fuel conservation


New Member
The Pentagon continues to ignore fuel conservation except when public rhetoric is needed. Several recent public presentations by Lt. Gen Robert P. Lennox on priorities have not included conservation. OK, it is not their top mission. But it has been bounced around a bit and acknowledged that it is important. The annual fuel budget is multi billions and battlefield leaders have years ago asked to be relieved of the fuel supply/convoy issues. And, it was important enough that the Pentagon has authorized the Defense Science Board to do several studies on the subject. Conservation is important but the casualties on fuel convoys is not a nice picture! Being an old Army guy and a little familiar with tanks I am a aware that the Army has been planning, studying, proposing, researching and more for over twenty years to reduce the maintenance costs for the Abrams tank. The main engines of course is the focus point but frequently over looked is the need for an auxiliary power unit, which has not been overlooked by the DSB. Nor is it over looked by the poor guys that operate the tanks who have been coping with batteries and poorly designed small engines. BUT, Army's TARDEC has posted information that appears capable of solving the reason that the tank is on conditional release lacking an APU. The information would cause me to believe that billions can be saved on fuel cost alone while requiring a lot less to install the generator that TARDEC has developed.