Mechta
Thanks for the link. The point I'd make is that in the examples I used the poor soldier has to hump his own power around, within a notional overall limit of 28kg. (Much more than that of course, but that's the official target). In other examples, the weight of the power source is negligible compared to the rest of the vehicle, and in some cases, arguably, not really an issue.
The age old question is, when do you stop and say, right we'll go with this, knowing it will be obsolescent by the ISD. Especially on anything that works on wiggly amps. Is the QQ demonstrator aimed at the AJAX programme (FRES), already nearly 20 years old and barely 2 steps forward? Or is it aimed at the AJAX replacement?
From a more practical viewpoint, what availability are they looking for? Given the rest is a relatively simple mechanical device, a truck only needs diesel and off she goes. I suggest we are decades way from having the infrastructure, which is what Pontius was getting at, quite rightly. QQ will have lots of clever people working on the science, but applying that science is equally complex. It may be this limits use to the rear echelon, or even just moving stores between depots. In which case you need two infrastructures, which would be enough to scrap any programme.
Reminds me of the problem we used to have on the old CVSs. There was only room in the workshops for 2 ATE suites. With 3 aircraft types (SHAR, SK and Merlin), 2 had to double up. So, for example, when ASaC Mk7 was being developed, it had to use either BVATE or MATS, not its own bespoke ATE (RATS); which became a major development burden. If that couldn't be achieved, the programme was dead on its feet, despite wonderful technology elsewhere.
Is that load on the truck the battery packs, within an explosion-proof box, a la Dreamliner?