The Army’s Future Operational Environment

1. Military Operations Research SocietyPower and Energy WorkshopThe Operational Energy ChallengeLTG Michael A. VaneDeputy Commanding General, Futures, and Director, Army Capabilities Integration Center US Army Training and Doctrine Command1 Dec 09 MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

2. MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

3. The Army’s Future Operational Environment • “Our future [environment will require us] to adapt and learn faster than the enemy.” GEN Dempsey, Sep 09 • The pace of change is exponential • “He who learns faster and better wins.” GEN Dempsey Change yields competitiveness. • The Army must be able to adapt in increments. • Analytic support must inform Decision Makers in this fast paced environment. • Army Capstone Concept: • Supporting Ideas • Develop the situation through action • Exert psychological and technical influence • Employ combination of defeat and stabilizing mechanisms • Conduct combined arms operations • Cooperate with partners, leverage joint capabilities Defense Funding MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

4. Where does the Army fit? • Other services’ priority energy challenges: • USAF – aviation fuel • USN – the fleet • USMC – small units and soldier capabilities • IMCOM aggressively addressing Army installation energy security – renewable sources, power grid, vehicle fleet ARCIC is focusing on the Army’s ability to conduct sustained full-spectrum operations in an expeditionary environment. Requires integration of soldiers, platforms and base camps; integrating operational approaches with protection and sustainment – recognizing power and energy as fundamental elements. MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

5. MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

6. A Business Case for Change Army Operational Fuel Cost Drivers • Significant force structure dedicated to transporting fuel. • 15,363 dedicated fuel storage, handling, transport not in BCTs • 2340 Tankers (7.5k and 5K) outside BCTs • Security Forces: Security for supply convoys in Iraq required an average of 1 combat battalion on a continuing basis (2009 estimate) • Exposure to IED and attack - Ground resupply has accounted for over 2000 soldier deaths • Generators – highest wartime consumption rates, most inefficient (35% of total/day) • >50% of fuel used to produce electricity @ <40% efficiency, 10% at base camp • Aviation fuel – Second highest wartime consumption rates. (30% of total/day) • Transportation cost per gal: in Iraq typically $5-30; as high as $400 reported in Afghanistan • a ten percent improvement in fuel efficiency… • Increase 1536 combat troops available, one battalion • Enhance force protection and reduce exposure by reducing convoy requirements - 234 less vehicles per day and 85,410 less vehicles on the road per year • Significant cost savings from Generators and Aviation: 10% of (30+35%)*2Mgal/day=1.3Kgal/day at $14/gal = $1.8 million/day - $675M/year • Allow excess capacity to support stability operations and change perceptions • Improve flexibility and adaptability by reducing or eliminating generators & support vehicles MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

7. Operational Power and Energy Strategy Grand Challenges • Integrate Power/Energy into operations • Dramatically reduce long-distance energy/water delivery • Enable resiliency and flexibility in face of disruptive and changing situation Change Strategies • Build energy-aware culture • Develop holistic models • Integrate power & energy management • Combine / integrate technologies • Integrate Soldier / Platform • Ad-Hoc energy networks • Recycle / use local resources • Use existing infrastructure • Improve “single” fuel MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

8. On going actions: JLTV Fuel Efficiency Requirement - Shall achieve 10% threshold KSA for Increment 2 - Shall achieve 10% reduction KSA from predecessor vehicle (HUMMWV) - for Increment 2 - Shall achieve 25% objective KSA reduction - for Increment 2 • Ground Combat Vehicle • KPP 5: Will consume fuel as, or better than, as related to a specified platform weight when measured at sustained speeds of 30MPH and providing sustained 45KW • IMCOM • Electric Vehicles • Geothermal Energy • Looking at Nuclear Power • UAVs • Use heavy fuels to reduce burden on fuel supply • Use new engines and power sources to reduce - shall achieve 25% objective KSA reduction - for Increment 2 Power and Energy Strategy and ICD COL Paul Roege 757-788-2859 Paul.roege@us.army.mil MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

9. Holistic Operational Power and Energy Strategy Decisive Edge Integration Operational Success Mission Planning – Effects Integration – Real Time Decisions XX % Mission Continuity Management Prioritize – Re-allocate – Situational Awareness – Report – Measure – Monitor 30 % Tooth to Tail Critical need for analytical support Interoperability Integration Impact 40 % Effect Increase Intelligent – Power Grid – Standard Interface – Fuels – Plug and Play Systems Facilities – Weapons - Platforms – Soldier Equipment 20 % Greater Range Point Solutions Incremental Savings 30 % Cost Reduction Wind Solar – Waste-Energy – Engines – Fuel Cells – Batteries – Capacitors _ Motors – Lasers – DE – EM Gun (Example Improvement) MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

10. Relate performance metrics to operational capabilities • Traditional metrics of cost and efficiency will always be important • Operational effectiveness trumps per-unit cost • Mission success is the bottom line • Effective operations (timeliness, selection, execution) drive duration and level of effort • Energy and power integral to strategies, CONOPS • Deployment means • Basing approach • Maneuver and effects • Host nation engagement MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

11. MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09

12. Military Operations Research SocietyPower and Energy WorkshopThe Operational Energy ChallengeLTG Michael A. VaneDeputy Commanding General, Futures, and Director, Army Capabilities Integration Center US Army Training and Doctrine Command1 Dec 09 MORS Power and Enegry Symposium 1 Dec 09