Forums → WEPR → What will happen when the world's armies run out of oil?
| 77 | 23571 |
I've been pondering this question for a while. Title says it all. What will happen when there is no oil for the world's militaries? I mean an effective lack of oil, where nothing can be run, and there are no reserves, and no secret caches to be found. No oil, period.
I especially wonder what will happen to the air forces and navies.
- 77 Replies
but american military power will be effected as they will not be able to rely on their air force.
Except the USAF and its allies will likely have some alternative fuel methods, such as effective solar cells, well before any opponents.
I was referring to party devil and master forger.
An advice, don't take every thing as addressed to you you'll live longer.
I dont care who you were addressing, calling someone stupid is rately ever called for. If your idea of debating is slinging mud and ad hominems as opposed to addressing their points, then kindly go somewhere else.
but american military power will be effected as they will not be able to rely on their air force.
Why not? If ethanol, or some other alternative, can be used to power trucks and tanks and ships, then why wouldn't it be able to power an aircraft? Is it really that much of a stretch?
So, may be they will have tanks, but others will have anti tank weapons.
M1A2 vs IED
How Modern MBT Armor Works
Ultimate Weapons: M1 Abrahms
I'd bet on the Abrams winning out over any anti-armor devices any day, short of a missile. But no worries, because apparently no one will have any flying objects in the future.
In short American military will become equal to anyother military.
Yes, soon the day will come when Iceland is on the same military level as the US. The fact that Iceland has no militaristic expenditures doesnt matter, one day, Iceland will conquer.
Using corn for fuel sounds weird although applicable.come equal to anyother military.
but american military power will be effected as they will not be able to rely on their air force.
So, may be they will have tanks, but others will have anti tank weapons.
In short American military will be
While America's air force is stunning and amazing, its military is still formidable. Where are the enemies getting a hold of modern generation anti tank weapons, anyway? Modern armor just laughs at anything under it, the famous RPG-7 is all but useless.
And even if they do have modern weaponry, there is still the fact that US has numbers over most other nations that we might get into war with, so we would still have the advantage.
I dont care who you were addressing, calling someone stupid is rately ever called for. If your idea of debating is slinging mud and ad hominems as opposed to addressing their points, then kindly go somewhere else.
You where talking to him, right?
Why not? If ethanol, or some other alternative, can be used to power trucks and tanks and ships, then why wouldn't it be able to power an aircraft? Is it really that much of a stretch?
Yes, it is actually a huge stretch. Ethanol isn't powerful enough, not with our current technology level. You must remember that airplane fuel is of a much higher quality then car fuel, and ethanol doesn't even work that good as a vehicle fuel.
For ships, we would probably go to nuclear power (Like the subs), but I don't know much about ships, so I can't say much there.
I'd bet on the Abrams winning out over any anti-armor devices any day, short of a missile. But no worries, because apparently no one will have any flying objects in the future.
Missiles require fuel, so in this situation missiles would not apply.
Yes, it is actually a huge stretch. Ethanol isn't powerful enough, not with our current technology level. You must remember that airplane fuel is of a much higher quality then car fuel, and ethanol doesn't even work that good as a vehicle fuel.
Ethanol powered aircraft. It's feasible.
A military moves more then it stays in place, Signor Nich. The ships, the planes, the tanks, the trucks, what about them?
It's all a matter of Googling. Why dont you do it yourself?
The U.S. military, the nationâs single largest oil consumer, wants to wean itself from petroleum, and is deploying its immense buying power and authority to commercialize nascent technologies deemed to be in the national interest.
The Navy, which aims to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, has been buying biofuels in small but expensive quantities, as in four times the cost of conventional fuels. Earlier this year the Pentagon invoked the Defense Production Act to solicit proposals to build at least one integrated biorefinery with $210 million in government funding. The biofuel buy has outraged some congressional Republicans, who are attempting to bar the military from purchasing any fuel that costs more than petroleum.
The US already has a Great Green Fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and a strike force of 71 jet fighters, helicopters and transport planes is powered by a 50 50 mix of algae, cookin oil and conventional fuel.
Also it will take 34% more ethanol than petrol to travel the same distance.
US military uses 360000 barrels of petrol daily
so it will be 360000X1.34 = 482400 barrels of ethanol to operate on same effeciency.
482400 barrels = 14954400 gallons
It takes 26.1 lb of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol.
So, 14954400 gallons will take :
14954400 gallons X 26.1=390309840lbs
USA produced 12.1 billion bushel corn in 2008 (could not find newer results.)
or 307.34 billion kg of corn
or 677.37 billiob lbs
1 bushel corn = 25.4 kg
677.37 billion lbs will produce 26 billion gallons of ethanol
which will suffice
1738 days or
4.76 years.
@ enigma, it is b/w me and them, you don't need to get wrecked about it.
As for m1 abrams,
RPG- 29
Metis m
Kornet
MILAN
H-J 8
Ethanol powered aircraft. It's feasible.
We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.
No land vehicles can be mcguyverd to carry extra fuel.
But with air crafts, its very very hard.
So, if a plane has a 3 hours operational time on petrol it will have a two hrs operational time on ethanol.
P.S I know planes don't use petrol, they use jet fuel.
Ethanol powered aircraft. It's feasible.
An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"
It's all a matter of Googling. Why dont you do it yourself?
The U.S. military, the nationâs single largest oil consumer, wants to wean itself from petroleum, and is deploying its immense buying power and authority to commercialize nascent technologies deemed to be in the national interest.
The Navy, which aims to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, has been buying biofuels in small but expensive quantities, as in four times the cost of conventional fuels. Earlier this year the Pentagon invoked the Defense Production Act to solicit proposals to build at least one integrated biorefinery with $210 million in government funding. The biofuel buy has outraged some congressional Republicans, who are attempting to bar the military from purchasing any fuel that costs more than petroleum.
The US already has a Great Green Fleet, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and a strike force of 71 jet fighters, helicopters and transport planes is powered by a 50 50 mix of algae, cookin oil and conventional fuel.
It isn't going to be ready for several more years, but it does show that it is possible to run ships on it (Although considering one of the things is "Nuclear power", I wouldn't be surprised if it worked.
Though I am pretty sure that the conventional fuel is for the planes, I have never heard of one that big working on biofuel.
To clarify the last post, the planes on the "Great Green Fleet" are powered by a mixture of bio fuel and jet fuel, from you source, which is feasible depending on how much jet fuel there is, however in the case of this happening, it would still be impossible to use planes like that.
The planes do use a mix of biofuel and conventional fuel:
ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ â" As a Royal Australian Navy helicopter lands on the ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ â" As a Royal Australian Navy helicopter lands on the deck of the USS Nimitz on Wednesday, two American destroyers, a cruiser and a fuel ship are steaming alongside the aircraft carrier some 100 miles north of Oahu. The ships in the carrier strike group and the 71 aircraft on the deck of the Nimitz, including fighter jets, helicopters and transports, are all running on a 50-50 mix of petroleum and biofuel derived from algae and used cooking oil. In fact, the Aussie Sikorsky Seahawk is the only military machine except the nuclear-fueled Nimitz not powered by biofuels.
But as Rear Admiral Tim Barrett of the Royal Australian Navy greets U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, deck workers run a fuel line to the helicopter and began pumping the biofuel blend produced by Solazyme and Dynamic into the Seahawk. Minutes later, Barrett and Mabus sign a statement of cooperation pledging the two nationâs navies to collaborate on biofuels research and deployment.
@ enigma, it is b/w me and them, you don't need to get wrecked about it.
Except that basic civility towards others is everyone's concern.
RPG- 29
Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.
Metis m
Only documentation I could find was, according to the IDF, it had caused damage to Israeli Merkavak Mark III tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. Russia has denied this. It is important to note that the Merkahvah is relatively outdated, and its speculated that it will be discontinued within the next five years.
Kornet
The Kornet is credited with disabling two A1s and one Bradely IFV vehicle in the opening week of the war. The losses werent permanent, and no crew members were killed.
The sources I checked aggree that the Kornet can ideally penetrate around 1250mm of steel. The M1A1, according to this site here, the M1A1 that saw combat in Desert Storm had the steel quivalent of 1300-1600 mm of steel. Furthermore, from the same site, Iraqi T-70s engaged several M1A1s at very close ranges, and multiple hits failed to penetrate the armor.
MILAN
The last technical update was over 15 years ago, Its in the process of being fazed out and replaced, and theres no documentation of it being used against any western MBTs. Or any Western nations, for that matter.
H-J 8
Average of 800-1000mm steel penetration, which isnt enough to penetrate A1 chemical equivalent thickness of armor. May be if you hit the track you could hope to disable the tank temporarily, but you're not going to pop the turret off in a glorious fireball.
Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.
We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.
Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.
An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"
Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!
Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.
Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.
Fine. We will have crop dusters as an air force, if you really want it. It would probably be more efficient to use the fuel for rockets, anyway, since you wouldn't need a round trip.
Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!
Glad I cleared that up.
Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.
Of course. After all, if that where true we would have electric helicopters. Maybe we could just throw the planes? After all, it works fine for a paper airplane.
Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.
Actually, I found a source like this while researching for my RPG (The role playing kind. RPG for an RPG.) There was a New York times article, a short paragraph, that states an m1 was damaged. That is probably what he is talking about.
How about we all scrap our militaries and use the remaining oil on something useful, like helping to develop third world countries?
Except that basic civility towards others is everyone's concern.
It's not civility, its poking your nose where you should not.
God! you are acting like I killed someone.
RPG- 29
Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.
Metis m
Only documentation I could find was, according to the IDF, it had caused damage to Israeli Merkavak Mark III tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. Russia has denied this. It is important to note that the Merkahvah is relatively outdated, and its speculated that it will be discontinued within the next five years.
Kornet
The Kornet is credited with disabling two A1s and one Bradely IFV vehicle in the opening week of the war. The losses werent permanent, and no crew members were killed.
The sources I checked aggree that the Kornet can ideally penetrate around 1250mm of steel. The M1A1, according to this site here, the M1A1 that saw combat in Desert Storm had the steel quivalent of 1300-1600 mm of steel. Furthermore, from the same site, Iraqi T-70s engaged several M1A1s at very close ranges, and multiple hits failed to penetrate the armor.
MILAN
The last technical update was over 15 years ago, Its in the process of being fazed out and replaced, and theres no documentation of it being used against any western MBTs. Or any Western nations, for that matter.
H-J 8
Average of 800-1000mm steel penetration, which isnt enough to penetrate A1 chemical equivalent thickness of armor. May be if you hit the track you could hope to disable the tank temporarily, but you're not going to pop the turret off in a glorious fireball.
Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.
We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.
Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.
An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"
Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!
Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.
You do not need to achieve jack in the box effect.
All you need is to immobilise it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!