Low altitude penetration / tactical flight

[cf_dallas]

This is EXACTLY like the discussion on speeds. Theoretically possible for a MiG-25 to go Mach 2.8? Sure. Operational at all relevant? Nope.

The Devs got it right on both topics.

[FoxZz]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I got it directly from a guy who flew them...400 kts and below 500 ft...the airframe easily gets overstressed. They are pulled off line for inspection. This is both B-1 and F-111. There are very specific guidelines on G's pulled and low-level flying that require pilots to report to ground cheif if limits were exceeded and for how long. This is outside airframe life fatigue tracking.

Once again, you're taking the very specific example of bombers, B-1 and F-111 are airframes limited to 3G, considering in low level you might need to pull more than that to avoid an obstacle, it's logical that they guet and exam, it's very easy to go over 3G, and the plane is not designed for it, hence possible dammage.
But not all the planes are the same, Fighter bombers can pull +9G, +5G in heavy configuration, this means it's very unlikely that they go above their limit, they'll stay in their flight enveloppe, which doesn't need a spcific inspection.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
As to your videos, again very ambiguous. One video shows Mirages flying fairly low over calm seas. But it looks like more hot dogging for the video than anything. The A-4 has no way to tell how low it is and that was already discussed...remember, one A-4 was lsot from trying to maneuver too low.. And the other videos show little to judge height.

No A4 were lost from trying to maneuver too low, all were shot down or detsroyed on the ground. Wha tyou're talking about is probably a plane taking dammage and crashing because of that.
http://www.naval-history.net/F64-Falkla ... t_lost.htm

The 1991 article states several thing. The pilot says that they did their approach at 100 feets, (which is already half of the ingame 200ft AGL), that he is trained to fly at the height of a standard lamp, which is around 10 meters high >> 30 feets, and finally, after saying several times that he was very low during the attack, seeing the muzzleflahses and the crewmans from the guns, he says he was at 20feet just before being hit, and that his mates told him to stay at this altitude until they reached a safer place. This is a war operation, you cannot do more relevant than this.

Again, In the 3 series of articles, several quotes talking about flying under the treeline and weapon release at 60 feets, and B52 flying at an altitude that is lower than its wingspan, this is actual sources.
Even in the F-111 video they talk about heights under 100 feets.
The Skyhawks on the picture are between 5 and 20 meters, you can tell from the splash around them and on the videos you can see several time planes at 1 meters from the water, and flying constantly at approx 10 meters above the ground. You can tell this from the shadow the the ground, the height of the lighthouse, the wingspan of the plane, etc. Those videos are from training, not a funky low pass to make your mates laugh.

Also, what about the helicopter tactical flight ? At heights of 10-20 feets ? Hiding behind treelines, etc. I posted a video of an helicopters performing a tactical flight during operation Epervier in Chad, in the OP, that shows this.

I think decreasing the minimum altitude achievable (depending of the conditions) to 50 feets ASL and 100 feets AGL, would be reasonable.
The devs are already working on a new strike planner and stuff, this is linked, and would not take a ton of work to implement.

And this has nothing in common with the speed debate. On the speed debate, there is proof that the planes fly very rarely at their max speed, even in war operations. In this case, planes fly very low in many cases, including war ops. We have pilots testimony, footages, articles.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: cf_dallas

This is EXACTLY like the discussion on speeds. Theoretically possible for a MiG-25 to go Mach 2.8? Sure. Operational at all relevant? Nope.

The Devs got it right on both topics.

I think so to.

[thewood1]

Third...all anecdotal and possibilities. Not worth the effort.

[Rory Noonan]

The rest aside, the practical effect of this is negligible. Flying at 100ft gives you a radar horizon of about 12nm and a visual horizon of about 7nm for a target at sea level. Flying at 50ft gives a radar horizon of about 8.7nm and visual horizon of about 7nm. At 480kts this equates to less than 30 seconds difference.

[FoxZz]

I would say 30 seconds is quiet significant.

I'll quote the wikipedia page on NOE flying : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nap-of-the-earth

at a typical low-flying speed of 450 knots (800 km/h), 200 feet (60 m) is not unusual and 50 feet (15 m) is possible in relatively flat terrain

50 feets is possible in relatively flat terrain.

Could at list the minimum AGL altitude above flat terrain like desert or fields be brought from 200 feets to 100 feets ?

[AdmiralSteve]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yeah, I was hoping for something similar called "Balls Factor." A rookie pilot in an F-15E may have little balls and can't get below 300' AGL while a veteran could get 100' or lower. Mix a "Luck Factor" in with it. The rookie might be able to get that fighter to 100' but runs it into the ground 90% of the time while the veteran can keep it airborne 99% of the time. From what I've read, Iraqi pilots in '91 had pretty big balls but little luck as they lost spatial awareness.

[thewood1]

Again, I am going to ask anyone to bring real documentation beyond a couple web stories and videos that are edited beyond belief. It took me maybe a total of an hour to find hard documentation from full pilot interviews, pilot online discussions, ops manuals, histories, etc. I am sure the OP will show up with a Blue Angel video next as documentation.

And I know Fox-man likes to selectively pick out what he reads, but go back and see my comments and source on the F-16, unless that is a big bomber also. See, I bring actual technical and tactical sources, not unofficial heavily edited videos to the discussion.

Again, the point is...there might be times a couple hot dog pilots went below 100 ft. But there is almost no validation or proof that it was a consistent tactic. Somehow a claim of 10 ft is now claimed. There are so many variables and consequences that are being overlooked, its almost amusing how stuff gets dismissed.

This is mostly myth and legend. The original poster has OCD on this one narrow topic and he can't see the absolute parallel between what he is doing and Herman Hum does with the max speed issue.

[thewood1]

If any more proof of the OCD-ness is needed...

tm.asp?m=4075003&mpage=1&key=&#4075003

He obviously has not learned much.

[FoxZz]

Here we go personnal attacks ...
Well, outside footages, I did brought evidence that altitudes lower than the ones we have ingame are operationally in use ... But it seems you're good at cherry picking too.
Well are you saying that missile range and speed, or any weapon, are not effected heavilly affected by speed of the plane and lauching altitude, and that's also a myth and legend ?

Anyway, what about the helicopters, will their minimal altitude be tweeked down or not ?

I found another source by the way : https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=DO ... sQ6AEIOTAH page 209

It talks of penetration altitudes between 15 and 30 meters >> between 50 and 100 feets at speeds of Mach 0.8 / 1

[mikmykWS]

Hey guys thanks for all the posts. Command team will look at all the relevant stuff posted and make a decision.

Mike