DE&S’ Future Capability Innovation team will collaborate with McLaren Racing on projects across DE&S and the wider MOD.
The firm say here that McLaren’s Accelerator arm has a team of highly-skilled practitioners who have acquired a wealth of expertise from years in elite-level motorsport.
“This expertise will support the upskilling of Defence teams, in direct support of solving Defence challenges. The partnership will provide opportunities for a number of projects, including the electrification of MOD vehicles, driving product development speed, improving operational efficiency as well as using digital tools for data-driven decision-making.
And in turn help further accelerate the adoption of best practice across the UK Defence industry, with a shared focus on climate change and sustainability. It could also help the MOD attract, develop and support more diverse talent into STEM careers within Defence.”
Adrian Baguley, DE&S deputy CEO and Senior Sponsor for the Partnership, said in a news release:
“DE&S is always looking for ways to drive innovation and improve how we equip the UK Armed Forces with the edge to protect our nation. Working with McLaren is a great opportunity to do exactly that, sharing learning and embedding new ways of working that will benefit both organisations.
This partnership is rooted in a shared commitment to climate change, with potential to drive further efficiencies, promote innovative thinking and harness expertise in some of the latest technologies such as digital twins, AI, hybrid vehicles, HV battery architecture, and advanced and reductive manufacturing.”
Sounds like PR nonsense to me. MOD shouldn’t be going anywhere near electric vehicles. You need to be able to fuel up and go and carry additional fuel for long range missions not hang about for hours while you charge up and look for charging points on the battle field. Someone’s trying to tick a box that they shouldn’t be
But the need for longer ranges, faster charging, etc that would be required by the military could help boost innovation in these areas. By pushing companies to look into how vehicles could operate in austere environments, they then drive further research into new battery materials and charging solutions. Military need has always had a huge impact on the development of new technologies.
You are absolutely right. Sadly so many of our most important technological progresses come from human conflict. It interests me how a lot of defence commentators on this forum find it very hard to leave the past behind. Yesterday is a country and we don’t live there any more. Old thinking is what we see writ large with the Russian approach to Ukraine. The reason they didn’t just walk over the Ukrainians is that Ukraine thought modern, and will continue to do so if we have enough sense to provide support. Even Russia will finally run out of young men to slaughter. I hope they stop long before they decimate their youngsters.
Heres me thinking it was to do with the copious ammounts of shells the West have given them – couldnt get much older tech than that.
It would never have got to that if NATO had donate Storm Shadow, HIMARS, Patriot and F16 early in Yr 1.
The kicking Russia got was largely down to very brave soldiers using things like NLAWS and Javelin to make Russian tankers feel very vulnerable and Starstreak and Stinger to knock out helicopter support.
Oh if only… the shortages have made them inventive. The use of small domestic drones was highly innovative and remarkably successful, as far as I can gather.
I agree it’s so depressing to hear so many hark back to the past Victorian attitudes has become an insult indeed referring to being stuck in your ways. Truth is technologically, indeed socially too it was a powerhouse of new ideas and technologies that we now need to re energise ourselves with rather than actual harking back to the levels of technology they reached as if it were some end in itself because Britain has been in decline ever since.
Problem is we’ve moved away from the entrepenuership the victorians had. Most of the development done was by private individuals to increase productivity for their businesses.
Your really talking abour people like Musk who take an idea and make it happen, be it resuable rockets, electronic payment or electric cars. Today he’s hated for it where as the likes of Brunel were celebrated.
Elon musk has not invented or founded anything Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning found Tesla before a majority share was bought by Musk, giving him co founder rights. All of his inventions we’re thought up by persons under his employ which gives him the right to call them his own.
But Musk has the vision to invest a take it to the next level. After all Brunel did build bridges himself but had ideas and vision others implemented them.
Agreed in my opinion the best mix is innovative tech with old values. If we give up on truth and scientific truth we are going into a dark place.
The electrical needs of even the smallest AFV would require virtually the whole vehicle to be a battery if you are going to include propulsion!include extended periods in the field with no charging available the whole logistics would be unworkable!
With current battery technology, yes. Hence why engaging with these companies may help in discovering new solutions.
Still doesn’t add up though even with more ‘advanced’ technology! Take a tank Regt all 56 tanks have been in the field for the same amount of time all batteries need recharged,no options of returning to base in the near future = One very stuck Regt! All logistic vehicles electric? You see where there are more problems than answers no matter how advanced the tech gets.
See my post above, tanks will be the last to exploit this technology but don’t use that to right it off entirely. In fact the more we can take other vehicles out of the ICE support network the easier it will be to maintain the tanks supplied. Fact is one has to look at this in relation to the technologies relating to recharging. Solar recharging is improving all the time as are other potential technologies in the field and others will no doubt develop as need increases so light vehicles many unmanned will be supportable, light manned vehicles certainly will be feasible within years and heavier stuff as and when practice but yes some way off for certain. But supporting front line units with fuel is no easy or reliable task especially now that drones are dominating the battle space so the ability to recharge in situ is going to increasingly look positive against long vulnerable supply lines.
We don’t have to write it off completely but it’ll take decades more to improve battery tech to match the density of oil based fuels and fronline units will need more power at their disposal, best use for elecrical power will be DEWS to defeat drones and other threats.
I just can’t see theirs any portable charging tech even in the pipe that could support a large % of military vehicles. Solar is limit by physics so you can only covert the amout of solar energy that hits an area, even at 100% efficiency you’re goind to need very large arrays.
micro nuke reactors could be an option if you don’t mine the fallout when they get hit. There’s design that fit in shipping containers. But you’d still need to distribute this via batteries or tow the container around and charge up tanks.
The mars rovers have small reactore but these are very low power, but at this point you may as well remove the battery and run off the reactor.
Best option would be hybrid using ICE or turbine, simplfy the drive train using electric motors, utilise batteries in a limted way to give burst capacity of power for mobility or DEWS.
Might Hybrid not be the best option. I would hate to be in an AFV reliant on all electric. May have to operate in far North and other remote areas.
Exactly.
There are a lot of new battery technologies on the horizon and companies like Samsung (who I believe) telling us that 2x power density is 2027 with much faster charging rates and lower thermal factors.
There is a lot of money spent on battery research ATM and things are improving, on even Li batteries, steadily at about 5% per year – not a lot each year but cumulatively an awful lot.
Does make a lot of noise but the shorter range Tesla’s 3’s have Fe batteries in them.
Here the fundamental problem – the science
Liquid hydrogen: 141.6MJ/kg,
gasoline: 46.4MJ/kg,
diesel: 44.8MJ/kg,
lithium-ion battery: 0.46-0.72MJ/kg.
Uranium: 3,900,000MJ/kg
So even doubling a lithium ion battery’s power x2 I’m way off of the potential energy to weight of other fuels. Hence why electric cars have to spend 25% of their power moving the energy source (battery) around, that battery still only give half the range.
So if you forget the environment for minute and think war fighting logically getting high % efficiency from diesel or petrol will make us more effective war fighters.
Mazda have pushed a ICE engine to a claimed 40%+ effiicency with new technology, Spark Controlled Compression Ignition. Using a gas turbine you can get 60%+ with existing tech. Big diesel do around 55%.
In a Tesla I have 95% efficient – 25% lugging the battery around so 70% efficiency overall. But the weight to get that power is the biggest problem when I need more power and range = biiger battery, I spend more energy moving around the larger battery thats needed. We need to be around 10X todays energy density for it to be a consideration.
All true.
What I’m saying is that for some functions – SF for instance – range might not be the main factor: it might be silent?
Yep Batteries will have a place, fuel cells are also silent when powering electric motors. We need to consdier all solutions and combinations of solutions.
Far more likely to be battery / fuel cell hybrid?
Mind you fuel cells aren’t that light either…..which surprised me when we were planning fitting some and I looked at the specs!
Check out a company called Liquid Piston. US based, our political class are effectively shutting out these types of companies by not allowing vehicles powered by combustible fuels. Totally bonkers.
Battery technology and indeed solar too along with fuel cells is precisely because the market is finally thereto propel it, progressing at a considerable rate just as processors did once the market developed. Yes it’s true most of it is yet to reach the market (years of testing is required) but it’s going to be revolutionary over the next decade as lab developments become production reliable products, sodium based batteries are already coming to market which eases the rare earth material problem but their are Aluminium based batteries on the horizon and solid state technology are coming on line. The market for batteries is increasing exponentially and capabilities will grow with it be it in vehicles, home storage and one area virtually no one has any understanding of and that is humanoid robots. Yes that’s right 5 years ago no one saw this other than 40 to 50 years maybe more in the future as a possibility it was pure science fiction. Well now the technology is changing every few months esp with CHATGpt or similar ai agent technology built in, the first production models will be on sale end of 24 into 2025, indeed Figure robots are already on test in BMWs factory in the US. Within 5 years they will be a common sight and this technology will increase the urgency far more than cars do now to get powerful long lasting battery technology to market.
I am convinced that before decade’s end electric, certainly various hybrid military vehicles will be seriously considered if not common, even in an understandably conservative environment. With recharging tech with far safer battery tech in particular already down to minutes in the labs there is going to be massive scope for support vehicles esp the great quantity that are not on or even near the front line going electric. Fighting vehicles is less certain esp heavy ones like tanks obviously and ultra safe battery technology is an absolute necessity but fact is the majority of military vehicles are not in that category and of course there is massive scope as the Ukranians have shown for drone technology, ot only flying drones but mini land vehicles which they have use to blow up all manner of targets in a hostile environment including bridges. One has to broaden one’s mind here and see where this tech can expand rather than stick with negativity because it won’t be useable on a tank or fighting vehicle any time soon.
Liquid hydrogen: 141.6MJ/kg,
gasoline: 46.4MJ/kg,
diesel: 44.8MJ/kg,
lithium-ion battery: 0.46-0.72MJ/kg.
Uranium: 3,900,000MJ/kg
When you don’t need much power a battery is great, but the numbers above speak volumes as to the challenge, and logically there’s an arguement that doubling the thermal efficiency of a diesel engine would be more beneficial for the war figher than trying to get batteries to even 22MJ/Kg roughly 1/2 that of diesel.
Or apply RR jet engine tech to smaller turbines and get them to 60% efficieny, which is where larger ones are. Again would be a more logical stategy for the war fighter.
Its nothing to do with negativity its a question of science and engineering praticalities. We effectiviely going to starve research into ICE or turbines irrespetive of how efficient they could become or the fuel they run on, that’s not embracing technology at all that’s rigging research in favour of one technology and hardly mind broadening in fact its the opposite, completely blinkered.
Well yes and no, I have been driving all electric for 10 years. I would never go back to diesel or petrol. Charge times have shortened and range has tripled or quadrupled… this stuff with Maclaren is pushing boundaries. Back in the 1900s people said the internal combustion engine wouldn’t catch on because nobody sold petrol. They were slightly off, I’d say. We don’t jusge technology by what it did yesterday. The name Maclaren suggests to me that if racing is taking all this seriously we’re on a winner.
Or they could just stick with what theyve got that works.
Recent reports highlight that real world battery usage produces far less range than the tests the EV Companies quote (not falsely BTW its just the test processes they follow that are flawed) & Cold is one of the main issues.
You really think that the MOD bering involved will make all the difference.
Military development has always been for military ends (TCPIP for exampe) which has then filtered down into daily life.
This doesn’t need military involvement – theres enough money being invested for the main public usage (whether you agree with it or not is another matter of course)
I wouldnt be wasting my time on this box ticking climate warrior appeasing exercise.- far more pressing things to spend money on.
So what you’re saying is “I can’t see how to solve these things, so we shouldn’t bother investigating them”?
By working with the companies, the MoD can steer some of the research, can get first dibs on new breakthroughs. Or they can just sit back, do nothing, then pay through the nose for technology a few years after everyone else has got it.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, NOT investing in future power sources is just stupid
No I just think baterries are not and will never be a viable solution for military vehicle propulsion & there are many on here who are suggesting the same.
Just because its de rigur to use them does not mean they are strategically a viable option.
There are plenty of private companies trying to get the tech to match the hype -and they have a long way to go (ironically) .
I dont think the MoD shoud be hoodwinked into jumping on the bandwagon when they have plenty of more viable tech they could be supporting.
As for finite resource everything is a finite resource, and oil has a long long way to go.
Thank god someone has a modicum of vision. This Country has been entrenched in yesterdays technology and ways of doing things that has been a major player along with political incompetence, lack of investment and managerial conservatism that has wiped out so much of industrial base. Ironically now apart from some significant outliers most of our innovative industrial leadership lies in the defence industry and Formula One where we match or lead the World. So what short sighted idiocy would it be to not create an overlap in these areas where applicable. I’m just disappointed it took so long to take advantage of the potential synergy. So let’s get the message here, Williams is playing a key role in supporting the laser weapon programmes and it’s no coincidence that they and McLaren have played a very important role in delivery of the electric powertrain for Formula E which along with regenerative charging in F1 has led to these developments and opened opportunities for many more developments well beyond actual powertrains in vehicles because electrical power is increasingly important for any fighting force anywhere as it’s required to pretty much run anything these days, so surely providing it in the most efficient way is simply common sense.
Relying on continuous provision of fuel to a fighting force is one of the most vital elements and greatest weaknesses in its capability to succeed or even survival. As lasers offer potential freedom from the endless need to supply missiles and ammunition. Or at least greatly reduce it the use of hybrid and electric vehicles offers a similar potential for the Army even if the as and whens are not yet clear. But the whole point is unless you invest in working on the problem you never see the potential or you end up buying in from those that do seemingly the norm for short sighted Britain these days.
Not only this however F1 teams are at the forefront of 3D printing, advanced material technology, lightweight structures, continuous upgrading and swift prototyping, autonomy and development regimes amongst many other qualities that the military can only dream of. So no this is (at least hopefully) NOT a pr campaign it gives us the opportunity to in many areas develop world leading technologies just as Williams’s power systems have become integral to RR and the US’s laser systems.
There’s already billions at stake in the commercial markets to improve battery tech.
JCB have already done the reseach and concluded heavy kit will not be suitable for electrification for over a decade so have developed a hydrogen engine as there’s no way to power a JCB for 8 hours with batteries.
JCB literally have an electric range on sale. Excavators, telehandlers, dumper etc.
nobody 20 years ago would of even considered anything electric possible so who knows where we can be in 20 years.
I think the main use is combining with engines. All vehicles need electric power for stuff. Add in silent running, power boost etc and it makes sense.
Some cars have a small battery pack that can run 10 miles alone. But combined with the engine gives an acceleration boost allowing less fuel to be used, they recharge from braking and so on.
There will be cases where it’s not worth it but there will be many more where it is.
I own quite a lot of the JCB electro range.
Great for confined spaces work: quiet, no fines, powerful. Charges overnight on a 13A plug.
But this only works on the smaller diggers.
Radar? why would we need to research that we have men with big earphones, Tanks? dont be silly we have cavalry.
Research is rarely wasted we should always be looking out the box to see if improvements can be made
Yes a factor that made this Country great since Elizabethan times with ship design that sadly in recent times we have too often forgotten ironically outside of Universities and yes F1.
Battery technology and the methods in which they are replaced are constantly evolving, and I have seen claims from Chinese companies that say they can get 600miles from a single battery, and it takes 2.5 minutes to replace an old battery with a new one, so there is certainly potential to simplify logistics. Imagine having a truck full of batteries instead of a giant fuel container/improvised explosive. Obviously limited to smaller vehicles right now.
EVs are also super quiet! They won’t hear the vehicles coming! Stealth technology!
Absolutely one only needs to take time researching this to see just how fast this technology is developing certainly in prototype form. Range and power density have pretty much doubled in less than a decade and that is going to speed up considerably as the market place requirements evolves substantially and new technology areas seeking power open up like robotics.
There’s Edison’s trucks that a building battery truck with a generator engine. The engine runs at most efficient revs when needed to charge the pack.
Hybrid diesel-electric?
delta force uses them for sneaky
Yes bar far the best soution and the basic science below shows us why. Batteries are still well down the energy density league table by a very large margin. Electric propulsion is efficient compared to burning fuels but you loose that efficiency when you move the very heavy battery around, basic physics whcih appears to escape many people.
Investing in batteries and electric motors yes, but also in getting more out of gas turbines or/and combusition engines will provide the best solution for the war fighter.
Liquid hydrogen: 141.6MJ/kg,
gasoline: 46.4MJ/kg,
diesel: 44.8MJ/kg,
lithium-ion battery: 0.46-0.72MJ/kg.
Uranium: 3,900,000MJ/kg
Delta force uses hybrids that drive loud with petrol then stealthy with battery.There are many uses
IMHO: the rush to BEVs (including civilian transport) is short-sighted.
I think long-distance/heavy vehicles would be better off using hydrogen Combustion engines (HICEV)
Of course, there are still the problems of affordable extraction/ storage to solve, but if we crack those, we can retain ICEs
Must admit in the past I would have agreed with you but I think that boat has sailed. If hydrogen plays an important role it will likely be via fuel cells rather than burning. Why, because I just can’t see the required infrastructure for hydrogen ever being rolled out sufficiency, remember you can’t actually stop hydrogen from leakage as its molecules are smaller than anything else so pipes and tanks are e trembly expensive to reduce this natural loss not to mention corrosive effects. For home use they are looking to mix hydrogen in rather use it at 100% which makes sense. And it all relies on developing green (certainly blue) hydrogen on a massive scale. I think this will happen but who knows when. And though hydrogen is a clean fuel it needs more research as though in theory there is little by products to damage the environment some reach I have seen suggests there are potential effects in the upper atmosphere even as hydrogen or it’s by products exits the atmosphere. Seems more research needs to be done here. But my gut feeling is that electric growth will be such that burning hydrogen on a large scale will struggle to gain sufficient investment especially as use in engines is so reliant on it being cryogenically stored. That said there are experiments combining hydrogen with other elements which apparently make it storable in powdered form but early days there and whole new practicality issues for using it in vehicles but power generation could be a great potential use if environmentally produced hydrogen becomes the norm or indeed trapping it when released from other processes.
Equally the larger the vehicle the more room for batteries so as long as recharging times reduce they become ideal for larger vehicles the electric busses here are fantastic and they are testing re hatching rigs that take less than 15mins if they need a top up during the day.
Hydrogens draw back is its current costs, the nox issues have been solved. The leakage issue is over done, you will use it far quicker than it could leak out. There’s a lot of big green companies (same as ilk as big oil) pushing out contrdictory articles to ensure their tech is choosen, after all billions are involved in green tech industry. Hydrogen offers execellent energy density more than 150 times that of current li-on batteries. It would litterally take a battery miracle to match hydrogen. More likey super capacitors would be available before batteries match hydrogens power density.
Problem is the research in batteries is now rigged in its favour with major economies banning alternatives so we may never know if fuels like hydrogen can reach its potential, very sad situation.
And of course China went on a limb to corner the electic market, investing billions. Now looking very dominant, even Musk beleive Tesla will not be in the top 10 electric vehicle manufacturers in the years to come. BMW state they’re decade behind. So strategically going in another direction would stop an adverery dominating the supply chain and leaving them with billions tied up and a smaller market, after all emerging market won’t be buying electric cars as they too expensive and the infrastructure will not be their for decades.
Im not against batteries or electric vehicles but I think we need to consider all the consequences and we should let oher technologies compete fairly, thats not happening.
Makes sense to me. We are head shoulders and the rest above the entire rest of the world when it comes to motorsports engineering, why not leverage that capability
Well said it’s our opportunity to re enthuse our industrial base as sadly short sightedness stopped us doing with wind power having to in the end buy in foreign expertise.p despite having the highest density per pop in the World now.
So the outgoing tories, intend to waste and squander even more taxpayers money, by hiring McLaren Racing, to help design vehicles and vehicle tech, for the MOD.
If this is not further proof, that most of the government creatures involved in procurement are in fact stupid, useless, easily led and generally dumb arsed individuals…. well I just do not know.
You do realise of course this govt put back the ICE ban back to 2035 but Labour have said they will bring it back to 2030 IIRC! So in their wisdom from 2030 any vehicle to replace say a land rover will have to be electric!
some people are very satisfied with their electric vehicles and good luck to them but the amount of videos and posts on motoring forums would indicate that a lot are cursing the day they bought one!
Electric Cars are good for the future… unfortunately, that future is light years away.
I doubt that McLaren will improve product development speed of defence equipment. McLaren control everything yet DE&S does not; politicians, Treasury, Industry all are external to DE&S.
DE&S just a step away from more DEI nonsense. These people need de-toxifying themselves.