THERE have been several noises in the recent past about ‘decarbonising’ warfare. For instance, in 2021 the then chief of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, set a target for British military aircraft to hit net-zero carbon by 2040.
Another example is the plan set out in 2020 by the US military to have electric armoured vehicles, reported in Popular Mechanics under the heading ‘The Electric Vehicle Revolution Is Finally Hitting the US Army’. Now it is reported that in the UK ‘Ministers are forging ahead with plans to use electric vehicles (EVs) for combat on the battlefield despite warnings from military grandees that they could put the Armed Forces at risk’.
Let’s take a look at the facts of the matter.
First, a Challenger 2 tank weighs 64 tonnes and carries around 1,600 litres of fuel (16 MWh energy) weighing 1.3 tonnes and is expected to have a range of 300 miles. As a rough guide, let us use the Tesla S long-range car: 2,100 kg weight, 100 kWh/544 Kg battery pack and a 300 miles range. By extrapolation, the Challenger tank will need a 3 MWh (64*0.1/2.1) battery weighing 17 tonnes. A Tesla Supercharger at 250 kW will take 12 hours to charge it. Anyway, where and how will it be charged in a combat zone?!
Similarly, a light armoured vehicle (L-ATV) weighs 4,667 kg, with a range of 300 miles and has dimensions of 6.2m length, 2.5m width. Again, compared with the Tesla S, the L-ATV will need a battery of at least 220 kWh (100*4667/2100) capacity. Under ‘peak sun’, modern solar panels can produce 300 W per square metre. So, if the L-ATV has to be charged by solar energy, it has to be parked under ‘peak sun’ for about 48 hours to charge the battery, even if its entire top surface is covered by solar panels (220/[0.3 × 6.2 × 2.5]). It is also to be hoped that no rocks will be thrown at it by miscreants on the battlefield!
The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of a Eurofighter (Typhoon) aircraft is 21,000 kg and it carries 4,000 kg of fuel with an energy content of 49 MWh. A battery pack with the same energy content would weigh around 13 times the MTOW of the aircraft, assuming a battery pack energy density of 5.44 kg/kWh, taking Tesla S as the guide. It is to be remembered that there are hardly any efficiency gains from running jet engines on batteries.
It should be obvious that using electric vehicles for combat on the battlefield is a very silly idea. The reason appears to be that the government has pledged to put net zero goals at the centre of its defence industrial strategy. Astonishingly, a government source has said that ‘new and emerging technologies can support decarbonisation efforts and improve battlefield capability, reducing the supply chain vulnerability of liquid fuel and also reducing the heat signature and noise of vehicles on the battlefield’.
Never mind that it will clearly erode battlefield capability and increase supply chain vulnerability. For instance, will an adequate charging infrastructure be first established in the field before any battle is fought? People with common sense in the military have already called it a ‘crazy endeavour’ and recognise this as nothing more than virtue signalling by the MoD. It is a pity a lot of money will be wasted on such idiotic ideas in pursuit of ‘net zero’.
