Having a source of electricity that doesn't require diesel fuel can be advantageous. It's silent, with a lower heat signature too.
Having a source of electricity that doesn't require diesel fuel can be advantageous. It's silent, with a lower heat signature too.
JP-8 (similar to diesel) is easy to source the world over, has high energy density, is easy to transport and runs nearly everything in the military.
Solar is a nice idea but we’re nowhere near (economical) panel efficiencies necessary to transition field electricity use. Keep in mind, the further you get from the flag pole the less electricity you need. Things are designed that way for obvious reasons.
Seems possible in 50 years or so things could be more mobile or advanced in other manners.
Either way, certainly interested in seeing what the USAF will be doing to get to 0 emissions. I have a sense they may be able to harness resources towards goal a bit more effectively than some of our more fractured systems of governance.
Seems easier to invest in micro reactors.
"Super small" energy storage is called synthetic fuel, something that has already been demonstrated practical for military deployment.
In certain circumstances, ammonia as fuel would make more sense.
Or maybe metallic hydrogen at standard conditions will be attained soon enough.
But LH2 aircraft, wherever actually deployed, will be impossible to compete with.
The visibility will be extreme though, for the same energy density. If mobility is a concern, then the energy density/lb would be incredibly low, compared to fuel. I think this would only make sense if you were near a body of water (obviously) for an extended period of time, and you didn't care if everyone flying over knew you were there.
Besides, solar panels are so cheap these days, that it might cost more to destroy them with munitions than to install/purchase them in bulk.
Nuclear, gas, oil... not so much! Same for dams.
And even if you avoid immediate loss of life and environmental damage you still have an emergency to handle.