An All-Electric Military
Energy Secretary Granholm opined recently that the US Military would be all-electric by 2030. Madam Secretary, I am confident that you know a great deal about energy – actually, that’s a lie. I don’t believe you know much at all about energy, and your proclamation clearly indicates that you are, in technical terms, bat-shit crazy.
I’m not going to speak to Navy nor Air Force, nor Coast Guard, nor Space Force vehicles. I shall only address Army vehicles, because I know something about them. I was a member of the US Army for more than 20 years and rode in and on its vehicles, specifically its combat vehicles, during that time. I know what those vehicles are and how they operate in combat. I also needed to become familiar with the manufacturing of those vehicles and the intricacies of their maintenance and supply chains, some of their vulnerabilities, and with lessons learned over the years.
Let me address the emblematic vehicle of all armies, the tank. There are other large, armored vehicles including the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Armored Scout Vehicles, Armored Personnel Carriers and various self-propelled artillery, including Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS). Finally, there are land-mobile missiles. But the tank remains the primary measure of an army’s power. Technical information was primarily drawn from here and here.
All tanks are a trade-off among maneuverability, firepower, and protection. Until a science fiction force-field can be wrapped around tanks, protection comes in two forms: active protection systems and stand-off armor. Stand-off armor counters anti-tank rounds, which are designed to explode after penetrating the tank’s armor. Active protection systems are designed to destroy incoming rounds before they impact the tank. Both add significantly to the weight of a tank. The US’s current tank model, M1A3, weighs 69.54 tons, making it too heavy to be pulled by Army recovery vehicles. If an M1A3 becomes disabled, it must be abandoned on the battlefield. The current tank model is propelled by a fossil-fuel powered engine, which offends the sensibilities of the Green Agenda of the current administration. The current model uses an engine producing 1,100 kW and weighing 1,100 kg, occupying 1.1 cubic meters. The 1,909-litre fuel tank capacity provides a range of 150-200 km off-road.
Tanks are vulnerable to a variety of threats, primarily other tanks, as well as top-attack weapons such as the Javelin, shoulder-fired weapons such as Rocket-Propelled Grenades (RPG), and ground-attack aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog. Secretary Granholm is about to introduce a new vulnerability: recharging the massive battery. The closest thing to an electric tank battery is the one for the GMC Hummer; the battery weighs 1,325 kg. Five of them would be needed to power a tank. This adds 6,525 kg to the tank, to replace a fossil-fuel powered engine weighing 1,100 kg. The additional 5,425 necessitates yet more battery power.
Until we can predict where the next war will occur and pepper the countryside there with EV recharging stations, this won’t work. If we pretend that it will work, we then have the problem of charging time. Expecting the enemy not to discover where we’re recharging is fantasy, and all he has to do is wait until a large number of ultra-heavy limited-range armored vehicles are in line and fire a few MLRS rounds. He likely has a long time to choose which he will strike, since the recharging time, in my ignorant estimation, is about - - forever.
Dear Russia:
Please turn the power grid back on so we can charge our tanks.
Kisses --
Uncle Sam
Just when one thinks there cannot possibly come another idea so moronic that it truly defies belief--here they are, doing their magic again.
At least now we know Xi and Putin won't need to find comic relief by watching anything other than us.