|
|
|
Hard Charger
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:53 PM
Posts: 2,357,
Visits: 2,448
|
|
The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a major problem for CSS as well as a budget problem for the Army. The US is the only tank operator in the world using the gas turbine. Its time to make the switch. Currently 25% of the Army's annual maintanence budget is earmarked for keeping the gas turbine operational.Another 25% goes to maintaining the tank. Fuel is about 70% of the
tonnage needed to position the Army in the field. If the Abram's was 50% more fuel efficient the buildup of forces would be 20% faster.
The Abram's uses about 3 gallons per mile about 3 times more than a diesel. By switching to diesel the tank would triple its range. The infra-red heat signature is about 1000 degrees or 4 times more than a diesel. By eliminating this would lower this signature and improve the survivability of the tank.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 6/10/2006 7:52 AM
Posts: 4,296,
Visits: 382
|
|
tomahawk6
why has this not been addressed before? Surely someone must have caught these facts when the tank was first bring produced? Lower heat signature, triple the range, and faster? There has to be a reason they didn't go with diesel in the first place.
Make The Voices Stop!
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:53 PM
Posts: 2,357,
Visits: 2,448
|
|
| The tank was designed in the 70's and fuel was cheaper than it is today.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 2:50 PM
Posts: 2,950,
Visits: 5,061
|
|
And it could also be that tactically when going up against equal fire-control technology that speed can make the difference between victory and defeat.
As far as I know currently the M1A1 Abrams is the fasted heavy tank in the world's armory with a top road speed of 45 MPH and a top cross country speed of 30 MPH. The next fastest goes somewhere around 36 MPH for roads and 24 MPH for cross country.
The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust.
It took almost 15 years from drawing board to roll-out for the M1A1 . . . it has proven itself over and over again and I don;t look for a replacement in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 9/1/2008 10:22 AM
Posts: 8,428,
Visits: 7,503
|
|
Alejake,
I'm sure many of our M1A2's in Iraq have had the governors removed from their engines just like the last time so your top speed data is slightly incorrect... they're much faster.[ ]
"The degenerative and loony should never be denigrated but, rather, thanked. In their absence, the rest of you would be obliged to fill congressional seats... positions naturally unsavory to the sane and honorable." Thorax
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:53 PM
Posts: 2,357,
Visits: 2,448
|
|
SN, I will name 2 tanks that are as good as the Abrams.They are the Challenger2 and the Merkava.
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm
http://www.army.mod.uk/2rtr/2rtr_today/challenger_2_tank/
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/1/2007 5:21 PM
Posts: 392,
Visits: 100
|
|
how about the Black Eagle?
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 2:50 PM
Posts: 2,950,
Visits: 5,061
|
|
Sorry, . . the specs released for the Challenger 2 . . The Abrams will run past it and run circles around it. While it may have better armor . . I would put my money on the Abrams.
The Black Eagle and the Merkov . . . they don't disclose top road or off-road speeds, but based on HP to weight ratios the experts still give the edge to the Abrams.
Not sure why one would try to put down a battle tested war horse such as the Abrams. I haven't read anything but good reviews from the experts like Janes to the troops that have to take the field in them.
|
|
|
| | |