![]() They give the impression that Ukraine has found the antidote to tank warfare. Images of these tanks left as nothing more than burnt hulls, their turrets separated from the rest of the vehicle and thrown violently into a nearby ditch, may appear shocking. As the conflict has progressed, these images have come to include some of the more advanced tanks in Russia’s arsenal: the T-80BVM and T-72B3M. Lightweighting decisions usually consider cost and energy tradeoffs, but other logistical and mission-oriented objectives are also critical in deciding to lightweight vehicles, especially military ones.Some of the very first images to emerge from the war in Ukraine, apart from the devastation caused by Russia’s long-range missile strikes, were of burning Russian armoured vehicles. These ratios are more favorable than those above, primarily due to the inclusion of upstream life cycle stages for unmodified tanks. ![]() The cost ratio between lightweight and heavier hull varies (with distance) from 1.58 to 1.96 and the PED ratio ranges from 1.0 to 1.07. A life cycle refurbishment/refitting analysis of these components was conducted to evaluate part production and operational impact differences between lightweight and heavier components. Fuel savings from lightweighting do not offset lightweight part production and retrofitting costs for realistic distances. Cost and PED ratios decrease with increasing distance. PED values for the lightweight hull are 1.1 to 2 times the unmodified tank. Depending on the distance traveled, cost to retrofit and operate a tank with a lightweighted hull is 3.5 to 19 times the cost for just operating an unmodified tank over the same distance. Army-defined drive cycles were employed and an FC vs. Metrics for lightweight components are expressed as ratios comparing lightweighted and unmodified tanks. Life cycle stages included are preproduction (design, prototype, and testing), material production, part fabrication, and operation. ![]() The impact of retrofitting with lightweight components is evaluated through primary energy demand (PED), cost, and fuel consumption (FC). Reducing the weight of the M1A2 tank by lightweighting hull, suspension, and track results in 5.1%, 1.3%, and 0.6% tank mass reductions, respectively. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |