Jump to content
Damian90

M1 ECP1 upgrade and new diesel engine.

Recommended Posts

Replacement time for AGT-1500 and it's diesel analog MB873 is similiar, about 30 minutes max, MB883 should not be different here, and it is smaller than MB873.

That's interesting. The various system interfaces must be very well designed. When gas turbines replaced big radial ic engines in airliners, the downtime for an engine change dropped dramatically. And the radials were air-cooled. !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not - see my remarks in the other thread.

I'm amazed to read that you have to break the welding between the power unit and its heat exchanger. Does that mean that you need a welder to remake that joint once the new ECU is in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not quite sure about it anymore. I read it in an article by Rolf Hilmes who tends to report factual and with a no nonsense engineering attitude, but maybe he was referring to typical battle damage cases in Iraq where the heat exchanger got damaged along with the gas turbine. But if others say that it's possible, I won't ignore such a statement.

It may well be that if the gas turbine alone fails, that it can be swapped with ease just like the Leo engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no experience with gas turbines in land vehicles but I do know this. In 1995 at the London Boat Show I had my photo taken while cradling a 650shp gas turbine in my arms. I wasn't inclined to try the same thing with a MAN 650bhp diesel. This basic difference between the two type of power unit surely must swing things in favour of the GT when it comes to engine changes? If it doesn't then I can only think that the installation of the GT in the M1 is way 'below optimum'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit of hasty research suggests that the MI's engine is changed out as a self-contained ECU (Engine Change Unit), complete with heat exchanger. Could an actual U.S tanker confirm or deny please? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It worked for the T-80U.

What about acceleration? I wonder how it is affected. The gas turbine always had great acceleration. Thoughts?

Something new about M1 tanks ECP1 modernization and their "dieselization"

Video:

http://leanermoreagileabct.com/video/abrams_02.swf

Brochure:

http://leanermoreagileabct.com/pdfs/Abrams_brochure.pdf

As we can see in the brochure, there is first photo of modernized M1 turret, we can see that old fire control system components and vetronics, which were rather bulky, had been replaced by new, compact, lighter components. Both gunner and tank commander have new, multifunction LCD displays, we can see that for example commander display can show simultanously image from his CITV, gunner sight and also 360 degree observation cameras.

Gunner have new more compact fire control system components.

Details are in the brochure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It worked for the T-80U.

What about acceleration? I wonder how it is affected. The gas turbine always had great acceleration. Thoughts?

the 1650hp Europowerpack has a torque of about 5000Nm.

so it won't be accelerating as fast as with the turbine.

if the drop in acceleration will be noticeable, i dunno.

1650hp variant also obtains its power from a higher RPM, so the engine life might be poorer than the 1500hp variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait for coming months, it seems US Army si currently testing technology demonstrator with diesel, and perhaps they will share some data after tests will be finished.

Oh BTW, Cobra is right about T-80U, but it was not directly that they just switched to diesel and T-80UD was "born".

A history again. ;)

T-80UD was in fact designed somewhat in pararell with T-80U. It was a plan to limit a tank fleet (at least in active units) two only a single type of a tank, but with gas turbine and diesel. It would simplify logistics and reduce overall costs. So work had been separated between LKZ/KBTM for gas turbine T-80U and KMDB for diesel T-80UD. In the end however T-80UD was slightly more advanced, even if it's 6TD-1 diesel generated only 1000HP and T-880U's GTD-1250 gas turbine generated 1250HP. But T-80U currently is at the end of it's service life, why T-80UD further evolves on Ukraine. We had the whole T-84 series which is improved T-80UD with better protection, welded turret etc. And now final variant of T-84, the T-84BM "Oplot" (Oplot can translates as Fortress or Hold) is one of the most advanced from the T tanks series. In fact it's evolution did not ended, for example it is powered currently by 6TD-2 diesel generating 1200HP, but it is interim engine, as new 6TD-3 generating 1500HP is currently in development.

BM "Oplot" is also the best protected T tank (besides prototypes like Object 195, Object 477, Object 490 etc.), if it's "Duplet" ERA is still intact, forget about success, maybe besides hiting gun mantle or driver vision blocks that are obvious weak spots, or some other lucky shots. I doubt that even M829A3 or DM53 would be capable to do much harm to this tank after being "prepared" by "Duplet" ERA.

Ok end of history. ;)

But yeah, diesel is a good idea for M1, besides this, main reason why M1 was not that widespread, was concerns of many nations about it's gas turbine. M1 with diesel might actually be more attractive for clients and it can give a financial boost for GDLS and JSMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed. As far as I know, similiar ideas were tested in Soviet Union, but back then, due to lack of good computers to make proper calculations, made all experiments with linear shaped charge protection non successfull, but Ukrainians continuted their experiments and now they have whole family of such protection:

"Knife" and "Duplet" for main battle tanks and similiar heavy vehicle, as well as "Knife-L" and "Rakietka" for lightweight platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only chance that a diesel will end up in any M1 is if it is a 100% American made engine, made by the same employees that made the Turbine. Forget about any EURO made engine happening. No congress man will ever vote to support any deal that will cost a single job of one of their constituents. Or vote for any project that might move jobs to another state, never mind another country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MB883 Diesel engine is currently manufactured in USA on licence for Israeli Merkava Mk4 tanks.

So yes, MB883 is currently manufactured by American workers in USA.

I think that L-3 company is currently manufacturing it.

Yup, they had it as CPS883 in their offer.

http://www2.l-3com.com/cps/cps/cps_883.htm

Alternative is also manufactured by L-3, 1500HP version of AVDS-1790.

http://www2.l-3com.com/cps/cps/1500_hp.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If even the janitor at the factory that makes the turbines might loose His job it will not happen. If one job of the people that make the turbines, or spare parts, has to be moved to another state or terminated, it will not happen. No congress person will ever give their opponent ammunition to say "look He lost jobs in our state." Keeping the jobs in the USA is not enough. I don't see any congress person committing political suicide for a better M1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If even the janitor at the factory that makes the turbines might loose His job it will not happen. If one job of the people that make the turbines, or spare parts, has to be moved to another state or terminated, it will not happen. No congress person will ever give their opponent ammunition to say "look He lost jobs in our state." Keeping the jobs in the USA is not enough. I don't see any congress person committing political suicide for a better M1.

Heh, well, not upgrading the abrams just because not every part of the engine is manufactured in USA would actually be a loss of american jobs, as there would still be a need to modify the abrams tanks engine compartment to take this new powerpack.

it's just a matter of the perspective you take. and politicians are masters of wordtwisting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Honeywell actually do not manufactured new AGT-1500 for many years. All gas turbines are just rebuilds at ANAD. So new engine is a must really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honeywell contracts pertaining to the Abrams power plant. Source (influence explorer.com

2012 $15,215,731.94 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

TIGER ENGINE PROGRAM; ENGINE OVERHAUL SUPPORT AND FIELD SPARE SUPPORT.

2012 $72,449,572.65 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

TOTAL INTEGRATED ENGINE REVITALIZATION (TIGER) PROGRAM CONTRACT FOR THE SUSTAINMENT AND RESET OF 224 EACH AUTOMOTIVE GAS TURBINE (AGT) 1500 TIGER ENGINE EQUIVALENTS. THE TIGER PROGRAM SUPPORTS THE ABRAMS TANK PRODUCTION, ABRAMS DERIVATIVE VEHICLES AND ARMY STOCK SPARES.

2011 $72,764,287.56 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

PROCUREMENT OF 74 TIGER ENGINE EQUIVALENTS

2011 $114,891,669.34 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

DEFINITIZE PROGRAM YEAR 5 NOT-TO-EXCEED PRICING FOR TOTAL INTEGRATED ENGINE REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (TIGER). INCORPORATE 2 ENGINEERING WORK DIRECTIVES (EWDS).

2010 $93,391,753.29 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

TOTAL INTEGRATED ENGINE REVITALIZATION (TIGER) PROGRAM YEAR (PY) 5 AWARD. NOT-TO-EXCEED PRICING. UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTION (UCA).

http://honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Extends-Strategic-Relationship-With-The-US-Army-For-Support-Of-The-M1-Abrams-Main-Battle-Tank.aspx

L3 communications has several defense department contracts. I have found none pertaining to the Abrams power plant.

Lobbying money (opensecrets.org)

Honeywell INT. lobbying spent in 2012-2013-$13,730,000

l3 communications lobbying spent in 2012-2013-$4,300,000

Honeywell has the contracts and the lobbying power.

Edited by Brun
updated info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.peogcs.army.mil/documents/ABCT-Abrams.pdf

Some interesting informations.

It seems that M1A2SEPv2 production will continue through 2015, and the next variant of the M1, might have start in production even as early as 2016. WHat is more interesting is that they seems to not know what final designation it will receive, if it still be M1A2, or perhaps M1A3, so they use desgination M1A SEPv3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/documents/ABCT-Abrams.pdf

Some interesting informations.

It seems that M1A2SEPv2 production will continue through 2015, and the next variant of the M1, might have start in production even as early as 2016. WHat is more interesting is that they seems to not know what final designation it will receive, if it still be M1A2, or perhaps M1A3, so they use desgination M1A SEPv3.

I think the M1A2 SEPv2 with a Diesel Engine should be M1A4.

New variants could be labelled the M1A5.

Reserve the M1A3 designation for retro fitted Diesel M1A1s.

That way you can have the M1A1(HA) become the M1A3(HA).

But then I have a logical mind.

The US DoD less so. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like they stopped putting the CROWS on top if the doghouse; nice improvement.

?? When, where? Nothing such happened, and CROWS is definetely improvement over flex mount for HMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no CROWS on photo, it is just standard flex mount in such position that it's creates visual illusion. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

But I hope the diesel is as powerful, in terms of acceleration as the Gas turbine

One of the best features of the M1 is its acceleration and top speed.

The AGT1500 is old. They are rebuilt many times over in some cases and the maintenance issues are because of simple wear and tear, just like the cost is because many of the components need re-manufactured with the original vendors long gone. With the cancellation of the LV, the only long term viable option if this tank is to remain in service is a diesel/COTT.

Comparing apples to apples, you cannot beat a turbine. Most of the idiotic crap you read about diesel to turbine comparisons are where diesels 30 years newer in design are compared to a turbine that is essentially late 1970s with exception of a digital motor management unit. The LV would have brought in a near 25% "overall" fuel savings, and this turbine would have used near 1/2 the fuel in idle, the old AGT's weakness (albeit we added an APU early on to deal with that). Furthermore, these comparisons are almost all out of context, since the US runs a less energy dense fuel (JP-8) where consumption will go up, and the M1 tends to be slightly heavier (historically). Finally, it must be noted the the "efficiency" argument of the turbine is true, as long as we're talking about sitting in idle. The turbine sucks fuel to stay running, while a diesel will sip fuel, but start loading both motors down, and the turbines fuel consumption only gradually increases, while the diesel sees a dramatic increase in consumption under load.

The turbine advantages include a lighter and potentially smaller power pack. The power producing component of the turbine is actually a very small and light unit (most of what you see is air handling ducts, and a re-cooperator), and there is essentially no cooling system (radiator, water, pumps) required, making a turbine smaller and lighter. The turbine is generally quieter, develops its power more rapidly, is more tolerant to extreme climates (It really doesn't care about the arctic cold or Saudi heat), it has a low power demand to start (you can literally jump start a turbine with a HMMWV), off the high pressure you get cool air (not great, but some A/C), you can run part of an NBC system or easily incorporate an NBC decon system (The Russians use to have a turbine based decon unit). The turbine is in all reality "less complex" with "less moving parts" then the diesels (another common misnomer) that in order to be small, light and potent are squeezed. A turbine because of the high volume of air can be great in generating smoke screens. Again, a diesel can do that too (So does the M2), but not like a turbine. The M1 once had that, but the JP-8 fuel caused the temp to go up on the exhaust and it was a fire hazard. The smoke system wasn't designed for JP-8 originally. Diesels are NOT the multi fuel engines they are made out as. Sure, they will run JP4, JP8, Diesel and some other fuels that are all similar. However, unlike the turbine that can run on Vodka (literally), unleaded/leaded regular automotive fuel, or even perfume/ethanol (no kidding); the diesel is more fuel sensitive (compression based) vs. the turbine (thermal - if it burns it'll work, it might smoke like mad, but it'll work). A turbine can easily produce water from air, yes that sounds crazy but it's true. The turbine can essentially pull moisture from the air, providing water (as long as the engine runs/produces heat) even in a desert there is water in the air. There is a laundry list of potential advantages in having a turbine, but it's all moot in an era of budget cuts where there will be no initial investment to develop a new power pack and deal with all the up front costs in phasing this in.

Surely the MTU diesel will be fine (bring the power and be reliable), but it's some of the potential sideline benefits of having a turbine that are lost in this equation. Basically, it's all the other nice to have things a turbine can do (Not just HP and torque), that make it so attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At last - a knowledgeable analysis of a tricky subject. Thanks.

One question: there are a number of modern 1200/1500shp turbines in service in 'propjet' aircraft and helicopters. Wouldn't one of those be a good replacement for the existing unit?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...