>The Australian Army has unveiled a battery-powered Bushmaster armored vehicle that will serve as the basis of the service’s electric Protected Military Vehicle (ePMV).
>Assistant defense minister Matt Thistlethwaite introduced the vehicle at the Chief of Army Symposium in Sydney, saying the ePMV was a key part of the army’s efforts to become “future ready
Can someone explain what the frick these actually do? They better change the prototype logo too because that mother fricker looks like some janky Christmas lights setup at the moment.
it's a car
you ride inside it
looks like a poorly done ganer kid pc case mod.
It's so we can have our military completely disabled if the power goes out. Completely moronic idea for any conventional conflict. Unless solar power could be improved to power it for long range missions. Waste of my tax dollars.
It's easier to harden electric infrastructure than gas infrastructure. Gas is explosive!
A nuke plant is usually less vulnerable than an oil refinery to military action, and power lines are easier to repair than pipelines.
>Can someone explain what the frick these actually do?
Electrics have shitloads of torque, and are a decent fallback just in case petroleum ever gets fricked.
>It's so we can have our military completely disabled if the power goes out
Yeah you fricking moron because Australia has tons of oil but zero coal or solar or wind potential wow you really figured that one out.
All this means is we no longer lug around gas fro trucks and cars. But for the generators to recharge those vehicles
generators powered by diesel.
But seriously, this only really works if you have access to a consistent power source.
>Unless solar power could be improved to power it for long range missions. Waste of my tax dollars.
Military R&D is like this though, everyone says it's a worthless waste of taxpayer money until 20 years later it's finally advanced enough and is getting shit done on the battlefield. The idea of solar powered vehicles that require no refueling in australia doesn't seem that farfetched.
To be fair, there's increasing investment in the mass production of paper-thin, light, and cheap peroskevite solar blankets which can be manufactured in huge quantities at low cost due to being run off preexisting machinery. You could carry a solar tarp of a hundred square meters rolled up in most vehicles for emergency charging.
Granted it would still be slow, but under the worst-case scenario where your vehicle is stuck in the shit without a nearby recharging station, you might actually be better off than an ICE vehicle because while charging will be slow you can do it anywhere you can sling the tarp out.
There are some solar cells so thin now you could simply epoxy them directly to the surface of the vehicle as a standard component, allowing it to charge passively whenever the vehicle is in sunlight, certainly not enough to drive indefinitely but enough that you could park it for a few hours and build up enough juice to keep moving instead of just having to bail.
Finally a pmv without the dog shit house and euro trash beats.
>gets hit
>burns for 3 weeks
Sounds great
It will provide great smoke cover for any survivors
what survivors
The fundamental problem is that its purpose is to get shot at and not Kaboom but batteries when shot at Kaboom. Come up with an inert battery Thistlethwaite you WoW gnome.
Seriously though what the frick is it meant to do other than be entirely electric? Is it hardened from EM. Like what the frick is it?
apc?
The main advantage of electric vehicles in the military is that they're quiet and run colder.
Got it, it's low heat signature and quieter, basically like those electric bikes. I just assumed there was more magic source to this
>run colder
I understand that they aren't inherently generating heat like a diesel engine, but I've always wondered how much those batteries can handle under load in shitty environments and if they are then prone to popping like samsung phone batteries used to. Of course people smarter than me get paid to think about this, I'm just curious if electric military vehicles will get to the point that it can handle systems like the Marines new CAC2S being loaded onto the back of it like they do onto humvees.
They're also easier to supply. Fewer parts, tougher drivetrains, don't need fuel just power which you can generate in bulk easily (e.g. portable nuclear reactor at the extreme end) as well as in a decentralised way (super high efficiency solar panels, or even just diesel generators).
Good luck charging the battery on a battlefield though.
That's like saying "good luck trying to fill up your car while being shot at".
It's just a proof of concept.
Please dont remind me of my countries moronation. I even want to join the defence force too ;_;
>be 2026
>chang starts shelling forward deployment base in Solomon islands near Savo
>quick c**ts let's move out
>EV still charging sir
>how long c**t
>12 hours
>Fricking leg it c**ts
>EV takes shrapnel
>Battery explodes
The end
>nah c**t it's got enough armour to protect the battery pack
>weighs 12 ton
>IT ALREADY WEIGHS 12 TONS
>LIKE THE NORMAL BUSHMASTER
wow an EV would weigh like 20 lmao
Move along bing bong, theres enough bullets for all of you.
>run out of ammo
>chinamen swarm it
>yeah nah c**t welcome to tiananmen square
Keep dreaming zhang.
>he saved my meme
Don't hijack my green text c**t
>gas tank takes shrapnel
>gas tank explodes
Shoot a gas tank with 50BMG and get back with the results, anon. It might surprise you.
Why not just have hotswappable battery packs?
Way too heavy and bulky. It'd be like have hot-swappable engines for every vehicle in the fleet.
Kinda already a thing?
Sure but you don't have one for every vehicle that you carry around at all times.
Imagine if you did, and that's what swappable battery packs look like.
Maybe there's a universe where some dedicated logistics unit has emergency batteries to deploy where needed but just finding a way to fast charge makes more sense (e.g. a fluid battery where you pump out used fluid and pump in new fluid or something).
Is it battery only or hybrid drive? I have been shilling hybrid armor for years because of all the advantages of electric with the energy density of fuel and the efficiency of running the ICE at fixed RPM.
Battery only makes sense for small light vehicles like bikes and buggies but nothing bigger.
>The vehicle’s range is still being tested; however, it is reportedly capable of integrating combustion engine technology to extend its operations capacity.
So it looks like they're gonna find out it can go 20 minutes on battery and then spend another couple years and billion dollars refitting them as hybrids
Electrification of armoured vehicles is a terrible idea. Weight constraints- weight is a critical factor, a recursive factor that spirals towards calamity. Adding 4 tonnes of battery (you'll need at least 4 tonnes this isn't a Tesla) takes away 4 tonnes of armour. The battery has to be protected more than an IC engine because of its inherent volatility. Internal volume wasted, weight that can't be dumped if vehicle gets stuck. The counter argument is removing transmission and moving motors to the wheels - fyi there is now quite serious (dangerous) electricity going to vulnerable extremities. Fragile too - needs redundancy and isolation to prevent drivetrain electronics (plus other electronics) from frying when a wheel is damaged.
I would say frick it
You have experience also riding small petrol motorbikes? I have and I cannot stand e-bikes. They are easy, only good thing otherwise its like racing forklifts or bumper cars, dopey fun but not serious. War is serious, deadly serious.
>War is serious, deadly serious.
No, nonono. Pursuing the agenda is. You have female infantry and homosexual officers and trannie sailors; you will also participate in saving the earth by becoming carbon neutral even if it means your defeat on the battlefield. Every single Western military has shown there is no kind of shit they will not eat. So shut up and eat.
It is in the best interests of every nation to not be dependent on outside power IE gas. If this is achieved by domestic coal, nuclear power, or renewables is not important. The military being able to fight on electricity instead of gas is an ideal worth striving for
Yes comrade western military weak full of women, trannies and homosexuals. They need to be like Russia manly and strong
>runs out of power in the middle of a FTX
>has to be towed back to base to be recharged
Or worse yet
>get deployed
>RPG/small explosive device detonated against/under your ePMV
>Lithium battery bursts into flames cooking everyone inside the vehicle
Sounds like our Australian DOD have all their ducks in order. They still have an under equipped armor force, under equipped naval force, and instead of focus on bringing them up to standard they focus on moronic shit like electric vehicles in order to appease labor party homosexuals who will hate them regardless. I guess it’s better to pander to morons than it is to actually equip your personnel with tactically useful equipment. The only thing we even have going for us is the Nuclear Sub deal with the US/UK even still who knows how long that will take to work out.
>They still have an under equipped armor force
Yeah because fricking superheavy tanks were famously useful in the last Pacific war, right?
>under equipped naval force
The largest ever investment in Defence went into our submarine fleet, which was exactly the right move. We're doing the best that we can (it's not very good, obviously, but don't pretend that's Labor's fault when the Liberals had every fricking opportunity).
>instead of just pouring in the gas and go, now you pour gas into a charger then wait 10 hours to allow to drive for 3 hours
this is good idea because?
Is this photo supposed to be like a “I’ll show you” kind of thing? I’m not sure how anyone can be moronic enough to not realize one engine running is better than like 30.
you do realized that 1 engine is burning those 30 cars worth of fuel to charge it right?
there were even studies of ev charging efficiency vs just straight up running the gas equivalent and the result is always worst than just use the gas engine
on top of that, I am pretty sure that the environment saving is going to take a back seat of the back seat of priority during a war
Electric vehicle, making it easier for an opposing force to burn those inside alive. Love it.
>battery fires
I think its kino. This time period I mean. Just think. We're already at the point that the most basic institutions that you want to be meritocracy and outcome oriented are head over heels drunk on their own political fart fumes. Imagine how many vaccines the they/thems that operate such a vehicle will have.
>Can someone explain what the frick these actually do?
They run on electricity for a minute and a half before switching to diesel because that's not moronic. If penned by anything larger than 17HMR the battery bank explodes, killing everyone inside.
Developed by emus, anon. Don't trust it.
In terms of theoretical maximum energy density, batteries right now are something like 40x below. Capacity has slowly but surely increased over the years. Another 3-4x, still way below the max with lots of margin, and BEVs will unironically be pretty attractive as part of the mix. They can be made very, very reliable due to vastly fewer moving parts. Can enable new designs thanks to no transmission needed and tremendous torque. Electricity can be generated from anything, Australia has enormous amounts of energy production capability but their own domestic oil reserves are garbage, proven reserves are like 0.1% of global total.
Any serious army would be foolish to not be paying attention and experimenting at this point. I don't think anything made right now is going to the battlefield, but military vehicle programs tend to be very long drawn out affairs and if you're thinking about where batteries/capacitors/motors will be in like 10-20 years makes sense to start R&D now and get a feel for what they'd actually want in something real, what the choke points are and so on.
>experimenting
Experimenting would be funding a research lab with the goal of finding a mass producable battery that has 4x the energy at same weight and is safer than li-ion.
Military forays into electrified vehicles are nothing but a social/political move that means nothing and will go nowhere until the capacity problem is fixed.
I have three questions for you:
Did they sacrifice the armor for the battery,
The battery for the armor,
Or both to save money?
>Experimenting would be funding a research lab with the goal of finding a mass producable battery that has 4x the energy at same weight and is safer than li-ion.
They already do that.
Now imagine if that battery was invented tomorrow. Which vehicle are you going to put it in? What is important in an electric military vehicle design? What parts break most? How do they hold up to military service? What's the best way to configure the electric engine in a tank?
There are practical lessons that we can learn now even without the final battery in place, and we'll be ready when it arrives. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
You're an idiot.
>decentralize access to fuel
These are combat vehicles. They won't be working in safe places, normal places, or in normal conditions.
You're an idiot.
Do you know what size generator and how much fuel, or how many solar panels would be necessary to charge the batteries for a 15. Metric. Ton. when loaded armored combat vehicle?
A tesla P100 needs 625kg of battery for 350 miles in a > 1 metric ton vehicle.
15 times the weight, but let's assume the Armored E-Hummer only needs 150miles of combat range.
(625 × 15) (150 / 350) = 4000 kilogram of battery.
640 kilowatt hour capacity.
Anon how the frick are you going to charge 640KwH in any reasonable time without specialized, functioning grid connections?
In a warzone.
Possibly in the middle of nowhere.
>solar
Pahahahah, AHHAHAHAHAHA
The aussie gayblo Good Boy Points "not a big HMMWV" isn't good for anything, and will be convienently forgotten in 6 months.
You're an idiot.
quick math fixes cuts the battery in half,
But still 2000kg / 4400 lb of battery at ~350kwh
If you don't understand how absurd the electrical requirement is in a combat situation, frick
I'd rather be dumping diesel in for 5 minutes in a hot zone than be fricking stranded and killed.
You people are fricking idiots.
>"you can't do it now so therefore you will never be able to do it"
>"don't bother preparing for the future just rely on 1970s soviet hand-me-downs it'll be fine comrade"
Found the seething vatnik who can only dream of spending money on futuretech.
Frick you chink shill, sick of seeing all you shitty smoothbrain-take EV shillers across the boards the past few years.
Can't answer questions because you don't even know how shit works.
>Can't answer questions because you don't even know how shit works.
Your questions are moronic.
>"a civilian car designed for civilian use is X. now make an inference about a potential military vehicle."
The premise is flawed because I wouldn't take a Tesla into war, so what can I really learn from analysing it?
>"t-the point is muh raaangeeee"
Point taken, but I didn't really need to be convinced not to immediately start converting the entire US tank fleet to battery electric tomorrow. That was never the plan.
Why are you posting? Are you just mad because yet another domino is falling - that even your precious fetishised military is finally acquiescing to the inescapable reality of electrification and getting with the times?
You lost the culture war because it was never a CULTURE war, it was just people resistant to change stubbornly denying reality. Electric vehicles have tremendous advantages over ICE vehicles and they are the future.
Note how I said they are the future, not the present? So frick off with your "but muh Tesla" rebuttal.
QQ moar.
>they don't exist functionally
>But they will!
Brah-fricking-vo and a hearty American clap clap to you,
King moron.
You know I remember as a kid in the mid 90s hearing about how solar power was going to replace coal and oil before the ice caps melted.
It was the future. We were going to have it.
That's you, King moron.
That's how dumb you are.
Yeah anon that's surely the fault of the dumb scientists getting everything wrong and not you being a literal fricking child just believing everything you see on television and then being surprised when it is fricking wrong.
Holy frick. killyorusdeld
>dumb scientists getting everything wrong
>you being a literal fricking child just believing everything.
I have this uncanny ability to get the person I'm arguing with to repeat what I was thinkong about them without that person understanding it even happened.
You are a legitimate moron.
>"nothing ever improves"
>"things often improve"
Which understanding of technology do you think accurately reflects the past 400 years of human history?
you're hopeless
P.S. I can literally imagine you 100 years ago.
"SURE A PETROL ENGINE MIGHT BE FASTER BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP IT REFUELLED? AN ENDLESS LINE OF TRUCKS, ALL BURNING PETROL, JUST TO GET PETROL TO THE FRONT??? GIVE ME A HORSE ANY DAY, ALL HE NEEDS IS GRASS!"
It's all
so
tiresome.
Seeing only problems and never challenges or solutions. An entire existence devoted to nitpicking. A wretched and ruinous form of life.
Motherfricker this isn't like people shitting on the Wright Brothers for trying to make a powered airplane.
The battery tech isn't here and needs to be created for electric combat vehicles to make sense.
Tell Ausfalia to send that 16 million dollars to a battery research lab instead of giving some Ecoprostitute schmuck a free paycheck.
THEN make the APC.
Priorities motherfricker!
>The battery tech isn't here and needs to be created for electric combat vehicles to make sense.
If only there was somebody working on better batteries!
Oh wait LITERALLY FRICKING EVERYBODY IS.
So what happens when the battery turns up and you have no fricking APC to put them in and no fricking idea how to make one?
Having good batteries and no vehicle is the same as having a vehicle and no batteries.
>"no you can just drop them into existing vehicles!"
REALLY? ARE YOU SURE? MAYBE WE SHOULD TEST IT FIRST.
What batteries dude. I can remember at least a half dozen chemistries that were supposed to be three to eight times better than Li-Ion in the past 20 years and all of them went nowhere.
Make the batteries exist then tell me your 15 ton armored vehicle is fit for combat.
Otherwise this garbage is just a vanity project.
If you don't know the answer to that question and aren't prepared to look into it why the frick are you opining on battery technology in the first place anon?
>Make the batteries exist then tell me your 15 ton armored vehicle is fit for combat.
lol
Building experience in designing and fielding electric military vehicles makes sense before we try to do it "for real" on a large scale.
Just like building experimental tanks in the interwar period made sense even though the engines were fricking garbage and they could barely move and a dude with a big rifle could penetrate them. Everyone (who mattered) could see that tanks were the future even though they couldn't see what the future tank looked like.
Everyone who matters can see that electric vehicles are the future and these experiments are being done now so that we don't have to do them later when we may not have fricking time.
I accept your concession.
Story time.
>Hey man so I made this thing, it's really neat
>oh yeah what does it do
>I call it a gun and it's going to fire bullets at high speed
>Like arrows, but better
>cool can you show me
>Well no someone needs to invent the gun powder and the bullets and cartridges
>.......
>So yeah I made the gun, and it works, I just need someone to invent explosoves and mass manifactured metal casting
>........
>Yeah it'll totally be cool in the future everyone will want it
>Jerry shut the frick up and throw an axe at this god damned barbarian
>you useless frick "oh it's the greatest weapon ever except I can't actually make it work"
Throw the axe at the barbarian motherfricker.
Til then put that money into creating the base necessities.
Electric combat vehicles do not exist.
>Til then put that money into creating the base necessities.
You keep saying that like it's not happening. Literally fricking everyone is throwing money at battery research hand over fist. It's by far one of the easiest research areas to get grant funding in (if you have a promising idea).
Now you tell me why we should spend so much money on batteries for armoured vehicles when we don't even know how to use them?
It's almost as if you need both the batteries and the design experience...
At this point you know you're wrong and you're only posting to "troll" because that lets you pretend like you're not moronic while still not having to admit you were wrong.
No need though anon, I've already accepted your concession.
You see, the joke of
is that generators only have 85% efficiency, at best, and so even a diesel powered mobile EV charger would be using more fuel than a straight diesel engined vehicle. This is ignoring the size of mobile generator needed, fuel for it, transport of such, and the increased logistics/man hours imposed.
It's cheaper and more effective to have a diesel powered 2 man tanker truck follow the group of diesel powered personnel carriers, than any combination of them being EVs.
You can't rush to set a FOB with a fleet that needs to stop for 10 hours every 4 hours.
Ergo,
Electric combat vehicles do not exist.
>muh fuel efficiency is so important
No it isn't. Armoured fighting vehicles already trade off against fuel efficiency in many ways. The fricking Abrams uses a turbine engine. The performance gain is worth the efficiency loss. Or, to put it another way, it's more efficient to burn fuel than to lose battles because of insufficient capability.
Turn on your brain.
>It's cheaper and more effective to have a diesel powered 2 man tanker truck follow the group of diesel powered personnel carriers, than any combination of them being EVs.
Nobody is suggesting starting battery-electric Abrams conversions tomorrow.
The rest of your post is talking to yourself about shit I don't care about so lmao.
I accept your consneedsion.
Just read the first 20 posts of the thread again, you need a refresher course on Reality™
I sneedcept your feedcession.
Before you remove your head from your ass allow me to frick your mouth.
I chuck your suck and frick.
I think you guys are really unintelligent. How long does it take to refuel a cruiser? A day? Well that's a day the enemy could use to blow up the cruiser. Just 2 words can destroy your arguments.
>Hot swap
>Can someone explain what the frick these actually do?
Electric vehicles are better than ICE vehicles in many obvious ways which is why petrol-electric drives are (were) a thing.
The problem is range, but that problem won't be solved by doing nothing about it. Efforts have to be made.
Everyone who knows anything about motor vehicles is very excited at the future of electric vehicles. They will be better, not worse, than the cars we have now.
In many important ways they already are.
Also, on a final note
>U NEED ELECTRICITY
homie you can turn fuel into electricity.
Secondly no army can go very far away from a train line anyway. Logistics have always been a part of war and electricity presents unique challenges but also advantages - e.g. you don't need a huge fricking fleet of tanker trucks doing nothing but burning the fuel that they're carting from the railhead to your divisions, you can just use a single portable reactor that goes with you wherever you want.
Actually now that I think about it if you don't have to supply fuel to your vehicles a roving band of motorized marauders getting air resupply might actually be possible.
>battery-powered Bushmaster armored vehicle
>Can someone explain what the frick these actually do?
They frick the world over, that's what they do. Obviously the military wants vehicles that they can fuel up in the sun, without worrying about consumables; what should also be obvious is that these are weapons of tyranny designed to eternally police civilians-- imagine trying to fight that thing as a civilian militia resistance: you run out of gas and then you're sitting ducks while it keeps going forever.
Electric vehicles decentralise access to fuel, anon. Now ("soon") the enemy can't just control a handful of key oil fields or refineries (e.g. ISIS) and loot them for infinite dollars. Any dumb frick anywhere in the country has a free and endless source of electricity in the form of a foldable super-high efficiency solar panel rolled up in his backpack.
If the rebels stormed a government motor pool today they'd find a bunch of tanks that they can't even afford the petrol to start up and that they don't have the parts to fix. Tomorrow they'll find a bunch of tanks that run on sunlight, forever, and don't break down - and when they do they can be fixed with copper wire and billet steel.
Electric vehicles are simpler, not more complex, and that's good for anyone who wants to run a cheap and cheerful army.
Electric vehicles have a great civil use case for daily commute driving and being immune to idling losses. I'd put the upper combat limit of EVs at urban patrol/riot vehicles where shit needs to get done but the infrastructure is guaranteed to not be totally destroyed/nonexistent.
While a completely electric tank is possible there's just no matching the energy density of petrofuels currently. This energy density means that a single truck/rail car/pipeline can move a much greater amount of energy to wherever it needs to go, the fuel can be loaded onto the end vehicle much faster than having to charge a battery, and a much greater amount can be stored in reserve tanks. Burning fuel will also result in a lighter vehicles and thus reduced usage as the tank gets emptier but that's a negligible advantage outside of aircraft.
Of course you could trail wires from the tank like a fricking eva.
>Fat
My god, Americas potential power is greater than I could have ever imagined
The true strategic energy reserve.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-body-fat-corpse-leak-crematorium-fire-20191001-ze77jjwjuvadlmukie7zf4ciku-story.html
Can it stand up to the Emu menace?
Do people forget the part where our country doesn't have much in the way of natural oil and could easily be blockaded by a foreign power in the absence of the US navy? electrification of some parts of the defence force's assets is objectively good or even neccessary imo. Other than some tactical benefits like colder and quieter running vehicles.
(admittedly concerns about how bad a destroyed electric vehicle on the battlefield would be)
>Thistlethwaite
Most Aenglish name I have ever heard on gods good Christian earth. Greetings from Mexico. I was not aware Angloids could have such soul.
It's very quiet, probably has an absolutely dogshit uptime/range and runs off electricity, which means it will run off an auxiliary noisy as frick diesel generator in the field.
solar panels exist; also it's meant for urban combat.