I can't believe some of the comments I have read on this thread so far.
Surely the air warfare arena is one where multiple tactics need to be offered as viable alternatives when faced with a credible opponent. If all you train for is the most successful techniques used in recent conflicts then the enemy knows exactly what to expect and how then to defend against it. That places the aircrew in a higher risk situation.
For most of the recent depolyments, our armed forces have had the benefit of air superiority and considerable electronic warfare measures. Without these, the medium level heavily laden bombers become little more than sitting ducks. We must have a workable alternative for dealing with or providing a deterrent to more advanced nations. Moreover, tactical movements of troops still need to take place at low level and at night to minimise the risk to the aircraft. Current simulators have yet to offer the detail in terms of visuals and movement to convincingly replicate this environment.
There is a popular but inaccurate idea amonst the public at large that stealth aircraft are totally invisible. This does little to help the cause, but people forget that the whole point of low flying is stealth of a sort, and Britain is not alone in training for it.
More concerning is the possibility that someone with power believes fast jets could operate safely and with no detriment to the training with a speed limit of 250kts below 10,000 feet!!!
What I find strange is that this issue has arisen when the number of our armed forces are dwindling. There are fewer jets to make noise than in days gone. There are fewer low flying aircraft in the whole system than previously and we have very tightly controlled airspace to minimise problems.
Light aircraft have no need to go below 1000 feet as all they are doing is placing themselves into danger if the engine fails (unless they are landing etc. obviously!)
Can someone please apply the common sense hammer to the head of whoever came up with this barmy speed limit.
