Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

I think the M26/46/47 progression counts, counting the petrol and diesel 1790's separately gets you 3.

 

T-80 with the diesel are another example, as are the diesel M3 lights - stretch it to include the sloped hull as on M5, and that's 3 engines on the light tank with the twin cadillac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The late M1 prototypes (not the old XM1) were capable of mounting the AGT-1500 gas turbine and AVCR-1360 diesel, until they eventually settled for the former.

EMSUu0l.jpg
 
^--- The two tanks on the right showcase the different engine compartment covers.
 
There was even an attempt to create a transversely-mounted AGT-1500, called the AGT-1500 TMEPS, to free some space in the engine compartment.
 
 
The M1A1 CATTB was supposed to mark a return to Diesel with the XAP-1000 engine. You can see it on this picture of the CATTB, which lacks the turbine exhaust grille.
 
TJfBpmv.jpg
 
And this document here: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 alleges that the AIPS diesel engine (the XAP-1000 or the LV/100 by GE/Textron-Lycoming) was successfully integrated into the CATTB in FY1992 (cf p.262 in PDF reader), so it must've at least gone past the paper or mockup stage.
 
However, the Thumper, a CATTB variant lacking its predecessor's turret appliques and tassel-type heat-concealing side skirts, reverted back to the AGT, as seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&t=96
As you can see, the exhaust grille is the regular one found on AGT-1500-equipped models.
 
The Germans did some work adapting the MTU 12V880 (a MTU 12V883?) on the M1A2 SEP, but IIRC they had to give up some of the torsion bars to accomodate this diesel engine. Can't remember exactly.
 
 
 
Right now USAR is codeveloping with Achates Power a new opposed-piston, two-stroke Diesel engine for a certain range of vehicles, which includes the Abrams (there is a 1,500HP variant of the said engine).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't seem to feel a disturbance in the force, Colli.

 

Anyway, the Leopard 2 was, at one point, tested with the AGT-1500 gas turbine (according to Krapke)...and, as expected, the Maschinenbau-Kiel engineers went "ach, hölle nein!" when they realized the high fuel consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5.10.2017 at 1:05 AM, Renegade334 said:

Anyway, the Leopard 2 was, at one point, tested with the AGT-1500 gas turbine (according to Krapke)...and, as expected, the Maschinenbau-Kiel engineers went "ach, hölle nein!" when they realized the high fuel consumption.

 

Well, they never tested a proper tank. They wanted the option of swapping the diesel engine and the AGT-1500 gas turbine whenever required, which proved to be too difficult.

3vDATRL.png

 

Btw. according to Shephardmedia's AUSA coverage, the M1A2 might get a new gun in the future. So much regarding "Abrams doesn't need a new gun, DU is soooo super!"...

 

Quote

According to O’Toole, the US Army has prioritised armouring vehicles, rather than arming them.

‘From a protection point of view, the trade-off is always the usual size, weight and power issue. How do you increase power without limiting speed? That means you’ve got to invest in R&D in armour, at the same time you’ve got to invest it in proportion with associated technologies like active protection systems,’ he added.

According to O’Toole, what the major programmes are geared towards is presenting a number of options to the commanders, giving the army variety within the same vehicles.

He said that the US army is exploring the use of different cannons, especially on the Abrams as it would like to move towards using some more powerful ammunitions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

So much regarding "Abrams doesn't need a new gun, DU is soooo super!"...

 

Let me take that chip off your shoulder, it looks really heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAIC/ST Kinetics/CMI have confirmed they are competing for MPF with a NGAFV hull + Cockerill 3105 turret.

 

IMO theirs and GDLS are weaker contenders because they are IFV hulls fitted with larger guns instead of purpose built (and thus more efficient) designs.

 

I am also willing to bet money the army is leaning towards a 105mm gun, based on the interest in 105mm multipurpose ammunition that I don't feel the M1128 would warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM: why wouldn't anyone jump at the prospect of getting, say, an XM291 or XM360E1 over the old M256? The XM360E1 is noticeably lighter and can withstand higher pressures, and that's a welcome addition, knowing that the A2 SEP keeps getting heavier and heavier with each new version (in spite of the concurrent weight-cutting efforts) and that future shells are likely to use even more powerful propellants.

 

The M1 always had several gun upgrades (the XM291 in both 120mm and 140mm variants, and the XM360E1) in the pipeline, but financial issues and political turnabouts always got in the way of that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it can. Just a matter of guidance.

 

Of course, its potential would be limited to low-flying aircraft or helicopters, but it can be done. And it's not like it is unfeasible or hasn't actually been achieved already: in the early 2000s, an Israeli AH-64 claimed the first air-to-air Hellfire kill in Lebanon, when it shot down a tresspassing and non-complying Cessna. If a chopper can do it, why not a ground vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

I thought that it had fallen out already in favor of just putting stingers on top a regular Stryker.

 

They haven't said what SHORAD system they are going to go with, other ones demonstrated at White Sands include the K30 and Iron Dome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K30 would be interesting.  I assume they're going with the version with guns and missiles, but would they be putting it on a 'new' chassis (Bradley or Stryker) or would the whole K30 unit be used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I am also willing to bet money the army is leaning towards a 105mm gun, based on the interest in 105mm multipurpose ammunition that I don't feel the M1128 would warrant.

IMI will also present in AUSA this year a 105mm derivative of its 120mm "Hatzav" M339 shell, which was hailed as a flexible but simpler (and much cheaper) munition than the APAM.

Because seriously who has the time to choose between 2 different air burst types?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side clearance definitely requires a closer look by the engineers - these sponson-like things look like they're begging to snag onto something while the tank's maneuvering around.

 

Anyway, I wonder if they can still fit ARAT-2 tiles on the turret. Some might say they're redundant, but they're meant to ward off EFPs and I'm not sure whether Trophy can perform EFP-on-EFP intercepts. Additionally, the HV adds 820kg to the turret - no wonder TARDEC has been having some concerns about turret performance and balance.

 

EDIT - all credits go to Damian90 on AW forums, dunno where he got the pics from in the first place

 

Stryker with pesticide dispensers Iron Curtain:

1GAqeCZ.jpg
Spoiler

0Rkk7n2.jpg

 

M2A4, ADS variant:

viPFa02.jpg
HfVSmHl.jpg
 
Stryker with Stinger missiles added to its CROWS RWS:
rY7WDfW.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×