A new, greener Bradley?
The Washington Post writes the Army is considering buying a hybrid Bradley which runs on diesel but is assisted with batteries for power. The expected weight is 70 tons, which the Post says is double the weight of the current Brad, but that’s wrong, as far as I know. I was one of the first Bradley squad leaders and as far as I know, the IFV weighs 26 tons, so a 70 ton Brad would be nearly three times the weight of the initial configuration.
In the article, the author calls the Infantry Fighting Vehicle a tank, luckily his readers straightened him out. It’s like calling an AR rifle a machine gun like the media is so fond of doing. We infantrymen stop listening to people who call an Infantry Fighting Vehicle a tank. We’re not tankers, we’re infantrymen first.
So back to the Bradley; I remember when the Bradley was first issued to TO&E units in 1983 after years of testing and we still received the systems with technical and design problems, so I can only imagine the problems that will handed to infantrymen when you’re talking about an entirely new power train system. When we got the Bradley, we had been accustomed to the M113 battle taxi which had no complicated weapons system to maintain and employ, a relatively new type of power train, fire suppression systems, fueling system, new weapons, etc… In other words, it was like moving from a bi-plane to the space shuttle. We were in training mode for over a year.
When Toyota rolled out it’s Prius, there were problems with the relatively uncomplicated system, it had problems which appear to have been fixed, but it seems to me that a 70-ton IFV would have even more problems with it’s hybrid power system than a soldier under fire, needing some organic firepower would care to deal with.
I do, however, like the idea of a “stealthy” Bradley, if it could arrive at the battle on battery power without the usual noise associated with the current diesel engine. But, I’m pretty sure that the problems with the new power train, and the Army’s traditional inability to work out problems before the vehicle is handed over to the troops, would outweigh any advantage like that.
Category: Military issues
The M3A3, yes I’m a Scout, comes I at about 40 tons. The A2 was 32 tons. It was all the new armor and upgrades. A hybrid Bradley sounds good, especially the stealth for reconnaissance but I don’t know if the weight is worth it. More weight could lead to suspension problems, not to mention moving the heavy beast bye air or rail. Not sure about this. I wonder if the engine would retain the same power? Say going cross country, would I need to kick on the engine every time I hit rough or muddy terrain?
Add in the fact that when you get hit aside from the normal issues you can now add in battery residue and contents spraying down the crew. Not to mention accidents even bigger hazamat issues. With the extra weight will come even more issues shipping them forward which translates to extra fuel, less of them moving due to weight vessels etc can carry which cancels any green advantage they have.
@70 ton, I would imagine the drive train is going to take a huge beating trying to navigate off road conditions of any kind.
What limits does this place on transport of this vehicle as well compare to ones half its weight?
What level of tactical improvment was gained by increasing the weight? Any at all? I kind of doubt it.
The closest I have come to a Bradley was in basic training where we had to sit in a concrete fighting position and they ran one over us, but I did go from light Infantry to Stryker so I kinda know how you feel. When I first looking inside a Stryker with all the screens and bells and whistles I felt like a dog trying to learn Algebra.
70 tons? That is pretty much the weight of a German King Tiger tank from WWII. All that weight for an IFV? Is somebody properly thinking this through?
I thougth the military overall had to reduce cost to the extreme…this doesn’t sound like something that follows that plan. This follows the same plan of making bio-diesel the replacement fuel in the extreme weather bases where bio-diesel doesn’t work.
So, “rapid” deployments will require twice the airlift capability in an already stressed TRANSCOM system, require more/different maintenance while in the APS (how do I make sure that the batteries are functional after sitting on a ship for 3 years?), and there will be a new training pipeline for tracked vehicle mechanics who work on Brads. That hits a pretty good percentage of DOTMLPF. I understand the need to decrease the fuel requirements on the battlefield in order to increase the length of time in contact, but I’m going to guess that engine modernization and computerization is strategically and operationally more viable than working the hybrid technology. But, green briefs much better.
I’ll bet that shoots the shit out of floating that beast across Belton lake (TX), or any other lake for that matter!
@Twist – I have the same experience, went from 101st to 1/501st to Guard LRSD to Strykers, and yeah, it was a major paradigm shift. The guys that transitioned from Bradleys when our Guard unit was still mech to Strykers were less overwhelmed, and the only thing that brought us all together was the functional air conditioning. Doing an OPORD on the FBCB2 instead of writing with Sharpies on acetate was the moment I realized everything was going to be different forever
But the mileage, the mileage sucks. Just doing convoys from the State College, PA to our central training site, or down to AP Hill, or any railhead, yikes. If we could get hybrid anything, so long as they nip maintenance issues in the bud from early on, I think the cost savings could maybe let us buy more training ammunition. Or TriCare premiums. Whatev.
@1. For stealth, nothing beat the Gamma Goat. You couldn’t hear that coming–provided you were at least 5 miles away. What’s more, if you were inside a mile of it, it made you deaf. The result? Inside a mile or outside 5, the stealthiest machine ever invented! (I might be exaggerating a little.)
I simply cannot fathom how much battery power will be needed to move a tracked, 70-ton vehicle for ANY distance. I’m thinking that it would have to have a battery in a wheeled trailer that about the same size of the vehicle, just to move a hundred yards or so.
This seems to me to be a bad and poorly thought out idea which needs to be smacked down. Even just logistically, as said above, it will take up more resources to transport than it is worth.
Since they’re doubling the weight, I doubt you’ll see much if anything in the way of actual fuel savings. In fact, if adopted data in the article says this lead brick will end up using MORE fuel than the Bradley does today to perform the same mission.
The article compares the fuel economy of the projected vehicle to those in its weight class – 70 tons – when coming up with that “20% savings” factor. (For perspective, the M1A2 weighs roughly that.) A lighter vehicle doing the same job, even if not a hybrid, would be expected to use less fuel. And it does.
The article gives a projected fuel economy of 0.729 mi/gal (186 mi range with a fuel capacity of 255 gallons). The current Bradly’s standard fuel economy is about 1.429 mi/gal (0.7 gal per mile). That’s around twice the projected fuel consumption of this proposed brick.
This strikes me more as a proposal in search of a contract, frankly – and one that’s trying to use the “green” bandwagon to get an edge from a gullible and/or politically-oriented selection authority.
Bad idea, DA.
Putting more chemically reactive and highly flammable things inside a troop carrier thats not designed to house it is a super fine idea. Just excellent. They also need to install a thermal exhaust port, like the death star had.
Here’s an idea- fashion a stealthy transport from the ground up. Don’t retrofit something that’s not designed for that purpose.
Addendum to comment 12:
Move 63 troops 186 mi using Bradley:
9 vehicles needed x 186 mi x 0.7 gal/mi = 1,171.8 gallons
Move 63 troops using proposed “green” lead brick:
7 vehicles needed x 186 mi x 1.429 gal/mi = 1,785 gallons
In short, it will take 1.5233 times as much fuel to move the same 63 troops using with the new vehicle – or 52.33% more.
“Stealth” and “tracked” do not belong in the same sentence.
How in the world do you expect something with 40 feet of interlocking steel treads to be ‘stealthy’?
Is that the same as making 70 tons ‘efficient’???
#5 It’s only 3 tons heavier than the Abrams. Wait…
Bad idea. Kinda like adding the Vulcan system on top of an APC without power upgrades…slooow and that was only an extra two tons. This is the same basic idea, but on steroids.
@10, beyond it’s ability to climb sheer cliffs, I hated the Gamma Goat – maintenance was a bear and ours were on deadline more than off.
Thank you, #15. I second the comment – “stealth” and “tracked” are a loony-bin-worthy word combo. And 70 tons? Yeah, that’ll get stuck in the mud.
Pick your reason-
1.It lowers our carbon footprint, and that’s good right?
2. It’s for the children!!!
3. If it saves one life it’s worth it!!
signed,
B. Obozo
Having worked on the whole IFV/CVF series my first question would be were in the heck are you going to put the batteries? There is no extra room in an M2/3. Not an inch.
Coming from an LAV25 background – this is a STUPID idea.
1) The army has been trying to move to a rapid deployment model like the Marine Corps has. Doubling the weight of your main IFV hampers that tremendously
2) Stealth? For a tracked vehicle? Why? For those situationally dependent instances – like when we want to surprise attack a nation with a Bradley? Like they’re not going to know we are at war with them and have forces to their east or south?
jerry, they’ll move to a smaller weapons package!
70 tons? Gee, I hope that thing doesn’t have to cross a swamp or a salt dome anywhere. 70 tons? And they think it’s going to be stealthy? A diesel locomotive is quieter than this thing is going to be.
What’s next on their list? Imperial walkers to take out rebel X-wing fighters?
Oh, yeah, how much of my tax money is this jewel going to cost me?
From the transport perspective – twice as much weight requires twice as much fuel to move it. The aircraft, or conceivably even the ship, really doesn’t care much what is causing the weight. A pond of feathers or a pound of battery takes the same amount of fuel to transport.
If we are talking about air transport, it takes twice as many aircraft to move the same number of vehicles. Now we’re talking adding the total cost of operating beyond simply the amount of fuel needed – like the aircrew, ground crew, and maintainers to move twice as many aircraft.
That imaginary savings disappears quickly when considering all the extra fuel needed just in the aircraft themselves, never mind all those extra various ground vehicles. Wanna add in the extra personnel costs as well?
Ya want green? Try some paint because this makes no sense any way one could look at it.
Only problem I see is to shoe horn 35 tons of battery into the hull everything else will need to ride outside. Other than that, ingenious plan.
Energy density is still the rate limiting step.
Until mass to storage improves significantly, then dragging more weight around is a non starter.
@13 Like jet fuel inside of a MBT?
At 70 tons, the Bradley hybrid would still be lighter than some of the 84-ton GCV prototypes. Billions of dollars in R&D and this is the best BAE and GDLS can do. Boy what a costly mess that program is. And to afford it all the Pentagon decides to cut Tricare. Fan-fucking-tastic
Along with all the other problems discussed above, I’m seeing maintenance problems. How much maintenance down time vs up operating time does the military expect to get out of this armored Prius?
Plus, if it’s shot through, or turned over – – all those battery chemicals and acids spilling out. OOps! Time to take even more time filling out an environmental impact report, and spend even more $$$ cleaning it up.
A worthy end goal, but not a well-thought out idea.
But they MEANT well, didn’t they? That’s all that counts in the liberal mindset! Yeah, that extra weight is gonna be a headache for Maintenance Personnel! And the extra training for them to deal with it? I see this as being a budgetary fiasco like the “green fuel”!
Had another thought – how many snail darters or grubs or whatever will that extra weight endanger?????
Oh, the humanity!
This sounds like the ultra-expensive “green” bunker fuel the Navy bought recently. If it’s green, ain’t no budget issue.
I am currently in an auto tech school learning how to fix cars and all the nifty gadgets that cars have in them today. A few things I want to address with this topic. First, this thing will never be stealthy. Most hybrid vehicles have electric motors that assist the IC engine under heavy load to increase fuel efficiency, nothing more. This means the IC engine is always running when the vehicle is moving, and only ever turns off at stops, which is known as “Start/Stop” technology. Only two vehicles exist on the market which are capable of moving on battery power alone, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf. I seriously doubt that the new Bradley IFV is capable of moving on only the battery power, not at 70 tons. So stealth goes out the window, that diesel engine will always be on when the vehicle is moving. Second, the idea of hybrid cars being more green is a fallacy in the big picture. The manufacturing process to make those battery packs is so harmful to the environment (not that I really care) and releases so many harmful emissions that in the long run it does more damage to the environment than just leaving the conventional IC engine design alone. Better fuel mileage results from running leaner air/fuel mixtures, but the downside to that is leaner air/fuel mixtures increase NOx emissions, which is also a no-go to the environmental wackos. So hybrid vehicles is kind of a “compromise” between the two, and not a very good one. Third, maintenance and proper training for maintenance. Holy crap, these new Bradley IFV’s will be expensive to maintain. Not to mention every mechanic in the motor pool will need more training on how to work on hybrid vehicles. Nobody really wants to work on hybrid vehicles, and for good reason. Those high voltage battery packs are dangerous if you screw something up. In fact, firefighters, police, and first responders frequently attend training classes at the school I go to to learn how to safely work around a hybrid vehicle that was involved… Read more »
You’re right, David, especially if the outfit producing it is a generous donor to B. Hussein 0bama & Co.!
cannoncocker: the issue won’t be the electric motor portion of the drivetrain. Diesel-electric locomotives have been the norm for trains since the 1950s or so.
The battery pack portion is a very different story.
Awright, a Bradley I can beat walking and will peter-out going uphill… some GO got a 1-block for this.
The whole point to hybrid gas-electric vehicles was to save money for the consumer by improving gas mileage.
There’s huge difference between a 3200-pound Toyota Prius and a 70-ton Bradley IFV. There’s no cost savings there. There’s no reduction in pollution. And — guess what? The actual cost to develop, build, produce and market this beast will be multiplied by a factor of 3 to 5 times production costs, so that the profits can be poured into another R&D program for another, more expensive and less useful piece of equipment for the military to buy.
And WE get to pay for it. I think our names should be engraved on brassplates “So-and-So paid for this BIFV” and attached to each one that lumbers off the production line.
I know, let’s let Solyndra install solar panels on the Bradley? We could let Fisker do the engine/drivetrain, right?
I don’t know what’s wrong, I forgot. We can let LG Chem do the batteries for this “kinder, gentler” version of something that’s supposed to kill things.
Problem is @36–you’d have to drive a Prius for 10-12 years where gas costs $4.50/gallon to get any sort of reduction/ROI, otherwise you’re just pissing money away.
Now I have a truck (Ford) with the Ecoboost versus V-8. Same HP and torque, but the mileage means I break even between 18-24 months, less if I drive more than 12K miles/year (which I do.)
Bottom line, the cost of these Bradleys, not to mention the shit that could go wrong if one of those batteries goes bad or gets hit by enemy fire (a problem that wasn’t considered in the Prius, btw) makes a “hybrid” Bradley another reason the Good Idea Fairy needs to have the shit kicked out of it.
A lot of large vehicles have diesel/electric systems in them. Diesel trains and mining trucks come right to mind and it’s probably more fair to compare to those than a prius. In theory, this could extend vehicle range quite a bit, and it’s worth looking into, IMO.
@Hondo, actually, Diesel-Electric Locomotives made their big debut in 1939 with EMD’s (Electro-Motive Division of GM) four-unit FT Locomotive. But on a BFV with tons of additional batteries? That’s already been said.
Proud Infidel: agreed. But they didn’t effectively supplant steam locomotives until well after World War II. Even into the 1950s quite a number of steam locomotives were still in use.
@39 The Prius doesn’t take a lot of armor piercing rounds, but batteries and hot metal impact don’t play well together at all which is why this new Bradley needs to weigh in at about the same as the German Tiger 2 of WW2 fame…hard to be stealthy when your height profile blots out the sun…
This is an instance where high tech is not necessarily better tech….it’s just higher tech with the associated cost and lack of functionality…
I can only imagine what the cost of being green will mean on this brand new really big green machine…
Remember when military contracts went to the lowest bidder? Now it goes to the highest.
Such a shame we’ve lost our military.
Hondo, steam locomotives used to go through my home town every day, dragging long lines of frieght cars southward, up until about 1967. I do not remember when the diesel freights started but there were still coal-fired engines running before I left home for good that year.
True, some account for that goes to the fact that EMD, Alco, and Baldwin were only allowed to build whatever locomotives the War Production allowed them to during WWII because of wartime demands, as well as their production being diverted, i.e. Baldwin built Sherman Tanks while EMD built Submarine engines. I could bore most people for hours about trains, I’ve been a “Railnerd” since I was a kid. Diesel-Electric power is great for pulling a train or running a large boat, but I have a lot of doubts as to how it will do in a BFV!
@ #37
Sure and Boeing can be in charge of the batteries. Ala, 787. This whole thing is a wet dream of some political appointee in The DOD. Someone with no engineering training and no logistical experience. And you can bet he has never even ridden in an IFV much less fought from one. Six or seven tons of batteries that can overheat and explode will ruin your day. Add that to the increased size of the thing will make a very large target. What difference does it make that is quiet when they can see you coming at two or three miles farther away. Boondoggle, plain and simple.
@Ex-PH2, do you remember what Railroad that was? I’m just curious, a lot of times I think I was born fifteen or twenty years too late when I look at old RR pictures, especially of the passenger trains!
@40- they are not talking about diesel-electric. They are talking about diesel with electric assist. As in that it can run on only electric at times, for “stealth”. That requires batteries. Batteries do not react well to heavy impacts (like ieds) and things piercing them (RPGs). In fact, the default reaction that a battery has to most problems is to just burst into flames and burn itself to the ground.
Submarines have an extensive safety system to protect their batteries. But they have the displacement and size to house those systems without much trouble, and a nuclear reactor doesn’t give a fuck about a few extra tons. The whole concept of the ifv was to make something lightweight, and easily transportable. A 70 ton vehicle, whose weight is all in batteries and not armor plate, is fucking worthless. It is a sitting duck. That’s why the Abrams uses a gas turbine, BTW. So it can fucking skeedaddle when it needs to.
Proud Infidel: a diesel-electric drive IMO would possibly be workable. Whether it would be competitive on weight/horsepower ratio and fuel consumption with a standard diesel/gearbox setup is a different question. A train operates at a relatively constant load for long periods of time with slow, steady acceleration/deceleration.. Fighting vehicles are used more like off-road vehicles – lots of stop/go, idling, fast acceleration/deceleration, etc . . . .
I’m guessing we don’t use diesel-electric drives in fighting vehicles because the usage patterns say a diesel/gearbox setup is a better choice. But as noted above, diesel-electric drives are used in some mining equipment. Maybe they’d work OK in a combat vehicle too.
In any case: IMO putting a multi-ton battery in a combat vehicle is a STUPID idea. Only viable choices I know of today would be either lead-acid or some type of newer lithium ion setup. The former have severe chemical hazard issues; the latter, substantial fire issues. Neither is something you really want nearby if you’re likely to take incoming fire.
I agree, Hondo, and as I see it, unnecessary equipment complexity can render any unit NMC in a Combat Zone. Making any Tactical Vehicle much more complex like this plan is a recipe for disaster!