quantifying the fbcf and energy key performance...

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



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



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



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



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



Reduced fuel demand increases number of missions possible with same amount of fuel over the Future Surge Scenario

6



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


information of the client to whom it is addressed. 6



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



Number of convoys (one MoE) can be linked to gallons/hour (the MoP) to inform Threshold & Objective values

2



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



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

quantifying the fbcf and energy key performance...

Documents