If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Experts say that microwaves could stop Best Korea from launching missiles. Or at least if they leave them in too long they'll get too tough and hard to chew   ( msn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, United States Air Force, Force Research Laboratory, Air Force Research, Missile, Ballistic missile, Microwave, Cruise missile, B-52 Stratofortress  
•       •       •

650 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2017 at 3:49 PM (32 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



16 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-12-05 12:56:37 PM  
Ooohh, good news for South Korea, Samsung makes microwaves.  They can just line the south end of the DMZ with them and leave the doors open.
 
2017-12-05 01:28:30 PM  
fthmb.tqn.comView Full Size
 
2017-12-05 02:05:39 PM  
They should use a big laser with a secret phase conjugate tracking system.

/It's also good for making popcorn.
 
2017-12-05 02:31:45 PM  
Microwaves.

img.fark.netView Full Size


Is there anything they CAN'T do?
 
2017-12-05 04:19:48 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

Microwave popcorn!
 
2017-12-05 04:21:51 PM  
Doesn't matter, had bark
 
2017-12-05 04:44:28 PM  
...and it stinks up the break room for days.
 
2017-12-05 04:44:58 PM  
Right, sure. Because of course nobody in Korea knows about faraday cages.

I'd love to have been at the press conference where they talked about this, and ask "why, when I microwave popcorn, doesn't my cell phone stop working"?
 
2017-12-05 04:51:41 PM  
I thought it was only Best Korea that did missile propaganda this bad.
 
2017-12-05 04:52:22 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
Mike Rowe Wave.
 
2017-12-05 05:02:20 PM  
So Dr. No was right.
 
2017-12-05 05:53:44 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

MICROWAVES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Basic shielding to keep the electronics safe from just interference from normal background noise will stop any microwave frequencies from entering the area where the electronics are in the missile. You see, ICBMs have metal skin on the outside to deal with the high heat of air friction during the boost phase. The warhead will have metal and a carbon heat shield for dealing with re-entry. Metal and carbon both reflect any radio or microwave frequency energy like a mirror, unless you find a frequency that they absorb at based on their shape, orientation to you, and their inductance (an electrical property of cycling voltages and current, like what a microwave signal would put out).

It is possible to match all of the needed properties cause the outside casing and electronics shielding of the missile to radiate frequencies dangerous to electronic. However, there are three huge problems that will prevent this from doing damage. First, microwave radiation reduces in energy based off of distance, even if you used a MASER (like a laser, but puts out microwaves instead of visible light). Second, you have to be able to keep the beam on target and ICBMs in boost phase and reentry, the two areas you could attack them with this, are accelerating and moving pretty fast. This will cause you to put even less energy on target. It could be possible, with tech like what is used in the Aegis RADAR system to overcome this, but putting it on a cruise missile to get close would be very costly and difficult. Able to be overcome with enough tech, but not easy by any means.

The third, and the one that puts the nail right in the coffin for this idea, is that the missile casing and electronics shielding are both chassis grounded. This means that any energy from radio or microwave frequencies will be drained into the battery and voltage regulation circuitry instead of radiated. It can not get any measurable amount of energy into parts of the electronics that are grounded since they will be set up not to interfere with each other and as such fully protected from energy coming from the chassis ground. The voltage regulation circuitry and the battery system is more than capable of absorbing what little energy you get into the chassis ground and converting it into heat.

\GROL+RADAR trained
\\you can not change the laws of physics, Captain
 
2017-12-05 06:11:05 PM  
You could drop a microwave on Fatboy. That would stop him launching a nuclear attack. I used to make microwaves ovens for Samsung. Can confirm they are heavy.
 
2017-12-05 08:04:06 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer:
MICROWAVES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Like any HPM weapon, CHAMP puts out enough power density that any little omission or flaw in shielding will result in big problems. It's not like 'basic shielding' is going to get the job done.

That said, *also* like any HPM weapon, you're going to find that some designs just shrug it off and others perish in a loud grotesque military fashion, and it's really sort of tough to know which beforehand. Doing susceptibility testing, we found to our amusement that some commercial crap you'd think would die in the first blurt of an EMP simulation would just keep on plugging, whilst a few of the carefully crafted military radios would sigh and roll over.

That's something that was also noted with the Navy's EMP testing where they ran ships through an EMP simulator - some basically unprotected systems would survive and some of the supposedly hardened TEMPEST rated crap would burn. Not all of it, to be sure, but definitely a few more-than-basically shielded systems would dunk right off the bat, which is why they actually DO susceptibility tests.

That said, the Air Force has spent a lot of time and tax dollars to investigate the usefulness of HPM weapons as a class. In general, you find that a great number of supposedly shielded systems die. How many you can get to die varies directly with the power density applied, and there's definitely a range of microwave frequencies that seem to be more efficient at whacking stuff. Lower frequencies don't exploit little holes and seams as well and higher ones become more capricious and less easy to generate, so there's a definite range that seems to be more efficacious for breaking things.

The high average power density thing is why you can use AEGIS in 'burn mode'. CHAMP is that in spades. The CHAMP design has an amazingly high CW power output that makes AEGIS look sick, plus the output antenna structure puts that on the ground in a tight swath, so you've got some decent antenna gain giving you a monster EIRP.

The AF spent many a man-hour at Kirtland flying CARMs back and forth over various bits of military gear and 'volunteers' in a converted C130. They sort of got the idea for CHAMP out of that, plus the discovery you could make a sort of flying VMADS death plane. You can definitely microwave some ground troops en masse with the thing. A CARM actually IS a maser, albeit the giant big brother of the sorts of masers you normally see. CHAMP's design is really interesting - think of it as a sort of CARM or gyrotron or FEL, but it's not quite any of those. The power output to the antenna is astounding.

As far as not being able to dud a missile because it's shielded or the casing being "ground", Raytheon's been able to demo an HPM anti-missile installation for years now. They took some AESA building blocks and just slapped a nice phased-array rig together sort of like an AESA in burn mode without bothering to have any receiver bits. A separate tracking radar figures out the firing vector from the array to the missile (so, technically, it's sort of a multistatic rig, only not bothering with a receiver), and repeatedly pops the incoming missile, using the backscatter from the missile to gauge the aiming corrections. For all the shielding, it's got a really decent shoot-to-kill ratio. It was designed for a sort of swarm attack of missiles against ground installations. If you only had one target, it could plow the output into the lone incoming missile and get a lot more dwell time.

CHAMP has a lot more power output than that. It is, however, really designed to shoot DOWN in a sort of fan-shaped swath. That being the case, they're likely thinking to fly the thing over the missile installation on the ground whilst the umbilical is still connected to the missile. In that form, it's going to be far more likely to damage the missile because you've got a big antenna hooked to the soft mushy bits of the missile in the form of the umbilical. That's likely to earn you more hit points. I don't think they're thinking to use CHAMP as a flying anti-missile gun ship or something. It's an area attack weapon against electronics on the ground.

I just looked for the entertaining executive video Raytheon put out for their first system 'Vigilant Eagle', but they've pulled it or moved it. Alas. Anyways, Boeing's Phantom Works have been burning out missiles amongst all the other test targets at KAFB with CHAMP and its siblings/derivatives/forebears for some time now. It actually does work - if they were staging a missile launch and you flew a CHAMP over the launch pad, it would cause havoc.
 
2017-12-05 10:44:41 PM  

erewhon: gozar_the_destroyer:
MICROWAVES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Like any HPM weapon, CHAMP puts out enough power density that any little omission or flaw in shielding will result in big problems. It's not like 'basic shielding' is going to get the job done.

That said, *also* like any HPM weapon, you're going to find that some designs just shrug it off and others perish in a loud grotesque military fashion, and it's really sort of tough to know which beforehand. Doing susceptibility testing, we found to our amusement that some commercial crap you'd think would die in the first blurt of an EMP simulation would just keep on plugging, whilst a few of the carefully crafted military radios would sigh and roll over.

That's something that was also noted with the Navy's EMP testing where they ran ships through an EMP simulator - some basically unprotected systems would survive and some of the supposedly hardened TEMPEST rated crap would burn. Not all of it, to be sure, but definitely a few more-than-basically shielded systems would dunk right off the bat, which is why they actually DO susceptibility tests.

That said, the Air Force has spent a lot of time and tax dollars to investigate the usefulness of HPM weapons as a class. In general, you find that a great number of supposedly shielded systems die. How many you can get to die varies directly with the power density applied, and there's definitely a range of microwave frequencies that seem to be more efficient at whacking stuff. Lower frequencies don't exploit little holes and seams as well and higher ones become more capricious and less easy to generate, so there's a definite range that seems to be more efficacious for breaking things.

The high average power density thing is why you can use AEGIS in 'burn mode'. CHAMP is that in spades. The CHAMP design has an amazingly high CW power output that makes AEGIS look sick, plus the output antenna structure puts that on the ground in a tight swath, so you've got some decent antenna g ...


Thanks for the further detail on this. When I made my statement on this, I was assuming in fight shoot down and not ground attack. If you can send a cruise missile that far into NK, you might as well go for a conventional warhead kill on the site. With the levels you were confirmed, I can see a much better use of this tech than trying to take down ICBMs. It would be wonderful at destroying SAM sites, radar installations and com gear. Would also probably fry or at least damage the radar on interceptors pretty bad too.

Since you said that it fires off in a fan, I suspect that the original design was for that and the developers figured that NK will be lucky to get a launch that doesn't RUD, let alone think of putting in a fortified guidance system.

As far as pin hole in shielding, it is usually the long edges of a seam that RF and microwave leak through. The military hardened equipment that died during EMP testing was seal nicely, except the inputs and outputs from the shielding weren't isolated correctly, so they had the same vulnerability of built in antennae like a missile with the umbilical still attached. Another common mistake on hardening is assuming that you won't get leakage and not accounting for it in the design.

Nice to see that there are some people on that know a little about electronic warfare.

\with electrical engineering, you get what you pay for in parts and design engineers.
 
2017-12-06 12:47:01 PM  
gozar_the_destroyer:

When I made my statement on this, I was assuming in fight shoot down and not ground attack. If you can send a cruise missile that far into NK, you might as well go for a conventional warhead kill on the site. With the levels you were confirmed, I can see a much better use of this tech than trying to take down ICBMs. It would be wonderful at destroying SAM sites, radar installations and com gear. Would also probably fry or at least damage the radar on interceptors pretty bad too.

This right here is actually CHAMPs primary mission. If you don't have troops in the area especially, you just wait until you get (or provoke...) a bunch of assets in one bunch and then fly CHAMP over the whole group, several times if possible. It can cause disasters of biblical proportions on ground, especially if you've got air assets under it that have fly by wire. Or if it's some sort of command installation with a lot of your war coordination going on there, and most of your high ranking officers there in a pile, because you can cut them off from further communications in a blink. Sort of a soft temporary decapitation.

O' course, if they continued to develop the anti-personnel aspect of it (wasn't in on that part of things) you could have everyone doing the safety dance as well, with no further thought given to military decisions or weapons operation.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report