Home » Av Week Extra » Pentagon Seeks More Power From Vehicles

Pentagon Seeks More Power From Vehicles

This article first appeared in Defense Technology International.

A strong argument could be made that given the recent innovations in ground-vehicle armor, and vehicle-mounted communications and sensor equipment brought about by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is in a “Golden Age” for tactical vehicles.

It’s jarring to think that just a few years ago, U.S. forces entered Iraq in thin-skinned, often doorless or roofless Humvees, vehicles that now seem more appropriate for museums than combat zones. The unforeseen needs of extra armor, especially underbelly armor to deflect roadside bombs, and the exponentially greater power-generation requirements of a force that increasingly relies on sensors and communications gear, has strained the fleet to its limits, and led to a revolution in vehicle technology.

Many of the changes this has spawned can be seen in two new development projects: the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), envisioned as the battlefield replacement of the Humvee, and the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV), an interim replacement for Humvees in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan until the JLTV is fielded in 2015.

But while the attention of the military and industry is fixed on these two designs, with their electronics, sturdier suspension systems, lightweight composite armor and increased payloads, Brig. Gen. Brian Layer, commander of the Army’s Transportation Center, calls attention to the Expanded Capacity Vehicle-2 (ECV2) from AM General, an upgraded and improved Humvee that he says is the “middle piece” that will get the military through until the JLTV is fielded. The ECV2 incorporates lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so offers better power production capabilities, an engine moved forward, raised profile, more room in the crew compartment and electronic controls — features that take into account the growing power needs and space requirements of sensors and communications gear.

The ECV2 isn’t slated to hit the dirt until 2010, but one selling point is that it provides the same 3,500-lb. payload Humvees had before being weighed down with bolt-on armor in-theater. For whatever reason — probably due to its flashier JLTV, MRAP and M-ATV cousins — the ECV2 has been largely ignored in the rush to get new vehicles to troops in the field. Considering that it comes in at roughly half the cost of the JLTV (but without most of its technological upgrades and cutting-edge armor), it seems to be a capable vehicle that might get another look in budget-conscious times.

Throwing a little drama into the mix, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway warned in April that the service would not participate in the JLTV program if prototypes do not get lighter. The Marine Corps, he said, “will not buy a vehicle that’s 20,000 lb.” Depending on what the “evolution of development looks like, we may have to depart that buy and rehabilitate what we’ve got,” Conway said. But to add all of these capabilities to existing or in-development programs requires the vehicles to produce much more electrical wattage than they have been able to generate. Requirements for the JLTV, for example, call for each vehicle to have a 30-kw. generator.

Michael Gallagher, program manager for expeditionary power systems for the Marine Corps, says the service is trying to meet the need for juice by retrofitting 400-amp. alternators with reduced-diameter pulleys on Humvees to generate more electricity. “One of the key incentives for this was that more power is needed, but more power was really needed at lower speeds, when vehicles are idling, or [moving slowly],” he said at a tactical vehicle conference in April.

Gallagher reported that his office received economic stimulus funding for the project, and is using the cash to bring the system to a reasonable level of maturity before turning it over to industry later this year in an open competition, with the goal of testing it in 2010 and 2011. Gallagher admitted, though, that “400 amps can only get us so far for so long — in the future 400 amps will not be enough power,” especially considering that he was talking about DC power. One approach the Marines are looking at is giving Humvees 20 kw. (800 amps) of onboard power.

To put this in perspective, when Humvees were first fielded in the 1980s, they had 60-amp. alternators. Compare that to the 600–800-amp. alternators the M-ATV and JLTV are expected to use. But even that exponentially enhanced requirement, Gallagher admitted, might not be enough on a future battlefield. Vehicles today are expected to support a mix of military and commercial off-the-shelf electronics, he said, all with different power requirements. And the need will grow.

There is concern as well in the Stryker vehicle community about power generation. The 8 X 8 infantry vehicle, made by General Dynamics, doesn’t generate enough power to run all of its electronics simultaneously, according to Robert Hobbs, deputy capability manager at the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. The vehicle uses an analog system, which the Army wants to replace with digital technology.

Hobbs also spoke about suspension issues the vehicle could face if more armor is added to an already-stressed frame, which is “at the edge” of the weight the suspension system can accommodate. Originally designed at about 38,000 lb., with various armor packages Strykers now clock in at about 52,000 lb. Program managers, as a result, are looking at a semiactive suspension to handle the weight.

All of this work on power generation and suspension gear, and meeting the urgent battlefield needs of Iraq and Afghanistan, is siphoning cash away from other vehicles. Hobbs said work on the Stryker M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV) was “moving forward,” and General Dynamics had been given the go-ahead to build the MEV to replace M113s. That order, however, was put on hold. “We took the money that was scheduled to go into the 113 divesture and moved it to buy equipment for a Stryker brigade going to Afghanistan.“

With all this movement across the wheeled tactical vehicle fleet, Col. Mike Smith, director of training doctrine and combat command at the Army’s Armor Center, didn’t inspire much confidence when he called into question the next big-ticket tactical vehicle, the JLTV. Smith told the conference that he’s “not sure” if the Defense Dept. “has figured out what it really wants us to do with JLTV yet. The lighter family of vehicles crapped out on us and is no longer cost-effective.” He said the Defense Dept. is trying to get ahead of the issue, “but I’m not sure if we’ve figured out what it is we want in terms of” how the vehicle should perform in combat.

Read the rest of this story, check out spooky Skunk Works’ plastic plane, debate the cost of cancelling the Raptor and check out the KillerBee’s tour de France from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military​.com.

– Christian

Share |

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Charles June 5, 2009 at 8:51 am

Check out that article on the composites plane. Very interesting stuff; however a great deal isn’t answered.
I suppose the cost advantages are molding large pieces and doing it cheaper than metal?

Reply

Dennis June 5, 2009 at 11:28 am

Here is a wild idea.
Why not have vehicles that are made to have armor kits strapped on, with suspensions and variable engine configurations to meet a wide range of demands?
Once the armor kits are bolted on, air or hydraulic shocks could be pumped up to add extra suspension; an added turbo with a change in computer engine parameters could make the engine much stronger.
And with hybrid and electric vehicles coming out, there should be no shortage of battery packs to allow full use of all electrical equipment for a certain amount of time. This would allow the alternators to be much smaller.
None of this is genius brain work.
But then again neither is sending canvas topped Humvees into a war zone…..

Reply

TB June 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm

And with hybrid and electric vehicles coming out, there should be no shortage of battery packs to allow full use of all electrical equipment for a certain amount of time. This would allow the alternators to be much smaller.
The plan for FCS and JLTV was to use the vehicle’s engine to replace the 5Kw and 10Kw generators we have to drag into combat. I don’t think batteries can supplant that.

Reply

The Cenobyte June 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm

When my buddies in 3id started coming back from Iraq after their first tour the one things almost every single guy bitched about was power. Not enough of it anywhere. I personally couldn’t believe it. I knew that the DOD was electronics happy, but how could they have power issues with all those HUGE motors running all the time.
My Grandfather has a gen built into his work pickup trucks. 5.5kw AC, We ran a fridge, HD projector/entertainment center, and two box fans on one for a few days after a big storm last year. So it surprises me they are talking about needing 20kw+ 600-800amps at all, that

Reply

flying fart peoudly joyned June 5, 2009 at 3:22 pm

i like the picture.. it reminds me this one:
[IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/167s7k5.jpg[/IMG]

Reply

Roy Smith June 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm

The problem is “mission.” HMMWV’s worked great for the tactics employed during the early part of the Iraq invasion.It was light & built for speed. However we were not prepared for the urban environment of Iraq later on. We could have learned a lot from the British in Northern Ireland,the Israelis in the occupied territories,& the Russians in Chechnya. What bothers me is our lack of armor in Afghanistan. You’d think that our civilian leaders,both past & present,want us to fail. All of these new vehicles promised is like a “prick tease.” When it comes time to actually deploy them,they’ll get canceled as usual & our leaders will promise something better,like always.

Reply

Roy Smith June 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Oh yeah,now that we sold AM General(& the rest of Hummer) to the RED Chinese,I guess it is time to find a replacement.

Reply

flying fart proudly joyned June 5, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Oh yeah,now that we sold AM General(& the rest of Hummer) to the RED Chinese,I guess it is time to find a replacement.–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ6oC1gSz7E
Hey you’re confused what GM sold to china is the Hummer not the Humvee. Humvee belongs to AM General not GM. Hummer is actually a pathetic copy of AM General Humvee. Hummer is nowhere near the capabilities of the AM General Humvee they are totally different.
Actually the Hummer is a piece of shit? and its base on the Tahoe chassis. blablabla..—-
just in case but chinese do build the Hammerwe anyway.. (and they will get the bulletproof Hammer patents and high-tech wich has the best VIP protection)
btw. back in 50′ens FBI have hunted GM down just becuz they were ready to se

Reply

TB June 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Cenobyte:
power consumption:
-normal vehicle functions
-2 or more radios
-intra-team intercom
-FBCB2
-sirens
-extra lights
-multiple IED jammers
-UAV receiver
-electrical turret
-remote operated weapons station
M1151 humvees will have some combination of the above toys. The alternator maxes out after 5 of them.

Reply

Byron Skinner June 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Good Afternoon Folks,
The Stryker was a bad idea from inception and it’s only gets worse. The Army has worked itself into a hole with Stryker. With ownership now of over 2100 Strykers and another 746 to be build we have a vehicle that is over weight, under powered, can’t handle the electrical requirements of the digital battle field that it was to fight in, is under armored and has only a vehicle defense fire support capability with a single M2HB or Mk. 19.
I shutter at what the final per unit cost of Stryker will be when that Army finally decides that it is even marginally acceptable as an operational vehicle. I wouldn’t be surprised that the current $10 million sticker price for the Marines EFV wouldn’t be considered a bargain.
This feeble vehicle will be along with the 15K MRAP’s bought will be a significant part of the Army’s order of battle for the next two generations or more.
Boy did the Army screw up on this one. New war fighting concept, combat vehicles to expensive to risk in combat. Or in short hand the F-22 of land warfare.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

flying fart proudly joyned June 6, 2009 at 5:20 pm

The Stryker was a bad idea from inception and it’s only gets worse.–
nope stryker was a good idea for a good old front war with clear frontlines and fast pushing forward.. but it was a bad idea to make this into infantry tank and network-war tool. it should be what it was developed for; the infantry transport vehicle with light-support capabilities. and yep.. in Irak Stryker was droped with wrong tactics, strategy and failed formation. aside that Stryker is a car. you cant make it havier and better just by add new tools and upgrades. Styker was done for speed not for being a moving fortes.

Reply

Charles June 7, 2009 at 12:24 am

TB: I hope that comment doesn’t qualify for “swept under the rug for OPSEC reasons”.
Most vehicles are going to be that heavy until we can build them out of magical light-weight materials. Could always go back to tracks…maybe a de-turreted Bradley, or a new vehicle entirely?

Reply

The Cenobyte June 8, 2009 at 9:04 am

600 amps… I still don’t understand how you are using 600 amps? Please keep in mind that most houses in the US have 100amps or less going to them. Most new modern high tech houses have two 100 amp phases pulled to them. How in the heck is anyone running out of power with 600amps onboard. If the lights, remote weapon system, computers, intercom, receivers, sirens and normal functions take more than 20 or 30 amps you have done something very very very very wrong. The only thing I can think is that you have a 5000watt radio on board, at which point I don’t thik I would want to sit in the darn thing. Power management is not rocket science and I can’t for the life of me figure out why this should ever be a problem.

Reply

Dennis June 8, 2009 at 9:19 am

Cenobyte I understand your confusion. But after thinking about it the key factor here is:
-multiple IED jammers
I do not know anything about them, and they are probably classified.
However, thinking about how an electric system could interfere with an IED triggering system two words come to mind. High energy…..
And these systems have to run continuously while moving….
The quickest fix would be change the alternator and add as many more as needed.
But the humvees are already overloaded…..

Reply

Byron Skinner June 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Good Morning Folks,
Efforts have been made to mislead the public on Stryker since it inception. In considering wheeled vehicles it appears that nobody in the DOA bothered to read the 1937 Ft. Bliss study on track vs. wheeled vehicles nor the operational records of the german Panzer units of WWII especially their unit maintenance reports, but that’s all water over the dam, it’s no use now. What is of value in deciding the future of Stryker is the vehicles performance in Iraq.
The Stryker has enjoyed very favorable press including on this web site, the military isn’t going to provide embeds into the combat zone, tickets to defense contractors trade shows and access to reporters who don’t “get it”. Sorry Christian, Waed et al.
The only reporting we got was how fast the Stryker is, what a smooth quiet ride it had, since it could leave the road this make sense, but nothing about the problems. As was shown with the body armor issue, when the public finds out thing happen. I true and honest reporting of the Stryker happened how many lives would have been saved, how many wounded wouldn’t have been?
What has not been widely reported about Stryker in Iraq:
The slat armor doesn’t work at stopping PRG rounds, a roll of chain link fencing does a better job, the 5K pounds of extra weight has move the Strykers center of mass to the point where roll overs are common, the Striker is too heavy, no one know exactly what a Stryker weights but the first KIA in a Stryker was a driver who was crossing a bridge over a river and the bridge gave way and the driver could not get out.
The remote gun. No one has mentioned the fact that the remote gun system takes a full 60 seconds to rotate 360 degrees and the fastest a target can be acquired and the the M2 aim is 15 seconds. This gus is useless and in most cases has been removed in the field and a conventional manned mounted M2 mount has been installed in the commanders hatch.
The engine and drive train with the additional weight is to stressed and blown engines and transmissions are a common maintenance problem.
Like wise the brakes, tires and suspension are to light and have placed operational limits on the vehicle.
The wheel bearings and brakes are not sealed against the fine sand of Iraq and have been be ground down require frequent replacement.
The direct fire variant, a 105mm gun has been with drawn from service to be redesigned because it couldn’t handle the recoil and the auto loader was subject to malfunction because of the sand.
The first strikers went over to Iraq w/o AC and all the electronics fried in the desert heat. The entire fleet had to be sent back to Canada to have AC installed at a reported change order cost of $250K per vehicle.
All of the 2,131 Strykers have have had to have their engines and transmission replaces in a fleet wide up grade of 07.
Now we hear that the internal power requirements are insufficient to handle the digital communications package that was planned for the vehicle since day one. What’s next?
All these faults were know and were reported on various sites, usually by disgruntled soldiers who put their lives on the line and were failed by command vanity and a press so hungry for the goodies and perks the Army had to had out they lost site of journalism.
The Stryker has become the symbol of all that WRONG with the military/ industrial/ journalistic complex.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

KenZ June 13, 2009 at 10:14 am

Cenobyte: A house might have 100A service, but that’s at 120V. A military vehicle is operating at 26-28V. Granted, there’s the RMS correction factor for AC, but a first swag at it is that a house at 100A service is equivalent to a vehicle at 400A. So we can start with that…
TB basically fills in the list just about correctly. I’ve seen the entire power load that one can have (yeah, it is class), and there are some surprises in there. 600A worth? No, but 200A doesn’t cut it.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: