Our ability to pay for and use large amounts of fossil fuel in the future will be strategically limiting.
This is already showing now. For instance, a few years ago during a price spike in oil, we had some U.S. Navy ships go dead in the water for parts of the day to save fuel.
Because of its industry, China consumes much more fossil fuel as a portion of the world supply.
For any U.S. deterrent effort to work, we need platforms that address this problem. This means we need to develop a nuclear powered destroyer for the main purpose of escorting our aircraft carriers. This way a carrier strike group (carrier,surface escort and subs) is all nuclear powered.
We need a frigate class ship that is energy efficient (more details on this later on the topic of force structure). Woe be it to us that we have wasted money on two energy inefficient and strategically worthless ships; the DDX and LCS.
Burning up fuel on sort-range fighter aircraft (and the associated air-to-air refueling resources) also has little strategic worth in the Pacific. The United States Air Force is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the DOD. We need to employ these resources sparingly and only where they contribute to deterrence.
Driving expensive amphibious groups around the Pacific (or elsewhere) eats up a tremendous amount of fossil fuel. The days of Tarawa and Iwo Jima are over. How we show the flag and respond with ground forces will have to change.
One of the prime considerations of our basing in the Pacific has to be how much fossil fuel they consume vs. their strategic value. Host nations pay for some of this, but, in the bigger picture, not all of it.
If we do not realign our force structure as it pertains to fossil fuel consumption, our deterrent ability in the Pacific Rim will be limited. This increases the possibility of war.
Ideas for U.S. strategic control of the Pacific Rim-
Part 1, Strategic Strike for Anti-Access Threats
Part 2, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
3 comments:
Good reason for Australia to look to encourage coal to oil and gas to oil projects instead of flogging it off for next to nothing.
Martin Ferguson espouses the virtues of the technology but does nothing to encourage it
Wouldn't worry about that aspect too much. DoD coal fields and DoD hydragenation plants. Price would be high but stable, and there is enough coal around.
The Navy certainly needs more fast fleet tanker (and light escorts for them). Or maybe large nuclear powered tanker subs.
Carriers, escorts, and replenishers should all be nuclear powered. Wouldn't do it for anything that goes into shallow water though, like amphibs.
You cannot put in place overnight
Post a Comment