You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Introducing... The Hybrid Bradley?
2013-05-29
tu3031, in a moment of fine snark, called this in a comment thread a few years ago. You magnificent bastard!
Next year, the U.S. Army is expected to choose a larger tank*--a ground combat vehicle (GCV), to be specific--to replace its Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, which has been in service since 1981. If the army accepts one contractor's proposal, its armored brigades could be relying heavily on a tank with a hybrid engine for several decades.
I haven't seen an idea this dumb since Microsoft Bob...
Posted by:Raj

#21  Oh, I thought this was about Bradley Manning being AC/DC. That would be surprising, since he's obviously not.
Posted by: KBK   2013-05-29 20:12  

#20  The South Africans developed a large truck with a v-shaped bottom for defense against landmines, the bottom channeld the explosion away. The same concept adapted to a HUMVEE would be good for IEDs.

Make the thing desiel/biodesiel compatible so you can run off of any kind of vegetable oil in a pinch as well as make the greenies happy.

Its almost like they want to spend more per unit than they have to.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-05-29 14:54  

#19  I'm a retired armor and cavalry officer, and appreciate the sense of these comments about this as a foolish idea on so many levels. But you are missing the salient point, that trumps all the others. IN the pantheon of GREEN, worshipers always find hybrid worthy, since it helps protect the true home, Gaia, and none of these piddling reality questions matter. Our overlords lead by Champ know what is good for us, and the leadership in the five sided building is being culled of those that disagree at an alarming rate. Look back at what has been done to the force, and is being done to what was once our technological superiority before the Chicoms stole everything, and you see the path Champ has planned for the proletariat.
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2013-05-29 14:40  

#18  This isn't new - had one of these when I was a kid.

Posted by: Vinegar Lumplump7734   2013-05-29 14:38  

#17  Have it deploy a squad of Johnny 5's?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-05-29 14:34  

#16  Another reason not to get a Hybrid - these things would consider them prey.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2013-05-29 13:39  

#15  No crew required. Controlled from the WH via drone down-link. Can also use captured F-150 batteries, fuel, and oil filters.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-05-29 13:27  

#14  I would like to know where the heck they plan on stuffing all those extra batteries. There was not much room left inside as it was.

Don't include a crew, just a computer to operate it?
Posted by: Glenmore   2013-05-29 13:22  

#13  As a retired army maintenance officer, I can say with some authority that this will be a truly epic disaster. We had enough problems with the brads' electrical systems as it was. IIRC, the #1 engine problem we had was the generator to charge batteries and run all the electrical stuff. (turret hydraulics (Yes, the turret hydraulic system is powered by an electric motor), radios, etc.)

I would like to know where the heck they plan on stuffing all those extra batteries. There was not much room left inside as it was.
Posted by: Nguard   2013-05-29 12:50  

#12  Most of the time, the power in BAEÂ’s tank would come from diesel generators that would deliver electricity to the motor and to the batteries. When extra power is needed, such as when the tank is accelerating, the batteries would engage. According to BAE, the tank would use 10 to 20 percent less fuel than a vehicle of the same size with a conventional engine. Because of its sheer mass, it would still be inefficient relative to other kinds of vehicles. Despite its hybrid engine and 255-gallon gas tank, the tank would be able to go no more than 186 miles without refueling, according to the company.

It looks like the GCV is using the exact opposite philosophy as rammer suggests, which means it makes even less sense than it did before.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2013-05-29 12:42  

#11  They're busy rebuilding the army to being theoretically less vulnerable to the last generation of IED's at the cost of realistically destroying its cross-country mobility against any sort of peer competitor.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2013-05-29 12:28  

#10  Why not use an M113 frame for that purpose?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-05-29 12:18  

#9  Totally ignoring the complexity of a hybrid power system, I would think just the extra weight of the batteries would kill the idea.

For an amusing and quasi-factual look at how the Bradley came to be the Bradley, check out the flick Pentagon Wars

Posted by: SteveS   2013-05-29 12:02  

#8  There are a few advantages for electric drive. It can apply more torque more quickly, is quieter, can be used for regenerative breaking, which improves fuel economy. Also, almost all training tasks can be done without cranking the engine reducing maintenance and O&S costs.

Now getting those advantages costs more money upfront through more complex design, more components, and more care in construction to separate the electric bits from the people inside.

It is not inherently dumb, but is instead a choice about operations and the intended use, and the GD option is pure diesel; so, we still have that choice available.

Now being 72 tons, that is pretty much dumb, no matter what you want to do with the thing.
Posted by: rammer   2013-05-29 12:01  

#7  
Are they getting small enough to mount on something the size of a Bradley, Rob?


Getting close. The biggest question is the discharge rate of the batteries. If they're fast-discharge, then it's for a weapon platform.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2013-05-29 11:35  

#6  I would not ride that.
Posted by: newc   2013-05-29 11:25  

#5  Are they getting small enough to mount on something the size of a Bradley, Rob?
Posted by: Mitch H.   2013-05-29 09:56  

#4  I wonder if the "hybrid" is actually a power storage system for a field-deployable energy weapon...
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2013-05-29 09:34  

#3  The thing is the US Army already tried Hybrid vehicles back in the 1970's IIRC. Diesel engine turning a generator, electric motors, and a lead acid battery back. The weight of the truck canceled out any fuel advantage. There are lighter batteries now but they are much more expensive and more dangerous when battle damaged and start burning. However don't be surprised it some buddy buddy company with Crony connections to the Obama administration gets a "Green" contract for them.
Posted by: Shump Ebbinesing8470   2013-05-29 05:34  

#2  You can't argue with religious fanatics.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2013-05-29 04:09  

#1  The problem with hybrid engines is there is a lot more to go wrong.

The great advantage of the diesel engine is its inherent simplicity. There is not much that can break in a diesel engine.

A dumb idea.
Posted by: phil_b   2013-05-29 01:11  

00:00