The Navy/Air Force are completing a five year test program of what appears to be the successor to the Counter-electronics High-Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) microwave based Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon.
The High-Powered Joint Electromagnetic Non-Kinetic Strike Weapon, known as HiJENKS, uses microwave technology to disable an adversary’s electronic systems.[1]
HiJENKS is the successor to the AFRL’s [Air Force Research Laboratory] Counter-electronics High-Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project [CHAMP], which completed testing a decade ago. Jeffry Heggemeier, chief of AFRL’s high-power electromagnetics division, told reporters during a June 24 visit to the lab’s Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico the program builds on CHAMP, taking advantage of new technology that allows for a smaller system equipped for a more rugged environment.
There is no designated platform for the weapon, as yet.
“We’ll start looking at more service-specific applications once we’ve done this test that demonstrates the technology,” he said.[1]
So, they developed a weapon with no delivery platform. Okay … um …
The Air Force is also looking at a High Power Microwave (HPM) directed energy weapon (see, Ref [2] for a nice discussion of the technology). I’m way out of my area of expertise here but it appears that the difference between CHAMP/HIJENKS and the HPM is that the CHAMP/HIJENKS is a releasable EMP ‘bomb’ that spreads its effect in an omni-directional, one-time burst whereas the HPM is a narrow, directed energy ‘beam’ that is transmitted via an antenna. Please, someone correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
AFRL is also making progress on a more advanced version of its Tactical High Power Operational Responder (THOR), which uses HPM [High Power Microwave] technology to disable drone swarms that pose a threat to military bases. The next-generation platform is named Mjölnir as an homage to the mythical god Thor’s hammer. AFRL awarded Leidos a $26 million contract in February to develop the Mjölnir prototype and deliver it in early 2024.
Adrian Lucero, THOR and Mjölnir program manager, told reporters during the same June 24 briefing that counter-drone systems are becoming increasingly relevant as unmanned aerial vehicle technology advances.
“There are other effectors out there that are intended to go against drone systems like guns, nets and laser systems,” he said. “But what Thor brings to the table is it has a larger range to affect and it has a decreased engagement time.”[1]
The fascinating part of this is that the prototype has, apparently, been deployed for operational testing.
The THOR prototype returned last month from a year of operational testing overseas. While the system was in use, the program team was hard at work developing the Mjolnir upgrades to extend THOR’s range, increase its power by about 50% and improve its usability — recommendations from the Air Force Security Forces who were using it during the deployment.[1]
“We learned a lot of lessons from it being overseas, just working in that operational environment, having Air Force Security Forces airmen pulling the trigger and breaking it,” Heggemeier said.
I think it’s noteworthy that Security Forces are mentioned as having been the operational test unit. This strongly suggests that the weapon is intended to counter small drones and drone swarms that would threaten bases or facilities in the field.
Low Tech Alternatives
I have no problem with developing EMP technology, whether as a single pulse ‘bomb’ or as a continuous, directed energy ‘beam’. In particular, the use of the technology against drones and swarms seems a reasonable application. The disturbing aspect of this is that it is yet another in an endless series of attempts to apply high tech solutions to low tech problems.
Drones, of the size and type used in swarm attacks, are a decidedly low tech problem. They’re essentially hobby drones adapted for military annoyance uses. They’re small, cheap, slow, physically weak, and have vulnerable communications. That’s a low tech problem.
You’ll recall the flurry of ultra-advanced, high tech solutions to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) in Iraq? We spent untold hundreds of millions of dollars (billions?) attempting to develop futuristic detectors and neutralizers for IEDs while ignoring low or zero cost options that would have proven instantly and completely effective. As far as I know, none of our high tech solutions ever worked reliably, all were hideously expensive, and none were ready when needed.
As an illustrative example, here’s some low tech solutions that could have effectively dealt with IEDs:
- IEDs were always planted on known US military transportation routes so STOP DRIVING ON THE SAME ROUTES ALL THE TIME.
- IEDs were always planted on roads so STOP DRIVING ON THE ROADS. EVERY VEHICLE WE HAD WAS OFF-ROAD CAPABLE SO GET OFF THE ROADS.
- IEDs were generally planted at night so monitor the roads and KILL ANYONE APPROACHING A ROAD AT NIGHT
I can go on but you get the idea. Effective solutions with no cost.
We appear to be doing the same thing with the problem of very low tech drones. We’re developing the most advanced, most expensive, least ready solution we can instead of applying low tech solutions. What are some low tech solutions to drones?
- 0.22 cal machine guns with very high capacity, very high rate of fire, very small cost, easily transportable, and ready now
- ZSU-23-4 23 mm, 4-barrel, Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun (SPAAG) type weapon
- Jamming – the type of drones we’re concerned about have low tech communications and control that are susceptible to simple signal jamming
- Foot patrols with shotguns
Conclusion
We’ve got to break our habit of automatically seeking the highest tech solution to problems instead of the lowest tech. This is not some sort of anti-tech statement. This is a rejection of high tech as the default response to problems. The default response should be the lowest technology that solves the problem.
If someone can develop a high tech solution that costs next to nothing and can be made fully functional in a month … do it ! But, almost by definition, that can’t and won’t happen. High tech takes time to develop and costs enormous amounts of money; that’s why it’s called high tech !
__________________________________
[1]Defense News website, “US Navy, Air Force running ‘capstone test’ of new high-power microwave missile”, Courtney Albon, 1-Jul-2022,
Might want to do a post about the Navy's never ending high tech saga called the Zumwalt class. Here is the latest: https://news.usni.org/2022/08/29/hii-wins-42m-award-for-lyndon-b-johnson-combat-system-activation#more-96889
ReplyDeleteI feel like you're somewhat estimating the capabilities of these drones.
ReplyDeleteMy neighbor owns a DJI drone you can fit in a shoebox. It cost just under $1K.He flies it at an altitude of 100-500 feet a distance of 2-4 miles to check on a few of his favorite fishing spots on weekends. You lose visual on it at about 100 ft AGL.
The drones the ukies are using to drop grenades on the Russisans are slightly bigger, but fly twice as high and far. I estimate their average bombing alt is 500+ feet. cruising is probably 1000ft.
You'll need 5.56 or 7.62Nato to reach them, you'll probably need a minigun to throw up enough lead to swat them, and you'll absolutelyneed sensors to see them.
A 12 gauge or 22 might be good enough to kill your kids amazon toy (that looks exactly like the DJI, but has far inferior batteries, motors, cameras, and software), but the bad guys are using some incredibly powerful hardware with prices between 1K and 100K per drone. We're
talking 500-2000 ft altitude envelopes, speeds between 50-100MPH, 25-50 pound payloads, and up to an hour or two of endurance. all in a package you can hide in a pelican case inside a car trunk.
My neighbor has one, my Civil Air Patrol squadron has two, and my local Sheriffs department has 4-5, with NV and FLIR.
You're lumping quite large UAVs into the swarm scenario that the post is discussing. For example, the US military Scan Eagle UAV, with a wingspan of over 10 ft, and requiring a catapult to launch, has a payload of just 11 lbs and the cost for that is $4M for a complete set of four vehicles, control station, catapult, recovery system, etc.. When you start throwing around figures like '25-50 pound payloads', you're going well beyond swarm size drones. A Scan Eagle certainly won't fit in a Pelican case! You check with your neighbor, CAP, and sheriff and I guarantee you their UAVs don't fit in a Pelican case, have 'speeds between 50-100MPH', 1-2 hrs endurance, and have '25-50 pound payloads', and cost less than $1000. If they do, please get me the manufacturer and model number because I'd like to buy one!
DeleteRegardless, as the post would suggest, if we're having problems with large drones then go to larger machine guns rather than develop billion dollar, non-existent technology solutions. That was the point of the post, that the default solution should be the lowest tech solution not the highest.
"Regardless, as the post would suggest, if we're having problems with large drones then go to larger machine guns rather than develop billion dollar, non-existent technology solutions."
DeleteLarge caliber guns incur a greater risk of collateral damage, which might not matter in a war like the Invasion of Iraq, but WILL matter in a post-war conflict like the Occupation of Iraq. That says VERY BAD THINGS about the kind of conflict our generals and admirals intend to fight, i.e., one NOT one against "peer competitor" whose technology rivals ours.
What, they expect the Russians to act like Iraqi insurgents, and simply run and hide when facing our air and artillery strikes, instead of answering with their own air and artillery strikes?
"Large caliber guns incur a greater risk of collateral damage"
DeleteHow is that relevant in a war? I'm completely missing whatever point you're trying to make.
"How is that relevant in a war?"
DeleteIt's not. The generals and admirals responsible for this anti-UAV system, only intend to use it in counterinsurgency operations where collateral damage will diminish support for American occupation of foreign territory- NOT for the war that made the occupation possible in the first place. In short, they want to skip the "Invasion of Iraq, 2003," and get straight to the "Occupation of Iraq, 2007."
"How is that relevant in a war? I'm completely missing whatever point you're trying to make."
DeleteI believe that one of the usage cases for these sorts of weapons is to defend DOMESTIC bases against drones. Maybe from spies.
"one of the usage cases for these sorts of weapons is to defend DOMESTIC bases against drones."
DeleteDo we anticipate enough domestic attacks to justify a gazillion dollar development program?
"Do we anticipate enough domestic attacks to justify a gazillion dollar development program?"
DeleteDon't know. Although I believe I recall reading about cases where drones have overflown air force bases with a bunch of F22's on the flight line. So there's that.
"Do we anticipate enough domestic attacks to justify a gazillion dollar development program?"
DeletePlus, I said ONE of the usage cases. Not the only usage case.
"Not the only usage case."
DeleteThe point of the post is that our DEFAULT solution set is the gazillion dollar one instead of the simplest, cheapest one. If there's a use case that absolutely demands a gazillion dollar solution then that's fine. However, in almost every case that's not the situation. There is almost always a simpler, cheaper solution that will do the job.
One of the problems that has cropped up in modern military analysis is a zero-tolerance for risk. In this case (the post subject), if we don't develop a Star Wars, 100% certain solution then that means we have to accept a small amount of risk and we seem to have become institutionally unable to admit and accept the slightest risk. An 80% with 5% risk is now considered unacceptable. We demand a 100% solution with 0% risk. ... and then we wonder why it costs so much and blows our schedule out of the water.
Perfect is the [mortal] enemy of good.
We need to learn to embrace good and leave perfect in the lab.
Simple solutions to the drone swarm problem are preferred even if it results in a small amount of risk.
"So, they developed a weapon with no delivery platform. Okay … um …"
ReplyDeleteThis is a GOOD thing -- it shows some learnings from the Ford, LCS, and Zumwalt disasters where people designed a super expensive delivery platform and started construction BEFORE the new wunderwaffe were found to work or not. Develop, test, and verify that the new toys ACTUALLY WORK and what is required to ACTUALLY MAKE THEM WORK and then worry about whether they need "new platforms" or can work with modifications to existing platforms.
Bravo.
The problem/risk with developing the weapon first, with no delivery platform in mind, is that you run the risk of winding up with a weapon that is unsuited to any platform due to weight, size, utilities, corrosion resistance, electrical interference, etc. You have to have an idea of how you want the weapon delivered so that you can rule out dead end developmental paths early on.
DeleteMaybe the truck mounted system that was lashed to the deck of a US Navy ship, used to successfully disable a drone in the Gulf , was this very system being field tested. Commenters couldn’t understand why the ship’s organic drone defense system was not utilized.
DeleteDUH!!!
ACES & EIGHTS
Bingo. Their interface control doc reveals their flaws from the starts. Why have a container system for modular payload if the payload weights are so light the container takes half the weight. Why define the weight for the Sonar that is so much lighter than anything on the market you might use?
DeleteAbove comment refers to the directed Amana Radar Range device.
ReplyDelete"So, they developed a weapon with no delivery platform. Okay … um …"
ReplyDeleteIf memory correct DARPA developed the anti-ship seeker with BAES and then picked the Air Force JASSM missile to fit the seeker to create the LRASM, so there is a precedent for the AFRL HiJENKS methodology.
Maybe this is a smaller scope/smaller targets program that could scale up to larger systems and targets?? As youve cited before, EW is seemingly undervalued. With the focus on larger power generation aboard ships, couldnt this kind of system have better potential for close in missile defense than, say, missiles??
ReplyDeleteOne wonders if this directed microwave technology would be better than SWIP block 3, which is still in test mode. The block 3, supposedly has active electronic attack to disable in bound cruise missiles. Testing will be the key to find out.
Deletethe problem is low cost, but consider that the damage inflicted will be high cost. In that respect, this is just American thinking from the last 80 years: spend money to defeat a cheap threat that will incur big cost.
ReplyDeleteFundamentally this is american psychology and culture. Good luck changing that.
It should be noted that 5.56mm light machine guns, while being readily available, are range limited - you're only getting about 500 yards effective range at best. Even autocannons like the ZSU-23 are range limited - at best, it will only reach out one mile, and you have to deal with bullet drop, and 23mm is a bit too small for airburst HE-frag rounds (which are basically VT fuses).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, a microwave weapon has no bullet drop, more range, and is easier to resupply because it's being powered by generators - electricity flows into a system faster than you can physically reload ammo drums - so I can see the appeal in using this as an anti-drone weapon.
THOR, I think, may be a proof of concept/stepping stone to more relevant defenses against bigger threats - consider, purely conceptually, a larger system that with more range that is capable of frying missile electronics. That would provide an additional layer of defense against missile attack (versus the current state of USAF airbase defense, which is "lol what defense?").
Obviously we are not there yet, but ultimately it takes time to develop and implement these things, building up on the developments that have happened before. The equipment today is essentially the equipment of the early cold war, except now we can do what people wanted their gear to do. The USN has basically wanted Aegis since the 1950s, but it was only realised in the late 80s.
DeleteSomething I forgot to mention also - we can't just look at the cost of the problem, we also need to look at the damage the problem will impart. At first glance, firing a trio of ESSM missiles to kill a 1 million dollar Tomahawk at 25km seems expensive - that's spending 5.1 million to kill a 1 million dollar threat. That looks like a bad trade.
DeleteOn the other hand, another way of looking at it is you're spending 5.1 million to prevent the loss of a billion dollar warship. ..
"you're only getting about 500 yards effective range at best"
DeleteI have no idea what the effective range is but consider the threat. Small drones that drop grenades or suicide on target have to come to a range of just about zero so 500 yds is plenty of range. We're not talking about shooting down giant, Group 5, globe spanning UAVs.
Your comment illustrates the common mentality in the military. We forego the simple weapon in favor of an uber-weapon that can destroy every threat in the known universe. Yes, the small, simple weapon will have a limited applicable use scenario but it will cost only a miniscule fraction of the high tech weapon.
" another way of looking at it is you're spending 5.1 million to prevent the loss of a billion dollar warship."
DeleteYes, we've discussed this many times on the blog. Feel free to make use of the archives.
This also does not apply to the small, swarm drones that are the subject of the post. Ships are not normally susceptible to small, drone swarms.
"This also does not apply to the small, swarm drones that are the subject of the post. Ships are not normally susceptible to small, drone swarms."
DeleteMy good sir, you're arguing to win and taking me literally. It was an analogy. You abhor people taking your analogies too literally, so it confuses me why you would do the same.
Also, while it's true that ships are not normally susceptible to drone swarm attacks, the same cannot be said of American bases, which have no defenses beyond CRAM (if it's even installed).
I think you're focusing too much on the commercial IED drone and you haven't been keeping up with developemnts in the field. DJI drones aren't the only players in the small drone field - the Switchblade 300 has been a thing for years now. It's 5lbs, 20 inches long, and it has a range of 6 miles. China has already showed off their own analogues to Switchblade at the Zuhai international airshow last year - a single soldier can easily carry six of these drones in a ruck, and they're too small and move move too fast to be effectively engaged by a human machinegunner. You're going to need sensors and fire control for engagement - and at that point, when you're spending all that money, you might as well spend a bit more.
Like I said at the start, you have to start somewhere. The research is worthwhile. Today it's small drones - tomorrow, it's Chinese ASBMs and cruise missiles.
Why don't we take a look at it this way, ComNavOps have a point in that the modern armed forces often look at Star Wars solutions. Maybe because they look good and sell, marketing is the new norm of daily life it seems. I would love to have point defense phasers/ ion cannons defending my base don't get me wrong. It is a worthy goal to pursue, provided you have the leisure of time and resources to do so.
DeleteThe problem is that whilst you are pursuing that goal, as wise (or not) as it is right now, you are not incorporating existing resources (low/existing tech) to address the issue. What's wrong with implementing low tech solution onto a platform designed to be able to incorporate the high tech solution IF and WHEN it becomes available?
If that was done the best case scenario will be I have a layered defense from long range missiles, medium range precision point defense and close range wall of lead. Worst case I have long range missiles and a wall of lead.
Right now you have nothing, hoping for be all end all ion Cannon.
- Loc
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land-amphibious/10659-droning-on-china-floods-middle-east-with-uavs
Delete"According to Barbara Leaf, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, the unmanned armed vehicles (UAVs) used by Iranian proxy militias in recent years have been supplied by China. Leaf called out the sales and declared to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in early August that “Those [Iranian] proxies use Chinese UAVs.” Leaf noted that while "They are not provided by the state … the state makes no effort to limit their flow.” After procuring drones from China, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ships them to its dozen proxies dotted across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Iran-backed terror groups have adopted drones, including those provided by China, as staples in their arsenals. In 2019, Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen used drones to strike oil processing facilities in Saudi Arabia. Two years later, Houthi drones attacked a Japanese-owned and Israeli-managed oil tanker near Oman. In August 2022, Iranian-backed militants in Iraq launched a drone strike on US military bases in south-east Syria."
It's a bit of a read but the tl;dr is that China is arming up Iran and supplying them with drones, which is prompting other Mideast and African nations to want to buy their own drones - and so China steps in to fill the gap and supply an arms race they're stimulating.
"taking me literally"
DeleteI can only take what's written so write accurately!
CHAMP is a good concept that takes out bases, they should just admit they are putting it in the JASSM and get that over with. As for THor and successors, agreed on price issue but if you are protecting say a squad of f-16's on a base, you need a blast that might take out 40 at once or in 3 seconds whereas the lower cost option may not do the full coverage. Where your argument is very valid is the ones not discussed here but where they send Coyote or Switchblade UAV's out to intercept those 2k$$$ drones. Using another UAV that costs 10x as much to handle the task seems total overkill. The Pentagon needs the equivalent of a mob fixer for pricing these things out, because this side of the cost equation never seems to get better due to a myriad of excuses (upgrades cost more, but 3x more, hhhmmm) when weapons mature and yet most pricing does not reflect volume discount and maturity (yeah, it does occur, but not frequently enough, and Covid be damned, this was happening long before Covid).
ReplyDelete"if you are protecting say a squad of f-16's on a base, you need a blast that might take out 40 at once"
DeleteIt's possible that you may be misunderstanding part of this. I can't tell for sure from what you wrote. To be clear, there seem to be two types of effects:
1. an omni-directional 'bomb blast' effect
2. a directed energy beam
You seem to be suggesting an omni-directional 'bomb blast' effect to deal with a swarm. Bear in mind, however, that an omni-directional effect works IN ALL DIRECTIONS, meaning that it will affect the friendly base, as well, if used to close. None of our assets are EMP hardened so we would disable ourselves as well as the attacking swarm. We would wind up doing the swarm's job for them! I have no idea what the effective range is.
The directed energy beam, in contrast, targets a specific, single target so the friendly base is unaffected. The down side to this approach is that you have to engage each UAV in the swarm individually and this takes time you may not have. Of course, if the 'width' of the directed energy beam is large enough you might be able to engage multiple targets simultaneously but I've read nothing to suggest this is the case. Again, much is unknown about this, at least in the public sector.