Trying to be climate neutral sounds like the wrong priority in designing military hardware. Shouldn't your priorities be things like effectiveness at neutralizing the enemy, being easy to maintain and durable, being safe to operate and being modular so that it can be integrated into a NATO-wide framework?
Yes, I’m shocked that this is even brought up to consideration. But maybe we could send Greta to convince Putin that his acts are not in line with the Paris agreement on climate change.
It seems funny on the surface, but is actually logically consistent. Nukes are super effective, but aren't used even against opponents who don't have nukes themselves (so no mutual destruction). It's because nukes have too bad of an effect on the environment and its inhabitants. Climate change is obviously a slower process, but a similar principle.
The priorities have always been neutralizing the enemy, this is about RnD of other forms of military hardware.......no need to get your panties in a bunch.
How durable and resilient do you want the new military to be? What lifespan do you expect from your new machines? What is the point of thinking, and building technology long range...but run it on ICE engines that ABSOLUTELY will cause climate change? Climate change, if not prevented from getting worse, will be a full fatality event.
The US military alone accounts for 6% of global CO2 emissions each year. This is almost equal to all of the emissions generated by the whole of Russia. Combine all the militaries around the world and that number is more like 20%. Western militaries have the luxury of being able to fight ground sea and air wars against larger nations with a fraction of their forces and still fight the war on climate change and even social wars. We can do more than one thing
Hybrid electric is definitely a priority and key logistical advantage that any military could have. Fuel has to be moved, has weight, generates emissions operators breathe, and can be bombed. BEV isn't currently feasible for frontline vehicles, but "environment protection" is honestly a minor reason for a military to want to go electric/hybrid. More efficient vehicles have more range, lower noise, lighter logistical footprint, and less thermal signature. The cost is maintenance, which is nontrivial, but I bet will be worth it in the long haul.
@@delta_glider4362because it is a great idea from so many standpoints, they just didn't have some technologies we enjoy today. P.S. for all the naysayers, please go and find a schematic of a modern tank transmission and try to understand it. It is a frigging Rude Goldberg machine.
@@delta_glider4362 No, Porsche's tank just had electric transmission. No batteries, and two IC engines as generators. You'll find that heavily polluting ships often have the same arrangement.
1:25 "but how can military vehicles be made climate neutral?" I don't know why but this sentence cracks me up what the heck lmaoo the bombs and munitions are might as well be made environmentally friendly😂 edit: though I understand the intentions and the urgency, it's still funny to me
You could replace fossil fuels in the military's supply chain by sustainable hydrocarbons like E- Fuels. Most ammunition is made from Nitrogen produced by burning fossil fuels as part of the haber-bosch process, that could also be replaced with renewable electricity.
@@matthewe467thankfully, the IRS finally has the money to properly audit men like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. They’ve already collected over half a trillion dollars that the ultra-wealthy had managed to hide. Thanks, Biden!
This isn’t really about reducing emissions, it’s about securing a strategic energy supply. The U.S. and the Middle East produce enough oil to fuel their militaries. Europe, not so much. She has to import her oil and gas. In a war, there’s no guarantee that she’ll be able to import those goods. Europe needs to secure her fuel supply, and fast.
It can use diesel but 99% of times uses kerosene, "all sorts of fuel" is kinda exaguration. Being able to use diesel is just fine as it is the most common fuel.
@@milosmitrovic3239 It was intended to run on whatever combustible liquid fuel was available for logistics reasons. Everything from alcohol to jet fuel.
Now that war might become more ecological in the future we luckily do not need a bad conscience any more… I am sorry, but it is very ironic hearing people in the arms industry talking about positive effects of green weaponry and warfare. As if this industry cared about anything positive for humanity. It’s literally like eating poisoned food that also has vitamins in it at the same time: “Hey, look it has vitamins, but it is lethal”. For a moment I thought this short article was satire.
As a retired soldier I feel battery powered vehicles in combat are a weakness in battle. Using fuel you can refuse quickly but charging a battery takes a lot of time. This makes a significant weakness and it is also dependent on a power source when power plants are big military targets as it ism
Military has limitless amount of money for developing new tech. Here in Slovenia military just implemented new electric dirt bike Strix for special forces. I would love to see army to implement hydrogen as propulsion system 😊❤❤. Great video
I don't think we'll see much electric power and propulsion in large equipment like tanks and aircraft, but I absolutely see electrification of systems becoming a useful capability. Everything from digital control and monitoring of sensors and tools to switching from hydraulics to electric pumps and motors.
You may hear "green" but the real reason this is pushed is an actual strategic advantage: fuel consumption and logistics lines Higher efficiency and synthetic fuels vastly reduce key failure points these vehicles have to face Anyone who's read a bit of modern history would realize that as the biggest limitation is supply lines. Reducing fuel consumption and being able to produce fuel in house even if you don't have your own oil in the ground is a GAMECHANGER of epic proportions.
The benefit of moving to electric drives is you can have a power system so you can start with a diesel-electric power unit and switch to something else later.
I was just watching a video about the Tesla Yankee cooker. I am all in favour of American and other ecologically friendly tanks full of Lithium cells that should make for a great barbecue.
There was this man in Germany Ferdinand Porsche. He made "hybrid" tank projects during WW2 - Tiger I (turned into Ferdinand - and project of Tiger 2. What Wehrmacht logistics said about it? "How You plan to maintanence that tank on the battlefield?" Where You get from skilled electricians for the battlefield repair shops? How do you plan to create logistics for that heavy vehicles if most of the bridges have not enough weigh limits. WW2 ended, but questions stayed... where do you get from people to maintain that "e-everything" - especialy if young people don't want to learn "difficult" subjects as electronic, electrisity, math or even basic mechanic knowledge?
The question is always where the energy comes from. Assuming we can overcome the blockades like Bavarian wind energy bans it becomes a question of grid and storage. Lots of power lines and pumped-storage hydroelectricity to build -- ups, blockades once more.
This isn’t really about reducing emissions, it’s about securing a strategic energy supply. The U.S. and the Middle East produce enough oil to fuel their militaries. Europe, not so much. She has to import her oil and gas. In a war, there’s no guarantee that she’ll be able to import those goods. Europe needs to secure her fuel supply, and fast.
They also have to have a better battery solution. Lithium ignites when it comes into contact with water, even just moisture in the air. It's less of an issue in civilian use, but imagine anything hitting a lithium battery in a combat zone, particularly a small vehicle meant to carry wounded. Outside niche uses, most of these things are a pipe dream until this is resolved with say, carbon batteries, which even when they work out the kinks, will be larger and heavier.
You need to rethink your understanding of chemistry. Sodium also burns in air and chlorine is a poisonous gas, but when you combine them we put the result onto our food to improve the flavour. NaCl = table salt. Salt doesn't burn. There are lots of different battery types on the market today that use different chemistries. LFePO4 batteries are very stable and solid state LiIon batteries do away with the flammable electrolyte. If you really wanted to think about the most dangerous fuel source for management then it'd be nuclear, and surely you wouldn't use that it weapons platforms! Oh wait, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are frontline targets in a war zone...
The major advantage of a hybrid tank is the reduction in logistics demands. ie if the AmbramsX can reduce consumption by 50% then the same logistics can supply twice as many tanks. Additionally should a military vehicle be able to run on electricity alone - even for some of the time - then its heat signature is going to be much lower and make it harder to spot and destroy. Light vehicles powered electrically does actually make sense as well logistically, there are lots of options to make electricity, and battery tech is improving exponentially. All of that being said, the whole concept of making a tank environmentally friendly is pretty silly. It's better to make a tank that can do more with less and is more capable/survivable in battle. No tank is environmentally friendly when it is burning.
Talking about a NATO framework is all well and good but I think the next big frontier is a European Union framework that would exist within the broader NATO framework. All member states should streamline their equipment usage and purchases so that they all use the same IFV, drones, rifles and so on. All of this duplication is inefficient and expensive.
Hybrid armoured vehicles seems pretty sensible to me. The ability to switch to near silent electric mode as the approach the front line would be a distinct advantage. Anyone who's ever been close to a tank knows how noisy their approach would be. Switch over to electric and stealth mode.
Hydrogen is a good solution for defense contractors that want to sell increasingly expensive equipment. Also how are you going to transport enough H2 to the front lines? Sounds like a logistical weakness
They could use a generator in conjunction with a supercapacitor (instead of battery). Essentially, this would be hybrid but far better mileage if the generator is tuned for maximum fuel efficiency against the super capacitor. Look at Skelcap capacitors out of Estonia. Another option is isotope batteries. Research should focus hard on thorium reactors, though. These could be miniaturized such that a tank or other armored vehicle would come out of the factory with all the fuel it ever needs built-in. Thorium reactors do not produce radiation at dangerous levels and do not melt-down. They are also not as high energy density as uranium but it has plenty for armored vehicles or aircraft.
I understand what they mean, moving away from fossil fuel is going to be necessary... but nobody in their right mind is going to use that untested technology on expensive tanks. They should try pairing it with something that is already in use with several militaries and has a commercial electric version, such as the Mercedes G-Wagon. Get a dozen together and use it as a test concept.
Francois Deloumeau: "Now I have an iron bal in my hand, when I open my hand, the bal will fall down. Iron will never fly in the air, not even in water!" "an electric tank? where are they going to get the extension wires? and will they install sockets along the way? no, an electric tank is impossible! as an expert I know things like that! And a windmill on top is not an option either!" And like Sleeping Beauty he slept on for another hundred years as the Sleeping Expert...
Some Green weapons fire imaginary bullets others fire pixie dust. In either case the intended casualty will be enlightened by the sophistication of our new weaponry.
What does climate neutral have to do with these developments? Nobody is talking about making these plug in hybrids. They are _going to be_ hybrids because future active defense systems are expected to be energy hogs, requiring a rather oversized generator attached to the engine and significant battery cap. for peak activity .So why not allow the tank to silently poke its nose up a couple of kilometers and back (designed right, a generator can be turned into a motor with a flip of a switch).
Military should use multi fuel systems and not be governed by regulations that suit the general populace for emissions. The level of emissions produced by tanks is insignificant vs millions of cars, cows or people. If we have a world war that reduces the population of the planet to more sustainable level then pollution will not be any issue. More people more problems.
How will the Logistics work for an Armor Brigade for Example, portable Power Plant? Nothing besides Nuclear Power beats Fossil Fuels when it comes to "Energy Density" Batteries are also heavy and very explosive :/
Yeah stopping for that long is a no go. More likely there will be replacable batteries, so you swap the battery and immediately go. Only the battery is sitting somewhere recharging.
I think its absurd that we put people inside tanks. Maybe that should be the next priority. Why on earth does a human being need to put shells into a breach? I would not fight for an army like this.
If we continue to develop weapons systems, when we should be developing technology that provides food and medicine to those in need, we have no future. The question is whether we even deserve it.
In the Iraq wars and Afghanistan the fuel had to be transported to the massive military bases and when you had fuel tankers driving through enemy territory it was a mass slaughter, that's why the people driving the lorry's were not European but friendly locals, when thousands of them get slaughtered it didn't make the news so much. The hydrogen option looks the best option for tanks, armored vehicles and cars, because hydrogen can be generated on military bases with hydroelectric, or solar, or maybe wind power (but no wind power near where helicopters have to take off). But the amount of energy required is truly massive so it doesn't seem that realistic. Someone will probably have to still drive a massive fuel tanker through enemy territory with a very high probability of enemy forces shooting at the fuel tanker. As for inventing bio-fuels, we already have bio-fuels, you can make bio-diesel by growing corn (or some other plant). And in the 1970's when there was a fuel shortage Brazil switched to using alcohol. So if Brazil could switch to something that doesn't need crude oil in the 1970's, then why is there all this messing around?
The engine is separated from the crew so it if it was replaced with batteries it wouldn't affect the crew. The real killer is ammunition storage, but only on older tanks and ones that aren't made by western countries. That's why you see videos of Russian tanks getting blown in half all the time, the explosion starts a chain reaction that detonates all the ammunition on board. Comparatively lithium will make a fire that you can't put out in an area away from the crew so the tank will be damaged and probably impossible to recover but the crew won't be harmed.
Drones indeed the future of military apparatus but make them all(including heavy machinery an vehicles) "green"? IMO this all are pipe dream, at least for this century.
Make sure the gun discharge is environmentally friendly. Also the corpses should not pollute the battle field. Such idiocy could only be generated in Brussels.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
We need more green weapons. I hope they will also make nuclear weapons more environmentally friendly
Nuclear weapons are the most planet friendly weapon as it gets rid of what hurts it the most. us.
Yes, nuclear weapons must be electrically powered.
Nuclear batteries for commercial use.
Hydrogen Bomb (Thermonuclear weapon) the most green weapon.
@@SchmuddelWuddel Same process in all stars.
It is honestly a little insane talking about reducing the emissions of war 😮.
Lower emissions means also less heat and less noise thus less easy to detect also.can mean longer range due to higher efficiency
The main point is range, hybrids tend to have longer range than normal engines. IF hybrid tanks have a longer range than current models, then why no
Longer vehicle range, smaller supply constraints. There's plenty of reasons to focus on the fuel economy of military vehicles.
If you are going to kill a bunch of people and waste a lot of resources on war, might as well been green about it
@@_.F0X._ ye and in a warzone you could have a lack of gas, then you can charge or a lack of electricity and then you can use gas
Trying to be climate neutral sounds like the wrong priority in designing military hardware. Shouldn't your priorities be things like effectiveness at neutralizing the enemy, being easy to maintain and durable, being safe to operate and being modular so that it can be integrated into a NATO-wide framework?
Yes, I’m shocked that this is even brought up to consideration. But maybe we could send Greta to convince Putin that his acts are not in line with the Paris agreement on climate change.
It seems funny on the surface, but is actually logically consistent. Nukes are super effective, but aren't used even against opponents who don't have nukes themselves (so no mutual destruction). It's because nukes have too bad of an effect on the environment and its inhabitants. Climate change is obviously a slower process, but a similar principle.
The priorities have always been neutralizing the enemy, this is about RnD of other forms of military hardware.......no need to get your panties in a bunch.
How durable and resilient do you want the new military to be?
What lifespan do you expect from your new machines?
What is the point of thinking, and building technology long range...but run it on ICE engines that ABSOLUTELY will cause climate change?
Climate change, if not prevented from getting worse, will be a full fatality event.
The US military alone accounts for 6% of global CO2 emissions each year. This is almost equal to all of the emissions generated by the whole of Russia. Combine all the militaries around the world and that number is more like 20%. Western militaries have the luxury of being able to fight ground sea and air wars against larger nations with a fraction of their forces and still fight the war on climate change and even social wars. We can do more than one thing
Hybrid electric is definitely a priority and key logistical advantage that any military could have. Fuel has to be moved, has weight, generates emissions operators breathe, and can be bombed.
BEV isn't currently feasible for frontline vehicles, but "environment protection" is honestly a minor reason for a military to want to go electric/hybrid. More efficient vehicles have more range, lower noise, lighter logistical footprint, and less thermal signature.
The cost is maintenance, which is nontrivial, but I bet will be worth it in the long haul.
Imagine our battery technology if it received even a small percentage of the defense budget.
Electric tank, so environmental friendly with reducing human count.
"That's 4 dead! Come on guys! We are almost carbon neutral!" 😅
Didn't Porshe did it already in WW2 Germans tank project? 😆
@@delta_glider4362because it is a great idea from so many standpoints, they just didn't have some technologies we enjoy today.
P.S. for all the naysayers, please go and find a schematic of a modern tank transmission and try to understand it. It is a frigging Rude Goldberg machine.
@@delta_glider4362 No, Porsche's tank just had electric transmission. No batteries, and two IC engines as generators. You'll find that heavily polluting ships often have the same arrangement.
Eco friendly solar powered tanks
1:25 "but how can military vehicles be made climate neutral?" I don't know why but this sentence cracks me up what the heck lmaoo the bombs and munitions are might as well be made environmentally friendly😂
edit: though I understand the intentions and the urgency, it's still funny to me
You could replace fossil fuels in the military's supply chain by sustainable hydrocarbons like E- Fuels.
Most ammunition is made from Nitrogen produced by burning fossil fuels as part of the haber-bosch process, that could also be replaced with renewable electricity.
@@Divest46 I see, thanks for the insight, appreciate it!
Elon musk will deploy his AI tanks and AI drones against anyone who dares to tax him. That's the future.
BYD has better and more
@@larryc1616aahh yes the fire starter lmao
Could wars be fought in virtual reality instead of real life?
@@matthewe467thankfully, the IRS finally has the money to properly audit men like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. They’ve already collected over half a trillion dollars that the ultra-wealthy had managed to hide.
Thanks, Biden!
Wasnt that a call of duty plot line?
I don't get it. Why do weapons need to be environmentally friendly? I thought the title meant future effectiveness and lethality.
This isn’t really about reducing emissions, it’s about securing a strategic energy supply. The U.S. and the Middle East produce enough oil to fuel their militaries. Europe, not so much. She has to import her oil and gas. In a war, there’s no guarantee that she’ll be able to import those goods. Europe needs to secure her fuel supply, and fast.
Correction, the M1 Abrams has a gas turbine engine that uses all sorts of fuel not just kerosene.
It can use diesel but 99% of times uses kerosene, "all sorts of fuel" is kinda exaguration. Being able to use diesel is just fine as it is the most common fuel.
@@milosmitrovic3239 It was intended to run on whatever combustible liquid fuel was available for logistics reasons. Everything from alcohol to jet fuel.
I think it's more about having an energy source when diesel becomes an expensive niche market.
Protecting to climate shouldn’t be a priority considering we would also like to have people left alive to enjoy it…
No reason you can’t do both lol - your argument is a false dichotomy
Reforestation is best option for foreseeable future.
3 years ago this sort of necessity talk for defense enlargement was unheard of for Europe.
And here we are!.
E-fuels fuel burning hybrids will do the trick. Both in civilian life and in military.
Now that war might become more ecological in the future we luckily do not need a bad conscience any more… I am sorry, but it is very ironic hearing people in the arms industry talking about positive effects of green weaponry and warfare. As if this industry cared about anything positive for humanity. It’s literally like eating poisoned food that also has vitamins in it at the same time: “Hey, look it has vitamins, but it is lethal”. For a moment I thought this short article was satire.
the mental gymnastics is breath taking lol
As a retired soldier I feel battery powered vehicles in combat are a weakness in battle. Using fuel you can refuse quickly but charging a battery takes a lot of time. This makes a significant weakness and it is also dependent on a power source when power plants are big military targets as it ism
There is a huge market for organic and renewable lead-free ammunition.
Hydrogen or diesel hybrid with batteries to be able to run electric for minimal heat signature
+better range
you don't understand how it works obviously xD
@@milosmitrovic3239 are you from the future?
Military has limitless amount of money for developing new tech.
Here in Slovenia military just implemented new electric dirt bike Strix for special forces.
I would love to see army to implement hydrogen as propulsion system 😊❤❤.
Great video
There are many advantages with a hybrid tank; low heat signature, quieter, faster, more responsive, and longer driving range.
I don't think we'll see much electric power and propulsion in large equipment like tanks and aircraft, but I absolutely see electrification of systems becoming a useful capability. Everything from digital control and monitoring of sensors and tools to switching from hydraulics to electric pumps and motors.
Meanwhile, Ferdinand Porsche using a hybrid powertrain in a military vehicle (Landwehr-Zug) in 1912: 😎
You may hear "green" but the real reason this is pushed is an actual strategic advantage: fuel consumption and logistics lines
Higher efficiency and synthetic fuels vastly reduce key failure points these vehicles have to face
Anyone who's read a bit of modern history would realize that as the biggest limitation is supply lines.
Reducing fuel consumption and being able to produce fuel in house even if you don't have your own oil in the ground is a GAMECHANGER of epic proportions.
Eco-friendly warfare. Nice
Forward drone pin downs are concerning for sure
The U.S. needs to leave NATO if this climate stupidity continues. When one is at war, victory is what matters.
The benefit of moving to electric drives is you can have a power system so you can start with a diesel-electric power unit and switch to something else later.
Such a good doco, more of this!
I was just watching a video about the Tesla Yankee cooker. I am all in favour of American and other ecologically friendly tanks full of Lithium cells that should make for a great barbecue.
There was this man in Germany Ferdinand Porsche.
He made "hybrid" tank projects during WW2 - Tiger I (turned into Ferdinand - and project of Tiger 2.
What Wehrmacht logistics said about it?
"How You plan to maintanence that tank on the battlefield?" Where You get from skilled electricians for the battlefield repair shops?
How do you plan to create logistics for that heavy vehicles if most of the bridges have not enough weigh limits.
WW2 ended, but questions stayed... where do you get from people to maintain that "e-everything" - especialy if young people don't want to learn "difficult" subjects as electronic, electrisity, math or even basic mechanic knowledge?
The question is always where the energy comes from. Assuming we can overcome the blockades like Bavarian wind energy bans it becomes a question of grid and storage. Lots of power lines and pumped-storage hydroelectricity to build -- ups, blockades once more.
I don't think the Chinese Army are worring about the environment when they churn out loads more tanks and vehicles than Europe have.
"Yes, sir, we will advance right after we've found a charging station or at least a mains connection here on the battle field."
Battlefields usually don’t have gas stations, either. Very combustible items, those.
This isn’t really about reducing emissions, it’s about securing a strategic energy supply. The U.S. and the Middle East produce enough oil to fuel their militaries. Europe, not so much. She has to import her oil and gas. In a war, there’s no guarantee that she’ll be able to import those goods. Europe needs to secure her fuel supply, and fast.
Recycle all weaponry and military, it would take us about a decade, but would reduce footprint of Military operations - forever.
With how things are developing globally, there won't be any future !
They also have to have a better battery solution. Lithium ignites when it comes into contact with water, even just moisture in the air. It's less of an issue in civilian use, but imagine anything hitting a lithium battery in a combat zone, particularly a small vehicle meant to carry wounded. Outside niche uses, most of these things are a pipe dream until this is resolved with say, carbon batteries, which even when they work out the kinks, will be larger and heavier.
Lithium titanate should be ok chemistry for this purpose I'd imagine
You need to rethink your understanding of chemistry. Sodium also burns in air and chlorine is a poisonous gas, but when you combine them we put the result onto our food to improve the flavour. NaCl = table salt. Salt doesn't burn. There are lots of different battery types on the market today that use different chemistries. LFePO4 batteries are very stable and solid state LiIon batteries do away with the flammable electrolyte.
If you really wanted to think about the most dangerous fuel source for management then it'd be nuclear, and surely you wouldn't use that it weapons platforms! Oh wait, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are frontline targets in a war zone...
The major advantage of a hybrid tank is the reduction in logistics demands. ie if the AmbramsX can reduce consumption by 50% then the same logistics can supply twice as many tanks.
Additionally should a military vehicle be able to run on electricity alone - even for some of the time - then its heat signature is going to be much lower and make it harder to spot and destroy.
Light vehicles powered electrically does actually make sense as well logistically, there are lots of options to make electricity, and battery tech is improving exponentially.
All of that being said, the whole concept of making a tank environmentally friendly is pretty silly. It's better to make a tank that can do more with less and is more capable/survivable in battle. No tank is environmentally friendly when it is burning.
Hybrids should be more fuel efficient if done right.
Talking about a NATO framework is all well and good but I think the next big frontier is a European Union framework that would exist within the broader NATO framework. All member states should streamline their equipment usage and purchases so that they all use the same IFV, drones, rifles and so on. All of this duplication is inefficient and expensive.
Hybrid armoured vehicles seems pretty sensible to me. The ability to switch to near silent electric mode as the approach the front line would be a distinct advantage. Anyone who's ever been close to a tank knows how noisy their approach would be. Switch over to electric and stealth mode.
0:07 Hybrid transmissions is not what you're referring to.....it is powertrains.
Hydrogen is a good solution for defense contractors that want to sell increasingly expensive equipment. Also how are you going to transport enough H2 to the front lines? Sounds like a logistical weakness
When I was little I was told that before the atomic boom comes the EMP which burns all the electrics.
You can shield electronics from EMPs, their engineers most definitely considered this
The impact of EMP is not more than the area of detonation. Per defination nothing exists mostly in the area of detonation per se.
everything is computerized these days. fossil fuel powered or electric. Doesnt matter
Seems overly complicated to use hydrogen to syntentically make fule.
When you can just use hydrogen as fule
Humans waging war against each other will be unnecessary when the environment will wage against humans.
They could use a generator in conjunction with a supercapacitor (instead of battery). Essentially, this would be hybrid but far better mileage if the generator is tuned for maximum fuel efficiency against the super capacitor. Look at Skelcap capacitors out of Estonia. Another option is isotope batteries. Research should focus hard on thorium reactors, though. These could be miniaturized such that a tank or other armored vehicle would come out of the factory with all the fuel it ever needs built-in. Thorium reactors do not produce radiation at dangerous levels and do not melt-down. They are also not as high energy density as uranium but it has plenty for armored vehicles or aircraft.
The military's first job is to be ready to defend, be careful.
Dear DW news, you should realy, have people to check your facts on subjects, there are couple of missleading formulations in your article here.
Hybrid or EV tanks are brilliant.
Less fuel, quieter, colder and more Stealthy. You can transport more ammunition, instead of fuel.
I understand what they mean, moving away from fossil fuel is going to be necessary... but nobody in their right mind is going to use that untested technology on expensive tanks. They should try pairing it with something that is already in use with several militaries and has a commercial electric version, such as the Mercedes G-Wagon. Get a dozen together and use it as a test concept.
Francois Deloumeau: "Now I have an iron bal in my hand, when I open my hand, the bal will fall down. Iron will never fly in the air, not even in water!"
"an electric tank? where are they going to get the extension wires? and will they install sockets along the way?
no, an electric tank is impossible! as an expert I know things like that! And a windmill on top is not an option either!"
And like Sleeping Beauty he slept on for another hundred years as the Sleeping Expert...
Some Green weapons fire imaginary bullets others fire pixie dust. In either case the intended casualty will be enlightened by the sophistication of our new weaponry.
All I am hearing is expect major increases in fuel prices in the next 5-10 years.
Making war morr eco-friendly is more of a priority over stoping them in their entirety 😂 I love humanity!
Those weapons will give environmentally friendly fire XD
What does climate neutral have to do with these developments? Nobody is talking about making these plug in hybrids. They are _going to be_ hybrids because future active defense systems are expected to be energy hogs, requiring a rather oversized generator attached to the engine and significant battery cap. for peak activity .So why not allow the tank to silently poke its nose up a couple of kilometers and back (designed right, a generator can be turned into a motor with a flip of a switch).
I want to protect the climate. Military hardware is not the place for it.
EMP shielding will be vital.
EVs don't need oxygen and are thus ideal for amphibious operation.
dONnT elEcTrIFy mY military
Imagine if they built an aircraft carrier that was electric.. it just wouldn't work
This was entirely focused on ground vehicles and said nothing about aircraft.
Please do not destroys trees and lakes during conflicts as that harms the environment
Not true we have 50 ton haul trucks that are powered by a two ton battery and they last.
Any update on vegan cruise missile?
😂😂😂
Military should use multi fuel systems and not be governed by regulations that suit the general populace for emissions. The level of emissions produced by tanks is insignificant vs millions of cars, cows or people.
If we have a world war that reduces the population of the planet to more sustainable level then pollution will not be any issue.
More people more problems.
The main point is range, hybrids tend to have longer range than normal engines. IF hybrid tanks have a longer range than current models, then why no
Non fossil energy weapons would have the advantage, that the logistics would get simplified a lot
This. Otherwise, NATO will need to build chargers in the steppes of Ukraine.
How will the Logistics work for an Armor Brigade for Example, portable Power Plant?
Nothing besides Nuclear Power beats Fossil Fuels when it comes to "Energy Density"
Batteries are also heavy and very explosive :/
Imagine while during a battle you have to stop "somewhere" to recharge for 2 hours! "Please don't shoot, am charging!" 🙄😅
Yeah stopping for that long is a no go. More likely there will be replacable batteries, so you swap the battery and immediately go. Only the battery is sitting somewhere recharging.
@@tdrm probably double the cost to manufacture, and they blow up as easily s a normal tank.... i just don't see it happening..
I think its absurd that we put people inside tanks. Maybe that should be the next priority. Why on earth does a human being need to put shells into a breach? I would not fight for an army like this.
"World War III might be climate neutral, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" Albert Einstein
It's reports like this that will be used to explain in the history books why the EU collapsed.
This climate neutrality goal is such a ridiculous peace time idea.
Electric + solar panels. + nuclear batteries. The solar panels can be used as slat armour on an armour combat vehicle or tank.
Quantity over quality.
We should use Toyota hybrid technology, it works hands down the best and much better than ICE.
If we continue to develop weapons systems, when we should be developing technology that provides food and medicine to those in need, we have no future. The question is whether we even deserve it.
In the Iraq wars and Afghanistan the fuel had to be transported to the massive military bases and when you had fuel tankers driving through enemy territory it was a mass slaughter, that's why the people driving the lorry's were not European but friendly locals, when thousands of them get slaughtered it didn't make the news so much.
The hydrogen option looks the best option for tanks, armored vehicles and cars, because hydrogen can be generated on military bases with hydroelectric, or solar, or maybe wind power (but no wind power near where helicopters have to take off). But the amount of energy required is truly massive so it doesn't seem that realistic. Someone will probably have to still drive a massive fuel tanker through enemy territory with a very high probability of enemy forces shooting at the fuel tanker.
As for inventing bio-fuels, we already have bio-fuels, you can make bio-diesel by growing corn (or some other plant). And in the 1970's when there was a fuel shortage Brazil switched to using alcohol. So if Brazil could switch to something that doesn't need crude oil in the 1970's, then why is there all this messing around?
Is this a comedy show? Environmental friendly killing machines?😂😂😂😂😂😂
Use instancing. Do it somewhere else and the environment will be fine.
The global system that is the basis for current problems such as this is not sustainable, that is ego, profit, and power.
Can someone put Sephiroth theme whenever Abrams X shows up.
We lost the war. But at least we were carbon neutral.
I'd imagine most tankers will refuse to use them. Imagine a round hitting a lithium battery. The crew wouldn't have a chance.
Imagine a round hitting 2,000 gallons of kerosene. Oh wait.
The engine is separated from the crew so it if it was replaced with batteries it wouldn't affect the crew. The real killer is ammunition storage, but only on older tanks and ones that aren't made by western countries. That's why you see videos of Russian tanks getting blown in half all the time, the explosion starts a chain reaction that detonates all the ammunition on board. Comparatively lithium will make a fire that you can't put out in an area away from the crew so the tank will be damaged and probably impossible to recover but the crew won't be harmed.
Put hybrid junk on tanks to fail, catch fire, etc on the battlefield...not a good idea
Think of crew safety first...
Drones indeed the future of military apparatus but make them all(including heavy machinery an vehicles) "green"? IMO this all are pipe dream, at least for this century.
Is there any significant tactical benefit from so-called 'climate neutral arms'???
Charge 1 hr work 4 hours, my god that’s an obvious disadvantage
And once the grid is destroyed there goes your charging _unless_ you're bringing along your own electrical generators, which are diesel powered.
Its so powerful I like it
After World War 3 we are back to Sticks and Stones 😆
None of this matters if you can't produce the items and the spare parts in numbers or man them.
Electric transmission is the future.
Make sure the gun discharge is environmentally friendly. Also the corpses should not pollute the battle field. Such idiocy could only be generated in Brussels.
Especially with war going on
Is napalm carbon neutral?
This climate insanity will cost us dearly.