US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System

Gary writes to mention that the U.S. Army recently unveiled a new hybrid-electric propulsion system for use in a new line of manned ground vehicles (MGVs). The new line will have eight different variants, all using the same chassis. The unique feature of the new MGVs is that the traditional engine has been decoupled from the drive train and is used only to recharge the battery and power other systems within the vehicle.

Comments

Silence is golden

[schwit1]

Being able to roll into your position quietly is a huge advantage. This was learned when Strykers replaced Bradleys when doing insurgent sweeps. The bad guys weren't aware nearly as soon.

only the paint is green

[spectrokid]

hybrid or not, this thing is going to pull around a gazillion tons of steel. Tanks are heavy, strong, maneuvrable. They are NOT green. I guess the idea has more to do with being able to drive in "stealth mode" for a couple of hundred meters.

Re:only the paint is green

[couchslug]

It does have to do with reducing fuel consumption, which is a huge logistics burden.

The systems previously developed (this research predates FCS by many years) will go far more than a few hundred meters on batteries alone.
Now that decent batteries are available, a hybrid AFV looks much better. They can easily drive heavy electrical loads to provide both weapon system and facility power, they can charge each other via slave cables, they provide full torque at zero RPM allowing very slow creep, and if properly sealed can be used for marine assault and fording rivers (even fully submerged with no snorkel) without fear of drowning out (and destroying) a diesel engine.

This tech will give a huge boost other systems that would benefit from hybridization. Efficient small turbines like Capstone are already charging hybrid buses. These systems can burn clean fuels at optimum rpm, charge batteries, and make for very eco-friendly farm and construction equipment in the future.

Re:only the paint is green

[couchslug]

This refers to the UD effort that predates FCS by many years:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hybrid.html

Ralph Zumbro, Author of "Tank Sergeant", writes about the Hybrid drive M113 that United Defence have built:-

                "Phil, The one I was in, and it may be the only one, is state of the art. They steer it with a Bradley gunner's control and it will run for an hour at 30mph on two batteries which are in boxes sized approximately 18"x36"x48". Then a standard issue genset cuts in. The motors are rated at 250 hp each and are oil cooled. It is weird to see a 3 inch diameter drive shaft coming out of a motor the size of a 5 gallon can.
                The rubber tracks are soundless, and they've got 2500 miles on them with very little wear showing. That adds up to a VERY quiet vehicle for recon work. Put electric motors, rubber tracks and a two man turret with a 30mm gatling weapon on a standard 113 hull and you've got a recon Tankita.
                I mentioned to the people at United Defense that not needing air for the engine made the vehicle capable of running around UNDER water and was told that that had been thought of. That means that you could add enough armor to stop larger weapons, as long as you don't compromise the mobility."

More links:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002338.html

Hybrid M113
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWbkOkTydk

Hybrid HMMWV
http://www.evworld.com/archives/conferences/evs14/ humvee.html

Re:only the paint is green

[Firethorn]

Bleh... I need to go back to english class

Next thing you know we'll be seeing diesel-electrics in big trucks such as semis.

Then it'll trickle down to pickups and SUVs.

Small cars actually make the least amount of sense to try to make into a hybrid - you have a lot of static costs, making them proportionally more expensive(IE $3k for a $13k car vs $5k for a $30k SUV). Plus - you have the least to gain. Going from 30mpg to 40mpg saves you less fuel per mile than going from 15mpg to 25mpg. Over the course of 10k miles, you'd save 83 gallons of fuel for the car, vs 267 gallons for the SUV replacement.

Then again, we're also finding out that they can produce a four-door 40mpg car without making it a hybrid. The biggest difference I've seen in them is going from a 4 speed auto or 5 speed manual to systems with six gears. Extra gears equals extra expense, and probably extra weight, though the efficiency gains clearly beat it.

Yep, stealth

[b0s0z0ku]

and also the ability to have an individual electric motor for each of the two tank treads. Right now, tanks use a complicated transmission to vary track speed for turning. Electric motors will actually reduce complexity, increase reliability, and possibly improve turning ability.

-b.

Re:Yep, stealth

[s_p_oneil]

Don't forget extra power at low RPMs, which should mean quicker turning and starting.

New Navy Destroyers...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lastest design for naval destroyers from both the USN and RN have also gone all-electric, and have decoupled all fuel-burning engines from the drive train. If it can work for destroyer, I guess it should work for relatively small ground vehicles.

Greener way to kill people :)

[roman_mir]

This is great stuff, finally we can kill people and go all out to be very environmental about it.

Re:So it's like a tank, then?

[thynk]

M1 Abrams tanks have a turbine engine that is hooked directly into a generator which powers a 1500 hp (1119 kW) electric motor

Let me set this straight.

Unless the Army has completely refitted it's tanks, the above is only partly true. It does have a turbine engine and does produce 1500hp, but it's not an electric motor. Has a plain old drive train that goes into the rear sprockets. There are no massive batteries to store the charge (IIRC it has 8 12v batteries).

What makes these things so darn quiet (for a tank, you hear the treads clanking before the engine when it's moving) is that the exhaust is directed up at about a 45 degree angle so the majority of the sound doesn't echo off anything. Of course, that gives it a massive thermal signature, but at the time of it's design, soviet block tanks were not using thermal sites.

This is speaking from experience, I spent 4 years as an M1A1 tank crew member (19k) and prepped the engine(power pack)for removal more than once. There is no greater rush than firing the 120mm main gun at a target 2100m away and/or moving 68 tons of combat steel over any terrain.

Hope this helps, I don't see any "green tanks" in the future and they get horrible gas mileage - a full tank of 504.4 gallons gives you about 200 miles over flat terrain @ 35mph.

Other Advantages

[PPH]

Two other advantages come to mind:

The use of all-electric drive can provide some interesting opportunities for advanced systems such as traction control. By placing multiple, smaller drive motors at each wheel, power can be directed optimally for terrain conditions. No complex mechanical equipment is needed as the algorithms can be implemented completely in software.

The other advantage can be the ability to optimize the IC engine for changes in the fuel available without screwing around with the entire drivetrain. Heck, they can make the IC portion modular and, if the economics of fuel sources change, just pop in the appropriate engine.

From my experiance

[Agarax]

From what I heard nuke ships are a pain in the ass.

nuke plants are expensive, you need a LOT of training (the navy nuke program is essentially a bachelors degree w/o the English and basket weaving courses crammed into a two year school), the navy is perpetually strapped for the personnel and offer insane reenlistment bonuses for those that stay in (I've heard of $100k, but it might have been a rumor).

Also the plants are never really off, so being a nuke in the navy is an awful job in port. Reactor Officer is considered an even worse job than being the lowliest deck seaman.

Gas Turbines (I'm on a Gas Turbine DDG Navy ship, so I know a little more about them), are powerful, cheaper, and easy as hell to maintain. The Gas Turbine Techs on the ship barely even touch the things since they are warrantied by the manufacturer (just a little bit of preventative maintenance).

The great part about them is that they start up in a minute or two, put out a TON of power, and if they do happen to break it's a VERY simple job of having them replaced.

The only reason I can see for running a nuke ship is either a) the ship is so big gas would be $$$$ (you cant make it independent from gas since a carrier always needs fuel for the planes) or b) you want it to be independent from air (Submarine).

Just my $.02

Fuel worries

[wonkavader]

Why don't we just invade some place with a lot of oil, then?

Oh, wait...