Shi'ite... I can't believe what I'm about to say but here goes:
1. With respect to "Navy Adversary's" original question
which one is considered the best aircraft regarding its low level mission?
I have to say that the Pig can be the only winner. Surely the true measure of the
low level striker is
low level range versus payload. (Stick with me ftrplt, I'm going somewhere with this & I promise I am NOT turning into a complete Kopp!!) Whilst not familiar with Beagle SGRs at fighting weight, I would hazard a guess that they have the standard 'leaky turbojets' common to teen series fighters that are optimised to fight around the tropopause - Hence, a Pig with
24 Mk 82s would probably easily out range (by a few hundred miles) a bombed up Mud Hen on a LO-LO-LO mission. (As someone has previously mentioned, the Tornado has been 'omitted for clarity')
2. Notwithstanding all of the above, I don't pretend to say that the LO-LO-LO strike mission is the most tactically sound mission profile: As always "it depends...". Not much point here in arguing the various doctrinal and tactical merits of these profiles. As a very wise aviator once told me:
The only way to REALLY know what tactics will work for you in your war is to ask the guys who returned safely from the previous mission, and then do what they do! (Of course, the follow up question would always be "but what if you're the first guy in the first mission??" The answer:
Don't be!!)
3. I haven't been in any conflict (just fine with me) so this may be a bit rich coming from a "nugget", but I would caution against statements such as
the first few days of Desert Storm saw low level strikes as a primary tactic consigned to history
The recent Rand Corporation report about the US Air Campaign in 'Storm' made a very interesting observation. Essentially, it stated that the Low Level Strike profiles create the most challenging and difficult mission profile that serves to dramatically improve overall strike skills. Many unsuccessful 'Storm' strikes (both low, medium & high) were attributed mainly to poor low-level skills. Simple really: Train for the hardest situation and by definition anything less will be easier.
Someone else (always) says it better:
The most important thing is to have a flexible approach. . . . The truth is no one knows exactly what air fighting will be like in the future. We can't say anything will stay as it is, but we also can't be certain the future will conform to particular theories, which so often, between the wars, have proved wrong.
- Brigadier General Robin Olds.
3. Finally, I would hazard a guess that many F111 aircrew would be very happy with the F15E as a replacement. Let's face it, it can perform 90% of the Pig Strike roles (MARSTK??) at maybe 80% of Pig low-level range.
BUT (and it's a big but) it also has a vastly superior radar, excellent A/A capability, more modern systems and therefore provides far more bang for your buck than the venerable Piggy.
Of course, if the F111 'AMRAAM missileer' ever comes into service then look out Beagle!
