• Hubi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Does noise really matter that much on a modern battlefield with one surveillance drone every 200 meters?

    • ikt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      the other feature is low to no heat, so these things are like tank drop bears

  • jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Famously transporting large volumes of hydrogen has never gone wrong and hydrogen charging stations have proven very reliable and also hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

    Good job hyundai 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      My dude, the military transports more volatile materials than hydrogen every day. Just because something doesn’t make sense for civilian use doesn’t mean it’s never going to be viable for military use.

      If you’re worried about the dangers of transporting something like hydrogen, you’re going to lose it when you find out what bombs are made out of.

      Electric motors are just more efficient in just about every way at scale, the current diesel motors being used in tanks aren’t really able to be improved upon. They’re at their technological peak, so the only way to move forward with mbt is by figuring out how to make electric motors work.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      In the case of military vehicles, hydrogen is about the greenest option that we’re gonna get. No one is going to make a battery powered AFV, because where the fuck would you charge it?

        • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          49 minutes ago

          If you ignore the fragility (creates a weak point to disable the tank) and the slow charging rate, dust and debris from firefights would be a pretty big issue.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Who if not the Germans built an electric tank in 2020 https://efahrer.chip.de/news/geraeuschlose-einsaetze-weltweit-erster-elektro-panzer-kommt-aus-deutschland_103179

        Sounds crazy at first but comes with some good advantages: it can cross rivers as it doesn’t need air for combustion, it’s silent, and you can load it anywhere at the battle field if you have solar panels, time and sun. Still you can rely on military logistics to carry a swap battery. But isn’t the military supply chain the first target to disrupt? My two cents, this is the next thing at battle fields.

        Oh, and if all your equipment runs on electricity, you can load and reload power at your needs. Tank needs power but car not? Combat robot out if power and car is full? Transfer the power

        • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Honestly if MILITARY applications are what kicks renewable energy and mass storage into high gear, I won’t be surprised, but I will be disappointed.

          But hey, improvement is still improvement and if a military organization sees renewable as the future, they’re gonna try to make sure they get there first. As long as whoever gets there shares the progress with the rest of the world, I’m okay with it.

          But who am I kidding, it’s gonna be China or the US and the rest of the world won’t see shit for decades due to suppression of research and technology that would allow for similar specs to be achieved privately…

          … How credible is my aluminum foil hat guy?

          I must admit though, it’d be cool to see an armored combat battery sliding across a field to quick charge a tank that died mid-battle. 10 seconds of charging to get it up and running, and the battery moves to the next low power thing. I’m imagining a semi-autonomous hot-swap of a battery compartment and eventually recharging like modern airplane mid-air refueling. Insert Rod A into Slot A and wait a little bit. The faster they want it to charge, the more they’ll dump into R&D.

          • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Just wait some years - they have solid state batteries close to industry ready. That means huge increase in capacity and no issues with temperature.

            Next stage will be structural batteries where you take the structure as battery. For a tank that means all the armour will be charged and work as battery. Just a matter of years.

            Loading time is solved already. It’s a matter of battery temperature while infusing power and solved by battery management software.

            Any idea why the Boston Dynamics robots aren’t on a battle field? I mean the do incredible stunts. It‘s the battery. Lasts for around 2-3 hours. Today. Military is working on that, I‘m pretty sure.

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Any reasonably sized pv installation near a battlefield will definitely not look suspicious on reconnaissance images.

          • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            58 minutes ago

            You think less suspicious than these huge petrol storages in a city?

            PV can be dismantled, if needed. I bet it’s even cheaper to replace when destroyed compared to petrol storage. Anyway, future will tell

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Tanks are going the way of the battle ship though. Drones are doing a lot of the stuff they can do, and a lot of things they can’t.

          • xavier_berthiaume@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I’m not super familiar with the matter, but what do you mean by “going the way of the battle ship”? Do you mean they’re becoming more obsolete because of their size/utility compared to drones?

            • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 hours ago

              That, and expense. Tanks cost millions, while a $5k drone with an RPG strapped to it can take it out and exploit the weak spots.

        • aard@kyu.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Still you can rely on military logistics to carry a swap battery. But isn’t the military supply chain the first target to disrupt?

          That’s true as well for hydrogen, though. And I guess there’s a higher chance of getting access to “power” somewhere in the field than finding a hydrogen tank. Also, energy density of lithium batteries is higher than for hydrogen storage.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Yes, obviously, putting explosives and projectile propellants in an armored vehicle is dangerous and should be avoided

          /s

          OSHA is not a credible military threat

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Right, but you are going to want to choose a fuel that has the least chance of flaming up if you’re making a military vehicle.

            Hydrogen has (compared to petroleum) a Wider Flammability Range, Lower Ignition Energy (0.02 millijoules) which is really low and much smaller than petroleum, and a higher diffusion rate.

            All of which make it more likely to go kaboom.

    • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      hydrogen as an alternative to electric is definitely not a ploy by big oil to keep drilling for fossil fuels!

      What are you talking about?

  • Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    If in video standards the decision made by the porn industry is decisive, I believe that in the energies of the future the decision made by the military industry will be the one that prevails.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’ll eat my socks if hydrogen powered tanks are actually purchased by any military. Hydrogen will literally never be a viable transportation fuel

      • Foni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I don’t have enough knowledge to argue with your words. A couple of years ago Germany introduced an electric tank. When the armies make requests for one option or another we will have the real answer