Military's fuel costs spur look at gas-guzzlers

[deadparrot]

The Pentagon hasn't emphasized fuel efficiency for its aircraft, ships and vehicles, despite shortages that slowed U.S. troops in the two Iraq wars and warnings from its own experts.

"Although significant warfighting, logistics and cost benefits occur when weapons systems are made more fuel-efficient, these benefits are not valued or emphasized" in any of the services, the Defense Science Board, the Pentagon's most prestigious technical advisory panel, concluded in 2001.

That's still true, said Jacques Gansler, the undersecretary of Defense who sponsored the study.

Since the end of the Cold War, the military's mission has changed. Instead of M1 Abrams tanks racing forward from well-supplied bases to stop a Soviet attack in Europe, the military now fights far from supply depots. Often, troops and equipment have to travel on short notice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/militarysfuelcostsspurlookatgasguzzlers

[Benhurst]

1. Not to worry. The American people will allow Congress to

throw more money at them than they could ever use.

As Iraq will probably prove, we may not be a super POWER; but when it comes to throwing money at the military/industrial complex, we are defintely number one.

[FloridaPat]

2. Maybe if Halliburton wasn't supplying gas supplies and if the

military provided their own gas, the problem would be non-existant or at least not as bad.

[wordpix2]

3. $6 Billion/wk on Iraq & they're just now looking at fuel efficiency, barf

[krkaufman]

4. Ironic... I was watching the Frontline 'Private Warriors' program....

... just last night, and was cringing at the sound of the massive engines in the SUVs they were driving, no doubt super-powered and even less fuel-efficient.