A lot of gas

U.S.’s Afghan Headache: $400-a-Gallon Gasoline

By Nathan Hodge, December 6, 2011

OVER EASTERN AFGHANISTAN—Parachuting a barrel of fuel to a remote Afghan base takes sharp flying skills, steady nerves and flawless timing.

It also costs a lot of money—up to $400 a gallon, by military estimates.

But the Pentagon is stuck with the expense for the foreseeable future, especially given the recent deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations.

“We’re going to burn a lot of gas to drop a lot of gas,” said Capt. Zack Albaugh, a California Air National Guard pilot deployed with the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. He spoke just before a recent mission to supply a remote base near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, scene of cross-border rocket attacks that have heightened regional tensions this fall.

Such security issues were addressed Monday at an international meeting over Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany, where President Hamid Karzai appealed for continuing international funding well after most coalition forces withdraw in 2014.

But for now, nearly 100,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, often stationed in difficult-to-reach outposts that depend on pallets of food, water, ammunition and fuel that are dropped by parachute out of cargo planes.

Capt. Albaugh’s recent supply flight over the country’s Paktika province underscored a simple fact of the U.S. military presence: War is inherently costly, and that is keenly felt when the military’s budget is under growing strain and vital supply lines come under pressure.

That happened last month when Pakistan closed key border crossings to North Atlantic Treaty Organization supply convoys following a deadly coalition airstrike that claimed the lives of 24 Pakistani troops. The crossings remain closed.

Since 2005, the Air Force has increased by nearly 50 times the amount of supplies it air-drops to remote bases, partly as a way to avoid dangerous land-based fuel convoys.

The astronomical expense represents the “fully burdened” costs of fuel, including transportation and security.

The cost and difficulty of fuel deliveries in places like Afghanistan is one major reason the Pentagon is working to overhaul the way the armed forces use energy, from developing aircraft that can run on biofuels to powering remote bases with solar panels or wind turbines.

But those efforts are in the early stages, meaning troops still require expensive—and hair-raising—cargo flights to keep them flush with gas.

On Capt. Albaugh’s run, two C-130 cargo planes flew in close formation, hugging the Pakistani border as they circled toward their target. The drop zone—the general area where the troops will pick up their cargo—was about the length of three football fields. Within that zone, the crew of the C-130 aimed to hit a smaller target: 60-feet-by-150 feet.

As the planes approached, a voice crackled over the radio network warning everyone else to stand by: “Everyone stay off the net for the next 10 mikes [minutes] until the bird drops.”

The planes dipped over the landscape, laden with pallets of fuel. A small parachute deployed from each C-130’s cargo door, sending 34,000 pounds of fuel clattering across the loading ramp, like the Coney Island Cyclone.

In the sky, parachutes blossomed, and the crates floated to the ground below. Aircrews based in Afghanistan fly missions around the clock to keep troops on the ground supplied. “We’ve been pretty busy,” said Capt. Jose Ariza, Capt. Albaugh’s crewmate.

The sheer volume of air-dropped cargo is swiftly rising. In 2005, Air Force planes dropped around two million pounds of supplies to troops in Afghanistan. Last year, they delivered around 60 million pounds by airdrop. By the end of this year, officials say, they expect to drop around 90 million pounds of food, water, ammunition and fuel to bases in the country.

Air Force Gen. Raymond Johns, who heads the service’s Air Mobility Command, said the December 2009 surge in U.S. troops has made resupply more challenging, particularly because of the threat of roadside bombs.

“They [troops] are in places where getting them their supplies is very risky to go by land conveyance,” he said. “So they’ve become more and more dependent on our airdrop.”

This particular launch was successful: a total of 36 bundles reached the drop zone.

But two parachutes did not fully open, and pallets stacked with barrels of fuel slammed into the ground, lost or badly damaged—”burned in,” as crews say.

“That’s the cost of doing business,” said Lt. Col. Bill Willson, the squadron’s commander.

A single airdrop represents the tail end of a complex supply chain. The U.S. military has multiple routes to keep supplies delivered to landlocked Afghanistan, and had been working to reduce dependence on supply routes that go through Pakistan before last month border closing.

Besides air drops and Pakistani delivery routes, the U.S. military can transport cargo overland through a road and rail network called the Northern Distribution Network, which brings non-lethal supplies in through Central Asia.

But some supplies—certain kinds of weaponry or other sensitive cargo—must be moved by air.

And that means Air Force planes will keep burning more fuel, and their crews will keep flying long hours.

“If you want us to drop something on a postage stamp, by God we’ll do it,” said Maj. Richard Carter, a C-17 pilot, on a recent cargo flight to Afghanistan. “But there’s only so many crews.”

—Keith Johnson in Washington contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577080613427403928.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews or http://on.wsj.com/sQINBq

Photograph of C-17 dropping fuel over Afghanistan:  http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=60

Related Posts

Intimidate and paralyse, choke and divert False accusations of antisemitism desensitise us to the real thing By Rachel Shabi, Friday 17 February 2012 09.11 EST ... She hasn't yet filled...
Rebuilding the house of Isber Shadid Anthony Shadid yearned for home By Jefferson Morley, Friday, Feb 17, 2012 5:42 PM 12:45:46 CST ... Anthony’s Shadid’s now unbearably poignant...
Where the Litani River runs House of Stone By Anthony Shadid, published February 18, 2012 ... The America that drew my family was 7,000 miles from where they started, in...
Cold War nostalgia The US in a 'dangerous state of funk' By Ian Buruma, 18 Feb 2012 13:48 ... The eccentric Bengali intellectual Nirad C Chaudhuri once explaine...
My heart is still young Letters raise fears for last Briton in Guantanamo By Paul Calahan, Monday 13 February 2012 ... On the day he marks 10 years locked inside the w...
Clean, calibrated conflict is a mirage The neocons’ big Iran lie By Matt Duss, Friday, Feb 10, 2012 7:00 AM 17:10:12 CST ... In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S.-led i...
When sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptabl... Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups By Glenn Greenwald, Friday, Feb 10, 2012 7:59 AM 17:56:22 CST ... One of the most under-report...
Who will fight the war Netanyahu wants? Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war? By MJ Rosenberg, 12 Feb 2012 12:07 ... These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a...
They didn’t break my bones Homs, city of torture By Jonathan Littell, Monday 20 February 2012 18.50 EST ... In Bashar al-Assad's Syria, it is not just forbidden to speak,...
Might as well leave them to their fate 'In Homs we are all wading in blood' By Jonathan Littell, Tuesday 21 February 2012 15.29 EST ... The corpse, already waxy, wrapped in its shrou...

Permanent link to this article: https://levantium.com/2011/12/06/a-lot-of-gas/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.