Print 21 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Jun 24 at 11:57 AM

New strategy will mark the first time an effort has been made by the military to consider energy consumption

The U.S. military is starting to look at new ways to handle the need for energy on the battlefield and in its operations. Power requirements for weapons and equipment like radios and night vision gear is often one of the limiting factors on how long a patrol can stay in the field and the distance a campaign can move from fresh supplies.

The Pentagon has now unveiled a new strategy that looks to make formal plans for the military to manage the use of energy on the battlefield. The new strategy will also consider energy needs when acquiring new weapons. This is the first time that the DoD has looked to change how energy is used in military operations.

Sharon Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs said during a taping of a program called this Week in Defense News, "It's become clear in the current operations that there are risks and costs we're taking on that we don't need to be taking on."

The new strategy made its way to Capitol Hill this week reports Defense News. The strategy calls for not only reductions in the need for energy in the field but for the expansion and securing of our energy supply and the building of energy into future forces. The strategy also asks that the DoD components document the projected energy consumption in current and planned operations with the individual services and combatant commands gathering the raw data.

The strategy reads, "To build and sustain this 21st century military force, particularly in an era of fiscal duress, the Department of Defense must use its resources wisely, and that includes our energy resources."

The strategy claims that right now the DoD tends to treat energy as a commodity. The strategy document reads, "[the DoD] tends to treat energy as a commodity that will always be readily available, regardless of the strategic, operational, and tactical costs."

The military is making adjustments and using tech to reduce the need for fuel and batteries in the field. Already, Marines operating in Afghanistan are using solar panels to help power their electric hardware. The strategy paper also notes that the DoD doesn't even have a set standard for batteries in radios. Needing only one type of battery would make life in the field easier.

Comments     Threshold


RE: Logistics
By phantom505 on 6/15/2011 9:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to Donald Rumsfeld.

So what if our troops have to pay for their own body armor. Better than taxpayers paying for it.

RE: Logistics
By zzatz on 6/15/2011 11:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
That has nothing to do with including energy consumption in logistics requirements, and everything to do with Rumsfeld's poor management. The troops didn't lack body armor because it used energy, they lacked body armor because the Pentagon failed to buy it.

I don't get you guys. The Pentagon sometimes does the right thing, and sometimes they screw up. Why blame their screw ups on unrelated things they get right?

What is it that you don't like about flashlights that last longer on a set of batteries? What's wrong with including battery life as *one* of the factors in buying laptops and radios? What do you have against aircraft that can loiter over a target and support ground forces longer? Those are cases where better energy efficiency provides better performance, and you don't want that better performance because someone told you that Greenpeace is in favor of energy efficiency? Should you stop eating vegetables because PETA is in favor of eating vegetables? Greenpeace and PETA are full of idiots, but even idiots can get some things right.

RE: Logistics
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Logistics
By SlyNine on 6/16/2011 10:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
So all you're worried about is effectiveness when it works....

What the pentagon is saying, and the other guy you replied to is that's not enough. You need to consider the duration of its effectiveness. Since energy is limited IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN LOGISTICS. Whether you're afraid that might make lights alittle dimmer is besides the point. I'd rather have a dimmer light that lasts as long as I need it.

Not having a bright enough light is a failure in logistics. Not having a light that lasts long enough is also a failure in logistics. You got to have the right combo of the two and unless you AT LEAST consider energy requirements you can never get that combination right.

RE: Logistics
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2011 12:00:26 PM , Rating: 1
I can tell that you don't know anyone that's ever been in the military or have ever listened to someone who was.


Umm wrong, so wrong. If my light isn't bright enough, I'm screwed. Because THOSE are the lights we are issued, it's not like I can go to the nearest store and pick up a better one. If my light doesn't last "long enough", I am issued spare batteries or can procure them from Supply if needed.

Every single time the military has tried to be more "efficient" with supplies, it translates into our soldiers having to make due with less. And that's no different just because we're talking energy instead of bullets.

RE: Logistics
By kingius on 6/17/2011 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
Making do with less is what wins wars!!!!

When the battle is lost, when communication has been eradicated, when the enemy is at your gates and battering them down, being able to turn ANYTHING into a weapon is what will keep you alive. Having a torch with no power is almost as bad as having no torch at all - and in many circumstances IS WORSE.

Your soldiers should be tactically smart, adaptable and able to turn any situation into an advantage. THAT is what will make them turn defeat into victory.

RE: Logistics
By SlyNine on 6/24/2011 11:57:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a 3rd generation military brat and my dad was a marine.

And nothing you said there discounts my points on logistics, Yes it is a failure of logistics to not issue lights that are bright enough.

Take logic 101. Ad hominem attack, and slippery slope fallacy is all I see here.


Related Articles
