Electromagnetic Disruptors

Darrel_topgun

Banned Member
A new barely unexploited field in electronic warfare is the research and development of so-called electromagnetic disruptors. This type of weapons can emit and blast billions and billions of megawatts of electromagnetic energy that can short circuit and destroy all kinds of electronic devices mainly communications and detection systems, this would be a highly promising field of development since it is expected that modern and next generations weapons would be automated and that this electromagentic weapons would pose the single greatest threat against this systems. The Russians have more empirical data from their detonation in Novaya Zemlya and is highly possible that they may already have such a weapon, the possibility of the existence of such weapon is hypothetical. :eek:
 

DoC_FouALieR

New Member
billions and billions of megawatts
The problem with those "star wars" and futuristic weapons like the railgun is that everyone is amazed and make lot of confusions in terms of technical problems and physical principles...
A weapons emiting "billions and billions of megawatts" must at least be fueled with those sames "billions and billions of megawatts" (because a fundamental physic law is the energy conservation...)

So unless having 100 and more nuclear power plants fueling this weapon, no chance to work. Another problem is energy transport... why particle accelerator magnets are cryogenised with liquid helium at -273° ? To allow supra-conductivity to prevent electrical current loss in the form of heat...
Such big coils are just impossible to make for military purposes.

is highly possible that they may already have such a weapon
And every nuclear nations have already made such EMP weapons since 1945... just blow a nuclear weapon in high altitude to achieve the desired EMP effect.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
DoC_FouALieR said:
The problem with those "star wars" and futuristic weapons like the railgun is that everyone is amazed and make lot of confusions in terms of technical problems and physical principles...
A weapons emiting "billions and billions of megawatts" must at least be fueled with those sames "billions and billions of megawatts" (because a fundamental physic law is the energy conservation...)
So whats wrong with the railgun? Once they figure out how to keep the rail from bending its a done deal. She doesn't take bilions and billions of megawatts.
 

DoC_FouALieR

New Member
Yes, the railgun is indeed a potential weapon that is technically available, since small prototypes already exists. But in order to be more efficient than a 120 mm or even a 140 mm tank gun, it still needs lot of space and large amount of energy that a standard diesel engine is not able to produce.
However, I think that railguns are going to do a real breakthrough in naval gunnery, because a boat has all the required space to install it, and producing and stockpiling energy is easier than on a land vehicle. The main advantages will be the extremely range that new projectiles will be able to reach, 200 nautical miles is a reasonable suggestion. And it reduce too the risk of explosion and fire since railgun's ammunition have no propellant.
 

Arthur Chan

New Member
The ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) effect was first observed during the early testing of high altitude airburst nuclear weapons. The effect is characterised by the production of a very short (hundreds of nanoseconds) but intense electromagnetic pulse, which propagates away from its source with ever diminishing intensity, governed by the theory of electromagnetism. The ElectroMagnetic Pulse is in effect an electromagnetic shock wave.

This pulse of energy produces a powerful electromagnetic field, particularly within the vicinity of the weapon burst. The field can be sufficiently strong to produce short lived transient voltages of thousands of Volts (ie kiloVolts) on exposed electrical conductors, such as wires, or conductive tracks on printed circuit boards, where exposed.

It is this aspect of the EMP effect which is of military significance, as it can result in irreversible damage to a wide range of electrical and electronic equipment, particularly computers and radio or radar receivers. Subject to the electromagnetic hardness of the electronics, a measure of the equipment's resilience to this effect, and the intensity of the field produced by the weapon, the equipment can be irreversibly damaged or in effect electrically destroyed. The damage inflicted is not unlike that experienced through exposure to close proximity lightning strikes, and may require complete replacement of the equipment, or at least substantial portions thereof.

Commercial computer equipment is particularly vulnerable to EMP effects, as it is largely built up of high density Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS) devices, which are very sensitive to exposure to high voltage transients. What is significant about MOS devices is that very little energy is required to permanently wound or destroy them, any voltage in typically in excess of tens of Volts can produce an effect termed gate breakdown which effectively destroys the device. Even if the pulse is not powerful enough to produce thermal damage, the power supply in the equipment will readily supply enough energy to complete the destructive process. Wounded devices may still function, but their reliability will be seriously impaired. Shielding electronics by equipment chassis provides only limited protection, as any cables running in and out of the equipment will behave very much like antennae, in effect guiding the high voltage transients into the equipment.

Computers used in data processing systems, communications systems, displays, industrial control applications, including road and rail signalling, and those embedded in military equipment, such as signal processors, electronic flight controls and digital engine control systems, are all potentially vulnerable to the EMP effect.

Other electronic devices and electrical equipment may also be destroyed by the EMP effect. Telecommunications equipment can be highly vulnerable, due to the presence of lengthy copper cables between devices. Receivers of all varieties are particularly sensitive to EMP, as the highly sensitive miniature high frequency transistors and diodes in such equipment are easily destroyed by exposure to high voltage electrical transients. Therefore radar and electronic warfare equipment, satellite, microwave, UHF, VHF, HF and low band communications equipment and television equipment are all potentially vulnerable to the EMP effect.

It is significant that modern military platforms are densely packed with electronic equipment, and unless these platforms are well hardened, an EMP device can substantially reduce their function or render them unusable.
 

Arthur Chan

New Member
A contract has been awarded to manufacture Railgun . See below:-

BAE Armament System Division in Minneapolis was given a contract for the design and production of the 32 MJ (mega joules) laboratory launcher for the US Navy. The design and fabrication of the 32 MJ lab Launcher will be a major step toward development of a full scale tactical 64 MJ EM (Electro-Magnetic) gun weapon system for the US Navy. The device is a low-cost concept for both naval surface-fire support and army non line-of- sight engagements using EM gun launcher. The projectile has a flight mass of 15 kg and contains either multiple kinetic-energy flechettes (darts) or a small number of sub penetrators made of tungsten. In its naval guise it has a muzzle energy of 64 MJ ; a muzzle velocity of 2,500 m/s; a maximium range in excess of 500 km and a impact velocity of 1,600 m/s.
 

dioditto

New Member
Arthur Chan, I presume u are not an electrical engineer, so you do not know that EMP CAN BE SHIELDED. This is not to mention there are EMP resistant electronics that can be utilised. EMP weapons are NOT the wonder weapon you presume it to be. EMP is as old as the nuclear bomb invented 45 years ago, and subsequent decades have seen better understanding of it, with better shielding techniques and technologies.
 

Arthur Chan

New Member
Hi, dioditto. Thanks for your reply on the subject. I'm aware that EMP can be sheilded. Perhaps, below article may interest you:-

"The most effective method is to wholly contain the equipment in an electrically conductive enclosure, termed a Faraday cage, which prevents the electromagnetic field from gaining access to the protected equipment. However, most such equipment must communicate with and be fed with power from the outside world, and this can provide entry points via which electrical transients may enter the enclosure and effect damage. While optical fibres address this requirement for transferring data in and out, electrical power feeds remain an ongoing vulnerability.



Where an electrically conductive channel must enter the enclosure, electromagnetic arresting devices must be fitted. A range of devices exist, however care must be taken in determining their parameters to ensure that they can deal with the rise time and strength of electrical transients produced by electromagnetic devices. Reports from the US [9] indicate that hardening measures attuned to the behaviour of nuclear EMP bombs do not perform well when dealing with some conventional microwave electromagnetic device designs.

It is significant that hardening of systems must be carried out at a system level, as electromagnetic damage to any single element of a complex system could inhibit the function of the whole system. Hardening new build equipment and systems will add a substantial cost burden. Older equipment and systems may be impossible to harden properly and may require complete replacement. In simple terms, hardening by design is significantly easier than attempting to harden existing equipment.

An interesting aspect of electrical damage to targets is the possibility of wounding semiconductor devices thereby causing equipment to suffer repetitive intermittent faults rather than complete failures. Such faults would tie down considerable maintenance resources while also diminishing the confidence of the operators in the equipment's reliability. Intermittent faults may not be possible to repair economically, thereby causing equipment in this state to be removed from service permanently, with considerable loss in maintenance hours during damage diagnosis. This factor must also be considered when assessing the hardness of equipment against electromagnetic attack, as partial or incomplete hardening may in this fashion cause more difficulties than it would solve. Indeed, shielding which is incomplete may resonate when excited by radiation and thus contribute to damage inflicted upon the equipment contained within it.

Other than hardening against attack, facilities which are concealed should not radiate readily detectable emissions. Where radio frequency communications must be used, low probability of intercept (ie spread spectrum) techniques should be employed exclusively to preclude the use of site emissions for electromagnetic targeting purposes [DIXON84]. Appropriate suppression of UE is also mandatory.

Communications networks for voice, data and services should employ topologies with sufficient redundancy and failover mechanisms to allow operation with multiple nodes and links inoperative. This will deny a user of electromagnetic bombs the option of disabling large portions if not the whole of the network by taking down one or more key nodes or links with a single or small number of attacks. "
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Arthur Chan said:
Hi, dioditto. Thanks for your reply on the subject. I'm aware that EMP can be sheilded. Perhaps, below article may interest you:-
arthur, welcome to the forums. I'm just wondering what the thrust is of your posting re EMP?

We did have a vigorous debate about it on here some time ago. Principally we discussed the issues of shielding etc as some of us have worked in shielded locations - so we discussed Tempest rated rooms etc. naturally, no specifics were given out though.

as dioditto implies, EMP was an opportunity wonder weapon of yesteryear - it certainly does not or has not the same advantages now in contemp battlespace management.
 

enigmaticuk

New Member
How much emp protection do unit level military equipment have ie brads and abrams and appaches, to a strong emp which could be directed at them in a ground confrontation?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
enigmaticuk said:
How much emp protection do unit level military equipment have ie brads and abrams and appaches, to a strong emp which could be directed at them in a ground confrontation?
at the risk of appearing vague - isn't it going to be exposure to an enemy after a risk assessment is done? eg, high risk and shielded assets more robust for exposure to EMP attacks would be in loc/theatre.

an enemy with an EMP delivery capability would give off signs to some extent. If they're a known threat, then you'd sanitise that location before exposing manned solutions.

Not exactly the answer you're looking for I suspect - but my "two bobs" worth...
 

powerslavenegi

New Member
Well my two paisas(i dont earn in Dollars u c):D .

Well as for EMP attack and protection against it ,yeah I have read many articles about it on the net but then I thought as it goes with Armour v/s Bullet same holds good here if one develops a way to shield ones systems from EMP the other one will device ways to get around those (say a tandem war head sort of a thingy).Every where one would have to go by cost and other Infrastructure or weight dependent constraints.
 

ugunnadiepiggy

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
How much emp protection do unit level military equipment have ie brads and abrams and appaches, to a strong emp which could be directed at them in a ground confrontation?
they were oringinally designed to be hardened to withstand NBC warfare within a certain distance outside the nuke bubble. tac nukes means around 15-30 km from explosion. And it was preferred that the aircraft are not flying.
all vehicles equipped to fight in NBC use mainly positive pressure and EMP hardened chassis. expected fighting life of combatants 2-6 weeks depeneding on exposure and postitioning. honestly 8 will die out of 10 within that 6 week period
 

LancerMc

New Member
Now someone correct if I am wrong, but even EMP can harm a person if they are in close proximity to the pulse. Since I am no biologist or doctor, I don't quite understand how that works. If does harm people, even a tactical use of the weapon on a battlefield could harm soldiers on both sides.
 

ugunnadiepiggy

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Now someone correct if I am wrong, but even EMP can harm a person if they are in close proximity to the pulse. Since I am no biologist or doctor, I don't quite understand how that works. If does harm people, even a tactical use of the weapon on a battlefield could harm soldiers on both sides.
Depends on the delivery vehicle i suppose, if its a nuke you may get a little burnt :), use of other EMP weapons like that have been in recent years used can cause headaches and i suppose other stuff that exposure to wave or microwave radition causes to a degree. look up for similar systems in the real world like CRT and MRI scans overexposure to such, extreme to microwave transmission like with radar and telephone or radio tranmission dishes you should find a applicable answer there.
Happy hunting
 

Khairul Alam

New Member
The problem with those "star wars" and futuristic weapons like the railgun is that everyone is amazed and make lot of confusions in terms of technical problems and physical principles...
A weapons emiting "billions and billions of megawatts" must at least be fueled with those sames "billions and billions of megawatts" (because a fundamental physic law is the energy conservation...)
So unless having 100 and more nuclear power plants fueling this weapon, no chance to work.
Fuelling an EMP bomb wud not require hundreds of nuclear powerplants. An EMP bomb releases "billions and billions of megawatts", not billions and billions of joules of energy. Releasing a few thousand joules of electromagnetic energy in a few nanoseconds can have the desired results.
 
Top