Low altitude penetration / tactical flight

[FoxZz]

Hello,

Here is very interesting series of article on the low altitude penetraion doctrine and a critic of the all stealth motto:

Part 1 :
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/stuck- ... d-stealth/

Part 2:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/redisc ... o-stealth/

Part3 :
http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/low-al ... -part-iii/

On this topic, the story of the first French air raid in Irak during the first golf-war, first raid that was done with a very low altitude penetration and illustrate very well what is explained in the first articles posted above. Sadly, it's in French, but the google translation of the page is quiet accurate, it's very undertsandable : http://www.pilote-chasse-11ec.com/missi ... nvier-1991
The pilot explains how he flew the penetration at 100 feet, and how he is use to fly much lower, at some point during the engagement he flew at heights of 20 feets.

At the light of those articles, I would ask if it would be possible to lower the ingame minimum altitude of planes above ground and sea to smaller values, indeed, ingame it's currently at 200 feet AGL and 100 feet ASL, which is high compared to the values that have been reported in this thread.

I think minimal altitude AGL should be between 20fts and 100fts and ASL between 10fts and 50fts.
Minimal altitude release of some weapons could also bet set lower, like Ashms or cruise missiles.
An even lower latitude should be set for helicopters that sometimes fly less than a meter above the ground behind the trees before quickly popping up and hiding again, or during tactical flights. Helicopters cannot do this yet ingame.

Minimum altitude would be set according different principles, planes set with a low veterancy would have a higher minimal altitude than planes with a high veterancy, and if the plane has an advanced terrain following system, than the plane could fly at the game minimal altitude independantly from its veterancy, etc. Minimal altitude could also change with sea state, etc.

Here are some footages that show aircrafts flying operationnaly at heights lower than the ingame limits :

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

Mirages and Jaguar hugging the ground/sea :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcwuQFaxsGU

Helicopters tactical flight :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzcNNRB658#t=0m50s

Hope those articles interested you and that you'll consider those changes .

[mikmykWS]

Very interesting. Thanks!

Mike

[Dysta]

I think it should have a click-box option to check/uncheck something like "ALAP" (as-low(-altitude)-as-possible) or "surface-skimming (if allowed)" option. When it is on, the altitude adjustment will be disabled, and the pilot in different plane size, loadout and proficiency will depends to the minimum flight height.

[mikmykWS]

Yes. Our air ops wizard Ragnar is working on a really cool flight/strike planner. I'm guessing he'll take a look at this for it.

Mike

[Kitchens Sink]

The Wonderful Wizard of Ops. It has a nice ring to it.

[FoxZz]

Great news !

[ComDev]

Interesting, thanks [8D]

Minimum altitude actually depends on a number of variables, including terrain following or terrain avoidance radar, weather/sea state, day/night conditions, aircraft size, pilot skil etc.

Helicopters can operate down to 50ft in clear weather and day/night conditions. Tactical fighter jets can fly at 80ft overwater. Etc etc.

There's also the fact that pilots only fly at these altitudes for a very short duration of time. It requires extreme skills and a lot of concentration to do this, and even the best of pilots get quickly worn out. It also only happens over completely flat terrain, or in well-known terrain. As such it would make absolutely no sense to fly an entire 600nm strike mission at 20ft.

Oh yeah and IIRC the upper layers of some sand dunes are transparent to terrain-following radar, which lead to near-crashes of A-6 Intruders during the 1991 Gulf War. Flying this low isn't without risk

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

The Wonderful Wizard of Ops. It has a nice ring to it.

Lol [8D]

[FoxZz]

Great that so many variables are taken into account.

Of course, pilots won't do that for all the flight duration for a simple question of fuel consomption, but as it's explained in the Jaguar article, when they begin their penetration they dive to the ground and go lower and lower and in the final stages of it they fly very very low. Many bombs argentinians bombs did not explosed during the Falklands war because the planes where flying so low that the mechanism couldn't arm before the bomb hit the target.

But with the new advanced terrain following systems that can work both with or without radar, flying very low and very fast in adverse weather conditions/at night has become much more easier.
And even without, you would be amazed of what trained pilots are able to do. I met once a Gazelle helicopter intructor, he told me that for training, they were going to fly at night under high-voltage electric lines, and there is plenty of those examples.

Anyway, I believe minimum theorical flight altitude should still be lower a bit. For fighters with advanced terrain following modes or ace training it could be as low as 20 feets ASL and 60 feets AGL.

By the way, I think a new variable should be included if it's not already the case, a second crew member should allow a fighter to fly lower, indeed, the master of arms work on the mission while the pilot can focus on flying, while a solo pilot has to handle everything in the same time.
Actually, a second crew member could be a variable that could play on many things like reducing the OODA loop, reducing the detection time and increasing its distance (4 eyeballs instead of 2), etc

[Gunner98]

I certainly agree that it is possible, if not routine for well trained air force units to fly very low. I've been a passenger in an OH-58 'flying below the tumbleweeds', best thrill-ride ever! But it needs to be tempered/balanced with some risk.

There are plenty of examples. Here is one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLJlXfXHJXY

Although this one did not destroy the aircraft, it would at least send the AC to maintenance for the rest of the scenario.

I can't find a reference but recall a story of an F-104 (I think) that hit an M-113 during a Reforger Exercise in Germany in the 70s. That's low flying - but to implement it in game there should be a risk that the AC crashes.

That risk should be tempered by pilot skill, plane size, flight aids etc, well everything Emsoy mentions.

B

[Dysta]

Will fog/rain increase the risk or crash when skimming? Even for seasoned pilots they will be freaking out when weather get the best of them.

So that is why I said "when possible" if there is an option.

[ComDev]

Hmm yeah need to think about how to do this. Should probably be limited by skill and weather, as a minimum.

[ComDev]

BTW terrain-following systems use automatic 'ride' modes and haven't heard about any of these allowing a/c to go below 150 ft.

Guys?

[Primarchx]

Nice article. Can we get an F-15G WW variant into DB3k?

[FoxZz]

Can you be clearer about those ride modes ?

I'm quiet sure the terrain following system allow the plane to go very low and fast in all weather conditions. On the most advanced ones, it works either with a ground map loaded into the system, so the plane can stay fully passive, or it works with the terrain following radar or work with both. The map tells the system where are the high voltage lines, the wind turnines, anything that could obstruct the plane path.

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

I gonna ask extra information on this.

About a risk of crash, it could actually be interesting to implement, especially if a damage model is included in the future, planes could also have random mechanical problems, that would have more chances to occur if the plane is from an early generation and if it has 2 engines or only 1, etc
On the chances of crash during a mission, it would be interesting to find statistics on crash during low flying training.

[gosnold]

ORIGINAL: emsoy

BTW terrain-following systems use automatic 'ride' modes and haven't heard about any of these allowing a/c to go below 150 ft.

Guys?

Rafale can do 300ft above ground and 100ft above sea in auto terrain following mode, at 450 knts.
Source: http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noti ... fference-/

Interestingly, the Rafale and its SBU-54 Hammer are exactly what the warontherocks article calls for: a plane that can fly very low, with a serious EW suite, and a standoff weapon that can be fired from low altitude (SBU-54 range is 15km when launched from low altitude)

[FoxZz]

Indeed, you summed up the philosophy behind the Rafale penetration capabilities. SPECTRA also detects threats and give the pilot a path to avoid them.

Yes I red this article, never found the part 3 though. He said that they flew at this height, but do not say it's the lowest altitude possible. Later in the article he says flying at 20m above the ground at 900km/h :

Peace of Mind at 900km/h, 20 meters from the ground and surrounded by bad guys

I've been told AGL, hilly terrain, below 200 feet 550 knts. Than, the pilot can get lower, it will still receive indications from its terrain following system, like when to turn and can also rely on the terrain avoidance system, etc. The pictures on the following links show what it looks like for the pilot

http://tpe-rafale.e-monsite.com/medias/ ... errain.pdf

I think it depense mainly of the parameters the pilot sets in his autopilot, where he is flying and the regulation that goes with it, the type of terrain, if he has a buddy with him, training, risk you are willing to take if you want to achieve the mission. In the end you can end up flying meters above the ground, you can see that in the Jaguar article where the pilot seeks safety by going as low as possible.

I remember reading the novel "Going Solo" from Roald Dahl, where he tells how he escaped a Bf-109 by flying as low as possible full speed, just above fences and grass.

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: gosnold

ORIGINAL: emsoy

BTW terrain-following systems use automatic 'ride' modes and haven't heard about any of these allowing a/c to go below 150 ft.

Guys?

Rafale can do 300ft above ground and 100ft above sea in auto terrain following mode, at 450 knts.
Source: http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noti ... fference-/

Interestingly, the Rafale and its SBU-54 Hammer are exactly what the warontherocks article calls for: a plane that can fly very low, with a serious EW suite, and a standoff weapon that can be fired from low altitude (SBU-54 range is 15km when launched from low altitude)

Thanks! 30m is 100 ft so the sources seem to match.

In the game it is 100ft and 200ft currently. Guess aircraft should have separate terrain following altitudes, rather than hard-coded ones lol.

[thewood1]

One of my best friends from college spent 6 years in USMC Harriers and 5 years in F/A-18Cs before retiring as Brig. General. I use him as a source for things like this...

He said if you don't have a truly dedicated and modern terrain following radar system...200 ft is the minimum in good weather. He said at sea in calm weather, you might see 100 ft. With a modern terrain following system, you would still be limited to 50 ft for short runs in calm weather and 100 ft over ground.

He stated emphatically that any type of wind or sea state would immediately bring minimum above 200 ft. One funny comment was that in the North Atlantic, there are probably 3 days a year that you would consider calm.

My friend said that at 400-450 kts, even the slightest downdraft will push a jet 100-150 ft down. No human can react to that in time. There fore NATO has heavy restrictions on training at anything below 200 ft. He also said loadout and fuel load make the biggest difference.

[Kitchens Sink]

I seem to remember a VERY old version of Harpoon that had an option to fly nap-of-the-earth. Then it would start to crash a certain percentage of you planes due to "low altitude pilot error". It was a horrid idea [;)]