The Chrysler Turbine History

[Edis]

The comments regarding aircraft turbine engines are inefficient at cruise have little ground.

At altitude, as the air density drops, the maximum thrust of the engines also drop, so they actually operate at %85-90 N1 at cruise. When an aircraft has an engine failure at altitude, the first thing it does is to DESCEND, as it simply does not have enough power to stay in the air when that high. So yes, jet engines are most efficient at full thrust, and they operate pretty close to that at cruise.

Twin engine fighter jets typically shut down one engine when loitering, as they have enough power to sustain a high (>30000 feet) altitude with one engine operating at military power.
[/offtopic]

I think turbine engines will have some use for ground vehicles sooner or later, because by design, they have the potential of operating at a higher efficiency than reciprocating engines. Theoretical maximum for diesel engines is ~%55 and ~%65 for turbine engines, the key differentiator being the compression ratio. It is currently impossible to efficiently scale down turbine engines currently, but I believe that hurdle will soon be overcome.

Lastly, there is one ground vehicle application of a turbine engine that I'd like to mention:

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/02/11 ... 5530b2.jpg

68 tons, 1500 hp, top speed ~85 kph (although governed to 75 kph). Rather thirsty though...

Yeah, for sure - that "rather thirsty" Chrysler gas-turbine M1 tank serves as fairly signal evidence of the inherent limitations..

Here is a NASA proposal that shows the potential for a high efficiency 2T diesel ICE helicopter mill to better the gas-turbine..

http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c ... 001160.pdf

The turbine engine is probably the biggest weakness of the Abrams tank. That thing is thirsty, very thirsty, expensive to maintain, have a huge heat signature and the exhaust heat prevent soldiers from taking protection behind the tank during urban warfare. It should also be remembered that fuel in a warzone can cost $50 a gallon if we include the costs of fuel distribution.

Of course, when the Abrams was designed IR sensors weren't as good as today, and since it was designed to battle the Soviets in Europe fuel could be distributed in advance. But for the next version, M1A3 I suspect the gas turbine will be dropped in favor of a diesel.

[livinglikethathuh]

I mentioned the Abrams mostly for the coolness factor, not for its viability as a ground vehicle. The turbine, especially the first version, was unreliable and was very thirsty, with ranges around 300 km HEMTT tankers had to follow them everywhere. The AGT1500 turbine reduced the fuel consumption and improved reliability, which was fitted in retrofits and also under the M1A2 SEP program.

For the M1A3, I don't know what kind of engine they'll be putting into that.

[J.A.W.]

There have been official feasibility proposals/trial units - which clearly demonstrate the practical effectiveness
of replacing the turbines powering the ~6,500 M1 tanks in service, with more efficient modern C.I. units, but as always,
the military/economics ramifications - are subject to political 'oversight', which will weigh 'other considerations' 1st..

As a matter of interest, the military still keeps the venerable 2T Detroit Diesel units (dating back to 1939) in service, & in new production, not being subject to civilian emissions control regs, & valuing the well-proven power-density/reliability factors..

[autogyro]

There have been official feasibility proposals/trial units - which clearly demonstrate the practical effectiveness
of replacing the turbines powering the ~6,500 M1 tanks in service, with more efficient modern C.I. units, but as always,
the military/economics ramifications - are subject to political 'oversight', which will weigh 'other considerations' 1st..

As a matter of interest, the military still keeps the venerable 2T Detroit Diesel units (dating back to 1939) in service, & in new production, not being subject to civilian emissions control regs, & valuing the well-proven power-density/reliability factors..

I believe that all this heavy kit including the big aircraft carriers and battle tanks are well obsolete now in the face of the new wave of autonomous light weight inexpensive military systems.
I would like to see a graph comparing the Abrahams tank with enemy country consolidation/costs post conflicts.
I do not see one winning ongoing situation anywhere.
Winning a war against third world countries is one thing consolidating the peace is a whole different ball game and beyond the capability of the American Government.
America's Empire building simply wastes resources, destroys environments and costs their tax payers Trillions.
Perhaps someone from Lockheed can come on here and justify the cost of that totally flawed from concept joke the F35.
Forcing the rest of the western world to buy such junk will only boost their failing economy for so long.

[Edis]

I believe that all this heavy kit including the big aircraft carriers and battle tanks are well obsolete now in the face of the new wave of autonomous light weight inexpensive military systems.
I would like to see a graph comparing the Abrahams tank with enemy country consolidation/costs post conflicts.
I do not see one winning ongoing situation anywhere.
Winning a war against third world countries is one thing consolidating the peace is a whole different ball game and beyond the capability of the American Government.
America's Empire building simply wastes resources, destroys environments and costs their tax payers Trillions.
Perhaps someone from Lockheed can come on here and justify the cost of that totally flawed from concept joke the F35.
Forcing the rest of the western world to buy such junk will only boost their failing economy for so long.

Experience from the Russo-Ukrainan war says otherwise.

For over a decade now the west has mostly been doing missions that centers around anti-terrorism, counter insurgency and policing. These kinds of missions teach us little how a war against a better equipped enemy will look like, that's where experience from the recent Russo-Ukrainan war comes in.

The first lesson is that artillery is responsible for about 85% of all casualties, showing that artillery is still king of the battlefield. The addition of aerial reconnaissance drones have increased the mortality of indirect artillery fire. This have in turn reduced the survivability of lightly armored vehicles on the battlefield, particularly from sub-munition MLRS, increasing demand for heavily armored vehicles such as main battle tanks.

With modern composite armor and explosive reactive armor the modern main battle tank is essentially immune to all handheld anti-tank weapons, meaning that you once again need tanks to fight tanks.

Mobility, protection and firepower is never obsolete in war.

[autogyro]

I believe that all this heavy kit including the big aircraft carriers and battle tanks are well obsolete now in the face of the new wave of autonomous light weight inexpensive military systems.
I would like to see a graph comparing the Abrahams tank with enemy country consolidation/costs post conflicts.
I do not see one winning ongoing situation anywhere.
Winning a war against third world countries is one thing consolidating the peace is a whole different ball game and beyond the capability of the American Government.
America's Empire building simply wastes resources, destroys environments and costs their tax payers Trillions.
Perhaps someone from Lockheed can come on here and justify the cost of that totally flawed from concept joke the F35.
Forcing the rest of the western world to buy such junk will only boost their failing economy for so long.

Experience from the Russo-Ukrainan war says otherwise.

For over a decade now the west has mostly been doing missions that centers around anti-terrorism, counter insurgency and policing. These kinds of missions teach us little how a war against a better equipped enemy will look like, that's where experience from the recent Russo-Ukrainan war comes in.

The first lesson is that artillery is responsible for about 85% of all casualties, showing that artillery is still king of the battlefield. The addition of aerial reconnaissance drones have increased the mortality of indirect artillery fire. This have in turn reduced the survivability of lightly armored vehicles on the battlefield, particularly from sub-munition MLRS, increasing demand for heavily armored vehicles such as main battle tanks.

With modern composite armor and explosive reactive armor the modern main battle tank is essentially immune to all handheld anti-tank weapons, meaning that you once again need tanks to fight tanks.

Mobility, protection and firepower is never obsolete in war.

I agree with you but you have not addressed the points I made.
Spending ever increasing budgets on heavy armoured vehicles will of course make them invincible on the battle field.
However the cost prevents any real consolidation of the areas gained and makes the conflicts never ending.
Already autonomous under sea vehicles are starting to reduce the capabilities of the big carriers and the development of later generation fighter aircraft is again (as it did in the 1930s) creating so much opposition in government that it has spawned over compromised multi purpose aircraft that do not work properly.
At the same time Empire building foreign policy that arms opposing forces so as to create continued conflict has worked counter to any democratically based policies for world peace.
The 'Russo-Ukranian war remains unwon and un consolidated so your mention of it does not sing the praises of western military technology.