Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/1/2021 10:31:24 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Can I ask where the 1000 ft. came from? Are you now saying you can fly as low 500' in worst case? I was going on you saying 1000' was the minimum.

You were initially asking for this...

"regular @ 150'AGL Even on the high side when a missile is coming towards you..
veteran @ 100'AGL (was normal training alt for regular pilots during the cold war)
Ace @ 50-80'AGL (remember RAF Harriers/Jaguars and A-10's)"

Thats what I was assuming you were looking for. I'd like to also point out that my house is about 45' tall. And its not the tallest structure in my town, and there isn't a lot of space. Its a pretty well spaced out suburb.
And trees tower over it all around my house and town. So your initial proposal would put an Ace pilot 5' above house and well below the trees around it. Can you tell me how an aircraft will manage that?

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 11/1/2021 10:35:44 PM >


_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 31
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 8:48:36 AM   
Blast33


Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline
The Argentine pilots made a choice.
They choose to fly as low as possible and deemed that risk lower than the risk of being shot down when they flew at higher altitudes.

And that is the same for NATO Cold War fighters.

That the Coalition changed tactics in the first Iraqi war has more to do with flat desert terrain and amount of loss acceptancy than admitting they where wrong.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 32
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 12:49:12 PM   
tylerblakebrandon

 

Posts: 173
Joined: 5/11/2020
Status: offline

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.


Fleet Command had similar crashes modeled and also included random Cold Cat launches off carriers to ruin your day. Off course you could turn that off.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 33
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 1:23:38 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
From "Phantom from the Cockpit: Flying the Legend" about the F-4 in RAF service

250 ft was the deck over flat and known terrain in combat. 500 in training. Note the "known terrain" comment. They trained in West Germany to know the terrain. They typically flew at 500 because all the Soviet SAMs at the time had minimum altitudes of 1000 ft.

Night, weather, and unknown terrain deck was 500 - 1000 ft.

It was also noted the number crashes the RAF had when flying low in everything but mid-day at low altitude. It was a very concerning trend and forced them to alter training regimens.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to tylerblakebrandon)
Post #: 34
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 9:11:52 PM   
Blast33


Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline
That must been between 1968 and 1974.

The SEPECAT Jaguar was introduced into service in 1974, and led to a re-think of the Phantom's role as, at the same time, the limitations of the Lightning as an interceptor were becoming more apparent. The conversion of the RAF's FGR.2 squadrons to operate the Jaguar, combined with its use of the Blackburn Buccaneer, meant that it was possible to begin transferring Phantoms to operate purely as interceptors in the air defence role.[48]

Makes sense air defenders don't fly as low as CAS and Interdiction A/C.

I'd like to also point out that my house is about 45' tall. And its not the tallest structure in my town, and there isn't a lot of space. Its a pretty well spaced out suburb.
And trees tower over it all around my house and town. So your initial proposal would put an Ace pilot 5' above house and well below the trees around it. Can you tell me how an aircraft will manage that?


And about your house, you fly above obstacles, You fly AGL not MSL


< Message edited by Blast33 -- 11/3/2021 9:13:31 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 35
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 9:42:55 PM   
Blast33


Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline
Level rocket-firing from 100 feet above ground with level break out had been part of our regular squadron training for over twelve months, and I thought that this would be a very useful means of attacking ships.

One of the certainties was that most operational Ground Attack flying in the Falklands would be at Extreme Low Level, i.e. ‘nap of the earth’ flying (see Appendix 2 - Low Flying). Because of the obvious risks involved, this type of flying had been progressively restricted over the years since I had joined my first fighter squadron in Bahrain in 1970. At that time we were allowed to fly at 100 feet above ground as a matter of course, and towards the end of my tour I was lucky to be selected for a mini Fighter Recce course during which I was authorised to fly at an eye-watering 50 feet above ground over the deserts and mountains of Oman and the Trucial States. The old hands told me, ‘50 feet flying is dead easy - you just try to fly as low as you possibly can and after a couple of sorties you’ll be down around the right height!’

I snapped up to about 100 feet above the terrain, feeling horribly exposed to every gun position on the isthmus. Ignoring the Pucaras, on the north side of the airfield I recognised some camouflaged vehicles by a hedge. This was my target. I pickled and dropped the right wing to look back towards Bob and see the fall of shot of my cluster bombs.

A typical In Flight Task would also be given on the radio by the chase pilot, e.g. ‘I want you to follow the A5 from here to Bethesda and find all the AA phone boxes’. The student would be expected to find and photograph the lot, plot them accurately on his 1:50,000 map, and then give an In Flight Radio Report of the positions to his chase pilot, all the while continuing to fly at an authorised 50 feet above ground level. Sadly, these skills were already disappearing from the front line with the introduction of ever more accurate navigation systems and the ubiquitous moving map display.

I had been firing them from about 50 feet agl with no major problems.27 For retard bomb delivery we would need to climb to at least 150 feet: this was not calculated to enhance life-expectancy in this kind of target area.

Most attacks were from a shallow dive; however, in the early 1980s 1(F) Squadron was given clearance to carry out rocket attacks from level flight at about 100 feet agl. This technique had been shown in trials to give a far better chance of hitting targets that stood up above the surrounding terrain32

The Pop-Up was from ingress height (as low as possible) to a minimum of about 100 feet. The cluster bomb pattern was ineffective if delivered from a lower height. See Appendix 3 - Ground Attack.

Quotes from the Book of Jerry Pook RAF Harrier Gournd Attack Falklands

On one of my first low-level sorties in Germany in the T4, I was flying the grease pen line on my map at 480 knots and 250 feet.
Quote from Harrier Boys Volume 2

To give themselves a chance of getting in under the 909 radar and avoiding detection they stepped their descent to low level, from 500 feet at 100 miles out to less than 100 feet from 50 miles until a final run-in to the target over the last 30 miles below 50 feet. Once they had the target in their sights, they’d manoeuvre to avoid the defences before streaking across at twenty-second intervals in order not to get fragged by the bombs dropped by the previous jet.

Only madmen, thought one of the defending Argentine soldiers, would fly so low. Later examination of the gun camera footage suggested that most of the Sea Harrier pilots were approaching their targets between 5 and 15 feet from the ground. With so little warning of attack, Argentine defences were hard-pressed to respond effectively.

At dusk, a pair of 801 Squadron SHARs intercepted a flight of three Canberra bombers skimming in 50 feet above the waves 150 miles northwest of Stanley. Low on fuel, the Sea Harrier pilots had to break off their attack more quickly than they’d have liked,

To complicate the job of the defences, Iveson was going to fly across the target at 30º off Squire’s track, before Pook then streaked across on the same heading as the Flight Leader. They ran in at 500 knots, just 50 feet above the gently undulating ground beneath them before climbing to a height of 150 feet for weapons release.

Tomba craned his neck to see two of the Sea Harriers swooping down from behind his right shoulder. Two predatory dark grey shapes silhouetted against the pale sky.

Flying barely 50 feet above the rolling ground below, Tomba and Micheloud broke left and right.

Alberto Philippi led the flight of A-4Q Skyhawks at no more than 50 feet above the iron seas. He set his radar altimeter alarm to sound at 30 feet. The harsh electronic tone became a constant companion to all three as they skirted around the south coast of Gran Malvina to Cape Belgrano, the southernmost tip of West Falkland, before crossing the mouth of the Sound on a bearing of 069°. Salt spray bathed the three pale grey jets as they flew low over the waves.

Quotes from Harrier 809 written by Rowland White
And there are a lot more in this book

That is why I wrote this sentence:
Ace @ 50-80'AGL (remember RAF Harriers/Jaguars and A-10's)"

< Message edited by Blast33 -- 11/3/2021 10:58:11 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 36
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 9:57:20 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
"That must been between 1968 and 1974."

It was. The whole point of the book was the intro of the Phantom.

The Harrier quotes are interesting. I have never seen those.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to Blast33)
Post #: 37
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/3/2021 9:58:35 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
And my point about my house is that any low level flying is going to be very dependent and based on terrain and knowledge of the terrain.

_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 38
RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? - 11/5/2021 8:33:15 AM   
Blast33


Posts: 404
Joined: 12/31/2018
From: Above and beyond
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

And my point about my house is that any low level flying is going to be very dependent and based on terrain and knowledge of the terrain.

Where the Falkland Islands known terrain to the Harrier pilots? I think not.

Here a qoute of a F-18 pilot doing a show-of-fore in Afghanistan:
As soon as the order was passed, our planes dropped thousands of feet in altitude in seconds. Skimming through the mountains at two hundred feet off the farm fields, we raced toward the Taliban’s location, executing a sneak pass at 500-plus knots. We swooped over Taliban terrorists like birds of prey dropping in for the kill. As per our briefed game plan, our jet and our wingman’s jet came in from different angles so the enemy wouldn’t know where we were coming from, so we could minimize our chances of being shot down.

Did they perform a training flight to observe any obstacles, no they did not. They went in where the SEALs where at that moment in time.


This discussion is now solely on you and me. And it is time to end this.
Mister thewood1 you are the only one left, arguing against it, and that is also an argument.
Wish you the best! And a good time enjoying CMO.
Blast33



(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> RE: Why can't a fighter aircraft fly below 1000'AGL? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.891