Should the U.S. Army buy a hybrid tank? - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should the U.S. Army buy a hybrid tank? (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:36:12 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So if you use them hybrid batteries for maneuvering, doesn't that leave you a bit short on power then when shut down and using batteries for turret, ISU, radios, etc...? Doesn't sound like a good idea in practice.

If the hybrid system was programmed anything like a Prius, it would probably switch over to JP8 at about 5 or 6 miles per hour, and even less than that on a slope or unpaved surfaces.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:36:37 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
So if you use them hybrid batteries for maneuvering, doesn't that leave you a bit short on power then when shut down and using batteries for turret, ISU, radios, etc...? Doesn't sound like a good idea in practice.

Why not just use the diesel for maneuvering and then switch to electric when in place?

According to the article though, the main benefit for the electric is when it iss used in conjunction with the diesel motor, the vehicle can accelerate super fast.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:37:51 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

.

We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

They are going back to carrying 9 instead of 7 in the track. Its just a larger vehicle all around. Plus I have not seen anyting concerning atgm launchers, so there will be no space taken up by reloads for it.

I think this is where the IFV, packing in troops, weaponization, and utilitarianism starts to screw up the conversation. The day dreamers want to pack 10 dudes into an Abrams, have it pull scouting duty, engage MBT's, shoot down helicopters, fit inside a Chinook and weight 20 tons, and be able to float made out of unobtainium.

This is why Pentagon Wars is so ludicrous, because it's a bunch of out of touch Generals, checking boxes off their wish list and ending up with an APC that can't carry troops, a tank that can't fight tanks.

At some point the APC armed with a TRT .50cal to 25MM and a co-ax M240, is going to have to sit behind the IFV/AFVs who sit behind and next to the MBT's and have enough room to hold 8-10 guys with their gear, and still take some hits that it isn't expecting.

The only thing that is going to foot the bill is something based on an MBT sized chassis.

That was the Bradley. What a mess that became.

Edit:

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:46:17 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:47:37 AM EDT

[#5]

Tanks are heavy enough as it is. Imagine how much more it would be with the batteries installed.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:47:41 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
THat was the Bradley. What a mess that became.

Maybe they can name this new one the Bradley II in honor of the previous clusterfuck.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:48:12 AM EDT

[#7]

The "silent mode" benefit is a non-starter with today's battery tech, isn't it?

Silent mode for all of what? 100 yards? What's the benefit of a "silent" tank that can't remain silent long enough to sneak anywhere?

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:48:33 AM EDT

[#8]

I'd be all for anything that our military could use to kick ass, without the "supply" issues related to oil/fuel. BUt, I'd want it to actually work at LEAST as well as what they currently have, and would prefer it work even better.

But not just for the sake of "doing it" or tossing money at some "green" company.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:48:51 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:53:41 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:54:35 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Nope, M1's a gas turbine... Yeah, our MBT is an armored jet.

People who don't see better fuel economy as a big seller have never planned combined operations.

My understanding that quite a few of the locomotives are diesel turbine as well. For trains at least, the hybrid transition equals a better way to handle power and traction - but ultimately multiple locomotives make for a more complicated transmission than a track.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:11:35 AM EDT

[#12]

Here's a video on the 3P round.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:12:33 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:13:48 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.

Does the 25mm have programmable rounds?

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:15:14 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:18:01 AM EDT

[#16]

This is all you need to know to figure out how much white gas those guys were huffing...

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:28:22 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.

A 40mm could also probably be used for situations where TOWs would otherwise be used.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:30:05 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

A 40mm can hold a proximity fuse, and enough HE to make it worth it. We should be using 40mm.

Is this a want or an actual need?

Meanwhile, our own SPG's have a sorry rate of fire that I shudder if our boys were to engage in a real live artillery duel with an enemy that has actual on par equipment or better, and every time we were going to fix that, each system get's canned, and no dedicated SPAAG system. Yet here we are, with a newer Bradley fiasco monster.

Priorities, we haz none of it.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:32:53 AM EDT

[#19]

Considering proximity fusing was important enough that they tried to get that capability to the Infantry, I don't think we should be arguing it doesn't make sense for mechanized units.

Is it a NEED? Well, define need. We could continue with the 25, or we could move forward with a better system at the same time as we get a new chassis.

WRT artillery, don't get me started. The Euros and South Africans have us beaten by two generations on tube artillery.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:33:06 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
What I want to see is when the libs come up with a solar powered Battleship... err I mean solar Littoral Combat Ship

We have a wind powered warship. It is docked in Boston Harbor.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:36:54 AM EDT

[#21]

Diesel/electric "hybrid" technology has been used by the railroads for nearly a century now. However i can picture the pentagon picking a design that is revolutionary and completly ignores that century of knowledge and experience. We will end up with 20 years of development and trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet to reinvent tech that is on the tracks right now.

Dont take my pessimissim as a statement that i think hybrid tech shouldnt be applied to tanks, ifv, etc... Hybrid tech is out there and up to the task and can lower the logistics train of our military. It's just that i think the design, testing and production will be one huge boondoggle and i am tired of seeing the tax dollars wasted.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:40:25 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.

what difference does it make if it is not a tank? It will still be engaged by EFP's RPG-29, atgm, etc. So armor the damn thing to deal with the threats it will realistically face. The Brad is 30 tons and for 10 years we have been bolting on additional armor as new threats emerge . Just so you know the bare bones model of GCV is 53 tons, it goes to 70 with additional armor packages installed.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:45:21 AM EDT

[#23]

70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:52:11 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We shouldn't need to upgrade the next IFV's main gun, as the 25mm fires the silver bullets too. I for one swear by that gun, because I was never a believer in a 25mm until Iraq, 2003. The logistics alone to move/support an even bigger IFV would be crazy. Woe to the Motor SGT's on that one. Can you imagine introducing a totally new system, and having teething issues like every new item does, and having to unfuck an 026 print for these beasts? Yikes, do not want.

Going to a 40mm gives a much larger selection of shells for the gun, not to mention increased range and lethality. The bradley has served well, but it is getting long in the tooth and is ready to replaced with a new chassis that has been designed with the networking needs and additional armor. Maybe, we will eventually see a new mlrs built on a heavier chassis.

All cool an all, but you still have to stick some infantry in there. A bigger round means more space being taken away.

+1

The 25mm round in the Bushmaster chain gun is a proven winner that kicks serious ass for what it is. Switching to a 40mm takes up more room. Is the performance upgrade worth it?

Yes. 40mm is in a different league.

How so? The 25mm was killing tanks with it's silver bullets back in 2003.

I'm not talking about the AP effects.

The 40mm allows for programmable HE rounds like the 3P, which makes the gun effective against infantry behind cover as well as helicopters.

Have you seen a 25mm in action against dismounts behind cover? Aircraft engagement need's to have a dedicated platform as well to provide the air cover as well as to keep up with the maneuvering units. Let the infantry do their thing, and not worry about threats that are not in their lanes. We're losing focus here.

From 30 plus tons to 70 plus tons, is incredulous. I'm all for the real armor, meaning steel, and to get our boys what they need, but this isn't a tank. The gun should be able to kill other IFV's, and it can since what we have now can obviously say 'bye to tanks now.

what difference does it make if it is not a tank? It will still be engaged by EFP's RPG-29, atgm, etc. So armor the damn thing to deal with the threats it will realistically face. The Brad is 30 tons and for 10 years we have been bolting on additional armor as new threats emerge . Just so you know the bare bones model of GCV is 53 tons, it goes to 70 with additional armor packages installed.

One Bradley took not one, not two, not even just three, but seven RPG hits, and kept rolling along, no casualties. The Stryker has actually saved lives, and we have MRAP's like the RG-33, a success story.

Listen, I'm not against this entirely, but what we have on hand is good for now, and should be eventually replaced. That is a want, a real world want that will eventually be a real need. But what we actually need is a SPG that can go toe to toe against a modern equivalent threat, and a SPAAG that can actually engage fast movers and armored gunship beasts with a system like that 40mm. We all know how SGT York became an abysmal failure, and the M7 Linebacker was an adhoc joke by replacing the TOW's with measly FIM-92's, and not even a radar for the 25mm to find, track, and kill with.

The SGT York was a disaster. The M7 was a laughable joke, and the Avenger was meant for light infantry divisions. We had a newer missile system that could kill all airborne threats and tanks, they killed it. We had a newer Chapparal design on a Bradley chassis that carried AIM'9's and hellfires, for both threats, they said no. WTF.

We had the Crusader, and Dumbsveld said no. We had the XM1203, and they said no. WTF.

WE have a Bradley, it still works great, and they want a replacement. WTF.

AND, our uniforms are a gucci jealous impulse joke to be like the Marines, when the BDU worked. Multicam should be the one, and to stop wasting more money we don't have on a newer replacement. This shit makes you want to scream.

But we wantz a newer IFV.

The Pentagon and TACOM needs to unfuck their heads from their fifth point of contact.

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:52:41 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:53:10 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?

Posted: 5/29/2013 9:55:37 AM EDT

[#27]

70 ton bloated Bradley... holy fail, Batman!

Posted: 5/29/2013 12:48:23 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.

For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?

Posted: 5/29/2013 1:03:53 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.

For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?

Lol-I drove a 548 with the TACJAM (AN/MLQ-17) shelter on the back with an incredible top speed of almost 25 mph completely floored. It was so gutless and overweight that the turret ring never saw the planned M2 mounted, and it would literally take three or four seconds of flooring the gas pedal before it would even move.

On the plus side, it did have A/C and 120V outlets inside, so you could have microwaved popcorn in the field.

Posted: 5/29/2013 1:19:37 PM EDT

[#30]

An idea whose time has come: The Bolo

Although I think a 175% scale Ontos would work better.

Posted: 5/29/2013 1:27:34 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/28/should-the-u-s-army-buy-a-hybrid-tank/

introducing the new prius MBT. " its, for the children".

Posted: 5/29/2013 2:05:46 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Now, you probably wouldn’t boast about the acceleration or the stealth of your Toyota Prius...

I was boasting about the stealth of my hybrid Camry two days ago. It's fun to sneak up on pedestrians in a parking lot then blare the horn right behind them.

Stealth is one thing a hybrid industry does offer the military. Lockheed Martin had some interesting prototypes for the Army back in the late 1990s when I worked for them. We had several hybrid Humvees, a couple of hybrid deuce and a halfs and a pair of hybrid Oshkosh heavy transports. All offered battery-only operation and the Army guys really liked being able to drive silently for the 100 miles range battery only operation allowed. And all of those vehicles could be used as stationary generators when they weren't being driven.

Since then I have not heard anything about those vehicles. I would imagine that the hybrid Humvees would be something that could have entered production for use by scout units. But so far nothing I've heard points to anything besides hybrid buses being built using the Lockheed Martin's technology.

Posted: 5/29/2013 2:08:36 PM EDT

[#33]

Hägglunds developed a hybrid IFV, the SEP.

It wasn't purchased by anyone, despite showing great promise.

Posted: 5/29/2013 2:17:22 PM EDT

[#34]

I'm still looking for the hybrid tank

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:12:25 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

70 tons is OK for a MBT.

70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?

What support does a IFV that is as heavy as a MBT, but with less armor, and less firepower, provide?

The whole point of a IFV is that you sacrifice armor and firepower for mobility and troop capacity.

In the end, its still going to be vulnerable, modern ATM are very powerful, cheap, and plentiful.

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:28:13 PM EDT

[#36]

If the Army does adopt a hybrid IFV, they'll have to pay an additional tax if they operate them in North Carolina.

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:31:09 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

So if the two are supposed to be working with each other why does your IFV need to be more mobile than your MBT?

At 70T sharing a common chassis have the some level of mobility?

Especially when you are artificially governing the mobility level of your MBT?

What support does a IFV that is as heavy as a MBT, but with less armor, and less firepower, provide? it saves the crew when it hits a mine or large IED

The whole point of a IFV is that you sacrifice armor and firepower for mobility and troop capacity. In what way is the bradley in anyway more mobile than a modern mbt?

In the end, its still going to be vulnerable, modern ATM are very powerful, cheap, and plentiful. Less so than a 30 ton version

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:35:31 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Nice edit at the end to clarify it's not a tank. How about those liberal douch's have a Janes on them or at least bite the politicaly BS bullet and hire vets to help unfuck their reports for them, so they don't go looking like retards as usual. Surprised it wasn't called a Bushmaster tank as well, FFS.

On topic, 70 tons is massive for an IFV, WTF.

They Bradley does use a Bushmaster

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:38:56 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
$29B?

It seems that the Bradley can hold out a few more years while GD or BAE can design a common chassis for about 95% of our tracked vehicles.

An MBT, IFV, APC, AAA, SPA, EOD, MLRS, recovery, breacher, bridgelayer, the Abrams chassis fills about 4-5 roles now, and there are concepts for others.

Add in an IFV, APC AAA, SPA and it would fill most of the Army's larger system deficiencies.

So what you are sayin is that we need a F-35 type program for the Abrams replacement.

YES

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:42:02 PM EDT

[#40]

As an ex-tanker I say no.
Tanks need to be reliable, tough as hell and compact as possible. I do not see a hybrid being able to meet this criteria.

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:42:29 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.

For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?

I always thought of a '548 as a sort of super-sized van on tracks. In the FA, the M109 or M110 was "the gun". The only other vehicle we didn't refer to by it's number was the '577. To us, it was the FDC track.

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:49:33 PM EDT

[#42]

So the bitch has 2 drivers?

Posted: 5/29/2013 3:49:51 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If the Army does adopt a hybrid IFV, they'll have to pay an additional tax if they operate them in North Carolina.

But they'll be able to drive 'em in the HOV lanes in Portland or Frisco without getting ticketed.

Posted: 5/29/2013 5:35:16 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I spent my entire career Mechanized, in general terms we called them "Tracks", as in "The POL shed is behind those tracks over there." When referring to a specific vehicle type, we used the model number, as in "Go find the Lt in the 577 and tell him we need the 88 to pull the XO's 113 out of the mud." Anyone who was Mech would understand that perfectly.

For me, the 577 will always be "The 113 with the Jed Clampett add on"

True, but what about the 548? And didn't the Army nix the NLOS Cannon? Wasn't that supposed to be diesel / electric hybrid with all rubber tracks?

I always thought of a '548 as a sort of super-sized van on tracks. In the FA, the M109 or M110 was "the gun". The only other vehicle we didn't refer to by it's number was the '577. To us, it was the FDC track.

We called it the "FDC Track" as well, long with this beauty the "VTR"

And this sexy pig, the "CATV" or "FAASV", I had one spontaneously discharge it's Halon fire suppression on me, with all the hatches closed. When it did all the power shut off and the lights went out. You try finding the side hatch, in the dark while holding your breath.

Posted: 5/29/2013 6:12:20 PM EDT

[#45]

^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.

Posted: 5/29/2013 7:32:24 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?

Isrealis designed the Merkava as a primarily a defensive weapon. Their tactics also support this. They are not going to be carrying out major operations outside their borders so being able to transport their armor over long distances is not a major consideration.
Our armor on the other hand has to be able to operate in many different theaters. We have to consider roads and bridges not just in the Middle East but worldwide.

A 70 ton IFV would not work well in many environments. For instance in an arctic or sub arctic environment you can run that 70 tons pretty well anywhere while the ground is frozen but in summer it is gonna sink.
In a jungle environment there are lots of river and stream crossings. Unless you control the major bridges you have to bridge many of these. Now you have to have AVLB capability for that where with a 35 ton IFV you can use lesser bridges.
Just from a support standpoint a lighter vehicle is better.

Now we get to transporting them. Yes most armor is going to be deployed overseas by ship. But what about once you get there? A 70 ton IFV would require a HET to move it quickly to where it is needed.
You can move a 35 ton IFV with a Freightliner and a 4 axle lowboy. Then you can use that truck to haul other supplies too. A HET is good for one thing. Moving heavy armor.

Posted: 5/29/2013 7:47:04 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
70 tons is OK for a MBT.
70 Tons is too heavy for an IFV. You will lose mobility because of weight.

How big is the namer? Where is it designed to work?

Essentially you are saying it is too big, but the Isrealis are doing it with a similar sized vehicle in an urban environment. Where have brads operated that the M-1 has not?

Isrealis designed the Merkava as a primarily a defensive weapon. Their tactics also support this. They are not going to be carrying out major operations outside their borders so being able to transport their armor over long distances is not a major consideration.
Our armor on the other hand has to be able to operate in many different theaters. We have to consider roads and bridges not just in the Middle East but worldwide.

A 70 ton IFV would not work well in many environments. For instance in an arctic or sub arctic environment you can run that 70 tons pretty well anywhere while the ground is frozen but in summer it is gonna sink.
In a jungle environment there are lots of river and stream crossings. Unless you control the major bridges you have to bridge many of these. Now you have to have AVLB capability for that where with a 35 ton IFV you can use lesser bridges.
Just from a support standpoint a lighter vehicle is better.

Now we get to transporting them. Yes most armor is going to be deployed overseas by ship. But what about once you get there? A 70 ton IFV would require a HET to move it quickly to where it is needed.
You can move a 35 ton IFV with a Freightliner and a 4 axle lowboy. Then you can use that truck to haul other supplies too. A HET is good for one thing. Moving heavy armor.

And yet when have we deployed Bradley's deployed without MBT in company? The major bridges are going to have to be taken regardless, because IFV's are not going anywhere without MBT in tow and it is unlikely that M1A3 is going to shed 20 tons.

Brads got moved by HET's in every instance I have seen them moved inter theater.

Posted: 5/29/2013 7:59:05 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.

We didn't have to have GG's in the field back when I was in the 3/82FA. Of course, back then, we didn't have FAASV's, radios, NV, or any of the other cool (and expensive) shit they get these days, either.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:35:00 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
^^ A ground guide in the field, 1st CAV patch...must be Fort Hood. God 1st CAV leaders are retards.

Of course, back then, we didn't have FAASV's, radios, NV, or any of the other cool (and expensive) shit they get these days, either.

Such a hater. Tell us all what it was like doing PT in those banana suits again.

Posted: 5/29/2013 8:40:58 PM EDT

[#50]

Jesus, BAE really milks those government contracts.

I am pretty disappointed with them right now because they are doing a shitty job with a new weapon system.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should the U.S. Army buy a hybrid tank? (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us