the USAF was leaning towards biodiesel and E85 fuel use years ago before it has become all the rage. Read up a little and you will also see the USAF has been testing coal based aviation fuel in its fleet to cut down on our
problem long time in the making
So, Amy, what did Clinton do when both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats? There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama will certainly not fix the problem - he is on record as being against all of the possible solutions, such as drilling, nuclear power or clean coal. People who believe the Anointed One is going to swoop in and make everything all better are delusional.
chris33
So contributions from oil companies means that a politician is bought and paid for? I'll assume that you're including Obama in that club.
Narrow-minded people who blindly follow an ideology and cast unsupported accusations only contribute to the politics that keep us from moving forward. If more people would think for themselves this country would be better off.
I commend the Navy and the rest of the military for any efforts to save our tax dollars.
jmo
Here's a small idea
My spouse is stationed at Little Creek. Because there is not an adequate range for what his unit does, they go down to Camp Lejeune several times a month in a large convoy, costing tens of thousands in fuel each time. Maybe the navy should consider moving these particular squadrons down to Camp LeJeune? Or would that make too much sense?
George Bush doesn't want us to conserve gas
When Bush was asked if he would recommend that Americans conserve gas, he couldn't even bring himself to say it. He was probably afraid that if we conserve gas, it would effect Cheney's Haliburton stock. The oil companies bought out all the independent refineries and shut them down, so they could control the flow. Then they bought up all the Republican politicians to make sure there was no interference from the government. When McCain came out in favor of offshore drilling, he immediately got a $1.1 million dollar campaign contribution from Big Oil. If you want to know why gas prices are so high, check out this link...http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
Quit blaming the Dems
The Dems are being reasonable when they expect oil companies to use the land they already have to drill on. Opening up other areas to drill when there will be NO relief felt for many months and years is irresponsible. It will not fix the problem any time in the very near future.
Furthermore, the Dems are trying to do the best they can with what little they have. They do not hold enough of a margin in congress to get anything meaningful passed while the President threatens to VETO nearly everything they send down. It is rather hard to work for the betterment of the country when you have lock-step republicans walking with the president who by all indications cares nothing about this country, but more about what he can do to line the pockets of his friends some of who happen to be BIG OIL.
Another lesson we didn't learn from the '74 oil embargo
Ships were constrained to 11 days per quarter of operation during the 1974 oil embargo. One would think that in 34 years the Navy and the other services had learned a lesson. Get a clue, our ships and planes need to keep operating to keep the troops trained. Wonder why we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve if they aren't going to use it...
Drill NOW Drill Here
Well if the Dems would stay in session and get a vote to drill. Instead of taking the liberal let’s wait and delay ideology. It would be that much quicker for prices to come down and help our economy and the fleet.
Fuel waste
No one waste more fuel then the President of the United Sates running around the world and the country promoting NOTHING!!!
A bad time for the Air Force to be so unpopular . . .
Your article said the Air Force consumes more fuel than the Navy--aren't you asking the wrong people the question about reducing consumption?
A humble suggestion: That the Army reabsorb the Air Force as the Army Air Corps, as it was in World War II. Since the recent series of USAF firings and gaffes, we have become more aware than ever that the Air Force is the service *least* likely to send its members to the Global War on Terror yet *most* likely to be in the headlines for things that go wrong elsewhere. And now that we know they are using more fuel than the other services to do all of that, why not let the Secretary of the Army take over responsibility for them?
Our Navy folks have been embedded with Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan for years--why can't the USAF do that on its own without pressure from the other services? Time for a change in their management, perhaps? Cheers, MGM
And for 3 years you've been wrong
Sorry, but the price of oil is determined by auction by millions of buyers and sellers. In fact it's been plunging lately because people think it's overpriced compared to supply and demand. Watch it yourself:
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutures.html