Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

Blast33 -> Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/25/2021 9:52:34 PM)

I'm playing Operation Broken Shield 300 and first an F-35 was shot down by a SA-2 because the aircraft did not fly below 1000'AGL. I changed his proficiency to Ace, but this did not make a difference.

The same with F-16 Blk 30 or even the F-15I with its terrain following radar.
It is frustrating to see aircraft diving to the deck but, cruising at 1000'AGL waiting for missile impact instead of braking line-of-sight with the radar at low level.
I upgraded the scenario to DB3000 V491

I would reconmend to set minimum alt for:
regular @ 150'AGL Even on the high side when a missile is coming towards you..[:D]
veteran @ 100'AGL (was normal training alt for regular pilots during the cold war)[8D]
Ace @ 50-80'AGL (remember RAF Harriers/Jaguars and A-10's)[X(]

Attached is a test scenario where you can try different aircraft.
There is also a F-111F flying @200'AGL which is flying 800'lower than the Israeli F-15I..
An A-10 is flying at 300'AGL, probably an A-10 pilots ears would start to pop at this altitude ;-)

As a bonus is here a podcast (this episode is great to listen!) of a F-111 driver who took his F-111 to 100'AGL flying by hand in Red Flag..and other stuff.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0b5aiIshCCz9VIJHvFPn3s?si=pOIH-qSgRrW-n96arvk7wQ

All stuff aside, line-of-sight reduction planning and flying is crucial to CMO.



Schr75 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/26/2021 5:17:15 PM)

Hi Blast33

I gave your test a spin, and there are two issues as I see it.

1. You are flying at night, so the minimum altitude is higher. Change the time to daylight and the planes descent to a lower altitude.

2. The F-15 and -16 don´t fly as low as the F-111 because they don´t have TFR.
This might be a DB issue, in which case I suggest you make a DB request to get the units fixed that you think should have it.

The issue of minimum altitude was discussed a few years ago. This thread might give you some insight in the thinking behind the different limits of altitude.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4092439&mpage=1&key=minimum%2Caltitude�

Hope this helped.

Søren



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/27/2021 1:36:26 PM)

Thanks for trying.

I did not check the time, and indeed this makes a difference.

I already made a thread in January this year about low flying, also for helicopters, but not change was made.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4942551

Especially for the new DLC Red Tide low flying was business of the day..and important.

Should I take this up within the database thread or is this tech support?



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/27/2021 2:37:37 PM)

I may not be remembering correctly, but I think proficiency plays a role in some low-level flying.



Schr75 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/27/2021 4:16:50 PM)

ORIGINAL: Blast33

quote:

Should I take this up within the database thread or is this tech support?


Depends.
If you think the said units should have TFR, it´s the DB thread.
If you think planes generally don´t fly low enough, I would start a new thread in the general forum and plead my case.

Søren



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/27/2021 4:32:34 PM)

Keep in mind that this topic has spun around a few times and it seems no one has provided much more than a few anecdotal pieces of info or shown some hotdogging during training. I know in one of the threads from a couple years back, proficiency was tested and I can't remember the outcome.



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/28/2021 10:06:22 PM)

quote:

and it seems no one has provided much more than a few anecdotal pieces of info or shown some hotdogging during training.


This hurts a bit. I request to read what we all posted..
In the discussions in 2016 and 2021, multiple evidence was provided, and it was no hotdoggin during training as you say.[:-]

I will do a sumup:

quote:

ORIGINAL: c3k

As someone who used to fly cargo aircraft, 250' low levels were normal...in daytime on routes we'd had time to check for new structures before flying.

Night time was higher...1,000' or (rarely) 500'.
That was in a C-141. ~ 160foot wingspan. We'd touch 200' (and sometimes lower) as we topped ridges, sometimes in a 60^ bank. You can do the triangle math to figure the wingtip clearance on that one.

If there is ANY structural damage on a low level, you'd likely have lost several critical systems. 6' of wingtip isn't the big problem (but it is a problem): the problem was a torn aileron would usually mean losing at least 2 of your hydraulic systems. It's not like you dented your car fender in a parking lot.


Next one:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blast33

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Drones and helicopters I agree with. But the pictures and videos that get posted around this topic aren't convincing to me.


Maybe this helps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JwqsTNLcuY
Video made in 2013 and posted in 2018.
This pilot flies the F-18 for just under a year and goes for this first(!) low level flight at 250' @500+kts (cadet level?)

The comments are interesting:


Dan Mcw
2 years ago
Fantastic video, Mover. Takes me back to flying the CF-18 in the 80s and early 90s. We were authorized to 100' AGL; I flew hundreds of hours doing ground attack. In Northern Quebec (near Bagotville), the hills made it really tough to maintain 100' AGL. When we went to Maple Flag in Cold Lake, or Red Flag at Nellis, there were times my Radar Altimeter would go off (I had set it at 60'), and I was feeling quite comfortable. Turns at 4 to 5 G at 100' and 510 kts groundspeed were exercises in looking straight ahead through the HUD, watching the velocity vector closely. When we deployed to Lahr and Baden, West Germany, the 500' limit that was the rule at the time seemed like nose-bleed territory. In a single-seat fighter, low level flying is VERY dangerous. Looks like you did a great job respecting your personal limits and ensuring you didn't become a statistic, like too many of my close friends.

jcheck6
2 years ago
Dan, agree about the difficulty flying @ 100' in hills. Flew recce Phantoms and we too were cleared to 100'...was a piece of cake at Maple Flag and some areas at Red Flag. Chuckled that at 500' you were getting nose bleeds...know the feeling. Did GCA's at Lahr and Soellingen back in the day and your controllers were the best in USAFE.

Another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT7qrYi8R_M
RAF Typhoons flying 480 kts @ 250'(not only above lakes but also maintaining 250'through the hills, making turns of 3-5 G.
These are air-to-air fighters going this low. These are peacetime altitudes for air-to-air fighters.
Does this gives more to go on? Or need any specifics?


Next
Shoving the throttle forward, he nudged the fighter right and spread out slightly. As the terrain flattened, the Thuds leveled off at 100 feet, so low he could plainly see details on the ground: a wooden sign, a man on a bicycle, farms.

Barely fifty feet above the trees . . .

The lead Thud leveled off at 20 feet over the valley and held 500 knots. Vic swallowed, the spit catching in his dry throat. This is crazy.
Book Hunter Killers about SEAD ops in Vietnam

Next:
During the Cold War F-16A/B of the RNLAF where for years stationed at Goose Bay Canady to practice low flying @100'AGL. These A/C had no terrain avoidance avionics, it was eyes and hand coordination. Same for the F-104 and NF-5 aircraft, before the F-16 with operations in Germany. In the eighties they standard flew daily.. 500' and also 250'in certain standing low flying routes in Germany. And this was peacetime regulations..If you read a book about Harrier pilots in the RAF or even Hawker Hunter pilots their terrain avoidance was only mental, they would go even lower than 100'!
Evidence:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4092439&mpage=1&key=low%2Clevel%26%2365533%3B
https://www.picuki.com/tag/306sqn
http://www.yvin.mijnwebserver.nl/paramotor/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=4845 (=dutch..)
https://books.google.nl/books?id=f_dsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=low+flying+100ft+goose+bay&source=bl&ots=WGIAqHhYon&sig=ACfU3U2bj2LqsFj4SBMNTzFkZ7Sa3ZvxXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4np7cgqXuAhXK5KQKHekLAoAQ6AEwEXoECD0QAg#v=onepage&q=low%20flying%20100ft%20goose%20bay&f=false (=Tornado in this book is flying at 100'AGL and the TFR cannot go lower as 200'. So this was eyes and hand work also).
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/how-low-should-you-go/
http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v05n4p13.htm

Argentinians skyhawks during the Falklands war :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0de4E8ZTp4U#t=4m50s

The aviationist interviewed one of the real Argentinian pilots;'
Take off to 27k ft until 100 mi from RN ships. Drop to 100 ft and follow coast of main island to San Carlos's southern entrance. Drop to 50 ft until 1000 m from ships. Pop up to 300 feet to release bombs. Hard turn and once leveled out and down to 50 ft until clear of the sound. I should point out that one A-4 crashed into the sea on a maneuver to escape. A sober reminder about why limits are typically set on low altitude flight.

Quote:
The desert flying was fantastic, a chance to hone our skills and practise everything at a really operational level, down at 50 feet and 540 knots [600mph]. You’d be flying across the desert at ultra-low level in gin-clear skies then suddenly a herd of camels would loom up in front of you.

Quote:
But as the days went past, and we got used to the conditions, we began winding the aircraft gradually downwards towards the deck, foot by foot, inch by inch, until we were all hammering along just above the sand, right down at 40 feet.’

We felt exposed and very vulnerable, even at 50 feet. But we simply pressed on.’
Book: Tornado in the eye of the storm of John Nichol

Here is a Rafale in auto terrain following mode 90feets above the sea, and it can go lower :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-etXAmulI

And now your quote:
quote:

and it seems no one has provided much more than a few anecdotal pieces of info or shown some hotdogging during training.


Here a quote of 2016..
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My point is, that anything below 100 ft is most likely an abberation and should have severe penalties on payload, range and risk.

FoxZz:
It's not anecdotical, I have produced in the OP many evidences that flying under 100feets isn't a fantasy, but an operationnal, a survival necessity. Go tell the skyhawks or the Jaguar pilots that it was an aberration to fligh this low. If they did it means that they thought it was necessary, people don't take risks for nothing. To me those experiences are very significant, we're talking of the last two conventional wars. And again, with training this is very much achievable, look at the videos. It should be doable ingame.

Anyway, this brings me to the core of this post : Let's say that Nap Of the Earth (NOE) flying is a doctrine option that can by enabled or disbaled, like the jettison option. From this, we have a minimal theorical value, the lowest altitude value of the game for airplanes. From this value, many variables will inflict maluses, interact between themselves : (agility/weight/plane size, weather, period of the day, experience of the pilots and number of crewman, relief, aircraft properties, speed, base), the interaction will set the plane it's lowest altitude.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4092439&mpage=1&key=minimum%2Caltitude%26%2365533%3B




What do you expect more the above mentioned this to be convinced?? I can give you more about Vietnam, Yom Kipur, Harrier pilots if you need to? CMO changes avionics and weapons on a few internet links and a sumup of all of the above are anecdotal?
Is this personal maybe? this reaction makes me a bid sad. Why not make CMO more professional!?!
If you fly in a Yom Kipur war of Cold war or Desert Storm, you like to make it as close as it is possible in the game.

Yes ultra low flying is demanding, yes planes crashed much more, yes you don't fly two hours straight at super low level by hand, yes you have to train. Everybody made that clear.



I proposed on te 29th of January this year these, of course, discussable new limits:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4942551

Currently aircraft equipped with a Terrain Following Radar are programmed to be able to fly to as low as 200' in day and night. Compared to the Tornado IDS stories this looks fine.

Fighters without TFR are now programmed as follows:

ACE Daytime 200' and I request to change this to 100'
Veteran Daytime 300' and I request to change this to 100'
Regular Daytime 400' and I request to change this to 150'
Cadet Daytime 500' and I request to change this to 250' (Remember the F-18 pilot on his first low-level flight)
Novice Daytime 500' and I request to change this to 300'

Evidence: Not only NATO, even Iraqi F-1 pilots planned an attack mission in the first Gulf War, at an altitude of 90-150'! Planned even to do buddy air-to-air refueling at 300'AGL.. Source IPP Desert Storm doc page 252, pdf page 272.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a484530.pdf

Also done in not perfect weather conditions (remember the Cold War )
I don't know nighttime parameters has to change, I do not have any data on these situations. But I can imagine that NVG equiped aircraft or helicopters will do better than without.

Cargo aircraft, such as C-130 request to get as low as 250' for Veteran and ACE pilots
Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEhcyvQic2s plus discussions above of C-141 flyer.

Helicopters fly low and can get as low as 1 feet in a hover. This is at the moment not possible.

Request: ACE, Veteran, Regular, Cadet;
Loiter speed 45kts 50' feet to 30'
Cruise speed of 145kts 100' feet to 50'

Novice Loiter speed 50' remain the same.
Cruise speed 200'to 150'
(Remember how regular pilots flew with their UH-1 in Vietnam..)
BTW many helicopters don't ever reach a cruise speed of 145 kts..

Attack mode
Request to add a attack mode (next to loiter- and cruise speed) an attack speed or flight regime. This of about 10-25 kts where the helicopter flies nap-of-the earth between the trees at 5-30 feet altitude.
Evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyZ_nTSGia0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuO3x7wdC00

Hover; every helicopter must be able to hover to 3 feet above the ground, and not be capped at 50 or 30 feet AGL.

Hope this helps in addition to the posts above.
Greetings and thank you.



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 1:33:37 AM)

Well, you can wait another 9 months and refer to this thread along with the other one.



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 6:45:05 AM)

It is very easy to don't mention any of the brought-up arguments and write a simple sentence to kill the discussion.

Please state your arguments against these historical quotes of people who flew in these situations instead of creating a diversion.
Please.



jarraya -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 11:41:44 AM)

Someone forgot to tell these Argentine pilots about proficiency settings and that they don't have a TFR........



[image]local://upfiles/26452/D41C28C0317D417AB3B1DD8F809DB522.jpg[/image]



stilesw -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 1:38:50 PM)

Hey guys, it looks like this thread is getting kind of away from the original “Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL?”. It has provided a good discussion of the issue.

There has been plenty of evidence presented to support the ability in real life. I can also testify to this having been at Red Flag for six years evaluating the data that came back from every podded aircraft participating in the Red/Green/Maple flag exercises.

So, yes, in real life aircraft can fly very low due to circumstances. One pilot I know thought he was going to die when his F-4 was well below 100 ft (he figures actually about 10’) but he was able to pull out and is still walking.

In any event the real issue is getting Command to emulate real life. It is, after all, a simulation and not everything is going to be 100% accurate. There are a myriad of flight/aerodynamic characteristics that have to be of concern with such low flight (in theory a 747 could fly at 100 ft but...). Thus, the limits imposed in the simulation are currently the best copy of real world capabilities. That’s not to say that the devs don’t have this issue under consideration but it is not a high priority.

Thanks for all the pertinent information guys but let’s not let us get too far off the rails with opinions and “last words”.

-WS



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 3:41:37 PM)

Thank you for your reaction.
This is a reaction with substance. And not because there is talk about the matter.

Of course I am disappointed that it is a low priority, especially if just a new Cold War DLC came out..
But now we are talking about what is priority, and that is valid.

I hope this subject, once, will get higher on the list and not forgotten.
Also for helicopters, which are now very hard to fly into harms way.

Again, I appreciate this response.








BDukes -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 5:23:42 PM)

Ignore the gatekeepers and bring it up as much as you'd like. This was the kind of stuff that led to CMANO development to begin with. My advice is to do it nicer than we ever did[:)]



PN79 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 6:56:27 PM)

I will add here that flying under 200 ft (60 metres) or even under 100 ft (30 metres) is highly terrain dependable. It can be done over water or desert but try to plan such flight profile in Central Europe (trees, high voltage pylons).



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/29/2021 7:43:19 PM)

As to the Falkland's picture. Read the recent books on the air battles, a couple of them I posted links for, and you'll note the number of A-4s that crashed prior to even attacking because of the extreme low-level approach. My point all along has been that allowing blanket extreme low altitude flight by high speed aircraft is unrealistic without significant penalties. In the other threads I have posted links to various documentation that shows that even with TFR, low limits are 250m. And there is a reason for that. High speed runs at extreme low level cam be more dangerous that enemy fire.

In perfectly flat seas and flat terrain (maybe), can a plane fly at 50m? Possibly, but it better have an ace pilot or you better expect to lose aircraft...maybe both. And just because somebody disagrees doesn't make them a gatekeeper. I'm just trying to bring some common sense. This topic has come around at least four times. And it ends the same way each time. The generally don't seem to think its a big issue. As I said, we can wait another 9-10 months and do it all again.



jarraya -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/30/2021 5:53:37 PM)

In the old Harpoon games planes ordered to fly too low used to occasionally crash "due to pilot error".

I know this would be one more feature, and I understand, albeit very disappointedly, that it isn't a priority, but perhaps this could be a way of dealing with this?



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/31/2021 5:55:00 PM)

Thewood1 states it is not a big issue.

Please let me show what the impact is.
Here I put an SA-2B in East Germany at a random location.

Coming flying in in at 300 feet, the aircraft will be in line-of-sight of the Fire Control radar almost the whole 15.5 NM. So the SA-2 will shoot at its maximum range.

Flying at 100 feet, you can explore a gap of 8 Nm. Which leaves 7 Nm for the SA-2 to shoot at you. Than the big but, the minimum range of the SA-2 is 4 NM so it leaves him 7 minus 4= 3 Nm of the ingress rout to shoot at you!
3 Instead of 15.5!

In warfare this is a big influence.
That is why I have a different opinion than thewood1

Maybe this example shows the reason they trained on flying as low as possible in the Cold War.
If it was not a big issue as stated, why was everybody trying to excell at it at training?
Because the danger of flying low, outweighed the danger to be shot down by enemy SAMs.

This is of course daylight only, with an trained pilot.
And aircraft with a TFR could do it at 200' day and night with a untrained pilot. (F-15E/Tornado/F-111) or later LANTIRN equipped F-16's.

[image]local://upfiles/61749/7A0B0299867B4717840BD4F4607BEC8F.jpg[/image]



Dimitris -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/31/2021 5:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
In the old Harpoon games planes ordered to fly too low used to occasionally crash "due to pilot error".

[...] perhaps this could be a way of dealing with this?


That's an interesting suggestion.



stww2 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (10/31/2021 11:34:51 PM)

On anecdote regarding this topic from a CMO-standpoint: I played the scenario "Operation Opera" from Shifting Sands the other day, and the scenario briefing specified that your strike aircraft should maintain 150ft AGL to avoid detection. However, when playing the scenario I found that the aircraft would not fly at that altitude and instead flew at ~300 ft AGL.

That being said, it didn't really change the outcome of the scenario-AFAIK I still avoided detection during ingress (the actual strike was a bloodbath, thanks to the targets in that scenario being defended by one of the densest short range SAM networks I have ever come across in CMO, but that's a separate matter).



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 12:39:58 AM)

Just a little more fodder on why extremely low flying isn't the panacea expected by some. Because everyone uses the Falklands as a real world example of the success of extreme low flying, I did a little research.

I chose A-4s because they had the best documentation. Here is a quick overview of A-4 losses in the battle.

• Two crashed into the sea on low altitude ingress before contact
• Two crashed into the ground while flying low with one into a cliff between the hills of the Sound and another into dunes at Rain Cove before contact
• Two flew so low they hit British ships, one damaged and out of the battle on return and the other disintegrated on contact

That’s six documented losses out of 22 A-4s lost at the San Carlos battle. Over a quarter of the Argentinian A-4 losses were due to flying too low for what the aircraft/pilot could reasonably handle. And these were all middle of the day, fairly calm weather, and low level sea states. Except for the last two, none were directly combat related.

There were also 2-3 A-4s that were kept out of most of the battles due to flying too low, picking up salt spray that either damaged engines, leading edges, or windscreens.

My estimate is that Argentina lost over 50 sorties and maybe as many as 80 due to flying too low. The counter-argument is that NOT flying low would have exposed the A-4s to more AA fire. But 7-8 aircraft out of 22 is pretty high price to pay. Would those 7-8 have been hit anyway if they flew at 150m instead of 50m? My guess is at least they would have had a shot. Would more bombs have been armed and exploded with the extra 100m? My thought there is definitely yes. btw, I'm not sure how many of these were at 50m. It was just stated "extremely low". Interestingly, both British and some Argentinian pilots called the low flying A-4 pilots "suicidal". You don't generally call people suicidal who are performing expected and standard maneuvers.

Sources:

Osprey’s THE FALKLANDS NAVAL CAMPAIGN 1982, Campaign 361
Jet Wars in the Nuclear Age, Martin Bowman
VICTORY IN THE FALKLANDS, Nick van Der Bijl
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk: ATTACK & CLOSE – SUPPORT FIGHTER BOMBER, Jim Winchester



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 12:51:21 AM)

"And aircraft with a TFR could do it at 200' day and night with a untrained pilot. (F-15E/Tornado/F-111) or later LANTIRN equipped F-16's."

In one of the threads on this over the last few years, I showed sources on the FB-111, Tornado, and the F-16. Low limit on the TFRs were over 100m. I think the FB-111 was 250m and the Tornado was 200m. Tornado pilots stated that the only way to get below 200m was to do it manually.

Edit...nevermind, it was ft. for both, not meters. But I think the F-16 was a lot higher due to depth of field issues with LANTIRN. Also note that part way through the Gulf War, the lower deck was raised due to TFR issues with desert sand cause several near crashes.

Osprey's RAF TORNADO UNITS OF GULF WAR I had a Tornado pilot state that when they went off TFR, they climbed to 500-600 ft. because of the danger of flying at 450 knots so close to the desert floor.

btw, even with TFR, they are no "untrained" pilots. Several books, including the above one, had pilots stating the amount of training it took to operate a plane on TFR at low altitude. There was no room for error or distractions. The copilots' main job was monitoring the TFR and making sure it wasn't going to kill them.

One more edit as I go back through sources: F-111 had a daytime limit of 200ft even combat conditions. It was higher at night. This was because some man-made structures like towers and power lines wouldn't be reliably detected by the TFR. At night the crew couldn't keep a watch for the man-made structures. Flying in manual mode was a hard deck of 500 ft. over water and land.

The TFR on the 111 had all kinds of if, and, or buts related to response times of the system to rapid terrain changes. In fact, in its initial deployment to Vietnam, the low deck for the TFR was much higher than 200 fts. because trees were much higher and the TFR had a hard time detecting them. The first few F-111 losses were due to trees, training, and rain. In rain, the TFR hard deck was 500 ft. due to radar penetration issues with the TFR in rain. Interestingly, later F-111s had a higher deck over water due to radar issues with the reflection off of the surface.

Source for the F-111 was Osprey's Air Vanguard 10 GENERAL DYNAMICS F111 AARDVARK and Osprey's Combat Aircraft 102 F-111 & EF-111 UNITS IN COMBAT.




TitaniumTrout -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 12:16:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
In the old Harpoon games planes ordered to fly too low used to occasionally crash "due to pilot error".

[...] perhaps this could be a way of dealing with this?


That's an interesting suggestion.


Do it.

I think this really makes for a compelling case where proficiency directly ties in to low altitude competency. That and it would be hilarious to watch a flight trying to hug nasty terrain and fail at it.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 2:17:05 PM)

What needs to be added here is the impact of speed and terrain variation on the altitude equation. If you are flying over smooth seas, you can get very low and move very fast even with eyeballs, but as the terrain becomes more cluttered and has more variation in heights, you either need to slow down or go higher. That would be a question of equipment, time of day, and weather impacting as well. Pilot skill would be a very small piece of the puzzle as physics are more in play here. No matter how good of a pilot I am, if a hill appears in front of me and I can't make the climb, there will be a "crash due to pilot error".



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 2:25:04 PM)

"Pilot skill would be a very small piece of the puzzle". I don't agree at all. Knowing your aircrafts limitations and having practiced with various loads at altitude and speed are all considered incredibly important in all the above sources. Knowing the climb limitations and banking limitations under various loads at 500 ft. is a key factor in pilot training. One comment that stood out was being able to judge height and limiting distractions over water and over desert because of the lack of scale and depth in those surfaces.



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 2:26:11 PM)

"I think this really makes for a compelling case where proficiency directly ties in to low altitude competency."

It already does. I think D is talking about higher risk for losses being considered.



TitaniumTrout -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 3:59:21 PM)

Either way, I like the idea. Risk Vs. Reward.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"I think this really makes for a compelling case where proficiency directly ties in to low altitude competency."

It already does. I think D is talking about higher risk for losses being considered.




Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 8:28:32 PM)

Operation Opera of the IAF can maybe flown higher than the advertised 150' but the Surveillance radars are placed very nicely apart. If this 150'is historical than it is proof that they flew this with only their hands on a 475 Nm stretch..!
Articles state they flew between 150 and 300'AGL This makes sense.
https://theaviationist.com/2014/06/07/operation-opera-explained/

Crashing A-4's of Argentina can also come from bad maintenance:
Argentina's fleet of A-4 Skyhawk attack jets was in very poor condition. The arms embargo placed by the United States in 1976, due to the "Dirty War", had made most airframes unusable. The involvement of Israel in helping to return the A-4 to full operational status has been alleged, but has never been confirmed.[12]

Where all the crashes pilot error?
And it is also good to zoom out. As stated in the tread above:

• Two crashed into the sea on low altitude ingress before contact
• Two crashed into the ground while flying low with one into a cliff between the hills of the Sound and another into dunes at Rain Cove before contact
• Two flew so low they hit British ships, one damaged and out of the battle on return and the other disintegrated on contact

That’s six documented losses out of 22 A-4s lost

But what was the total # of combat sorties of the Argentine A-4's?
133 sorties by the A-4B and 86 by the A-4C. They flew with unreliable ejection seats due to the US embargo placed from 1977. Naval A-4 performed 12 sorties. They were highly dependent on the two available KC-130 tankers, limiting the number of aeroplanes that could attack simultaneously. That is 231 combat sorties

That makes 1 A-4 flew into something (ground, sea or frigate) every 38.5 combat sorties..

And taken thee very bad technical shape of the aircraft into account, the maintenance factor is still in the background.
Maybe this gives some perspective on those losses.

Here a quote on the RF-4 Phantom II
RF4C Phantom XI: a multisensor aircraft
capable of all-weather day and night reconnaissance in a high- or low-threat environment. RF-4C combat missions can be flown at altitudes ranging from 100 feet to 45,000 feet and at speeds exceeding 600 miles per hour.
From Gulf War Air Power Survey - Vol IV Weapons, Tactics, and Training & Space Operations

About the F-111, I looked in the Aardvark Pilot's flight operating instrucions https://books.google.nl/books?id=of0lJiN3XiEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false and it states on page 1-94: the TFR control panel has six positions marked 200', 300', 400' ,500', 750' and 1000'.
There is also a ride control knob marked SOFT, MED and HARD. The Knob controls the magnitude of the negative "g"s
I don't have this Google book available.
I did found in my airchives a FB-111 flight manual out of 1977..but at 67 Mb this is a bit too much to attach [:)] And copy paste was not possible from this scanned pdf..
If you are able to download it somewhere, it gives a lot of info on the TFR operations.

And this one I found useful, there is variation:

[image]local://upfiles/61749/B8D5DA14329641C89B27E30756C0757B.jpg[/image]



thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 8:42:33 PM)

I think you are making my point. Proficiency is what you are talking about with the A-4s. You're asking to give an Argentina-like country a huge advantage with no risk flying at 50 meters or 50 feet. In real life, there is some common sense and risk in using low proficiency aircraft, processes, and pilots. If we just randomly lower min altitude, why have TFR? TFR becomes useless at that point. You can have an Ethiopian Mig-23 fly at 50 feet through mountains at night in a rain storm without another thought.

There are very few aircraft/pilot combinations that can fly that low. Its why TFR was invented. If I can use any aircraft to do it, the US and UK wasted a lot of money developing them.



Blast33 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 9:45:18 PM)

quote:

You're asking to give an Argentina-like country a huge advantage with no risk flying at 50 meters or 50 feet.


Sorry, and with all due respect, but I did not ask this or write this.
My request was different for every proficiency level.
This is what I proposed in this thread:

Fighters without TFR are now programmed as follows:

ACE Daytime 200' and I request to change this to 100'
Veteran Daytime 300' and I request to change this to 100'
Regular Daytime 400' and I request to change this to 150'
Cadet Daytime 500' and I request to change this to 250' (Remember the F-18 pilot on his first low-level flight)
Novice Daytime 500' and I request to change this to 300'

And I even said something about effects of low flying:
Yes ultra low flying is demanding, yes planes crashed much more, yes you don't fly two hours straight at super low level by hand, yes you have to train.

I only put the crashed number of A-4 aircraft in perspective of the total amount of sorties.

If we just randomly lower min altitude,
Also for this sentence, my request was not in any time to lower randomly the min altitude.

With sincere regards,

Blast33




thewood1 -> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? (11/1/2021 10:23:49 PM)

Just a point about number of sorties. You can't use that. The planes that crashed didn't fly any more sorties and not all sorties were flown at extremely low altitude.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375