• jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    14 days 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
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days 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.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

        Also, the energy density of hydrogen is pretty poor, diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

          And yet you don’t think they could produce the same safety features for less volatile materials?

          diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

          Yeah, you just have to add a diesel engine, electric engine, and a giant battery…The whole point of moving to electric is to increase efficiency and decreasing the weight of primary motive components.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 days ago

            Hydrogen isn’t less volatile though, it’s actually much easier to ignite than any modern explosive.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 days 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?

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        Isn’t hydrogen even more flammable and explosive than petroleum. Just seems like a dumb idea to put that in a military vehicle.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          13 days 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
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days 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 🟩@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              13 days 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…

                • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  The Abrams can run on just about anything liquid and flammable. It’s not gonna be happy about it, but it’ll go.

                  I think it was designed by pakleds…

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                13 days ago

                The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We’ve pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.

                As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.

                Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.

                • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  The correct solution is for tanks to drag a power cable and a water cooling loop behind them. This will make them invisible to thermals.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days 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.

              Why? If something has gotten through the armour, your fuel is the least of your worries. I mean you are sitting next to a stack of shells filled with high explosives.

              • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                13 days ago

                Well if the fuel is compromised there’s a larger chance it’ll ignite and reach the shells if it’s hydrogen as opposed to petroleum.

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  My point is that if your tank’s armour is compromised by modern antitank weapons, it doesn’t really matter where it hits you. You’re going to be turned into chunky marinara, or your shells are going to cook off.

                  A pressurized fuel cell is already more protected than any fuel tank, and is smaller and lighter and more efficient than any ice engine. Which means you can add and divert even more armour to protect the cell and the occupants of the tank. Basically any danger associated with hydrogen is vastly overshadowed by the fact that tanks already carry high explosives. And that’s not so dangerous that we’re trying to replace them with non combustible weapon systems.

                  It’s not like Rotem is new at making tanks, the K2 is one of the best tanks currently in production. If the engineers thought fuel cells increased the likelihood of catastrophic failure, I highly doubt they would have tried it with the K3.

                  Personally, I think most people are just buying into the propaganda that shut down hydrogen power in the first place. To my knowledge there hasn’t ever been a death associated because of an explosion or fire involving a vehicle with h2.

            • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              H2 is much safer than gasoline. Gasoline with explode as a bomb. A leak will make everything around it super flamable. An H2 tank that both is ruptured and on fire will shoot a flare into the air, instead of blowing up and killing everyone in the vehicle.

        • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 days 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.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 days ago

            Dust is indeed an issue for fuel cells. It is a solved issue with air filters though. FCEVs brag about making the air cleaner than without them. Industrial equipment in ultra dusty environments also work on FCs. It does require regular filter changes compared to BEV though. An industrial equipment alternative is an FC setup away from the dusty environment to recharge batteries overnight and during breaks.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                Solar deployments around mines can be far enough from the dusty areas. Today, tanks could bring a bunch of briefcase solar panels and when the tank is not moving and firing, its not that dusty. Cleaning is pretty easy for 20-50 panels too.

                Fuel cells are the actual technology that require special designs to deal with dust.

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            Also don’t fight at night. Or in the Arctic circle. Or really anywhere during winter. Or sandstorms. Dust storms. Overcast days. Rainy days. Snowy says.

            Y’know what, just conduct all your warfare during beautiful clear sunny weather at daytime. Why would you want to fight in crappy weather anyway?

    • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 days 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?

    • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Military vehicles are purpose built. They didn’t use hydrogen because it was green, they used it to fulfill their requirements for a silent stealth battle tank. But I’m sure your technical knowledge far outdoes that of the people involved in designing this tank 👍 Very credible 👍🏿

      Fuel cell technology will also dramatically reduce the noise the tank generates when on the move.

      Literally from the article you failed to open.

      • jia_tan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        I thought this was a shidposting community

        I do actually agree with everything you and other people in this thread have said, I just don’t care :3

        And yes my technical knowledge definitely outweighs the knowledge of hundreds of Hyundai engineers, thank you for noticing <3

        I am Jia Tan and I approve this message :3

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 days ago

      H2 tanks are safer than diesel. It would make a superior tank to diesel in most ways. Quiet, electronics power, portable solar charging in forward position, H2 production in solar rear stations. In war, having all of your large oil refineries and port handling blown up the first day is common, and decentralized and portable H2 production is an important asset.

      ROK while leading on H2, is way behind on both solar transition projects/roadpath and have abandoned solar technology themselves. Government does serve its industrial champions but also serves US master. US wants to subjugate colonies to its NG. Industrial champion needs clean energy independence.

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    13 days ago

    The next-generation tank will have stronger preemptive strike capabilities using an artificial intelligence-based fire control system

    Well that’s disturbing. I wonder what level of buzz word AI this is? Safe to assume computer vision is involved, target/threat identification… Does “preemptive strike” imply the fire control system is firing by itself? I know it’s not the case but it’s hilarious to imagine it’s ChatGPT doing it.

    • RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      12 days ago

      My heart smiles at the thought of the first crew to actually command this thing in a war zone pulling security on some unknown pile of rubble and being awoken at 0347 by their tank unexpectedly dumping its entire payload on an “enemy” that it hallucinated.

      Granted, dumb privates do this too, but it’s funnier to think about the tank doing it all by itself.

  • Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    14 days 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
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 days 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
        5
        ·
        13 days 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

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 days ago

      The navies of the world love nuclear power, the U.S. has a nuclear navy since the 50s and in that time our investment into civilian nuclear has been pathetic

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

        For ships it may be fine, but I don’t see ground vehicles or fighters operating with nuclear energy, it could be, but until I see it I will have a hard time believing it.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    12 days ago

    powered by hydrogen fuel cells

    I don’t think the logistics for hydrogen fuel cells will help in actual combat situations, though it’s expected to enter operation in 2040 anyway.

    autonomous driving and slave drones

    Hopefully one that actually works. As for the drones, I guess for reconnaissance?

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 days ago

      You can load a truck with fuel cells to extend range beyond what the current infrastructure can handle.

      It’s more complicated with batteries that need to be charged. Sure, there’s a grid in many places, but if combat capability depends on the grid, it’ll get targetted. And even before that, capacity is a concern and if the grid can handle a tank battalion wanting to plug in every tank so they can be ready for whatever comes next ASAP.

      Fuel cells mean they can set up behind the front lines and use power more predictably and refuel tanks quicker than gas.

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        I never really understood what fuel cells have to do with hydrogen, and why it’s a more appealing form factor than removing a vehicle’s gas tank and instead just putting in a manifold with room for a number of some standard of gas can with valves fitted. It’s not an inherently “hydrogen” thing.

        Besides, it’s fully possible to set up a bunch of gas cans from a truck in the same way you could set up a bunch of hydrogen “fuel cells”.

        • Verat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          By my understanding fuel cells are less about form factor, and more about directly converting the fuel into electricity across a membrane, like how batteries operate, so like a battery that takes in Hydrogen on one terminal and Oxygen on the other, being more efficient than burning it in an engine and trying to recapture some of that as electricity after thermal and friction losses have eaten into it.

          So it is more a replacement for the engine than it is for the fuel tank. Wikipedia

    • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      The big players in military tech aren’t just the likes of Raytheon and such, it’s also companies like Hyundai, Samsung, Texas Instruments (a little obvious for those who know, but many people are surprised about that calculator company being at the heart of so much military technology). Power plants and transmissions for tanks and such are made by General Electric, Allison, Cummings, etc. General Motors has a military division for small tactical vehicles (think Humvee)

      Hell, IBM supplied computers to the Nazi regime that were used to tabulate prisoners at the concentration camps and those machines were used to produce the serial numbers tattooed on them. Most semiconductor research breakthroughs came as a result of military funding.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 days ago

    My brain just doesn’t want to accept the idea of a stealth tank. It kind of feels like building a stealth monster truck, or creating sugar free Pez. It’s like being loud is part of what it’s supposed to do.