A conditional yes. But securing the conditions for fuel resilience will require action during the coming decade.
The new study, “Fuelling the Forces to 2050,” examines whether NATO Europe will be able to meet its military fuel requirements in an increasingly constrained and uncertain energy environment. Drawing on 252 modelled futures and 6,000 scenario-years, the study identifies both the resilience of the current system and the circumstances under which significant vulnerabilities could emerge.
Key findings
- Jet fuel is at the centre of the challenge. Aviation kerosene accounts for approximately 60–72% of peacetime military fuel demand, rising to 75–80% during wartime. At the same time, jet fuel is the product in which NATO Europe is structurally most constrained.
- Military demand does not have to increase for its share of the system to grow significantly. If military demand remains broadly stable while refinery capacity declines faster than overall demand, the military share of conventional jet fuel output could increase from approximately 4.5% today to 20–41% by 2050, depending on the pathway.
- Jet fuel has the thinnest stock cover. Stocks provide approximately 49 days of cover for jet fuel, compared with around 120 days across all oil products. Meanwhile, the external supplier base has become more concentrated since 2022, with one supplier accounting for 36% of external jet fuel imports.
- Alternative fuels can provide additional supply, but capacity alone is not sufficient. Of the 14 million tonnes per year of announced SAF-capable capacity expected by 2032, the study assesses realistic delivery at closer to 8 million tonnes per year. Moreover, additional production capacity does not automatically guarantee access to fuel for defence requirements.
Where does the system reach its limits? The modelling indicates that the NATO European fuel system remains resilient across most of the futures examined. However, significant vulnerabilities emerge in an Article 5-scale conflict involving substantial North American force deployment to Europe.
The study identifies five levers that could help mitigate these risks:
- Re-indexed stock obligations
- Ringfenced refinery capacity
- Accelerated alternative-fuel build-out
- Greater diversification of imports
- Prepared civil demand-management measures
Taken together, these measures point to the need for a broader approach to military fuel security—one that considers not only military demand, but also refinery capacity, stocks, imports, alternative fuels and the interaction between civilian and defence requirements.
“Fuelling the Forces to 2050” is offered as a foundation for discussion among policymakers, military planners and industry. The study aims to support informed decisions on the measures needed to strengthen Europe’s ability to fuel its forces in a changing energy landscape.