Register here

Author Topic: Boeing Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile (CHAMP)  (Read 25233 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8383
Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2015, 05:50:00 am »
Quite an old CHAMP render from Boeing.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 07:33:10 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1646
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2016, 05:20:57 pm »
AFRL explores electronic disruption with CHAMP follow-on


The Air Force Research Laboratory is moving ahead with its plans to miniaturize the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile, following the release of a recent call for research information for high-powered electromagnetic cyber applications.

AFRL will leverage HPEM technologies for cyber and electronic warfare, according to a January broad agency announcement posted on Federal Business Opportunities. The work will include continued experiments in back door and front door coupling, multiple microwave pulse concepts and demonstrations for Black Dart and Vigilant Hammer exercises, the BAA states.

While AFRL has long pursued back door and front door coupling, the laboratory is continuing to shrink the size of those technologies, Don Shiffler, HPEM core technical capability lead for the AFRL Directed Energy Directorate, said in a March 15 interview with Inside the Air Force.

"All of the components to make the system work have gotten smaller," he said. "So I can put this on an air platform or ground-based [platform], and it's not the size of a building, and make it work."

Front door coupling consists of radiation which enters through an aperture of a system, such as an antenna, that is explicitly designed and intended to receive HPEM pulses, Air Force spokesman James Fisher said in a March 17 email to ITAF. Back door coupling occurs using apertures in a system that were never meant to receive or transmit energy, but high power can be applied to the electronic systems so they are disrupted anyway, he said.

"An example of such coupling would be HPEM radiation that enters through the cooling vents of a desktop computer," he said.

The research would also explore single and multiple microwave pulse concepts, which focuses on how HPEM systems emit electromagnetic waves in packets of energy. Single pulse concepts employ one pulse in a single burst, while repetitive pulse concepts employ multiple pulses in a single burst, Shiffler said. A single pulse might be employed to attack one computer system, while multiple pulses could cover a larger area, he said. The multiple pulse concept would be a new capability that AFRL would develop, he said.

The study would also examine the effects of natural phenomena on electronic systems. Natural radiation could include a lightning strike or Whistler waves associated with Aurora Borealis, Fisher wrote.

Contractors would apply these concepts during two Defense Department exercises: Black Dart and Vigilant Hammer, which focus on counter unmanned aerial vehicle concepts and cyber operations, respectively. In theory, CHAMP could be used to disrupt a drone, Shiffler said.

"These drones do fly around with little computers in them," he said. "So anything with a computer could be fair game."

While AFRL continues its CHAMP miniaturization work, Congress has pushed the Air Force to field the proven technology on a platform in the near-term. The Air Force demonstrated the computer-killing CHAMP system in 2012 on a Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile, but has steered away from immediately fielding it on Boeing's CALCM. Instead, last year AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello proposed miniaturizing the CHAMP technology and fielding it on Lockheed's extended-range Joint-Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

Fiscal year 2017 budget documents also highlight AFRL's mission to miniaturize CHAMP. In FY-15, the Air Force continued development of smaller, lighter, high-power electromagnetic systems. In its FY-17 research and development budget request, the service plans to start designing smaller, higher power technology for the next-generation high-power microwave through FY-16 and complete designs in FY-17.

AFRL focuses on research and does not have the responsibility to transition the CHAMP technology to the warfighter, Shiffler said. He did not comment on whether the smaller CHAMP technology would fly on the JASSM-ER, but said the laboratory would squeeze the technology onto whichever platform the warfighter demands.

"The big challenge is, you're trying to fit 10 pounds of junk into a five-pound bag," he said. "In terms of the time scale, we would like to think we would have a prototype of some kind in three to six years, but the problem is I can't predict the course of research so you can't schedule a breakthrough." -- Leigh Giangreco
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8273
Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2016, 09:51:04 pm »
Raytheon inks $10 million contract for CHAMP payload work on two CALCMs

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $10 million contract for work on a computer-killing missile project, the first major contract activity on the program since the Air Force Research Laboratory successfully demonstrated the system in 2012.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1646
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2016, 03:08:46 am »
AFRL explores electronic disruption with CHAMP follow-on


The Air Force Research Laboratory is moving ahead with its plans to miniaturize the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile, following the release of a recent call for research information for high-powered electromagnetic cyber applications.

AFRL will leverage HPEM technologies for cyber and electronic warfare, according to a January broad agency announcement posted on Federal Business Opportunities. The work will include continued experiments in back door and front door coupling, multiple microwave pulse concepts and demonstrations for Black Dart and Vigilant Hammer exercises, the BAA states.

While AFRL has long pursued back door and front door coupling, the laboratory is continuing to shrink the size of those technologies, Don Shiffler, HPEM core technical capability lead for the AFRL Directed Energy Directorate, said in a March 15 interview with Inside the Air Force.

"All of the components to make the system work have gotten smaller," he said. "So I can put this on an air platform or ground-based [platform], and it's not the size of a building, and make it work."

Front door coupling consists of radiation which enters through an aperture of a system, such as an antenna, that is explicitly designed and intended to receive HPEM pulses, Air Force spokesman James Fisher said in a March 17 email to ITAF. Back door coupling occurs using apertures in a system that were never meant to receive or transmit energy, but high power can be applied to the electronic systems so they are disrupted anyway, he said.

"An example of such coupling would be HPEM radiation that enters through the cooling vents of a desktop computer," he said.

The research would also explore single and multiple microwave pulse concepts, which focuses on how HPEM systems emit electromagnetic waves in packets of energy. Single pulse concepts employ one pulse in a single burst, while repetitive pulse concepts employ multiple pulses in a single burst, Shiffler said. A single pulse might be employed to attack one computer system, while multiple pulses could cover a larger area, he said. The multiple pulse concept would be a new capability that AFRL would develop, he said.

The study would also examine the effects of natural phenomena on electronic systems. Natural radiation could include a lightning strike or Whistler waves associated with Aurora Borealis, Fisher wrote.

Contractors would apply these concepts during two Defense Department exercises: Black Dart and Vigilant Hammer, which focus on counter unmanned aerial vehicle concepts and cyber operations, respectively. In theory, CHAMP could be used to disrupt a drone, Shiffler said.

"These drones do fly around with little computers in them," he said. "So anything with a computer could be fair game."

While AFRL continues its CHAMP miniaturization work, Congress has pushed the Air Force to field the proven technology on a platform in the near-term. The Air Force demonstrated the computer-killing CHAMP system in 2012 on a Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile, but has steered away from immediately fielding it on Boeing's CALCM. Instead, last year AFRL Commander Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello proposed miniaturizing the CHAMP technology and fielding it on Lockheed's extended-range Joint-Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

Fiscal year 2017 budget documents also highlight AFRL's mission to miniaturize CHAMP. In FY-15, the Air Force continued development of smaller, lighter, high-power electromagnetic systems. In its FY-17 research and development budget request, the service plans to start designing smaller, higher power technology for the next-generation high-power microwave through FY-16 and complete designs in FY-17.

AFRL focuses on research and does not have the responsibility to transition the CHAMP technology to the warfighter, Shiffler said. He did not comment on whether the smaller CHAMP technology would fly on the JASSM-ER, but said the laboratory would squeeze the technology onto whichever platform the warfighter demands.

"The big challenge is, you're trying to fit 10 pounds of junk into a five-pound bag," he said. "In terms of the time scale, we would like to think we would have a prototype of some kind in three to six years, but the problem is I can't predict the course of research so you can't schedule a breakthrough." -- Leigh Giangreco
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8273
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2016, 01:18:20 pm »
About the level of quality I would expect from the Albuquerque Journal.  They live in a town that is home to the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Labs and they don't know the difference between lasers and high power microwaves.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8273
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2016, 04:42:19 am »
Raytheon Ktech in Albuquerque, March 23, 2016

U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced a $10 million investment in directed energy development in New Mexico. A $4.8 million award from the U.S Air Force will go to Raytheon Ktech in Albuquerque to continue the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile, also known as CHAMP, for use aboard the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (CALCM). Senator Heinrich made the announcement at the Raytheon Ktech facility in Albuquerque. The company employs 170 people in New Mexico.

http://www.heinrich.senate.gov/photos/raytheon-ktech-in-albuquerque-march-23-2016-

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2016, 09:49:52 pm »
So this system would fry electronics in a method they aren't currently shielded for.  So the question is -- how do you shield them?  Because if this is published, the enemy would be thinking about it.

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2016, 09:45:07 am »
But how much existing equipment is hardened against microwave attacks? Probably not many of them.

It's also worth considering that radar and electro-optics are particularly vulnerable to HPM damage. Why those targets should be interesting is obvious...

If you can attack something with a microwave emitting rocket, why not just use high explosive to destroy it for good? A radar is expendable, much more so than its operators.

So this system would fry electronics in a method they aren't currently shielded for.  So the question is -- how do you shield them?  Because if this is published, the enemy would be thinking about it.

All you'd need to do to negate the effects of this is replace a few electronics.

It's just a longer duration form of jamming: Instead of waiting for the jamming to stop, you have to replace a radar. Instead of waiting for new personnel to arrive, you just get a trailer.

Probably most importantly, instead of relying on by the minute updates like a self-defense ARM would, you now require an unrealistic amount of intelligence on the locations of radars to attack along your programmed route. This means its mostly useful against fixed radar sites. Which means it's mostly worthless, because fixed sites be can be avoided altogether on-the-fly and present little threat to future VLO aircraft.

Anything this sort of weapon can attack can be better attacked by using a more conventional bomb or dispenser.

It's just another of America's weird global policeman weapons like Conventional Trident, "God Rods", and the other things in Prompt Global Strike. Useful if you want to send commandos to arrest someone or blow something up, can achieve total surprise against a third world military, and have the time to gather the intelligence necessary to plan the maximally effective route for such a missile. Not so useful in a war, though.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2016, 01:34:50 pm by Kat Tsun »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2002
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2016, 01:54:25 pm »

If you can attack something with a microwave emitting rocket, why not just use high explosive to destroy it for good? A radar is expendable, much more so than its operators.

It's just another of America's weird global policeman weapons like Conventional Trident, "God Rods", and the other things in Prompt Global Strike. Useful if you want to send commandos to arrest someone or blow something up, can achieve total surprise against a third world military, and have the time to gather the intelligence necessary to plan the maximally effective route for such a missile. Not so useful in a war, though.

The main targets would likely be base stations/Cell towers/microwave backhaul or any transmitters that could be used as part of a "signals of opportunity" passive detection system.
Destroying thousands of cell towers individually with PGMs would be cost and sortie prohibitive.
 
CHAMP gives you a in-flight retargetable, rechargable capability that affords multiple shots at multiple targets per sortie.
It's very challenging to get a sub-munition dispensing cruise missile to do all of that with the same Pk and at the same cost.

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2016, 04:57:23 pm »
Is there evidence of in-flight retargeting being an ability? That would require not using CALCM or JASSM, which can only hit fixed targets. JASSM-ASuW has a datalink, but it's not in service yet.

Yes, you are correct about the dispensers, but I'm not so sure you are correct about needing large amounts of PGMs to destroy a cell network. Mostly because I don't think it's necessary, and if it is necessary, then attacking the antenna is the absolute most important thing to attack.

If true [about the targets], that's surely a two-way street, and given the US Army seems to be less than fully self-sufficient in the electromagnetic spectrum (limited personal communications gear and no electronic attack ability), it would probably be a detriment to any Army troops in theater. The Russian Army, for all its many faults, has managed to keep its radio-electronic combat ability mostly intact, so it seems rather silly since the Russians already have signals interception gear that can listen to and intercept radio from very long distances, with very different equipment than a cell tower base station.

Is there any precedent for using cell infrastructure as a sleeper signals intelligence system?

Ukraine being the most obvious place it might happen

It seems the only people who would be regularly using cell networks, outside of Western armies, would be insurgents. Cellphones tend to transmit very loudly, omnidirectionally, and unencrypted, so they present an obvious threat of interception, but wouldn't any sort of "signals of opportunity" be ciphered, directional, and low power, and require an unreasonable assumption of proximity to be detected, assuming you haven't replaced the civil base station with an automated DF system or something?

A DF cell network could be countered by basic emissions control (confiscate cell phones), deception measures (looping transmitters), and general common sense. The antenna are useful, but I don't see the military need to destroy large quantities of civilian electronics either. They'd just be replaced by militarized base stations and as mentioned, at that point you might as well have bombed the tower proper anyway.

I'd think it could be useful for something like breaching an air defense area by temporarily (for third world this means permanently) disrupting radar operation, but that makes it really more in the realm of an active decoy like TALD than an actual weapon, and while non-physical attack carries deniable plausibility of a sort it's also undermined a bit by being on a cruise missile which can just be shot down and recovered.

So I'm still inclined to see this as a way of breaching Saddam's southern line of radars after months of preparation more than shutting down the cell network of East Ukraine.

What really kills it is the use of CALCM as the carrier, though. I'd consider that a dead giveaway that this sort of weapon is more for beating up a rowdy North Korea than anything else, if it ever becomes anything else.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 04:59:05 pm by Kat Tsun »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #42 on: September 01, 2016, 05:13:32 pm »
I suspect that focused EMP attack systems are political in nature.  They allow temporary removal of civilian infrastructure (power plants, commercial airline ground radars, communications systems, etc) without  causing casualties.  For military applications, it would be tradeoff between using EMP or a jamming platform (Growler) against specific threats.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2002
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2016, 11:10:43 am »
Is there evidence of in-flight retargeting being an ability? That would require not using CALCM or JASSM, which can only hit fixed targets. JASSM-ASuW has a datalink, but it's not in service yet.


CALCM was supposed to have a retargeting capability. It was funded but I'm not sure if it was deployed.  But whatever ends up hosting CHAMP will surely be retargetable and ideally, recoverable.


Yes, you are correct about the dispensers, but I'm not so sure you are correct about needing large amounts of PGMs to destroy a cell network. Mostly because I don't think it's necessary, and if it is necessary, then attacking the antenna is the absolute most important thing to attack.


Is there any precedent for using cell infrastructure as a sleeper signals intelligence system?
..
Cellphones tend to transmit very loudly, omnidirectionally, and unencrypted, so they present an obvious threat of interception, but wouldn't any sort of "signals of opportunity" be ciphered, directional, and low power, and require an unreasonable assumption of proximity to be detected, assuming you haven't replaced the civil base station with an automated DF system or something?

"Signals of opportunity" is a catch-all term.  I was actually thinking specifically of cellphone or other tower-based transmitters as "illuminators of opportunity" for a multistatic radar system i.e. "passive radar."

Lockheed's "Silent Sentry" uses FM radio or HDTV signals and there are many other examples out there including those that use 3G, LTE, WiMAX etc.

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Boeing and Raytheon to develop high-power microwave missile
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2016, 04:04:55 pm »
If passive radar were that capable, AESA would not be necessary because ASQ-239 would sniff out all the planes.

Passive radar requires illumination or emission. VLO aircraft would still remain a high threat. An FM radio broadcast is going to be lower power and less focused than a fire control radar anyway, and something like F-22 or F-35 can fly far enough away it's not relevant to begin with. Besides that, there's a high potential for false alarms. It's nothing more than marketing hype pandering to claw away at an already strained defense budget. No one has bought them yet, no one will buy them later.

The only reasonably dangerous threat to VLO aircraft is some sort of VLO AWACS with an ultra-modern LPI and ultra-low sidelobe (USL) radar. This is a workable solution, see Sensorcraft. Passive radar would be an actual regression in technology for ground troops anyway. They have more sensitive detection systems. The investment will be going into more capable militarized radars and antenna, with emphasis on placement on VLO platforms for future unmanned air search vehicles. The next step would be an LPI and directional datalink/transceiver for the ground forces control station, which is something Joint STARS sorely lacks.

It might be useful for policemen or airports, or something, if the problems with coherence are ever solved.

If it is re-targetable that is an improvement, but it's still pointless because they're putting it in the dumbest possible airframe.

Considering this "CHAMP" can be defeated by air defense systems c. the early 1980s (cf. "dude with rocket"), it is clearly already outdated. Cruise missiles have relatively poor survival rates in combat against low altitude air defense, so I don't see why a non-VLO missile would be any different. Especially since the missile in question uses the same form of radar guidance as TLAM, which is an easily tracked source of radiation, and can be intercepted by an anti-aircraft ARM, or a radar missile with a passive radar mode for its seeker.

If it were going to be used for attacking an ultra-modern multi-static radar, which has never found a customer in some twenty years of marketing, it would be put in something more capable than that to begin with. Like ACM, which eliminated the most obvious (electromagnetically) and somewhat obscure method of attacking cruise missiles with a laser altimeter.

If you really need to knock out something like an entire country's cellphone network or whatever, you'd just nuke them with an airburst and let voltage do the work for you.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 04:14:52 pm by Kat Tsun »