One of the ‘givens’ that I assumed about any China war was
that the US would be hard-pressed to supply enough fuel (or any other materiel,
for that matter!) for sustained combat operations. In other words, I assumed that the US would
face extremely problematic logistics. However,
reader ‘Austin Vernon’ has written an article on his website that suggests that
fuel logistics are not only possible but actually not very problematic. Do I need to re-think my assumption? I urge you to follow the link (see, “Fuel Logistics for a Pacific War”) and read the
article. Here’s a few quotes from the article to whet
your appetite:
The author discusses US military fuel usage rates and
presents tables itemizing the consumption according to branch/type. In addition, he addresses capacity and
delivery methods. Not to be
one-dimensional, he also discusses China’s needs and capacity.
All of this is accomplished in a relatively short, very easy
to read, well written piece. If amateurs
discuss tactics and professionals discuss logistics, this is your chance to
enhance your professionalism. Read the
piece and come back here to discuss it!
Here’s a few of my own questions/thoughts for potential
discussion:
Desert Storm demonstrated that bulk delivery of supplies to
a theater is only part of the issue. The
other part is distribution to the individual units. In other words, we saw that individual units
had to stop due to lack of fuel even though bulk fuel at ‘depots’ was readily
available. Do we have the unit level
distribution capability to support sustained operations?
What happens to our capacities if a reasonable amount of
combat losses (destroyed fuel farms, sunk tankers, etc.) occurs?
Can China significantly interdict our fuel
shipments/convoys?
While there may be many tankers in the world, how many can
the US actually obtain given that few are US flagged (according to my
understanding)?
_______________________________
By the way, if any of you have a topic you’re knowledgeable
on and passionate about to the point of writing about it, let me know. I’m quite open to hosting/referencing reader writings.
_______________________________
The vast majority of fuel usage is for aviation. The Air Force requires nearly 750,000 barrels per day, and Naval Aviation another 100,000 barrels per day. Warships and amphibious units only use ~160,000 barrels per day at full steam. I'm not including Army figures, but ten armored divisions would use about the same as the Navy's ships.[1]
Not only are China's ~9 million barrels per day of seaborne imports vulnerable, but ~30% of China's four million barrels per day of crude oil production comes from offshore platforms. Those facilities should be easy targets that are difficult to repair. The country will suffer a 75% reduction in oil supply, leaving onshore production and Russian pipeline imports.[1]
There are 800+ Very Large Crude Carriers that hold 2 million barrels, 570+ Suezmax tankers that hold 1 million barrels, 650+ Aframax tankers, and ~1000 misfits that hold a few hundred thousand barrels.[1]
There are ~650 tankers worldwide in just the Aframax classification, and ~10 could keep the Navy supplied from the US West Coast since each ship holds 500,000+ barrels.[1]
https://austinvernon.site/blog/fuellogistics.html
If we build our own its real expensive vs plucking from the used market. We also have little capacity in that size available. I'd suggest when the ESBs currently purchased finish building, just have NSCCO switch back to building Alaska class tankers. Those can now transit the Panama canal, share propulsion and systems with ESBs. It wouldn't be the worst thing. As for distribution, another great use for our laid up offshore supply vessels. Jones Act compliant and cheap on the used market.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting wrinkle is that 80% of ships involved in maritime trade fly a flag of convenience instead of the flag of their owners. So Americans own ~10x the ships that are flagged US. And the number of ships flagged is dynamic. If government cargo demand goes up for something like wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then ship owners will reflag their vessels as American to win those juicy contracts then go back to flags of convenience after the war is over.
ReplyDeleteThis report details this and other barriers to US flagged ships:
https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/docs/resources/3651/comparisonofusandforeignflagoperatingcosts.pdf
I think there is plenty of tanker fodder for a war of our current size military. And google says 200 liberty ships were sunk in WWII. There are something like 50-100 new tankers produced each year. But Japan, China, and South Korea account for most of that production and all of their shipyards could be under fire. My assumption would be that we would start production of a small, short range tanker absolutely stripped of everything just to get fuel from bigger ships way out in the ocean to forward bases.
" If government cargo demand goes up for something like wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then ship owners will reflag their vessels as American"
DeleteSuppose they don't due to, say, fear of loss. Where/how does the US obtain vessels?
I don't see much of a reason for ship owners to fear loss, because of the relatively low value of the ships themselves. Especially when the regular commercial market would likely be very suppressed by a conflict with the PRC, which would likely lead to their being a lot of excess capacity, and if that loss remained a concern for ship owners the federal government could simply pay well above market price and offer compensation for any lost shipping.
Delete"lead to their being a lot of excess capacity"
DeleteWas there a lot of excess capacity in WWII? In not, why not? It seemed like we couldn't make cargo/oiler ships fast enough! What would be different today to lead you to suspect excess capacity in a war?
To me the options are 1. Offer compensation for loss. 2. Nationalize ships owned by US companies. 3. Have sealift command buy cheap used tankers. They are like cars or combines in that companies only keep them for 10-20 years.
DeleteMy intuition would be that there would be massive excess capacity in all cargo markets. The difference between 2023 and 1940 is that trade as a share of global GDP has doubled since 1970 and global GDP is nearly 15x larger than in 1940. Maintaining a few million men army across an ocean was a large share of global shipping capacity, but moving the same share today would be ~1/30th the share. Changes in trade patterns are going to swamp military demand and if you spend 40% of GDP on the military then that less TVs etc. getting moved.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-two-millennia?time=1870..2015
Maybe I'll do one on container and RoRo capacity, too. I suspect it will be the same where there is all the bulk capacity in the world but distribution will harder. Fuel is only 1-2 SKUs where other goods could be thousands or hundreds of thousands so its like managing a Wal-Mart distribution center or Amazon warehouse.
Ship size the liberty ship was built in huge numbers 2700 of them. There are single classes of bulk carriers of which a 120 of them could carry more than all the 2700 liberty ships combined and we build in peace time 15 of them a year and newer ships are bigger as are most container ships.
DeleteIts the case of Operation Pedestal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pedestal#Aftermath) just a couple of merchant ships and a fleet oiler getting to Malta gave the island enough to survive for several months.
Modern container and cargo ships are so huge that just one getting through is a massive help especially in a war were you would assume all cargo becomes vital equipment and not cheap cloths, gadgets and plastic crap which is what most cargo today is at least to advanced economies.
The idea of conducting guerre de course against oil tankers bound for China well outside of their A2/AD 'bubbles' (and in more favorable territory for subs), rather than trying to penetrate those 'bubbles' with carrier strike groups and Tomahawk shooters to the point that we can achieve a usable effect on target with acceptable losses, certainly is attractive. I look forward to reading the full article when I get the chance.
ReplyDelete"against oil tankers bound for China"
DeleteOf course, by far the most effective interdiction of shipped oil to China would be to prevent the loading and sailing of tankers at the port/point of origin.
1. Desert Storm was little more than a large live-fire exercise, words away from a peer war.
ReplyDeleteActual fuel consumption will be staggering, assuming the USA manages to assemble enough forces after the "first strike" to actually fight.
2. I assume the Chinese studied history and the JAP mistakes when striking USA at Pearl.
Unless they are retarded, Guam at least should be left with very little fuel and processing capacity.
3. Without Russian oil/gas, China is screwed.
Now if only America wasn't busy doing anything she can to make Russians hate her...
‘Now if only America wasn’t busy doing anything she could to make Russia hate her…’
DeleteExactly - Russia - world’s largest oil producer could have been an U.S. ally. Instead Russia is now China’s ally. Serious self harm being done here.
"Exactly - Russia - world’s largest oil producer could have been an U.S. ally. Instead Russia is now China’s ally."
DeleteThe same can be said of China.
"Serious self harm being done here."
Sad, but true. Too few US government leaders are think logically, instead of emotionally.
While halting seaborne oil to China is worth doing, massive reserves and land pipelines ensure that China and specifically any war effort wont be crippled by doing so. There was an analysis I believe I linked in a previous post that alluded to potentially YEARS of China being unhampered by a successful blockade of seaborne oil... (Ill try and dig it up)
DeleteWhat about the "last mile"? Not really too worried about the big transport and shipping fuel and cargo, its that "last mile" of getting it to where u need it thats more worrisome. You can have 10 tankers waiting off shore but if your only pier or pipeline to offload is burning or under rubble, doesn't do you any good. No different really for air cargo, you can have C5s or C17s lined up to land but if no runway, taxiway or no specialized gear to unload some of these items, even just simple forklift not around, you ain't delivering much or it takes lots more time.
ReplyDeleteI think that's where DoD is way behind the power curve on some of this
" simple" connectors because its not the fancy stuff big guys like LMT OR RTN sell or interested in selling but once the sh#t hits the fan, it always goes back to the simple stuff in war. Case in point Ukraine, headlines are F16s and big tanks but the guys on the ground are asking for ammo, artillery shells, helmets etc....the "simple" stuff.
There are two USNS Offshore Petroleum Distribution ships available. See: https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/Ships/Ship-Inventory/Offshore-Petroleum-Distribution-System/
DeleteThough I would imagine more than two would be needed. I don't know if there are civilian counterparts to be requisitioned, but I imagine there are.
There is also the title 10 coordination between the Navy in getting fuel to the high water mark... and the Army distributing it wherever else needed ashore. That distribution happening thru pipelines or CULT (Common User Land Transport) tanker truck movement.
DeleteThat last mile. It is always the weak spot in most transportation systems. You can catch a bus from down to a bus stop several blocks away. But rarely in front of your destination.
I have a hunch, we are very poor in preparation for a peer to peer war. I don't know all the details about how China would make our lives hell, with no supplies getting through. I can imagine they would put up some sort of picket line with their SSK subs. Not only would we have to fight the Chinese, but also defend shipping lanes.
With the US being enthralled with the latest and greatest, ship, sub, plane. Are we bulking up our supply chain ? Would we be able to fight a lengthy war and win ?
Do we have the unit level distribution capability to support sustained operations?
ReplyDeleteAns: For Land/Remote Islands,
For Land vehicles
we will use Jerry Cans as our unit level fuel distribution containers
reason: design and versatility
1) Easy to mass produce commercially
2) Easy to move around, by hand, animals, (horse/mule, etc.), by motorcycles, trucks, convoy vehicles, etc.
for refueling of Land based aircrafts, small fuel trucks, underground fuel storage
for open Sea ->, on the way fuel replenishment is one of viable option given the amount of Fuel to be transfer for each ship
replenishment of other things is trick, usually I assume the ship would replenish its supplies at its nears port after it completes its mission, here repairs, crew rotations and replenishment can be done simultaneously.
Can China significantly interdict our fuel shipments/convoys ?
Ans, Yes, Naval mines is a great option, US doesn't have a robust CMW fleet, rerouting of supply convoy is one of the ways to make our lives difficult.
another option is attack submarines as US doesn't have enough ships for convoy protection.
each submarine will have its own designated area, in which no other naval vessel will enter
every other naval vessel detected in this area is an Enemy ship, at least it makes IFF part much easier and in turn helps in much faster decision making process.
Fuel is just one essential item of many (ammunitions, etc.) in a large scale war.
ReplyDeletePractically, it is very unlikely that US and China will enter a large scale war, thanks to NUKE. Nevertheless, some conflicts could happen.
In these conflicts, drones and UUV are likely used. One example is a large unmanned submarine displayed for sale last week in a UAE's weapon show
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/navdex-2023/2023/02/china-reveals-new-heavily-armed-extra-large-uncrewed-submarine/
How about making our own fuel on our nuclear aircraft carriers? Might be a good use for the Ford-class carriers even if they do not launch and recover aircraft as often as they should (perhaps have the few F-35C they can launch be used for self-escorting), they could be used as mobile fuel, as the latest buzzwords goes: "force-multipliers" as in link below:
ReplyDelete"The concept is not a new one and scientists have been working on improving this technology for several years. The idea behind it is that ships could be able to convert seawater into fuel. More precisely, carbon dioxide and hydrogen could be extracted from water, by using a nuclear reactor on board, and then transformed into liquid fuel."
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers-could-soon-use-innovative-fuel-made-from-seawater-161519.html
Now, for when the catapults are not working, tilt-rotors, like V-22 Ospreys with their vertical take-off capabilities could be used to transport the fuel from the Ford-class nuclear aircraft carriers to where they are needed.
Our aircraft carriers can make fuel (a repost so delete this comment if you are holding on to my first somewhere)
ReplyDeleteA good use for the Ford-class carrier.
https://patentyogi.com/aircraft/us-navy-plans-produce-jet-fuel-seawater-board-aircraft-carriers/
By the way are you deleting my comments or is there something else going on?
My sincere apologies, on comments: it is probably something going at my end or website or internet connect or whatever as the last comments showed up.
DeleteAnyway, I was thinking of using the Ford-class as an on-site fuel producing unit using the nuclear reactor and also using US-2 the seaplane from Japan linked to below to haul the fuel for "the last mile" for when the Ford-class aircraft launching catapults are not working.
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/a-japanese-seaplane-could-be-the-difference-maker-for-the-u-s-military/
And the other carriers where the catapults do work for real "carrier work" while the Ford-class can be a mobile fuel producing "Force-multiplier."
Also, the navy, in addition to modifying the Ford-class for fuel production, maybe should try to have purpose-build nuclear fuel-producers based on below:
Delete"The concept is not a new one and scientists have been working on improving this technology for several years. The idea behind it is that ships could be able to convert seawater into fuel. More precisely, carbon dioxide and hydrogen could be extracted from water, by using a nuclear reactor on board, and then transformed into liquid fuel."
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers-could-soon-use-innovative-fuel-made-from-seawater-161519.html
Wonder, if we have any decommissioned nuclear ships up for modification into on-site fuel producing units, maybe some nuclear submarines as well for modification into milk cows like below but really producing their own "milk" or fuel as this case may be.
https://www.uboat.net/types/milkcows.htm
"By the way are you deleting my comments or is there something else going on?"
DeleteThere is a known, on-going issue with random comments being routed to the spam folder so they don't immediately appear. I check the folder several times a day and tag the legitimate comments for publishing but that means a delay of up to a few hours. If a comment doesn't immediately appear, be patient; it will show up after my next spam check.
Ok, and thank you I see my original comment has re-appeared, yeah! Oh! A thousand thanks and blessing upon you O kind and gentle ComNavOps!!!
DeleteOk back to the topic at hand: learning from Japan in World War II maybe we can use an even more efficient modern version of the Ki-105 Ohtori, initially, it received the designation Ku-7-II "Okhtori" (English Ohtori - phoenix), and later the vehicle acquired the army index Ki-105, as below:
"These aircraft were to be used as air tankers to deliver fuel from production sites still controlled by Japan. Moreover, most of the fuel (up to 80%) would be spent on the flight itself. But even this suited the Japanese leadership, since the fuel situation in Japan at the end of the war was simply disastrous. However, Japan did not have time to implement the plans before its surrender. The Kokusai Ki-105 "Ohtori" aircraft remained an experimental aircraft, only 9 aircraft were built in the series. "
https://airpages.ru/eng/jp/ki105.shtml
The newer jet engines are supposed to be more efficient than the World War 2 technology above so perhaps the United States can fly fuel over Chinese minefields in the Pacific Ocean thus bypassing submarines and naval mines.
Again, thank you CNO for recovering my previous comment;)
"aircraft carriers can make fuel"
DeleteThis is a pure fantasy concept whose only real purpose is to obtain grant funding for some researcher. A small lab unit on a carrier might produce a gallon a day. Ships and carriers use hundreds of thousands of gallons per day. For example, a single F-35 carries around 3000 gal of fuel. A Burke destroyer burns around 1000 gal PER HOUR (much more at speed). The entire carrier would have to be a giant chemical plant to have any hope of working and I doubt, even then, it could produce any worthwhile quantities.
There are also problems with the process as noted in a Smithsonian website article,
"carbon dioxide concentration in seawater is about 100 milligrams per liter. That’s 140 times greater than that of air, but still not very much in real terms. One report calculates that you’d have to process close to nine million cubic meters of water to make 100,000 gallons [ed. 378 cu.meters] of fuel, and that’s assuming 100 percent efficiency. Assume far less efficiency, and you have to assume much more water. And the more water you process, the more plankton and other little critters you remove from the food chain—with potentially catastrophic results for marine life.
Then, if 60 percent of the gas is converted, what happens to the other 40 percent, including the 25 percent that becomes environmentally unfriendly methane?"
Did you note that efficiency? Nine million cu.m. to make 378 cu.m. of fuel?
As far as delivering fuel via V-22, the aircraft would probably burn more fuel than it could deliver!
Leave this one in the laboratory realm!
CNO "Desert Storm demonstrated that bulk delivery of supplies to a theater is only part of the issue. The other part is distribution to the individual units. In other words, we saw that individual units had to stop due to lack of fuel even though bulk fuel at ‘depots’ was readily available. Do we have the unit level distribution capability to support sustained operations?
DeleteWhat happens to our capacities if a reasonable amount of combat losses (destroyed fuel farms, sunk tankers, etc.) occurs?"
You comments makes me think of the Burkes with its very limited operating range of approx only 3,000 nm due to its gas guzzling GT propulsion system ( surface fleet ships classified "in extremis" when down to one third fuel). The DDG(X) graphic claims 50% greater range and 120% greater time on station for DMO with 25% reduction in fuel usage, assuming the Navy base line for the comparison was the Burkes though they don't specifically say so.
Think correct in saying the Navy cancelled Burke HED program of 2009 in 2018 which had been designed to partially ameliorate the range problem, only one ship was converted the USS Truxtun (DDG 103), the GAO report was scathing on Navy rationale in cancelling the program.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-79r.pdf
Don't forget that most naval vessels use F76 fuel, which is a specialised diesel fuel with very tight specifications. Most gas turbines and diesel engines on naval vessels are optimized for this type of fuel, you could probably use other types of fuels, with a much reduced efficiency and probably even breakdowns after long use of other fuels.
ReplyDeleteWhile military jet fuel can be obtained by mixing additves to civilian jet fuel, it's not that easy with F76, as it's produced mostly for military and has no direct civilian alternative.
Fuel for naval vessels could become a problem if in case of conflict one or more larger storage areas would be destroyed, as there would be no real alternative available in the short term. Even if production could keep up with demand, there would still be a need to transport it and there would be a need for fueo storage areas to replace those lost to enemy action.
(i) Where do you picture blockading China's oil imports? Straits of Malacca and the Sunda Strait? Nearer China e.g. at the gaps in the first island chain? Both?
ReplyDelete(ii) Could China build Fischer-Tropsch plants to convert coal to transport fuels without the US knowing about it?
The logical and most effective place to 'blockade' China's imports is the port/point of origin. Seize/stop the ships from sailing and there's no need for a naval blockade. Most significant ports/points of origin are either friendly/neutral to us or could be easily controlled by us.
DeleteFor example, Saudi Arabia is China's biggest supplier of shipped oil and we ought to be able to halt that at the point of origin. The same holds true for various other Middle East countries. African or SAmerican origins can be diplomatically halted or militarily shut down.
Yes, and remember that most everything in the world in the way of commodities is still traded in US$.
DeleteOn Day 1 of any conflict with China we’d freeze all China’s dollar denominated assets, including hidden assets parked in countries like Belgium, and block US and overseas based banks from processing payments for Chinese imports and exports.
This would mean that if you exported anything to China you wouldn’t get paid, and if you imported anything from China the Chinese exporter wouldn’t get paid.
On every ocean and in every sky ships and aircraft would immediately turn around in mid course and head straight back home.
Yeah, in theory China could trade in Yuan or physical gold, but in reality and in practical terms Chinese trade would come to a full stop, and tens of millions of Chinese would find themselves unemployed overnight.
China relies on the middle East for the majority of crude oil and could not realistically protect tankers without going through a shooting gallery of various SE Asia opponent waters. The real X factor is India, would they realistically intercede? At this point they are taking advantage of the Ukraine situation and playing both sides to get the best pricing.
DeleteThere are tons of factors outside the physical trade that are more concerning. The inability to transfer payment electronically without Swift: gold?, barter? Plus shippers generally avoid any situation where they cannot secure insurance which ultimately is a showstopper even if you could figure out payment and a route that avoided belligerents.