Cummins awarded an $87m contract to finalise the Advanced Combat Engine (ACE), a modular and scalable opposed piston 2-stroke diesel engine solution, capable of hybridization. Doesn't sound immediately exciting, but ACE is actually pretty cool - read on to see why!
Sitting within the Advanced Powertrain Demonstrator effort, headlines are that Cummins claims it provides a 50% increase in power density, (same power in smaller form) a 20% reduction in heat rejection, and 13% improved fuel efficiency. Add in 10x more electrical power generation
OP engines are so attractive the US Army said "The Army studied engine architectures for over 20 years and based on thousands of hours of testing independently concluded that the [OP] architecture is the superior platform on which to base the future of combat vehicle propulsion."
Latest development is a 1,000 hp multi-cylinder engine (MCE), which is being tested with the Army on a number of platforms and is the most power-dense engine the US Army has ever tested by a factor of 2. A 1,500 hp version has been modelled on the M88 ARV showing great potential
Why does any of that matter? More power in same or less space = more mobility (sort of). Add in some of the track and suspension mods they are playing around with on Bradley and your terrain accessibility is radically changed.
Or keep broadly what you have, but at around half the internal volume. Space is a serious premium in an AFV, so that's no small benefit in its own right. Adding the logistical benefits around fuel efficiency etc and it's a win either way you choose to take it.
As a modular and scalable engine design, it could give rise to a common family of engines across the entire US combat and logistics vehicle fleets, bringing a mound of logistics and support benefits on top of the automotive and performance benefits.
So, ACE is a pretty exciting engine tech. Looking forward to seeing more of what Cummins has in store and what the US Army can do with it. /end #tanktwitter#enginetwitter#isenginetwitterathing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(Part 2) It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why is it a critical requirement?
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
So, Part 2 – Why is combat bridging important anyway?
The UK was the birthplace of the tank and though today it has only a single upgrade programme to show for heavy tracked armour, it was the origin of many key technologies and capabilities used by tanks the world over. A🧵of a few highlights of the glory days of British armour R&D
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire.
FV4211 (initially the Chieftain Mk5/2), an all-aluminium tank that was the first with composite armour, initially called Burlington but renamed to Chobham, based around the concept of composite materials under permanent compression, laid in a matrix with additional materials...
(1/n) A neat bit of thermal footage of Challenger 2 firing and driving. A couple of obvious takeaway comments on tank heat signatures:
Engine is peak sustained source of heat, particularly once underway & exhaust blooms. Its at the rear which is good for classic head on engagements, but modern all-aspect attacks mean its increasingly a concern that you can't do much to mitigate. (cgi image but representative)
Barrel once fired is a big hot spot from the front. One part of the reason for these trendy shrouds we see on concept AFV is to limit that signature (and thus far has been dismissed as until you shoot barracuda coverings are good enough, and once you have who cares anymore)
Some fervent discussion about KF51 in one of my tweets yesterday, a quick thread on the 130 mm main gun and its ammunition handling system in the KF51 concept vehicle to answer some of the question that came up.
Reminder this is a prototype vehicle still and everything is in active development and would be subject to user requirements if it gets bought by anyone. Notional data follows.
Main weapon is Rheinmetall’s new (though its almost 10 years old already – development started in 2015) 130 mm L51 smoothbore gun, often referred to as the Future Gun System (FGS).
80 years since D-Day, so I thought a (rather long, it turns out) thread of the various interesting AFV things that were around that day, and a bit of a look at what they have evolved to today as spiritual successors. #tanktwitter #dday80 #tanks
Specialist AFV are ubiquitous now, but the D-Day landings were some of the first outings for many of these capabilities or at the least cemented their utility upon which several generations have evolved since.
Actually getting onto the beach is itself a challenge, as double-digit tonne AFV are not inherently seagoing things (aside dedicated amphibians).
A brief summary🧵of the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) element of the aspirational US Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) programme. A bit of a "what they almost got" for the US Army of the late 90s and early 00s.
MGV was a common family of AFV that were bold in their vision - baseline 24 ton hull (later upped to c.30t) with hybrid drive & CRT track, loads of data & sensor fusion, a lot of automation (most variants were 2-man crews), with less passive armour and more smart solutions.
A few more details of the core base platform that the family would build on. Lots of bold capabilities that many 2020s AFV still lack, and all with the strategic benefits of a single common platform across an entire Army fleet, which are substantial.