The CNA study is a good gateway to the more in-depth Defense Science Board study from 2008 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf) that explains that DoD planning methods typically allow force planners and requirements developers to assume the fuel (the tankers, oilers, POL convoys) will always be there and that enemy forces will be too incompetent to degrade them. US loggies are great, but we've become complacent in a very soft (unprotected and thin) capability area. That assumption is only just beginning to change.

Dave's right on the difficulties in transitioning from a diesel submarine navy to one all nuclear powered - he and I both lived through that period, at sea, in the boats.

The trouble in the diesels was learning to live to the higher standards of the nuke navy. The nuke side had many top-notch officers (like Dave), and they could do everything, but those that weren't quite to that level found it challenging to conduct operations with the same excellence that was absolutely demanded in engineering.

There was no question of how it should or would turn out. The all-nuke submarine force is by far the better, especially as it largely brought forward the standards and skills of the diesel fleet.

Dupe - delete

I always wonder why we do not have diesel subs and Nuclear subs. I would think a conventional fleet sub designed to operate on the surface like WW2 gato boats would be a great coast guard cutter.

Two resources to keep a close eye on in the next decade are water and oil. The country most likely to challenge us on access to it? Russia. They released their latest national security strategy last month and a good portion of it is devoted to how much they believe in access to energy and where they want access to it. They are prepared to use military force to gain and maintain access to it. While they mention water once in the strategy, it's still mentioned pretty explicitly.

Oh and if its free beer, I'm there!, Oh wait, I already will.

This MUST be at least the third time I've read of a Dod policy paper regarding hydrocarbon usage not only for vessels and rolling stock, but on-base as well.

It seems they spend alot of energy producing the paper this stuff is written on but there's no noticeable move towards efficiency in anything but kill ratios.

Somewhere I also read one of the major reasons that the Iraqis don't manage to put much oil on the international market (besides the fact that their oil infrastructure is constantly under armed attack) is the simple fact that the US military uses most of Iraq's available oil output.

Expect no change...

Steve Earle wrote a song about WHY the Pentagon is so intent on using Iraq's oil instead of simply trucking it in from Kuwait as they used to do.

A thirty second sample (Alt-Country): http://mog.com/music/Steve_Earle/The_Revolution_Starts...Now/Home_to_Houston

The lyrics (Home to Houston, The Revolution Starts Now):

When I pulled out of Basra they all wished me luck
Just like they always did before
With a bulletproof screen on the hood of my truck
And a Bradley on my back door
And I wound her up and shifted her down
And I offered this prayer to my lord
I said “God get me back home to Houston alive
and I won't drive a truck anymore

It's early in the mornin' and I'm rollin' fast
Haulin' nine thousand gallons of high test gas
Sergeant on the radio hollerin' at me
Look out up ahead here come a R.P.G.
If I ever get home to Houston alive
Then I won't drive a truck anymore

I've driven the big rigs for all of my life
And my radio handle's "Train"
Down steep mountain roads on the darkest of nights
I had ice water in my veins
And I come over here ‘cause I just didn't care
Now I'm older and wiser by far
If I ever get home to Houston alive
Then I won't drive a truck anymore

Great God A'mighty what was wrong with me
I know the money's good but buddy can't you see
You can't take it with you and that ain't no lie
I don't wanna let ‘em get me I'm too young to die
If I ever get home to Houston alive
Then I won't drive a truck anymore

ESPC - Energy Saving Performance Contracting - is the key to a step-jump in energy savings at DOD and other government installations. Done right, it will incorporate renewables along with direct efficiencies in the buildings and facilities of the base.

Cost? The capital investment for the new gear (and the cost of money) are paid for off-budget by the design-&-installation contractor - as is the ongoing energy bill after retrofit - from the original utility outlays, which are now funneled to the contractor. At the end of the amortization period (current law allows up to 25 years for federal installations, though the typical timeframe is much less) the customer picks up the utility payments at the much lower energy-efficient rate and continues to use the equipment originally installed at no cost to customer - it's owned by the government.

No-brainer, right? What's holding it back? OMB scorekeeping rules were the obstacle as well as absence of permanent authorization, but these were taken care of in the last Energy Bill. Now what holds back ESPC are the MILCON managers, who give up direct funding authority, and the stodgy, unimaginative, lazy - dare one say in this context ... useless - contracting shops (this makes their heads hurt because they don't know how to handle something that doesn't cost them anything), installation commanders, their Echelon Two superiors, the military services themselves, and DOD.

The time to do a fresh assessment of the energy savings potential in DOD is after military installations worldwide are wall-to-wall with modern ESPC-derived energy systems. Until then, we're leaving dollars and BTUs on the table.