F-16.net

Don't want to touch on anything sensitive, but we used to hear alot about EMP shielding of wiring and electronics on aircraft, particularly bombers and long range strike (F-15E, etc) aircraft. Hearing comments and reading articles about the effects of an atmospheric nuclear blast, I would hope that EMP reistance is built in the Raptor as well as any new design (F-35, Typhoon, etc). Considering the Raptor is a flying supercomputer and using off shelf processors, is it resistant to EMP effects? Don't seem to hear about this capability on platforms like we used to in the 80's.

Which brings up another question. Is the Raptor nuclear capable now or in development under the strike upgrade? Although the internal weapons bay is limited to a 1,000# JDAM, I would think there is a nuclear weapon that would fit this bay, something along the size of an old SRAM. Develop stealthy drop tanks and I think the Raptor would make a hell of a tactical nuclear stike platform. Of course if the new stealthy ACM is nulear capable it might not be necessary.

Orange

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1082 Status: Offline

Quote:

Don't want to touch on anything sensitive

Are you frickin' serious?

wow.......

Elite Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2454 Status: Offline

Oh Boy! Another "Nuke-U-ler Weppins" thread! Wink

Quick, let's get Gums! Laughing

The effects of an EMP on the Raptor are classified. In fact, the only a/c I've ever heard them actually publish EMP effects on, are planes like the E-4 NAOC, and the EC-135 Looking Glass, which were designed to continue flying during WWIII.

Then again, if we're punching off boomers, then keeping a fighter airborne is really a moot point anyway. If SAC had no plans for recovering BUFFs, then I'm fairly certain that ACC isn't worried about some Raptor pilot's little narrow @$$. Hate to be blunt, but that's how WWIII would be fought. The missile keys turn, and the war is finished in a half hour.

To Err is Human. To Forgive is NOT ACC Policy.

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

Quote:

Don't want to touch on anything sensitive

Are you frickin' serious?

wow.......

Yes. Serious. I'm not asking for classified info. Just yes or no. It was widely publisized in prior designs (nuclear capable and EMP resistant) on many platforms in 80's if you read my post. Im not asking for tech details. Everyone can make assumptions, just find it curious that there is no reference to this capability on newer designs and this was open knowledge on earlier platforms.

Elite Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1093

You won't get anything official from anyone "in the know" on the system. But what TC said makes sense to me.

Im pretty sure that all fighters, f-4/f-105 and up were shielded from EMP.

Why ask this question, some post WWI bombers could carry a b-61 350 device.
hell, a modified Cirrus SRV-G2 at $200k could drop one

TC wrote:

Oh Boy! Another "Nuke-U-ler Weppins" thread! Wink

Quick, let's get Gums! Laughing

The effects of an EMP on the Raptor are classified. In fact, the only a/c I've ever heard them actually publish EMP effects on, are planes like the E-4 NAOC, and the EC-135 Looking Glass, which were designed to continue flying during WWIII.

Then again, if we're punching off boomers, then keeping a fighter airborne is really a moot point anyway. If SAC had no plans for recovering BUFFs, then I'm fairly certain that ACC isn't worried about some Raptor pilot's little narrow @$$. Hate to be blunt, but that's how WWIII would be fought. The missile keys turn, and the war is finished in a half hour.

To Err is Human. To Forgive is NOT ACC Policy.

TC..I have read many of your prior posts and respect and agree with most of your statements. Dont want to start an off topic thread, but having capability to covertly nuke strike an underground facility or mobile IRBM with a stealthy supersonic platform may or may not be a useful arrow in the quiver. Launching one or a few ICBM's for a limited strike may not be a good option considering Russian paranoistic mentality.

Lamecrap wrote:

Im pretty sure that all fighters, f-4/f-105 and up were shielded from EMP.

Why ask this question, some post WWI bombers could carry a b-61 350 device.
hell, a modified Cirrus SRV-G2 at $200k could drop one

A post WWI I bi-plane bomber with a nuke under the wing? Damn. I knew we should of won WWII quicker.

How far would it get Laughing

1917 German Gotha G.V Max Speed: 87.5 mph
Ceiling 21,325 ft
Range: 522 miles
1,102 lb of bombs, 3 machine guns

you could strap a small nuke onto about anything

Elite Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1082 Status: Offline

Quote:

Yes. Serious. I'm not asking for classified info. Just yes or no. It was widely publisized in prior designs (nuclear capable and EMP resistant) on many platforms in 80's if you read my post. Im not asking for tech details. Everyone can make assumptions, just find it curious that there is no reference to this capability on newer designs and this was open knowledge on earlier platforms.

LOL, c'mon....this is one of the most sensitive airframes the USAF has ever owned, and you are honestly surprised that that there is no open source info regarding anything to do with the nuclear defensive or offensive capabilities? Plus, if you've been reading this board a while, you'd know right offhand that anybody with any sort of knowlege of such things would never say a sylable within 600 miles of this post......I mean people here get wound up about stuff the Air Force publicizes constantly....I guarantee nobody is getting within the same zip code of this, except to say what has been said....you can use your imagination, but given that the airframe's true capabilities are not known anywhere outside official circles, I think you'd be off by a wide margain. Any post regarding F-22 capability in anything more than the most generalized terms....it flies...it shoots pointy things....it's canopy costs $83,000, is going to be ignored by anybody who might actually know. I'm curious about all sorts of things about that jet....but I know I'll never ever know.

Veteran Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 471 Status: Offline

I think the correct answer is, "Don't get involved with EMP in the first place". Lemme see if I can put this another way, the B-2 was designed to drop nukes. It would probably end up flying across a lot of Russia dropping several of them, and they wouldn't be little nukes either. Need Gums in here to talk about the "Dial-a-Yield" nukes Razz

. Anyway, I believe the cloud of nuclear "stuff" has to hit the atmosphere before the EMP hits. This takes a little while, thus the correct answer in this situation is to use that supercruise ability and run like he||. If the Raptors are on the ground, well lets just say it won't matter in about 35 minutes.

Elite Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1496 Status: Offline

Well I ain't no "nookuler" physicist but these guys seem to know a thing or pi about it. The EMP "laydown" of a nuclear burst moves at the speed of light at detonation, striking the Earth to the horizon at line-of-sight from the blast point. Gamma rays actually radiate spherically from the blast point, creating space EMP which would also damage satellite electronics even at great distances from the explosion. So an EMP generated from a mid-kiloton to megaton-class t-nuke detonated a couple hundred miles over Kansas would, in theory, knock out most of the CONUS plus parts of Canada and Mexico almost instantaneously.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 965 Status: Offline

How 'bout a dose of common sense here. Even nukes aside where EMP weapons are becoming more and more of a threat it stands to reason that military electronic equipment would be hardened as a matter of course. As for nukes on the F-22 some more common sense. It can carry a 1000lb JDAM so why WOULDN'T it be able to carry a B61 or two if they wanted it too? Doesn't mean that it does but there's no compelling reason it couldn't. You're not likely to get anything more specific than what I've said here.

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

I think a certain degree of EMP protective capability should be the basic requirement for all western NG fighters.

http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000 ... 347919.pdf

Page 8 and 9

EUROFIGHTER SUBJECTED TO STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES

EMP test at the WTD 61 facility on the Manching aerodrome

Thanks guys. Just trying to learn as much as I can about the Raptor in the public domain. Used to hear them out of Marietta on testing a couple of years ago when they would break the sound barrier. At least everyone assumed it was a Raptor as it was discussed in local paper.

Apparently this thread is over the line, so I will let it rest.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Raptor Nuclear Strike Capability & EMP Vulnerability