Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III released the department’s new operational energy strategy today, saying it is consistent with efforts to adapt the forces to emerging threats.
Lynn said he and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have been consistent in speaking of the need to “better manage the defense enterprise to adapt our forces to emerging threats, and to sustain a strong and capable military.”
“Our use of energy cuts across each of these issues,” he said during a Pentagon news briefing. “It affects military planners, acquisition managers and the warfighters alike. The way we build energy into our operations is a core part of fighting and winning the nation’s wars.”
Lynn released the strategy during a briefing with Sharon Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs, a position created after the Quadrennial Defense Review last year raised the need for the military’s energy use to be considered in operational strategy. Gates and President Barack Obama supported the idea, and it was signed into law as part of the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.
The department makes up 80 percent of the federal government’s energy use, and 1 percent of the nation as a whole, Lynn said. It spent $15 billion on energy last year, 75 percent of which was for military operations. The department’s gasoline costs are up 225 percent from a decade ago, he added.
In releasing the strategy, Lynn and Burke said the plan will reduce costs, and also improve military capabilities.
“Not only does [energy] cost the taxpayers, it costs the warfighters,” Lynn said. “Every dollar spent on energy use is a dollar not spent on other warfighting priorities.”
Lynn said there is “a clear connection” between innovation and energy technology and the ability to project military power. “Whether deploying and sustaining forces at the front, or powering mission-critical facilities they depend on in the rear,” he said, “everything we do, every mission we perform, requires significant amounts of energy.”
But, he added, “Ensuring the forces have the energy they need, when they need it, is not easy.”
At least 80 percent of land convoys in Afghanistan are for transporting fuel to warfighters, Lynn said. The routes are laced with roadside bombs and prone to ambush, he noted, resulting in 1,100 insurgent attacks last year.
“The less energy we need, the more operationally resilient we will be,” he said.
The strategy addresses energy needs as a broad, military challenge and calls for reducing demand, improving efficiency and lowering costs, Lynn said. “This strategy is good for the taxpayers and the warfighters, and it’s long overdue.”
Petraeus on Energy
Noting an energy-efficient force is a more agile and resilient force, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus called on his commanders and troops to reduce their energy consumption in Afghanistan.
“By reducing demand for fuel, we will improve operational capability, reduce risk to our forces and, ultimately, strengthen our security,” Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, wrote in a June 7 memorandum addressed to the service members and civilians of U.S. Forces Afghanistan.
Coalition forces are able to “project power” across the globe, and for long periods of time, he said, but inherent to this capability is the need for fuel. “This ‘operational energy’ is the lifeblood of our warfighting capabilities,” he wrote, “and a key enabler of coalition operations in Afghanistan.”
However, high fuel use can create risks to troops and to the mission. Nearly 80 percent of ground-supply movements are fuel-based, the general noted, and many lives have been lost delivering fuel to bases across the country. Additionally, moving and protecting this energy diverts troops from combat.
“A force that makes better use of fuel will have increased agility, improved resilience against disruption, and more capacity for engaging Afghan partners, particularly at the tactical edge,” he wrote.
“We can and will do better,” he added.
To start, Petraeus said he’s standing up an office to change the way coalition forces use operational energy, and a team will assist commanders with measuring and managing unit fuel consumption.
The general also directed his commanders to make “energy-informed, risk-based decisions” in areas such as aviation and vehicle operations, base camp design, power and water generation, and distribution. “This includes decisions on deliveries, improvements to existing structures and new construction,” he wrote.
Petraeus also called for a swift transition of new fuel savings methods to the field as well as a pursuit of proven alternative energy options that reduce the use and transport of fuel.
Finally, commanders should keep energy consumption in mind when dealing with contract requirements and oversight, he wrote.
On an individual level, Petraeus said commanders should ensure their personnel are mindful of day-to-day fuel use -- turning off unused equipment, repairing faulty equipment, and avoiding lighting, heating and air conditioning use in unused facilities.
“Commanders and their personnel should understand that routine energy consumption can either enable or limit combat capabilities,” he wrote.
Cutting back on fuel makes sense on every level, Petraeus noted. “As we have demonstrated in Afghanistan, the initiative, commitment and capability of coalition forces give us unparalleled advantages,” he wrote. “Changing the way we use operational energy will lighten the logistics burden, minimize tactical distractions to the mission, and deny easy targets to the adversary.”
Contacts and sources:
By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service
By Elaine Sanchez
American Forces Press Service
Lynn said he and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have been consistent in speaking of the need to “better manage the defense enterprise to adapt our forces to emerging threats, and to sustain a strong and capable military.”
“Our use of energy cuts across each of these issues,” he said during a Pentagon news briefing. “It affects military planners, acquisition managers and the warfighters alike. The way we build energy into our operations is a core part of fighting and winning the nation’s wars.”
Lynn released the strategy during a briefing with Sharon Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs, a position created after the Quadrennial Defense Review last year raised the need for the military’s energy use to be considered in operational strategy. Gates and President Barack Obama supported the idea, and it was signed into law as part of the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.
The department makes up 80 percent of the federal government’s energy use, and 1 percent of the nation as a whole, Lynn said. It spent $15 billion on energy last year, 75 percent of which was for military operations. The department’s gasoline costs are up 225 percent from a decade ago, he added.
In releasing the strategy, Lynn and Burke said the plan will reduce costs, and also improve military capabilities.
“Not only does [energy] cost the taxpayers, it costs the warfighters,” Lynn said. “Every dollar spent on energy use is a dollar not spent on other warfighting priorities.”
Lynn said there is “a clear connection” between innovation and energy technology and the ability to project military power. “Whether deploying and sustaining forces at the front, or powering mission-critical facilities they depend on in the rear,” he said, “everything we do, every mission we perform, requires significant amounts of energy.”
But, he added, “Ensuring the forces have the energy they need, when they need it, is not easy.”
At least 80 percent of land convoys in Afghanistan are for transporting fuel to warfighters, Lynn said. The routes are laced with roadside bombs and prone to ambush, he noted, resulting in 1,100 insurgent attacks last year.
“The less energy we need, the more operationally resilient we will be,” he said.
The strategy addresses energy needs as a broad, military challenge and calls for reducing demand, improving efficiency and lowering costs, Lynn said. “This strategy is good for the taxpayers and the warfighters, and it’s long overdue.”
Petraeus on Energy
Noting an energy-efficient force is a more agile and resilient force, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus called on his commanders and troops to reduce their energy consumption in Afghanistan.
“By reducing demand for fuel, we will improve operational capability, reduce risk to our forces and, ultimately, strengthen our security,” Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, wrote in a June 7 memorandum addressed to the service members and civilians of U.S. Forces Afghanistan.
Coalition forces are able to “project power” across the globe, and for long periods of time, he said, but inherent to this capability is the need for fuel. “This ‘operational energy’ is the lifeblood of our warfighting capabilities,” he wrote, “and a key enabler of coalition operations in Afghanistan.”
However, high fuel use can create risks to troops and to the mission. Nearly 80 percent of ground-supply movements are fuel-based, the general noted, and many lives have been lost delivering fuel to bases across the country. Additionally, moving and protecting this energy diverts troops from combat.
“A force that makes better use of fuel will have increased agility, improved resilience against disruption, and more capacity for engaging Afghan partners, particularly at the tactical edge,” he wrote.
“We can and will do better,” he added.
To start, Petraeus said he’s standing up an office to change the way coalition forces use operational energy, and a team will assist commanders with measuring and managing unit fuel consumption.
The general also directed his commanders to make “energy-informed, risk-based decisions” in areas such as aviation and vehicle operations, base camp design, power and water generation, and distribution. “This includes decisions on deliveries, improvements to existing structures and new construction,” he wrote.
Petraeus also called for a swift transition of new fuel savings methods to the field as well as a pursuit of proven alternative energy options that reduce the use and transport of fuel.
Finally, commanders should keep energy consumption in mind when dealing with contract requirements and oversight, he wrote.
On an individual level, Petraeus said commanders should ensure their personnel are mindful of day-to-day fuel use -- turning off unused equipment, repairing faulty equipment, and avoiding lighting, heating and air conditioning use in unused facilities.
“Commanders and their personnel should understand that routine energy consumption can either enable or limit combat capabilities,” he wrote.
Cutting back on fuel makes sense on every level, Petraeus noted. “As we have demonstrated in Afghanistan, the initiative, commitment and capability of coalition forces give us unparalleled advantages,” he wrote. “Changing the way we use operational energy will lighten the logistics burden, minimize tactical distractions to the mission, and deny easy targets to the adversary.”
Contacts and sources:
By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service
By Elaine Sanchez
American Forces Press Service
0 comments:
Post a Comment