this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
305 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

84043 readers
8946 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
305
China’s ‘land aircraft carrier’ charges flying drone with microwave beam (www.scmp.com)
submitted 4 days ago by FTonsilStones@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
72 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
[–] sircac@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] sircac@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours 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.

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.