That is not EMP, my friend.
this caught my eye, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project
It is not a reliable solution. Experts will tell you as much.
EMP sounds old because nuclear weapons can produce the effect.
New Recruit
This depends on how we classify EMP.
What separates a radar from an EMP device? Power. Crank up the power on a radar and it'll burn electronics rather then jam them.
The SPY series radars found on US AEGIS ships pumps out so much energy that not only can it detect stealth aircraft at ultra-long ranges, but it literally "burns" through jamming attempts and can impact the electronics inside of airborne jammers if they're close enough.
How close does an enemy system need to be negatively effected by AN/SPY-1's power output? Unfortunately that's classified.
A number of Russian radar systems like the Zaslon found on the Mig-31 are capable of putting out enough energy to burn electronics, and animals like rabbits (reportedly from about 400 feet above ground) through power output alone.
EMP doesn't need to be directional, though directional versions exist too, often in the form of high-powered jammers like the Russian Krasukha-4
They are simply, from a semantical perspective, large bursts of EM radiation, which high-power radars technically do.
As far as battlefield EMPs like the CHAMP missile system, there've always been rumors of Russian EMP devices the size of beer cans and EMP bombs, it's reported the Iskander missile has an EMP warhead, but these are all unsubstantiated rumors.
It's not as if such it's unfamiliar to Russia though. They've EMP testing ranges - for testing a systems resilience to EMC and EM pulses - again, talk to @SvenSvensonov / @Sven about this as he did such things while in the USN. This is EMSEC's providence.
US systems like this B-52 undergo similar testing, as this trestle at Kirkland AFB shows.
There's no evidence they're deploying dedicated EMP weapons like CHAMP, though their radars and EW systems can serve similar functions, but they've an intimate knowledge of how to create EMPs both nuclear and non-nuclear, so I'm not ready to say the US alone is doing this.
Russia has a lot of experience with EMPs and electronic warfare.
And interestingly, not non-lethal. As with military systems, lethality is 9 parts operator usage and 1 part luck. Used against civilian targets, say downing the stock market or disrupting food production machinery, you could end up with financial collapse, hunger and eventually rioting. A possibly lethal outcome.
But that's a bit too hyperbolic. Rather, let's look at a more recent and avoidable scenario - attacks against hospitals. We've seen what an AC-130 can do
But an EMP is potentially just as lethal when used incorrectly and against a civilian target as the AC-130 was... just not to the hospitals staff. Unshielded, as civilian infrastructure generally is (even critical infrastructure like telecoms, electrical generation, food supply or water pumps), an EMP used inadvertently against a civilian target like a hospital is going to cause casualties as medical equipment is shutdown. This not only directly harms those using that equipment, but makes long-term battlefield care more difficult and may lead to greater numbers of enemy casualties, which in warfare is desirable. Civilian casualties aren't.
This is just one example, but it shows that while the EMP isn't going to be lethal on its own, it can cause casualties if used incorrectly. It's very counterintuitive, but when you delve deeper into the consequences we see that such scenarios aren't always unavoidable in war and the consequences are harsh.
Ma'am what happened to your old profile?
