Watch the video. One of the PCs in the background basically spits out a CD during the test
You have to wonder about the potential uses for such a weapon. It seems to me that anything EMP hardened (i.e. a lot of advanced military electronics) will not be affected too much.
Watch the video. One of the PCs in the background basically spits out a CD during the test
You have to wonder about the potential uses for such a weapon. It seems to me that anything EMP hardened (i.e. a lot of advanced military electronics) will not be affected too much.
According to Boeing ( in this video) it is reasonable to install EMP warhead instead of explosive in missiles .That begs the question , have the calculations actually been done for this problem?
Also surely the calculations and data depend on the mechanism by which the EMP is created. Is something novel being proposed here, beyond using a missile as a delivery for a EMP device?
The high altitude nuke tests that the US carried out in the 60s proved the basics of an EMP and that the effects were not localized as they knocked out power stations in Japan, Hawaii, and San Francisco in a single burst. Moreover, effective EMP effects would NOT be limited to a 100-200m range. Those same high altitude tests knocked out communication satellites for a time too.
On top of that many military aircrafts are effectively impervious to the EMP effects . TU 95s and B-52s have dropped live nukes in tests and were able to continue flying with no significant effects. Many Russian fighters still use vacuum tubes and are impervious to an EMP.
If you're going to get within 100-200m, might as well go for the kill.
TU 95s and B-52s have dropped live nukes in tests and were able to continue flying with no significant effects.
EMP is absorbed by water vapour in the air, a nuclear bomb exploding on the surface will have a very limited range EMP radius.
Those early explosions that resulted in wide range effects was largely because the nukes were detonated outside the atmosphere within the van allen belts.
I remember reading a Swiss report that described a Soviet pistol sized EMP generator that was directional and could be used to disable a car that was not more than 100m away by disabling its electrical system. I rather suspect they could do better now.
Plus, the bombs detonated which caused the EMP effects were radiating energy outward in all directions. This thing is directional, focusing the effect in one direction.
Obviously the case for a chemical warhead EMP burst and a high altitude nuclear burst are different consider just the energy involved.
Also, MILSPEC EMP hardening against nuclear EMP is not necessarily effective against the chemical EMP / microwave emissions. The frequency spectra are significantly different.The effective range of an explosive EMP device, especially with isotropic radiation, is not as long as we might think. EMP warheads are indicated mainly against hardened targets that still have EM vulnerabilities. There are not many of these.
Ergo , the question still remains . What exactly makes Boeing think that a EMP warhead can disable systems from relatively long range, farther than the normal kill radius of a conventional explosive( If I have been able to interpret this video correctly)?
Sujoy wrote:What exactly makes Boeing think that a EMP warhead can disable systems from relatively long range, farther than the normal kill radius of a conventional explosive( If I have been able to interpret this video correctly)?
Because it's not exactly an EMP warhead, it's a high-powered microwave weapon.
SOC wrote:Because it's not exactly an EMP warhead, it's a high-powered microwave weapon.
Which will actually make the job a lot more difficult . But let's assume it doesn't . Even then Boeing will need to know :
(A) the frequency bands in which those critical systems operate,
(B) the power densities required to disable or destroy these systems,
(C) the spectral characteristics of the EMP, and
(D) the estimated power delivered to the critical system components as a function of EMP burst range.
Without these calculations, or at least estimates, or an experimental result or two, this is an idea which is maybe at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 or 2: TRL1 = basic principles have been observed (i.e. EMP has been observed), TRL2 = technology concept and/or application has been formulated.
Details in the link below Technology readiness level
This EMP weapon that Boeing is proposing will hardly have any impact on aircrafts , ground based radar systems and modern SAM sites ( to name just three)
As far as I am aware, the spec for EMP survivability is MIL-DTL-83528C, DETAIL SPECIFICATION: GASKETING MATERIAL, CONDUCTIVE, SHIELDING GASKET, ELECTRONIC, ELASTOMER, EMI/RFI GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR (5 JAN 2001) [SUPERSEDING MIL-G-83528B] which specifies the ability of the gasket to survive 900 Amps/inch (25.4mm) perimeter ( maybe a slight deviation from the topic but all helps).
Which will actually make the job a lot more difficult . But let's assume it doesn't . Even then Boeing will need to know :
(A) the frequency bands in which those critical systems operate,
(B) the power densities required to disable or destroy these systems,
(C) the spectral characteristics of the EMP, and
(D) the estimated power delivered to the critical system components as a function of EMP burst range.
Without these calculations, or at least estimates, or an experimental result or two, this is an idea which is maybe at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 1 or 2: TRL1 = basic principles have been observed (i.e. EMP has been observed), TRL2 = technology concept and/or application has been formulated.
Details in the link below Technology readiness level
This EMP weapon that Boeing is proposing will hardly have any impact on aircrafts , ground based radar systems and modern SAM sites ( to name just three)
As far as I am aware, the spec for EMP survivability is MIL-DTL-83528C, DETAIL SPECIFICATION: GASKETING MATERIAL, CONDUCTIVE, SHIELDING GASKET, ELECTRONIC, ELASTOMER, EMI/RFI GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR (5 JAN 2001) [SUPERSEDING MIL-G-83528B] which specifies the ability of the gasket to survive 900 Amps/inch (25.4mm) perimeter ( maybe a slight deviation from the topic but all helps).
They just need powerful enough pulsed power emitter and distance where it will actually inject lethal amount of required RF.
Simple calculations are available in Filippo Neri's "Introduction to Electronic Defense System 2nd Edition" After running those.. For some reason i'm convinced that AESA radar are very vulnerable to HPM.
(A) the frequency bands in which those critical systems operate,
That is like saying a person developing a flame thrower needs to know the body temperature of the target the weapon will be used against...
(B) the power densities required to disable or destroy these systems,
They will likely try and make it as powerful as they can and consider it an effective weapon when it can disable their own kit at useful distances.
[quote]This EMP weapon that Boeing is proposing will hardly have any impact on aircrafts , ground based radar systems and modern SAM sites ( to name just three) [./quote]
Most modern systems wont work with their electronics not functioning... an EMP weapon could be mounted on the first AAM you fire at a target that will disable its ECM and ESM equipment before your standard AAMs arrive to a defenceless non manouvering target or group of targets... that can't fire back.
Ergo , the question still remains . What exactly makes Boeing think that a EMP warhead can disable systems from relatively long range, farther than the normal kill radius of a conventional explosive( If I have been able to interpret this video correctly)?
I suspect their goal is to reduce the number of people they murder when they invade a country for its oil. A cruise missile with a 300kg HE warhead would still do the job but a 150kg EMP warhead might also get the job done without levelling the whole city block.
From Ocean's Eleven to Star Trek, weapons that wipe out enemy electronics are a staple of science fiction films. For years, scientists have been attempting to create such a weapon as part of Champ, or the Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project.The US Air Force claims it has advanced the technology, and says it can deploy it using the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM).
HOW DOES IT WORK?
The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react. The aim is to destroy an enemy's command, control, communication and computing, surveillance and intelligence capabilities without hurting people or infrastructure.
According to Foxtrot Alpha, once integrated into JASSM, Champ will be a 'first day of war' standoff weapon.Because it can be launched by both bombers and fighters, Lockheed's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, is an ideal platform for Champ. 'The capability is real … and the technology can be available today,' said Major General Thomas Masiello, the Air Force Research Laboratory.'That's an operational system already in our tactical air force' In 2012, aircraft manufacturer Boeing successfully tested the weapon on a one-hour flight during which it knocked out the computers of an entire military compound.During Boeing's experiment, the missile flew low over the Utah Test and Training Range, discharging electromagnetic pulses on to seven targets, permanently shutting down their electronics.
Boeing said that the test was so successful even the camera recording it was disabled.Although the project is shrouded in secrecy, experts believe the missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon.This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy which causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.
The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react
Keith Coleman, Champ programme manager for Boeing's prototype arm Phantom Works, claims the technology marked 'a new era in modern warfare'. 'In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy's electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive,' he said during the initial test.
However, experts fear that the project could create an arms race, with countries scrambling to build their own electromagnetic pulse weapons.
Professor Trevor Taylor, Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, has previously said the Western world would be more vulnerable attack because of its increased reliance on electronics.
'Should the US be known to have developed such a technology to the production stage, it would drive others to try to act similarly,' he said.
The US Air Force claims Champ has found an ideal delivery vehicle; the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range
Oak Ridge National Laboratory maps the areas likely to be blacked out in the event of a high-altitude nuclear EMP attack on the US
Good thing russia nor rest of europe have such an archaic power grid infrastructure like US, so fragile and notorious for being a problem for entire cities at weather activies.
Hilarious... the US crows about developing a weapon that their own military is most vulnerable to... I hope you don't assume the Russians don't have anything like that...
Raytheon's Ktech nabs contract for counter-electronics missile
Raytheon’s acquisition of directed energy firm Ktech in 2011 is paying dividends following the US Defense Department’s award of a $4.8 million contract to repackage two conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCM) as high-power microwave weapons.
Ktech produced the pulsing electronics kit that Boeing proved could knock out banks of computers in an October 2012 flight demonstration, overseen by the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL).
The award to Raytheon is the first significant movement on the so-called Counter-electronics High-power microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) since that 2012 demonstration.
The announcement is a blow to Boeing, which no longer leads the effort. Boeing, as the CALCM’s original manufacturer, will support Raytheon as a subcontractor, the company confirms. It could also offer up alternative missile or platform options to carry the payload, since CALCM is being removed from service because of its age and limited inventory.
In an interview with Flightglobal, Donald Sullivan and Peter Duselis of Raytheon Missile Systems Ktech explained that the counter-electronics system inside the refurbished conventional, subsonic AGM-86 air-launched missiles have been improved since the 2012 tests.
“There have been a number of components and subsystems within the payload that have had their performance parameters increased in terms of the output specifications of the system as well as its environmental capability,” says Sullivan, Ktech’s technical director. That translates to the latest version having improved operational effects and more stability across the missile’s flight envelope.
Raytheon “cannot confirm or deny” many aspects of the project, and directed specific questions to AFRL.
Laboratory officials have confirmed that the CHAMP system demonstrated in 2012 was capable of firing up to “100 shots per sortie” to fry military and commercial electronics in a very predictable way.
The US Air Force has been under pressure from Congress to make use of the technology and has even received extra funding to make a handful of missile available for operational use.
The air force is moving slower than some wish, but it is pursuing integration with Lockheed Martin's extended-range AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and reusable unmanned aircraft – since CHAMP can keep pulsing as long it has enough power input.
Speaking to Flightglobal at the Air Warfare Symposium in Florida last month, Air Combat Command chief Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle confirmed that the operational force wants the counter-electronics capability and that some units are being kept as “weapons to use in a contingency”.
“Our real goal is to take what we learnt in CHAMP and apply it to the next weapon,” he says. “We have kept some, it’s a very small number, so we have some capability with it now. Our intent is to move that to the next weapon, a more advanced weapon, and continue to modernise it.”
A Boeing B-52 launched CHAMP in the 2012 demonstration at the Utah Test and Training Range, however, it's employment from a Northrop Grumman B-2 in an animated promotional video.
“We’re looking forward to and expecting that high-powered microwaves will be an inherent part of third offset strategy along with other forms of directed energy,” says Sullivan.
Boeing still backing stalled CHAMP and UAV projects
Despite all the hype surrounding the high-power microwave energy weapon known as CHAMP, interest in the computer-frying device assembled and tested by Boeing Phantom Works and the US Air Force Research Laboratory appears stalled.
Raytheon pitches CHAMP derivative for air defence
Raytheon's high powered microwave demonstrator, which disabled electronics on small unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) during a 2013 demonstration, has sparked renewed interest among Department of Defense customers.
Observers at a 2013 ground-based air defence demonstration on an Army site have recently resurfaced and expressed their interest in the technology, Steve Downie, Ktech site director for Raytheon Missile Systems told reporters June 20. The company has not secured a customer, but expects a request for proposals will be released within 18 months.
While Raytheon has mature technology on hand, federal budget constraints and an uneasy fiscal environment have stymied fielding, according to Downie. Still, a joint urgent operational needs requirement that could rapidly field the technology is being examined, he said.
As an electronic attack system, the demonstrator is the ground-based cousin to Raytheon’s computer-frying missile, the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project or CHAMP. The demonstrator also resembles the active denial system’s configuration, including its reflector and steering mirror, but with a different mission set, Downie said.
The system is integrated with radar that tracks an unmanned vehicle and then determines whether it can pulse the target with its high-powered microwave source. Although there are decision points which require a command to fire, tracking could be automated, Downie said.
The company originally developed the HPM demonstrator for the Army, but its capability could be tailored for the U.S. Navy or Air Force, he said. Earlier this year, the Air Force and the US Department of Energy expressed interest in technology which could disable small UAVs infringing on nuclear sites.
“All the services can use the technology,” Downie said. “But the applications are sometimes drastically different, the mission determines the system capabilities.”
While the current prototype measures 6m (19.7ft), the company has also designed a system half the size with the same capability.
“When you build a system, you put it a lot of things you think you might need,” Downie said. “The 20ft [container] was almost a random choice and by the time we put everything in there we thought we needed, it was only 50 or 60% full.”
Raytheon plans to participate in upcoming range tests this year, which will demonstrate enhanced capabilities the company has developed since 2013.
Not sure why US EW is not already a thread so here goes.
This is from a pretty good thread on the Warzone exploring the potential for AI in the realtime analysis of and assistance in signal intelligence, especially from an airborne perspective. These are some paras extracted to set the scene. If you are interested in this there are some links there to dig deeper.
This is where Cognitive EW comes in. At its most basic, this concept revolves around the idea of being able to detect and categorize the signals that an opponent is using, for whatever purpose, and then use machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms to help further automate the process of developing countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. A computer system, especially one with an ever-growing library of electronic signature data collected from a wide array of sources, could parse through that information much faster than a human, or even a team of humans depending on the volume of available intelligence, rapidly identifying items of interest for further analysis and exploitation. It may even be able to start doing some of that follow-on work by itself after isolating the important data.
"In the near term, proven EW platforms within the land, maritime, air, and space domains would host cognitive EW capabilities as part of their detection and identification suite. Onboard these platforms organically collected and off-board feeds would provide spectrum domain awareness and emitter characterization to these platforms hosting cognitive EW toolkits," he explains in his article. "Forward and remote operators aided by cognitive EW toolkits would scrutinize the EMS feeds off the sensors to rapidly characterize the spectrum and when necessary, immediately start the development [of] countermeasures."
The basic principles behind Cognitive EW aren't new, something Major Casey notes himself, but advances in computing, as well as the near-constant miniaturization of that technology, have made it increasingly more practical for use outside of a laboratory environment. As time goes on, the hope is that it will be possible to integrate this technology within electronic warfare systems themselves, allowing them to modulate how they operate automatically and do so extremely fast, even in real-time in the middle of an operation, based on information they're collecting, as well as receiving from offboard sources via any number of platforms networked together. Casey describes this as the "holy grail" of this capability.
"As cognitive EW technology matures, these toolkits would be embedded in forward strike platforms to better sense, identify, attribute, and share the current state of EMS environment between all forces and across all domains," he continues. "These actions would allow blue forces to rapidly maneuver within the spectrum and denying [sic] the adversary the use of the spectrum that they are not able to recover."
This is another US development, this time in the USN. Again fundamentally important and again from the Warzone.
The U.S. Navy has been quietly developing what could be one of the most important, transformative, and fascinating advances in naval combat, and warfare in general, in years. This new electronic warfare "system of systems" has been clandestinely refined over the last five years and judging from the Navy's own budgetary documents, it may be operational soon, if it isn't already. This secretive new electronic warfare "ecosystem" is known as Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS.
NEMESIS is not just some 'paper program.' From publicly available, but obscure documents we've collected, it's clear that, for years, the Navy has been developing and integrating multiple types of unmanned vehicles, shipboard and submarine systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare payloads, and communication technologies to give it the ability to project what is, in essence, phantom fleets of aircraft, ships, and submarines. These realistic-looking false signatures and decoys have the ability to appear seamlessly across disparate and geographically separated enemy sensor systems located both above and below the ocean's surface. As a result, this networked and cooperative electronic warfare concept brings an unprecedented level of guileful fidelity to the fight. It's not just about disrupting the enemy's capabilities or confusing them at a command and control level, but also about making their sensors tell them the same falsehoods across large swathes of the battlespace.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
