How Big Weapons Hit Tiny Targets from Incredible Distances

Illustration for article titled How Big Weapons Hit Tiny Targets from Incredible Distances

So, let's say our armed forces had to lend a hand in a conflict without deploying troops on the ground (*cough* *cough* Libya *cough*). How would they do that? Simple: GPS. Oh, and Lasers. And mechanized ordnance that is better at navigating than any meatbag with a map.

Advertisement

In a tense conflict like Libya, where nobody—including the American public—wants US troops stomping around, it might seem like military options are limited. They are: to a gang of super-smart, incredibly accurate missiles and bombs launched from the ocean and sky. In some cases, a missile's solo journey can originate from a submerged submarine hundreds of miles from its target. Which raises the question: Wait, how can it hit a target the size of a shipping container from, like, another country?

It all starts with a plan. Before, say, a $607,000 Tomahawk land attack missile ever leaves the launch tube, it's programmed with a set of instructions—called a pre-mission plan—that tells it where to *ahem* land. The guide includes the latitude and longitude of the target as well as the coordinates for up to 15 other alternate endings. (Choose your own adventure, anyone?) Also loaded are stored images of the flight path, which come in handy later.

Advertisement

Getting from point A (say, a sub) to point B (say, a bunker) requires an intricate set of negotiations that the Tomahawk handles on the fly. After our 20-foot-long projectile protagonist pops out of the ocean, it levels low to the water in order to dodge enemy radar. Moving at up to 550mph, the missile is guided by a GPS system similar to the ones 747s use, and a system called Terrain Contour Matching. TERCOM takes note of the immediate landscape, but it's not about sight seeing. The Tomahawk instead compares real time data from its altimeter and radar with satellite imagery from a stored database to make sure it's precisely on course. It's kind of like looking at Google Street View while you walk through a neighborhood. If the missile finds that it has zigged off its route or desired altitude, it aligns itself with the right topography to get back on track.

Illustration for article titled How Big Weapons Hit Tiny Targets from Incredible Distances
Illustration for article titled How Big Weapons Hit Tiny Targets from Incredible Distances

But things change rapidly in conflict, so the 3,330 Tomahawk Block IV has built-in ability to react to situations like a last-minute change in targeting. In these cases, GPS location data gets updated via a two-way satellite link, and the missile takes an alternate route to another end point. Haven't determined the new target yet? "The missile can go into a loitering mode," explains a super secret Navy official whose name we can't use. "It's not as dramatic as a hover, but it will fly loops in the air, and it will await further tasking."

Advertisement

Remember that stored image of the route to the enemy destination included in the pre-mission plan? Well, if there aren't any changes mid-flight, the missile compares the picture of the route with what's on the ground. "It adjusts based on what it sees," says the Navy official. When everything matches up: Boom. No more shipping container.

Destruction doesn't only come from the sea, either. Other super accurate systems, like certain Guided Bomb Units (GBU) carried on F15E Strike Eagle planes, use lasers and fins for guidance. Before ever leaving the ground, the bombs are programmed to look for a certain laser signature—the same laser signature that the plane is programmed to "paint" on its enemies. See, the bombs are ravenous for these beam-illuminated spots, but their attraction needs to be very, very specific. The Air Force doesn't want Jet #1's bomb hitting Jet #2's target (or, like, a grocery store) by accident.

Advertisement

F15Es have what's called a targeting pod that allows Weapons Systems Officers to look for targets using infrared and electro-optical imaging. You've seen this set up on TV; it's the screen with the crosshairs on it. Once they find the correct spot, the targeting pod computes the coordinates. Then, the jet's computer calculates where the pilot needs to fly and when the bomb needs to drop.

When the range is right, the pilot hits the "pickle button" (for serious—that's what it's called) and the laser guided bomb is dropped from something like 20,000 feet. From here, the on-bomb computer plays a game of find the laser. Bombs are equipped with a glassed-over seeker that kind of looks like an eye. When the seeker locates the laser-illuminated target below, the computer tells the bomb how to move its fins to navigate the free fall. "We can hit anything: buildings, cars, holes in the ground—really there's no limitation," says Major Ryan Ismirle, who flew F15Es in Afghanistan. "I've never seen one—especially in combat-that hasn't hit its target."

Original artwork by Christopher Hartelius. For more of Chris's work and other true news stories, please check out his website, True American Dog.

Additional image courtesy Naval Air Systems Command.

Advertisement

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

gunboatdiplomat-old
GunboatDiplomat

"We don't do body counts"-U.S. Army General Tommy Franks.

I'm super fucking tired of these articles that come out in seemingly every American news outlet every time the U.S. gets into another new conflict, the ones telling me about how unimaginably accurate our ordinance is. Then, invariably, a year or two into the conflict, we finally start hearing about the "Collateral Damage".

It seems like they've been telling this tired old story since Vietnam, if not earlier. At the bare minimum, there have been over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, I wonder how much of that was "friendly fire"? Five percent? That's 5,000 dead, is that acceptable? One percent? That's 1,000 dead, is that more palatable? What's the magic number of dead mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers that makes this something we can swallow and glorify?

Stop telling me how smart the bombs are and how good I should feel about my country lobbing hellishly powerful munitions halfway around the world; about how they never, ever hit the wrong target or person; about how they could shoot the balls off a gnat in Tripoli with a Tomahawk flung from 2,000 miles away; about how bombs are just going to make everything A.O.K. Please just don't, it's bullshit and it always will be.

I know this isn't his article, but remember when Jesus Diaz used to write about Legos and shit instead of about AC-130's and Warthogs? Dear Gizmodo, I expect better of you than to play the role of war cheerleader, so please stop reprinting Pentagon war-porn puff-pieces and start reminding us about how technology can make the world a better place, okay?