50' transits are still permitted by the way - where the training is justified.
Quite frankly, there is no tactical reason to transit low-fly at 50' as opposed to 100'. The small arms threat poses no greater threat at the higher height, and the DAS systems fitted to RAF and RN SH all need space below the aircraft to operate effectively. The tactical argument doesn't hold up.
Torque Split:
One word - Stinger
Another - SA18
A few more - Both systems min target hts are (believed to be) about 50-75ft! Having flown in flat open areas with a particularly high threat, I can tell you that the extra 50' makes a whole world of difference. Basic geometary tells you that it halves the time for aquisition, tracking and targetting of any system from an AK-47 to a Manpad. Please don't tell me that there is no tactical advantage to flying lower. If you are going to do so - come with me on my next Det and explain in to me over there. I'll be the one in the weeds!
Before you all launch at me, I do know what I am talking about because I am a QHI on an SH OCU
You are also an ar5e who should not shoot his mouth off, supporting the detractors who have no idea about issues involving the tactics and safety of fellow aviators. (Surely you are on an OCF not an OCU anyway!!!)
Trying to raise the min ht of low flying training and then expect us to fly on ops is a bit like saying we can practice IF with one eye on the horizon outside - the benefit will be minimal.