Do you think there will be fuel-efficient vehicles that are up-armored in the near future for the US Army?

2022-04-26T07:58:23-04:00

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2022 10:22 AM

2022-04-26T10:22:15-04:00

Not in our lifetime

Response by LTC Ray Buenteo made Apr 26 at 2022 10:33 AM

2022-04-26T10:33:31-04:00

Fuel efficient up armored vehicle. Contradiction in terms

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Apr 26 at 2022 10:41 AM

2022-04-26T10:41:22-04:00

All modern vehicles are more fuel-efficient than their predecessors. Modern internal combustions engines produce more horsepower per cubic inch and with better transmission systems. To use my old Nissan Frontier V-6 as an example, a 3.5 Liter 2000 Desert Runner generated 170 HP and around 200 Lb. Ft. of Torque, with a 19 MPG highway mileage. The 2021 Frontier V-6 is a 3.8 Liter that gets 310 HP and 281 Lb. Ft. of Torque and 24 MPG. Thats about a 21% increase in mileage will adding 40 HP. Or looking at it per Cubic Liter, the 2000 averages about 52 HP per liter and the 2021 gets about 82 HP per liter with better mileage.
Still, you can't get around the fact that armor means weight and total weight per Cubic Inch or Liter is a major factor in fuel efficiency, given that most military vehicles are exactly aerodynamic.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 26 at 2022 11:28 AM

2022-04-26T11:28:36-04:00

The phrase "never say never" comes to mind.

"up armored" and "fuel efficient" are usually mutually exclusive phrases. More weight means more energy expended to move. As technology evolves, materials become stronger and lighter, propulsion systems (ie: more fuel efficient engines) improvements, who knows what the future may hold in store though. I don't foresee any great changes in the "near future" but generations to come may see vastly different vehicles in use.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2022 11:53 AM

2022-04-26T11:53:48-04:00

There is a better chance of jet packs being issued out ... LOL

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2022 12:06 PM

2022-04-26T12:06:40-04:00

It does and will improve over time, but "efficient" by military definition will never be the same as "efficient" by EPA definition.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 26 at 2022 5:05 PM

2022-04-26T17:05:06-04:00

Military motors aren't engineered to be fuel efficient- but multi-purpose. seldom do fuel-saving motors work in temp extremes of 130+f to -40+f. , nor multi-terrain, carrying 1,000 to tons of armor, weapons, etc.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2022 8:37 AM

2022-04-27T08:37:50-04:00

I don't think if I am fighting a war, that my first concern is the MPG for my tank or other vehicle.

Response by PFC Michael Molaison made Apr 27 at 2022 8:50 AM

2022-04-27T08:50:16-04:00

Eventually yeah. The technology is advancing quite rapidly and won't be as cost prohibitive as it is now. I don't see it happening in my lifetime, but it will happen.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Apr 27 at 2022 9:24 PM

2022-04-27T21:24:49-04:00

Tactical equipment are not road cruisers, they are heavy and designed for off road use. Efficiency will improve over time, but will never be effective with what a civilian, including those in government offices, consider efficient. Of course, if you really want to give them cardiac arrest, turn the conversation to how much JP helicopters pump out when the load is so heavy that lift doesn't equal load.

Response by CPL Matthew Malinovsky made Jul 10 at 2022 7:36 AM

2022-07-10T07:36:51-04:00

We were using Vietnam era vehicles in 2010. Air force would get the newest stuff, Army always gets what the Air force doesn't want. Like barracks get condemned by Air Force, but Army will accept it.

Response by SSG Paul Giammalva made Aug 10 at 2022 10:03 PM

2022-08-10T22:03:04-04:00

Serving in the ARMY as long as I did In the 3RD cav and 11TH acr I think NO