Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Hardware

US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System 179

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the we-look-for-things-things-that-make-us-go dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System More

US Army Unveils Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System

Comments Filter:

  • Choo! Choo! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "The most 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."

    Gee. Kind of like a Diesel Train.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Duhavid ( 677874 )
      Or kinda like the Porsche version of the Tiger II ( King Tiger )
      or the Maus.
    • Hm, I was going to look up a suitable quote from "Diesel Traction - Manual For Enginemen" (British Railways, 1962), but you basically beat me to it.

      They invented a diesel-electric propulsion system. How exactly is this news?

      • Hm, I was going to look up a suitable quote from "Diesel Traction - Manual For Enginemen" (British Railways, 1962), but you basically beat me to it.

        They invented a diesel-electric propulsion system. How exactly is this news?
        I did not think that those diesel-electric locomotives had batteries that were used as an intermediate source of traction energy.
        • It looks like they've not got past the prototype stage, but have existed since 1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_locomotive [wikipedia.org]
        • Depends on the system. I know that some "railbus" type locomotives used traction batteries in some modes of operation, and diesel generators in others, but I'm not enough of a rivet-counter to know which ones. I could ask a train enthusiast friend who would know right away which one I meant, but I'm slightly scared of the answer.

      • How exactly is this news?
        Well, I for one would like to know why diesel-electrics have so far been unsuitable for vehicles other than locomotives, and what the Army does differently in this case.

  • Silence is golden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @01:57PM (#20277889)
    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.

    • Yep, stealth (Score:5, Informative)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @02:09PM (#20278035)
      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.

    • This will not only power the drive train, but with a quick change out of the batteries to capacitors, can be used to power tank mounted lasers. Within another 10 years (or sooner), we will see lasers on all of our systems. These draw LOTS of power. So in this case, the engine/generator will be used to power capacitors of which some will drive the trains and most will go to the lasers. This will make a big difference to where we will be fighting next (and sadly yes, we will be doing it again within 20 years)
  • The IC engine can be optimized for its recharging duty. No need to provide gearboxes or variable speed drives to mechanically couple the engine to the wheels.


    Electric drives, particularly when freed from the constraints of having to work alongside IC engines, can have drivetrains optimized for their characteristics.

    • Electric drives, particularly when freed from the constraints of having to work alongside IC engines, can have drivetrains optimized for their characteristics.

      And this will be lighter and simpler than a pure-IC drivetrain. No need for a complex transmission, clutches, etc, to vary the speed of the tank treads in relation to one another for turning. Just power each side individually with an electric motor (or two, if you prefer, for redundancy).

      -b.

      • However, for more extreme requirements of both high torque AND high speed you might run into limitations of electric machine design, which might force you into adding a smaller gearbox anyway.

        • However, for more extreme requirements of both high torque AND high speed you might run into limitations of electric machine design, which might force you into adding a smaller gearbox anyway.

          How do diesel trains do it, since they handle both extreme low-end torque and reasonably high top ends?

  • only the paint is green (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @02:05PM (#20277983) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @02:20PM (#20278155)
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 )
        It does have to do with reducing fuel consumption, which is a huge logistics burden.

        This is especially true since the current big US tank (M1 Abrams) is turbine powered, which causes really awful fuel consumption at idle and low speeds. If the turbine could run at its optimum speed, it would improve consumption significantly.

        Also, being able to turn off the turbine and creep forward would reduce the infrared signature of the vehicle, adding yet another "stealth" aspect.

        -b.

        • Re:only the paint is green (Score:5, Informative)

          by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @03:08PM (#20278681)
          This refers to the UD effort that predates FCS by many years:

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

          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 [defensetech.org]

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

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

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Duhavid ( 677874 )
            I hope they have thought to provide the crew the ability to lock
            the generator out of operation, and to force a recharge when they
            want, else the advantage of silence will sometimes be negated when
            the generator suddenly runs up to recharge.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Knacklappen ( 526643 )
      Yes, that and the possiblitiy of acutally saving some fuel along the way. For the US Army, shipping fuel to all the remote locations where they are waging a war is a logistic nightmare at a huge cost.

      • Fuel worries (Score:4, Insightful)

        by wonkavader ( 605434 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @06:25PM (#20280277)
        Why don't we just invade some place with a lot of oil, then?

        Oh, wait...

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

          I read recently that the entire gulf region is a net importer of fuel because they don't have the refining capacity. So we should actually stop exporting fuel to them. Might do some good, you never know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      Green is relative. Tearing up the landscape with tracked vehicles and tossing supersonic projectiles around is not very green. But if the vehicles use less fuel and the projectiles are made of non-toxic substances (lead bullets are a big environmental hazard) warfare is a little greener than it was before.

      However, I would guess the military's main concern is not the environment, it's logistics. The supply infrastructure needed to keep all those vehicles gassed up is mind-boggling. The less fu
      • One of the US Army's favorite alternatives to lead is Depleted Uranium [wikipedia.org]. It's 70% denser than lead, and was initially developed for attacking heavily armored Soviet tanks. It has lots of potential problems, none of which apply when the Bush Administration uses it.


        I don't know if there are other commonly used materials for tank shells - steel or something?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by icegreentea ( 974342 )
          kinetic energy penatrators (anti tank guns) have to be made with very dense materials. before the use of DU, most KE shells used a tungsten alloy of somesort (lead was way too soft or something). DU had the advantage of being denser, as well as being self sharpening (the tip shears while traveling through armor, continously forming a new tip), as well as being extremly flamable under high temperature (once it penetrates, the interior of the tank goes up in flames). for 'normal' bullets, pretty much nothing

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thynk ( 653762 )
        Tearing up the landscape with tracked vehicles and tossing supersonic projectiles around is not very green.

        True, but it's a little bit greener than say carpet bombing the whole area and when you're in a combat zone, you gotta get the other guy before he gets you.

        Of course, a running, moving enemy tank is better for the environment than one that's on fire (not better for your troops tho).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fm6 ( 162816 )
          Sure, and nukes are hardly green at all. Like I said, Green is relative.

          Don't assume that I think something should be banned just because I point out it's negatives.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jhines ( 82154 )
      Ever hear of a diesel-electric locomotive? They have existed for years.
      • So this is more a case of miniaturization than entirely new tech.

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

        Electric motors scale well, and such vehicles already have a huge, heavy, and expensive gearbox, the elimination of which can help offset costs and weight penalties.

        • Re:only the paint is green (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @03:15PM (#20278757) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • "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."

            The extra weight of another gear in a modern consumer manual transmission isn't much, maybe 20lbs including the larger gearcase. IMO expense is what drives manufacturers to keep down the number of gears available. Where efficiency matters (18-wheelers) more to the customers many more speed

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by smoker2 ( 750216 )

            Then again, we're also finding out that they can produce a four-door 40mpg car without making it a hybrid.

            They'd better be able to - I run a 1992 Ford Sierra, 1.8 litre, four door, petrol, which routinely returns 450 miles from an 11 gallon tank (that's Imperial gallons). It makes me laugh when I see people crowing about their brand new cars that get lower mpg than mine does. My last service (oil, oil filter, plugs, distributor cap, rotor arm, plug leads, air filter) cost me around £25 !
            The car only

            • Yes, I know they could produce a car with even better mileage.

              Heck, I could probably build a car that gets 100mpg without too much trouble.

              The problem? It wouldn't meet todays safety and emission requirements, not to mention convenience systems such as power steering, windows, video systems in the vehicle upping power draw to the point you need a larger alternator. Each of which adds substantial weight to the car, requiring a larger engine to maintain performance within specifications, increasing weight e

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cerelib ( 903469 )
      By your definition, is there a green way to move a "gazillion tons of steel"? That is like saying a truck can't be green because it has to have the power to haul large loads.

  • New Navy Destroyers... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18, 2007 @02:13PM (#20278077)
    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.
    • 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.

      This is nothing new in naval design, though -- subs have been doing this for about a century. Some ocean liners did it as well (SS Normandie comes to mind). Reading more about the DD(X) program, though, I'm surprised that the next generation of destroyers and missile frigates aren't being planned as nuclear-powered ships.

      -b.

      • From my experiance (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Agarax ( 864558 )
        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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Duhavid ( 677874 )
      CV-2, CV-3, and a couple of battleships from the 30's used
      turbo electric drive.
    • and old battlewagons..., and if memory serves, a lot of auxilliaries.

      http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm [navweaps.com]

  • Greener way to kill people :) (Score:4, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @02:22PM (#20278187) Homepage Journal
    This is great stuff, finally we can kill people and go all out to be very environmental about it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ozbird ( 127571 )
      This is great stuff, finally we can kill people and go all out to be very environmental about it.

      Soylent Green?

    • Given how bad people are on the environment, an effect killing machine could actually good for the environment.

      Ick, just saying that makes me feel kind of creepy.

      • Seriously. Didn't the original poster ever read Rainbow Six? It's about eco-terrorist trying to kill off most of the world's population with a special virus so the earth be free from human consumption of it's resources.
    • And we're killing people in oil producing countries, even better!

      We're sooooo close to Greenpeace hopping on board with this whole Iraq thing.

  • The most 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.

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

    However, you can hardly call it fuel-efficient :)

    • Re:So it's like a tank, then? (Score:5, Informative)

      by thynk ( 653762 ) <slashdot AT thynk DOT us> on Saturday August 18, 2007 @03:00PM (#20278597) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by couchslug ( 175151 )
        "Unless the Army has completely refitted it's tanks,"

        It hasn't, and they remain as described in your post, though there is some discussion of modern diesel powerpacks for the Abrams that will use less fuel.
         
  • and the hummer .... the military is now in the vehicle design business.

    on an old reflection, I have plans from the mid 1970's from mother earth news that show how to convert an Opal GT into a hybrid electric. It used a DC jet engine starting motor powered by a 5 HP Briggs and Stratten lawn mower engine. Ojh hell that was 30 years ago....

    • The Volkswagon was not initially a military vehicle. It was designed by Ferdinand Porsche (at Hitlers request) as a car even factory workers could afford. This was slightly before WWII. During the war, they produced military variants, but the original design was for what it once again became afterwards: a super-inexpensive civilian car.

      As far as your larger point, the military has always been in the vehicle design business. Jeep, Hummer, etc.
    • the military is now in the vehicle design business.

      The US military has experimented with innovative vehicles and solicited vehicle designs for, oh, about the last century. There were plenty of military vehicles (tanks, Gama Goat trucks, etc) that didn't have civilian counterparts before 2007 :)

      -b.

  • As someone who has been fretting about the environment for quite some time, and a firm believer that only business had the power to get us out of this mess since the 80's, it's a hopeful time for me.

    As gas stays above $3.00 a gallon, people, and businesses and organizations and governments who don't give a rats ass about the environment are going to start looking around at ways to save or make money.

    Now, I'm not a complete libertarian on this issue. I think regulation from the feds can really help move

    • That does seem to be the key to environmental issues.

      Make doing the "right thing" cheaper than the alternatives.
    • As gas stays above $3.00 a gallon, people, and businesses and organizations and governments who don't give a rats ass about the environment are going to start looking around at ways to save or make money.

      Glad you're not a complete libertarian on this, I'm completely with you. Round where I live (in the UK) petrol (gas) is 7.20 dollars /US gallon in my local station. People are still filling up their cars and 4x4 SUVs are still fashionable, it's a disease we've caught from over the pond (I mean, in the mount
  • Does anyone else enjoy the irony of ground-breaking use of "green" engines in vehicles that are likely to be deployed in missions to secure more fossil fuels to burn?

    • This argument that the USA goes to war for oil makes no sense whatsoever. It's simple economics. Oil is traded on a world market. It is a commodity. Even if some moron decided his/her country would stop selling Oil to the US it would not affect oil prices in the US at all. It's simple supply and demand. They would still sell oil to somebody else which would free up the oil that country would have purchased for purchase by us which means that the net change is nothing in the supply. This means that the point
  • I know for a fact that at least one of DARPA Unmanned Ground Vehicles already has a hybrid power system [howstuffworks.com]. That beast can sneak up on you. Glad to see that tech also going into the manned vehicles.

  • Other Advantages (Score:4, Informative)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday August 18, 2007 @03:00PM (#20278603)
    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.

    • Most of the vehicles used in the military right now are flex-fuel anyway. You can damned near pour vodka into an Apache gunship and it'll keep going on that. They all use a pretty similar fuel (JP-8) standard, but are capable of using many fuels that you would find locally should you not have access to the logistics supply line.
  • It makes sense. Gasoline, and even more diesel, engines run best at a fixed rpm, while electric motors are basically good at anything from 0 to redline.

  • Skip the ad-trolling blogodreck, and go to the U.S. Army Future Combat Systems page [army.mil], which has better info. Video, even. Very dramatic.

  • "For the first time the Army will be integrating a functional hybrid-electric drive system into a combat vehicle. The Army has long been at the forefront of developing hybrid-electric vehicles."

    Yeah, the rumors that Toyota, Honda and others have had hybrid vehicles in production for years is just plain FUD.

    "In fact, the Army's hybrid-electric vehicles are significantly more robust and more powerful than commercial hybrid vehicles."

    Really? Military vehicles even more powerful than a Prius?!? That's just MIND

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close