“The posters were talking about the TRACKS and they’re right.”
They were? Funny....If it were tracks they were talking about the powerplant type would not be relevant to noise generation discussed in the article.....either powerplant type would have similiar “tracks” with similiar noise factors.
From the article.....
“This is a particularly helpful feature since enemy combatants can hear the current model’s 1,000+hp multi fuel turbine engine from miles away, and with a silent engine, the tank can sneak into certain territory relatively unheard. “
I don’t see where TRACKs are the issue.......The issue is Turbine v Fuel cell and their relative noise factors......
There’s a bit of embelishing going on as the turbine engine used in the Abrams Tank is considered stealthy by MBT standards......To say that the turbine engine can be heard from miles away is just not true.
The fuel cell, which uses a combustion engine to generate electricity to power wheel driving/ancillary systems electric motors. These fuel burning engines may or may not be quietier..... I think that those engines would be still be rather large in order to generate the necessary amounts of electricity needed by the electric motors....which would need to be 1000+ horsepower or better to equal the turbine in performance.
the central issue seems to me to be one of fuel consumption with the fuel cell being touted as being better, though I question wheather it can generate the same or better power, and worry about downtime for maintainance, especially during critical battlefield usage......
The purpose of a tank is to win Battles, not provide the best EPA rated MPG....
I believe the first post you responded to said, “engine or no engine”, meaning that the poster knows that the tanks is noisy, despite the engine. Separate from the article, but important when somebody talks about the lack of engine noise.
The ARTICLE was about the powerplant, and it’s about more than the mileage of a particular vehicle. By the time a gallon of suitable JP8 reaches that tank, it’s cost is multiplied by as much as 10X. All of this extra cost from the logistics train that must support that tank. That’s why recent M1’s were fitted with APUs, so that they didn’t have to run the turbine to run the electronics. A tank sits still, electronics running, FAR LONGER than it will ever drive.
Whoever mentioned “stealth” in respect to the Abrams is, indeed, embellishing (to say the least).
Why do you keep referring to a fuel cell as a “combustion” engine? You couldn’t be farther from the truth. Go ahead and do some research, first. They’re SILENT. They have NO MOVING PARTS. They are a electrochemical reaction, not the explosive process of an internal combustion engine or even the combustion of a turbine.
Sure, tanks are for battles.
They have to get there and they have to have FUEL.
Cutting the logistics train for JP8 by even 1/3 would be a HUGE improvement in the tank’s war-fighting ability. Less cost of fuel also means more money for spare parts and other consumeables.
I don’t think you have the right idea of what a “fuel cell” actually is?