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