EMP's

The longer we go without anyone using a weaponized EMP, the more everyone lets themselves be susceptible to it should it happen.
>Nobody is actually ready for it
>Nobody is really prepared
>the only ones who give a shit are labeled "doomsday preppers"

File: Flux_compression_generator_2.png (58KB, 950x966px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 950x966px

>>33199348
>Thoughts on EMP's on the modern battlefield?
It's a one a the main destructive factors of Nuclear explosion
>Are most armies prepared?
Those armies, who prepared for operating in limited\unlimited nuclear war are prepared
>Are they overhyped?
Probably, because right now, without nukes, only cost-effective way to create an EMP is using an explosively pumped flux compression generator, which is, basically, a HE shell. This generates a question - why should I spend money on frying target, when I can just blow it up? Radius of damage is pretty same.

>>33199348
Would an extremely powerful EMP disable a modern fighter aircraft, or are they generally hardened against them?

>>33202878
>It's a one a the main destructive factors of Nuclear explosion

If you pop the nuke up in the van Allen belt to get a good EMP out of it, then it'll be THE destructive factor, because you're not going to harm anything with the blast itself form up there.

If you're popping the nuke at more normal heights then there isn't going to be any EMP to speak of, because the big EMP effect comes from interaction with the van Allen belt, not form the nuke directly.

>>33202921
You're talking about different thing and different usage of nuclear weapon.

>>33202921
Basically, an EMP is only even going to be an issue when the army dropping the nuke doesn't want to blow their target up tae fuck, which they probably do.

Radars and other antennas are guaranteed to be fried with a strong pulse, practically leading to a loss of function of everything relying on RF waves, long stretches of wire such as the electrical grid would also be affected but I'm uncertain how greatly

File: HP-4.jpg (28KB, 300x239px)

28KB, 300x239px

Aircraft maintainer here. Military aircraft at least have EMP shielding, though there's no telling if it'll work until it's actually put to the test. They have a EMP simulation test sight thats as close as they can get to the same affect.

>>33202908
It would likely cause all of their systems to need a reboot and could result in a momentary loss of control requiring re-calibration of orientation sensors. However, provided everything is designed like normal circuit boards tend to be, the actual connected circuits will be too small to induce a damaging voltage.

>>33202908
Physically there's little difference between an EMP weapon and a high power radar, and those don't generally cause fighters to drop out of the sky.

are you guys fucking retarded ? do you have any idea what an EMP actually is ? do you just think it's a magic laser that kills any machine it comes in contact with ?
The pulse is dangerous because it propagates everywhere and in every direction, so if you have a very long wire , chances are the radiation will pass through it and until it stops being in a conductive environment, it will keep "adding" charges to it until your electronics fries because you just got a gorillon volt going through a 220V powerline.
the only thing you need to be protected against EMPs is a fine conductive wire wrap that wouldn't add more than 50kg to a fucking aircraft. the actual dangers of EMP is that they will fry LONG electronics (read : +100m) like powerlines.

it NEEDS to be long to work. if you took a 2000m wire and coiled it up so it didn't take much space, an EMP would barely do a thing.

File: _SMC3257.jpg (55KB, 800x533px)

55KB, 800x533px

I'll be jammin ACDC when the EMP hits

>>33205241
are tubes resistant or something?

>>33206817
yes

>>33199348
EMP shielding is more common than you'd think

>>33203234
Is there any shielding on civilian aircrafts? Or would they all just fall out of the sky at once

>Book for everyone: One second after

is emp hardening a faraday cage-like thing, or are the circuits/components made beefy enough to tank it?

>>33206901
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/

>>33206901
Civilian airliners are designed to tank multiple direct lightning strikes.

And I doubt the smaller single engine prop planes will be affected.

>>33206901
Their flight controls and navigation software would have likely have to reset as all their RAM would be essentially wiped immediately and all transistors would read the same value for a moment. Probably confuse and crash every computer on board. If you're fly by wire, that's sorta bad until the computer power cycles itself. But you're stable enough and high enough you'll be fine.
>>33207126
Can confirm, there's nothing that can stop an aircraft engine short of physically breaking it or telling it to stop. They always continue to run even in a total power failure.

>>33206947

Everything, including redundancy.