When describing possible military actions in Syria, news articles usually say that a full scale invasion is very unlikely. However, small groups of elite soldiers may go into the country in order to mark targets for airstrikes.
It seems to me that sometimes ground based guidance is needed, and sometimes not. Why not only use the methods of attack that do not require it? How are unplanned targets of opportunity engaged?
Under what circumstances is this guidance necessary?
Are there troops currently on the ground in Iraq marking targets?
Is this necessary with drone strikes as well?
What are the technological hurdles that prevent an aircraft from calculating a trajectory for a target itself?
Is marking targets only necessary when using outdated planes or missiles?
Thank you very much Declan for a fast and great set of answers to my questions!
Before, I was under the impression that it was physically impossible for certain planes or missiles to strike targets without being painted with a laser. I was thinking this was due to technical limitations.
So actually, those strikes could be completed without on the ground assistance? It would just be more dangerous for the pilot, nearby friendlies, and a lower chance for a successful hit? Is that more or less correct?
Usually, yes.
It is indeed impossible for certain missiles to strikes targets without being painted with a laser.
There may be weather issues. Perhaps lasing from the ground provides less chance for weather to interfere than lasing from the air.
A laser designator can be mounted on a plane but surely, painting a target reliably is easier to do from the ground than a moving platform which may have to evade AAA and SAMs and either want to fly close to the ground in a way that would impede painting or high and fast.
Strikes could be completed without ground assistance. Some missiles are fire and forget but I get the impression that they’re more expensive and perhaps easier to fool since they rely on the missile’s AI recognizing the target rather than the “kitty guidance” SACLOS systems which simply head for the laser pointer.
Some weapons need laser designation. Which can be provided by a ground troop, a drone aircraft, a manned aircraft, or even the aircraft launching the weapon.
Other weapons are TV guided and will self-track the scene they’re locked onto before launch. Other TV guided weapons need a human typically in the launch aircraft or controlling the launch drone to be the brains & guide the missile as it closes on the target.
Some weapons guide to GPS coordinates. So once the pilot enters some coordinates & fires, the weapon goes there. The only challenge is somebody needs to determine the coordinates. That can be HQ, some grunt nearby on the ground with a map and/or GPS, the dropping pilot’s own eyes & aircraft on-board systems, or some other aircraft & crew.
Other weapons are totally stupid and fall wherever the pilot drops them. But the pilot still needs some way to know which spot on earth is the desired target. He/she may get those from HQ, a grunt on the ground, looking out the window himself, or being guided verbally to the spot of interest by another airplane.
And then the airplane smarts help the pilot maneuver to the spot in the sky that results in the bomb falling to impact the point on the ground the pilot sees with his/her eyes.
**Declan **was close in suggesting that detailed target designation is mandatory when dropping near friendlies or in politically-charged circumstances. But detailed designation is not equivalent to “US covert troops on the ground nearby.” It could be an air FAC or a drone designator or …
Bottom line there are four problems to solve in order: What are we trying to hit? Where exactly is it on the surface? How do we communicate that info to the bomb aimer, whether human or computerized? And fourth, How error-resistant do we want to be with this particular drop versus what weapons & targeting assets do we have at hand?
Declan answered comprehensively, but I can think of a few addenda to his answers.
As Declan says, B-1B Lancers seem to be popular loiter-and-orbit bomb trucks. I thought for a while that B-52s were doing it too, but I haven’t heard that recently.
**Declan’s **answer addresses the major need for active target designation: precision strike with minimum collateral damage. However, another use case is in a “search-and-destroy” operation, like the SCUD hunts of Desert Storm: special forces doing a ground search for vital targets which aren’t precisely located by normal long-range intelligence. Once the target is located, the search team calls in a strike, and while they’re there, they often do target designation to increase likelihood of target kill. Particularly if the strike element is an orbiting bombtruck like mentioned above, rather than a tactical bird which is more often used in a direct strike (dive-bombing, etc.)
If there are, they won’t be officially confirmed for years after the fact, unless it leaks.
**Declan **points out that drone strikes are less likely to be precise without designation. However, that’s a little misleading… I know of no Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) in operation now that uses any unguided munitions. The canonical strike weapon of a light strike drone is an AGM-114 Hellfire missile, or a Paveway laser-guided bomb. Both require laser target designation. That said, a combat drone can also self-designate, cueing its own target-designation laser at the remote command of the UCAV pilot, so a ground designation team isn’t completely necessary.
None, really, other than ballistics is hard. High-altitude unguided bombing is always area bombing, since there’s a lot of moving air between release point and impact point. High-altitude guided bombing is precise, but it’s hard to be your own designator from way up there, so that’s usually done by either a ground team or a drone (using its own designation laser from lower altitude, but not using its own weapons… maybe having none, if it’s just a surveillance drone). Low-altitude free-fall bombing can be fairly accurate, especially with the advanced bombsighting capabilities of modern tactical aircraft fire control systems, but still less accurate than terminally-guided munitions. And low-altitude guided attacks are the most accurate of all. And the attacking airplane can even do its own target designation, if the attack profile permits it. (That’s how the F-111F became the premier tank killer of Gulf War I: drop its own 500-pounder from mid altitude while lasing the roof of an Iraqi tank. Rinse, lather, repeat for your entire warload, and you may RTB with an easy 3-4 tank kills per sortie.)
The necessity is just a matter of target, weapon, and tactics selection. I don’t understand the connection between the use of precision weapons and whatever you envision as “outdated” systems.
TBH, US military spending is so massive and fast-flowing I don’t know if the idea of “outdated” even applies.