So, nuclear war . . .

[tower59]

With a land based ICBM attack, there are a few times to consider, including: detection of launch, confirmation that the launch is real, projection of missile track and what its target is, and then notification of key military and political leaders and decision makers. After all of that at some point would come notification of the citizenry. SLBM attack would be much shorter, somewhere on the order of 10-15 minutes from launch to impact, and similar for a covert container ship launched missile attack- perhaps even less. So, from that, I'd suspect that unless someone is very, very high in the .gov/mil regime, it is unlikely that advanced warning of an actual attack would be more than a couple of minutes, and even then I wouldn't wager any money on that actually happening. So, for those living in a high valued target like D.C., I'm doubtful that much could be done for civilian protection for those of ordinary means. But, for all of those people who don't live in a top priority target, all sorts of things could be done to increase survivability. That was what I think the original poster was asking.

[The_War_Wagon]

I have EVERY confidence, that Hillary - like her German namesake - can get us into a shooting war with the Russians in nothing-flat. Being down-wind from Shippingsport, it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes before I begin glowing in the dark...

[Moose-Knuckle]

Rough landing? Risk to airframe and life? Bad day for sure.

But airplanes still glide with electronics dead. (Nearly all civvy ones, anyway)

Helicopters still auto rotate (except the Robinson death machines)

One of the first things you learn when flying is "power out find an emergency runway power off" Landing

Yep, in certain terrains it can be hard and others it's fairly straightforward.

But the aircraft most certainly does not fall out of the sky. Not that I would recommend going Aloft as a nuclear survival scenario

Agreed. Not to mention that even if an EMP kills the motor (not a guarantee in itself), you stand a good chance of getting it re-started during the glide. Ground-based testing against cars has shown that engines which are running are sometimes shut off by the EMP, but can be immediately restarted. The disruptive effect doesn't last more than a few seconds, and magneto ignition systems are pretty hardy. Put another way, if there is enough of a pulse to burn out the mags, you're probably also going to be fighting an electrical fire. All of this assumes it wasn't a low-altitude detonation which mitigates most of the EMP in the form of heat, making the shockwave the biggest threat to an aircraft.

I don't want to be airborne during a nuclear strike either. Ideally I'd be hundreds or thousands of miles away. More likely I'd be a target, and wouldn't have time to piss my pants.

Tell you what, if you two find yourselves in mid-flight during a nuclear attack be sure to report back to us here in this thread and tell us about your gliding and emergency landing experiences.

If the Carrington Event was any indication as to how an EMP will effect various equipment and apparatuses the only aircraft I'd want to be airborne in is one of our E4-Bs.

[tanktop]

Tell you what, if you two find yourselves in mid-flight during a nuclear attack be sure to report back to us here in this thread and tell us about your gliding and emergency landing experiences.

If the Carrington Event was any indication as to how an EMP will effect various equipment and apparatuses the only aircraft I'd want to be airborne in is one of our E4-Bs.

I think one of NOAA's Orion aircraft would hold up to all but a direct hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sevenhelmet]

Tell you what, if you two find yourselves in mid-flight during a nuclear attack be sure to report back to us here in this thread and tell us about your gliding and emergency landing experiences.

If the Carrington Event was any indication as to how an EMP will effect various equipment and apparatuses the only aircraft I'd want to be airborne in is one of our E4-Bs.

I would, but I'll probably be an expanding cloud of vapor, or a shadow on a concrete wall somewhere.

I think one of NOAA's Orion aircraft would hold up to all but a direct hit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, assuming it wasn't too broken to go flying in the first place. P-3s are ancient, even by third world standards.

[Pilot1]

Sure, assuming it wasn't too broken to go flying in the first place. P-3s are ancient, even by third world standards.

P-3's are Lockheed Electras from a different age. I don't know for sure how many are still flying, but I thought they were being replaced by the Boeing P
-8A Poseidon.

[pinzgauer]

Tell you what, if you two find yourselves in mid-flight during a nuclear attack be sure to report back to us here in this thread and tell us about your gliding and emergency landing experiences.

If the Carrington Event was any indication as to how an EMP will effect various equipment and apparatuses the only aircraft I'd want to be airborne in is one of our E4-Bs.

Many other risks, but the emergency risk from EMP in your typical civvy aircraft is no higher or lower than that of mechanical or fuel failures.

Worried about emergency landings? Better not fly single engine aircraft. It's that simple.

Critical instruments are mechanical. Controls are mechanical or hydraulic. Lose the engine electricals you are dealing with an engine out situation.

But my bet is the mags would survive as they are shielded/grounded along with the cables and even plugs.

Unshielded consumer electronics will be toast. Power grid may or may not be, though it's controls might be.

Of things to worry about and prepare for, EMP is way down my list.

Inverse square law applies to it. Two wires still make a switch, etc.

[sevenhelmet]

P-3's are Lockheed Electras from a different age. I don't know for sure how many are still flying, but I thought they were being replaced by the Boeing P
-8A Poseidon.

Yeah, the P-8 (basically a modded 737) is replacing Navy P-3s, at least in part. There is also Triton (Navy version of Global Hawk UAV) coming online for part of the maritime surveillance/patrol mission. But undoubtedly "hand me down" agencies like NOAA will be flying the P-3 for a while longer. I honestly wonder how the wing spars on their P-3s are holding up with all the turbulence they fly those things through.

[sevenhelmet]

Inverse square law applies to it. Two wires still make a switch, etc.

That's not necessarily true. The Earth's magnetic field can cause some weird propagation effects that don't fit a uniform radius from the hypocenter of the blast. There's also evidence to indicate weapons can be made directional. Finally, saturation effects mean a large geographic area could see the maximum electrical potential of the blast energy, based on what the atmospherics can support. So you necessarily can't count on distance to be a factor, unless you're talking in hundreds of miles. Not that it matters, since you never know where the detonation(s) will be.

Suffice it to say I sleep fine at night. If this ever becomes a probability, the likelihood of me knowing about it is pretty slim- and even if I do there's no reason to die all tensed up. Prep for what you can, have general disaster plan and deal with what comes your way in life.

[HardToHandle]

That's not necessarily true. The Earth's magnetic field can cause some weird propagation effects that don't fit a uniform radius from the hypocenter of the blast. There's also evidence to indicate weapons can be made directional. Finally, saturation effects mean a large geographic area could see the maximum electrical potential of the blast energy, based on what the atmospherics can support. So you necessarily can't count on distance to be a factor, unless you're talking in hundreds of miles. Not that it matters, since you never know where the detonation(s) will be.

Suffice it to say I sleep fine at night. If this ever becomes a probability, the likelihood of me knowing about it is pretty slim- and even if I do there's no reason to die all tensed up. Prep for what you can, have general disaster plan and deal with what comes your way in life.

great points.
If you have flown in or out of Albuquerque's airport in the last few decades and didn't end up dead, then we do know some of the effects of radiation on aircraft. I flew out of there a few months ago and saw the huge EMP generators used to test USAF bombers. The test stands are just off the runaway centerlines as the jet liners climb out at 5000 ft plus. They are still using numerous test stands at Sandia for serious radiation tests on a regular basis.

However, to Sevenhelmet's points, do not trust anyone who is so sure on any of this topic. (1) either they do not know, or (2) they should not be saying what they know. As an amateur, it is fascinating to watch how the forecasts for radiation propagation stack up with observed conditions.