Wednesday, February 20, 2019

EMP

Once upon a time (as all good fairy tales begin), the Navy required electromagnetic pulse (EMP) hardening in all its electronics to counter possible Soviet nuclear weapon effects.  That requirement has dropped by the wayside over the last few decades along with EMCON (emissions control) operations, basic seamanship, and many other capabilities.

To refresh, EMP is a short duration, electromagnetic energy burst across a fairly wide spectrum of the electromagnetic (EM) field.  It has the effect of damaging and destroying electronic devices.  EMP can occur naturally, as in lightning strikes, or from man-made weapons.  The best known source of EMP is a nuclear weapon detonated in the atmosphere high above the target.  Today, smaller, non-nuclear weapons can generate EMP thereby allowing tactical use of EMP without the devastating and long lasting effects of nuclear weapons and radiation.  This also makes EMP weapon use politically acceptable as opposed to nuclear weapons.

The US has acknowledged the existence of a missile-mounted EMP device known as CHAMP (Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project) which was developed by Boeing and the US Air Force.  CHAMP appears capable of delivering multiple microwave EMP bursts during a single flight and can target specific frequencies. (1)  A publicly acknowledged test occurred in 2012 in which various types of electronic devices inside a building were disabled by an EMP missile flying by.

CHAMP EMP Concept Missile

There are numerous reports of Chinese, Russian, and NKorean EMP weapons although details are, understandably, sparse.

A good discussion of the scope of the EMP threat is available in an Oct 2017 statement for the record to Congress from Dr. William Graham, chairman of the Congressionally established Commission To Assess The Threat To The United States From Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. (2)  Dr. Graham’s statement was focused on NKorean EMP threats but it is not hard to extrapolate the threat to Russia and China who have more resources and, presumably, more advanced EMP programs.  A report to the Commission further details the potential EMP threats. (3)

Presumably, we have continued to develop our EMP weapons – I hope so, at any rate.  Lacking any further information in the public domain, there is nothing more to be said about offensive EMP weapons.

Defensively, as noted, we used to build ships with component EMP hardening.  We need to return to that design requirement.  Herein we see yet another negative impact of the LCS program.  Prior to the LCS, the Navy operated for years with a clear, simple survivability design requirement.  OPNAVINST 9070.1 defined survivability for ships and Level 1, the lowest level, mandated EMP hardening among other requirements.  When the LCS was shown to have been designed without adhering to any formal survivability requirement the Navy spent years defending it with outright lies about some mythical Level 1+ survivability.  After this was proven false (see, “Rationalize Survivability”), the Navy finally opted to issue a rewritten survivability document which eliminated all specific survivability requirements in favor of a nebulous, feel-good, non-specific description of generic survivability.  Thus ended the requirement for EMP hardening.  Thanks LCS.  To be fair, the Navy had probably abandoned EMP hardening prior to the LCS but I can’t pin down exactly when that occurred.

Back to task …

Unless we want to risk the specter of a ship or fleet lying dead in the water, immobilized and neutered by an EMP burst, we need to start – well, return – to designing ships for combat and designing to a mandated survivability rather than some feel-good policy intended to allow the Navy to save face.  We once knew how to build warships and we’d better remember how, quickly.  The new frigate would be a good place to start.  Let’s demand that it be built as a warship, not some glorified LCS (which is exactly and literally what it will be, I’m afraid).




________________________________

(1)Boeing website,
http://www.boeing.com/features/2012/10/bds-champ-10-22-12.page



61 comments:

  1. “Suppose you were an LCS, dead in the water. And suppose you were then hit by an EMP device. But I repeat myself.” - (apologies to Samuel Clemens)

    It's mind-boggling that anyone would commission a class of warships that ignored such a long understood (and ever more viable) threat.

    Excellent article by ComNavOps.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As usual, on the mark.

    Only good news when it comes to EMP and LCS, I don't think the Colombian narcs and Somali pirates have EMP yet so I think LCS will be able to operate against them for a little while longer....you have to find the positive where you can!

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...although the Colombians have subs that the LCS cant detect(no ASW), and they surely could home-brew a torpedo with a 10lb warhead to sink the LCS.
    And the Somalis could just drop a foot locker full of grenades over the side, as the theres no MCM...
    Ok, my LCS hatred showed thru, my apologies...!!
    Seriously though, EMP is a serious uncountered threat. In fact, its a potential political tool as well. With all the talk of Chinese carrier killers, imagine a conflict where they mission kill a CVBG with no (or just a few, the planes/helos in the air at the time) casualties. Public opinion at home could very well support ending hostilities after a carrier and its escorts get towed home, the Navy gets embarrassed, and the Chinese take whatever they want with minimal resistence... They could even play benevolent to the world by not killing the "interfering" American serviceman...
    In fact the more I think about that scenario, the more plausible and scary it is... What if the DF21 isnt really meant to hit a carrier... only get "close enough"???
    Sounds like survivability, with EMP as an important component needs revisited!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @JJ Abatie.

      I agree with you, I think as time goes by and USA just gets weaker militarily and it's population gets older and more and more disinterested in world affairs, I think the "soft" option of taking out a carrier TF or Guam strike with an EMP becomes a real possibility. A few more years of apathy and weakness and can one really think US population will rise up to the challenge if none of it's soldiers or sailors are killed in the first strike? Under that scenario, EMP hardening should be a MUST for every ship and standards should be seriously enforced, not weakened!

      Delete
    2. Although of course doing so would open China up to proportional retaliation.

      "EMP hardening should be a MUST for every ship and standards should be seriously enforced, not weakened!"

      True absolutely, It should be as standard as NBC detection and defense systems.

      "and it's population gets older"

      China looks to have the same problem - perhaps worse. And one they really are not planning for.

      Delete
    3. Would USA retaliate after an smallish EMP that doesn't kill anyone? I'm really that sure anymore....

      Delete
    4. I am not disagreeing with your proposition that exposing the US as a paper tiger leading to the US aborting hostilities, but that would be as much a political failure as a military failure. If the US political leadership was unable to make a strong enough case for war, then yeah a sizable initial setback could result in the voters demanding the end of hostilities.

      The Powell Doctrine attempts to prevent this sort of issue based on the experience from Vietnam. Whether or not it's used is another question.

      I have to say that IMO the most astonishing thing about the current US strategic position is that we are preparing for war with our largest trading partner. This represents a gross failure of US foreign and trade policy. The US chose to pursue commercial interests at the expense of foreign and security policy. We can't resort to significant economic sanctions with China or we risk significant domestic economic (and thus political) distress.

      So we have to spend billions of dollars to prepare for a conflict with a huge nation-state in a geographically disadvantageous region of the world, while at the same time losing domestic industrial base to the same nation-state in order to maximize US corporate profits. The money and tech China deploys are a direct result of it's trade relationship with the US and taking advantage of TWO membership.

      I contend that the US push to have China granted most-favored nation trading status and added to the WTO will be looked back on as one of the worst US strategic decisions in US history.

      See for example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/normalizing-trade-relations-with-china-was-a-mistake/562403/

      Delete
    5. It is weird to say the least to prepare to fight your biggest trading "partner"! Can't think of another historical equivalent really...

      Delete
    6. "...taking advantage of WTO membership" vice "...TWO membership".

      Delete
    7. @NICO - it also demonstrates the myth that developing trading relationships with a nation reduces tension with them.

      Until WWII, the US always had a protectionist economic system. What we think of as "free trade" didn't really arise until after WWII. And until 1980, our trading partners were also our military alliance partners. However, business interests have also salivated over the massive Chinese domestic market. That's one of the reasons the US was so committed to China prior to WWII. I mean we basically went to war with Japan over China.

      So there has been tension in our relationship with China since the communists won the Chinese Civil War. We were geo-political rivals but we desired access to their markets, and later we wanted access to the cheaper manufacturing they offered.

      So, here we are discussing hypothetical combat scenarios while at the same time sending billions of dollars into their economy.

      Delete
    8. "astonishing thing ... is that we are preparing for war with our largest trading partner. This represents a gross failure of US foreign and trade policy."

      Just for some balanced perspective, we should recognize that China is also preparing for war their trading partner, the US. This has to be a geopolitical failure on their part, as well. In fact, there is a very good case to be made that the deterioration in relationship has been fueled by the Chinese with their illegal expansionist actions, one-sided trade dealings, blatant intellectual property theft, military confrontations, etc.

      I would suggest that the US is reacting to Chinese actions rather than initiating war preparation. China could have achieved most of their regional power ambitions without angering the US, if they had wished. They made a very conscious and calculated decision to do otherwise.

      So, we can bemoan the position the US is now in regarding China but it's a position largely of China's making.

      Delete
    9. It is important to note that while our desired goal was trade with China, China's goal was not trade with the US. China's goal was regional expansion and eventual global domination. Trade with the US could come later when China was in a position to dictate trade terms.

      We tend to think that other countries think the way we do and want the same things we do. As a general condition, this is false. Our way of life and way of thinking is fairly unique in the world.

      For example, we shy away from the thought of war with China because of the massive disruption it would cause. China, in contrast, doesn't fear disruption if it results in achieving their goals. They take the long view and over the long haul, disruption is always replaced by order. So, from the Chinese perspective, what's the downside to war? There isn't any. Assuming they win, they get what they want and any temporary disruption eventually resolves itself. The Chinese government doesn't really care if the common people have to suffer - that's what they're there for.

      Delete
    10. The fundamental flaw here is that we normalized relations and opened the trade door with a country whose political ideaology is so opposed to ours. The concept of bankrolling a Communist monster into what it is today, is lunacy. Compare it to our economic relations with the USSR... When we fed them with our grain, it at least came with leverage for strategic and tactical concessions. Sadly this mess is very much of our own making... Now we are trying to shut the barn door after the fact, and not truly even doing that. Even if the current economic battle ends favorably for us, weve allowed an idealogically opposed foe with a sense of history and lots of patience ( relatively long term strategic planning compared to the US) to become a peer threat on our dime. Without a shift in focus from the deckplates to CinC, from design to budgeting to training and material condition, I feel like we are going to come out of this second best.

      Delete
    11. @ JJ Abatie. Well, vaguely remember some guy saying the capitalist will sell the rope we will hang them with....well, he eventually got it right! We pretty much sold or let the Chinese steal whatever they wanted, as you said, that horse has left the barn and we aren't even doing a good job of closing the barn door after the fact!

      Delete
    12. @CNO - I completely agree with your points. China is asserting regional dominance and is generally opposed to US interests in the region. It should also be said that they are asserting dominance over Russia and India as well. Oh and Taiwan and Japan too...and I'm sure they wouldn't mind settling up with Vietnam and probably Korea.
      Most of these are very old rivalries, dating back centuries in some cases. Whether or not war with any of these parties is the inevitable outcome is an open question. But the US has so far refused to either accept or oppose China's policy. We say we refuse it while giving them our credit cards.

      I agree with JJ's summary, but I would suggest that we're still keeping the barn door open on the off chance the horses come back on their own, while also hiring a bunch of people to go out and look for the horses in non-EMP or shock tested luxury SUVs.

      ...ok that metaphor became a little strained there at the end. Sorry.

      Delete
    13. Sort of off the topic but on the general ideal of deterrence vs China. An ideal I have been railing for apparently has other supporters. A large fleet of AIP diesel subs based out of Japan.

      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-needs-diesel-submarines-heres-why-it-matters-34072

      Even the top of the line AIP subs are cheap compared to SSNs. The US navy could easily expand the fleet and tie Japan more closer the US. It would however have to escape the grasp of MBA thinking and have more sailors. Also a smaller quieter AIP sub would avoid some of the SSNs issues with close in shallow water situations.

      Also I would think perhaps publicly and prominently expanding US mine types and stockpiles would be cheap and and efficient way to show deter a state like China that would not be happy if its ports ground to a halt. If nothing else it would have to make China respond to a perceived threat much as the USN has done worrying about the ballistic missile (vaporware) concept.

      Delete
  4. @CNO i read the report by Dr Pry... And in fact although the tone was slightly alarmist, I have to say I feel a bit alarmed!! The overall scenarios were chilling. Not realizing the amount of territory a pulse can cover until reading the report makes me further think an EMP scenario is what will hand dominion over the West Pac to the Chinese. A relatively bloodless coup, a defanged US Navy... The Japanese dreamed of, but didnt get a comparable success in '41!!!
    Thanks for the great source reading!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't find the article now but just today, latest pics of Chinese J20 sure seems to imply that China acquired F35 IRST/ETOS and some of other gear....sure seems to me that hacking into F35 should be possible since they have so much inside knowledge of F35 systems.

      Delete
  5. Is it too late to re-commission the Iowa class? They can blow up things without digital electronics.

    Even assuming the Burkes are hardened against EMP, what does the threat of EMP do to our new networked fleet when 1/3 are rendered inoperable? Reading the Rationalize Survivability post I noticed that support ships were actually to be hardened to Level 2. Is the AFSB (or whaterver it's initials this week) even at level 1? or the JHSV the brass is so proud of?

    This goes to the whole lack of preparedness over a modern electronic battle field. Take out a command center with EMP and then hack the networked fleet who can't verify orders from command. Just in the news this week is that Strykers have been hacked to degrade their weapon systems. This is why the obsession with networked weapons bothers me. Hack one LCS whose cyber-security is poor and you can affect targeting for an entire task force.

    While I think the anti-ship ABM threat is a bit exaggerated to targeting challenges, placing a non-nuclear e-Bomb in one and firing it at a carrier group could be very effective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "While I think the anti-ship ABM threat is a bit exaggerated to targeting challenges, placing a non-nuclear e-Bomb in one and firing it at a carrier group could be very effective."

      Very interesting. I have long thought the next big war is going to be won or lost primarily in space.

      I wonder how close the Chinese are to having something like a KH-11 that would allow real time views? Or a big RORSat that would give you a good radar view of big sections of ocean.

      We already know the Russians are well out in front with EW. We know both the Russians and Chinese are building/have built their own GPS networks.

      I personally expect both the Russians and Chinese have paid a great deal more attention to hardening, so expecting a concerted effort to mission-kill western space assets while leaving Russo/Chinese assets intact is not unreasonable.

      Imagine the advantages if the US lost KH-11 and GPS ability and the bad guys managed to retain it. The mind boggles.

      And the mystery of how you target a DF-21 goes away.

      https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/kh-11.htm
      https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/us-a.htm

      Delete
  6. How is an Iowa going to blow stuff up without digital electronics? It might be able to engage a surface ship using only the analog Mk. 38 GFCS, but for most other targets it will need to get targeting info either via RADAR or radio from either FOs or RPVs.

    I agree with your point about EMP as a useful payload for an ABM. Even if it doesn't "fry" target electronics, it could still interfere with radio and RADAR signals. If one was launched as the first element of a multi-wave strike, it could disrupt fleet RADAR and communications for a few vital seconds while the later waves come into fleet AAW range.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly think that an EMP against a battle group would be catastrophic. After more reading, and getting a grasp of the true difficulties in shielding electronics, coupled with the militaries loosening of survivability requirements, makes me think that widespread systems failures would result. And strategically, using EMP as a primary (nearly bloodless) weapon makes good sense...

      Delete
    2. Here's a thought … We conduct shock testing on ships so why not conduct EMP tests?

      Delete
    3. Wait,wait,wait, all joking aside, USN doesnt test against EMP? Been looking around, I know USAF uses that famous wooden trestle to test aircraft against EMP but USN only does it's jets and not it's ships? Ill keep searching....

      Delete
    4. I have never heard of Navy EMP testing.

      Delete
    5. The Trestle facility was shut down in the early 1990's, if I recall correctly. I'm not aware that the AF does EMP testing anymore.

      Delete
    6. OK, thanks CNO, Im going to have a drink now....we are so screwed.

      Delete
    7. I think all EMP testing is/was done at system/subsystem levels(lab/ theoretical work by vendors) Im unaware of any full ship testing since we stopped nuclear tests, but id be delighted to hear otherwise!!!

      @CNO what a great idea!! Thatd be a good final use for the early Ticos!! But I think the Navy would find what they probably already know in the case of EMP!!

      Delete
    8. @NICO maybe you better pour me one too...;(

      Delete
    9. A UK Royal Navy friend of mine told me of tests that were done occasionally on Type 42 DDGs. They would sail up some river in the USA and moor next to some rig that had massive capacitors, these capacitors were instantly discharged to create an EMP. This would have been done during the 1970-80s at least.

      Delete
    10. I've never heard of that test rig but it sounds plausible. So, assuming it's correct, the Type 42 had EMP hardening to some extent. Do you know whether more recent RN ships have EMP hardening?

      Delete
    11. I had nothing else to do with the Navy.
      If they used USA resources then I doubt the UK would build its own.
      My last posting in the Army was with a UK based signals regiment whose role was comms for after the bomb, we had valve (tube) radios from the 1950s. How we were supposed to bounce skywave off a non-existant ionosphere I have no idea.

      Delete
  7. I love this blog I really do. However often reading it is so insanely rage inducing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's important to keep perspective. If we had access to, say, Chinese or UK documentation like we do US, we'd undoubtedly see that they have all the same problems the US Navy has. That doesn't excuse anything but it means that the US Navy is no worse than any other country's.

      Delete
    2. Good point its not say you should not prepare for the worst you can think of. But just because China and Russia X, Y or Z does mean they are some how uber inventive and completed all their claimed capabilities. For example China's new claims about its rail gun seem like PR wind.

      But I suppose that works both ways Russia did get a bit hysterical about the potential for the ballistic missile defense installation in Poland. Was that just politics or did they think the US was understating its true functionality?

      Delete
    3. "but it means that the US Navy is no worse than any other country's."

      For the price that should not be a valid statement. If I buy a sub zero refrigerator for thousands of dollars I really don't want to find myself saying its about as good as bargain whirlpool at Sears.

      Delete
  8. "hypothetically", If the navy were developing a Microwave emitter for anti-ship missile defense, the lack of EMP protection increases the potential for "friendly fire" disrupting or destroying systems on nearby ships if such a system had to be used.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Test Capability
    Military Standard 4023 (MIL-STD-4023), “High-Altitude
    Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Protection for Military Surface
    Ships,” requires full-ship electromagnetic pulse (EMP) testing
    to support surface vessel survivability assessments. In addition,
    since the DDG 51 is expected to be capable of operating in an
    EMP environment, DDG 51 Ship Specification, Section 407
    establishes requirements for DDG 51 EMP Protection. Section
    407 states that during the guarantee period of the ship, the
    Government will conduct a full-ship EMP test to determine the
    performance of the ship’s electronic systems under simulated
    EMP conditions.
    The Navy currently does not have a capability to conduct a
    survivability assessment of a full ship subjected to EMP effects.
    Current Navy practice is to conduct limited testing on ship
    systems and sub-systems, and then extrapolate these results
    to the entire ship. This testing method does not provide the
    data needed to adequately assess full ship EMP survivability
    at sea in an operational mode. Existing EMP modeling and
    simulation capabilities provide very limited information on ship
    survivability, with significant uncertainties.
    In FY15, the OSD Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear
    Survivability Oversight Group – Nuclear identified a full-ship
    EMP Threat Level Simulator (TLS) for warships as their most..."
    I found this as part of a report concerned with DOT&E from 2016... So anyeay, someone, somewhere is concerned about EMP, and the Burkes are built to some unknown EMP survivability standard. As i thought, there is no overall ship testing, just system/subsystem testing, the results of which are then applied to the ship as a whole...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But to be fair DOT&E wants a full sized EMP at sea test platform built with DDG-51 systems, that could be recycled into a new construction ship after testing, which makes sense. The Navy disagrees though and feels their previous evals are good enough....

      Delete
  10. One of the reasons for not trying for EMP resistance is, of course, the pressure to use COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) electronics, especially computers. That is not EMP hardened, and isn't going to be.

    Unless the USN gets the budget to get EMP-hardened systems that are compatible with COTS ones built, maintained, and regularly updated, this problem seems intractable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent observation. There are other factors but that's certainly a big one.

      This goes to my oft-repeated point that a warship should not have cost as its primary design criteria. You design to combat effectiveness, not cost. Cost can be a secondary concern but not primary. Witness the LCS. It was designed and constrained by cost and you see what we wound up with: a ship with very little combat capability (that still cost too much!).

      Delete
  11. About 10 years ago, the Navy revived their interest in EMP with the Navy's Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Program. I’m not sure what they’ve achieved since then, but at least the Navy recognized this deficiency and took steps to correct it.

    From the link, “Dormant for more than a decade, the U.S. Navy's Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Program is being revived through the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Office of the Director for Force Electromagnetic (EM) Effects and Spectrum Management. The program's immediate goals include establishing cognizance about current standards for system acquisition as related to EMP survivability; assisting with developing standards and methodology to test and assess future systems; assessing the current posture of mission critical systems with regard to EMP survivability; and coordinating with other Department of Defense (DoD) services and entities to share EMP resources and information.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I hadn't seen that article. Unfortunately, it is replete with phrases like "guidance", "standing by", and the like. The program appears to have no actual actions other than being available to offer advice. In line with this, I've heard of nothing regarding any actual EMP actions taken over the several years since the article was written. I suspect that, like the numerous accident reports the Navy generates, nothing concrete was done.

      If you hear of any actual, specific EMP actions, let me know.

      Delete
    2. Ive read so many Congressional reports, I forgot to bookmark it so I cant name the particular one, but since 2016, DOT&E is insistent on a full EMP test of the DDG-51 FLTIII systems, due to their reveiws finding a serious lack of confidence in EMP survivability. The Navy argued that their subsystems tests were adequate. SecDef agreed with DOT&E and directed the Navy to fund $350m for it. The budget the Navy submitted didnt fund it. They were directed to reinsert the program in their budget. A second time (2017)they refused. DOT&E proposed plans to either retrofit the current SDTS or build a new ship for the purpose, even making design adjustments so that the equipment could be refurbished and installed in new construction after the tests... And to date it appears that the Navy still, literally refuses...

      Delete
    3. Just test it and see what happens.....makes one wonder what the USN is afraid of? (hypothetical question)

      Delete
    4. Its absolutely hypothetical!!! Imagine the word getting out about the massive vulnerabilities the Navy baked into tens of billions of dollars worth of frontline ships, as well as the other ships potentially lost when their AAW defense disappears or is seriously degraded!!!

      Delete
    5. "makes one wonder what the USN is afraid of?"

      The answer is obvious, of course. However, to expand a bit … … The Navy did exactly this with the LCS shock testing when they attempted to avoid it or put it off until after all the ships had been purchased because they knew what the result would be - and it was. Even with reduced charges, some equipment removed, and other equipment braced just for the test, the LCS test vessel suffered severe damage as demonstrated in the recent Austal financial disclosures.

      The Navy is attempting to avoid shock testing on the Ford but Congress and SecDef/SecNav are forcing them to do it. They know the results won't be pretty. Not surprising given that they've dropped most shock hardening requirements for component equipment.

      The Navy knows full well that EMP testing will be disastrous and would like to avoid the public relations nightmare and would probably like to avoid absolutely confirming the magnitude of the problem for our enemies.

      All of this is because the Navy no longer has any interest in designing and building WARships. Today's Navy just builds peacetime cruise ships.

      The new frigate - despite my reservations about the need - would be a great opportunity to reinstitute WARship design requirements such as armor, shock hardening, EMP hardening, etc. … … … … but they won't.

      Delete
    6. Agreed.... The new frigate could be the place to reverse decades of mistakes, which is probably why they want to base it on current designs... So they dont have to.
      (And i feel it would be THE place to refocus on ASW, but thats another discussion)

      Delete
    7. @CNO You mentioned SecNav/SecDef forcing shock trials... I wonder if/when thatll happen, seeing as the Navy disobeyed repeated instruction from them on SDTS... Im shocked that the Navy admiralty is ignoring orders... How?? I mean, literally how?? Why are heads not rolling?? Yet another reason to relieve them all as youve suggested!!

      Delete
    8. @NICO I responded with "absolutely hypothetical"... I meant "rhetorical"!!!

      Delete
  12. Just so we all can sleep this weekend... Immediately after a EMP attack on the US, every cargo 747 in the world would carry every tenth transformer from our allies across the world. Since we would be back "online" in months any attacker would realize the futility of such an attack. No such resupply would be available to our opponent when we "binged" them back.
    Just imagine the look on Nasrallah's face, the hezbo fat guy when he says "our 40K missiles did what?? Nothing happened??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe an EMP event would wipe out microprocessors by the million, considering pretty much everything we use these days has one to many on board.

      The transformer-killing thing is a Coronal Mass Ejection, or "Solar Storm". We are actually overdue for a really big one. A massive storm could shut down areas of the North American power grid for a couple of years.

      http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/disaster-zone/thedifferencebetweenanempandacme.html

      The embedded link in the article to the Lloyds of London report is really good, although weighted heavily to impacts on the insurance industry.

      Delete
  13. My bad. I forgot to label my post as "fiction". " There coming to take me away ha ha hee ho ha ha, the funny men in the white suits...

    ReplyDelete
  14. So the USN is building a TEST FACILITY NOW?!?!? After the elevators have already been installed? This doesn't make sense even if you can argue that it will be used to train the crews....is it that complicated to operate?!? or to fix!!!

    https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/21/after-carrier-fords-elevators-failed-navy-building-new-test-site.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny thing that its a bit late. My Father was a 30 year Tool and Die maker mostly for Ford and ended his time working prototype. That is he and other skilled tradesmen and engineers made a few of the new cool ideals and see if they worked before you know you actually build them for real. One of his favorite stories was the attempt to make a full sized full framed police special out of a carbon fiber and steel with holes in it (in the frame) to reduce weight. The thing crumpled like paper in crash tests.

      Its unclear to me why the Pentagon persists in building before validating its nifty concepts and why that is allowed to continue.

      Delete
    2. This is just retardation on an epic scale... The sad thing is, I realize now that this isnt new. I have found mentions in Congressional reports showing ships being "delivered" without major systems installed, and being funded "in addition to..." published figures dating back thru the Spruances... This ties into some personal experiences,as my father rejected most DD-963 class new sonar arrays and more specifically the rubber windows on them at LBNS post-commissioning. (That was great for me as a kid though, as I got to go on sea trials with him a few times!!) The considerable delay and cost, including the lengthy drydock time was a serious issue. So this isnt just the Ford/LCS. This is a pattern. This is the new normal. Its just gotten much worse and more publicized since the internet...

      Delete
    3. It's a bit like stories about the Air Force building bases and/or facilities and building creature comforts before basic functionality, and getting extra money to "finish up", knowing that getting extra money to include creature comforts wouldn't fly. I suspect many of those stories were invented by other services jealous of USAF bases. ;-) Though I did see something like this for myself at Minot AFB where the new Communications Squadron building was completed with beautiful landscaping, but they "ran out of money" to install electrical outlets for engine block heaters except for officer and guest parking (guest parking was egregious since by definition, they were hardly ever there long enough to require plugging in a block heater). No halon dump system for workspaces, either. Our "copper room" (Faraday-cage room lined with copper mesh) had a freaking water-sprayer head poking through the ceiling -- just what you want with energized high-voltage equipment!. All that was set to be fixed in "future appropriations". Of course. Couldn't forego the landscaping!

      Delete
  15. This is so mind boggling, even for USN. You buy 11 elevators for FORD, have them installed AND THEN you build a test center?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And remember, we're talking about ELEVATORS!!! Not a sensor or weapons system... ELEVATORS!!! Why is such a basic, important, and necessarilly robust system being overcomplicated? Who sold the Navy on this? Or maybe more importantly, who agreed to it???

      Delete
  16. OK I got it somebody noticed China copied the silly gun and 20mm smart grenade battery hog and too heavy gun in their version of the the failed XM-29 Objective Individual Combat Weapon [That itself obviously derived from somebody watching Aliens too much]. Now China is saying their are building rail guns and the talk is that they want electric catapults on their full sized CVs. So the Pentagon is just coning China into wasting money... Although this kinda fails because so in the Pentagon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha...(love Aliens) But in reality there are some parallels to the Cold War... Except we lose this one...

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.