fting into the other lane. [ kim ] i was literally falling asleep at the wheel. it got my attention, telling me that i wasn't paying attention. i had no idea the guy in front of me had stopped short. but my car did. my car did. thankfully, my mercedes did. [ male announcer ] a world you can't predict... demands a car you can trust. the e-class. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial. ♪ meet pnc virtual wallet. it comes with a wish list, that helps you set aside money for the stuff that really matters... just put the things you want on your wish list... and contribute money when you feel like it... then, watch as you get closer to getting what you want. wish list is built to make saving a whole lot more fun. experience all the ways virtual wallet can help you save at pncvirtualwallet.com. pnc. for the achiever in us all. [ male announcer ] it's luxury with fire in its veins.

bold. daring. capable of moving your soul. ♪ and that's even before you drop your foot on the pedal. ♪ the new 2011 cts coupe from cadillac. the new standard of the world.

next on this week in defense news, welcome to this week in defense news. i'm vago muradian. the marine corp. is in the mist of the review to determine the future size and capability of the forest. we'll talk to one of the generals who are in charge of that review. but first, a national security issue. splitting energy usage into two main categories. operation energy that includes what powers armored vehicles, trucking, planes, ships. and the others that power military installations worldwide. supplies troops with energy is a task that is expensive and often dangerous.

getting a gallon of gas to afghanistan cost the pentagon about $400. each of the services have experimented with energy-saving technology, alternative fuels, but until now, the pentagon has lacked a coordinating office. that office was established in july. and our next guest is its director, sharon burke. welcome to the show. >> thank you, it's great to be here. >> let's start off with energy efficiency, as we discussed just a moment ago is just not in the u.s./military's dna. how do you change that dynamic over the long term? >> you know, to say it's not in the dna, it could be. for example, if you look at an aircraft carrier, it's a resource constraint environment and people watch what they consume. it is in our dna, just not necessarily in terms of thinking about saving energy for the sake of saving energy. >> right. >> and i think how you go about changing that for the long term is that you look for the points of the leverage can which are coming currently from deployed forces. we've been getting messages from iraq and from afghanistan consistently.

that we need a better way of doing business. we're moving too much fuel by convoys through dangerous places. people are getting shot at. we need a better way of doing business. and also especially with this war, where our logistics training is in the battle space, this has become very obvious to everybody that we need to figure out another way. >> you suggested a new policy as to how the pentagon should think about fuel energy and fuel burning costs. can you give us a flavor of what that policy will say when it comes out later this year. and how is that going to change the way we buy things? >> sure. you know, right now if you're look at how much energy the department uses, about 70% of our energy consumption is for military operations. and that last year, it cost us about $9.3 billion. so when you talk about a fully- burning cost of fuel, it's about saving money, but it is also about getting better capability. and what that policy means is not just how much you paid at

the pump for the fuel, but how much it actually cost you to use it. what was the real cost? how much force protection did you have to put on that convoy? how far did you have to move it? what kinds of equipment and vehicle did you need to move it? what capabilities do you need or are dependent on in order to have the fuel? what is it really costing you? to put that into the process, it's more about how we acquire systems and equipment of platforms. so in the analysis of alternatives at a point when we're looking at how a system might be used. >> right. >> you want to put in that point, some understanding about cost and capabilities and how energy may add to your cost or sacrifice your capabilities so you're buying a system that you could actually use the way you intabledded to use it. we hope to have, you know, the services have been using versions of this policy for some time. we're hoping to have a common understanding in a single policy by the end of the year. and the full blown cost of fuel

and the energy to keep the perimeter are the two elements of it. >> so fuel efficiency and stuff like that is something you considered earlier on in the process, we'll upgrade something and improve its capabilities, including its deficiency. fuel convoys have been under attack, and also the pakistan's government protested some of their troops have slowed or closed some of the border crossings obviously. what are some other ways you can get fuel troops in afghanistan? because obviously it's still a war zone and it's still a hungry force out there. >> right, this is true. there are a number of ways. that's a big focus for my office is how can we cut fuel consumption as part of the rapid fueling effort? what can we do right now? there are a number of things. the marines are fielding in the experimental ford operationing business. you can discuss that with the marines as well. that's meant to be potential. so what they are looking at are

solar flies over the tents that actually are insulating the tents and using solar energy to power the needs, l.e.d. lights in the tents. and what this gets to is that we can generate power, you know, off the generator. right now on the battlefield, all the energy we consume is from fuel, from liquid fuel, from jet fuel, whether it's a generator giving space cool, or whatever it is, it is all jet fuel. so whether it's stuff like that which have various ways of pulling solar energy or if we use our generators more efficiently or we just use them better, we can actually take convoys off the road. there are a number of different things we could be doing down to the batteries in the gear that an individual marine did is carrying. >> how much is what it is being burned over there is powering generators and how much is being used to power the vehicles?

>> reporter: that's an excellent question. and we don't really know because we do not collect that kind of data on the battlefield. and it's one of the first missions for our office is to begin to collect the data. because, you know, not so much for the adoption, but we need to know where to apply the effort. where do we go to help the most? there was a report in 2008 and based on modeling data, i believe they said the generators are the number one consumers on the battlefield. >> it is going for kind of the applications that you could use solar or wind or something else to power? >> potentially, it depends. with the renewable services, you know, it depends on the storage. and it depends on where you are, but there are a lot of places in afghanistan that we could be using that. there are other power generations. >> during your confirmation, you were asked, you know, whether they were doing a good enough job coordinating the energy and your answer to that was know. what specifically will you be doing to fix that? >> and one other thing about

battlefield use, the best thing to do is just be more efficient. as you say over and over again, how do you do it, it's in our dna, the energy you don't use is the best kind. >> right. >> so there is room to improve deficiency there. coordination, as operational energy -- the department has never looked at it as a separate concern. so we have lots of officials who look at that and do a great job. and an office to coordinate them. for operational energy, we have never looked at it as a separate concern. so there hasn't been a mirror there. no one coordinating it. so it might be in the logistics part of the operation. it might be in a planning part of the operation, it might be in strategies. it's in a lot of different places and practiced. so what that means is we don't have any kind of single point of entry or a way to coordinate. so you might have the army doing a lot of work on the

generators, the marines, the air force. >> but it is all uncoordinated effectivefully >> yes. and there is some correlation, depending on personalities. and so that's why congress and this administration created this office to make sure there was a single point of contact both to list this out as a separate concern and to pull all those threads together. there's a lot going on and the question is how do you actually all move it forward? >> obviously, i mean, a part of the force multiplier is to get greater unity of effort and stop wasting effort essentially? >> and also, most directly too is that if you're using less energy, it means your forces that have been protecting it and moving it could do other things. >> right. >> sharon, thank you very much. before we go, the pentagon is hosting an energy awareness week october 12 through the 15 to highlight national awareness month. coming up, will the future marine corp. be smaller? stay tuned. you're watching this week in defense news.

after nine years of war in iraq and afghanistan, the united states marine corps is debating what kind of force it should come to address future threats. will it be an expeditionary force or amphibious force that been its hallmark since 1775. what the future marine corps should look like and what it will do and how to will be structures and equipped is the central question facing my next guest. lieutenant john george flynn that will determine the future

size, capabilities and the -- general flynn is deputy acome didn't -- welcome to the show. thank you. it's a pleasure being here. what are the capabilities after nine years of war that you think the marine corps will need for the future? >> in many ways i think those capabilities we need are the same capabilities that have taken us where we are today. we will be america's expeditionary force and readiness. part of being an expeditionary force is doing those things you see us do in iraq and afghanistan. but also they are the things that will enable us to assure access to the joint force in the future by doing -- by having three corps capabilities. ability to engage. the ability to prevent conflict because conflict prevention is going to be cheaper than conflict. ability to respond whether it's a natural disaster or jepper deef our national interest or citizens. and ability to be able to do that today rather than on a moment's notice. a premium will be paid in both

expeditionary capability and readiness. last piece is the capability to project. project power to be able to prevail in conflict at the higher end and that's the type of force we were trying to build. >> from the engagement piece most of the exercises and engagement operations as well as humanitarian stuff you have done. because of iraq and afghanistan, you guys moved away from the sea for the last decade both your aircraft and troops have been deployed fighting inland. what are the key lessons from iraq and afghanistan that are shaping your future? >> first of all to get your question about leaving the sea, we haven't left the sea since 2001. if you take look at what we have been doing we have continued those engagements in south america and pacific and we have been engaged around the world from a sea base working in conjunction with the navy. we also responded to crisis. but those crisis have been? a good number have been

humanitarian, haiti, pakistan this year. tsunami relief. sometimes we forget those things. we also evacuated the citizens from lebanon. 14,000 american citizens evacuated to a sea base. that's another example of crisis smons. >> you are spending less time at sea or fewer numbers at sea. >> and that is true, we have. and our core capability as you saw from one secretary gates said in his speech in san francisco a few months ago is we can't forget our maritime soul. we were soldiers of the sea but also part of an expeditionary force we have to be able to do our part in the joint force and land combat. we have to do those things. key lesson learned i think that we will face from afghanistan is we have to figure out how to be a little lighter. because one of the key things of being an expeditionary force in readiness is be able to get there get there quickly. >> and fast. >> and sustain yourself and be able to make a difference when you arrive. >> the marine corps likes to see it itself the forcible

entry part is being a core the corps has. one of the questions is in an era of -- greater range and push the marine corps farther out to sea that these force entry operations are less likely in the future or more difficult. how do you respond to that view? >> one of the things you have to take a look at is when you see secretary gates speech from i believe it was august of this year in san francisco, he said that the marine's ability to come from the sea was needed in the past and it was going to be needed in the future. question is we vd to decide is what is that capability and capacity? right now we think we need a two brigade requirement to be able to be credible and have capability to project from the sea. army general number years ago said about the future never get 100% right, you can't afford to be 100% wrong. and we believe that two brigade capability is minimum to prescrnt us from having a future that's 100% wrong. do you -- in terms of the

review group, the corps expanded to 202,000. number of options you are assessing for the future. some folks say it goes as low as 175,000 for example in one ever the sizing options. how much of this is driven by strategy and how much by financial reality? >> i think what we set out to do in the structure, the group been in session now for a month is conducting a capabilities based review. the idea is and the guidance the principal guidance we received from the commandant and secretary of defense and secretary mays have is to -- mas have is to tell us what america's expeditionary force and readiness looks like. how do you do that? okay, the first question we are trying to decide right now is work for the group. what are the capabilities that are needed and we will reach agreement on that and then the next phase of the effort will be what is the capacity? how much do you need? so that is our approach to it. we do have a clear guidance from the secretary i think.

tell us what an expeditionary force of readiness looks like, what are the capabilities and review group then will decide that as well as the capacity. we will be

i'm back with george flynn with combat development and integration and the commander of the marine corp command. sir, let's talk about ied's. than been a key for the past ten years and something an enduring threat. how do you think the corp has to be organized, trained and equipped to fight this threat into the future as something more integral as opposed toance ill airy in terms of how it's been regarding so far? >> i think two key points on our approach. we have three lines of operation had we attack this. how do we train the force to make sure they are trained in the ied environment and

secondly how to defeat the device and the more sew fist kate add poach to how do you defeat the network that leads to the ied placement and detonation. so working along those three lines of adaptation we have to be open to new techniques and procedures. some examples of that is we are using dogs right now because they have the best sensor of anything out there to detect explosives. we use them off leash and use them in conjunction with the squads on foot patrols. we have to be able to come up with the tactics and procedures to train or marines to understand their environment, to look for the differences so they can see the device before it's an issue. and the third piece is how do you attack the network from the top down, from the supplier to the implacer. >> which is a broad -- part of it is engagement to make sure

you are getting the information from the population. the marine corp plan was due to the office of the secretary defense in july and our understanding is you asked for an extension to finish that up. you can give us a preview on what we're likely to see. as i recall at c.i.s. in july you mentioned there might be a cut from the 24,000 vehicles we wanted. are we going to be along those lines and what will the report say? >> the ground tactical vehicle strategy is an evolving document because we don't know anything about ground vehicles right now. and so here is what we are doing. we're going to cut 10,000 vehicles out of the inventory because we decided what capabilities we need. but the other part is we don't have to make some decisions on certain vehicles without some additional tests. the joint light tactical vehicles in the second year of technology demonstration, we need to see what the technology demonstration will produce. we're looking at other options as to how to recapitalize our existing humvee, either for the use of capsule or something new, to capitalize that

investment and still get more protected, more capable vehicle at a reduced cost. our plan is to start executing the ground tactical vehicle strategy in the later years of the current palm cycle. we are focusing on command and control at the front end in the palm cycle. what we will provide to the leadership of the department is what we know so that we can make an informed decision. though the experiments on capsule vehicle and chimney are all on going now and we feed those answers to finalize the strategy. >> one of the debates right now on going is what happened to the expeditionary finding vehicle. the marine corp said it is core or suggested it could be canceled after the election. if the program goes away, what do you do and how do you address that capability and what is your thinking about the future capability of a vehicle that would be protected from ied which is another criticism? >> first of all the existing amphibious assault vehicle is

approaching 40 years of service so we need a solution. key is we don't want to define what we are looking for by a specific program but a capability. we need a track vehicle that can do the transition from the sea to the land and immediately engage in land maneuver. that's hard technology. and we've been working on it for a number of years. it's currently in a technology or test demonstration phase to see if the reliability challenges have been solved. so there is no need about the question of the capability but will it meet the reliability and will we be able

british defense secretary liam fox has warned his boss david cameron that budget cuts will devastate u.k. military capability and undermine national clout. he's right. at 190 it is tiny compared to america but punches above its weight. 10,000 groups are in

afghanistan and thousands more deployed worldwide. cam ran wants military spending cut. while the army will escape the worst reductions until it's out of afghanistan, the raf faces deep cuts and the navy with expensive new missiles and aircraft carriers in the works has been targeted. britain can't afford to get this wrong. it has enormous influence from the navy. while no longer a super power, britain is a world power. it's status is willing to equip a number of missions. it is a flexible element of that power. the united states will have to do as more as london does less. i'm vago muradian, you can watch this online at defense

news. and before we