• Hubi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

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

  • jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 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 👍🏿

    • gravitas_deficiency
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 hours ago

      No no, it’s credible because it decreases the ground weight, and if you fill it up enough, it can just float over AT mines 🤓

    • Voroxpete
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 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?

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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
          ·
          3 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.

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

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

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 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
            ·
            2 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
              7
              ·
              2 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
          3
          ·
          4 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          4 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
            4 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.

            • Uranium 🟩
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              Silly one, and but do tanks run on diesel?

              Every other heavy machine I can think of typically uses diesel for their engines: tractors, lorries, boats.

              Also diesel is less flammable then petrol or hydrogen in the event of a spill of leak…

    • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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
    11
    ·
    5 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
      8
      ·
      4 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
        ·
        12 minutes 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