298
China’s ‘land aircraft carrier’ charges flying drone with microwave beam (www.scmp.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Scientists in China have demonstrated a wireless power transmission system that uses a ground-based microwave emitter to beam energy to an antenna array mounted on the aircraft’s underside. Importantly, they were able to do this while both the drone and charging system were in motion.

In tests, the car-mounted system kept fixed-wing drones in the air for up to 3.1 hours at an altitude of 15 metres (49 feet). The key challenge that the team overcame was maintaining alignment between the emitter and the drone during flight, wrote Song Liwei, the project’s leader.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I think the biggest problem is that this way you have a beacon to your flying device and your recharging station, it would not be that difficult to build a bomb/missile that follow the trace to the ground station

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    I think that the "recharging" will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply, but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes, and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    I think that the “recharging” will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply,

    For an electric recharge I think you need a decent size infrastucture that you cannot move that much or easily. I don't think that you can do with a enourmous power bank mounted on a truck.

    but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes,

    Except that you can refuel a normal plane with just a couple of trucks and a strip of road long enough (Sweden built the Viggen around this principle and even the US has the highway designed to work as temporary airfield by some old law).
    While it is easy to hit an airport, it became a lot harder to take out all the roads (in part because you will later need them)

    and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough

    Yes, the charging station. Once I take out it, you electric planes are out of order. No more patrolling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    I asume this technology when mature enough will not be surrounded by a single point failure. Allowing electric recharge of flying devices, that already have some battery autonomy, without having to land and take off, is clearly more efficient and less vulnerable. Plus mobile electric rechargers, battery deposits and infrastructure will have the same weaknesses than fuel ones (except electric ones would may blow up a bit less under fire)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    I asume this technology when mature enough will not be surrounded by a single point failure.

    Up to a point, probably yes.

    Allowing electric recharge of flying devices, that already have some battery autonomy, without having to land and take off, is clearly more efficient and less vulnerable.

    Maybe is more efficient, but not less vulnerable. To recharge a flying device this way you basically mark the charging station even if you try to hide it, an attack could be carried against the station. Additionally having the drone or plane flying near it give away your position even if you come up with a mobile charging station (you cannot recharge too much far away, physic still stand). Then there is the problem of how much time you need to recharge it to a decent level, I am afraid that it would be in the hours range, and the necessity to keep the alignement, they had this problem also during the test, I suppose in a combat situation it would be way harder and this specific problem will not go away as the tech mature.

    On the other hand, to keep the J37 Viggen example, it can be rearmed and refueled in 10 minutes and just need about 500 meters to take off. In this case if you don't see where the plane land, you also need the time to find it, it not give away its position during the operation with a microwave beacon.

    Plus mobile electric rechargers, battery deposits and infrastructure will have the same weaknesses than fuel ones (except electric ones would may blow up a bit less under fire)

    Once a battery is damaged, it make no difference that it blow up or not, it is useless. And generally a battery fire is harder to put out.

    But it would be interesting to see how it eveolve and if it became mature enough to be used in a real combat situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives.

    If is necessary to reload ammo no refueling-in-flight technology applies of course.

    And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc).

    If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries.

    I still see many advantages to the concept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives.

    I think they are equally vulnerable, only in different ways.

    And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc).

    My point earlier: while it is true that fuel explode and the damage propagate faster, it is easier to replace a tank (trucks) than a battery that can be made useless just damaging it, no need to destroy it.

    If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries.

    Up to a point yes, but it has physical limits (not unlike fuel refuelling, only diverse)

    I still see many advantages to the concept.

    It can. It need to be seen if it is scale well enough to be used on more than a test in a real life situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.

    Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.

    Refuelling could be slower, I agree, but I am not sure that is more risky, wireless recharging simply has a different set of problems.

    Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.

    True, but as far as you can advance contactless recharge, I am afraid physic and air are not on your side.

    But as I said, I am curious about the development of this technology, leaving aside the fact that basically you cannot deploy it anyware if not your home county (or allied) and that in my opinion is a way bigger limit to it usefulness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent