Military readiness

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

And all the fuel efficiency in the world won't stop soldiers from being blown all to chit in the name of fuel efficiency. Not that it matters to you all that much. When the first high up muckety muck officer goes public with favoring fuel efficiency over survivability of the dog faces they are putting into harms way please let me know.

Jesus, man, you just don't get it, do you?



Who the F was talking about sacrificing survivability for fuel efficiency? You're good at making stuff up.

Maybe you can talk to all the dead and injured kids who Bush and Rumsfeld send to Iraq without sufficient armor. Not that it matters to you all that much. Fitting for Republicans like you.

You also wouldn't care that our engines are a lot more efficient in all aspects than they were 40 years ago.

I'm not a Republican for the 1000th time ...DA..

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

Logistic should include more Jerry cans. Fuel efficiency problem solved...

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

And all the fuel efficiency in the world won't stop soldiers from being blown all to chit in the name of fuel efficiency. Not that it matters to you all that much. When the first high up muckety muck officer goes public with favoring fuel efficiency over survivability of the dog faces they are putting into harms way please let me know.

Jesus, man, you just don't get it, do you?



Who the F was talking about sacrificing survivability for fuel efficiency? You're good at making stuff up.

Maybe you can talk to all the dead and injured kids who Bush and Rumsfeld send to Iraq without sufficient armor. Not that it matters to you all that much. Fitting for Republicans like you.

You also wouldn't care that our engines are a lot more efficient in all aspects than they were 40 years ago.

What did those GIs do in Iraq when their HumVees were being blown to chit? They improvised and welded steel plates on vulnerable areas of the vehicle. Which therefore made the vehicle much heavier but made a modest increase in SURVIVABILITY. So what concerns you most? Survivability or MPG? I bet if you asked any dog face what they prefer you'll get the same answer. They all arrived there with all of their body parts intact and they would like to go home the same way.

[cradleandshoot]

Perhaps this article will influence some people's opinion regarding the importance of improved fuel use and efficiency in the military:

"The True Currency of Fuel in the Military Is Lives"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-is-lives

Burning through JP 4 when your using your afterburners isn't in the same category of keeping go juice in a deuce and a half.

[youthathletics]

I prefer the deuce and a quarter….bigger back seat.

[SCLaxAttack]

Perhaps this article will influence some people's opinion regarding the importance of improved fuel use and efficiency in the military:

"The True Currency of Fuel in the Military Is Lives"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-is-lives

Burning through JP 4 when your using your afterburners isn't in the same category of keeping go juice in a deuce and a half.

Jeesus H, cradle, don’t stop at the photo of the air tanker refueling the jet, read the frickin article.

You can’t be so thick that you can’t grasp that if you can carry a few hundred gallons less fuel on a vehicle (whether that’s in its gas tank or strapped on in Jerry cans) you can use that weight reduction for more warfighter protection or munitions, are you?

And that if you can move your army on X% fewer supply trucks because your vehicles are that X% more fuel efficient that you put fewer transport vehicles - and the soldiers that drive and protect those convoys - in harm’s way. Right?

Please tell me you grasp these concepts. Not that it matters. Fortunately our military planners do.

[cradleandshoot]

Perhaps this article will influence some people's opinion regarding the importance of improved fuel use and efficiency in the military:

"The True Currency of Fuel in the Military Is Lives"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-is-lives

Burning through JP 4 when your using your afterburners isn't in the same category of keeping go juice in a deuce and a half.

Jeesus H, cradle, don’t stop at the photo of the air tanker refueling the jet, read the frickin article.

You can’t be so thick that you can’t grasp that if you can carry a few hundred gallons less fuel on a vehicle (whether that’s in its gas tank or strapped on in Jerry cans) you can use that weight reduction for more warfighter protection or munitions, are you?

And that if you can move your army on X% fewer supply trucks because your vehicles are that X% more fuel efficient that you put fewer transport vehicles - and the soldiers that drive and protect those convoys - in harm’s way. Right?

Please tell me you grasp these concepts. Not that it matters. Fortunately our military planners do.

What I grasp is the top priority SHOULD be providing APCs that can provide protection for the dogfaces that ride them into combat. Your just as thick in your inability to grasp that concept. I don't give a f**k about fuel efficiency. I'm more concerned about flag drapped coffins arriving at Dover because some pin headed dumbasses are more concerned about fuel efficiency than saving the lives of the men and women this country puts into harms. As long as the military has a plentiful supply of Jerry cans and the ability to establish fuel depots fuel efficiency is a non sequitur. Do you think this new generation of APCs should concentrate on survivability or MPGs? Your never going to get both my friend. Saving lives is more important than MPG. I'm sure there are a lot of wonks in the US Army that are more concerned about MPGs than keeping infantry soldiers safe. I'll bet not a damn one of them has ever been the CO of an armored cavalry regiment. FTR my unit employed the most fuel efficient form of transportation in the US Army. We called em LPCs. A lot of my LPC rubber was left on Long Street Rd going from division to Normandy DZ and all over Ft Bragg for that matter.

[OCanada]

One valid complaint about the officer corps in Nam was the desire some officers had to advance their careers regardless of human cost to their outfits.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/milit ... 570c&ei=28

So this is now a court martial offense. This should do wonders for getting soldiers to re up. I never would have thought that political correctness could destroy our military. Most division commanders fight tooth and nail to keep their soldiers ready to fight. Now to potentially court marshall a soldier for some petty ass chit such as this. George Patton must be spinning in his grave.

[OCanada]

It won’t.

It is getting harder to reach recruitment. One reason, among others is tribalism

[OCanada]

It won’t.

It is getting harder to reach recruitment. One reason, among others is tribalism