Future Naval Drone Power Pt II
- September 28, 2012
- / Category Drones, Future Tech
- / Posted By NavalDrones
- / 1 Comment.
Unmanned naval systems are rapidly reaching the limitations of physics with regard to their endurance. Current internal combustion and electrically powered systems have several drawbacks. In addition to range/weight issues, liquid fuel engines make for noisy UAVs which can compromise missions in some circumstances, such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Electrically-powered UAVs are quiet, but batteries do not approach the energy contained within a similar weight of fossil fuel. This article clearly explains the physical limitations of current battery technologies. Modern lithium-ion batteries are problematic due to their propensity to catch fire and explode. SOCOM’s billion dollar Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) fire illustrated why navies are not keen on carrying lithium-ion batteries at sea, especially undersea. Clearly, alternative power technologies are in high demand.
Previously, we highlighted the use of ship-based lasers to power future UAS. The video below discusses these tests, along with a propane-powered variant. Planned upcoming flight tests will demonstrate the ability to keep a Stalker Small Tactical UAS aloft using a laser for two to three days.
For long-endurance surface and underwater vehicles where speed is not a mission requirement, wave power and buoyancy-driven gliders are viable alternatives. Another possibility for powering future autonomous sea-floor crawlers or UUVs is the benthic microbial fuel cell. Naval drones will require continued innovations in power to allow performance necessary to meet future operational requirements.
This article was re-posted by permission from NavalDrones.com.
Like us on Facebook
CIMSEC Twitter Feed
My TweetsRecent Posts
- Navy Combat Information Integration
- Costs vs. Capabilities: Canada’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy
- Wrapping Up Alternatives to DDG Flight III
- X-47B Sea Trials – A BFD
- Patos, Logos, Etos and the LCS Design Trap
Categories
- 3D Printing
- Beans Boots Bullets
- Current Capability Analysis
- Current Operations
- Cyber War
- Drones
- Events
- Future Tech
- Future War
- New Initiatives
- Seamanship and Leadership
- Seasteading
- Strategic Outlook
- Tactical Concepts
- The Lighter Side
- Uncategorized
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
We Suggest
- Australia: ASPI's The Strategist
- Australia: Security Scholar
- Britain: The Risky Shift
- Canada: Atlantic Council of Canada – Maritime Issues
- Germany: Seidlers Sicherheistpolitik
- Poland: Viribus Unitis
- U.S.: CDR Salamander
- U.S.: Chuck Hill's CG Blog
- U.S.: Defense Tech
- U.S.: gCaptain
- U.S.: Information Dissemination
- U.S.: NavalDrones
- U.S.: Navy Center for Innovation Weblog
- U.S.: The Naval Diplomat
- U.S.: USNI Blog
- U.S.: Wired's Danger Room
Blogs of Our Friends
- Adam Elkus: Rethinking Security
- Amy Lindahl: Sailing Into the Desert
- Andrew Erickson
- Bryan McGrath: The Conservative Wahoo


[...] few months back we had a guest post from NavalDrones on the site discussing power needs for drones, focusing on the advantages of [...]