Question 2) The Army's Joint Lightweight Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is the only remaining demonstration program for the Energy Efficiency KPP and it looks like the Army's trying to use it ... a least a little bit. That said, do you have any other programs in mind, existing or future, that might be good exemplars for energy-related KPPs?
Lovins: I believe we need to demonstrate energy as a KPP on mobility platforms and electronic systems, in each of the Services, and preferably on the big ACAT I and ACAT 2 programs. So in addition to JLTV, we should look at vehicle mounted, APU-requiring power-intensive electronics like the Cruise Missile Defense Systems – for example, Patriot / MEADS systems and its associated radar systems. Not only should energy as a KPP be added to a ship program, but it should be added to power-intensive ship defense systems like the Ship Self-Defense System managed by NAVSEA's PEO Integrated Warfare System.
What's more, I'd like to see some serious thinking about leap-ahead, rapidly fieldable, super-efficient platforms applied to the Reset opportunity. For example, the blast-bucket light armored ground vehicle described in our 2008 DSB report would seem an apt approach to replacing those HMMVVs, rather than just building more of the same for $85+ billion. Our Task Force recommended rapid development that has not yet occurred. What are we waiting for?Good stuff, and very good question to close. Apart from the usual bureaucratic inertia, who knows the answer to this? Well?
Next up, Lovins on the current state of another key metric: the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF).