According to a quick google gas turbines using diesel.
British army (maybe) getting a new MBT?
- Thread starter jlvfr
- Start date
According to a quick google gas turbines using diesel.
Chunder
Colonist
Not much difference between jet fuel and diesel... The decision is probably a logistical one 
Thought I remembered something about a conversion to diesel.
Not much difference between jet fuel and diesel... The decision is probably a logistical one
As I recall it was just that, i.e. the Aus Army wanted them to run off the same fuel they used for their other fighting vehicles.
Not much difference between jet fuel and diesel... The decision is probably a logistical one
Isn't diesel cheaper?
SteveDaPirate
New member
One of the benefits the Abrams gets from using a turbine besides the great power to weight ratio is that you can fuel it with damn near anything that burns. Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, avgas, thick marine diesel, or even grain alcohol will make that tank go. The downside to the turbine engine, is that it takes a lot of whatever you put in it.
1. The US is NOT building new tanks. The issue is REBUILDING of tanks...i.e., strip them down to the hull and do a complete overhaul. And one of the reasons Odierno stated what he did was...sequestration! Tank units are expensive. Light Infantry is cheaper. If Congress is going to force a smaller budget on the Army The Chief is going to tell Congress you are going to lose work in your districts.
2. The M1s in the budget were not for current units but to placed in OCONUS preposition stocks...we are building more POMCUS sites world wide.
3. The US military uses a single fuel for all ground and rotary vehicles and aircraft...JP-8. We went away from diesel 20 years ago. All engines which are thought of as diesel are actually multi-fuel. Gasoline is used in non-tactical vehicles (i.e., leased commercial vans & trucks) and, maybe in some older cooking sets. Everything else is JP-8...aviation units use special filtering but its the same stuff which goes into a HMMWV, M1, M2, whatever.
And while switching to M1s may seem a logistics burden, in the long run it may be cheaper. They are VERY reliable. And that log tail need not go any further back than Kaiserslautern. But I more than understand buying within NATO...that makes sense as well.
2. The M1s in the budget were not for current units but to placed in OCONUS preposition stocks...we are building more POMCUS sites world wide.
3. The US military uses a single fuel for all ground and rotary vehicles and aircraft...JP-8. We went away from diesel 20 years ago. All engines which are thought of as diesel are actually multi-fuel. Gasoline is used in non-tactical vehicles (i.e., leased commercial vans & trucks) and, maybe in some older cooking sets. Everything else is JP-8...aviation units use special filtering but its the same stuff which goes into a HMMWV, M1, M2, whatever.
And while switching to M1s may seem a logistics burden, in the long run it may be cheaper. They are VERY reliable. And that log tail need not go any further back than Kaiserslautern. But I more than understand buying within NATO...that makes sense as well.
tankie
Banned
/\ like
And audi / skoda have also come clean ooops no pun intended , however to get back on track , the tory govt is also buying up the worlds left over stock of jonnie 7s ,, not that we have an army left to use them tho .
Tankie,
Johnnie 7?
The only johnny 7 I know is the one on the following clip...which I got for Christmas in 1964!
Chunder
Colonist
Don't actually know, I had a feeling it wasn't. BUT we don't have many of them.... like bugger all, given we do have a lot of diesel stuff sort of makes sense to me.
tankie
Banned
Thats the one A/R ,, for peeps who dont know they were a very sought after toy ,,I was making ref to the fact that the cheapskate tories who have decimated the brit army ,,we dont have enough soldiers now to fill wembley stadium ?? so why get a new tank , no theatre to op in , BAOR is kaput , so its stick with what we have n supply what they think we need , hence jonny 7s ,,facetious me huh .
Okay...I am not as crazy as I thought.
But maybe I am...since I agree with you and got the same thought!
Stitch
New member
It depends; theoretically, yes, diesel should be cheaper. It is less refined than gasoline (petrol, to you Brits) and other light fuels, like JP4, JP8 and kerosene. But then there is supply & demand; when demand goes up, price goes up, and vice-versa. Also, it's not just the refining of the fuel oil that dictates price; it's also the distribution and storage capacity of any given commodity that contributes to the ultimate price to the consumer (the US military included).
Doktor
New member
Most of all... Taxes.
Tankersteve
New member
simpler logistics
simpler logistics
It may be cheaper, but you likely don't burn diesel in your helicopters. As Albany Rifles mentioned, JP8 runs just about everything in the US Army, to include all aviation, trucks, combat vehicles and generators. You can run commercial diesels on JP8 - just tends to burn a bit hot, if I remember correctly.
My point, is this greatly simplifies logistics. One fuel to haul around and manage. Simpler fuel farms and truck convoys. One problem with our sudden COTS purchases of MRAPs is that some would not use JP8. This was a pain in the butt for the loggies, trying to source and manage a low-density fuel.
One small note, the mechanics do have to make some adjustments to burn some fuels in an M1 such as commercial gasoline (MOGAS).
With tanks specifically, the downside to not running diesel is you lose the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting fuel onto the exhaust. If we ever get into a serious shooting war with an enemy running ATGMs and attack aviation in large numbers, this will be significant. The amount of smoke created is enormous and practically instantaneous, providing significant obscuration and concealment. However, there is no retrofit to do if we find ourselves with access to diesel in the future, other than reconnecting the switch in the driver's compartment (you don't want to inject JP8 into the exhaust - different evaporation or smoke point or some such detail).
The only real difference for aviation units that I am aware of is closer fuel monitoring/testing and different hose hookups for fueling the helicopters.
Tankersteve
simpler logistics
It may be cheaper, but you likely don't burn diesel in your helicopters. As Albany Rifles mentioned, JP8 runs just about everything in the US Army, to include all aviation, trucks, combat vehicles and generators. You can run commercial diesels on JP8 - just tends to burn a bit hot, if I remember correctly.
My point, is this greatly simplifies logistics. One fuel to haul around and manage. Simpler fuel farms and truck convoys. One problem with our sudden COTS purchases of MRAPs is that some would not use JP8. This was a pain in the butt for the loggies, trying to source and manage a low-density fuel.
One small note, the mechanics do have to make some adjustments to burn some fuels in an M1 such as commercial gasoline (MOGAS).
With tanks specifically, the downside to not running diesel is you lose the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting fuel onto the exhaust. If we ever get into a serious shooting war with an enemy running ATGMs and attack aviation in large numbers, this will be significant. The amount of smoke created is enormous and practically instantaneous, providing significant obscuration and concealment. However, there is no retrofit to do if we find ourselves with access to diesel in the future, other than reconnecting the switch in the driver's compartment (you don't want to inject JP8 into the exhaust - different evaporation or smoke point or some such detail).
The only real difference for aviation units that I am aware of is closer fuel monitoring/testing and different hose hookups for fueling the helicopters.
Tankersteve
Nothing the latest 'Strategic Defence and Security Review' (out today) about a new tank. Extra £12bn over the next five years; more F35s to be bought so that both of the (in production) Queen Elizabeth carries have a complement, four new Frigates (presumably for two operational carriers) and two rapid response 'Strike Brigades' to be set up as well as maritime patrol aircraft (Nimrod replacement) and more high-altitude drones.
Full pdf file here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nd-strategic-defence-and-security-review-2015
Full pdf file here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...nd-strategic-defence-and-security-review-2015
Chunder
Colonist
You won't get two operational carriers if you only ever have two. You may for very short periods, but that's about it.
It isn't a nitpick, it's a very important point.
It isn't a nitpick, it's a very important point.
zraver
Staff Emeritus , Military Professional, Contrary b
Logistically, the Abrams and Leopard are the only real choices for nations without their own tank building... both come with easy access to spares. The Leclerc, Challenger and Arete as good as they are, do not have the advantage of scale of production than the big 2 do.
True. In theory both GB and France could commit to building their own MBT designs but only if either country was also prepared to commit to an enormous production run. (Think several hundred vehicles at least) which simply can't be justified given their current economic and defense priorities, it just wouldn't make economic sense. So while India and China can manage it I doubt very much that either France and England could. After all the same issues apply to current and future jet fighter acquisitions and no country in Europe has the 'readies' at hand to take on a major aerospace project like that by themselves either.
So if there was to be an EU wide push for a new MBT design sometime in the next decade or so I would be betting on a (face saving) consortium based approach, even if Germany (and everyone else in Europe for that matter) knows that Krauss-Maffei could handle the whole job by themselves thanks very much.
Last edited:
OTOH this was by deliberate design on part of both the Europeans and the Americans in the post-WWII environment. we did the same thing with Japan.
Grippen, Eurofighter, Mistral, PL1 development (now building a prototype with BAE Systems), Type 45 Frigates and QE Class carriers... Ukraine was producing it's first recon UAVs in June last year. Now producing Oplot tanks en mass and Israeli licensed automatic guns. If the political will was there Europe could rearm fast as Ukraine and Poland are now doing.
I agree but I think the point is to have one operational all the time.
zraver
Staff Emeritus , Military Professional, Contrary b
Look at how low the production numbers are, where is the nation that can make at least 80% of its own defense needs and provide at least 50% of the troops it needs during a general war. Europe used to have several- UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland now it has none. Well there is one European nation that can still make all its own kit- Russia.
Triple C
New member
"Embedded leverage" for the patron of security collective, the clients enjoy domestic savings?
The benefits and costs of being 'king of the hill'. From the US perspective the plus side of the equation is that as the dominant military power in Europe and 'guarantor' of peace you have diplomatic weight on issues relating to EU security and foreign policy. Not control but certainly influence. The down side is of course that you have to pay for the privilege via a larger defense budget.
The European view is of course the mirror image. You get the protection of a strong military alliance and lower domestic defense budgets at the cost of less independence on key foreign policy issues (and no doubt some domestic political issues as well).
In other words you pay for what you get. My sense is that the US is starting the questing whether being the 'World Police' (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is worth the cost and that maybe it's time it's NATO partners started paying their way. Which is fine as log as you are also prepared to give up the influence that defense spending buys you, Anyone willing to bet which way the the US will decide?
The European view is of course the mirror image. You get the protection of a strong military alliance and lower domestic defense budgets at the cost of less independence on key foreign policy issues (and no doubt some domestic political issues as well).
In other words you pay for what you get. My sense is that the US is starting the questing whether being the 'World Police' (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is worth the cost and that maybe it's time it's NATO partners started paying their way. Which is fine as log as you are also prepared to give up the influence that defense spending buys you, Anyone willing to bet which way the the US will decide?
Stitch
New member
This has been a bone of contention between Europe and the US for years (maybe even decades); for a long time, during the Cold War, Europe was "safe" under the US's nuclear umbrella. However, since the end of the Cold War, the US has been trying to get Europe (and specifically NATO) to shoulder a larger share of the common defense burden, which they are grudgingly doing. Just before Gates stepped down as Secretary of Defense a few years ago, he specifically mentioned the lack of participation of many of the NATO members, and warned that the US is becoming increasingly disillusioned with supporting the 65-year old military alliance almost unilaterally. However, I don't see the US backing out of the alliance anytime soon, though I'm sure we will begin cutting back (if we haven't already) on our fiscal and political support of NATO.
Actually we are increasing our support. We are establishing equipment sets all across the continent. We are increasing our joint training and operations. We are investing in sites in Poland, the Baltics, Rumania, Bulgaria & Czech Republic.
We are not stepping away...we are stepping up as well.
Keep in mind just because is is a National Guard or Reserve unit doing the mission for the US, do not see that as a sign that something is unimportant. The ARNG & USARC of 2015 is VERY different from the ARNG/ & USARC of 2001.
Stitch
New member
I'm not sure about the ARNG or the USARC, but I was very surprised recently to find out that the ANG actually flies most of our tactical air missions, both overseas and domestically; IIRC, a majority of our ACC missions are staffed by ANG units. With the drawdown of forces, especially since BRAC, a lot of the tactical and strategic assets have been transferred to ANG units.
The ARNG & USAR are not a strategic reserve anymore. They are operational forces. Every ARNG state is aligned with an allied nation in the world; especially the newer NATO countries. They exchange training yearly. They are also all engaging in several major deployments and exercises in FY 16 & 17 along with Active duty units.
The same level of activity for the USAR. Also at any given time a large chunk of the Air Mobility Command airframes flying, and personnel deployed running BASOPS on contingency missions are USAFR.
Dam, but I shouldn't post when I'm tired. My spelling/sentence structure goes out the window.