Military tank cost8/28/2023 The most noticeable difference though is the lack of a turret, as the vehicle adopted a crewless weapon mount on the roof. Seven wheels on each side were drawn mounted on what appear to be arms, suggesting that it probably kept the same style of torsion bar suspension as on the Abrams. It had a relatively conventional external shape except that all of the crew were in the hull. The baseline vehicle for the EDMBT was very similar in external hull layout to the M1 Abrams, with the automotive elements placed under a raised engine deck at the back of the tank. Source: GDLS Baseline Vehicle Description All of the options were to consider a scheme for a baseline vehicle.īaseline 40-ton electric drive vehicle. Plans from various companies and one university submitted concept plans for the program namely: Westinghouse, ACEC (Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroi), Unique Mobility, Garrett, Jarret, and the University of Michigan. Some 38 possible concepts across the 19.5 (17.7 tonne) and 40-ton (36.3 tonne) vehicles were considered over four basic vehicle considerations. Electrical transmissions are also quieter due to the absence of gearing and driveshafts and offer the not insignificant potential to provide electrical power for the vehicle’s systems. An electrical system could be smaller than the equivalent mechanical system and smaller volume meant more internal volume in a vehicle for other things and/or a reduction in the amount which needed to be protected by armor – that means less weight too. There are also major advantages, not the least of which being volume. This is primarily because an electrical drive system has far fewer moving parts and bearing surfaces than a mechanical system. An electrical transmission offered the designer a significant freeing up of the internal layout of an armored vehicle, as the drive motors did not have to be next to the engine, and the ability to deliver continuous, reliable power in preference to mechanical systems. The potential of electrical drive systems was experimented with on tanks as far back as WW1. By this time the second phase was already underway with an expected conclusion date in the latter half of 1985 to be followed by another report and, starting in the middle of 1986, Phase III running through into the start of 1987. In the end, the report on this phase was finished in July 1984 and then published in January 1985. The timetable for the project was for Phase I to be concluded by the end of 1984. General Dynamics EVTB (also known as the Advanced Hybrid Electric Drive vehicle). It also had possession of a 8 x 8 wheeled, 15-ton (13.6 tonne) Electric Vehicle Test Bed (EVTB) it had paid for itself in order to test and validate electric drive. General Dynamics had actually been looking into the potential of electric drive systems as early as 1981, producing electric-drive concept vehicles for various other vehicle projects. Phase III: A parametric study and evaluation with selection of 3 recommended concepts for further consideration Phase II: Generation of concept vehicles with electric drive Phase I: A survey of existing technology (document JU-84-04057-002) Despite the billions of dollars spent, to date, the US military has yet to capitalize on the potential of electric-drive vehicles. To this day, in 2020, the M1 Abrams remains in service with a conventional power plant along with numerous other armored vehicles in the US inventory. However, like so many other studies, this work faded away and the design work was abandoned. What it actually generated was the realization that electric-drive fighting vehicles were not only possible but had some valuable features worth exploring, especially with regards to a series of heavy IFV platforms. The goal was roughly that of evaluating the ‘new’ (electric drive for vehicles predates armored vehicle) technology available across a variety of platforms for what it may offer for further development. This was contract number DAAE07-84-C-RO16 divided into 2 phases – a third phase was added later under contract modification P00006. The US Army’s Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) issued a contract to General Dynamics Land Systems for this project – to evaluate existing electric drive technologies to use in future vehicles. As part of the evaluation of trends in future vehicles, a commission looked into the potential for electric drive systems for a 40-ton (36.3 tonne) (tank) and 19.5-ton (17.7 tonne) (APC/IFV) platform. In 1984, the US military was considering the problems connected with a new range of vehicles, such as the new M1 Abrams main battle tank and M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |