America's cowardice is costly.
- Ship: Arleigh Burke–class destroyer (typical escort); cruising speed to transit to safer patrol areas vs port: 20 knots (≈37 km/h). Fuel consumption varies; estimate fuel burn ≈ 1.5–2.5 tonnes/hour at 20 kt (midpoint 2.0 t/hr).
- Distance metric: 1 knot = 1 nautical mile/hour, so at 20 kt ship covers 20 nm/hr.
- Tonnes/mile = fuel burn rate (t/hr) ÷ speed (nm/hr). Using 2.0 t/hr ÷ 20 nm/hr = 0.1 t/nm (100 kg per nm).
- Convert: 1 nautical mile ≈ 1.852 km, so ≈54 kg/km.
Per‑ship example
- 0.1 tonnes per nautical mile (100 kg/nm).
- If a ship avoids a 300 nm round trip to port (150 nm each way) by staying at sea, extra fuel consumed to remain on station instead of repositioning is operationally complex, but simple transit avoidance fuel trade: 300 nm × 0.1 t/nm = 30 tonnes of fuel.
Squadron-level example
- Carrier strike group escorts: assume 6 escorts (destroyers/frigates) + 1 carrier (much larger fuel use) + 1 oiler. Using escorts only for conservative estimate: 6 ships × 30 t = 180 tonnes for that avoided 300 nm port cycle. Carriers burn far more—real group totals increase by multiples.
Per‑mile fleet aggregate (illustrative)
- If an entire deployed surface escort force of 20 ships is kept dispersed and avoids an average 200 nm port call per ship per month: per ship extra = 200 nm × 0.1 t/nm = 20 t → fleet = 400 t/month. Per‑mile average remains ~0.1 t/nm per ship.
Caveats and reality checks
- Fuel burn rates vary widely by ship class and speed. Carriers and oilers have much higher absolute burns; littoral ships lower. Fleet steaming patterns (station keeping, patrol speeds, loitering) alter numbers.
- “Extra” fuel used to avoid ports is not simply transit vs loiter—it involves replacement cycles, redeployments, and MSC/oiler rendezvous that change the arithmetic.
- This estimate excludes other logistics (food, munitions, spare parts) and indirect costs (more frequent UNREP sorties, wear, crew fatigue, higher maintenance).
