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