Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!wolit From: wolit@alice.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: X-29 vs EMP Message-ID: <3230@alice.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 12:55:24 EST Article-I.D.: alice.3230 Posted: Fri Jan 4 12:55:24 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:59:10 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 23 >> 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. > 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. Well, the X-29 is NOT a "small, self-contained piece of circuitry", nor is its electronics. The fly-by-wire control system, of necessity, extends throughout the aircraft. Additional EMP softness derives from the presence of many radar, communication, and navigation antennae. Objection (b) should hardly be comforting to X-29 backers: it's a whole lot easier to detonate a few nukes in the ionosphere and thereby blanket an entire theatre, for example, than it would be if you had to target each plane separately! -- Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ; (201) 582-2998