TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES
Comments (11)
Adding to what I already said: Chi-M (China GM) designing the U.S. military vehicles that Americans build, which when the U.S. goes to war with China, they disable them based on their own blueprints. Obviously these vehicles weren't meant for foreign warfare, esp. considering the mega push into global governance. So guess who they'll be used against? Americans, that's who.
cadman at 3:49 PMThey're NUTS! The POV EVs are not where they need to be. They blow up, catch fire, battery drains because of heat, EVs can't be in an enclosed environment, stills need Fossil fuels to build them & no real distance. What about charging stations? How are they used in the middle of a war? Cost to build? Costof maintenance? Batteries? Why do people turn in their EVs sooner? This is NOT ABOUT SAVJNG the ENVIRONMENT, it's about filling their pockets.
Donnie at 12:34 PMNo, no they don't. The Admin purposes it but currently it's beyond stupid even with a fleet of deployable generators that, wait for it, run on fuel.
Innocuous Emailer at 2:34 PM
The army's next request: rifles that only point at the soldier's own feet.
Deploying combat vehicles that only go half as far and require ten times as long to fuel up is beyond stupid. This is why electric cars only appeal to a tiny fraction of consumers.
Also, electric vehicles on base seems like an ideal application. But the grid juicing up those vehicles will require huge diesel generators hidden somewhere on site, guaranteed.
Electric Vehicles are faster and quieter with over two times the power. So they'll be able to carry bigger weapons and larger payloads. Them being green vehicles is actually a smaller concern. Though having the enemy unable find your troop's locations with drones that can track exhaust with infrared cameras is a very good investment.
RepublicanslovePutan&HateAmerica at 3:03 PMWith over 20 years of experience in EVs, I was skeptical at first of tactical EVs over concerns of logistical recharging in the field of operations, range of vehicle, and vulnerability to battery damage. I could not see the advantage EVs might offer - until I had the chance to involve in a 8-week engineering sprint with the Army Applications Laboratory. During that sprint I discovered there is great potential for logistical and tactical advantages that could be gained using EVs. My advice to the naysayers is to stop thinking "passenger cars" and allow the military to focus on how EVs might best accomplish the missions at hand. They are the experts in the military theater; Those of us in the field of EVs need to listen, learn, and respond with most prudent designs that can be tested in battle conditions. Time will tell - battery technology, which is the core of success in all things EV, is advancing beyond the vision of the casual observers and critics- who are, in most cases, fully lacking in knowledge of the technologies involved.
rich weiner at 7:36 AMAre we going to have to remove armor from our armored vehicles in order to run battery operated equipment? Another instance of morons running the show requiring technology that is not going to available for decades. Show and tell for a bunch of idiots under unrealistic conditions.
Robert Davis at 12:49 PMTo download address the issue of needing to refuel on the battle field, for all electric vehicles, solar generators could be Made to be built into vehicles.
Skyabeth SaintCloud at 12:56 PMThis will change the entire concept of a combat-zone charge operation. Other than that, there cannot be an advantage to be had if your "one power source" is vulnerable to the enemy.
Tony Bonymaroney at 5:33 AM
Electric vehicles suffer from battery fire and explosions and take a long time to charge. Unless the US Army has plug-and-play of swapping out battery packs REALLY fast for recharging, I doubt that electric vehicles will succeed much except for SOFs and scouting, not conventional units. The US Army might be thinking of Mr. Fusion for the DeLorean in the "Back to the Future" movie that can take anything as fuel---that is what the US Army needs, not heavy battery packs prone to battle damage that burst into explosive flames. Remember, diesel by itself isn't easy to ignite---the diesel vapors are, but foam core explosion-proof gas tanks can prevent explosions...not so with battery packs as crashed electric vehicles show.
The 4x4 GM Defense ISV is said to be unarmored, prone to ambushes, and too cramped. It's mission is to transport US Airborne troops away from the battlefield and that's better than on foot and on a few HMMWVs. Ambushes---that is just tactics that the US Army Airborne need to develop by "leapfrogging" and scouting ahead. But being too cramped and uncomfortable is a problem and that needs to be fixed if 60% of soldiers surveyed hate riding in the ISV. The seats need to be changed for shock-absorbing like on SOF boats---recall that the US Army is trying to cram nine soldiers onto one ISV! The German Wiesel 20mm is also cramped, but armored. So was the ISV the right choice?
The report also said that the ISV lacks firepower and can't "Shoot on the move." However, SOF FAVs also have this problem so again, that's not really the mission of the ISV per se and additional firepower such as the ISV Heavy Gun Carrier pictured here can help add much better firepower via a rooftop stabilized RWS turret gun.
Was the ISV the right choice? Surely it is better than moving out on foot and better than riding on the roof of HMMWVs. But if the US Army Airborne wanted better, than they should have gone with the German Wiesel 2 APC. The 105mm MPF Light Tank will be a welcome addition once it enters service with the Airborne to backup the ISVs.
This is all about profiteering. USG spending money they beat out of us through their multiplex money laundering schemes in society (taxes, fees, fines, etc.), then turning around and laundering it through 'private-public partnerships' who's executives and investors all walk away with our riches. Nothing but fraud and theft hiding behind 'the law'. Disgusting. Damnable. Despicable.
cadman at 3:46 PM