Effect of EMP on modern airliners ?
 

Just a small question to throw out for general comment.

It would seem to me that the risk of use of tactical or low yield nuclear weapons in some part of the world may have gone up.

Example 1. How might the Russians support Assad (and their own assets) in the event of an invasion of Syria by massed armour of Saudi-Gulf and Turkish Forces. They might elect to use the same defensive tactic that we had scheduled in similar circumstances for the Fulda Gap in the bad old days.

Example 2. The North Koreans are currently nuclear willie waving and threatening some kind of pre-emptive strike of the South. What if its not all just a big bluff and they do have some kind of crude device and delivery system on hand that will do the job.

The question is, if a tac nuke (or two) is set off somewhere in Syria or the Korean peninsular, what is the expected effect of the EMP of the blast on the performance (flyability) of the latest generations of FBW aircraft from messrs Boeing and Airbus ?? ... I don't expect that the systems will have been hardened against an EMP threat and they don't have any mechanical linkages any more ??

If the answer is as I suspect it may be .....whats a safe distance from the epicentre in order to be able to stay in the air at the moment of detonation ?

Not much commercial traffic over the DMZ in Korea, or the airspace over Syria. Why would you consider this to be a concern?

I guess because we are talking 100s of miles

When I was in the trade perceived wisdom was that the other endoatmospheric effects were more significant.

Many years ago I read a paper on future EMP missiles and nothing since, I would have thought it to be the killer weapon against modern hi tech mil jets. Have also read it has been succesfully used to stop cars dead in American police trials as a tow weapon fired from a chasing car.

I assume, and may well be wrong of course, that modern mil aircraft have at least some sort of shielding to their electronics/avionics against the effects of EMP? If not, then that new fangled, electro-stealthwank F-35 gizmo, with it's ALIS and it's trillion lines of software code, is doomed I yell ya, DOOMED!

-RP

EMP shielding not much use if the crew are blinded by the flash.

'CHAMP' uses a non-nuclear warhead to generate an EMP. Given that '35 is an intended carrier it's probably got some shielding in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counte...issile_Project

One might imagine fibre-optical data transmission, as opposed to wires, might be a partial solution to vulnerability.

WW, the OP was talking nuclear however non-nuclear EMP is some else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elec...se_.28NNEMP.29

I always thought anything that has external antennas cannot be shielded. Saying that technology might have created a solution.

A clue might be "directed energy weapon"

Similar issues need to be considered with the old fashioned ECM systems to ensure compatibility with own sensors.

PN, I was responding to the "blinded by the flash' comment, with respect to shielding not being much use.

WW, you lost me. I don't see any reference to Flash in your post.

Sitigeltfel, if by flash you mean as in nuclear, thee flash indeed has a far greater range than EMP and its effects can be amplified at night, over snow, in clear air or mitigated by cloud.

I figured following the post in question was enough.

Like this one.

So to be more specific, if I am sitting, sipping champers in row 4A of a Qatar Airways 787, somewhere over northern Iraq/Iran or Eastern Turkey, and the Russians light up a tactical nuke in Northern Syria, is there a chance that the 787 I am sitting in will cease to fly as designed, or at all, due to EMP, Flash or any other by product of the detonation ??

Yes there is chance.

Happy now?

Some background on the certification requirements for HIRF are here: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...AC_20-158A.pdf

The design of electronics/avionics in the commercial sector in relation to EMC issues/requirements would follow similar methods to hardening it to EMP. Since EMC has come along way in the last 20 years, its likely that newer planes would fare better than older ones in this respect. (although older planes with no electronic critical system fare even better ;)
As far as, will plane x survive, thats hard to say without knowing how close, what field strength etc, but this could be extrapolated from the EMC tests done on avionics at approval stage.

Not really a question of happier or not Tourist.

I fly Asia-Europe-Asia at least twice a month and have come to enjoy the convenience and service of the Gulf carriers.

However, its just another risk factor to consider when choosing my routes in current circumstances. After all, until recently, who would have thought that a BUK would be bringing down a transiting 777 over Ukraine. Worth keeping an eye on developing military-political situations before making travel decisions these days.

This world seems to be presenting an ever increasing wealth of opportunities to become collateral damage.

Thank you Hoss for your interesting insight. Makes sense. Thanks for the link 212, very interesting background.

Sandia Labs used to conduct EMP tests on military aircraft at the SE end of KABQ runway 08/26 on the largest metal-free wood laminate structure in the world.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...se_-_1989.jpeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I