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.
Many comments are about how impractical/useless is this technology TODAY considering easier alternatives… but I see research exploring recharging electric flight devices in flight, which sounds as cool as powerful to have flight devices with larger services and ranges
I think the biggest problem is that this way you have a beacon to your flying device and your recharging station, it would not be that difficult to build a bomb/missile that follow the trace to the ground station
I think that the “recharging” will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply, but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes, and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough
I think that the “recharging” will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply,
For an electric recharge I think you need a decent size infrastucture that you cannot move that much or easily. I don’t think that you can do with a enourmous power bank mounted on a truck.
but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes,
Except that you can refuel a normal plane with just a couple of trucks and a strip of road long enough (Sweden built the Viggen around this principle and even the US has the highway designed to work as temporary airfield by some old law).
While it is easy to hit an airport, it became a lot harder to take out all the roads (in part because you will later need them)and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough
Yes, the charging station. Once I take out it, you electric planes are out of order. No more patrolling.
Holy shit.
Getting the ability to remote charge things via microwave… that are moving?
That’s been basically sci fi nonsense, at a practical level, for a long time.
Anybody remember the Microwave Power stations in SimCity 2000?
If you could actually get this tech working, it has an incredible number of potential applications.
Uh…they actually got this tech working.
Will the US get this tech working? Can’t get anything working after slashing all research and kicking 10,000 phds out of the country.
Cletus and his Ram 1500 is not going to figure this out.
I remember arguing with a mate in school about the damage a misaligned beam would cause to a city. I think the prevailing theory was a lot of cooked people without much structural damage.
Except that theory has no basis in reality.
Microwave ovens work by concentrating that energy into a very small space.
When is the last time you were cooked by radio waves?
Microwaves ARE radio waves.
Assuming 1MW of transfer, and a 10m diameter beam, your looking at 12.5kW/m^2 . Not instant vaporisation, but dangerous in seconds to humans. The penetration was also mean the energy is delivered internally, where it’s harder to deal with (short term).
Any viable power transfer beam also, inherently, makes a good anti personnel weapon.
While the maths is slightly better for short range transfers, like drones, it would still definitely not be something you want hitting your body.
Are you somehow entirely unaware of the DEW crowd control devices that have been being used for like 2 decades now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
Yeah, the whole point of these things is they basically microwave the outer layer of your skin, when in wide beam mode.
Or, they can be dialed in to be a more concentrated beam… to uh, internally heat up a bit more than just your skin.
But uh, for legal reasons of course nooo they do not do that and cannot do that.
While it is claimed not to cause burns under “ordinary use”,[50][51] it is also described as being similar to that of an incandescent light bulb being pressed against the skin,[14] which can cause severe burns in just a few seconds. The beam can be focused up to 700 meters away, and is said to penetrate thick clothing although not walls.[52] At 95 GHz, the frequency is much higher than the 2.45 GHz of a microwave oven. This frequency was chosen because it penetrates less than 1⁄64 of an inch (0.40 mm),[53] which – in most humans, except for eyelids and the thinner skin of babies – avoids the second skin layer (the dermis) where critical structures are found such as nerve endings and blood vessels.
I would imagine that if you had an emorous amount of microwave energy from an orbiting solar array, being beamed to a recieving station on earth, (ie, a very small small space compared to the distance involved) and it uh, missed, yeah, yeah it would microwave people.
There’s also this:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8733248/
Brief but intense pulses of radiofrequency (RF) energy can elicit auditory sensations when absorbed in the head of an individual, an effect known as the microwave auditory or “Frey effect” after the first investigator to examine the phenomenon (1). The effect is known to arise from thermoacoustically (TA)-induced acoustic waves in the head (2).
Lin has proposed that the Frey effect may be linked to unexplained health problems reported by U.S. officers in Cuba and elsewhere, the so-called Havana syndrome (3).
Probably don’t tell any schizophrenics you may or may not know about that.
Yeah, xrays are also radio waves. That doesn’t make them inherently less dangerous. Plenty of people have made mistakes around ground and ship based radar systems too and have accidentally cooked their insides. Just because 5G conspiracy theorists took over that argument doesn’t mean it has no basis in reality.
Plenty of people…
https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/milmed/usaf613/8404557
It doesn’t mention specific cases, but there’s a local man who described his time working on radar arrays during his time in the Navy before he was medically discharged. His explanation of events was that he turned off the array while he was performing maintenance on a specific radar antenna, but someone turned it back on when he was still working. He said he heard the array come back online and stopped working, but there was thermal damage done to his testes.
I have no reason to doubt him because clearly its possible. But the primary point stands. There’s enough evidence within the military to warrant safety guidelines when working with radar emitters.
That makes no sense. It’s the wrong frequency to cook anything.
JFC…is US STEM education really this bad? Lemmy seems to struggle between STEM and Star Trek.
It’s the wrong frequency to cook anything.
The idea that microwave ovens use some specific frequency that’s good for cooking is a myth.
Dielectric heating occurs over a very broad range of frequencies. What actually matters is the energy density of the EM field. A microwave oven cooks food because its putting more than 1000 watts into a small confined space, your cellphone doesn’t because its transmitter is shooting less than 1 watt into the open air (where the energy density quickly diminishes by the square cube law).
I’m sorry, you know the precise frequency that would be used by a fictional/speculative ‘microwave’ beam emmitted from an orbiting solar array?
You… don’t think that ‘microwave’ might be technically innacurate, but broadly colloquially understood term, to describe the broad concept?
Like maybe a ‘phaser’ weapon, or a ‘lightsaber’?
We’ve known about the possibility of doing this for decades.
The NRL did a practical test of it in 2022 iirc.
I mean this is really cool but at the same time doesnt seem usefull? Apparently the peak of modern combat is chinese drones with small bombs and a plastic fiber-optic cable attached to them lol.
I’ve lost count of technologies during my lifetime that had initial skeptics of ‘seems cool, but who would use this?,’ and then that tech became ubiquitous or essential within a decade.
Room-sized computers that required punch cards also seemed cool but mostly useless once.
There are a lot of different drones being used. For example you can’t use fiber-optic for drones that target something 100km afar. Either way the problem with this device is probably the same as with other anti-air systems - it costs, takes time to produce and to train the operator much much much more than to make a drone.
totaly agree with your firs two points…
re: training and operators - my take on it is this has all the hallmarks of a swarm setup constantly recharging a portion of it’s numbers… Ukraine has illustrated that AI shit’s coming quickly, even if llm’s and jensen huang are wildly out of touch.
I have no knowledge in this and it’s early, but what happens to birds in the medium in between the receiver and emitter?
This can’t be good for them.
Nothing. It’s non-ionizing radiation.
Microwaves ovens work by using extreme amounts of energy concentrated into a very small area.
Microwave beams for energy transmission are different.
We’ve known this since at least 1996 when the first paper talking about it was published.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0038092X95000834
The biggest obstacle for it is actually RFI.
Edit to add, and here’s a NASA paper from the 1980s talking about it
I think it’s worth saying that while not ionizing, high power high gain RF can cause damage via burns. Not sure how much power/gain is used in this situation though. Staying away from unfamiliar transmitting antennas is in general a good thing.
1/r2
Neat but 3 hours of loitering is nothing for a fixed wing drone. We have drones that stay in flight for a month or more.
I have a 6 year old electric car that takes 40ish minutes to charge, now BYD has batteries that will go from 10% to 70% in 5-10 mins.
In a few years time these drones will be getting charged from a microwave stream of power from a solar array floating in the upper atmosphere.
But the Trump Navy will use cannons to fire coal up to drones and Tesla sexbots will shovel the coal.
The decreased chargng time comes with a massive increase in charging power. The equivalent in ths scenario is to massvely increase the microwave power - which would likely cook the drone.
I prefer my drones cooked in an old fashioned oven, microwaves leave the middle too cold and the outside too hot.
Yes but you are charging through a conductive cable. It’s not even remotely the same as charging something with microwaves.
The power delivered decreases exponentially with distance. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “inverse square law”.
Because you divide the effect and gain by 4pi(r^2) meaning your output is decreased by 75% every time you double the distance.
You’re going to need ridiculously powerful hardware and an enormous amount of electricity to run it on any meaningful distance.
A concentrated, collimated beam doesn’t act like a point source. There’s of course some amount of scattering and absorption loss due to atmospheric particles, but other than that a fully collimated wireless energy transmission doesn’t lose intensity over distance. Kind of obvious, really, because “where would the energy go?”.
We already have concentrated microwave beams. And they do suffer immense energy loss on longer distances.
If you want to transfer energy via microwaves, your efficency will reach single digits real fast on any meaningful distance.
You are right that the inverse square law doesn’t realistically apply with concentrated beams. But you still have energy loss. Lots of it.
But don’t take my word for it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25251-w
Quickly glancing through the paper it doesn’t really seem to support your claim. They attribute their major losses to the parabolic reflector (meaning they don’t have very well concentrated microwave beams?), and say that developing higher efficiency focusing components is important work for the future. I’m kind of guessing that’s one thing the Chinese are doing.
Still, I’m sure there are relevant losses even in properly focused microwave beams. How much that is, I have no clue, and didn’t see it addressed in the paper. Might have missed it - it was a very quick glance. :)
I’ll be honest, I didn’t exactly proof read every word either.
I think what they meant with parabolic reflector is the reciever. They mentioned they 3d printed a reciever to achieve recors breaking efficency (short range). It’s not so easy to gather and convert the microwaves into electric energy. And it’s probably not very easy to create a concentrated beam either.
But that was my interpretation. I’m not going to pretend I understand everything about this. I could be wrong.
I think the technology to have satellites charge drones in the sky is at least 50 years away.
Exactly, proof of concept was all the scientists needed to see.
The difference is likely size and expense.
Now you don’t need a 100 million dollar Boeing 737 sized drone to loiter for 3 hours.
Previously small and cheap drones could loiter for 40 mins on an internal battery. Now they can stay up for 3 hours. That can be useful.
Of course these mobile wireless recharging stations will become military targets for the opposition. So the overall combat math isn’t obvious to me, but it’s not a tech I see as obviously useless.
This could be much more straightforwardly a win for civilian applications.
Solar power is still more practical
not nearly enough surface area to power a drone.
Has already been done
https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/solar-powered-drone-design-2025/
That drone has no mass and uses all its energy to hold up the solar array. Good luck in winds.
Considering everybody talking about using these things in war it has the benefit of not being a suicide beacon visible to instruments for many many miles, unlike the microwave transmitters everybody else here want to carry with them
Also see;
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/09/powering-drones-with-ultra-thin-flexible-perovskite-pv-cells/
If you actually want to extend the lifetime of high performance autonomous drones in the field then it’s more practical to do battery swaps
That thing is just a dollar panel with the bare minimum amount of motors to hold up the solar panel. That not practical at all for someone that also needs to move quickly and fire munitions
If you think that’s not practical, wait until you see something microwave powered trying to make quick moves. I want to see what you think it will do when it suddenly has to pass through an urban environment with a ton of obstacles. Are you gonna MIMO the damned microwave beam!?!?!? With millisecond trajectory updates!?!?!?
Not mention that a microwave power transmitter in war will die faster than any mobile radar station because it’s so god damned trivial to detect and lock onto, you’re losing that bullshit in seconds of turning it on
The only scenario where this wouldn’t be total bullshit is perimeter monitoring drones flying a fixed path, where you for some reason really don’t want to have to have multiple drones in rotation (which honestly doesn’t make much sense either but at least that’s just 80% BS instead of 100% BS)
try that with the drone in the article. ain’t gonna work buddy.
You can have solar panels and batteries on the ground, and use them to charge the microwave emitter, which can then charge the aircraft, which now does not need to carry solar panels and as much batteries, and thus has increased payload / range.
This would require two football fields of panels.
The microwave receiver will not be small or efficient
Oh, ok.
Even though this entire post is… about how it is small enough to fit on a drone, and efficient enough to power it for 3 hours.
Ok.
Gotcha.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but densely packed explosive bombs and missiles and warheads tend to be pretty heavy.
… the entire problem with purely onboard solar powered vehicles of any kind is that they have to be absurdly lightweight, flimsy.
That isn’t practical.
It might be purely efficient, in a sense, but it isn’t very useful.
Being able to actually move stuff, that is practical.
Most transportation modes involve the ability to haul stuff.
You know, do work, aka the capacity to make stuff move.
You picking a fight that makes no sense to pick.
You can have solar and batteries be more stationary, and use microwaves to power things that are more mobile, this post is literally the proof of that concept… you can charge a battery with a any kind of power source.
Look heres another massive potential application of this, if you science fiction extend the accuracy/capability of this:
Plop a bunch of solar panels/batteries in the L1 point between the Earth and the sun.
Now, via a set of satellites in something like concentric orbits, you can get absurd amounts of power, beam it back along chains of satellites, snd then beam it to recieving stations on Earth. Or the Moon. Or orbital infrastructure.
Microwave transmission power loss will be waaaay less in space, because there’s no atmosphere.
Same with solar panel efficiency!
Solar Power + Microwave Transmission = Very Good, Actually.
The only two metrics that matter here are W/m^2 and weight.
You can’t make a reasonable microwave receiver lighter than solar film and efficiency peaks around 50% in FIXED installations and you can easily assume less than a quarter (under 10%) when the target isn’t just moving, but is also changing angles and distance (you’d have to put the receiver on a gimbal like for cameras) and now it’s also interfering with flight (propeller airflow, unless you do weird propeller geometries or tilted body flight
Tldr DUMB
Microwave power transfer only make sense between distant fixed line of sight locations with minimal infrastructure available. On earth that’s literally just island mountain tops. Even then it’s easier and cheaper to still just install solar
On the moon, it would basically just mean you have one big generator and everything gets powered by the sun when in sunlight and switch to microwave from the generator when in shadow, which is pretty much the only configuration that even make sense
You can’t make a reasonable microwave receiver lighter than solar film and efficiency peaks around 50% in FIXED installations
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/microwave-power-transmission
In JPL 30 kW power was transmitted for 1.54 km with reception conversion array having an efficiency of 80%
That was 8 years ago.
What I’m describing are… currently extremely active areas of research.
Microwave power transfer has been used for many applications since its inception by Maxwell. Wireless charging of EVs and UAV using microwave power are some of the widely researched examples.
you can easily assume less than a quarter (under 10%) when the target isn’t just moving, but is also changing angles and distance (you’d have to put the receiver on a gimbal like for cameras)
You should maybe look into the level of precision that things like Phalanx CIWS systems have at tracking a moving target, with the ability to throw bullets at it, and hit it.
Or basically any SPAAG type platform that throws rounds down range.
Or I dunno, MASERs used in deep space transmission.
Or all the research that has gone into developing tracking gimbal systems that do intentionally use lasers or some kind of DEW to shoot down small drones, or damage aircraft in flight, or burn out incoming missiles.
Hell of a lot easier to track a friendly aircraft.
and now it’s also interfering with flight (propeller airflow, unless you do weird propeller geometries or tilted body flight
Genuinely no clue what you are talking about.
Are you assuming only like, quadcopters here?
We’ve had RQ 4 drone aircraft the size of WW2 medium bomber planes, with jet engines, for 20 years now.
I’m fairly sure that a jet engine produces a considerable amount of consistent heat.
Do… you think aircraft engineers… do not know… how to handle… heat?
Shall I describe a ramjet to you?
Or maybe we could go with something like the Space Shuttle’s reentry tiles?
In conclusion, you are vastly uniformed as to the state of… not even state of the art technology, that would be incredibly relevant to this discussion.
Those efficiencies are for large senders and receivers. When you have to make it small for a drone the numbers gets worse.
None of those make continous evasive maneuvers. All the things you mention works because the flight path is fully known in advance and you have full synchronization and ability to lock orientation. None of this works on a drone in urban environments where you’ll constantly lose line of sight.
Dude I’m not talking about heat I’m talking about literal about the literal MW receiver’s physical LOCATION on the drone body AND THE ACTUAL PROPULSION IN FORM OF MOVING AIR, because the receiver has to be large, and oriented to the sender at all times, which means there are orientations in which it will block at least some propellers from pushing air physically downwards, unless those also are built to extend far out AND CAN TWIST THEIR ORIENTATION TOO
(remember that propeller flight obeys the laws of Newton, pushing air down keeps you up and if you tilt your drone to align with the microwave center then you must tilt your propellers or you’ll be flying sideways, unless you put receiver on a gimbal in which case it’s stupidly complex and you now have to adjust airflow across non-blocked propellers when the receiver is below some of them)
You can not win an argument by misunderstanding the counterarguments. You lose by not even being able to imagine how a drone actually flies physically in the air, not to mention your lack of ability to just read
Not to mention that you didn’t even ask yourself what happens to a microwaved power transmitter in war. Guess what? It gets targeted and destroyed in seconds. You’re dead now. Bye.
And you can’t even make a drone swarm work. Either you have a dozen transmitters (lol good luck) or a phased antenna array in which lol fucking lmao that thing will spew out heat losses and get banned from operating near any remotely populated area due to radio interference
Wow that looks a lot like the UKs Taranis bomber drone.
Getting some Ace Combat vibes
Sounds:
- Pretty advanced
- Pretty expensive
- Quite useless (I mean it definitely has its uses, but I think you could find much cheaper and simpler solutions)
“… you could find much cheaper and simpler solutions…”
Heat feelt thanks for your bold show of confidence in my technical capacities. Yet I have to disclose that I’m not exactly sure to be able to compete with a first world power like China.
No, not you! I meant that guy!
Is paywalled for me, do they explain the range and how much power they are throwing? An altitude of 15m suggests this thing needs to be pretty close …
I don’t think this is the full article (with 3rd-party js disabled) but the web archive didn’t get more out of it either.
Edit: fixed formatting a bit
China’s ‘land aircraft carrier’ charges flying drone with microwave beam
While the technology is still at an early stage, it may one day allow drones to fly indefinitely
2-MIN
If wireless charging is deployed to a battlefield, it would not only allow drones to stay in the air for longer but could also allow them to carry bigger payloads by reducing the size of their batteries. Photo: Eugene Lee
Chao Kong in Beijing
Published: 7:00pm, 19 Apr 2026
A vehicle that can zap energy into a fleet of drones, allowing them to fly indefinitely, is getting closer to becoming a battlefield reality.
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.
Some analysts have likened the concept to a “land-based aircraft carrier”, in which an armoured vehicle could function as a mobile command and energy node, launching and sustaining drones much just as naval carriers support aircraft.
They say such systems could extend the operational reach of ground forces, enabling persistent surveillance, airborne attacks and electronic warfare.
The findings were published on March 25 in the peer-reviewed Chinese journal Aeronautical Science & Technology by a team from Xidian University, which is known for its military technology research.
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.
To do so, the researchers integrated GPS positioning, a dynamic tracking system and onboard flight controls into the system.
I feel like practically this isn’t very helpful. The car (or other much larger aircraft needs to pace the drones or vice versa and be in very close proximity, surely landing and hotswapping a battery pack would be faster and more efficient. Like if landing isn’t an option is driving a car over garbage terrain while maintaining proximity to a low flying aircraft going to be possible? I guess you could use a blimp or large aircraft to pace the drones, but not sure a blimp and drone could match speeds without one breaking up or the other falling out of the sky.
Sounds cool. And also like an attack vector.
Swapping out batteries in flight would probably be more efficient.
We don’t even have automated battery replacement working on the ground, while stationary.
Building aircraft with a whole bunch of their body and mass that significantly changes, in flight, is extremely expensive and difficult.
Its why the V22 Osprey is widely regarded as a death trap, why we stopped building swing wing F-14s.
… Have you ever tried to uh, remove your car’s rear seats, while on the highway, at 60 mph, and then also installed new seats, from a neaby car travelling alongside you?
Ok now do that with aircraft, at 15k feet, going 600 mph.
Yeah I’m sure that’ll be about as efficient as Elon Musk’s approach to designing the Starship+HeavyBooster.
Yeah I’m sure that’ll be about as efficient as Elon Musk’s approach to designing the Starship+HeavyBooster.
Compared to microwave energy transmission which has even worse efficiency.
Ok now do that with aircraft, at 15k feet, going 600 mph.
This is about drones. At 5 km distance and close to mach 1 you can absolutely forget any microwave based charging systems.
You are aware that we’ve been shooting drones out the sky with lasers for about a decade now, right?
Not too long ago DHS/CBP freaked out over some balloons in Texas, thought they were cartel drones, shut down the airspace, burned them outta the sky with truck mounted lasers.
JPL got 80% microwave power transmission efficiency at ~1.5 km, 8 years ago.
Granted, that was a fixed land point to fixed land point test, but also, it was 8 years ago.
I’ll take 50% efficiency loss over 10% chance of ‘everything explodes and crashes’ any day.
