Low flying

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, Sep 27, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I took a kicking here some while back when querying the value of low flying aircraft in actual combat/active operations. I had not posted anything to back this up.
    I've now, accidentally, come across one of the items that was in my mind at the time so I've come back for Round Two.
    Yes I know it is Canadian oriented but one assumes they have the same experience as we did?
    Source - http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/WP942.html
  2. You are dead right. Low flying is a cheap and dangerous alternative to proper SEAD. Our own dear RAF is addicted to low flying because it is FUN, and will not accept that spending money on SEAD is a better alternative - they would have fewer bona jets to practise bombing and strafe in and would be restricted to flying at sensible altitudes. The horror.

    Jet jockeys, look into your hearts and tell me I am wrong
  3. Let me get this right, we don't need to practise low-level flying because we don't attack anyone or do any CAS anymore? hmmm...
  4. Nothing beats lowflying fast air or helis.

    When your in a heli on task flying low and jinking all over the place its fooking great!!

    Nothing like Fastair coming in low and fast to up the morale either.
  5. Well call me a stick in the mud but all the fast air I have seen on operations has been at medium level and to come down from that only invites a patriot up the tail pipe, though i did get an F18 to come down to 10,000 in a benign Bosnia as a demonstration. Did lots CAS and AI on Telic at ML, the only thing I saw at LL was the USMC Cobras and our beloved Lynx. But LL is definitely more fun than ML. JFACTSU will no doubt shoot me down in flames for this herasy.
  6. well most low level stuff will be deep in to air space controlled by the nasty people, the whole reason for the low level is to get in to this airspace with out getting detected

    as most squaddies wont be in areas deep in nasty places then they wont see it......

    during telic the air defences were not up to much so there was not the need to be low level alot of the time, how ever it still has to be practised for time when there is substainle air defences such as GW1 or any furture conflicts

    plus yes it is good fun and its dam good training
  7. Well if one is talking about Operation Desert storm and the fiasco involving the RAF Tornadoes overflying Iraqi airfields with Hunting JP233 dispensor pods


    The problem here was not with the low flying, it was the tactical concept of creating the proverbial ducks in a shooting gallery, in that ECM/IR Countermeasures is of course utterly useless against heavy machine guns and light rapid fire cannon with optical sighting in clear skies daylight condtions and whilst the muntions dispensor idea concept is valid, it should have occurred to the powers that be, that even a third rate enemy might well be able to provide heavy machine gun and light rapid canon anti-aircraft defence of his airfields and that what was required was a pop-up and shoot stand off munitions dispensor with a fire and forget targeting system and a onboard propulsion system or sufficent aerodynamic/inertia qualties to allow it to make its own way to the target from some distance. The requirement for low flying is not dispensed with in that it may still be invaluable for approach to and egress from the specific target.

    Saludos Amigos
  8. I think it's an evolving battlefield. Without a doubt there are airborne radar systems that can look down and spot the low-mover. However, not every country has this capability and as long as there could be a perceived need for it (for evading ground based systems), then why not practice it?
  9. As far as army aviation is concerned, low level is the way to go - or at least it was when I was in. Much safer to hide behind trees, pop up and bite some tank on the bum and then retire without the Red Forces seeing whodunnit
  10. Mover you are right about it being an evolving battle field and whilst airborne radar be it aboard an air defence fighter or specifically designated large aircraft early warning radar platform ie AWACS is an established presence, that does not neutralize the requirement for low level flight. For a start, by flying low a surveilance/targeting radar be it on the ground or in a fighter or AWACS will have to be able to differentiate between ground radar returns and the intruding aircraft. Of course there is proven technology to do this but it imposes costs on the defendor's radar systems which maywell be significant when such radar systems are airborne in that such capabilities to supply such discrimination may increase payload and electrical power consumption and or cooling requirements. Furthermore by flying low which of course will pose problems in many instances to ground based radar systems because radar operates on line of sight principles and therby causing the defendor to shift a greater radar effort to airborne patforms, this weakens the defendor's position in the context that air-defence aircraft and AWACS through their use of radar illustrate their locations and make themselves vulnerable to attack by both disclosing their positions, where they can be attacked by conventional means for example a Sparrow radar guided missile or sidwinder IR missile launched from a fighter or even a surface to air or air to air development of the HARM anti-radar missile concept that could home in on the air-defence fighter's or AWACS' radar emmissions.


    Saludos Amigos
  11. Sorry, what is SEAD?
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD

    I know the concept Suppression of Enemy Air Defences but I wasn't familar with it being expressed as "SEAD", WhiteHorse.

    Saludos Amigos
  13. Suppression of Enemy Air Defences
  14. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    As my old CO at RAF Bruggen used to say...
    "Low flying is how we reminding the jerries who won the war!"