Roggio had an interesting piece the other day on “over the horizon” strikes into Pakistan. There are some technical aspects of such strikes that raise a lot of questions. First of all, “over-the-horizon” implies non-line of sight and a lock-on after launch weapon, probably with some sort of inertial (and GPS-aided) midcourse guidance. The range of such a weapon would be at least fifty and possibly as many as 250 kilometers, depending upon how deep into Pakistan the target is located, and how far back from the border the launch platform wants to stand. Obviously, there also needs to be some sort of target acquisition and tracking system that can provide target coordinates in real time. Only two methods appear viable; either a high-altitude, long-endurance air platform, such as a Predator or Global Hawk UAV or a manned TR-1 (U-2); or a special operations team (probably 4-6 men) providing surveillance on the ground. Since the terrorists come together at a specific place and time, they need to be tracked and observed, in order that the weapon be launched at the right time to do the maximum damage; at the same time, there has to be a way of diverting the weapon if the terrorists should suddenly pick up and leave while it is in flight (or a bus full of school kids suddenly pulls up in front of the target). In addition, the weapon has to be fairly fast, to minimize time of flight, and the chances of the enemy getting away. Finally, inertial navigation, even when assisted by GPS and terrain scene matching, is not sufficiently accurate to destroy a point target with minimal collateral damage. This would tend to rule out a Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile, while the distance involved precludes the use of a short-range missile such as an AGM-130, or a guided bomb such as a JDAM. Taking all of those factors into account, I believe that these attacks are being conducted using both a deep penetration reconnaissance team on the ground and a long-endurance UAV such as a Predator. The Predator provides wide area surveillance, and keeps track of the terrorist group’s activities as they assemble in a building or compound. The ground team then closes with the target area to verify the image intelligence provided by the UAV. They can also provide additional high-resolution video that can be transmitted to the operational commander using the UAV as a communications relay. The standoff weapon, probably an AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) or an AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile-Extended Range (SLAM-ER), would be launched from a manned fighter such as an F-15E Strike Eagle flying at high altitude over Afghanistan.
Both missiles have midcourse inertial guidance systems, as well as data links that allow the weapon systems operator on the aircraft to alter its course in midflight. The same datalink also allows for terminal guidance lock-on using a television or imaging infrared sensor in the nose of the missile to transmit a picture of the target area back to the launch aircraft. The operator can either lock the seeker onto the target, or manually steer the weapon with a joystick. Alternatively, the TV or IIR seeker could be replaced with a semi-active laser homing seeker, which would lock onto a laser illumination beam from a target designator either on the UAV or the on the ground. Laser guidance is somewhat more accurate than TV or IIR guidance, but can be disrupted by dust and precipitation, so perhaps the guidance system is chosen on the basis of ambient weather conditions. Once the weapon hits the target, the UAV and the ground team can provide real-time bomb damage assessment. If armed with Hellfire missiles, the UAV could execute a follow-on strike to eliminate any survivors or outlying targets (vehicles, outbuildings, equipment stockpiles). The special operations team on the ground could even move into the target itself to collect documents and other intelligence, as well as to identify individual enemy casualties and to take prisoners from among the wounded. If this is the kind of strike operation we are pulling off in Pakistan, it says a lot about the sophistication of our tactics and technology, and also implies a tacit acceptance of our physical presence on Pakistani territory by the government of Pakistan. From their perspective, the important thing is to take down the Taliban and al Qaeda while maintaining the fig leaf of territorial sovereignty in the Autonomous Tribal Areas. This requires us to be discrete and to maintain a very small footprint on their side of the border.
