Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

and from this page http://achatespower.com/achates-power-and-cummins-develop-leap-ahead-capability-for-the-us-army-ground-combat-fleet/ some info on this engine:


A joint development team from Achates Power and Cummins Corporate Research and Technology has been running at full throttle for over a year to develop an opposed-piston Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) for the U.S. Army.  The engine is part the US Army’s 30-year strategy to modernize tactical and combat vehicles.

After several years of technology demonstrations and an intense competition, the Army kicked off the path to production by selecting the Achates Power / Cummins team last summer.  This $47.4 million contract through the National Advanced Mobility Consortium propels the 1000 HP 4-cylinder ACE variant to Technology Readiness Level 6, which will make it suitable for in-vehicle and real-world testing.

In March, our single-cylinder test asset passed an aggressive 80-hour durability test; and, the Army displayed a scale model of the engine at the Association of the United States Army’s Global Force Symposium and Exposition in Huntsville, Alabama.

Several big milestones are coming up:

  • October 2018: A full-scale show model of the engine will be on display at the 2018 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition.
  • November 2018: The joint Achates Power and Cummins development team will present initial engine testing results to the Army.
  • Mid-2019: The ACE engine will present a technology demonstrator – TRL 6 (Technology Readiness Level).
  • Mid-2020: Demonstration in a US Army combat vehicle.

There is a lot of work to be done.  The funding that the Army has planned will deliver Low Rate Initial Production of the first ACE variant in 2022. To fully realize the benefits of this architecture we’ve started plans for additional variants, and we are working with the platform teams and military OEMs to make sure that spiral insertion is primed as the variants come on line.  All of this while focusing on and flawlessly executing the ACE program.

A powerpack featuring the ACE engine will deliver double the power density of any existing Military-off-the-shelf powerpack at half the cost.  This kind of capability does not currently exist, and will enable vehicle optimization for survivability, package, range, and lethality that has previously never been possible.  Until the selection of the Achates Power / Cummins team, the Army has not had a plan to feasibly execute such a game-changing engine.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Griffin II that is GDLS's MPF contender has the modified Abrams turret and a 105mm gun.


The 50mm gun on the Griffin III can elevate to 85 and depress to -20 degrees. It's GVW is just under 40 tons. The hexagonal camo tiles are called called Tacticam and are made by Armorworks. The turret's size is a result of the 50mm ammo. The turret is also equipped with Iron Fist APS, Switchblades and an MX-GCS sight.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

to best of my ability


Key Considerations
- Modularity to support reconfigurable platform
- Growth
- Redundancies and safety
- Reliability

- Armament 50 mm, optional 30 mm
- Modular turret
- World-class fire control
- ATGM Capable
- Stabilized COAX weapon
- Integrated loitering UAS (ISR / Lethal munitions)

Synthesizes Army Desires
- Open architecture & power for growth over time
- 2-3 person crew, 5-6 person squad
- Evolution of Griffin I & II focused on adaptability


- Designed to operate in complex urban and restrictive terrain

- Scalable protection for multi-domain operations
- Integrated Active Protection System (APS)


Strategic Transport
- 2 RORO on C-17


Edited by skylancer-3441
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:

      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
  • Create New...