The tactical need for low flying remains valid, though recent ops have been conducted in circumstances where medium level happens to have been preferred because of the nature of the threat. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that a number of operators have had to fly real-world low level ops on a number of occasions since the Gulf War.
The loss rate of RAF Tornados in Granby was lower than any informed observer expected, and the loss rate at low level (as has been said) was especially low, not least because those involved had practised tooling around at or below 250 ft at speeds considerably in excess of 250 kts.
The loss rate in peacetime low level training is miniscule nowadays, and damage to Farmer Bill's sheep, horses, chickens and the like is wildly exaggerated. Besides which the ****** needs something to moan on about, and some reason to get compensation.....
The idea that military low flying can be simulated effectively is a joke. Although I'm only a PPL, I've flown various military sims (brand new and steam age) and rigs, and have been fortunate enough to have famil. and orientation flights at low level in a number of fast jet types. It's inconceivable that operational status could be maintained without a great deal of real-world practise in this 'art'.
Not Working, 411A and hangar 35, you clearly have no clue at all.
Following on from the 'Inspirational Jag Pilot' thread, I wonder what legitimate business civilian traffic has below 1,000 ft, anyway. Apart from take off and landing, PFLs, powerline inspections and crop-spraying (oops, they don't do that any more) we PPLs should be bimbling about at an altitude from which we have plenty of time to select our field if the donk quits, and to be able to 'alight clear' of built up areas and the like. It may be fun to fly low, but perhaps the solution should be to make civilian notification of flight at or below 1,000 ft, outside a given radius of licenced aerodromes mandatory, and to make all civilian flight below 500 ft illegal, except for the purposes of take off, landing and PFLs, if our low level airspace is really becoming that crowded and dangerous.
On the other hand, over land, and in the more congested areas of airspace, perhaps a speed restriction would be reasonable at higher altitudes (perhaps from 2-10,000 ft?) without being too operationally limiting. How fast do you chaps need to transit, for example?
How about the Jag boys? Can they get as fast as 250 kts on a hot day?
