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,
https://www.defensenews.com/battlefield-tech/2022/07/01/us-navy-air-force-running-capstone-test-of-new-high-power-microwave-missile/
[2]https://www.electronicsforu.com/market-verticals/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves#:~:text=An%20HPM%20weapon%20essentially%20comprises%20a%20pulse%20power,weapons%20also%20include%20tracking%2C%20aiming%20and%20control%20systems.
