23 avril 2020 | International, Terrestre

Do Soldiers Dream Of Electric Trucks?

While Tesla won't be building heavy tanks, the Army Futures & Concepts Center says moving lighter, wheeled vehicles from fossil fuel to electric drive could streamline supply lines – and save lives.

By

WASHINGTON: In wartime, the cost of gas is often partly paid in blood. Hundreds of US troops have died and thousands have been wounded fighting to move supplies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Against an adversary with long-range missiles like Russia, the carnage among convoys would be worse.

The bulkiest cargo and often the most needed (along with bullets and bombs): fuel. If you could dramatically reduce the amount of gas the US military consumes, you could reduce the logistics burden a great deal. Fewer fuel convoys on the road would save money in peacetime and lives in wartime. But how do you get there?

With electric vehicles, answers Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, head of the Futures & Concepts Center at Army Futures Command.

“Tesla is building large [semitrailer] trucks,” he told reporters in a wide-ranging roundtable yesterday. “Battery costs have gone down precipitously over the last 10 years,” he said, recharge times have dropped, and ranges has grown longer. What's more, electric motors have many fewer moving parts than internal combustion ones, making them potentially easier to maintain and repair.

“The entire automotive industry is migrating towards this idea of electrification,” he said. “We're already, I would argue, late to the need.”

Not only do electric motors not need gas, Wesley said. They also can generate power for high-tech combat systems – sensors, command networks, even laser weapons and robots – that currently require dedicated auxiliary power units or diesel generators that burn even more fuel. Imagine a squad of soldiers recharging their jamming-resistant radios and IVAS targeting goggles in their vehicle between missions, or a mobile command post running its servers off the same truck that carried them.

The Hard Part

Electric motors can even help frontline forces sneak up on the enemy, he said. They run much quieter and cooler than internal combustion engines, making it much harder to hear electric vehicles approaching or spot them on infrared.

Army graphic

The Army's cancelled Future Combat System would have included a family of hybrid-electric vehicles. Even the ambitious FCS program didn't try to build all-electric tanks.

Now, Wesley isn't talking about electric tanks, just trucks. “Right now, we don't see the technology, on the near-term horizon, being able to power heavy vehicles,” he said. That's because even the latest batteries still provide less power per pound than fossil fuel. (Engineers call this “energy density”). So, for example, the replacement for the Reagan-era M2 Bradley troop carrier – likely to weigh about 50 tons — is going to need an internal combustion engine or at least a hybrid diesel-electric one. But the vast majority of Army vehicles are wheeled, from supply trucks to the JLTV, an armored 4×4 replacing many Humvees: That weight class, up to 10 or even 15 tons, can move on electrical power alone.

Wesley had planned to kick off his electrification drive with a panel discussion at last month's AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Ala. (I would've been the moderator). But that conference got canceled due to the COVID-19 coronavirus, so he's rolling it out to the press instead. His staff is working on an in-depth internal study for his boss, the four-star chief of Army Futures Command, Gen. John “Mike” Murray.

There are a lot of thorny problems to work out, Wesley acknowledges. The big one: Where do you generate the electricity in the first place? In a war zone, you can't just pull into your garage and plug into a charger overnight.

“We can't just go buy an electric vehicle. We have to look at the supply chains,” he said. One option the Army's considering, he said, is miniaturized, mobile nuclear power plants – something the Pentagon is now researching and says should be safe even after a direct hit.

While Wesley didn't discuss other alternatives, the fallback option is presumably burning some fossil fuel to run a generator, which then charges batteries or capacitators.

“We're writing a draft white paper proposal for Gen. Murray and the Army to look at this holistically,” Wesley said, “[and] we are building up a proposal that we will publish here in early summer that is going to describe a recommendation for how the Army transitions toward the future.”

“My expectation is that it's about a 10-year horizon right now to do something like that which I just described,” he said. “If that's true, then we have to have a transition plan for the Army to move in this direction.”

Extended excerpts from Lt. Gen. Wesley's roundtable with reporters, edited for length & clarity, follow below. He also discussed how Army units have to evolve for future multi-domain operations: more on that later this week.

Q: The Army's been interested in electric vehicles and alternative fuel for some time. What's new here?

A: We were going to have a panel on this to kick off [at AUSA Global Force]: a broader look at electrification and alternative fuel sources for the Army. We're writing a draft white paper proposal for Gen. Murray and the Army to look at this holistically. And we are building up a proposal that we will publish here in early summer that is going to describe a recommendation for how the Army transitions toward the future.

Tesla is building large [semitrailer] trucks. UPS and FedEx are starting to buy these vehicles to learn how they move into that area. The entire automotive industry is migrating towards this idea of electrification, and there's a lot of good reasons for it. And as the entire industry goes to electrification, the supply of internal combustion engine parts is going to go down and therefore prices are going to go up.

Battery costs have gone down precipitously over the last 10 years. Recharge times and range [have improved]. The trajectory that all of that is on, in the next two years, it'll be far more efficient to have an electric vehicle than internal combustion, so we're already, I would argue, late to the need.

Q: What's slowed the Army down?

A: The problem is bigger for the Army than it is for any corporation, industry, or family, because you have to have a means to move the energy and generate the energy at the right time and place. It's not that the Army is slow to move on this, we just have a bigger problem to solve, and I would argue that's what we have to do now.

The issue is not whether we can build hybrid vehicles. That's easy. In fact, any one of us could go out and — as long as there's not a waiting list — buy a Tesla tomorrow and sell our Chevy Suburban. You plug it in at home, we've got the infrastructure. You don't have to change your supply chain or your way of life when you buy a Tesla.

The Army, we can't just go buy an electric vehicle, we have to look at the supply chains. How are you going to have [electricity] sources for charging?

If technology tells us that safe, mobile nuclear power plants, for example, something that goes on the back of a truck, are realistic, and if you add capacitor technology [to store the electricity], you can distribute that forward in varying ways.

Q: Are we talking about electric-drive tanks here? Or just trucks?

A: The Army hasn't said, we're going all-electric. Right now, we don't see the technology, on the near-term horizon, being able to power heavy vehicles, it's just too much of a drain on the battery. The Next Generation Combat Vehicle, it's still going to require you to have an internal combustion engine.

But if we could reduce the fossil fuel consumption by transitioning our wheeled vehicles [to electric motors], you can reduce the volume of travel on your supply route to only [move] fossil fuels for the much heavier vehicles.

Q: Could you make an electric version of something like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle?

A: The technology to power a vehicle of that weight exists today. We're talking [up to] about 10-15 tons; that technology exists now.

If it exists now, you can anticipate that we're going to have to transition some of this in the next 10 years. And if that's true, then we have to have a transition plan for the Army to move in this direction.

It should require a very detailed strategy and step by step pathways. It should include starting to build in hooks into our requirements [for new designs]. And then there are other experimentation efforts where we can learn about enterprise-level supply chain decisions.

(Eds. note: We ask all fans of Phillip K. Dick to forgive us for the headline).

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/do-soldiers-dream-of-electric-trucks

Sur le même sujet

  • China's first stealth fighter for aircraft carriers is emerging, but a big problem still weighs it down

    23 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    China's first stealth fighter for aircraft carriers is emerging, but a big problem still weighs it down

    A model jet spotted on a fake aircraft carrier is the latest hint about what China's navy might have planned for its carrier air wings.

  • With an increasing footprint in the Arctic, the Corps may need a new snow vehicle

    1 octobre 2018 | International, Terrestre

    With an increasing footprint in the Arctic, the Corps may need a new snow vehicle

    By: Shawn Snow The top Marine has been steadily increasing the Corps' footprint in the arctic region, preparing Marines for a fight in extreme cold-weather environments as the U.S. defense strategy shifts toward near-peer threats. It's an oft repeated remark by Commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller that the cold weather business is something the Corps hasn't done for some time. And it certainly shows in some of the equipment the Corps uses in Norway, like the nearly 40-year-old Cold War relic over-the-snow vehicle, the Bv206. The Corps has been rapidly replacing its cold-weather gear to include skis, pack frames, boots and shelters. And now, a new over-the-snow vehicle could be on the horizon for the Marines. One potential replacement for the aging Bv206 could be BAE's BvS10, which is already in use by Marines in Norway, who have been training on the British variant of the BvS10 known as the Viking. The BvS10, while predominantly suited for the Arctic region, is actually an all-terrain vehicle that can also traverse mud, swamp, gravel or even water. The tracked vehicle, which can carry 11 to 12 troops, has a ground pressure less than the human foot, according to Keith Klemmer, BAE's U.S. BvS10 representative. The low ground pressure spread across the tracks gives the vehicle superior mobility in a multitude of terrains, especially snow. And for military operations, the BvS10 can mount the Ma Deuce .50 caliber machine or even the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station, which affords troops the ability to engage targets from the protections and confines of the vehicle. Speaking of protection, the armor plating on the BvS10 can withstand small-arms fire and the RPG-7, Klemmer said. The Bv-S10 can operate in temperatures ranging from -50 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit and boasts an impressive range of nearly 200 miles, according to Klemmer. While the Corps is prepping for its fourth six-month rotation to Norway, it's only been recently that the Corps and the U.S. military has once again focused on the Arctic and European theaters. For the past twenty years, the desert terrain of the Middle East has garnered the attention of the Corps and as a result, the military's fleet of over-the-snow vehicles have taken a back seat in priority. But with a renewed spotlight on the Arctic region, and a Marine footprint that is expected to double in Norway in the coming months, the time may be ripe to upgrade the Corps' suite of snow vehicles. And the U.S. military is showing interest. In early June, the Army posted a request for information, or RFI, to industry leaders for what it has dubbed the Joint All Weather All Terrain Support Vehicle, or JAASV. According to the RFI, the Army wants its future tracked snow vehicle to operate in temperatures between -50 and 115 F. And the Army wants a multi variant vehicle that can carry troops, serve as an ambulance, or a command system. The BvS10 fits much of that description. The main cab can serve as a command node, while the back cab can transport nearly eight troops. The rear cab also has the ability to flip up and serve as an ambulatory vehicle. “The JAASV shall be a tracked vehicle that has excellent on and off-road mobility in extreme cold temperatures, deep snow, rugged uneven terrain, thick brush or forest, soft wet ground, rivers, streams, and lakes, and mountainous terrain,” the RFI reads. The Army also wants the JAASV to be air mobile by CH-47, UH-60 and C-130. And while this RFI was submitted by the Army, the Corps has a tracked record of partnering with the Army on a number of procurement projects. The Corps hasn't made a decision yet to upgrade its snow vehicles, but the Marines are increasingly becoming focused on the Arctic domain and its forces are already learning how to operate partner forces' BvS10s in the region. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/09/28/with-an-increasing-footprint-in-the-arctic-the-corps-may-need-a-new-snow-vehicle

  • Kiev tire la sonnette d’alarme sur les drones chinois et ouvre son ciel aux startups américaines

    2 mai 2022 | International, Aérospatial

    Kiev tire la sonnette d’alarme sur les drones chinois et ouvre son ciel aux startups américaines

    Les autorités de Kiev ont appelé à limiter l'utilisation des drones DJI, affirmant que les problèmes techniques de ces appareils pourraient avoir été intentionnellement provoqués par le fabricant chinois pour saboter les défenses du pays. Si la société chinoise, DJI Technology, le plus grand fabricant de drone au monde, nie les accusations selon lesquelles elle a joué un rôle dans l'invasion russe, le gouvernement ukrainien appelle à ne plus utiliser ces drones à la suite de nombreux dysfonctionnements, alors que les forces russes se serviraient de ces technologies sur le front. La controverse autour de DJI a renforcé les préoccupations de longue date de certains décideurs et régulateurs américains en matière de sécurité nationale, à savoir que la Chine contrôle une technologie commerciale qui a aussi clairement des applications militaires. Les adversaires de DJI à Washington font pression pour l'adoption d'un projet de loi proposé par des parlementaires républicains qui ouvrirait la voie à l'interdiction, pour les appareils du fabricant chinois, d'utiliser l'infrastructure de communication américaine. A l'opposé, plus d'une demi-douzaine de startups américaines ont vu en Ukraine une opportunité à ne pas rater et ont déclaré avoir donné ou vendu leurs drones et leurs systèmes de défense anti-drones à l'Ukraine. Depuis le mois dernier, BRINC Drones, établi à Seattle, a fait don de 10 drones à l'Ukraine et en a vendu environ 50 autres pour aider le pays à se défendre, et Skydio, de la Silicon Valley, a offert plusieurs dizaines de drones au ministère ukrainien de la Défense, et des centaines d'autres ont été vendus à des organisations non gouvernementales et à des gouvernements soutenant l'Ukraine. Ces startups, dont la clientèle se compose essentiellement de l'armée et des agences de sécurité publique, affirment que leurs produits offrent une sécurité supérieure, en comparaison avec les drones DJI. L'Opinion et le Wall Street Journal du 26 avril

Toutes les nouvelles