Fiscal Year 2017 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report

Transcription

1 Fiscal Year 2017 Operational Energy Budget Certification Report Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment May 2017 The estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $163,000 in Fiscal Years This includes $125,000 in expenses and $38,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2016May02 RefID: C9

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 APPROACH MARINE CORPS AIR FORCE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CONCLUSION APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL ENERGY IN REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING APPENDIX B: OPERATIONAL ENERGY IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS APPENDIX C: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS FOR OASD(EI&E)/ODASD(OE) APPENDIX D: FISCAL YEAR 2017 OPERATIONAL ENERGY INITIATIVES APPENDIX E: FISCAL YEAR 2017 FUEL BUDGET ESTIMATES

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following an extensive review, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 President s Budget (PB) for the Department of Defense (DoD) is deemed adequate for implementing the objectives of the revised 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. Conducted pursuant to title 10, United States (U.S.C.), section 2926(c), this review requires that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment (ASD(EI&E)) annually review the PB to certify that the level of funding is adequate for carrying out the Department s Operational Energy Strategy. Operational energy is the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms for military operations. Building on the initial strategy released in 2011, the updated 2016 Operational Energy Strategy reaffirms the role of operational energy in enabling our forces to perform worldwide missions, assesses changes in strategic direction and the operational environment, and establishes three revised objectives: increasing future capabilities, identifying and reducing risk, and enhancing current mission effectiveness. 1 For the FY 2017 budget certification assessment, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment (OASD(EI&E)) compared the proposed budgets of the Military Departments, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) against the three objectives in the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. Overall, the Services, DLA, and OASD(EI&E) anticipate receiving over $2.4 billion for the execution of operational energy initiatives in FY 2017 and will request $13.4 billion over the Future Years Defense (). A summary of these investments is found in Figures 1-2. Table 1. DoD Operational Energy Investments, FY 2017 ($ Millions) 2016 Operational Energy Share of USMC OSD Total Strategy Objectives Total Future Warfighting $ $ $ 15.5 $ $ 40.3 $ 1, % Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks $ 6.8 $ 16.9 $ - $ 6.7 $ 1.1 $ % of the Current Force $ $ $ 23.5 $ $ 6.2 $ 1, % Total $ 1,280.5 $ $ 39.0 $ $ 47.6 $ 2, % 1 This document is available at 3

4 Table 2. DoD Operational Energy Investments, FY ($ Millions) 2016 Operational Energy Strategy Objectives Future Warfighting Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks of the Current Force USMC OSD Total Share of Total $ 2,328.1 $ $ 89.7 $ 3,562.8 $ $ 7, % $ 69.0 $ 83.6 $ - $ 35.3 $ 6.0 $ % $ 4,736.7 $ $ $ $ 23.2 $ 6, % Total $ 7,133.8 $ 1,613.3 $ $ 4,140.9 $ $ 13, % Tables may not match totals throughout document due to rounding. These investments reflect the full range of innovations that are affecting how the Department generates, uses, and plans to use energy in military operations around the globe. While meeting the overall requirements of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy, the Department does have specific concerns. For instance, the Department is pursuing improvements in aircraft propulsion that should provide significant improvements in warfighting capability, particularly in light of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. However, the Department is concerned over the schedule and fielding of new helicopter engines, as well as ensuring the Department maximizes the benefits of improved combat aircraft engines across Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. In addition, the Department is concerned over the lack of funding to sustain selected programs that may significantly improve capability. Including Service programs funded by the Operational Energy Improvement Fund (OECIF), the Department encourages the Services to carefully deliberate how to capitalize on previous investments and improve capability on air, land, and sea. Despite these concerns, the Department is making clear progress as logisticians, planners, and operators begin to treat energy as a constrained and vulnerable commodity that may not always be available in a combat environment. The FY 2017 PB supports the objectives of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy and illustrates the comprehensive set of operational energy initiatives being pursued by the Department to increase capability, reduce risk, and enhance current mission effectiveness. 4

5 APPROACH For the FY 2017 budget certification assessment, the proposed budgets of the Military Departments, DLA, and OSD were compared against the objectives of the revised 2016 Operational Energy Strategy, which include: Future Warfighting. This objective focuses on increasing capability through energy-informed force development. With the institutionalization of energy supportability analyses in force development, the Military Departments will be required to assess operational energy demands, and the ability to meet those demands, during capabilities-based assessments and energy supportability analyses (ESAs), prior to developing initial capabilities documents. In addition to ESA-informed energy Key Performance Parameters that improve the combat effectiveness and supportability of major acquisition programs, the Department will continue to invest in energy innovation that improves the long-term capability of the Department, such as increasing the unrefueled range or endurance of platforms. With this knowledge of energy constraints and risks, the Military Departments will be better able to make energy-informed decisions regarding future forces. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks. Initiatives in this category seek to identify and mitigate warfighting gaps found in wargames, concepts of operation, and operation plans. The Department s focus on risk will ensure future forces are better aligned to mitigate potential threats to operations derived from energy. As illustrated later in this report, the FY 2017 PB includes relatively few resources in support of this objective. There are two main reasons for this anomaly. First, while the two other objectives in the Operational Energy Strategy increase capability and enhance current mission effectiveness have roots in the previous strategy, the focus on reducing risk is a new focus area for operational energy. As a result, DoD reviews of operational energy-related risks are being executed as new concepts or operation plans are formulated or sequenced for formal review. Rather than reviewing all operation plans at once, for instance, DoD is applying additional operational energy analyses as individual operation plans are scheduled for formal review by OSD and the Joint Staff. Over time, the Department will gain more comprehensive insights on the scope of risks, as well as the initiatives needed to mitigate such risks. Second, initiatives that evaluate and mitigate risks are frequently non-materiel in nature and require fewer resources. For instance, modeling and simulation, analyses, and wargames are low in cost relative to new or modified platforms, and the resulting changes in concepts of operation and operation plans are also relatively low cost. In the future, the Department expects better visibility into investments that identify and reduce risks associated with operational energy. 5

6 of the Current Force. To improve mission effectiveness, an emphasis is being placed on the improvement of energy use in operations. This is being accomplished through the modification of selected training and education, enhanced operator and maintainer training and licensing, and modification of processes used by system developers. Initiatives in this objective may include material and non-material enhancements to day to day ops, upgrades, improvements, depot maintenance; changes in tactics, techniques, and procedures, and adaptations to professional military education (PME). Initiatives that fall in this category should field within one to two years, and do not include initiatives responding to specific operation plan risks or gaps. Overall, the objectives of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy recognize that, while reducing the demand for energy is an essential component of any energy strategy, this may not always be an option. Instead, the Department should remain focused on achieving increased capability as the salient outcome while advocating for programs and initiatives that both reduce energy demand and enhance energy supportability. Simultaneous to capability improvements, the Department will continue to identify and address risks, develop mitigation strategies, and use operational and logistics risk to inform investment priorities. To evaluate the adequacy of investments, OASD(EI&E) assessed initiatives during the Budget Review cycle and validated each operational energy initiative in the actual President s Budget. As much as possible, the OASD(EI&E) used the existing reviews within the Planning, ing, Budgeting, and Execution process, but also received specific Objective Memorandum (POM) briefings from the Military Departments and participated in Budget Review issue teams. Subsequent to the Budget Review, the ASD(EI&E) formed a Certification Advisory Working Group (CAWG) with representatives from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, DoD; Office of the Director, Cost Analysis and Evaluation; the Joint Staff; the Military Departments; and DLA. The CAWG reviewed the Military Departments responses to ASD(EI&E) questions and provided recommendations on the adequacy of resourcing 2016 Operational Energy Strategy objectives. Component support of 2016 Operational Energy Strategy objectives then was rated green as adequately funded, amber as marginally funded, or red as inadequately funded. It is important to note that green ratings indicate objectives are funded to a level that allows adequate progress throughout the fiscal year, not that the objective is complete. 6

7 The Department of the Army budgeted $1.2 billion in FY 2017 and $7.1 billion across the for operational energy initiatives. Approximately 33 percent of the Army s funding ($2.3 billion) across the is budgeted for increase future warfighting capability while one percent ($59.9 million) is aligned to identify and reduce logistics and operational risks, and the remaining 66 percent ($4.7 billion) is aligned to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Figure 1. FYs Army Total Operational Energy Funding Operational Energy Funding FYs ($Thousands) 1,280,723 1,282,249 1,485,874 1,573,696 1,511,504 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 As a soldier-centric force, adaptations in soldier and leader behaviors are just as significant as changes in equipment. The Army is developing modeling and simulation tools that will improve the ability to make energy informed decisions on force structure, acquisition, and OPLAN supportability. Additionally, the Army is focused on addressing the major consumers of operational energy with significant energy improvements to most of its mounted maneuver vehicles. A variety of improvements to logistics and fuel distribution systems will advance warfighting capability, while also reducing operational risks to the mission. Future Warfighting The Army budgeted $335.6 million in FY 2017 and $2.3 billion across the to increase future warfighting capability. Key efforts are summarized below: Improved Turbine Engine (ITEP) (FY 2017 $126.1 million; $1,175.2 million). This new engine for UH-60 and AH-64 helicopters significantly reduces fuel consumption and maintenance costs while also increasing performance at high altitude. This initiative has the potential to deliver significant, increased operational capability to the Army s rotary wing fleet, as well as be considered for other H-60 models serving in the Navy and the Air Force. The Army expects a 13 to 25 percent reduction in fuel use relative to the current Blackhawk and Apache engines, better performance in hotter temperatures and increased altitudes, and 35 percent lower maintenance costs. The ITEP is the Army 7

8 Aviation s number one priority due to the enhanced range, increased safety, increased power, and reduced costs it brings to the utility and attack helicopter fleets. National Center (NAC) Dual Use Technologies (FY 2017 $5.4 million; $40.8 million). The NAC addresses technology gaps for tracked and wheeled combat vehicles, and builds collaborative relationships with industry, academia and other Government agencies. Within the NAC, the Advanced Vehicle Power Alliance (AVPTA) is a joint partnership between the Department of the Army and the Department of Energy (DoE) focused on improving vehicle energy efficiency technology. Similarly, the High-Efficiency Truck Users Forum brings original equipment manufacturers, suppliers, fleets and other industry stakeholders together to ensure commercial product offerings are capable of meeting high-efficiency military requirements. NAC Power, Energy, and Mobility 01C (FY 2017 $3.3 million; $21.2 million). This initiative supports applied research in dual use power, energy, and mobility technologies focusing on light weight composite materials, electrification of engine accessories, alternative fuels, hybrid vehicle architectures, and compact electrical power generation. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks The Army budgeted $6.8 million in FY 2017 and $69.0 million across the to identify and reduce logistics and operational risks, including: Early Entry Fluid Distribution System (E2FDS) (FY 2017 $5.7 million; $59.8 million). As a complement to the Inland Petroleum Distribution System, the E2FDS is a rapidly-emplaced, high-throughput petroleum or water distribution system designed to be used in the early phases of operations, without adding trucks to vital supply routes. Configured into a 50-mile system, E2FDS can throughput 850,000 gallons of petroleum or 650,000 gallons of raw/non-potable water per day. The system is emplaced at a rate of 25 miles per day, be fully deployed within three days, and can be retrieved at a rate of 10 miles per day. More importantly, it reduces personnel and engineer support to emplace and retrieve the system, reduces Main Supply Route congestion, and significantly reduces the logistics footprint. Once fielded in FY 2022, an E2FDS will reduce the number of required five thousand gallon fuel tanker deliveries by nearly 170 per day, and decrease risks to the assured delivery of energy. of the Current Force The Army budgeted $938.1 million in FY 2017 and $4.7 billion across the to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Key efforts are summarized below: Improved Stryker (FY 2017 $399.3 million; $1,836.6 million). Addressing size, weight, and power consumption shortfalls from over 10 years in combat, this Engineering 8

9 Change Proposal will increase the mobility and electrical power of the Stryker wheeled combat vehicle by including a 4000 watt emergency external AC/DC power generator, a new improved alternator, a new engine, and smart power management system. This new power supply increases the platform s electrical power margin and enables the sustained operation of all on-board systems, a capability lacking in the current Stryker. As a result of this improvement, all internal power requirements, including known capability set additions, are met and the vehicle will provide a 20 percent growth margin. The current schedule calls for a production decision in 2016, followed by actual production in The current requirement is for 1,128 Strykers, with approximately one Brigade (~320) completed annually. The FY 2017 increase in funding fully funds the procurement of the 4 th Double V Hull (DVH) Brigade and the follow on integration for the remaining 3 DVH Brigades. Improved Bradley (FY 2017 $70.0 million; $497.1 million). This initiative includes research, development, test and evaluation, and production of upgraded engines, tracks, improved shocks, road arms, and torsion bars for the Bradley fighting vehicle. In addition to mitigating shortfalls in size, weight, and power, the upgraded 675HP engine and transmission support command, control, communication, and counter IED systems. The Army anticipates the improved Bradley will be approximately eight percent more fuel efficient due to these changes, along with approximately a 16 percent reduction in overall fuel consumption due to reduced weight (lighter, extended life track, and modular armor). These equate to a combined total of approximately 24 percent in fuel savings. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) (FY 2017 $107.8 million; $732.5 million). The JLTV is the central component of the Army s long-term Tactical Wheeled Vehicles strategy, satisfying long-term needs for a protected, mobile and transportable platform. This system will have approximately a 30 percent improvement in stationary fuel consumption over the baseline High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). The reduction in fuel consumption is in part due to the use of an integrated starter generator and the addition of high output alternators. The JLTV balances affordability within performance, protection, and payload requirements for an expeditionary family of light tactical vehicles. Advanced Mobile Medium Power Sources (AMMPS) Generator Sets (FY 2017 $92.3 million; $406.8 million). AMMPS are technologically advanced, lightweight, portable, reliable and rugged medium power sources that replace the 2nd-generation Tactical Quiet Generators. The AMMPS improves fleet-wide generator efficiency by 21 percent while operating on military standard kerosene-based fuels (JP8), which reduces the amount of fuel transported through contested environments and limits the risks to personnel and equipment moving fuel. Modular Fuel System (MFS) (FY 2017 $12.8 million; $60.3 million). The MFS will dramatically alter the way the Army distributes bulk fuel around the battlefield by supporting refuel on the move operations and increasing the ability to flexibly store and distribute fuel to Brigade Combat Teams. The MFS consists of one Pump Rack Module and 9

10 seven 2,500 gallon Tank Rack Modules that dispense fuel from eight bulk or retail refueling points simultaneously, regardless of construction or materiel handling equipment availability. By substituting portable racks and trailers for tanker trucks and fuel bags, the MFS greatly increases the brigade s mobility while reducing the number of trucks and support personnel needed. Small Unit Power (SUP) Platoon Power Generation (FY 2017 $2.2 million; $25.5 million). This program enables Brigade Combat Teams to charge batteries for individual soldier equipment, and assist in ensuring that small units can maintain dismounted operations for 72 hours without an external resupply of batteries. The SUP will utilize standard military fuel, JP-8, or alternative fuels to provide over 900 watts of power to sustain small unit. This program will complete research, development, test and evaluation in FY 2016 and procurement is scheduled to begin in FY Improved Abrams (FY 2017 $3.9 million; $19.4 million). The upgrade of the auxiliary power unit (APU) on the Abrams Tank is expected to increase the electrical margin to support future power demands and reduce fuel consumption at low idle by 92 percent and by 9 percent over the overall Operational Mode Summary/ Profile. Production of the improved APU is scheduled to begin in FY Concerns The Improved Turbine Engine (ITEP) is intended to provide significant improvements to the operational capability of the Army s rotary wing fleet. However, the Department is concerned over the schedule of the program. Taking into account technical and funding constraints, earlier fielding of ITEP would provide significant benefits to the. Under the current schedule and funding profile, a full rate production decision will occur in FY 2026 and the first system will be fielded in FY The improved performance and endurance enabled by ITEP will pay large dividends considering the continued role of rotary wing forces in joint operations around the globe. While the Army has set aside research funding in FY 2017 to continue the Soldier and Small Unit Power consortium funded by the OECIF, there is no such funding in FY 2018 and beyond. The lack of funding beyond FY 2017 raises concerns that the Army will not continue the momentum of this program, which is an excellent opportunity for mitigating technical and organizational issues that have hindered reductions in Soldier battery weight. Army Assessment Rating: GREEN The ASD(EI&E) assessed the Army s proposed FY 2017 budget as adequate for the implementation of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. 10

11 The Navy budgeted approximately 53 percent of funding ($858.7 million) to increase future warfighting capability, five percent ($83.6 million) aligned to identifying and reducing logistics and operational risks, and the remaining 42 percent ($671.0 million) is budgeted for enhancing mission effectiveness. Figure 2. FY Navy Total Operational Energy Funding 459,507 Operational Energy Funding FY ($Thousands) 323, , , ,410 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 The Navy continues to promote the importance of operational energy through policy and specific investments in improved equipment. The Navy has established four working groups (Aviation, Expeditionary, Alternative Fuels and Maritime) focused on operational energy and dedicated a myriad of resources to implement Navy energy goals. Additionally, the Navy is integrating energy awareness into a comprehensive training and education plan. Across ships, aircraft, and other equipment, the Navy is investing in improved materials, energy storage, and improved propulsion. Future Warfighting The Navy budgeted $292.0 million in FY 2017 and $858.7 million across the to increase future warfighting capability, including: Propulsion Task Force Energy (FY 2017 $8.5 million; $43.2 million). The Variable Cycle Advanced (VCAT) is a partnership effort between Office of Naval Research and the Department of the Navy s Task Force Energy (TFE) initiative to realize the potential benefits of variable/adaptive cycle turbine engine technology for combat aircraft. The projected VCAT engine technology benefits include improved range and loiter capability for selected conceptual platforms/missions. The benefits are primarily due to improved thermal and propulsive efficiencies from advanced material and component technologies as well as from the variable/adaptive engine features. Aligned with 11

12 TFE goals for reducing fuel consumption, the program also offers the potential to reduce demand for deployed fuel and tanker aircraft support. Advanced Power Generation (FY 2017 $5.3 million; $23.8 million). The Advanced Power Generation initiative includes upgrades for the Navy s fleet of destroyers. The AG9160RF Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) is an upgrade to the DDG 1000 auxiliary gas turbine, and will provide increased power with lower fuel use to meet DDG 51 Flight III requirements for advanced sensors and future weapons. Separately, twin spool GTGs will adapt an aero derivative gas turbine that will improve fuel efficiency by 12 to 15 percent over current single shaft gas turbines, reduce total ownership costs, and increase time on station. These upgrades will provide operational readiness and fuel efficiency improvements to existing engines for both back fit and new construction ships. F-35 Engine Efficiency (FY 2017 $8.1 million; $8.1 million). This effort is projected to demonstrate a six percent fuel burn reduction for the F-35 variant-common F135 engine through various component and cycle efficiency enhancements, including an advanced high pressure compressor (HPC), optimized turbine cooling, turbine clearance control, and a fuel burn optimized control mode. If funded, these technologies then would be forward fit onto the F-35 as part of a future block upgrade after Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks The Navy budgeted $16.9 million in FY 2017 and $83.6 million across the to identify and reduce logistics and operational risks. Key efforts are summarized below: Alternative Fuels Test and Qualification (FY 2017 $12.9 million; $62.7 million). This initiative continues to evaluate the operational requirements necessary to acquire, approve, and test alternative fuel types for use in Navy ships and aircraft as well as non-tactical base support vehicles and support equipment. Through collaboration with the Military Departments, other Federal agencies, academia, and industry, the Navy is evaluating the potential benefits of renewable fuel sources. Past demonstrations of alternative fuel use include the F/A-18 Green Hornet flying on fuel derived from the camelina plant, and testing fuel derived from algae and other feedstocks on surface ships. Environmental Control Unit 50 (ECU50/NETTP) (FY 2017 $2.1 million; $11.7 million). Up to 32 percent of energy consumed at Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) can be directly attributed to the energy load required for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC). The Environmental Control Unit 50 (ECU50), an advanced HVAC system with significantly improved efficiencies, will decrease fuel required for ECUs by 20 percent (threshold) to 50 percent (objective). This equipment is rated for expeditionary operating environments, fits within the size/weight envelope of current deployed systems, and requires no increase in required logistics support. 12

13 of the Current Force The Navy budgeted $150.5 million in FY 2017 and $671.0 million across the to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Key efforts are summarized below: Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) Implementation ( $41.8 million; $217.0 million). The DDG 51 class guided missile destroyers account for over 40 percent of nonnuclear surface Navy fuel consumption. DDG 51 ships offer the best opportunity to achieve critical energy and fuel efficiencies due to the large quantity of ships and 20+ years of remaining service life. This propulsion plant modification uses an electric motor attached to the main reduction gear, enabling DDG 51 ships to save fuel by shutting down all gas turbine propulsion engines and operating the port shaft with the ship s electric plant. HED provides efficient propulsion at speeds up to 11 knots and increases the ship s range and time onstation between refuelings by up to 2.5 days per ship when used 50 percent of the time, providing added staying power to deliver combat capability. The Navy s budget for HED development and implementation supports one installation beginning in FY Additional installations scheduled in FY 2018 and beyond. DDG 51 Solid State Lighting (SSL) (FY 2017 $3.1 million; $16.6 million). This program replaces 50W and 110W incandescent globes fixtures and 1, 2, and 3 lamp fluorescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes (LED) to reduce energy usage. Solid state lighting also reduces electrical lighting load, maintenance actions, hazardous materials, and space needed for spare parts. The Navy has converted approximately 17 percent of its surface fleet lighting to LED, which save 2.5 megawatts of power on a yearly basis. Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (HVAC&R) Efficiency Improvements (FY 2017 $4.9 million; $17.4 million). This collection of initiatives improves the efficiency of HVAC&R on the dry cargo and ammunition ships operated by the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC). For example, the use of intelligent HVAC on dry cargo and ammunition ships is expected to save 3,500 barrels of oil per ship every year, while the implementation of auxiliary pre-stage refrigeration units should reduce end use by 1,630 barrels of oil per ship, per year. The Engine Room Ventilation Fans portion of this initiative is expected to save 1,240 barrels of oil per ship, per year. Together, these changes will increase service life, reduce replacement and maintenance, and reduce power loads. Military Sealift Command (MSC) Policy Guidance & Development and Training & Incentive (FY 2017 $.6 million; $2.5 million). Estimated to save approximately 10,000 barrels of fuel from FY 2010 FY 2020, this program implements class or fleet-wide policy that result in more efficient ship operations. Through this program, MSC integrates energy efficiency training into the existing Civilian Mariner Engineering Officer program to incentivize efficient ship operation and the generation of energy conservation initiatives. The Operational Logistics (OPLOG) Energy Conservation (ENCON) program, also managed by MSC, developed an Energy Conservation course to increase awareness of energy use and provide techniques to carry out MSC s diverse 13

14 shipboard missions in more energy efficient ways. This class has been transitioned to the technical classroom training program for shipboard officers and shore support staff. OPLOG ENCON also developed the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan to ensure continuous improvement process for energy efficiency on board MSC s Government-operated ships. Concerns While the Services have begun to identify platform requirements and supporting propulsion technologies for next generation combat aircraft, the Department remains concerned over operational energy improvements for combat aircraft currently in service or about to enter service. The F-35, in particular, soon will be entering the force in large numbers and eventually comprise the bulk of the Joint tactical fighter force. Building on Service investments in incremental (F-35 Fuel Burn Reduction) and transformational improvements (VCAT, AETD, ADAPT) in combat aircraft engines, the Department encourages the Air Force and Navy (and, by extension, the Marine Corps) to consider the full range of aerodynamic, propulsion, power management, and other initiatives as a means of enhancing operational capability. A similar concern is included in the overview of Air Force investments. The goal of the Fuel Burn Reduction/F-35 Engine Efficiency program is to enable improvements in range, endurance, and/or payload by decreasing fuel burn in all variants of the F-35 engine. To date the Navy has funded research, development, test and evaluation through FY 2017 and remains committed to pursuing its incorporation into production for the F-35. However, the initiative has not yet completed the process for validation as a follow-on requirement for the F-35, which must occur before the Services and partners can commit follow-on development and procurement funding. A lack of funding for these upgrades would forego significant improvements in energy use by a system slated to comprise a large portion of the Joint tactical fighter fleet. Simulators that decrease the amount of fuel needed for training without improving the ability of personnel to improve energy use in warfighting represent a lost opportunity. To ensure that energy considerations are a routine part of officer and enlisted career training, Navy released a training and education plan in 2015, which outlines learning objectives, target audiences, and course content. The Department encourages the use of simulators and continued training and education requirements across air, sea, and land domains to ensure lasting effects on the use of energy in real world operations. The Navy has no planned S&T funding to support continued research for the Energy Efficient Outpost Modeling Consortium (EEOMC) started under the OECIF. Instead, the Navy will leverage the Army s transition plan. EEOMC s Pillar 1, which is the Energy Resource Planning Tool, will transition through the Virtual Forward Operating Base to Army 14

15 Facilities Component Systems. Once complete, this tool will allow for the prediction of the optimal mix of energy resources for an outpost based on the planned loads and the operational scenario. Pillar 2, which is the Energy Resource Dashboard and Controls, will transition through the Communications-Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center. The primary objective of the Energy Resource Dashboard and Controls is to develop a mission command capability to provide outpost commanders a real-time picture and control of energy resources on a microgrid. The lack of follow-on funding increases the risk that the Department will not benefit from progress made by this program. Navy Assessment Rating: GREEN The ASD(EI&E) assessed the Navy s proposed FY 2017 budget as adequate for the implementation of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. 15

16 MARINE CORPS The United States Marine Corps (USMC) budgeted $39.0 million in FY 2017 and $287.4 million across the for Operational Energy initiatives. Approximately 31 percent ($89.8 million) of the funding is aligned to increase future warfighting capability, while the remaining 69 percent of the funding ($197.7 million) across the is budgeted for enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Currently, no USMC initiatives are aligned to the identification and reduction of logistics and operational risks. Figure 3. FY Marine Corps Total Operational Energy Funding MARINE CORPS Operational Energy Funding FYs ($Thousands) 39,032 46,811 69,860 65,341 66,440 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 The demands of the future security environment are driving the Marine Corps to become a leaner force. To continue to meet its mission, the USMC is focusing near the forward line of troops, where the risks are the greatest. Operational energy investments support the fielding of energy efficient equipment to the Crisis Response Force and focus on extending the operational reach of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). To further increase operational reach, Marines Corps research and development (R&D) is focused on innovative concepts such as energy harvesting using systems that produce electricity from stepping forces or back pack motion, energy storage using high performance battery technology and alternative energy sources in the form of mobile solar power via high efficiency, ultra-thin silicon solar cells. Future Warfighting USMC budgeted $15.5 million in FY 2017 and $89.7 million across the to increase future capability, including: Expeditionary Energy Office (E2O) (FY 2017 $3.5 million; $17.6 million). As the Marine Corps Senior Official for Operational Energy, the E2O is tasked to analyze, develop, and direct the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plans to optimize expeditionary capabilities across all warfighting functions and provide guidance on 16

17 all energy and resource-related requirements, acquisitions, and programmatic decisions, in accordance with the National Defense Authorization. The E2O continues to work closely with the combat and technology development communities, and serves as the proponent for Expeditionary Energy in the force development process. Two major focus areas of the E2O are: Expeditionary Energy Concepts (E2C; formerly Experimental Forward Operating Base. Brings together stakeholders from across USMC requirements, acquisition, and technology development communities to evaluate technologies that address the capability gaps identified in the Energy Water and Waste Capabilities Base Assessment, Initial Document. The annual E2C technology demonstration accelerates the transition of new capabilities from concept to combat by guiding the development of new requirements documents and informing Marine Corps investment decisions. Energy Command and Control (Energy C2). An artillery battalion conducting combined arms maneuver at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California will use an Energy Command and Control (Energy C2) prototype to analyze effects on operational reach and identify capability gaps for future requirements development. The demonstration of Energy C2 will provide an improvement in the situational awareness of expeditionary energy capacity. d situational awareness of energy resources can enable more efficient utilization of energy and increase the operational reach, of the MAGTF. Operational reach is defined as the distance and/or time over which a MAGTF can decisively accomplish its mission. Improved Environmental Control Units (ECUs) (FY 2017 $.3 million; $2.4 million). This portfolio consists of horizontal/vertical configured Marine Corps standard air conditioners, ranging from 9,000 to 120,000 BTUs for 50/60/400HZ. The program standardizes ECUs while increasing efficiency by approximately 17 percent across the portfolio of systems. The improved ECUs are both quieter and more rugged, and contain a more environmentally acceptable refrigerant. The funding for this part of the program is focused on the long-term design, development, and testing of new systems and continuous improvements to existing equipment. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks Although USMC will not invest directly in initiatives that support this strategic objective, the Service will benefit from investments made by Navy. of the Current Force USMC budgeted $23.5 million in FY 2017 and $197.7 million across the to enhance mission effectiveness. Key efforts are summarized below: 17

18 Advanced Power Sources - Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System (GREENS)/Mobile Electric Hybrid Power Sources (MEHPS)/Radio Power Adapters (FY 2017 $14.6 million; $67.5 million). This program focuses on the Advanced Power Sources portfolio of alternative power capabilities and supports portable electric power for legacy and future weapons, optics, sensors, medical, intelligence, communications equipment, computers, and other electronic equipment in expeditionary environments. This family includes energy harvesting systems, as well as power converters (AC to DC), power inverters (DC to AC), variable output power supplies, and radio power adapters. This equipment drives efficient energy production and distribution to support USMC units and individuals, and reduces the requirement for fuel, as well as batteries, thus increasing the operational reach of the force. Fuel Efficient Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (FE MTVR) Future Naval (FNC) Transition (FY 2017 $5.3 million; $33.0 million). This phase of the initiative focuses on procurement of systems, as well as the operations and maintenance (O&M) of existing systems. The primary benefit will be extended operational reach of the workhorse vehicle of the Marine Corps though the fuel efficiency improvements of the MTVR. Theoretical calculations suggest that the efficiency target will be exceeded. Improved Environmental Control Units (FY 2017 $.8 million; $13.1 million). This portfolio consists of horizontal/vertical configured Marine Corps standard air conditioners. ECUs range from 9,000 to 120,000 BTUs for 50/60/400HZ. The program standardizes ECUs while increasing efficiency by approximately 17 percent across the portfolio of systems. This funding will be used to procure the improved ECUs over the nearterm. Concerns Similar concerns exist for the Marine Corps with regard to propulsion for the next generation of combat aircraft as outlined in the Navy section of this report. Marine Corps Assessment Rating: GREEN The ASD(EI&E) assessed the proposed FY 2017 budget for the Marine Corps as adequate for the implementation of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. 18

19 AIR FORCE The Department of the Air Force budgeted $626.0 million in FY 2017 and $4.1 billion across the for Operational Energy initiatives. Within the Air Force budget, approximately 86 percent of the funding ($3.5 billion) across the is budgeted for increasing future warfighting capability initiatives, while less than one percent ($35.3 million) will be utilized for identifying and reducing logistics and operational risks, and 13 percent ($542.8 million) is aligned to enhancing mission effectiveness of the current force. Figure 4. FY Air Force Total Operational Energy Funding 622,011 AIR FORCE Operational Energy Funding FYs ($Thousands) 878, , , ,924 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 As the largest consumer of operational energy in the Department, the U.S. Air Force () is investing in a range of material and non-materiel initiatives to address the use of energy in aircraft. These range from new propulsion technologies, aircraft design, composite materials and structures, to operational tools designed for improved flight performance. Over the long-term, new propulsion, power, and thermal management systems may dramatically improve the range and endurance of combat aircraft. More immediately, the Air Force is upgrading engines on the KC-135 tanker and funding a range of improvements to the airlift and tanker fleet. Future Warfighting The Air Force budgeted $504.2 million in FY 2017 and $3.5 billion across the to increase future warfighting capability, including: Adaptive Engine Development (AETD) and Adaptive Engine Transition (AETP) (FY 2017 $287.8 million; $2,429.5 million). Adaptive engine technology enables next generation combat aircraft capabilities by combining the efficiency of high bypass turbofans used by commercial airlines with the performance demanded by fighter engines. With OSD and congressional support, the Air Force is investing $2 billion across the in adaptive engine technology. The AETD program funding will end in FY 2016 with work continuing through FY 2017, and will mature technology readiness and 19

20 manufacturing readiness levels (TRL/MRL) to level six. The AETP program will take technologies matured under AETD and put them into a complete, flight weight engine that will undergo testing at both sea level and high-altitude. AETD and AETP capitalize on revolutionary progress toward fuel economy and performance goals that include a 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency, increase in thrust, extended low-altitude persistence, and increased range. Technical progress in these goals allows the Air Force to further mature the AETP program and reduce associated risks in preparation for continued development for multiple combat aircraft applications. Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion (ADAPT) (FY 2017 $26.9 million; $195.6 million). ADAPT builds on the technologies matured by the Adaptive Versatile Engine (ADVENT, a proof of concept program) and AETD programs, and integrates additional technologies into the engine core. This program will design, fabricate, assemble, and test innovative turbine engine technologies that address future air superiority capability needs, increase thrust, decrease weight, reduce fuel consumption, and improve affordability. When combined with the ADVENT/AETD base configuration, advanced materials, and variable core technologies will enable seven percent improvement in cruise fuel efficiency beyond ADVENT/AETD and provide one megawatt of on-board power generation and thermal capacity needed for future directed energy weapons. The material and manufacturing process technologies matured in a fighter and bomber engine configuration also will be available for use in mobility engine configurations once demonstrated at TRL/MRL 6. This program will leverage existing test assets to conduct key core and rig tests in order to advance adaptive engine technologies in the engine core. Integrated Vehicle Energy Tech (INVENT) Spiral III (FY 2017 $3.4 million; $33.0 million). The INVENT program will develop and demonstrate an integrated suite of efficient, mission adaptive, robust electrical power and thermal management systems that reduce energy and improve capabilities. Operational energy benefits include 6 to 8 percent fuel savings for future air dominance aircraft, reduced thermal restrictions during low altitude operations, and enhanced anti-access/area-denial operations through high power electronics and survivable thermal load rejection. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks budgeted $6.7 million in FY 2017 and $35.3 million across the to identify and reduce logistics and operational risks to mission, including: Fuel Assessment and Evaluation (FY 2017 $6.7 million; $35.3 million). These efforts evaluate and demonstrate alternative improved hydrocarbon fuels for legacy and advanced turbine engines, scramjets, pulse detonation, and combined cycle engines. This effort also considers fuel related concepts that can increase turbine engine operational reliability, durability, mission flexibility, energy efficiency, and performance while reducing weight, fuel consumption, and cost of ownership. 20

21 of the Current Force budgeted $111.0 million in FY 2017 and $542.8 million across the to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Key efforts are summarized below: KC-135 Engine Upgrades (FY 2017 $106.0 million; $530.0 million). As a fourth generation engine upgrade to the high pressure components of the engines on the KC-135R aerial refueler, the CFM Propulsion Upgrade inserts modern technology into the F- 108 engine. This initiative will change/upgrade the high pressure turbine nozzle, turbine shroud assembly, turbine blades and compressor blades/vanes. plans to upgrade between 100 and 120 engines per year until the KC-135 fleet is completely modified. These changes will reduce specific fuel consumption by approximately 1.5 percent per engine, improve reliability and durability, and achieve lifetime fuel and maintenance savings totaling approximately $1.5 billion. Indexed Flying (MIF) (FY 2017 $0.035 million; $0.183 million). Current Mobility Air Force assets lack sufficient capability for aircrews to control flight profiles inflight for optimal balance of mission effectiveness and cost efficiency. Investments in MIF will enable legacy aircraft to build optimized flight plans correlated with aircraft performance to ensure flight planned profiles (ground solutions) can be matched to the Flight Management Systemflight profiles (airborne solutions). Specifically, this initiative deploys commercial off the shelf Indexed Flying software across the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets to reduce fuel consumption by flying optimum altitudes and speeds. These systems also were procured for the C-17 and C-5 airlift fleets using the Transportation Working Capital Fund, and will be a key component of the future Mobility Air Forces Automated Flight Planning Service (MAFPS). Legacy Fleet Energy Efficiency (FY 2017 $3.2 million; $9.5 million). This initiative focuses on the use of drag reduction and other technologies to improve the efficiency and capabilities of legacy fleet aircraft, with a primary focus on airlift and refueling aircraft. The drag reduction technologies utilize finlets, microvanes, winglets, and adaptive and compliant structures. Implementation of active compliant devices should yield 5 to 7 percent reduction in cruise drag, relative to a conventional hinged surface. When deployed across the airlift fleet, active compliant surfaces should mean increased range, endurance, and payload; alternatively, these technologies should reduce fuel burn by million gallons per year across the C-17 fleet and 6-10 million gallons per year for C-130H/J fleets. has also conducted studies of these technologies on the KC-135 aerial refueling fleet. Surfing Aircraft Vortices for Energy ($AVE) Formation Flight Advanced (FY 2017 $1.5 million; $2.5 million). The objective of this initiative is to autonomously fly aircraft in formation, at safe distances, to save energy. This program builds upon the $AVE proof of concept flight tests first conducted in FY 2012 and FY 2013 which demonstrated the 21

22 potential for the trail aircraft to achieve 8 to10 percent fuel savings. This would equate to increased range, payload, and/or an anticipated fuel savings of 2.5 million gallons per year through the 2040 timeframe. Concerns While the Services have begun to identify platform requirements and supporting propulsion technologies for next generation combat aircraft, the Department remains concerned over operational energy improvements for combat aircraft currently in service or about to enter service. The F-35, in particular, soon will be entering the force in large numbers and eventually comprise the bulk of the Joint tactical fighter force. Building on Service investments in incremental (F-35 Fuel Burn Reduction) and transformational improvements (VCAT, AETD/AETP, ADAPT) in combat aircraft engines, the Department encourages the Air Force and Navy (and, by extension, the Marine Corps) to consider the full range of aerodynamic, propulsion, power management, and other initiatives as a means of enhancing operational capability. A similar concern is included in the overview of Navy investments. The Advanced Computer Flight Planning (ACFP) Overlay is being replaced by the MAFPS. While funding support has been provided for MAFPS, further funding will be required for ACFP to ensure ACFP can continue to run in tandem for 6 months with MAFPS to ensure no loss of capability. Both technologies ensure mobility aircraft are able to plan the most fuel efficient routes, altitudes, and airspeeds in order to minimize aviation fuel expenditures in the future. Given the role of mobility aircraft in deploying and sustaining Joint forces, the Department looks forward to a smooth transition toward the use of improved routing and flight planning tools. The Air Force has set aside an estimated $250,000 a year in FY 2017 and 2018 to continue the work of the Engineered Surfaces, Materials, and Coatings for the Drag Reduction program initially funded by the OECIF. However, there does not appear to be any funding identified to continue that research after FY The Department is concerned that the Air Force is not positioning itself in the longer term to build on the research momentum of the program. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for the Base Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR) remains unfunded in the POM. R&D funding across the was removed when FY 2013 Common Integrated Infrastructure funding was made available. However, specific RDT&E funding for BEAR is still required. BEAR has the potential to significantly improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel consumption at expeditionary air bases through the BEAR System for Load and Installation Management (BSLIM; power/load management and integration of renewables), waste to energy systems, and improved grey water recovery and reuse systems. Such funding will allow for the continued development of 22

23 technologies past the current capability to a next generation BEAR 2035 that can achieve net zero energy, water, and waste. Engineering and Manufacturing Development funding also is required. As the Air Force continues to support air operations in austere environments across multiple Combatant Commands, managing and improving energy use at expeditionary air bases remains an important priority for the. Without sustained funding, the Department is concerned that the Air Force may not be able to take advantage of continued technology solutions to improve its energy use at expeditionary air bases. Air Force Assessment: GREEN The ASD(EI&E) assessed the Air Force s proposed FY 2017 budget as adequate for the implementation of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. 23

24 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OASD(EI&E) and DLA budgeted $47.7 million in FY 2017 and approximately $248.9 million across the for operational energy initiatives. Approximately 88 percent of this funding ($219.5 million) across the is budgeted to increase future warfighting capability, while 9 percent ($23.2 million) is focused on enhance mission effectiveness of the Current Force, and 3 percent ($6.0 million) aligned to the identification and reduction of logistics and operational risks. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment As the senior Operational Energy advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,, and Logistics (AT&L), the OASD(EI&E) oversees and supports operational energy programs across the Department. O&M funding supports operations of the Operational Energy office and enables oversight of the Department s implementation of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. The OASD(EI&E) also oversees RDT&E resources dedicated to the Operational Energy Improvement Fund (OECIF; FY 2017 $42.5 million; $221.7 million). OECIF provides funding to DoD research programs that improve operational energy performance organized around a specific annual theme or focus area, as well as sustain funding to those programs already underway. The FY 2017 President s Budget provides funding for new OECIF programs, as well as supporting those programs established in FYs Figure 5. FYs OASD(EI&E) Total Operational Energy Funding OASD (EI&E) Operational Energy Funding FYs ($Thousands) 44,890 45,495 46,378 42,520 42,514 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 In FY 2014, six new OECIF programs focused on analytical methods for incorporating operational energy considerations into Department planning and decision making. In FY 2015, OECIF began a shift away from contingency bases and toward mobile platforms that consume 24

25 much of the Department s fuel. The main FY 2015 initiative significantly expands on-going collaboration with DoE under the Advanced Vehicle Power Alliance with a focus on improving the energy performance and range of DoD s current tactical ground vehicles. The FY 2016 call for proposals was released in September Proposals were received in January 2016 and awards were made in March The FY 2016 program has continued the shift within OECIF toward energy use in mobile platforms, and focus on improving the operational energy performance of unmanned aerial, surface, undersea, and ground vehicles useful in the Asia-Pacific. The program has sought to improve the energy related military capabilities or performance of unmanned vehicles for the Pacific and/or reduce the burdens and risks from our energy supply line. The Department is currently developing the specific focus area(s) for FY 2017 OECIF investments, and be released near the start of FY Future Warfighting The OASD(EI&E) budgeted $40.3 million in FY 2017 and $219.5 million across the to increase future warfighting capability, including: Operation of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy (ODASD(OE)) (FY 2017 $5.1 million; $25.7 million). These resources provide the ASD(EI&E) with the capacity and capability to oversee and integrate Department initiatives in operational energy, as well as develop and implement the Department s 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. Across policy, innovation, current operations, and future force development, ODASD(OE) supports long-term direction and guidance for operational energy activities. Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model d Expeditionary Energy (STORM-E) (FY 2014 start) (FY 2017 $1.2 million; $1.2 million). Through OECIF, the Marine Corps is developing a module for the STORM software to explicitly incorporate energy issues for an expeditionary force at the campaign level. Operational Energy Analysis Task Force (OEATF) (FY 2014 start) (FY 2017 $1.7 million; $1.7 million). This OECIF program is strengthening and deepening the work of the Army s OEATF program, supporting work in scenarios and M&S tools. The program is developing the scenarios, data, and simulation capability to assess operational energy across a range of operational environments. Energy Integration and Interoperability (FY 2014 start) (FY 2017 $.7 million; $.7 million). This OECIF program is integrating energy considerations into a kill chain analysis technique for the Navy. When complete, the tool will be used in the Valiant Shield 2016 field training exercise in the Asia-Pacific and deployed across the Navy. 25

26 Assessment and Modeling for Energy Logistics (CAMEL) (FY 2014 start) (FY 2017 $1.3 million; $1.3 million). Led by the Air Force Research Lab and funded by OECIF, CAMEL is developing and/or leveraging modeling, simulation, and analysis solutions for planners and decision makers to identify and mitigate capability gaps in airlift and air refueling mission areas. Improving Fuel Economy for the Current Ground Tactical Fleet (FY 2015 start) (FY 2017 $7.3 million; $14.1 million). The major new OECIF program in FY 2015 is led by the Army Tank and Research and Development Command along with the Office of Naval Research and conducted in coordination with DoE s Vehicle Office. This program will strive to achieve significant fuel efficiency increases in the following four areas: Automation/Smart Cruise Control. This program is developing and testing autonomyenabled systems to reduce fuel consumption. Auxiliary Electrification. This program is developing and demonstrating an affordable truck auxiliary system electrification kit on one or more existing Tactical Wheeled Vehicle platforms. Thermally Efficient Cylinders. This program is developing an engine Thermal Barrier Coating that is relevant to military high power density engines and applicable to DoE s 21 st Century Truck. M&S for Lightweighting. This effort is using M&S to reduce the weight of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle design to the lowest point, while allowing the design to satisfy all threshold performance measures. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks The OASD(EI&E) did not budget resources specifically aligned to identify and reduce logistics and operational risks to mission. However, O&M funding for the ODASD(OE) provides the capacity to oversee these and other elements of the 2016 Operational Energy Strategy, support and contribute to studies, models, and simulations of operational energy risk, as well as participate in Service Title 10 wargames. of the Current Forces The OASD(EI&E) budgeted $2.2 million in FY 2017 and $2.2 million across the to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Key efforts are summarized below: Joint Deployment Energy Planning and Logistics Optimization Initiative (J-DEPLOI) (FY 2014 start) (FY 2017 $2.2 million; $2.2 million): This OECIF program is investigating and implementing ways to include operational energy considerations into the Joint Operational Planning Process at United States Pacific Command. 26

27 Concerns As noted in the Army, Navy, and Air Force sections, the Department remains concerned over the availability of funding provided by the Military Departments for the transition and/or fielding of the capabilities funded by the OECIF. Defense Logistics Agency While the Agency s operational energy initiatives will support improvements in future warfighting capability, DLA s initiatives in the FY 2017 President s Budget align more closely to the categories of Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks and of the Current Force. Figure 6. FYs DLA Total Operational Energy DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Operational Energy Funding FYs ($Thousands) $5,674 $5,554 $5,434 $5,311 $5,204 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Future Warfighting DLA initiatives do not align to long-term improvements for increase future warfighting capability. Identify and Reduce Logistics and Operational Risks The DLA budgeted $1.1 million in FY 2017 and approximately $6.0 million across the to reduce logistics risks to mission. Key efforts are summarized below: Energy Efficiency and Alternate Energy Technologies (FY 2017 $1.1 million; $6.0 million). This initiative supports the Alternate Energy Development program to test and certify synthetic and alternative fuels for compatibility with mobility fuel specifications. of the Current Force DLA budgeted $4.0 million in FY 2017 and approximately $21.0 million across the to enhance mission effectiveness of the current force. Key efforts are summarized below: 27