ISSUE 183 : Nov/Dec - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Other strategies being progressed by the US Navy include: 18• When awarding contracts, consider energy efficiency and the energy ‘footprint’ inacquisition decisions.• By 2012, develop a ‘Green Strike Group’, composed of nuclear vessels and ships poweredby bio-fuel. By 2016, sail this group as a ‘Great Green Fleet’, composed of nuclear ships andsurface combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running onbio-fuel, supported by aircraft running on bio-fuel.• By 2015, cut petroleum use in half in the 50,000-strong non-tactical commercial fleet, byphasing in hybrid, ‘flex fuel’ and electric vehicles.• By 2020, procure at least half of the energy requirements of shore-based installationsfrom alternative sources. Also 50 per cent of all shore installations will be net zero energyconsumers.• By 2020, provide half of [the Navy’s] total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks,vehicles and shore installations from alternative sources.The US Army is also pursuing renewable energy options, including for the power needs ofremote outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, aiming also to minimise the human and resourcecost of fuel convoys, given their vulnerability to attack by insurgents. 19 Minimising the weightcarried by soldiers in the field is also the focus of significant effort in the US and UK. In 2009,the UK Ministry of Defence called for industry proposals to reduce the energy burden fordismounted troops, after a study found that an average 48-hour rural patrol required eachsoldier to carry an average of 4 kilograms of power source-related burden. 20Energy dependence is only one risk of not basing capability on sustainability. While thereare others, including high financial costs, environmental impacts and the social costs of highimpact military operations, it is energy dependence that can drive a changed paradigm.Addressing this risk now will lead to increased capability, increased security, lower economiccosts, lower environmental impact and greater social acceptance of the requirement for andpresence of a military capability both at home and overseas. Indeed, an increased awareness ofsustainability requirements for the ADF may lead to these considerations further penetratingthe broader Australian community, as service personnel interact with and leave the ADF forthe civil sector.Sustainable defence industryDefence industry’s contribution to ADF capability appears vastly understated in the WhitePaper. 21 Australia’s lack of offset policies and perceived lack of investment in local industrycapability, such as in recent Defence vehicle projects, 22 arguably bring into question theGovernment’s commitment to a viable defence industry in Australia. In providing a sustainabledefence capability, industry will need to be seen as a vital capability partner.A paradigm shift in Government and Defence thinking seems inevitable, at some point in thefuture— but hopefully prior to the realisation of a major capability gap caused by a climatechange ‘September 11’. 23 Lengthy acquisition lead times and the long in-service life cycle ofmajor Defence platforms means planning for a sustainable defence capability—with industrythe primary source for its innovations—must occur now.90