Have the civilians or the military addressed the ramifications for our military if we transition totally to electric vehicles? It does not seem like the technology is anywhere near adequate enough to fulfill military requirements.

Why would they need 3 phase for the chargers?

Teslag said:

---

Why would they need 3 phase for the chargers?

---

For DC Fast Charging Stations. Our Park Ranger vehicles are similar to police cruisers. There are hot seated for up to 16 hours a day during the summer averaging anywhere from 150 to 200 miles a day. Not a whole lot of down time. The Type 1's and Type 2's wont cut it.

Haven't seen any push for that on my base. Though I wish we'd install in ground power at our jet parking spots instead of annoying ass generator carts that are loud, smell bad and generally don't work worth a damn.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Haven't seen any push for that on my base. Though I wish we'd install in ground power at our jet parking spots instead of annoying ass generator carts that are loud, smell bad and generally don't work worth a damn.

---

You are actually suggesting a very sensible way of cutting emissions by using a more efficient way of electricity production.

Speaking to the general theme of this thread, there are several good books on this subject, here are two.

A Question of Power by Bryce
https://a.co/d/9mCj6kT

Unsettled by Koonin
https://a.co/d/1jxZf6i

The first question to ask is "what is the source of the electricity?". More that likely it is 2/3's fossil fuel

Pushing the EV concept on military will one day be disastrous.

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the vehicle's engine keeps its battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

Makes sense that's it's more efficient and less emissions.

I just want it because I couldn't believe how legit it was the first time I flew somewhere with in ground power and we just plugged in and had nice, quiet, and reliable power.

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

74OA said:

---

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

---

Hybrid tactical vehicles make some sense.

The BAE submission for the defunct GCV Bradley replacement was designed with a hybrid electric drive 10 years ago. It was doubtful then that the Acquisition community would tolerate the risk of that platform, but it had a lot of efficiencies. A diesel engine charged batteries -- allowing it to operate at the most efficient part of the power band -- and the tracks were driven by electric motors.

Pure electric in combat vehicles is probably pie in the sky dreaming for the foreseeable future.

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

---

Hybrid tactical vehicles make some sense.

The BAE submission for the defunct GCV Bradley replacement was designed with a hybrid electric drive 10 years ago. It was doubtful then that the Acquisition community would tolerate the risk of that platform, but it had a lot of efficiencies. A diesel engine charged batteries -- allowing it to operate at the most efficient part of the power band -- and the tracks were driven by electric motors.

Pure electric in combat vehicles is probably pie in the sky dreaming for the foreseeable future.

---

Agree, but in the meantime as we wait for the technology to mature, we should distinguish between combat and non-combat vehicles. The Army has many thousands of non-combat administrative vehicles, for instance, and most of those are solid early candidates for pure electric.

BTW, the Bradley IFV replacement program has been rebooted and is still hybrid-electric: OMFV

cryption said:

---

How are they going to charge said vehicles in the middle of an active combat zone? You can always toss more diesel in your vehicle ...

---

I think that's a good question, and I think that's the point of forcing the military to look into this now.

I'm sure at some point in history someone once wondered how they were going to refuel a vehicle in a combat zone whereas they could just have a horse drink from the stream and eat some grass.

Battery technology is constantly improving. As is capacitor technology. As is solar technology. What if a FARP was designed for vehicles with super chargers that ran on a combination of solar and diesel generators? What if the FARP had battery packs that could be hot swapped? What if a vehicle was designed as an electric hybrid that ran like submarines - diesel-electric. These are probably all questions the military is working on.

The technology may not be ready for military application right now. But one day it might be what gives us a military advantage.

74OA said:

---

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

---

Hybrid tactical vehicles make some sense.

The BAE submission for the defunct GCV Bradley replacement was designed with a hybrid electric drive 10 years ago. It was doubtful then that the Acquisition community would tolerate the risk of that platform, but it had a lot of efficiencies. A diesel engine charged batteries -- allowing it to operate at the most efficient part of the power band -- and the tracks were driven by electric motors.

Pure electric in combat vehicles is probably pie in the sky dreaming for the foreseeable future.

---

Agree, but in the meantime as we wait for the technology to mature, we should distinguish between combat and non-combat vehicles. The Army has many thousands of non-combat administrative vehicles, for instance, and most of those are solid early candidates for pure electric. BTW, the Bradley IFV replacement program has been rebooted and is still hybrid-electric: OMFV

---

Maybe.

I don't know how many TMPs there are anymore -- a lot fewer than there used to be. And those tend to be very basic fleet version sedans, trucks, and vans.

How many pure electric $25k base model Malibus are in production right now? I'm dubious you would recoup the higher purchase cost under current production/prices.

But leave it to the Army to spend a dollar to save a quarter.

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

---

Hybrid tactical vehicles make some sense.

The BAE submission for the defunct GCV Bradley replacement was designed with a hybrid electric drive 10 years ago. It was doubtful then that the Acquisition community would tolerate the risk of that platform, but it had a lot of efficiencies. A diesel engine charged batteries -- allowing it to operate at the most efficient part of the power band -- and the tracks were driven by electric motors.

Pure electric in combat vehicles is probably pie in the sky dreaming for the foreseeable future.

---

Agree, but in the meantime as we wait for the technology to mature, we should distinguish between combat and non-combat vehicles. The Army has many thousands of non-combat administrative vehicles, for instance, and most of those are solid early candidates for pure electric. BTW, the Bradley IFV replacement program has been rebooted and is still hybrid-electric: OMFV

---

Maybe.

I don't know how many TMPs there are anymore -- a lot fewer than there used to be. And those tend to be very basic fleet version sedans, trucks, and vans.

How many pure electric $25k base model Malibus are in production right now? I'm dubious you would recoup the higher purchase cost under current production/prices.

But leave it to the Army to spend a dollar to save a quarter.

---

Because we're certainly not worried about saving the planet when we're at war.

"Earth first, we'll strip mine the other planets later!"

cryption said:

---

How are they going to charge said vehicles in the middle of an active combat zone? You can always toss more diesel in your vehicle ...

---

You can do both with a hybrid. See the "Power" link I posted just above.

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Trinity Ag said:

---

74OA said:

---

Townend87 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Wouldn't hybrids make a lot of sense since less fuel has to be transported into a battle zone and the engine keeps the vehicle's battery pack charged.

A hybrid is also comparatively very quiet and can switch back and forth between gas and electric power modes as best fits the tactical situation.

---

Hybrid, meaning they can run on gas or diesel right? Any fuel of opportunity.

Keep in mind the size of military vehicles, they are not light and require a lot of power.

---

Electric motors develop a tremendous amount of torque. Full discussion here: POWER

"However, determining how best to take advantage of electrification requires careful consideration of the full range of electric vehicle options. This is not a binary decision between hastily embracing an all-electric future or stubbornly maintaining a fossil-fuel status quo. Our future military readiness demands that we rise above such harmful simplification of a complex issue and give it the careful consideration it deserves."

---

Hybrid tactical vehicles make some sense.

The BAE submission for the defunct GCV Bradley replacement was designed with a hybrid electric drive 10 years ago. It was doubtful then that the Acquisition community would tolerate the risk of that platform, but it had a lot of efficiencies. A diesel engine charged batteries -- allowing it to operate at the most efficient part of the power band -- and the tracks were driven by electric motors.

Pure electric in combat vehicles is probably pie in the sky dreaming for the foreseeable future.

---

Agree, but in the meantime as we wait for the technology to mature, we should distinguish between combat and non-combat vehicles. The Army has many thousands of non-combat administrative vehicles, for instance, and most of those are solid early candidates for pure electric. BTW, the Bradley IFV replacement program has been rebooted and is still hybrid-electric: OMFV

---

Maybe.

I don't know how many TMPs there are anymore -- a lot fewer than there used to be. And those tend to be very basic fleet version sedans, trucks, and vans.

How many pure electric $25k base model Malibus are in production right now? I'm dubious you would recoup the higher purchase cost under current production/prices.

But leave it to the Army to spend a dollar to save a quarter.

---

"Currently the Department of Defense has about 170,000 non-tactical vehicles, the cars and trucks we use on our bases," Hicks noted."

POTENTIAL?

rgleml said:

---

Have the civilians or the military addressed the ramifications for our military if we transition totally to electric vehicles? It does not seem like the technology is anywhere near adequate enough to fulfill military requirements.

---

In foreign lands!

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

cryption said:

---

How are they going to charge said vehicles in the middle of an active combat zone? You can always toss more diesel in your vehicle ...

---

I think that's a good question, and I think that's the point of forcing the military to look into this now.

I'm sure at some point in history someone once wondered how they were going to refuel a vehicle in a combat zone whereas they could just have a horse drink from the stream and eat some grass.

Battery technology is constantly improving. As is capacitor technology. As is solar technology. What if a FARP was designed for vehicles with super chargers that ran on a combination of solar and diesel generators? What if the FARP had battery packs that could be hot swapped? What if a vehicle was designed as an electric hybrid that ran like submarines - diesel-electric. These are probably all questions the military is working on.

The technology may not be ready for military application right now. But one day it might be what gives us a military advantage.

---

Fueling, or charging, is a significant point of vulnerability for any tactical unit.

An M1 Abrams holds 504 gallons of fuel. The pumps on an M978A4 HEMTT fueler can move 300 gpm. So that fueler can fill a platoon of tanks (4 tanks) in less than 10 minutes (assuming the treadheads are on the ball about keeping the line moving.)

Using current charging tech, it takes about 30 minutes to charge an EV battery to between 70-80%, and the last 20% is a good bit slower. (I've seen quotes that to charge Tesla's big rig takes 30 minutes to get to 70%.) No combat vehicle operator is going to want less than a full tank of gas or a full charge. So charging, using current tech, is going to be A LOT slower than current fueling.

Next, the size of the battery. The M1 can go ~300 miles on a tank of fuel, depending on speed and terrain. How big of a battery do you need to move a 74 ton (M1A2 SEPv3 is 73.6 tons) tank 300 miles? And then you need a battery (or other power source capable of providing a similar output) 4 times that size (at least) to charge a platoon of tanks. And that charger has to be mobile! Except in garrison operations, Army vehicles need their energy source to be mobile. That includes vehicles not necessarily on the front lines. If it's within enemy weapons range, you've got to be able to pick it up and move it.

This. People always say "battery tech is constantly improving!" but don't realize how far it would have to improve to replace ICE's in military vehicles.

You already hit up on battery size, and I wanted to add that it will be more of a weight issue. You're replacing JP8 or gasoline that weighs roughly 6 pounds per gallon with an extremely dense and heavy battery. This is why EVs are always heavier than their ICE counterparts by hundreds if not thousands of pounds. Which is why Musk's silly tow-off with a 2WD F150 vs a 4WD CyberTruck was a farce- the CyberTruck is going to be in the same weight class as a F250 or even F350, per Tesla's own admission. This is fine on hard surfaces like the average civilian will drive around on (and sometimes beneficial). But tactical vehicles are just more likely to get stuck off-road now that you added an extra 1,000 lbs of weight while keeping the same footprint. That also becomes more of a hindrance when you're trying to air load said vehicles as well.

Here's the other thing people aren't talking about- ambient temperature. All of these EV ranges are based on performance when it's a nice 75 degree day. That's a problem: batteries are like humans- they don't perform well in extreme hot or cold. However, the military has to be able to fight in both arctic and desert environments. Yes, you can add a supplemental heating or cooling system for the battery, but guess what those systems use a lot of to operate? That's right, electricity.

Now apply all those issues to aircraft, and it becomes even more unrealistic. I'd bet we have nuclear fusion powerplants long before we replace all of our aircraft engines with batteries.

One thing, even if usable fusion tech was invented - unless that new tech includes a new tech to harvest the energy of the fusion reaction (light and heat) to turn it into energy we can use (electricity or kinetic energy), then you're still going to be turning that into usable power the old fashioned way - steam.

You might be able to stuff a steam turbine into a tank or even large APC hull, but good luck getting into something the size of a Humvee.

And to best illustrate the weight difference between ICE and EV, look at the stats for a regular F150 and the F150 Lightning. The lightest version of the Lightning is much heavier than the heaviest version of the standard F150. (I looked it up for a thread in F16 a while back and don't feel like doing it again right now.)

Yeah my comment about fusion powerplants meant the actual powerplants that generate electricity for the entire grid, not a fusion generator that can fit inside a vehicle.

I read a lot of military sci-fi. A lot of it (like Hammer's Slammers) features tanks and other vehicles with fusion plants.

I can definitely see the fission reactors getting replaced in Navy vessels. If the government is going to throw billions around in energy subsidies, I wish it would go towards more nuclear plants and fusion research than the massive battery farms that would have to be built to make wind and solar practical.

Aggieair said:

---

I can definitely see the fission reactors getting replaced in Navy vessels. If the government is going to throw billions around in energy subsidies, I wish it would go towards more nuclear plants and fusion research than the massive battery farms that would have to be built to make wind and solar practical.

---

I grew up in Livermore, CA, and my dad, and most of my friends' dads, all worked at Lawrence Livermore National Lab on various projects. At the time of his retirement, my dad was part of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) project. We had Edward Teller come give a lecture series at my high school.

They've been saying that they were "a generation away" from commercially viable fusion power since the 1980s. They only just recently managed to get more energy out of a controlled fusion reaction than they put in - and it wasn't a sustained reaction, it was a one time shot. (We've been able to get more output energy than input for decades. They're called hydrogen bombs.)

So excuse me if I take predictions for fusion energy with a rather large grain of salt.

Now, the Navy might be able to use some of the newer types of fusion reactors in a package for ships other than carriers or subs that's cost effective. (They had some nuclear powered cruisers a while back, but decided they weren't cost efficient versus steam turbines or later, gas turbines.

Quote:

---

You might be able to stuff a steam turbine into a tank or even large APC hull, but good luck getting into something the size of a Humvee.

---

1906 Stanley Steamer

Or were you talking about the fusion part?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

You might be able to stuff a steam turbine into a tank or even large APC hull, but good luck getting into something the size of a Humvee.

---

1906 Stanley Steamer

Or were you talking about the fusion part?

---

Both. A Stanley type powerplant wouldn't be allowed, since they burned gasoline or kerosene.

Very long extension cords.
And don't forget about bombers, fighters ships and subs. Will we pull the reactors out and replace them with giant batteries?