Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire: United States Department of Defense

Showing posts with label United States Department of Defense. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2010

UAE Missile Deal Worth 140 Million Announced from Military Space News, Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defense

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UAE_Missile_Deal_Worth_140_Million_Announced_999.htmlWashington DC (SPX) Nov 11, 2010

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress November 3 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the United Arab Emirates of 100 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and 60 Low Cost Reduced-Range Practice Rockets (LCRRPR), as well as associated equipment, training and logistical support for a total package worth approximately $140 million.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

US Military Needs to Get Off Oil by 2040: Report by Matthew McDermott

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/u-s-military-needs-to-get-off-oil-by-2040.php

photo: John Martinez Pavliga via flickr
The United States military must entirely get off oil by 2040 if it wants to reduce operational vulnerabilities, reduce costs, stop new security risks caused by climate change and avoid the coming peak oil supply crunch. That's the word from the Center For a New American Security, whose Fueling the Future Force report details the hows and whys of the situation.
afghan convoy attacked photo

DVIDSHUB via flickr
Petroleum is 77% of Military Energy Supply
Report authors Christine Parthemore and Dr. John Nagl say, "Reducing dependency on petroleum will help ensure the long-term ability of the military to carry out its assigned missions. Moving beyond petroleum will allow DoD to lead in the development of innovative technologies that can benefit the nation more broadly, while signaling to the world that the United States has an innovative and adaptable force."
How big is that dependency? Currently US forces rely on petroleum for 77.2% of all energy needs, with "other electric" sources coming in second at 11.4% and natural gas coming at 8.4%.
In Thirty Years Oil Will Be Hard to Come By
Why the 2040 timeframe? The report lays it out (emphasis is mine):

This 30-year timeframe reflects market indicators pointing towards both higher demand for petroleum and increasing international competition to acquire it. Moreover, the geology and economics of producing petroleum will ensure that the market grows tight long before petroleum reserves are depleted. Some estimates indicate that the current global reserve-to-production ratio--how fast the world will produce all currently known recoverable petroleum reserves at the current rate of production--is less than 50 years. Thus, given projected supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three decades hence. Ensuring that DOD can operation on non-petroleum fuels 30 years from today is a conservation hedge against prevailing economic, political and environmental trends, conditions and constraints.

In other words, 30 years from now there odds aren't good that there will be petroleum to fuel anything with much consistency or at minimum with any level of affordability. This echoes recently revealed reports that the German military is pretty freaked out about the prospect of peak oil as well.
Oil Price Rises Cost Military Millions, Dependency Creates Security Risks
As for costs of continued military oil dependence, the report notes that for every dollar increase in the price of petroleum an additional $130 million is added to the Department of Defense's operating costs.
The report itself outlines a twelve-point plan to transition the military off oil--which is frankly all pretty ordinary stuff for regular TreeHugger readers--as well as some of the security issues of continued oil dependency (Iran and Venezuela get further leverage over US) and logistical challenges (currently purchased vehicles require petroleum and have a long service life).
Read more: Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era [PDF]
soldier at dusk photo

photo: US Army via flickr
How Much Less Energy Needed, If We Didn't Have to Secure Oil?
Though it sounds somewhat cynical, I ask this quite practically: I wonder what how much the US military's energy demand and required size would be if part of its (not loudly or fully stated) mission weren't positioning itself around the world to secure the very energy supplies which are going to be relatively soon depleted? It's not like the military's purpose ceases to exist absent having to secure oil supplies, not by a long shot, but surely its size and fuel demand would be reduced.
TH NOTE: In a previous version of this article the names of the report authors were incorrectly stated. This has been corrected.
Like this? Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
More on Oil:
Minus Oil: Energized Ideas For Surpassing Petroleum
The German Military is Freaked Out by Prospect of Peak Oil
After Oil, The Extreme Risk of Biofuel Dependency

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Proposed Ballistic-Missile Submarine Nears Pentagon Review By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Navy's emerging plans for a new nuclear-armed submarine are slated to undergo a pivotal Defense Department review in November, with the initial backing of a key congressional committee in hand (see GSN, Aug. 10).

(Sep. 27) - A top-level Pentagon board is set in November to review Navy plans for initial work on a next-generation replacement for U.S. Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines, like the one shown above (U.S. Navy photo).

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 14 said it fully supported the fiscal 2011 plans to perform design, engineering and prototyping work on the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine.
Lawmakers noted, though, that they had imposed a 10 percent reduction in funds on the Obama administration request for $493 million because program delays this past year would prevent the Navy from completing all its earlier anticipated work for 2011. The partial funding would leave the effort with $444.7 million for the coming year.
The Senate panel's counterpart committee in the House has not yet acted on an unreleased subcommittee version of the defense appropriations bill. However, according to one Washington insider, the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee offered full funding for the proposed submarine, dubbed the "SSBN(X)."
With the new fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, Congress is expected to pass a continuing resolution that would allow the Defense Department to maintain operations temporarily until the appropriations legislation is enacted. For the more formal legislation, defense appropriations would likely be consolidated with other funding bills into an omnibus spending package, sources said.
Meanwhile, the Navy this summer reportedly submitted to Ashton Carter, the Pentagon acquisition czar, its major design recommendations for the new submarine, which is to replace today's Ohio-class vessels.
Carter earlier this month said that to cut costs, the Defense Department would limit the replacement submarine's "size and speed," though he indicated that design details remained classified.
An "emphasis on affordability is already being applied to the next-generation ballistic missile submarine, where we are trimming [design] requirements without compromising critical capability," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appearing alongside Carter at a Sept. 14 press briefing.
"The per-unit estimated cost had risen as high as $7 billion. It is now roughly $5 billion," Gates said. "The goal is a reduction of fully 27 percent in a program where total cost is expected to be more than $100 billion."
Design features to be decided during the Defense Acquisition Board meeting, led by Carter, will include how many launch tubes each boat will contain, which could affect the number of weapons the vessel can carry, according to defense sources. Today's Ohio-class submarines feature 24 launch tubes, each of which can shoot a single Trident 2 D-5 ballistic missile.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Panel Seeks Pentagon WMD Response Reforms

Seal of the United States Department of Defense

Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. Defense Department should revise numerous elements of its preparations for responding to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, a congressionally established experts panel warned in a report issued yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 10).

The report outlines more than 40 steps Congress and the Obama administration could take to improve the country's WMD response capabilities. The panel, comprised for former high-level U.S. military officials, former lawmakers, National Guard officers and academic experts on disaster response, received support from RAND Corp. in completing the study.
“This is a matter of critical importance because such an incident will happen, and the stakes are too high to delay action,” panel Chairman Steve Abbot said in a statement. “In our year of deliberations, we identified a number of findings and recommendations that will allow the Department of Defense to better support the civil authorities that will respond to a domestic disaster" (RAND Corp. release, Sept. 15).
The department wields many of the powers it would need to aid civilian agencies after a biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive strike, but the powers "are not widely known and are frequently misunderstood," says the document, prepared by the Advisory Panel on Department of Defense Capabilities for Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents.