Assassin 7 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Here is a link: http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theGUNSLINGER Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 i tried link not working 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 i tried link not working I guess they closed the site down. :confused: just noticed it earlier when searching the web 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brun Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I read it. Better fuel economy, less logistics needed, but a bit slower for the M1A3. I wonder if they will have an American engine or go with the German diesels like in the leopards, and how much slower? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 That webpage is from at least 2005. I don't think it's going to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Yeah, I was reading the comments underneath. Sounds like the logistics/cost of switching wouldn't be worth the benefit. Here's a sample:Diesel switch not so simple The decision to buy a turbine engine tank was a political decision. The Army had intended to select the GM version, which had a diesel engine. However, at the eleventh hour, The DepSecDef apparently ordered the Sec Army to reverse the decision and select the Chrysler version, which had the gas turbine engine. You may recall that, at the time, Chrysler was in serious financial difficulty. Indeed, it is arguable that had Chrysler not been able to later sell their tank unit to General Dynamics for $650 million, they might havegone bankrupt. As for converting the M1 to a diesel engine, not so fast. When the M1 was first fielded in the Germany, there were serious operability problems during the winter months due to diesel fuel waxing that plugged the turbine engine fuel filters. The Army's solution to the problem was to convert to the use of JP-8, which became available at the time due to efforts by the Air Force and Army aviation to eliminate JP-4. The Army now runs nearly all of it's TO&E equipment on JP-8. That said, conversion to a diesel engine powered tank would, in my mind, suggest another fuel conversion as the diesel tank engine would certainly perform better running on diesel fuel. Thus the price of poker is not merely an engine replacement program, but also conversion of a major portion of the Army and Defense Logistics Agency's petroleum infrastructure/ war reserve fuel stocks as well. How many USMC spaces do you suggest we give up to pay for that? Steve Bliss BG, USA (Ret) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 That webpage is from at least 2005. I don't think it's going to happen. I think it will maybe in a few years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 Umm yeah http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2012/10/22/general-dynamics-land-systems-features-medium-tracked-concept-vehicle-at-ausa-press-release/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[]_--__[]KITT Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 About time the Abrams is a logistical nightmare in very big, extended, full scale war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Umm yeah http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2012/10/22/general-dynamics-land-systems-features-medium-tracked-concept-vehicle-at-ausa-press-release/It doesn't say that the army will actually purchase it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 27, 2012 Members Share Posted October 27, 2012 That webpage is from at least 2005. I don't think it's going to happen.This one is from the AUSA 2012 convention.Also National Defense Magazine and Defense News blog.(FlatTax reported these). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's amazing that an article of that length is able to contain almost nothing of any meaningful information. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLabor Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 This one is from the AUSA 2012 convention.Also National Defense Magazine and Defense News blog.(FlatTax reported these).On the side of the article from janes.com.:shocked:http://www.ihs.com/imageDisplay.ashx?ID=5660034"Stryker strong"?! They should stop smoking weed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 "Stryker strong"?!"Army Strong" is the US Army's marketing catch phrase at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLabor Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I fully understand that it's fairly common for any US military products.But stryker and strong are paradoxical. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 "Army Strong- Stryker Strong"... Damn... They should paint that tracked "Stryker" blaze red to match so smart promo slogan. Just a humble opinion of WH40K addict... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's better than their previous slogan: "Army of One".Also found this: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/139615/honeywell-wins-$221m-to-support-tank-engine.htmlLike I said before, not happening... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 On the side of the article from janes.com.:shocked:http://www.ihs.com/imageDisplay.ashx?ID=5660034"Stryker strong"?! They should stop smoking weed...A Stryker with tracks?? Riiiight.I thought the point of a Stryker was it has WHEELS.Or am I missing something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 From what I understand they have developed this diesel Abrams on their own in an attempt to sell it to the Army or someone else. I don't think a contract went out for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 29, 2012 Members Share Posted October 29, 2012 A Stryker with tracks?? Riiiight.I thought the point of a Stryker was it has WHEELS.Or am I missing something?You're missing the glorious tradition of moving goal posts with the Stryker program. It started as the C-130 air mobile division that could be brought in to any rough airstrip in the world. Based on that fantasy they ordered a full seven Brigade Combat Teams worth of equipment even before all the test results were in. Only then it was that they realized that even the lightest variant of the whole vehicle fleet with almost no ammo and fuel loaded could only be transported a mere 100 miles at sea level ... so the Pentagon simply declared that air mobility never was an important development goal - just like a teenage boy denying to his buddies that he was ever interested in that knock-out blonde who just gave him a brush-off.Yeah, riiiight. :cul: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 From what I understand they have developed this diesel Abrams on their own in an attempt to sell it to the Army or someone else. I don't think a contract went out for this.From the pic caption -"General Dynamics unveiled a tracked version of its Stryker DVH vehicle at the AUSA 2012 exhibition as a potential contender for the US Army's AMPV requirement."M113 replacement. Sparky's head would probably explode... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 From the pic caption -"General Dynamics unveiled a tracked version of its Stryker DVH vehicle at the AUSA 2012 exhibition as a potential contender for the US Army's AMPV requirement."M113 replacement. Sparky's head would probably explode...Sooo, another box on tracks to replace a box on tracks?Are these procurement types bored or something? :cul:Why don't we mix it up a little and make it a box on wheels? Oh wait, they've done that already and called it a "Truck/MRAP":biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Well this time its a box on narrow tracks so it looks like it will be useless in mud, snow or basically anywhere off bitumen (which sort of makes you wonder why they bothered). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 30, 2012 Members Share Posted October 30, 2012 Still (probably) as good or better in tactical mobility than an MRAP or Stryker which, strangely enough, are considered adequate, apparently...:confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Adequate = moves under its own power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.