Electrifying The Military

Petroleum powers every armed force in the world today, an iron fact unchanged and unchallenged for over a century. It is a fact that makes oil a national security concern, including for the U.S., but one that may soon start to change. On the modern battlefield, the most critical ammunition is now measured not only in calibers, but also in kilowatts. As the U.S. military continues to integrate AI and other high-tech capabilities, it has placed electrical power ever closer to the center of its combat operations. Electrifying forms of transport is a major step in this overall transformation. Military planners worldwide—but particularly in nations with advanced technological capability—have been planning and, in some cases, preparing this change for a decade. Hybrid and EV mobility offer distinct advantages. Silent operation, lower heat signature, improved acceleration and maneuverability, and reduced maintenance are among these. So are reduced fuel costs and the capability of vehicles themselves to act as mobile power sources. What is the status of such electrification efforts today? Where does the U.S. stand in this new “technological arms race”? Reasons to Electrify Seem Especially Strong Now A decade ago, plans for electrification highlighted adaptation to climate change. As late as 2022, responding to President Biden’s executive order requiring zero-emission light-duty vehicles for government fleets, the U.S. Army released a plan to electrify much of its non-tactical and tactical vehicle fleets emphasizing the need to avoid impacts of storms, floods, sea level rise, and heat waves. Since then, however, the landscape has altered. The wars in Ukraine and Iran have changed modern warfare, proving doctrines based on massed armor and traditional air superiority inadequate. Autonomous air and sea vehicles (drones) have electrified the expendable weapon, while allowing precision-strike capabilities for a small fraction of the cost of conventional air fleets and missile systems. China counts as the key supplier of battlefield materiel to Russia—not missiles or munitions but batteries. Both wars, meantime, have transformed the grid itself into a core target for related attack. A second factor that argues for vehicle electrification is oil’s price volatility, with its repeated global crises and heightened geopolitical risk (the U.S. military relies on a mixture of imported and domestic oil). This wouldn’t eliminate petroleum dependence. As much as 70%-75% of total fuel for the military goes to jet fuel for fighters, bombers, heavy cargo and transport planes, and aerial tankers. Yet decreasing oil use for land mobility would improve frontline capabilities. To the benefits already mentioned (stealth, acceleration, etc.), this would reduce fuel supply lines and decrease weight and need for combustible, polluting fuels. A more primary motivator, however, may be China. Its battery technology has now expanded to large trucks and other heavy vehicles, with high-power charging evolving toward megawatt (MW) scale. In the first quarter of 2026, over 25% of heavy truck sales in China were electric, while corresponding figures were 4.5% in the EU and under 1% in the U.S. Having expanded electrification to a wide spectrum of vehicles, China is now translating this to its military. If the reasons for electrification are therefore real, even pressing, what has been achieved thus far and how might development proceed? Modest Advances, A Transition Over Time Rather than a rapid changeover, the pattern thus far has been incremental, with a forecast for phased transition to hybrid and selective EV systems rather than a rapid break. Broadly speaking, non-tactical wheeled vehicles comprise the first phase, with tactical vehicles likely following by the early 2030s, then combat armor (tanks, armored carriers, self-propelled artillery, etc.) later in the decade and possibly into the 2040s. Overlap between these phases is inevitable and already visible. A key point: the focus for tactical and armored vehicles is to utilize hybrid systems, not full electric propulsion. The reasons have less to do with range and recharge speeds; Chinese success with heavy vehicle electrification have reduced such issues. But concerns remain over survivability under fire, plus capability off-road, across variable topography and ground conditions. It is one thing to power a fully loaded 18-wheeler on a gentle roadway and quite another to move the same weight uphill over forest leaf litter. China is setting the pattern by venturing into hybrid diesel-electric tactical and combat vehicles. This include high-voltage power trains that can act as energy storage units for battlefield use. In 2025, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) unveiled the ZTZ-100 medium tank and promised a new variant of the ZTZ-99A1 main battle tank soon to follow. These are intended to increase mobility compared to heavier traditional versions, as well as provide onboard power for beyond-visual-range engagement. Among other aims, China seeks improved capability in high-altitude areas along its southern border. Similar plans, though at an earlier phase, are being pursued in the U.S., Sweden, Germany, South Korea, and Turkey. Several other nations, particularly Japan, Canada, and the UK, are more at the exploration and testing stage. The U.S. Army, as part of its Next Generation Combat Vehicle portfolio, developed prototypes in the early 2020s substituting hybrid electric drive in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, creating a legacy test bed for future versions. More recently, it has decided on hybrid propulsion for a version of its next-generation Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV-Heavy version), intended to deliver power to advanced battlefield equipment and communications. It has also accelerated a program for using hybrid engines in M1E3 Abrams battle tank, with prototypes released in 2026 for evaluation. American planners view hybrids as the only pragmatic compromise that retains the rapid refueling and range of liquid fuels while capturing the stealth and power-generation benefits of batteries. China’s advantages, however, are considerable. Having built unequaled industrial scale in battery production, hybrid/EV drivetrains, and related domestic supply chains for civilian vehicle production and export, the military has fast, cheap access to a mature manufacturing system. This also has none of the political problems that have hobbled the U.S. program under the second Trump Administration. Early in his new term, Trump and his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth labeled military electrification “woke bullshit,” due to its original link to climate adaptation. This has since changed, though only in part, thanks to a different viewpoint taken by the military. When argued in the terms of practical advantage alone, opposition tends to evaporate. In the words of one knowledgeable voice: “hybrid-electric military vehicles [are] not about politics, symbolism, or “green” branding. They [are] about combat effectiveness.” At present, given the pace of battery innovation, it would appear likely that by the late 2030s or early 2040s, a mixed energy system will be in place for technological advanced armed forces in East Asia, Europe (NATO and some state militaries), and North America. Hybrid and EV mobility will supply a growing share of logistics and support roles, with petroleum still dominant in the most energy-intensive applications. The Infrastructure Challenge and a Partial Solution Electrifying military vehicles is not a simple matter of replacing engines with batteries. It requires mobile charging, field wiring, power storage, maintenance, and redesigned logistics. Charging and recharging a brigade-sized electric force could require microgrids and mobile systems on the scale of tens of megawatts. These challenges support the concept that hybrids may matter more than pure battery systems in the near and medium term. A partial answer to the power demand in the medium and long-term may come from the development of micro nuclear reactors (<10 MW). These will be small enough to be moved by road, rail, sea, or air and, in some versions, will have integrated mobility. The U.S. is one of several nations, including Canada, Russia, and China, currently with programs of this kind. The U.S. microreactor effort has two tracks: Project Pele, aiming at a transportable prototype for remote or conflict-related operations, and the Janus Program, concerned with domestic installations. Begun in 2020, Project Pele is led by the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office with the Army, Idaho National Laboratory, and BWX Technologies (the company the builds reactors for the U.S. navy). The design is a 1–5 MW high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor, able to be assembled in 72 hours and operated for three years without refueling. The first version, a 1.5 MW prototype is scheduled for testing in 2027 and actual grid-connected power in 2028. China’s approach is to frame microreactor projects mainly around civilian needs, such as remote mining or other off-grid support, with military applicability. Projects are decided and pursued by a government-directed R&D network known as Fenglin Consortium for Nuclear Technology Innovation, which brings academic research, university education, high-tech commercial development, and finance into one coordinated platform. Its latest prototype is a vehicle-mounted 10 MW version of undisclosed design developed by the Hefei Institutes of Physical Science and described as a “nuclear power bank.” Specific uses vary from isolated communities to data centers but also include “islands,” suggesting support for Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea. Great Power Rivalry, Innovation, and the Role of Politics Mention of microreactors clarifies that advancing electrification in the military is a matter of geopolitics, technological innovation, and political commitment. Geopolitically, the rationale for electrification is recognized. While Russia lacks any near-term plan for large-scale electrification, cold weather being a distinct limitation on battery performance, China’s progress presents a challenge that may only grow. Its successes, building upon those in the civilian sector, could accelerate in the next decade with implications for next-generation military capabilities, including direct energy weapon systems. Yet none of this seems certain. Technologically, further advances in battery energy density (range), charging speed, sturdiness, and cost will elevate further the rationale for military electrification. Regarding the oil question, the strongest conclusion is that significant substitution of petroleum use by electricity is plausible within a decade or two, yet if this happens it will be borne more on the wings of hard, tactical advantage than concerns about emissions or even oil supply risk. To date, for instance, it does not appear that the Hormuz Crisis has moved the needle very much or at all. In the U.S., much depends on domestic politics. There has been little appetite in Washington to allow the world’s most advanced battery technology into the American market. The Army's specific targets set by its 2022 Climate Strategy—such as creating an all-electric light-duty, non-tactical vehicle fleet, some 60,000 vehicles—were cancelled in the early weeks of Trump 2.0. What tends to stand out in all of this is the measured pace of change. While the electrification of warfare has surged ahead, that of military mobility has taken small and moderate steps. Reasons are undoubtedly practical in part. Closing the gap in power density between what petroleum fuels and batteries can deliver is one key challenge, to be sure. Concerns about how hybrid and EV systems might survive in conflict situations are another. For non-tactical and tactical fleets alike, the issue of sufficient charging infrastructure looms particularly large. Then, for the U.S. and its allies, there are the not-so-minor problems of supply chain security and domestic industrial capacity regarding hybrid and battery technologies. None of these hills are insurmountable. But they won’t be climbed quickly. It has taken all of the 21st century for civilian transport to reach meaningful levels of electrification, even then facing headwinds in some countries. Though the challenges for the military are different, they may well need as much time to solve. For the time being, oil will continue to as a national security issue.