3 ms·

The US Army is going electric – and wants to be net-zero by 2050

13 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

goatsneez 5y ago
This is simply laughable. I reject such propaganda from the ecology-humanitarian point of view. Military's job is well known and that has nothing to do with being green (its not a strategic, tactical or any other goal, except when it cuts costs AND at the same time increases action/operation/effectivity/ability of the said unit(S)). At the current level of technology, such opportunities are few and most are without any doubt unspeakably counterproductive to the living environment. Why the PR dept.of US miliary allowed this thing out is beyond me.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I could see increased fuel-efficiency to be a sensible goal. As that would simplify logistics and even improve operation capabilities. Same sized fuel-tanks bigger range and operation time. Electrification, not so sure. Ofc, making everything nuclear could improve civilian technology.
- T3OU-736 5y ago
  Likely as part of recruitment efforts. "Come be part of the green future, at the U.S.Army" or similar. Though, even if accidentally, this helps with emissions (AFAIK, DoD vehicles don't tend to be subject to same emissions standards as us mere mortals), that would be a win, too.
- pwr-electronics 5y ago
  The real reason is to stimulate the national electrification capability by increasing the demand. This article is just typical marketing.
captainredbeard 5y ago
Ha, just as the Arctic circle theatre is coming into relevance we're going to switch to batteries, which will not perform well below 10 ºC? Right... This is stupid and if the Army is really doing this it's a reflection of complete sophistry.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Isn't it more of the navy and air force involved in the arctic? It doesn't seem to be an ideal place for ground forces.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    The Navy won't be doing much in the Arctic: https://www.militaryspot.com/news/u-s-needs-more-icebreakers-for-arctic https://www.militaryspot.com/news/u-s-needs-more-icebreakers... At some point in a struggle for command (war), you need boots on the ground. Until then, yes, it will probably be all airbased.
- zibzab 5y ago
  You realize that many breakthrough technologies have been created at war time, or during a military (or space) race? Besides, it makes sense to not depend on resources controlled by your enemy.
  - captainredbeard 5y ago
    The United States Armed Forces are not dependent on foreign countries for oil. There is sufficient extraction and refining capacity in the CONUS.
    - zibzab 5y ago
      Until you are in a situation where it doesn't. Anyway, last month the Swedish truck maker Scania tested an electric vehicle in -29C (-20F), making your initial point irrelevant.
      - captainredbeard 5y ago
        Magical thinking.

13 points by underscore_ku 5y ago

This is simply laughable. I reject such propaganda from the ecology-humanitarian point of view. Military's job is well known and that has nothing to do with being green (its not a strategic, tactical or any other goal, except when it cuts costs AND at the same time increases action/operation/effectivity/ability of the said unit(S)). At the current level of technology, such opportunities are few and most are without any doubt unspeakably counterproductive to the living environment. Why the PR dept.of US miliary allowed this thing out is beyond me.

Ekaros 5y ago
I could see increased fuel-efficiency to be a sensible goal. As that would simplify logistics and even improve operation capabilities. Same sized fuel-tanks bigger range and operation time. Electrification, not so sure. Ofc, making everything nuclear could improve civilian technology.
T3OU-736 5y ago
Likely as part of recruitment efforts. "Come be part of the green future, at the U.S.Army" or similar. Though, even if accidentally, this helps with emissions (AFAIK, DoD vehicles don't tend to be subject to same emissions standards as us mere mortals), that would be a win, too.
pwr-electronics 5y ago
The real reason is to stimulate the national electrification capability by increasing the demand. This article is just typical marketing.

captainredbeard 5y ago

Ha, just as the Arctic circle theatre is coming into relevance we're going to switch to batteries, which will not perform well below 10 ºC? Right... This is stupid and if the Army is really doing this it's a reflection of complete sophistry.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Isn't it more of the navy and air force involved in the arctic? It doesn't seem to be an ideal place for ground forces.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  The Navy won't be doing much in the Arctic: https://www.militaryspot.com/news/u-s-needs-more-icebreakers-for-arctic https://www.militaryspot.com/news/u-s-needs-more-icebreakers... At some point in a struggle for command (war), you need boots on the ground. Until then, yes, it will probably be all airbased.
zibzab 5y ago
You realize that many breakthrough technologies have been created at war time, or during a military (or space) race? Besides, it makes sense to not depend on resources controlled by your enemy.
- captainredbeard 5y ago
  The United States Armed Forces are not dependent on foreign countries for oil. There is sufficient extraction and refining capacity in the CONUS.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    Until you are in a situation where it doesn't. Anyway, last month the Swedish truck maker Scania tested an electric vehicle in -29C (-20F), making your initial point irrelevant.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      Magical thinking.