Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Is X-29 a boondoggle?
Message-ID: <124@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 21:09:20 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.124
Posted: Wed Jan  2 21:09:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 01:42:15 EST
References: <199@hhb.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 28

> I was reading in the Dec. 24 1984 issue of TIME magazine
> (on p 14) about the recent test flight of the Grumman
> X-29A reverse-swept-wing aircraft.
> ...
> What I do question is the wisdom of building
> such a plane as the X-29 in the light of what
> is known about nuclear warfare.
> 
> To kill a 'conventional' plane, one must
> achieve a fairly direct hit with a missile.
> However, it would seem to me that, unless the X-29's
> control systems are effectively shielded,
> merely a nearby detonation of a nuclear missile not
> even intended for it would cripple the plane via
> the EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) effect.
> 
> The planes would magically drop from the sky if
> caught in flight near an explosion.

a) EMP is easy to shield against in a small, self-contained piece of
circuitry (as opposed to a power grid with hundreds of miles of
exposed wire acting as antennas).

b) EMP only occurs in a sea-surface burst or an air-space interface burst,
not with any random airburst.  Don't take the Magical Car Hex in The Day
After too seriously...

--JoSH