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