Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Army to Change the Way It Thinks About Battlefield Energy

5/23/2012

Army to Change the Way It Thinks About Battlefield Energy
By Stew Magnuson

NEW ORLEANS — The Army is in the beginning stages of a new operational energy strategy that will emphasize new mindsets rather than new technologies.

The goal of the Army on a battlefield is not to conserve energy, it is to prevail, said Col. Paul Roege, chief of the service's operational energy office. If it were, troops would just remain at their bases, and never consume any fuels.

Getting ground forces to save fuel because it saves money, lessens the burden on the logistics tail or helps the environment is a nonstarter because these do not directly help to defeat an enemy or accomplish a mission, Roege said at the National Defense Industrial Association's Environment, Energy and Sustainability symposium.

"These are things that we work on, but they are not the end goal, " he said.

The new "energy informed operations" strategy, however, will make the case to those who consume energy in forward-deployed scenarios that conserving fuel ultimately does  help them prevail on the battlefield, he said.

Asking how the energy on hand can be used for the greatest possible benefit is preferable to "trying to make the argument that this is going to save us money,"

"In the Army sometimes, technologies make less difference than behaviors," Roege said. This will mean changing training, increasing awareness and doing cultural studies so a sergeant can go to a private on a forward operating base and ask him to think about how he is using energy.

This new way of thinking will need to extend to the acquisition community as well, he said. How far can a vehicle drive or a helicopter fly without having to refuel? How many days can a soldier go on a foot patrol with a heavy load without needing more batteries? Long range and endurance will enhance the capacity to prevail, he said.

During the past few years, the military has been using the "fully burdened cost of fuel" statistic to drive the argument for lower fuel consumption. This metric seeks to explain how much it really costs to transport a gallon of fuel to the battlefield. "This argument really isn't going to carry the day ... You need to make the same argument when you want a better gun. You don't say 'this bullet is going to be cheaper in the lifecycle, it is going to defeat the threat,'" he said.

Traditionally, when designing new vehicles, developers have not taken into account how hard it is to deliver fuel, he said. There is increasing realization in the Army that putting fuel consumption metrics into lifecycle costs is the wrong way to look at the problem, he said. The amount of time an aerial or ground vehicle spends in combat is actually short, he said. Fuel consumption should be looked at in terms of how it helps the endurance, range and speed, he said.

An initial capabilities document on the energy informed operations strategy was signed by the Joint Staff in April, and the Army is looking to release it to the public for comment as soon as possible, he said. It will then be passed on to Army Training and Doctrine Command where a campaign plan will be developed, he said.
Posted at 1:30 PM by Stew Magnuson | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Comments

There are no comments yet for this post.
Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share