Satellites can operate drones any where in the world. Drones only limitation is battery life.

Can satellites use lasers to charge batteries?

>>63962644 (OP)
If you want truly loitering motherships, you want solar panels on top of these inflatable things. Of course completely off GWOT lense now that you have to actually war like a proper FUCKING ARMY

Long-distance charging methods are likely to emerge first as weapons of destruction.

>>63962644 (OP)
>Can satellites use lasers to charge batteries?
Microwaves not lasers, lasers are too inefficient in conversion both directions and have too much atmospheric attenuation. But space based solar power using microwaves has been an area of active research, so you can start by reading up on that. Taking as given that the costs of stuff in orbit will continue to plummet with Starship and various future competitors, it'll be potentially feasible and economic enough on the space side. The challenge like all things airborne ultimately comes down to whether the weight and size requirements imposed by a receiver are actually worth it, particularly given that plummeting cost of stuff in orbit also works to enabling massive numbers of VLEO sats that can provide perpetual high res surveillance and high bandwidth low latency comms themselves. What role does a drone with unlimited loiter actually fall into, vs the same drone with more carrying capacity that just automatically cycles with others to recharge/refuel back at base?

Refueling missiles for current drones.
/thread

Wrong part of the spectrum and wrong part of the sky, but yes. Space-to-space relays are the main focus of this tech.

DARPA trying to power drones like you imagine
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/62469791

SDA communicating with a drone like you imagine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_communication_in_space#2021–present
>In June 2021, the US Space Development Agency launched two 12U CubeSats to Sun-synchronous orbit to demonstrate laser communication links between the satellites and a remotely controlled MQ-9 Reaper.[37]

Some fun snakeoil
https://mashable.com/article/satellite-sunlight-at-night

>>63962644 (OP)
Looking at that image made me think of something: Long range drones are bigger than fighters and some WW2 medium bombers, require massive amounts of expensive electronics and satellite guidance, ect. They all have the big dome for the dish.

Why couldn't you make manned versions? You could fit 2-3 guys in there easily, for low risk missions a manned version of a reaper or global hawk would work just as well and probably cost a whole lot less. Even for combat missions the loss rate is less than a WW2 bombing mission, if you were willing to accept the losses why not?

>>63962644 (OP)
The drone picture like all large drones use internal combustion engines, much of their fuel is used for on board power generation.

>>63962814
Add a pilot and your ex-drone is limited to missions of 5-6 hours instead of +24 hours.

>>63962695
You can just beam the engine directly and use the heat to run it as a ramjet

>>63962814
>get real answers
>pivot to a different retarded question

>>63962644 (OP)
This is called Far Field Wireless Power Transfer and we've been working on it for a long, long time and still haven't gotten it right.

>>63962666
Keeping the insects contained to their hive doesn't require invading it, does it satan?

>>63962837
No you can't.

>>63964780
Not OP

>>63962835
Why? The dish, gimbal and electronics you would remove can't weigh less than two crew and their chairs, oxygen ect can they?

>>63962644 (OP)
Can they? Hypothetically, yes. Practically, no. The technology just isn't there yet.
However, something that IS possible right now is solar powered drones with 100%* uptime, either as flying wings basically made of solar panels, or balloon-blimps that also carry solar cells to keep themselves running indefinitely but obviously aren't going to be moving anywhere quickly. I could see some kind of hybrid fat flying wing that's also filled with hydrogen covered in solar cells being useful- infinite flight time but a bit less of a slave to the winds.
*outside of needing to land for regular maintenance etc
Oh also,
>Pretend you have your battery-charging lasers
>Ok great. How do you power them in the first place?
You would basically need to put a nuclear reactor on your laser satellites just to power the lasers unless the satellites were so massive they have an absurd amount of solar panels, since it's not exactly practical to refuel a satellite every time it needs it's lasers recharged you need a significant power source that also doesn't need refueling/recharging logistics.

>>63965044
If you can relay power through lasers why not just put an xboghueg nuclear reactor on the ground and use the satellites to beam the energy wherever you need it? Efficiency will be ass but since you're not limited by the cost of putting your reactor into orbit you can generate more power than you would ever need.

>>63964993
Because
> pilot fatigue limited flights to about 10 hours.
>U-2
Tandem cockpits aren't popular for long missions for a reason.

>>63965216
B-2s are tandem and just did a 30+ hour mission to bomb Iran

>>63962695
>the costs of stuff in orbit will continue to plummet with Starship
right now the only thing plummeting with starship is starship

>>63965230
>t doesn't know the meaning of tandem
The B-2 has side-by-side seats and a little of extra room to rest, but in general you'ld not rely on pilots for long missions even if they can "sleep". A drone will be better for longer missions.

>>63962644 (OP)
Those kind of drones use jet/av fuel, not batteries. They can just be refueled in-flight. Also the tanker can be another drone.

>>63962814
anon, what do drones do? they don't get to go home to their families after their strikes lmao

>>63965203
The issue is more "how to collect the power" than "how to make big laser".
Also, lasers are far more effective in space or at very high altitudes. Unless you make some kind of Dr. Evil mountaintop nuclear laser facility to beam up to space you will be losing a significant amount of your power just chewing through the atmosphere, let alone cloudy days.

>>63962644 (OP)
That is actually a pretty interesting idea but IMO it would still cause too much waste with our current methods of light-based energy capture to be practical.

>>63965343
>>63965267
The point was that for many of the missions they do return home, global hawks are not one use items and the AA threat over places like Afghanistan is non existent. I was pondering if one could make cheaper manned versions for low risk missions, i was envisioning a modular cockpit you could swap out of a airframe with the drone 'cockpit' having the really expensive stuff.

>>63965685
>global hawks arent one use items and afghanistan has no AA
doesn't matter, desert-dwellers still btfo MQ series, what you want would end in another gary powers crash. Let drones do drone work, putting people unnecessarily at risk = death, which is why the US has had unmanned surveillance drones since the vietnam war.

>>63962814
>require massive amounts of expensive electronics and satellite guidance
A smartphone has enough computing power to guide a rocket to the moon. Its not "massive" nor expensive. The chips are like $10 on the market. Raspberry pi is like $30 with all the connection ports required for any external hardware control. And arduinos are $3-10 with full wifi/bluetooth/usb connection port powered by sub 1watt of power. All these have enough compute to do trillions of calculations per second. This isn't Vietnam era computing anymore. Further connection to satellite just requires a starlink mini that weighs like 1 kg or <2.5 lbs that can be hooked on top of the drone and provide wifi or ethernet signals. And only consumes ~25-40w of power for max bandwidth. and only costs ~$200 for hardware and $165(?)/m for unlimited bandwidth global access.
For everything else in the plane, the steering on the plane is steer by wire, so its computer controlled already.

>>63965817
So why do globalhawks have fuck huge dishes in their noses? Should Northrop Grumman just fire everyone and hire (you)?

Somehow i doubt the US government is going to trust it's $100 million drone to Starlink.

>not massive
The dish alone is 6-7 feet wide bro.

>>63966519
Old vehicles designed 20 years ago, made 10 years ago, in used currently.

Mini starlink dish is slightly smaller than 1 ft x 1 ft. We're in the new age. Legacy geostationary sats and their dish are outdated. Legacy aircrafts are outdated. Legacy computer parts are outdated. In the span of 20 years, all the airplanes built 10 years ago, designed 20 years ago have completely out dated computer systems.

>>63962644 (OP)
yes but it would be retardedly inefficient and expensive. besides any super long range drones work on kerosene and dont 'recharge' you could just have refuelling drones that fly out and refuel your drone so it can run for longer. this is a far more practical solution

>>63966541
So basically every reasonably competent hacker with a dish transmitter and a HAM radio license will just be able to steal them, gotcha. The government probably wants something a bit less jammable or easily hijacked, Iran of all people has already done it.

>The US Airforce doesn't you to know this but strategic drones are free, i have 458 drones in my backyard.
>>63965731
>US
I hate to alarm you but nations other than the US have big drones these days, some of which have *alternate* ethical values in regards to human life, image related.

Be it as it may, the simple question was could a big drone be made in a manned version. The reason the thought occurred was because there are several loyal wingman type proposals that involve both manned and unmanned versions. If it is being done for fighters i see no reason why surveillance craft couldn't do the same or even attack craft if you didn't care as much as the US about human life.

Personally i think using huge drones for stuff like Afghanistan, border patrol and other peacetime duties is moronic. Airships would do it better, cheaper and allow us to pursue a alternate technology/industrial base at the same time.

>>63966607
Forgot image

the norktard should be executed with a GAU

>>63966607
Starlink is the only satellite network that couldn't be hacked or jammed due to rapid response team from SpaceX doing their magic. Thats why its the bloodlines of Ukraine war right now. It has survived all russian deployed jamming techniques on battlefield.

>>63962814
You mean like an AWACS?

>>63966623
>Starlink can't be hacked, jammed or disrupted

Sure it can't. And machine guns end infantry, tanks end infantry and aircraft end tanks.

1918 called, they want your stupidity back.

>>63966781
Yeah, big observation drones. I'm not saying that you should make them manned as this conversation has gotten a bit of course. I'm asking why couldn't you use something like a Reaper or Global hawk as a manned system?

I don't know if they would be cheaper but big drones are approaching the size of thing like a Il-28, i am asking if humans would be cheaper than the systems required to run them.

>>63967380
Human endurance is far too short and humans require CSAR which invites bloody disasters (see Viet Nam) to rescue survivors. The best way to survive a shoot down is be somewhere far, far away.

>>63967418
What if you don't care about the human factors or more to to the point, your nation isn't wimps when it comes to people dying in the name of their nation?

>>63967681
I would propose this idea to Kim: the juche people don't need to sleep, only the weak westoids need to waste 1/3rd of their time sleeping.
>North Korea Population (2026): 0

>>63967418
This is such fake ingenious bullshit, US aircraft can have two man crews that do 30 hour missions but anyone else is limited to 4-5 hours?

It's so fucking stupid, by your standards no one can drive a car for more than a few hours and long distance trucking doesn't exist.

>>63967380
>I'm asking why couldn't you use something like a Reaper or Global hawk as a manned system?
You mean like an AWACS?

>>63967720
Yes.

>>63964852
You can but not in an atmosphere. Not without a microwave beam powerful enough to make using anything else as a weapon delivery system a needless step, anyway.

>>63967711
The crew of the B-2 and B-52 can rest, there's enough room for that and the side-by-side seats reduces fatigue too (a retard above thinks the B-2 has a tandem cockpit). Torpedo bomber and escort fighters during WWII were incredibly taxing with missions of ~5 hours, 8-10 hours rarely (for example Zeros, but those were designed to be stable enough to fly hands-off), even if they took 'stimulants'.
The B-58 Hustler and B-47 Stratofortress were terrible for their crew even for missions shorter than 10 hours.
That's why all fighter bombers and bombers with long endurance have side-by-side cockpits and even extra room.
>B-52, Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M3, Su-34, Su-24, F-111, A-6 Intruder, EA-6B Prowler, B-2, B-21
Ok, there's an exception, the F-117 Nighthawk, and that flaw probably was the reason for its retirement, pilot fatigue probably was responsible of the 1999 shootdown and fatal crashes.

>>63967770
So what you are saying is that something like a Global Hawk with 2-3 crew instead of the automation is a legitimate option for a high altitude theater bomber assuming you were willing to take the inevitable crew deaths?

>>63967823
No, and even they end up becoming addicts to amphetamines/modafinil to last +10 hours, a normal GH would still be more effective and you need less drones for the same role...
And you can't go too cheap, the russian air force is far less effective than the US air force because they can't into data integration and some classes of sensors, those aren't cheap and a manned aircraft still needs them.

>>63967852
I'm still not sold on one specific aspect of the argument: A US bomber crew of two can do a 30 hour mission but any other two man crew is limited to 4-5 hours?

Are you aware of how wrong, stupid and retarded that is? Do you have any idea of what a fucking baka idiot moron you are? Pilots can only stay awake for 4-5 hours? Are you a narcoleptic or just a fucking idiot?

>>63967823
>Global Hawk with 2-3 crew
You can't fit that many people in an airframe of that size.

>>63968159
Sure you can.
You just have to get creative about where you put them.

>>63968159
>>63968163
A GH is roughly comparable to a IL-28 or H5 in size, as a manned system it would be a medium sized jet bomber.

>>63962644 (OP)
Considering the limited battery capacity of the satellite, and the inefficiencies inherent in any energy transfer system (especially one travelling through most of the atmosphere), you'd probably be better off spending the money you'd need for something like that on just having a larger fleet of drones to be able to replace the one on station when it runs low on fuel.

>>63968046
Try to do a long car ride without stops, music and having to solve a complex task at the same time... No front passenger btw.