Biden energy secretary doubles down on electrifying US military's vehicle fleet by 2030:

We can't yet run OTR trucks on electric -- but tanks and other heavy cross-country vehicles?
No problem!!!

 

When they say vehicles, does that include aircraft?

 

If you had a 50KW generator (biggest home model) it would take a week to recharge. A 100KW generator 3.5 days. You could have larger generators but remember -- one tank, one generator. The diesel fuel required would be about 8 hours of tank operation We'd have to negotiate repeated days long cease fires.

 

If we take him at his word, it means aircraft carriers.

 

See?
Democrats -are- stupid.

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
The technology will be developed by the push and need for it, just like all technology advancements.
How many people are still using windows xp? Why not?
Technology advances based upon need, investment and making money. By pushing it, the technology will advance more quickly.
As far a electrical generation and battery storage go, we need to develop new and better technology to advance those fields.
Again, it's not a matter of *want to*, it's a matter of *have to*. Unless you want our military to be stuck in a battlefield 40 years from now with no fuel to move.
Honestly, it seems ridiculous that this needs to be explained. Partisan politics may be the end of this country.
If your not moving forward, we are moving backward.

 

I've seen small aircraft powered by electric motors, but I don't recall seeing a 747 jumbo jet powered by one. Is that even possible?

 

It all depends on the power structure. The smart engineering associate doesn't have a prayer against the dumb Research Director.

 

While a practical comment, it does not address the dogmatic argument made in the article.

Energy is energy; BTU and kW are just names for a quantity of it.
What do you suppose will create the energy for the field generators needed to power these vehicles?
Today: Diesel. Just like the engines they run now. Where's the benefit?
50-75-100 years: Fission?

Back to the dogma, lifted directly from the article:
How does converting today's fleet reduce our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels?
How does it contribute to energy security?
How does homegrown, clean energy move an armored division in combat somewhere in Asia Europe or Africa ?
How does changing the source of the energy that turns the wheels of that armored division make us energy independent?

 

Possible? Sure.
Ask yourself why Boeing and Airbus do not offer such a thing.

 

Wouldn't the batteries take up all the space of the aircraft needed to get it off the ground?

 

Never follow the money. You will feel better.

Billions will be made on EVs and more Billions will be sucked out of taxpayers to clean up the mess and find the next boondoggle to generate even more loot for our corrupt bipartisan ruling political class

By now it should be obvious to everyone that Government Procurement = Rip-Off.

 

Here you go:
840kW Deployable Power Generation and Distribution System (DPGDS);
~10 hours charge.
You need 60 per tank battalion to charge them all at once.
Runs off diesel, of course.

 

Ask yourself why Boeing and Airbus do not offer such a thing.

 

Meanwhile the Biden administration will make China richer as they become our sole supplier of the electrical power.

 

Pleasant thought, but it is not how it works much of the time. Groups had a pressing need for better armaments for centuries before they finally came around. We had a knowing need for aircraft long before Wilbur and Oliver. We don't have Windows 10 because of a pressing need of users. We have it because Microsoft has to keep reissuing its operating system to generate more revenue. (Plus there is the added question whether Windows 10 is more technically advanced beyond the window dressing (pun intended) beyond XP or even 2000/NT.)

 

Doesn't take a militarily trained officer but I have tabled top grand strategy down to small squad war gamed and on computer sims the military uses requiring LOTS of logistical knowledge. How about you?

 

Why does it require an engineering degree to understand power to weight ratios.

You got ANYTHING of substance to discuss?

 

Logistics logistics, logistics.
Clearly Biden, Grandholm, and their useful idiots have no knowledge of the term.

 

With respect to the National Guard size increasing - who will be signing up for a woke military? Particularly considering the picture posted below.l

And where will the electricity come from for these electric vehicles while in combat? As was pointed out in a porevious post - from oil powered generators. Maybe Biden should have the military go back to mules for transport.

The Army is warming up to whatever advances careers and the military industrial complex. I once worked for a large defense contractor. Every senior management position was filled by a former O6 or higher.

I would hope Army vehicles are hardened against EMP and directed energy attacks attacks such as HERF guns and the like. It would seem stupid if this was not the case.

For anyone planning to joint the military -- this will be your commander in chief.

 

Is the technology for tank and ITV's different?

 

Yes, that is how it works most of the time. And it takes time to develop, as you have pointed out. Do you think we should wait until we run out of oil before we do something? Because, make no mistake about it, we will eventually, and not too long from now, either.
So, we have choices. You think it's ridiculous to advance electrical technology in the military vehicles. Should we just keep on doing the same thing we're doing now, or should we try to advance technology to fit the future world?
If we keep on the same way, what will we do when the well runs dry? If we advance technology and not in the electrical field, then what should we do?
Doing nothing is an option, but it will be harmful to the nation if we opt for that.

 

While a practical comment, it does not address the dogmatic argument made in the article.

Energy is energy; BTU and kW are just names for a quantity of it.
What do you suppose will create the energy for the field generators needed to power these vehicles?
Today: Diesel. Just like the engines they run now. Where's the benefit?
50-75-100 years: Fission?

Back to the dogma, lifted directly from the article:
How does converting today's fleet reduce our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels?
How does it contribute to energy security?
How does homegrown, clean energy move an armored division in combat somewhere in Asia Europe or Africa ?
How does changing the source of the energy that turns the wheels of that armored division make us energy independent?

 

I am not at all in favor of doing nothing.. However, I am certainly not in favor of crying like a banshee that the sky is falling and upsetting society's fruit basket and destroying the economy and our security to protect us from that falling sky. Of course we should be looking at alternative fuels. Theoretically we will probably run out of fossil fuels, although that prediction keeps getting extended further and way further out -- probably won't happen for hundreds of years. We already have decent wind and solar technology. It is just woefully small scale without covering the country with windmills and solar panels and spending billions to connect those to the necessary places. Use of nuclear would help greatly. The most promising research is in fusion.

As one wag put it there is nothing either wrong or right with doing most anything, so long as you understand their are two and only two ways to do it -- smart and stupid.

 

Reading this thread makes me feel better that they youth are outnumbering the old, angry, boomer reds that want to go backwards. At least the boomers Children and Grandchildren will be able to have a future while technology constantly advances.