Can UCAV's be completely proofed against EMP?

[Charles Gray]

Because if we do move to a fully unmanned airforce, I'd think that enhanced EMP nuclear weapons might become a weapon of choice against them. Since you're neither targeting civilan or (directly) military populations, it'd seem unlikely to trigger a WMD response.

 

[sublight]

Because if we do move to a fully unmanned airforce, I'd think that enhanced EMP nuclear weapons might become a weapon of choice against them. Since you're neither targeting civilan or (directly) military populations, it'd seem unlikely to trigger a WMD response.

Unless you make a fully hydraulic fighter, a conventional fighter isn't any less vulnerable to EMP than a UCAV is....

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Because if we do move to a fully unmanned airforce, I'd think that enhanced EMP nuclear weapons might become a weapon of choice against them. Since you're neither targeting civilan or (directly) military populations, it'd seem unlikely to trigger a WMD response.

Unless you make a fully hydraulic fighter, a conventional fighter isn't any less vulnerable to EMP than a UCAV is....

I don't think that was his point; that manned planes would be safe from EMP. I think he meant that "the enemy" would be more likely to use EMP against them, without provoking total war.

 

[Sferrin]

Google "Trestle" and "EMP" (I'd be more concerned with them being subverted than EMPed.)

 

[sublight]

Google "Trestle" and "EMP" (I'd be more concerned with them being subverted than EMPed.)

That's not going to happen. You use certificate based security for commands to the bird, and if it gets "jammed" and cant receive orders it would be pre-programmed to return to base.

 

[Sferrin]

Google "Trestle" and "EMP" (I'd be more concerned with them being subverted than EMPed.)

That's not going to happen. You use certificate based security for commands to the bird, and if it gets "jammed" and cant receive orders it would be pre-programmed to return to base.

Yeah, that's what they say about all secure systems - until they're cracked. As you alude to, jamming would be easier to deal with.

 

[Charles Gray]

Google "Trestle" and "EMP" (I'd be more concerned with them being subverted than EMPed.)

That's not going to happen. You use certificate based security for commands to the bird, and if it gets "jammed" and cant receive orders it would be pre-programmed to return to base.

But for a lot of powers, that'd be almost as good as taking them over. I'm fairly certain just about anyone today assumes the US will grab air superiority or supremacy, so simply reducing things to nobody having control of the air would be a major win for them.

 

[sublight]

Google "Trestle" and "EMP" (I'd be more concerned with them being subverted than EMPed.)

That's not going to happen. You use certificate based security for commands to the bird, and if it gets "jammed" and cant receive orders it would be pre-programmed to return to base.

But for a lot of powers, that'd be almost as good as taking them over. I'm fairly certain just about anyone today assumes the US will grab air superiority or supremacy, so simply reducing things to nobody having control of the air would be a major win for them.

But "all frequency" jamming over a large area is tough. The UCAV could go out of the jamming (target) area, then we would tell it to go back in and bomb a specific coordinate. If that didnt work we could use the infra sensors on top of the craft to receive commands via IR lasers, which are super tough to intercept or jam.