Post on 10-Aug-2018
Helping Clients Succeed
NDIA E2S2
Denver, CO
June 14, 2010
Quantifying the FBCF and Energy
Key Performance Parameter
Richard Goffi
1
Congress has directed that energy performance be ‘baked in’
to force planning, requirements-setting, and acquisition
processes
PLANNING.—In the case of analyses and force planning
processes that are used to establish capability requirements
and inform acquisition decisions, the Secretary of Defense
shall require that analyses and force planning processes
consider the requirements for, and vulnerability of, fuel
logistics.
CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop and
implement a methodology to enable the implementation of a
fuel efficiency key performance parameter in the requirements
development process for the modification of existing or
development of new fuel consuming systems.
ACQUISITION PROCESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall
require that the life-cycle cost analysis for new capabilities
include the fully burdened cost of fuel during analysis of
alternatives and evaluation of alternatives and acquisition
program design trades.
2009 NDAA Requirements
2
DoD has set out new policies and guidance to implement the
fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) and Energy Efficiency KPP
“Analyses of Alternatives (AoAs) must
assess alternative ways to improve
energy efficiency.”
Energy efficiency established as a new,
selectively-applied KPP; includes
operational fuel demand and related fuel
logistics resupply risk considerations.
Focus on mission success and mitigating
the size of the fuel logistics force within
the given planning scenarios
3
These directives are reinforced by Senior Leadership in the
most recent Quadrennial Defense review
Energy efficiency can serve as a force
multiplier, because it increases the range and
endurance of forces in the field and can reduce
the number of combat forces diverted to
protect energy supply lines, which are
vulnerable to both asymmetric and
conventional attacks and disruptions.
DoD must incorporate … operational energy
considerations into force planning,
requirements development, and acquisition
processes.
To address these challenges, DoD will fully
implement the statutory requirement for the
energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter
… set forth in the 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act.
4
Recent studies sponsored by OSD add to the analytic body of
knowledge about how to quantify the impacts of battlespace fuel
demand
OSD/Navy case study on a maritime platform
– Validate FBCF methodology
– Insights on Energy KPP
OSD/JS (J4) framework, methodology and case study
– Develop a decision framework
– Apply KPP methodology to a legacy ACAT1D system
5
OSD sponsored a study on a Navy legacy platform to quantify FBCF
and derive insights on Energy KPP
TASK: Conduct an independent assessment and
investigate how the FBCF and Energy Efficiency KPP can
help DoD understand, plan for, and manage energy costs
and operational impacts
APPROACH: Perform a Case
Study on the Perry Class Frigate
– Develop methodology for deriving
the FBCF and Energy Efficiency
KPP
– Apply them and derive insights
– Develop recommendations for
implementation
6
Key finding: FBCF and Energy KPP require characterizing the scenarios for the system, and the fuel delivery LOG chain
Characterize
Scenario for
Platform
Determine
Commodity
Cost
Quantify
Capital
Costs
Quantify
Operating
Costs
Characterize
Fuel Logistics
CONOPS
Calculate
FBCF
Values
Apportion Across DAG 7 Burden Categories
• Depreciation Costs of Primary
Fuel Delivery Asset
• Environmental Costs
• Other Service & Platform-
Specific Delivery Costs
• Commodity Cost of Fuel
• Direct Fuel Infrastructure O&S
and Recapitalization Costs
• Indirect Fuel Infrastructure O&S Cost
• Primary Fuel Delivery Asset O&S Cost
Shared by KPP and FBCF
Energy Efficiency KPP
Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel
Assess Impact
of Modified Fuel
Demand
Assign
Threshold,
Objective Values
The KPP quantifies operational impact from asset exposure and increasedOperational capability – the FBCF quantifies cost of platform fuel demand
7
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
The study team developed a decision framework and methodology for the Energy
Efficiency KPP and applied it to a case study of the UH-60
The case study results show that reduced energy demand can significantly decrease
logistics requirements and increase platform capability
– The study focused on understanding and quantifying the benefits and tradeoffs of potential efficiency improvements to inform decision making
– A detailed technology assessment of the ability to achieve efficiency improvements was outside the scope of this study
This work provides sufficient basis to begin implementation of operational energy
considerations
OSD also sponsored a study to develop a framework and methodology for the Energy KPP and apply to a legacy system
8
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Energy performance and cost of energy are addressed separately within hierarchy of KPPs and KSAs
Selective KPPsMandatory KSAs
Force Protection KPP
Survivability KPP
Sustainment KPP - Material Availability
- Operational Availability
Net-Ready KPP
Reliability KSA
Ownership Cost KSA
Energy Efficiency
KPP
System Training KPP
Mandatory KPPs
*Other KPPs, KSAs, and Attributes can be added on an as-needed basis
**Additional Nuclear Survivability KPPs and CBRN Attributes are also addressed by JCIDS Manual & DoDI 3150.09
Sets energy performance
based on relative impact on
fuel/energy logistics chain
– number of assets
Involved and for how long
to satisfy fuel demandConsiders life-cycle cost
of fuel demand as a
Key System Attribute –
As calculated by FBCF
methodology
9
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Operational Efficiency KPP Question Set for consideration
Does the system (family/system of systems) consume fuel in a battlespace
environment during deployment/employment?
Would increased energy efficiency improve platform operational
effectiveness?
Does the system (family/system of systems) represent a net increase in
operational fuel demand for the force compared to the system it replaces?
Are there technological alternatives that lower fuel demand for the system
(family/system of systems)?
Do fuel savings reduce logistics infrastructure/OPTEMPO requirements (and
increase overall force effectiveness)?
Can similar or redundant Service-funded programs be terminated to divert
funds to develop and sustain joint solutions?
Are fuel costs projected to be a significant part of total life cycle costs?
The study team proposed (selective) Energy KPP Decision Framework
10
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Case Study Methodology
1. Assess UH-60 fuel demand in historic surge – OIF 2007
2. Quantify the exposure of assets associated with fuel delivery to satisfy UH-60’s in OIF
3. Assess the benefits of increased fuel efficiency had it been part of the UH-60 design
– Increased flight hours, system availability
– Decreased delivery asset exposure time from lower fuel demand
4. Build-out a discrete mission based on an approved future planning scenario
5. Overlay land-based asset delivery model and quantify asset exposure times
6. Assess UH-60 performance/logistics impacts against fuel demand
– Number of missions
– Assets exposed during required fuel delivery operations
7. Describe processes for future AoAs
– Determine data that will be required to do this for another system
– Describe method for doing the trades for future systems
11
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
The logistics impact is a function of the expected CONOPS for fuel delivery in the specific Scenario
1155
77
66
33
22
100 mi
75 mi
50 mi
100 mi
100 mi
100 mi
Isolation OBJ
BDE FOB
MSR
Friendly controlled
Enemy controlled
HBCT
IBCT 1
SBCT 1
SBCT 2
SBCT 3
IBCT 2
50 mi
25 mi
1111
1212
44 1010
99
88
50 mi
75 m
i50 m
i
75 mi
25 mi
25 mi
BSB HQ FOB
Materiel
ESC Node/FOB
12
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Reduced fuel demand increases number of missions possible with same amount of fuel over the Future Surge Scenario
6
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Heavy Lift
Troop Transport
Combat Assault
Command & Control
Additional missions per yearNew mission capacity by type
Mission Count
Efficiency Improvement
Phase 3c mission options mission tab q16
Additional Missions that Could be Flown in the Future Scenario with Improved UH-60M Fuel Performance
Ad
dit
ion
al
Mis
sio
ns
Th
at
Co
uld
Be
Flo
wn
Ov
er
the
36
5 D
ay S
urg
e S
ce
na
rio
13
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed. 6
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Gun Truck Time
HEMMT Time
Tanker Time
Hours of Logistics Assets to Support the Future Scenario for One YearShown by efficiency Improvements
To
tal H
ou
rs r
eq
uir
ed
by T
ruc
k T
yp
e
Efficiency Improvement
bd39 Log Chain, Hist Tab
Increased fuel performance significantly reduces the logistics assets and hours involved in the Future Scenario
Reduction in Fuel Supply Asset Hours Required from Improved UH-60 Fuel Performance in Future Scenario
Ho
urs
Re
qu
ire
d t
o D
eli
ve
r U
H-6
0 F
ue
l
Ov
er
the
36
5 D
ay S
urg
e S
ce
na
rio
Protection Asset Time
14
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Number of convoys (one MoE) can be linked to gallons/hour (the MoP) to inform Threshold & Objective values
2
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
0.0% 0.4%0.7% 1.1% 1.5% 1.9% 2.3% 2.7% 3.1% 3.5% 3.9% 4.3% 4.7% 5.1% 5.5% 6.0% 6.4% 6.8% 7.3% 7.7% 8.1% 8.6% 9.0% 9.5% 9.9% 10.4%
Total Convoys run over one year of Phase 4Shown by demand reduced from baseline
Log Chain_step change convoys, Hist Tab j57
Total Convoys
Convoys in this diagram are defined as having 4 HEMMT Trucks carrying 20,000 gallons of fuel in total, with proportional force protection
Fuel Efficiency Breakpoints
Fuel Convoy Break Points vs. Increased Energy Performance Number of Convoys Over Future Scenario
Threshold Objective
Delta between T and O:
14 fuel convoys
To
tal c
on
vo
ys r
eq
uir
ed
to
su
pp
ort
pla
tfo
rm
Ove
r th
e s
pe
cif
ic S
urg
e S
ce
na
rio
15
This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and
information of the client to whom it is addressed.
Energy KPP study recommendations
Emphasize operational energy requirements in strategic guidance (NDS, NMS, GDF and
implementing directives and instructions)
Incorporate operational energy requirements/implications into the CCJO and other JOpsC concepts
Revise the CJCSI/M 3170 series to emphasize system energy demand during the conduct of CBAs
– Assess requirement for operational energy performance attributes during ICD development
– Provide relevant FCBs (Force Application, Protection, Force Support, Logistics, etc) with a
framework to determine completeness and supportability of energy efficiency analysis documents in
the ICD
Provide capability sponsors with guidelines to determine if energy efficiency is a critical element for the
capability
Draft an instruction similar to the CJCSI 3312, Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification to
certify for operational energy
Incorporate the operational energy KPP methodology in analysis of resets of legacy systems
Consider making the operational energy KPP mandatory