The service is working with a non-profit consortium of more than 200 companies and universities developing clean transportation technologies, CALSTART. <\/a>But the driving logic here is pure Army green, not eco-friendliness. Tactically, electric vehicles accelerate quicker, run cooler, and move quieter than internal combustion ones \u2013 advantages that are all especially valuable for stealthy scouts like LRV. They can also run power-hungry high-tech systems, from sensors to lasers, without needing a bulky auxiliary power unit.<\/p>\n Logistically, even if the Army has to recharge its electric vehicles from diesel generators, that would actually get more miles per gallon than putting the same fuel directly into an internal combustion vehicle, because electric motors are much more efficient. So electric power could reduce dependence on long supply lines and vulnerable convoys of tanker trucks, which are prime targets for adversaries ranging from Taliban irregulars to Russian missiles. Army and NATO wargames have shown some alarming vulnerabilities in the fuel supply.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the timeline? \u201cWe\u2019d like to see an Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle by FY25,\u201d said Maj. Ryan Ressler, who\u2019s leading the effort for Army Futures Command. But electrifying the Army\u2019s whole fleet of wheeled vehicles \u2013 let alone its heavier tracked vehicles \u2013 may take decades, starting with light trucks and gradually working up to heavy armor.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re not going to go straight to an all-electric [fleet]. The battery density is not there for your combat vehicles,\u201d Ressler told me \u2013 at least, not yet.<\/p>\n \u201cWe would like<\/em> to see all electric vehicles by 2040,\u201d he said. \u201cThere might<\/em> be potential to have all electric vehicles in the near term, if industry can help.\u201d The Oct. 20 industry day will be the first step toward finding out.<\/p>\n From Light to Heavy<\/strong><\/p>\n Ressler hopes to have a formal Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document (ACDD) for ELRV approved \u201cin a matter of months,\u201d he told me. \u201cWe see this as the first electrified vehicle for the Army ground combat fleet.\u201d<\/p>\n Industry feedback on ELRV \u2013 and progress on development, if the program goes ahead \u2013 will then inform the long-term strategy for Tactical and Combat Vehicle Electrification across the wider fleet. Ressler\u2019s team is now drafting what\u2019s called an Initial Capabilities Document for TaCVE.<\/p>\n To test those concepts out in practice, he added, \u201cwe\u2019re looking at other potential candidates for electrification right now.\u201d High on that list is the Infantry Squad Vehicle<\/a> (ISV) being built by GM Defense<\/a>, an air-droppable light truck designed to carry airborne troops from their drop sites to the objective. Electric vehicles\u2019 innate stealth and reduced dependence on fuel supply would be particularly valuable to paratroopers, who operate on the ragged end of long supply lines.<\/p>\n There\u2019s already been work done on an electric Infantry Squad Vehicle. \u201cAn electric prototype representative of the ISV proved it could be whisper-quiet, achieve sprint speed immediately, and offered excess power for extended silent watch mode exceeding current objectives,\u201d according to an Army Futures Command white paper.<\/p>\n LRV and ISV are natural partners. The Light Reconnaissance Vehicle was intended to scout ahead of the vulnerable Infantry Squad Vehicles<\/a>, helping the unarmored transports avoid a lethal ambush. But the Army decided to delay a purpose-built LRV and use the heavier Joint Light Tactical Vehicle<\/a> (JLTV) as a stopgap scout. So it looks like LRV may have a second chance at life.<\/p>\n ISV and LRV are both ultralight vehicles, meant to support airborne troops and other light infantry units that can deploy rapidly by air but after that mostly maneuver on foot. But even light infantry brigades have a small fleet of heavy trucks to carry supplies and special equipment. Mechanized units have a host of armored vehicles \u2013 8\u00d78 wheeled Strykers<\/a> for medium brigades; tracked tanks<\/a>, howitzers<\/a>, missile launchers<\/a>, and troop carriers<\/a> for heavy brigades \u2013 followed by an even larger number of trucks to carry fuel, spare parts, supplies, and other support. There\u2019s already been some progress with these heavier vehicles.<\/p>\n BAE Systems<\/a> is developing an experimental hybrid diesel-electric engine for the M2 Bradley troop carrier. BAE\u2019s experimented with hybrid-electric armored vehicles for decades, company exec Andrew Rosenfeld told me \u2013 they once built a hybrid as heavy as an M1 Abrams tank \u2013 but the company\u2019s recent boom in civilian hybrid-electric buses has advanced the state of the art. Their engine for the Bradley can move up to 45 tons, and the same basic design could scale larger or smaller to go in a wide range of other vehicles. The hybrid Bradley uses 10 to 20 percent less fuel during a normal mission, he told me, and it can generate 500 kilowatts of power, enough to run an Army field hospital.<\/p>\n On the wheeled side, the Army\u2019s Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC, formerly TARDEC) converted an Oshkosh cargo truck, the four-axle M977 HEMTT<\/a>, to hybrid electric drive for a 2019 demonstration. That Tactical Vehicle Electrification Kit cut the HEMTT\u2019s fuel consumption by 15-25 percent, according to the Army Futures Command white paper. TVEK also tripled the truck\u2019s capacity to generate power.<\/p>\n Increased power generation not only allows an electrified vehicle to have more technology on board, like sensors and weapons. Such vehicles could also park, plug in, and power up soldiers\u2019 charging kits, field hospitals, command posts, or radar sites \u2013 potentially replacing traditional diesel generators.<\/p>\n \u201cThe very concept of what constitutes a vehicle has changed,\u201d the white paper argued. \u201cElectrification has transformed vehicles into sensor platforms, communication nodes, and mobile computational hubs.\u201d<\/p>\n Just as the F-35 fighter is so full of electronics that a former Air Force Chief of Staff called it \u201ca computer that happens to fly<\/a>,\u201d electrified ground vehicles could become computers that happen to drive \u2013 and not just computers, but mobile charging stations as well. Today\u2019s complex and vulnerable supply chain must move large amounts of fuel from refinery to tanker to forward depot to individual vehicles and generators. A future system could be much more decentralized, supplying smaller amounts of fuel to hybrid-electric vehicles, which could then generate power to share with all-electric ones.<\/p>\n Such streamlined logistics could make a life-or-death difference in wartime. The Army\u2019s concept for future combat, Multi-Domain Operations<\/a>, calls for individual brigades to operate up to seven days without stopping for resupply. That\u2019s unimaginable today. Improving fuel-efficiency of internal combustion engines would make for only \u201cmarginal\u201d progress towards the goal, the white paper argued. Truly self-sufficient combat units will require largescale replacement of fossil fuel with electricity, potentially drawn from small, mobile nuclear reactors<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s fundamental to Multi-Domain Operations,\u201d argued retired Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley<\/a>, who commissioned the white paper when he was Futures & Concepts Center<\/a> chief for Army Futures Command. He just took on a private-sector job with Flyer Defense<\/a>, a maker of lightweight off-road trucks<\/a> that\u2019s now developing an electric-drive vehicle with a small, built-in diesel generator to recharge itself. (This isn\u2019t a hybrid-electric drive, since the diesel doesn\u2019t\u2019 drive the wheels; it just charges the batteries).<\/p>\n \u201cMoving energy on the battlefield is the biggest challenge commanders will have in the future,\u201d Wesley told me. But if you electrify your vehicle, he argued, it can \u201cbecome more than just a combat vehicle: It becomes an energy node [in] a distribution network, where every vehicle is part of your energy distribution plan.\u201d<\/p>\n Such a decentralized and flexible system, he argues, is much harder for a Russian missile strike to take out than a fuel depot.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/GM-Defense-ISV-1566934671369.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/tanque.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/tabla.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/persona.jpg\")