The "Politics and DV Technology" working group analyses and comments on current political developments in the defence sector from a technology perspective.
Recently, the working group compiled questions and comments on the Minister of Defence's "Operational Energy Strategy 2015" paper. These comments were presented to, among others, the members of the Permanent Committee on Defence of the Lower House of Parliament to support the discussion of this topic.
In general terms, the working group welcomes this Operational Energy Strategy. Not only for reasons of energy saving, cost reduction, environment and technology, but also to give engineers and users in defence and supplying companies an opportunity to link up with the thinking on energy and energy reduction in the rest of the economy. Engineers in industry and operational units know, can, want and see the need. These are the people who know what risk-taking is and how to deal with it. The absence of an energy policy so far undermines motivation.
It is striking that the intentions are not supported by more budget for target funding to broaden and deepen the knowledge base in this field! There is a strong emphasis on " smart customer" as a role for Defence and "international cooperation", without realising that Dutch defence must then also be able to contribute something itself. How does Defence do that without extra budget for knowledge development and investment in new technologies?
Download the paper and full commentary via this link
Questionquestions abouter the note "Operational energy strategy 2015"
Presented to the House of Representatives on 15 Feb 2016
The Royal Institute of Engineers' (KIVI) "Politics and Defence & Security Technology" working group analyses current political developments in the defence sector. It provides facts and interpretation from the technological knowledge and experience of engineers. The questions and comments below refer to the pages of the Operational Energy Strategy 2015 (OES) paper
Page 1. General
The working group welcomes this Operational Energy Strategy. Not only for reasons of energy saving, cost reduction, environment and technology, but also to give engineers and users in defence and supplying companies an opportunity to join the thinking on energy and energy reduction in the rest of the economy. Engineers in industry and operational units know, can, want and see the need. These are the people who know what risk-taking is and how to deal with it. The absence of an energy policy so far undermines motivation.
The OES is based almost entirely on energy policy, and despite the strong argument of operational independence, it still seems to be detached from both an overall military strategy and technological developments. Does this operational energy strategy affect mainstream military doctrines and overall military strategy?
It is striking that the fine intentions are not supported by more budget for target funding to broaden and deepen the knowledge base in this field!
There is a strong emphasis on " smart customer" as a role for Defence and "international cooperation", without realising that Dutch defence must then also be able to contribute something itself. And how does Defence do that without extra budget for knowledge development and investment in new technologies?
There are no concrete proposals for the biggest fuel consumers (and environmental polluters) KM and KLU on how they can or will reduce their dependence on hydrocarbon fuel.
However, there are many concrete examples in technology. Earlier this month, the Technisch Weekblad (publication of KIVI and others) published another interesting article on Rolls Royce marine engines with an efficiency of 99%! Follow this link for the article.
Wouldn't the House of Representatives like to hear some more concrete details on this than just the promise of a Plan of Action?
Page 10. National
The Operational Energy Strategy insists on exempting weapon systems from national climate regulations. Currently, the Ministry of Defence does have a best-effort obligation to give energy efficiency heavy consideration when acquiring equipment, but in practice, not much comes of it. And that while Defence is the government's biggest energy user.
This leads to the following questions:
1. Can the minister clarify what specific technical-logistical aspects prevent weapon systems from complying with national climate regulations as well?
2. Does the minister share the view that an exception to national regulations for Defence sends an undesirable signal to society?
3. Does the minister share the view that retaining an exception and at the same time having far-reaching ambitions to reduce operational energy consumption includes a certain incongruity?
Page 12. Ambition (next 5 to 10 years)
Over the next 5 to 10 years, reductions in energy use will be sought in part through heavy weighting of energy efficiency in the planned introduction of new systems. Much new equipment introduced now will last 30 to 40 years. If that new equipment consumes more fossil fuel than the equipment it replaces, it puts a strain not only on ambitions to 2030 but also on ambitions to 2050.
1. Of the projects listed in the Materiel Project Overview, can the minister indicate to what extent they will contribute to achieving the ambitions to 2030?
2. Is the minister willing to reconsider the equipment projects that do not contribute to the ambitions to 2030 and adjust them in such a way that they do?
Page 13. Ambition (beyond 10 years)
To achieve the ambitions up to 2050, the minister expects a lot from so-called "breakthrough technologies". Like the Minister of Economic Affairs' report "Energy Report: Transition to Sustainability", this strategy has a high wait-and-see content. For the Ministry of Defence, having sufficient fuel at all times is crucial and that should not become too dependent on developments that it does not control itself.
1. Does the minister share the view that developing operational concepts and innovations based on known civilian technology offers more perspective than hoping for breakthrough technologies? If so, in what way will the minister promote the development of such concepts?
2. Can the minister indicate which technology sectors she expects breakthroughs from and estimate the likelihood of that new technology contributing significantly to achieving her ambitions by 2050?
Page 14. Knowledge development and target funding
Not all (energy) technology from the civilian sector is applicable to others under military conditions. Among other things, the temperature, dust and watertightness requirements of civilian equipment are almost always much lower than military equipment, which has to be able to operate in arctic as well as desert conditions.
Yet there is no ambition in the field of scientific research to pay attention to energy aspects specific to Defence. This is at odds with the principles of the SKIA 2011 to encourage defence-specific knowledge development and the innovation of and for Defence.
Is the research mentioned in the SKIA 2011 on pages 46 and 47 not being carried out, or not continuing to be carried out, and is the ambition expressed in this paper therefore real ?
Page 14. Strategy
The feasibility of the strategy largely depends on technological capabilities and developments. Apart from promoting knowledge and innovation in a broad sense, what specific energy technologies will Defence focus on? Shouldn't that be part of this policy?
Page 16. Energy Knowledge Network
According to the memorandum, the knowledge network is defence-wide and has an open character. This is essential to have technological knowledge available at those places where ideas can be developed to realise the objectives of the OES.
Does the open character of the energy knowledge network also allow knowledge, ideas and concepts from knowledge institutes and companies in the (sustainable) energy sector to be exchanged with the various defence units through these short lines?
Page 16. Golden triangle
The paper indicates that the NIDV is the pivot between Defence, knowledge institutes and industry. However, the (paying) participants in this foundation are mainly defence-related companies and not companies from the energy sector.
Is it the minister's intention to encourage the defence-related industry united in the NIDV to also become active in the energy sector, in addition to the various other foundations and platforms that are already active in this (top) sector?
Page 16 Collaboration with industry
The methodology of Concept, Development & Experimentation (CD&E) was developed for technological innovation and allows for continuous improvements that will enable a much higher target to be achieved than the current ambition. It also makes it possible to try solutions not yet known. Our experience is that companies and operational defence personnel and the engineers working there already know and want to test many solutions.
Wouldn't the CD&E concept be very suitable to develop, based on industry knowledge, a variety of innovative military-specific solutions with which the objectives of the Operational Energy Strategy can be realised quickly?
Page 17. Top sector energy
It appears from the paper that there is little or no connection between is between government-promoted research and development and this Operational Energy Strategy of Defence. However, Defence is one of the government's largest energy users.
Does the minister share the view that the top sector policy of the Minister of Economic Affairs in the field of energy should be integrated with the interests of Defence as a large consumer of energy and that therefore Defence's policy objectives should weigh in this top sector?
Page 17. EDA military green
It is pleasing to read that EDA's Military Green programme offers starting points for cooperation as the minister indicated during the AO Materiel of 26 March 2015 that "the Netherlands is not participating in that because it cannot participate in everything." An interesting aspect of this programme is that it is funded by private investors, and not by the government. So it does not burden the budget.
Does the minister still intend to join EDA's GO GREEN pilot?
Page 18. Reducing energy use (costs)
The minister points out the huge costs associated with operational energy and the importance that should be attached to controlling Life Cycle Costs (LCC) and Fully Burdened Costs of Energy (FBCE). However, implementing energy mitigation measures also entails costs, even if knowledge development and innovations are left to the market and other government actors.
How does the minister deal with the dilemma that the OES entails additional investments in equipment projects and LCC savings are thereby reduced or may even be negative?
Operational units that fall under CZM CARIB face much higher costs for electrical energy and water in day-to-day operations (i.e. non-expeditionary deployments) than units in the Netherlands. At the same time, the Caribbean has plenty of solar and wind energy.
1. When developing models to determine FBCE, is the minister using the expertise available at CZM CARIB?
2. Is the minister willing to prioritise providing CZM CARIB with operational resources that will help reduce the high cost of (operational) electric power and water there, while making a natural testing ground accessible?
Page 19. Increasing renewable energy share
The minister's spearhead 3, increasing renewable energy in energy supply in operations, is the applicability of alternative fuels in mobile systems. On 16 June 2010, a demonstration flight was held at Gilze-Rijen Air Base in the presence of the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Royal Netherlands Air Force. One of the 2 engines of the Apache AH-64D contained a mixture of fossil and biological paraffin during the flight. The flight came about in cooperation with several companies, the NLR and SkyNRG as supplier of the fuel.
1. Is the minister considering a continuation of the 2010 initiative by structurally using a mixture of sustainable biokerosene and regular fuel in the Royal Air Force?
2. Is this also possible for boats and vehicles of the other operational commands?
Page 22. Plan of Approach
The Operational Energy Strategy does not address how mission ambition strategy should be realised. A Plan of Action will be adopted for that purpose. To maintain momentum, it is vital that the OES is quickly followed by a Plan of Action. In February 2011, the US Department of Defence adopted an Operational Energy Strategy. In March 2012, the US secretary signed the Operational Strategy Implementation Plan.
Can the minister indicate when the Dutch Plan of Approach governing the elaboration of the Netherlands Operational Energy Strategy will be ready as planned?
______________________________
The Hague, 13 March 2016
Do you have any further questions? Please contact the working group at E: dv@kivi.nl or T: 071 7113973
