Black Eagle MBT going going gone?
- Thread starter Defcon 6
- Start date
Makes sense.
But their logistic corps was not that happy about JP8 in Iraq. Think about it. There is a mechanized brigade. It is much easier to provide a fuel transporter full of diesel near every unit that might need it than having two different fuel transporters near every unit.
I don't really believe the story about the helicopters. It makes no sense. Yeah sure the Army has many helicopters but they do not operate as close to the front as the helicopters. The mobile gas stations which are used by the ground troops are more forward than these ones used by the helicopters.
As long as I know they really use JP8 because the turbine likes it more than diesel.
I'm searching for a good source.
I don't really believe the story about the helicopters. It makes no sense. Yeah sure the Army has many helicopters but they do not operate as close to the front as the helicopters. The mobile gas stations which are used by the ground troops are more forward than these ones used by the helicopters.
As long as I know they really use JP8 because the turbine likes it more than diesel.
I'm searching for a good source.
Well, think about it- the ( current ) Abrams gas turbine engine was developed from a helocopter engine. It's basically a jet engine in a land vehicle.
So it's fairly logical to assume that it prefers to drink JP8 av-gas.
But, then again, the story about the US Army's large fleet of helos determining why they use JP8 for the Abrams instead of standard diesel is also believable.
The US Army has the worlds largest, and most effective logistics train, and helocopter fleet- and therefore, can and probably should provide more than one fuel type for it's equipment.
Any other nation would not be able to make such allowances, without cutting back resources in another area. It may seem wasteful and extravagant to us. But then again, the US Army has the funds to fuel it's tank fleet with top-shelf vodka if they so desire, and frankly- doesn't have to explain itself, either.
As I understand it, the future of the Abrams may be different, as there are already plans to re-engine the entire Abrams fleet with a much better gas turbine power pack. I don't know if they intend to continue using JP8 as their standard MBT fuel. But since they're already extensively invested in providing JP8 for tanks, and their helocopter fleet is only going to keep growing- there's probably no reason for them to make drastic changes to their logistic system right now.
What will be interesting is the type of fuel that will be used to power their next generation of tanks, ( FCS ) and APC's. The US Army seems to be heavily invested in developing hybrid-fueled diesel/electric power packs, and propulsion systems for their future ground vehicles.
So it's quite likely that there will be less need to supply JP8 as tank fuel, unless of course the FCS will also use a gas-turbine/electric power pack, as opposed to diesel/electric. There is quite a bit of research going toward R&D on miniaturized turbine engines, APU's, and generators for land-based military applications.
I wonder if it would be more efficient, and effective for the US to modify their diesel-engined vehicles to run on JP8, instead of diesel fuel? That shouldn't be very difficult to accomplish, considering the chemical similarities of avgas, and standard diesel.
Surely even the well-funded, and well-equipped US military would recieve advantages by simplifying their Army's fuel requirements. I suppose that making extensive use of electric drive systems, developing more fuel-efficent power plants, and significantly decreasing a vehicle's weight would all be very desireable towards reducing the Army's dependence on any petrol-based fuel.
So it's fairly logical to assume that it prefers to drink JP8 av-gas.
But, then again, the story about the US Army's large fleet of helos determining why they use JP8 for the Abrams instead of standard diesel is also believable.
The US Army has the worlds largest, and most effective logistics train, and helocopter fleet- and therefore, can and probably should provide more than one fuel type for it's equipment.
Any other nation would not be able to make such allowances, without cutting back resources in another area. It may seem wasteful and extravagant to us. But then again, the US Army has the funds to fuel it's tank fleet with top-shelf vodka if they so desire, and frankly- doesn't have to explain itself, either.
As I understand it, the future of the Abrams may be different, as there are already plans to re-engine the entire Abrams fleet with a much better gas turbine power pack. I don't know if they intend to continue using JP8 as their standard MBT fuel. But since they're already extensively invested in providing JP8 for tanks, and their helocopter fleet is only going to keep growing- there's probably no reason for them to make drastic changes to their logistic system right now.
What will be interesting is the type of fuel that will be used to power their next generation of tanks, ( FCS ) and APC's. The US Army seems to be heavily invested in developing hybrid-fueled diesel/electric power packs, and propulsion systems for their future ground vehicles.
So it's quite likely that there will be less need to supply JP8 as tank fuel, unless of course the FCS will also use a gas-turbine/electric power pack, as opposed to diesel/electric. There is quite a bit of research going toward R&D on miniaturized turbine engines, APU's, and generators for land-based military applications.
I wonder if it would be more efficient, and effective for the US to modify their diesel-engined vehicles to run on JP8, instead of diesel fuel? That shouldn't be very difficult to accomplish, considering the chemical similarities of avgas, and standard diesel.
Surely even the well-funded, and well-equipped US military would recieve advantages by simplifying their Army's fuel requirements. I suppose that making extensive use of electric drive systems, developing more fuel-efficent power plants, and significantly decreasing a vehicle's weight would all be very desireable towards reducing the Army's dependence on any petrol-based fuel.
Diesel vs gas-turbine
Diesel weakness in compare to gas-turbine:
Less power (in hp), but good torque
It sounds at low frequency specter – could be audio detected easier.
Gas-turbine weakness:
Flammable. In asymmetric war tank could be fired off easier by guerrillas or special forces by cheap weapon: RPG ore Molotov cocktail ($2 cost) from ambush.
High air consumption therefore troubles by sandy air.
Low repairability. (While Indian tender was tank trophy raid. After some hard days one of T-90 diesels was broken. Russian mechanics lifted engine by few arched trees, repair it and set one back into tank. That was in wild forest without special machines. :russia )
Diesel weakness in compare to gas-turbine:
Less power (in hp), but good torque
It sounds at low frequency specter – could be audio detected easier.
Gas-turbine weakness:
Flammable. In asymmetric war tank could be fired off easier by guerrillas or special forces by cheap weapon: RPG ore Molotov cocktail ($2 cost) from ambush.
High air consumption therefore troubles by sandy air.
Low repairability. (While Indian tender was tank trophy raid. After some hard days one of T-90 diesels was broken. Russian mechanics lifted engine by few arched trees, repair it and set one back into tank. That was in wild forest without special machines. :russia )
diesel vs. JP-8
Of course most modern tank engines are multi-fuel, but that doesn't mean they're equally comfortable with the range of fuels they can use. There are trade-offs, whether in performance or maintenance. If the engines weren't optimized for one or the other, they wouldn't be called "diesels" or "gas turbines," they'd just be "engines." As for the US Army using JP-8 because of its large helicopter fleet, that seems dubious. There are many times more vehicles in an armored or mechanized brigade that use diesel than there are helicopters in the same theater (let alone attached to the brigade's tactical logistics chain).
I've read that the Army wants its new generation of tactical UAVs to run on standard diesel. That's part of the requirements in the tenders, so companies are (I assume) finding or developing engines optimized for diesel rather than JP-8. Anybody got any more info on this?
Of course most modern tank engines are multi-fuel, but that doesn't mean they're equally comfortable with the range of fuels they can use. There are trade-offs, whether in performance or maintenance. If the engines weren't optimized for one or the other, they wouldn't be called "diesels" or "gas turbines," they'd just be "engines." As for the US Army using JP-8 because of its large helicopter fleet, that seems dubious. There are many times more vehicles in an armored or mechanized brigade that use diesel than there are helicopters in the same theater (let alone attached to the brigade's tactical logistics chain).
I've read that the Army wants its new generation of tactical UAVs to run on standard diesel. That's part of the requirements in the tenders, so companies are (I assume) finding or developing engines optimized for diesel rather than JP-8. Anybody got any more info on this?