Electric initiatives have become increasingly topical in civilian life, with the proliferation of smart home energy, electric cars and clean public transport as growing markets. But few of these initiatives have yet to carry over into the battlefield. Unsurprising? Unrealistic? or inevitable?

In this article, Jeff Pike, Head of Aerospace & Defence Strategic Programmes & Initiatives at IFS, explains that there are immediate benefits to be gained as well as logistical support implications of electrification—and these are operational in nature not just ‘green’ renewable energy driven. Jeff has worked in A&D and IT for more than 35 years, having spent some 20 years as a Royal Air Force senior officer specialising in a number of Logistics areas; Operational Logistics, Senior Program management of a number of major Government IT programs, Defence Logistics Business Transformation and Logistics Operational Research.

When walking the floor at DSEI 2019 this year, I was struck by the volume of conversation around battlefield electrification—perhaps not unexpected with environmental factors one of the dominating news items of 2019. When the topic is first mentioned it perhaps conjures unrealistic visions of fully electrified ships, tanks and aircraft, built as now but without combustion engines, operating in combat environments.

But the same challenges of civil electrification of vehicles apply in terms of limited range, cost, weight and the fact battery technology has been slow in its evolution and hasn’t kept up with aspirations. So, we are probably at least ten years or more away from this eventuality. The more realisable and often overlooked near benefit of electrification comes with the strategic change to battlefield support assets and unmanned vehicles (sea, land and air), coupled with a focus on logistics support and the military supply chain.

The current fossil fuel challenge

First – our consumption comes at significant cost!

Military conflicts are becoming increasingly reliant on logistics to underpin the huge undertakings of maintenance and shipping personnel, equipment and supporting resources to often remote, difficult to reach locations and then trying to sustain them. An effective logistics strategy can be the difference between the success and failure of an entire military campaign and fossil fuels play a key role here—the U.S. DoD, for example, is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world.

For every tank there are three tankers chasing it. The U.S. Army can use as much as 600,000 gallons of fuel a day to run an armoured division. The M1 Abrams tank gets about 0.6mpg and even a cargo vehicle such as the M-1070 semi-trailer, which hauls fuel, delivers approximately 1.2mpg. For context, in the Afghanistan war, Pentagon officials told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel cost the military about $400 by the time it arrived in the remote locations where U.S. troops were operating.

Second – balancing vulnerability with efficiency usually means a bloated logistics footprint 

All this ‘logistics’ comes with challenges the likes of which the average DHL logistics delivery doesn’t encounter. Look at the successful modern conflicts of recent times—all the victorious sides had air superiority. Gaining this superiority comes at a cost—air bases require a huge logistics footprint which opens up attack vulnerabilities. But, without air superiority the logistics footprint is a massive vulnerability.

Consider fuel alone. Simply transporting fossil fuel to the forward operating base requires a huge convoy of military vehicles. Moreover, fuel stored in remote bases is housed in vast flexi-tanks, difficult to hide and incredibly vulnerable to aerial attack. Then the convoy and broader logistics support machine itself needs security, feeding, accommodation and support, thus perpetuating the need for more personnel who, in turn, need supporting themselves.

All this comes at a human cost. U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute figures indicate the casualty factor for fuel resupplies in Afghanistan was 0.042, which is 0.042 casualties for every fuel-related resupply convoy—or almost one casualty for every 24 fuel resupply convoys. When you consider the number of U.S.-only fuel convoys required in Iraq in FY2007 was 5,133, the casualty count is quite alarming.

Electrification benefits – it’s more than green: it’s reducing the logistics footprint

Switching to electric could deliver strategic battlefield advantages—limiting maintenance overhead and more importantly offering a direct benefit to saving lives.

QinetiQ, a global organisation of scientists and engineers at the forefront of research and commentary on the use of electric propulsion in the defence, security and aerospace sectors, has produced in-depth research on the state of military electrification. But the benefits of electrification are far more than ‘going green’—they can deliver huge logistical advantages in both the near and long term.

Short term opportunity lies in secondary support  

Battery life becomes a quickly limiting factor if we look at battlefield electrification in terms of entire vehicles. In the short term, it is far more likely we will see—and are starting to see—point electrification of support and secondary systems as the initial military focus.

Forward operating bases consume vast volumes of electricity, often 1000s of kWh a day. This demand is currently met almost entirely by generators fuelled with diesel, which brings forward the supply chain concerns around efficiency and safety.

Take one use case from the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, called “Operation Nimroz.” The base installation mandated 13 generators, but many were running well below capacity. The Army changed to two generators and two “hybrid sites” which included a trailer with a generator, battery pack and solar panel, to provide power for very specific missions.

Total fuel savings for the project came to about 1,600 gallons a week and 30-man hours per week were saved by not needing to refuel, with a further 20 hours of maintenance saved per week. This meant engineers could focus their time and efforts on more pressing maintenance concerns.

The Electric and Unmanned Vehicle transformation will come in the longer term  

We are already seeing electric unmanned aerial, land and sea vehicles entering service. Research from IDTechEx shows that electric vehicles for military, security and police duty will make up 15% of the total market in 2022. The bulk of this demand has been for air (UAVs) and is now for military vehicles on land; the water and airborne applications alone will each become businesses of well over one billion dollars yearly within the decade. The U.S. Army has set out a ten-year goal for full electrification of its assets and equipment—witness its Next-Gen Combat Vehicle programme, a prototyping effort underway at the Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center which promises two prototype tanks by 2022.

There is a considerably reduced logistics footprint associated with these electrified, often, but not always, unmanned assets. Electric vehicles in theory should weigh significantly less, are significantly less mechanically complex, use easily routed cables to deliver 4-wheel power (not vulnerable drive shafts), are simpler to maintain, run on renewable energy and have much lower failure rates.

Combine this with the switch toward unmanned sea, land and air vehicles (UVs) in many operational functions and there is a distinct electrification opportunity that large, protected man-limited vehicles cannot realise. Most are genuine cases for realistic electrification.

As a result – Supply chain and asset management software must enable change

So, the already complex, multi-layered, multi-tiered, support model across military operations and the broad portfolio of equipment and inventory types is about to broaden further and increase in complexity. Defence and in-service support organisations need to prepare for these eventualities in both the short and long term. There are significant electric advantages—but for these benefits to be realised now and into the future, it requires systematic change of supply chain and logistics processes, control of transformation through stages of implementation and the inherent ability to cope with variable equipment types.

Flexibility and transformational agility need to be driven into the processes—the reality is that information support systems are the key to success and optimisation. Supporting a solar panel farm in a deployed base is not the same as supporting the fossil fuel generator that preceded it, even if the maintenance objectives are the same. As such its key that military forces rely on enterprise asset management solutions with built-in adaptability for new assets and logistics principles—from procurement of the asset, right through to frontline maintenance and support. Nobody wants the electrification of the battlefield to become an IS project overhead, so choose wisely!

Electrification of support is realisable now

As the QinetiQ report clearly explains, the success or failure of electrical technologies in defence will depend on the quality of the infrastructure behind them—not just charging points but the multi-facetted supply chain, the IS processes and equipment visibility and much more. As highlighted, we are probably some years from effective electrification of major equipment or weapon systems—there are some major engineering challenges to overcome and battery technology needs to have an evolutionary moment.

But electrification of support, certainly secondary support, can deliver strategic operational advantages—programme efficiencies and safety being paramount—to any modern fighting force and reduce the fossil fuel supply hydra! Link this with the move of operational delivery toward unmanned capabilities means electrification is hitting the battlefield and things are changing now—and will continue to do so for good strategic reasons.

Leave a Reply

6 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Glass Half FullDaveyBMarkGavin GordonIan Skinner Recent comment authors
newest oldest
Notify of
Peter E
Peter E

Moving to vehicles with electric transmission seems like something that could be done quite soon. You’re not going to get rid of the fossil fuel primary power plant, but once you have electric transmission, then any plug in solar panels, wind turbines, or regenerative braking that you do bolt on, will give an incremental benefit. If that only means 10% more range, 10% longer between resupply, and 10% fewer fuel convoys into theatre, then that’s probably well worth having. Done right, it would also make the vehicle future proof to swap in a battery power pack, as and when that… Read more »


In some respects electric vehicles are easier to maintain, but once a battery pack fails the only option is replacement. Based on EVs in the civil sector the cost of the battery pack may represent the bulk of the cost of the entire platform, which could represent a challenge for established procurement processes. High performance batteries at present also require some slightly exotic materials and manufacturing processes- so security of supply would also need serious consideration. As the author points out- pure EV power for large, manned platforms is impractical (and changing this in 10 years seems a tad optimistic),… Read more »

Ian Skinner
Ian Skinner

Very Interesting article, I think there is lots of scope for savings by using electric vehicles in secondary roles

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon

It’s certainly comforting to think that we may soon be able to obliterate each other in a more enviromentally friendly manner.


It could be argued that those responsible for Defence Procurement, along with those at the top the the Military Command Structure are the possible blockers to regards to reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Often companies will come forward with an idea, but if it doesn’t meet 100% of the need, then it is not accepted. As Peter E says, 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing. How often were/ are generator run for minimal demand, when a few small wind turbines and solar panels coupled to vehicle batteries would have been sufficient to meet most of the electric… Read more »


The US Company Chrysler had the answer back in the 1950’s with the TV-8 tank. It did not require fossil fuel and was electrically powered. Oh, the primary power source was a small fission reactor – splendid idea, can’t see why it didn’t go into production. Seriously though, until you can replace the energy packed into fossil fuel with a viable alternative its just not going to happen on a large scale. The problem is batteries just don’t have the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. Companies like Tesla are pushing the boundaries of what is capable with Lithium ion batteries… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full

Agree that plug in series hybrid is the first step in wheeled or tracked vehicles, along with reasonably sized battery. Advantages in no particular order include 1) the ability to support short periods of electric-only operation to reduce noise signature (in addition to use of rubber tracks) 2) leveraging the high torque and superior control of electric motors for traction and functions like tank-turn on wheeled vehicles 3) energy recovery back into the battery 4) more efficient fuel use with ICE as a generator for vehicle movement, as a generator for off vehicle loads and as a generator for on-vehicle… Read more »