"Time out - I gotta recharge my tank!" Topic

Yeah, can't see this ending well…

Electric Military Vehicles Are Part of Biden Climate Agenda, Pentagon Says

Fleets of electric vehicles ready to shoulder the military's workload and slash greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decade -- that's what the Pentagon is hoping it can pull off as part of President Joe Biden's efforts to combat climate change, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said Monday.

"Electric vehicles are quiet. They have a low heat signature and incredible torque, and because they tend to be low maintenance with fewer moving parts, they have the potential to reduce logistics requirements," she said..

Great, you know, except for the need to have ready access to a stable power plant with a huge output that can charge up your battery operated tanks and other AFVs…and it doesn't get too cold, which reduces battery charge time by 40%…or too hot which reduces battery charge by 20%, or too humid which will more quickly corrode your electrical system and electronics. So in short, best to keep your wars limited to mild Spring and Fall weather, preferably where it's pretty flat and nobody will shoot up the powerplants you use to charge up your toys.

And, I mean, it's not like a strategic adversary (China) controls most of the rare earth minerals used to manufactured electric batteries. I'm sure in case of any clash they'll just keep manufacturing EV power systems for the US Military, eh??

"General, why haven't you launched your counter attack!?"

"Well sir, see, the EV parts and batteries we need are on a container ship that got impounded by the PRC, so we've fled a complaint with the WTO and wagged our fingers very vigorously at China!"

link

Unbelievable in the current geopolitical climate! That is the climate we need worry about the most.

@ Zombie Elvis

We are about to deal with an audit to make sure none of our electronics were manufactured by a list of Chinese companies.
So, others think your concerns have merit.

Will there be portable charging stations ?

How many stations ?

How long will it take to charge each vehicle ?

I was in 3 Mech Bns … back then we used diesel …

In guess a lot of these Go Green types never were in the Army …

University/USA TODAY poll of registered voters that just came out has 3% of US people saying prioritize climate change.

where o where will we get all the rare earth minerals to make all these Batteries? Not from Mines in the US.

Not from Mines in the US.

Actually, 'rare earth' is just a name, they're not actually that rare.

The problem is that working with rare earth magnets creates a lot of pollution, so few countries other than China are willing to do it.

Haha. Easy to laugh and mock while imagining an offensive stopping and looking for charging stations, but a little more digging will easily reveal that's not the idea. You didn't quote the bit in the article that distinguishes between tactical and non-tactical vehicles for instance. For the foreseeable future tanks aren't even a consideration.
Talking to a friend at Lockheed Martin here in Dallas working on this very thing, I can tell you there is a lot of discussion and research taking place that will ultimately lead to combat vehicles having greater functionality than with their present reliance on gas.
You may be having a knee-jerk reaction to mention of climate or whatever, but you shouldn't let political biases blind you to the realities and requirements of our military years down the line.

All the nay sayers. Google probably has an electric tank in development and they will be able to track it anywhere.

Wasnt this the plot to Short Circuit?

+1 Silurian

It sounds funny now, but changes are coming. Take a ride in a Tesla and try flooring it. The assumption that combustion engine technology is the future is also amusing to some of us!

I have no problem with electric cars, tanks, etc., just so the tech is reliable, functional, etc.

But my questions remain :

Will there be portable charging stations ?

How many stations ?

How long will it take to charge each vehicle ?

but you shouldn't let political biases blind you to the realities and requirements of our military years down the line.

IMO that has nothing to do with politics, it as always based on my experiences, has to do military readiness, effectiveness, etc. I'm sure in the future, not how sure how far, there will be better power sources than petroleum. And yes … the sooner the better …

"Will there be portable charging stations?"

Yes, hand cranked generators. If there are infantry around, they can take turns, and that tank will be charged up in no time! ;-)

If they actually get to the point of reliable EV's, it's only the next easy step of installing a small nuclear reactor in it for the power source…

How do the portable recharging stations generate the electricity used to recharge the batteries? Portable coal powered/nuclear electrical power plants to charge the recharge stations? Inquiring minds want to know!

The USMC was already looking at the problem of batteries for just the regular stuff used in A'stan, not vehicles. Not sure how far they got but all those batteries end up requiring generators and fuel for those generators and trucks for the fuel and a big ship-shore footprint. If they can do it fine but I'm hesitant to believe much of DoD's ideas work. It makes sense to change over to electric for all those base vehicles for routine stuff, we had them for parts delivery. Then there's this:

China reportedly produces about two-thirds of the batteries. The Biden administration and members of Congress have been scrambling to boost U.S. production and domestic mining of materials to make the components, after Beijing rose to global dominance in solar power a decade ago through heavy investment.

So we're now going to get into mining and making batteries? I see a lot of opposition coming against that since the US is happy when potential enemies create the pollution and sell us the end product.

We do not have the minerals here. China has cleverly acquired various sources around the world. But we have the tech. If we get going, it will take ten years to get clear of China as our raw materials supplier. We make the best batteries in the world.

Yes, it takes energy to make electricity. As long as elites make big money from coal and oil we are stuck. But hydro and solar should be the long term solution. More smarts, less greed.

Always hoping that foresight becomes part of our strategic process.

Yes, hand cranked generators. If there are infantry around, they can take turns, and that tank will be charged up in no time! ;-)

Well that is one method … I guess …

If they actually get to the point of reliable EV's, it's only the next easy step of installing a small nuclear reactor in it for the power source…

Cool ! Nuke tanks !! … Not !

How do the portable recharging stations generate the electricity used to recharge the batteries? Portable coal powered/nuclear electrical power plants to charge the recharge stations? Inquiring minds want to know!

All go questions … I hope someone has the answers … or is working on them.

So we're now going to get into mining and making batteries?

Well if it is called "Green", than it could be a good idea … at least to some …

Haha. Easy to laugh and mock while imagining an offensive stopping and looking for charging stations, but a little more digging will easily reveal that's not the idea. You didn't quote the bit in the article that distinguishes between tactical and non-tactical vehicles for instance. For the foreseeable future tanks aren't even a consideration.

You can't separate your vehicles so neatly into "tactical" and non-tactical vehicles, and why would you then separate those into two categories -- stuff you can use at home 'cause of access to charging stations, and stuff you can deploy overseas using ICE and diesel/gasoline. You want MPs on a US base to have an electric patrol HUMVEE? Fine. Oops….we need to activate MP units and assets for base security in Somewhereistan…but the unit has to scrounge up non-electric vehicles or ride mules or something to do their area patrols.

There has not been serious thought or action into making EV practical and cost-effective in general for easy-peasy civilian use, let alone for the military. Are you building out EV infrastructure that can be deployed with power plants and charging stations or fast pack batteries -- that will have to be recharged?

And how will those power plants make electricity? The single most effective fuel that is portable and high ratio of mass to energy potential is -- wait for it…fossil fuels.

So you spend a gazillion $$ on your EV vehicles to be all clean and carp, and then you have to have an oil or gas guzzling power plant on hand that is highly *survivable* in a combat environment that basically need ALL THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUEL your non-EV vehicles would have consumed. And now, instead of having your fuel supply chain distributed, you have a highly centralized point of failure. Take that out and all your EV "non-tactical" vehicles stop rolling…and here's what happens in a real combat zone to your "non-tactical" vehicles btw as needs require.

So pushing this prematurely based on non-military priorities harms national security and puts American servicemen and women at risk.

Do you seriously think all of these things are not being carefully considered?
Serious thought and research have been ongoing for a while, long before any recent statements. A potential transition of this magnitude is not going to be 'pushed prematurely'. Companies developing this technology are fully aware of current limitations. Does that mean long-term research should be abandoned?
I'm sure you know, politicians, of any stripe, make uninformed and foolish statements and promises.

Serious thought and research have been ongoing for a while, long before any recent statements. A potential transition of this magnitude is not going to be 'pushed prematurely'.

You have WAAAYYY more faith in the Federal Government's contracting system than I do. If the US Government dangles a multi-billion $$ contract before a contractor for producing an EV tactical vehicle that performs like a moribund cow in the real world -- history shows *they will do it.*

As for well considered, in California where I live, the supposed leader in this drive, the State government is heavily pushing EV use while simultaneously *deactivating* power plants!!

How ya gonna charge up your EV if you don't have enough electricity? The grid is already over stressed and can't produce enough electricity for the State, and renewables cannot provide enough electricity to make up the difference. They have proven to be expensive, environmentally destructive and operating inconsistently. Hydro power production is down because of drought (the State has also dismantled much of its water storage system), and they are shutting down the last nuke plant. This leads to rolling brownouts. Wonderful, eh?

We're talking life and death for our servicemen and servicewomen.

Lawn mowers and reasonably fast gaming PCs are already illegal in California. The gas powered industrial equipment has been proven more efficient than electric but that doesnt matter. Eco-fascist CA is a hair's breadth from becoming Australia. Get out while you can.

I'd have a lot more confidence in this kind of stuff if it was being touted as "it will improve military effectiveness," rather than, "it's good for the environment." The military now does far too many things because they're nice to do, rather than doing them because they're going to improve combat effectiveness. What's even worse is when we accept some degradation in readiness or effectiveness for the sake of a social goal, and worst of all is when we lie about what the impacts actually are. I saw the senior leadership of the Army do all of these things when I was on active duty, and they convinced me that I should leave the service before the chickens came home to roost.

Regrettably, twenty-two years later, I saw what the consequences of that kind of behavior could be when Kabul fell. I have spent much of the last year convincing my son not to apply to a service academy, because I don't want to see him pay the price for the way the military is led now. Somebody is going to have to do it, but knowing what I know, I would be seriously remiss if I encouraged him to join an Army where readiness and effectiveness have been systematically deprioritized.

No one says this will all happen tomorrow and we should risk lives on it because its good for the environment like its some sort of left wing scam.

Its all woke nonsense? We have already reached the epitome of energy applications for weapons systems?

There is no way to make this work so lets let the Chinese waster their time on it?

Calling General Mitchell…can you spare us some vision?

The climate change boat sailed long ago. Its too late now. Forget yer politics. Its not like -Ha Ha you have to plug in the tank, but our fossil fuels are endless and you can top up anywhere. Can we maximize our current systems while looking ahead is all I am asking.

I am wondering about the massive logistical issues around fossil fuel. The number of personnel,the huge number of vehicles involved in fuel transport, storage, dispersal. Its practically a separate branch of service. Support services and maintenance for would be very different for EVs. Think about electic motors vs gas/diesel.

I think that the idea that no progress will be made on electric power makes as much sense as not working to move from props to jet aircraft. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a Tesla cannot haul it. This is a race and if the Chinese beat us we will pay, IMO

Electricity in batteries is not an original source of energy: it has to be generated and captured, which presumes 1) fossil fuel of some kind being burned, 2) hydroelectric or wind sources, or 3) a nuclear reaction, any one of which can drive the turbines to generate electricity. Electric equipment doesn't simply remove the requirement for fossil fuel; it increases the requirement for electrical generation capacity, and adds a range of new logistical requirements in a military context. At the end of the day, the odds are that we will use the same amount of fossil fuel to generate a unit of power; given that systems invariably lose some energy at each stage of the process, we might well use more.

The three laws of thermodynamics still apply to energy generation.

No one says this will all happen tomorrow and we should risk lives on it because its good for the environment like its some sort of left wing scam.

Its all woke nonsense? We have already reached the epitome of energy applications for weapons systems?

…Can we maximize our current systems while looking ahead is all I am asking.

I don't disagree with R&D to see if, when and how EV tech could apply to military operations and needs. But this article is not about R&D, it's about pushing premature deployment of technology that isn't ready yet. It's about domestic politics, not military readiness or effectiveness -- the article tells us what this is about:

"Success for Biden's climate agenda could depend partly on the race for the battery market, as well as the larger trend toward electric vehicles. The Defense Department could add significant weight to the push."

@Nine pound round, "The three laws of thermodynamics still apply to energy generation."

Absolutely! Wind and Solar will not be able to meet the all weather needs of tactical military operations, so you're either still hauling fossil fuel around, or have to develop a series of portable mini-nuke reactors that have their own hazards to deal with.

Sorry, I was not really thinking about the article. I am more interested in how the military can reduce its vulnerability with more diverse energy resources, and ultimately get to a new level in terms of capabilities.

Love those gun trucks !!!!

So pushing this prematurely based on non-military priorities harms national security and puts American servicemen and women at risk.

It seems many times it takes second place. E.g. look how long in took to get MRAPS on the ground in Iraq & A'stan. I was a Grunt and still think like a Grunt to a point, Bottom line anything that will increases survivability for or troops & allies is a good thing.

I'm sure you know, politicians, of any stripe, make uninformed and foolish statements and promises.

Bingo !!! Just turn on the news !!!

Electric Military Vehicles Are Part of Biden Climate Agenda, Pentagon Says
Fleets of electric vehicles ready to shoulder the military's workload and slash greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decade -- that's what the Pentagon is hoping it can pull off as part of President Joe Biden's efforts to combat climate change, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said Monday.

"Electric vehicles are quiet. They have a low heat signature and incredible torque, and because they tend to be low maintenance with fewer moving parts, they have the potential to reduce logistics requirements," she said..

Are our enemies, primarily China and Putin's Russian comes 2d, doing this too ?

So pushing this prematurely based on non-military priorities harms national security and puts American servicemen and women at risk.

Very much so …

I'm sure you know, politicians, of any stripe, make uninformed and foolish statements and promises.

Again … almost a standard …

We're talking life and death for our servicemen and servicewomen

Many in Congress or in gov't in general don't have kids of military age. Plus it's a volunteer military with chances of a draft being tiny at best. Reinforced by the fact that 70% of military age US population couldn't pass the mental & physical tests, or background check …

I'd have a lot more confidence in this kind of stuff if it was being touted as "it will improve military effectiveness," rather than, "it's good for the environment." The military now does far too many things because they're nice to do, rather than doing them because they're going to improve combat effectiveness. What's even worse is when we accept some degradation in readiness or effectiveness for the sake of a social goal, and worst of all is when we lie about what the impacts actually are.

Pretty much Facts + reality…

Sorry, I was not really thinking about the article. I am more interested in how the military can reduce its vulnerability with more diverse energy resources, and ultimately get to a new level in terms of capabilities.

That's a nice goal -- but what this article indicates is a rush to deploy EVs into the Military to create a large artificial market for EV car batteries and systems, thus "bringing down" the price of EV systems for overall civilian use in the broader economy as part of the Biden admin's climate change goals. Not military readiness, effectiveness or the impact on missions, or the survivability of vehicle crews.

Tells you a lot about what really matters to them, doesn't it?

Again … Those in charge have other priorities …

"Systemic Stupidity" (Copyright 2020 and 2021) knows NO bounds.

Keeping the lunacy in leftist policies. Some things never change, though they have become more brazen over time.

How do we convince the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and North Koreans to build the requisite number of charging stations we'll need on our preferred invasion routes, and at appropriately space distances in the desired densities needed?

Also, how will we compensate them to create and field them, AND how do we keep them from switching them off when we need them?

Clearly, this does point the way forward for nuclear, and/or fusion powered, Bolo tanks, shades of Ogre.

They will be the only practical options left under the new "green" regulations coming at us at hypersonic speeds.

At least an electric tank might not give its position away by the plume of hot air/ smoke from its internal combustion engine.
Might be a bit quieter too…

Thresher +1

Herkybird … all true … but the tech for E/AFVs to be combat effective IMO still is not "there" … yet … E.g. Wind & Solar power … still needs some work, IMO.

Agree Legion, this is a long play and could have only a limited role for now.

Saying we need the Chinese to set up charging stations is like thinking we still need to bring along hand cranks to start tank engines. No way this development remains standing still. the design and engineering tech is growing exponentially. Strategic issues include whether the west or the Chinese will keep control of raw materials for the batteries, but this may also drive yet another shift in tech.

Think about the shift from sail to steam in warships. Everybody hung on to salis for a long time, even when they knew it was not the future, in order to be able to deploy an effective force with some certainty, Coal did not give ships enough range.

I would never advocate for an abrupt end to fossil fuels for military use, as ancient as it may start to seem, But I would look to replace them down the road. Or we could be literally left in the dust.

Musk is not left wing or right wing. He has a different way of looking ahead.

I think it's a mistake to say that the current policy makers, Biden or whoever, do not care about survivabilty for crews as long as they can use the military to push the EV market. Nothing about that fits with any Anerican President as a leader.

do not care about survivabilty for crews as long as they can use the military to push the EV market. Nothing about that fits with any American President as a leader.

Bingo !

I would never advocate for an abrupt end to fossil fuels for military use, as ancient as it may start to seem, But I would look to replace them down the road. Or we could be literally left in the dust.

Yep, but this is not that…