Tags
CH-47, climate change, Col. Tucker Fagan, D3T, diesel generators, electric vehicles, Logistics, low-carbon energy, military windmills, tactics, wind turbines, winnign wars
Gm’s prototype EV. Are the tan jerry cans full of electricity?
credit: GMdefense
In Military EVs: Backward To The Front! I wrote about the folly of trying to electrify military vehicles:
*Logistics: mastering logistics is what wins wars. How can an army possibly recharge EVs in the field? They’ll need huge numbers of hugely powerful generators, powered by diesel fuel, which will have to be transported by diesel trucks. Why huge? Generators will have to be sufficiently powerful to charge multiple EVs at once, otherwise an army would need nearly a charger per vehicle to operate in the field. Unless Tony Stark licenses his Arc reactor technology, that means huge numbers of really big generators. Batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of fossil fuels; their efficiency loss is enormous. Electricity can’t be stored in any meaningful way; it has to be generated for real time use. This fossil fuel fact, and low cost—pre-Biden—is why fossil fuels have made modern, technological life possible and productive. It’s also what makes our military possible. Imagine the horror of having to tow diesel generators, which will be necessary to charge the EV trucks towing them, which won’t be able to charge other vehicles while they’re charging the EV trucks. All the transformative EV combat vehicles will need to sit in one place, not for 10-15 minutes, but hours, while being recharged by heat-producing, noisy generators, which can only charge to about 80% capacity because full capacity takes an hour or more longer. This is not conducive to short-term survival or winning wars.
I concluded with this:
Consider this: woke lunacy, including vaccination mandates, is already driving people out of our military and greatly complicating recruitment. When people learn our military vehicles are deathtraps, when they learn our military isn’t serious about protecting America, who is going to volunteer?
But hey, we’re combatting climate change! Somehow, I don’t think the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, or any of our other enemies will be impressed, or frightened.
And now, it seems our military is doubling down on stupid—and deadly. They’re planning to use portable wind turbines to provide electrical power in the field. Cowboy State Daily reports:
credit: cowboy state daily
The U.S. Department of Energy is pursuing a program to develop deployable wind turbines to be used in military defense and disaster relief operations. [skip]
Many people might ask why a diesel-powered generator wouldn’t be a better tool for the job. They fit into a small space and provide constant, reliable power.
According to a white paper on the project, the logistics of bringing in liquid fuel to generators in a military operation presents vulnerabilities, as the supplies can be attacked and destroyed.
They’re just figuring this out? This is a new concept in warfare? There’s an old, but accurate military aphorism: “ Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics.”
The strength of the Defense and Disaster Deployable Turbine (D3T) concept is that an operation would have access to a source of power without having to bring in steady supplies of liquid fuel that can be blown up by the enemy.
Brent Summerville, a researcher and systems engineer for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, told Cowboy State Daily that defense and disaster industries also are interested in low-carbon energy in their operations.
Of course, because what’s more important in warfare than “low-carbon energy?”
Transporting a deployable wind turbine is the program’s challenge. It needs to be easy to ship, but also easy to assemble on site.
A standard wind turbine is erected in a concrete foundation, and cranes lift the tall steel towers up. That’s not feasible in situations where the D3T turbines would be deployed.
Thank goodness we have such engineering genius in our federal government.
The team of researchers, which includes Sandia National Laboratories, developed 20-kilowatt wind turbines that fold up and fit into 20-foot shipping containers used by the U.S. military and American Red Cross.
Fortunately, Cowboy State Daily is grounded in reality:
Microgrid setups in a disaster situation wouldn’t have to worry about protecting the equipment. In a war situation, enemies could just as easily fire a rocket propelled grenade at a turbine as they could set an explosive device in the road to take out a truck hauling fuel.
Sticking a spinning propeller on top of a tower 50 feet or more above ground where no such things should be might also tend to draw the attention of enemy forces.
Col. Tucker Fagan (ret.) said a defense mission needs clear objectives, and it might put troops in jeopardy if concerns about emissions in operations dilutes the focus.
Fagan, who lives in Cheyenne, spent 30 years in the U.S. Air Force, where he was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Nuclear Section. He led the team that created the so-called “nuclear football” for President Ronald Reagan, the briefcase with information that allows the president to authorize a nuclear strike.
“We learned that lesson in Vietnam. We applied it in the first Gulf War. And then we’re back to the old way. What is the objective?” Fagan said.
The turbines make a lot of sense in a disaster situation, Fagan said, but if they’re going to be used in a military application, it shouldn’t compromise the safety of the military personnel.
“I would really have some concerns,” Fagan said.
Final Thoughts: I have some concerns too.
CH-47 Chinook
credit: boeing
In the disaster support role, portable windmills might—might—be a workable solution, however not enough is known to make that determination. How expensive are they? What is necessary to transport them? If it’s a small flatbed truck, it might work. If a CH-47 Chinook is necessary—maximum lift, 24,000 pounds—that’s another matter. The reliability issue never goes away. In disaster response, reliable, constant power is a necessity. Windmills cannot provide it—ever. Another issue is the reliability of the windmill itself. Do they work as advertised? Are they mechanically and electronically reliable? Are they easily user-serviced in the field? We have no idea.
Note the article doesn’t specify how much power could be produced. It also doesn’t address the issue of the lack of reliability of windmills, which produce no power when the wind isn’t blowing, and little when it’s blowing weakly. Depending on where and when they are deployed, little or no power could be available. Windmills can’t be set up in the middle of a forest. They’d have to be set up in places with maximum wind exposure, in other words, out in the open, probably on hill tops. They can’t be camouflaged, made to blend in with their surroundings. The presence of a windmill suddenly popping up in the field would be nothing less than a “here we are; come kill us” flashing neon sign for enemies. While trucks carrying fuel are at least mobile and thus harder targets, windmills, and the troops forced to use them, would be sitting ducks.
Diesel generators can be set up and running in minutes. They can be refueled in minutes. They are far smaller and more easily transported and positioned than windmills. We have no idea how long it will take to set up these windmills, nor whether they can produce reliable useful power as soon as they are set up.
The issue, as Col. Fagan notes, is “what is the objective?” If the objective is producing reliable power for troops in the field without exposing them to unnecessary risk, windmills are absolutely not the answer. If the objective is green virtue signaling at any cost without regard for the survival of troops, they’re a brilliant solution to a nonexistent problem.
Just as with electric vehicles for our military, this idea is not only a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, it’s yet another “technology” that will be more dangerous to our troops than to the enemy. With the Biden Meat Puppet Administration, that seems to be the consistent objective.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
“Are the tan jerry cans full of electricity?”
I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny!
Nothing like posting a 50’ tall beacon to show where your headquarters is, because you just know some bean-counting safety-nazi is going to demand that they put a light on it. Not to mention hazard for incoming helos etc.
I guess concealment isn’t an issue, either.
Dear Marty:
Well, concealment is certainly not an issue for virtue signaling D/S/Cs. What should we expect of people who are far more concerned with pronouns and climate change lunacy than the survival of our troops?
You won’t need to put a light on a wind turbine generator. Googling ‘wind turbine generator blade radar signature’ brings up a lot of food for thought. The Doppler effect from blade tips moving at nearly the speed of sound is especially attractive (pun intended).
I realize the goal in this blog is to try and embarrass the current administration.. hence anything any institution of the government does is called “stupid”… and if the administration were replaced by “real Americans” all Pentagon “stupidity” would vanish overnight.
But I dunno what the real problem here is you all are thumping your alleged intelligent-chests about.
When I was in the military (way back when we spun the props to get the planes started) much of the military incompetence I witnessed was not originating inside the Pentagon but rather on the local level. (I actually had a vigorous debate with a Tech Sgt. lifer when I was a young troop being trained (OJT, by the way) for cop work when he insisted a .223 bullet started tumbling end over end as soon as it left the muzzle, which was a design plus because it punched large holes into the enemy’s body.)
You quoted….
“The U.S. Department of Energy is pursuing a program to develop deployable wind turbines to be used in military defense and disaster relief operations.”
I don’t know what’s wrong with that. Makes perfect sense.. logistically, if nothing else, to research the idea of deploying in low threat energy areas as quick-reaction disaster relief or military presence deployments, alternative energy sources. Even vehicles. Not every military deployment requires preparation for engaging an enemy in the field. The fact that there would be little or no need for ongoing routine generator maintenance/repair or parts, or any need for transport and re-supply of traditional fuels of different varieties (if that were required). Certainly wind turbines would be a lot quieter than puttering generators. Very likely more disposable in the field as well in the event of a hasty departure. Of course electric vehicles would not perform the same in combat situation as traditional powered vehicles. That’s common sense. But not all situations are under combat conditions.
Now.. if someone official is suggesting that the military using electric vehicles and wind turbines as some sort of green low carbon environment thing… to me that’s not important. The military is not, generally speaking, a continued emitter of pollution to be an environmental threat.
Doug I will start by thanking you for your service and sacrifice. I do that to every vet I knowingly meet. Many years ago I was in Sam’s Club where I am from and saw an older black man who looked the right age wearing a Vietnam Marine Vet red hat. I approached and thanked him. I asked him when he was over there. He said ’67-’68. I named several places Marines were at in that time frame and asked if he was at any of them. His eyes lit up. It made his day I knew the history as much as I do and acknowledged his service.
The point as Mike has pointed out, and you seemed to miss. is the enemies of our Constitutional Republic are working night and day, from outside and inside the government, to destroy the country you and Mike, and my dad and several uncles on both sides, served and protected.
In a place where the wind blows most of the time strong enough to turn the blades this is a good idea if a disaster that disrupts the grid, or is in a place where there is no grid, happens.
A military deployment might not be for combat purposes on our side Doug. But the enemy gets a vote too. That’s why they are the enemy, the dirty bastards. Whenever, in the age of state and none state sponsored international terrorism, our men and women are deployed there is always the potential for combat. And not deploying with that reality firmly in mind and planning is a weakness that an enemy will exploit.
Well, thank you for the recognition, my friend. But here’s a thing I elect to place into context in our contemporary divisive world. Things are in a bit of turmoil and social and political mess. Yet here’s my point.. it took the entire history of our nation.. the good, the very good… the not-so-good.. the outright bad… the disgusting…the sacrifices of the military and of civilians since the beginning, to bring us to this point in time. This is how democracy works and this is how democracy evolves as our population increases, as the world itself changes, as events themselves, natural or manmade, present themselves. Now as I see it we can sit back and dream about who our enemy amongst us is, label them as a conspiratorial collective (because there is ALWAYS someone to blame for the inequality of life), imagine how a much better place our nation.. the world in fact.. might be if we just “killed ’em all” for freedom and liberty and in the end justify it was all perfectly legal, according to God’s will, something the “Founders” would approve of in the end. Pick your reason.
Rather like the song… “..but on the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away.” We win this together or we lose it all.. together. There is no “our side will win”.
My allegiance to the Constitution, nay America, does NOT rise and fall on the Second Amendment or whatever interpretation of it is currently popular.
As for our discussion of this post by Mike… I have a general faith in our institutions.. including the Pentagon, Congress who provides oversight, and the basic good that people working in those capacities undertake for us as a nation. Screw ups? Absolutely. As long as humans run the show we will always have that. Spending boondoggles? Absolutely. It means we are constantly testing, preparing, exploring… and is anyone keeping track on how many successful ideas came out of this process? We can sit around and Monday-morning-quarterback wind turbines and electric Humvees for the military.. but I prefer to give the Pentagon a bit of due in their strategic applications of technology… and knowing a bit more than I do. I rather think this whole thing with Mike is all about the country moving away from fossil fuels.. and the Pentagon exploring wind power feeds the political battle.
Dear Doug:
And there’s the problem. Allegiance to the Constitution must rely on every word, or it’s nothing more than picking and choosing which liberties one would deny others. Mark Twain said it well: “Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government when it deserves it,”
I’m not certain of this (as it’s hard to find even on Russian Sites, but some articles about the “Perevoset” Portable Laser Anti-Aircraft System (that the Bear is now using in the ‘Kraine) mentions that it is Powered by a Nuclear Generator that is carried by a HET (Tank Transporter) unit. Given the other things that Russia has fielded in the way of Nuclear Cruise Missiles and (100 F’in Megaton) Naval Torpedoes) I wouldn’t doubt that they have Field Nuke Plants, too.
That Laser System has been knocking down the ‘HIMARS’ Rockets on a regular basis, and has also been seen to be able to Hit and Detonate 8-inch Artillery Shells, though at Danger-Close Range.
Russia cannot be Defeated by the FUSSA and the “West” because its Armed Forces spec Useful Weapons and Equipment, and its Engineers design stuff that is Simple, Rugged, and Works. Then their Factories produce it, using the most Advanced Materials and Processes, AT COST to the Taxpayer- no Military-Industrial-Complex Grift allowed.
there are areas of military operations where alternative energy sources could be applied. the question i would like to get answered would be “would they improve/enhance the military’s capabilities or is this just a way for some corrupt crony to make a quick billion bucks by supplying our people with a substandard, inefficient, virtue signaling boondoggle?”
having said that; it has become plain to me that the entire u.s. government is our enemy. we are nothing to them but tax cattle that they milk until we dry up and they then throw away. they use what they steal from us to enrich themselves first; and then with what’s left, they research and invest in new and improved ways to steal from us and destroy the republic they took an oath to protect
Dear ontoiran:
The answer to your first question is self-evident. One would be hard pressed indeed to find any military member–apart from an officer sucking up for promotion–who is hoping for windmills. It’s certainly getting harder to find any such thing as a genuine “public servant” anymore.