Introducing the electric-powered British armed forces
Last month, delegates from across the world met in Azerbaijan for COP29 — the World Leaders Action Summit. The United States sent a 405-man delegation. The United Kingdom sent a 470-man delegation headed by PM Starmer. Other countries’ leaders skipped the festivities entirely.
The UK continues to position itself as “leading the world” in greening the planet. Its commitment to achieving Net Zero is so firm that it has resolved to introduce electric vehicles (EVs) to its armed forces.
Electric tanks, electric jet planes?
The new left-wing Labour government is peopled by many eco-zealots, but the Conservative party was not a great deal different. Five years ago, the then-Chief of the General Staff proclaimed that the current fleet of military vehicles would be the last to “rely on fossil fuels.” £3.2 million was allocated toward the development of “green” or “greener” (hybrid) combat vehicles.
Then, in 2021, at the Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition, the British army announced that the next 15 years would see the progressive “electrification” of battlefield vehicles.
As part of its Future Soldier vision, the battlefield electrification approach announced at DSEI will set out how the Army, over a 15-year period, will focus on an increase in the use of batteries, sustainable energy, and hybrid electric drive technologies across its vehicle fleet.
More recently, a Labour government spokesman stressed the advantages of reducing the carbon footprint of the armed forces:
New and emerging technologies can support decarbonization efforts and improve battlefield capability, reducing the supply chain vulnerability of liquid fuel and also reducing the heat signature and noise of vehicles on the battlefield.
Asked about the possibility of an electric tank, he added: “Never say never.”
"Aim must be to get war-winning equipment"
Not everyone is quite so enthusiastic. The Telegraph quotes senior army officers urging caution with the ongoing and planned projects. Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, said:
What this amounts to is virtue signaling by the Ministry of Defense, trying to get into the climate change agenda...
It is hard enough to keep the current vehicles supplied with fuel ... I just can’t see how it would possibly work with EVs. Fighting battles is an extremely difficult activity – to make it unnecessarily even more difficult seems to be a crazy endeavor.
Kemp added that, in any case, “the technology is just not there.”
A former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West, pointed out that the priority when considering battlefield vehicles should be winning the war:
The aim must be to get war-winning equipment that we can use in the conditions we find ourselves fighting in, that enable us to fight, win and defeat enemies like Russia. That should be the aim of what we are developing.
He added his belief — shared by many — that war is on the near horizon:
We need things that we can use to fight and win — because we may well be at war in the next few years.
Russia is not believed to be developing EVs for use in active warfare, which might be said to be a relevant consideration.
Is battery power more reliable than diesel?
Those in favor of electric military vehicles point to the difficulties in supplying sufficient fuel to armies and the necessity of dedicating soldiers for the defensive convoys that accompany the fuel carriers — as well as the need to secure fuel depots and refining plants. Some point to the example of the German offensive at the Battle of the Bulge in World War Two, which allegedly failed due to the Germans’ inability to capture Allied fuel depots, slowing and eventually halting their advance.
This problem (which existed before then too) has not been solved since. According to NATO, between 2003 and 2007 around 3,000 US troops were either killed or wounded due to attacks on water and fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Around 80 percent of cargo transported in modern wars is fuel.
Newer combat vehicles are also massive fuel guzzlers. The M10 Booker, currently under development, will likely weigh in the region of 40 tons. In order to travel around 150 miles, its approximate range, it will need 5.5 barrels of crude oil.
In 2011, retired head of Central Command James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee:
It is an amazingly complex effort to maintain the fuel lines. And it also gives the enemy an ability to choose the time and place of attacking us.
He stressed that armies need to find ways to “unleash us from the tether of fuel.”
Another consideration is the refueling process itself, especially for fighter planes on long-distance missions which need refueling en route. While advanced jets such as the F-35 are stealth aircraft and undetectable by radar, the aerial refueling tankers are not, and thus the refueling process could endanger both aircraft.
'Fire!' Sorry, Sarge, the battery's run out...
While few would dispute that fuel provisioning is an issue in any army, the question is whether EVs are a solution to this problem.
Last year, in an opinion piece published in The Hill, under the headline, “Do generals dream of electric tanks?” concerns about army vehicles running out of power in the midst of battle were quite summarily dismissed.
Once commanders can manage energy as a commodity, hybrid or battery electric vehicles won't be the end point of a vulnerable supply chain, but rather part of a modular network of combat and support capabilities. Local commanders can recombine these capabilities to best meet their operational needs.
The authors appeared to rule out the possibility that an army vehicle would ever be left stranded with the nearest charging station miles away:
In such a design, the inability to fast charge a vehicle from 0–100 percent in less than 15 minutes is moot, as the use case will never require it. EV charging equipment, swappable batteries, and vehicle-to-vehicle cross-leveling can also be integrated for use when and where the situation merits.
According to one source, the plan is that a hybrid EV will be able to generate 500+ kilowatts of power. To put this into perspective, consider that current high-performing EVs such as Mercedes models can charge to 350 kW. It takes half an hour to charge them from empty to 80 percent with high-speed connection.
EV proponents point to new developments such as solid-state batteries which will charge faster and contain more energy (and also require less rare metals such as lithium to build them). However, the logistics of powering up EVs on the battlefield are far from clear at present.
We lost the battle, but at least we were quiet
The UK is nonetheless speeding ahead and envisions “new possibilities” opening up in the near future. A spokesman from the Ministry of Defense recently suggested that EVs might have greater capabilities than regular vehicles:
The rapid advancement of electric vehicle technology has opened up new possibilities for military applications, with comprehensive trials in 2025 set to explore whether EVs can match or exceed the performance of conventional vehicles across battlefield operations.
The Ministry of Defense remains committed to pursuing innovations that could enhance the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces, while also supporting sustainability where possible.
EVs do have certain advantages that might be relevant in war. They are far quieter than regular vehicles, which would make stealth maneuvers easier to accomplish. They also emit less heat, making them harder to locate using thermal detectors. And they can pick up speed more quickly, which certainly could be helpful when fleeing attackers or pursuing the enemy.
If EVs explode for no obvious reason, what will happen when they're under fire?
Meanwhile, in the United States things seem to be moving in the same direction. The US army has plans to introduce hybrid-electric combat vehicles by 2035, deploy fully electric non-tactical vehicles (commercial EVs) by 2027; start using hybrid tactical vehicles (other than tanks) by 2035; and introduce fully electric tactical vehicles (aside from tanks) by 2050.
Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for environment and energy resilience, recently stated:
We have the technology now to add hybrid-electric engines to all of our wheeled vehicles. Depending on the vehicle, [that’s] 18 to 24% fuel savings.
These developments may be halted by the Trump administration, especially in light of past failed experiments with EVs in NewYork and other parts of the country. Trials of electric snow plows and garbage trucks have been abandoned as EVs were found to not be up to the task.
Many point out that extreme temperatures — both high and low — tend to impact EV performance, reducing their range. More concerning is the danger of EV batteries exploding. It is already known that the likelihood of this happening increases following a collision, and collisions tend to happen quite a lot in training and combat. EV battery fires are also very difficult to extinguish, which aside from being a general concern is a more specific worry when transporting large numbers of EVs in a contained space, which is frequently necessary with military vehicles.
EVs used in war may of course be directly attacked, and this will vastly increase the likelihood of the battery exploding and also of the entire vehicle being incapacitated even if only part of the circuitry is destroyed.
An alternative: Portable nuclear reactors
All of the abovementioned considerations are aside from the more underlying question of whether EVs are really more “environmentally-friendly.” There are many reasons to suppose they are not.
But there may be a better solution. The US Defense Department recently announced that Idaho National Labs will soon begin construction of a portable nuclear microreactor that is capable of generating up to 5 megaWatts(that is, 5,000 kW) of electricity for three years.
Dr. Jeff Waksman, the program manager, stressed that:
Advanced nuclear power has the potential to be a strategic game-changer for the United States, both for the DoD and for the commercial sector.
The Department of Defense (DOD) also highlighted the “green credentials” of the reactor:
A safe, small, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing [fuel] demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that would not add to the DoD’s fuel needs, while supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments.
At the moment, though, governments in the UK and US are fixating on battery power instead.
