Low Flying
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just a lowly civvy, so I'm sorry to stick my nose in to what it obviously a deeply technical debate that clearly goes beyond logic 
but... surely the point of low flying is so that they (the enemy you need to overcome) can't see you coming (whether visual or on radar)? Or is that a little simplistic of me?
I mean fairs fair, its still quite clearly being used operationally even in the fast jet world it seems, and purely for survivals sake, has to be used by the rotary bods (especially those supporting the army - oh, isn't that pretty much all of them?) and I would imagine the Tactical Transport bods - wouldnt really want to be pootling around like a slow moving sitting duck during duck hunting season for everyone with an AK / MANPAD to see would we? Or can you support the ground forces from 10,000ft?
So the options... assuming your mode of transport has options...
1. Fly at low level, using noe and speed, to get you to your intended destination without being seen. Anyone who does see you will hopefully not have had a chance to do anything about it because you are using the terrain to mask yourself and at low level you'll be out of his field of view quickly. Risk - Crash the aircraft in to the ground if your piloting skills aren't up to low flying....
or
2. Get shot down at medium level if you're flying in anything other than a fairly benign air defence environment (and even then its a risk), which requires no great skill, yet is likely to make you just as dead, and your aircraft just as useless....?
I'd choose the option that I have some control over.
And you guys were worried so much about MikeHegland??
but... surely the point of low flying is so that they (the enemy you need to overcome) can't see you coming (whether visual or on radar)? Or is that a little simplistic of me? I mean fairs fair, its still quite clearly being used operationally even in the fast jet world it seems, and purely for survivals sake, has to be used by the rotary bods (especially those supporting the army - oh, isn't that pretty much all of them?) and I would imagine the Tactical Transport bods - wouldnt really want to be pootling around like a slow moving sitting duck during duck hunting season for everyone with an AK / MANPAD to see would we? Or can you support the ground forces from 10,000ft?
So the options... assuming your mode of transport has options...
1. Fly at low level, using noe and speed, to get you to your intended destination without being seen. Anyone who does see you will hopefully not have had a chance to do anything about it because you are using the terrain to mask yourself and at low level you'll be out of his field of view quickly. Risk - Crash the aircraft in to the ground if your piloting skills aren't up to low flying....
or
2. Get shot down at medium level if you're flying in anything other than a fairly benign air defence environment (and even then its a risk), which requires no great skill, yet is likely to make you just as dead, and your aircraft just as useless....?
I'd choose the option that I have some control over.
And you guys were worried so much about MikeHegland??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could there be something in the fact that there is relatively little military low-flying these days compared to 20 - 25 years ago? People and animals are less accustomed to it so are more startled when a jet arrives suddenly at up to 540 kts ( that used to be the limit when I was in Betty Windsor's Flying Club, I don't know about today. ).
Postman Plod - thanks for spelling it out for crossbow, aircraft in combat (especially helicopters) have to fly at low level to avoid being shot down - it's not rocket science! If you are not detected then you can't get targeted, we use the ground to mask us from radar/IR/visual detection.
Working Hard - this is not about airspace utilisation, it is about beating the military with a big stick because of 2 well publicised accidents where horseriders were killed and it was convenient to place the blame solely on low flying helicopters. Helicopters fly over horses all the time and 99.9% of the time there is no problem - they can't be avoided unless you spot them early and that is near impossible unless they keep away from trees, hedges, fences etc and only stay on open ground. More riders are dismounted as a result of cars spooking the horse every day than those unseated by helos in a year, yet no-one is talking about banning cars from the roads or making them record their journeys. This episode is 'fear of litigation' gone mad.
Working Hard - this is not about airspace utilisation, it is about beating the military with a big stick because of 2 well publicised accidents where horseriders were killed and it was convenient to place the blame solely on low flying helicopters. Helicopters fly over horses all the time and 99.9% of the time there is no problem - they can't be avoided unless you spot them early and that is near impossible unless they keep away from trees, hedges, fences etc and only stay on open ground. More riders are dismounted as a result of cars spooking the horse every day than those unseated by helos in a year, yet no-one is talking about banning cars from the roads or making them record their journeys. This episode is 'fear of litigation' gone mad.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just two points of my own.
I have, for a few years, served in a community that records their route on a chart and fills in a 'to the minute' form detailing what low flying we did when we return, (Inaccuracies will sneak through for free nav and affil). Our tapes are then impounded, for a few weeks. In my opinion this is only right and proper. It may seem an onerous task and takes up minutes of our time - but as with all resources used by the military, the best way to ensure the UKLFS's survival is to show we respect it and use it properly.
Secondly, whilst i realise that our defence budget and therefore thinking relies upon our big brother across the pond being with/ infront of us this 'may not always be the case'. One capability that they have AN AWFUL LOT OF, is SEAD and EW. We do have some very capable players in these departments - but very few in comparison. If our elected government want British strike aircraft to cross into badlands, without international support then we have two choices:
1. Attrit as many SAMs as possible using Tornado/ Alarm and the limited number of TLAM and Storm Shadow available. All of which have other tasks, some possibly more important. And then go anyway.
2. Fly as low as you dare, because the lower you go the less chance you have of being seen, engaged and killed.
We already have a long list of capabilities we no longer possess. Low level's worth hanging on to. Which means reasoned argument and proper recorded use of the UKLFS.
I have, for a few years, served in a community that records their route on a chart and fills in a 'to the minute' form detailing what low flying we did when we return, (Inaccuracies will sneak through for free nav and affil). Our tapes are then impounded, for a few weeks. In my opinion this is only right and proper. It may seem an onerous task and takes up minutes of our time - but as with all resources used by the military, the best way to ensure the UKLFS's survival is to show we respect it and use it properly.
Secondly, whilst i realise that our defence budget and therefore thinking relies upon our big brother across the pond being with/ infront of us this 'may not always be the case'. One capability that they have AN AWFUL LOT OF, is SEAD and EW. We do have some very capable players in these departments - but very few in comparison. If our elected government want British strike aircraft to cross into badlands, without international support then we have two choices:
1. Attrit as many SAMs as possible using Tornado/ Alarm and the limited number of TLAM and Storm Shadow available. All of which have other tasks, some possibly more important. And then go anyway.
2. Fly as low as you dare, because the lower you go the less chance you have of being seen, engaged and killed.
We already have a long list of capabilities we no longer possess. Low level's worth hanging on to. Which means reasoned argument and proper recorded use of the UKLFS.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters, by definition, do not fly a "route". We fly tasks as given to us by the Army and are often retasked in the air. The inherent flexibilty of the helicopter means we can change from USL bus-runs to a pickup of downed aircrew to recce tasks or troop inserts at the behest of the tasking authority and with no need to land and replan. Our training has to reflect this.
The argument for low flying has already been given - it is the single best way to avoid being shot down in a helicopter.
Given the need for retasking and the requirement to low fly, people now want us to trace a line on the map, minute-by-minute, as we go along? Hardly reasonable given that it requires quite a bit of capacity to fly at LL anyway. Without some sort of data-logger this is not going to be possible, and it's already been stated that this would cost too much.
The argument for low flying has already been given - it is the single best way to avoid being shot down in a helicopter.
Given the need for retasking and the requirement to low fly, people now want us to trace a line on the map, minute-by-minute, as we go along? Hardly reasonable given that it requires quite a bit of capacity to fly at LL anyway. Without some sort of data-logger this is not going to be possible, and it's already been stated that this would cost too much.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Some further thoughts,
possibly accepting that an LGB delivery from medium to high level within a SEAD package is almost the SOP way of delivering ordnance this poses the question of low level.
Well low level would enable an ac or package to use terrain masking to avoid early warning detection and alerting the very defences that the SEAD pacakge has to suppress. Once inside enemy territory and approaching the target aircraft can climb for whatever delivery they wish, LALB, Dive, MALB etc.
The fact remains that only in an entirely benign environment to the penetrators not need the advantage of terrain masking.
possibly accepting that an LGB delivery from medium to high level within a SEAD package is almost the SOP way of delivering ordnance this poses the question of low level.
Well low level would enable an ac or package to use terrain masking to avoid early warning detection and alerting the very defences that the SEAD pacakge has to suppress. Once inside enemy territory and approaching the target aircraft can climb for whatever delivery they wish, LALB, Dive, MALB etc.
The fact remains that only in an entirely benign environment to the penetrators not need the advantage of terrain masking.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very simple answer, the british have lost no aircraft in iraq (touch wood) and the US have lost loads. Why? simple they fly at 300' we fly at 50'
Without going into things that cant be discussed in a public forum the lower you fly the safer you are from enemy fire. To keep this skill up we need to practice regularly. There is no complaints to the police, fire brigade, airline pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. regularly practicing their skills. Could you imagine getting a dentist that had not practiced for a year or two? But this is accepted by goody goody tree huggers who can understand this because it relates directly to them.
I would love to get the whining, moaning so and so's who think its not needed to low fly and get them to even try hover a helicopter. And after they screw this up royally then see how they feel after 2 hours of low level, under wires, CAD's, IP - Grid, LL Nav, EW, Fighter Efil etc. etc. Would be interesting to see how much respect and understanding they would have about the need for LL ops. After they have recovered then take them out at night and do Cat A NVG with all the above skills again. Should shut them up for a bit.
Without going into things that cant be discussed in a public forum the lower you fly the safer you are from enemy fire. To keep this skill up we need to practice regularly. There is no complaints to the police, fire brigade, airline pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. regularly practicing their skills. Could you imagine getting a dentist that had not practiced for a year or two? But this is accepted by goody goody tree huggers who can understand this because it relates directly to them.
I would love to get the whining, moaning so and so's who think its not needed to low fly and get them to even try hover a helicopter. And after they screw this up royally then see how they feel after 2 hours of low level, under wires, CAD's, IP - Grid, LL Nav, EW, Fighter Efil etc. etc. Would be interesting to see how much respect and understanding they would have about the need for LL ops. After they have recovered then take them out at night and do Cat A NVG with all the above skills again. Should shut them up for a bit.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a purely FJ point of view......Admittedly there was (and is) lots of ML taking place in the Gulf because it is now such a benign environment. Despite this there were times when an a/c had to get to LL, at night on the goggs, to deliver a wpn or whatever and the weather precluded a ML option.
Given this low threat level environment, LL still had a large role to play. Two main things come out of this:
1. Even in a predominantly ML conflict you need to be prepared for all aspects of the war. LL skill fade occurs very quickly and it is definately not something you could quickly get up to speed on.
2. The age old addage of 'don't train for the last war'. I.E. Our next conflict, wherever that may be, may not be over a flat desert and without a LL option we could be in a lot of trouble!
This said, as weapons and aircraft develop I can see a time where LL flying may have had its day. This won't be for some time and certainly as long as the Harriers and GR4s are still operating. When Typhoon and JSF are up to speed, and stand off and guided wpns have evolved further, I can see less need for LL. The only caveat to this is in the LL CAS role on a ****ty day when you may still need this back up skill.
Given this low threat level environment, LL still had a large role to play. Two main things come out of this:
1. Even in a predominantly ML conflict you need to be prepared for all aspects of the war. LL skill fade occurs very quickly and it is definately not something you could quickly get up to speed on.
2. The age old addage of 'don't train for the last war'. I.E. Our next conflict, wherever that may be, may not be over a flat desert and without a LL option we could be in a lot of trouble!
This said, as weapons and aircraft develop I can see a time where LL flying may have had its day. This won't be for some time and certainly as long as the Harriers and GR4s are still operating. When Typhoon and JSF are up to speed, and stand off and guided wpns have evolved further, I can see less need for LL. The only caveat to this is in the LL CAS role on a ****ty day when you may still need this back up skill.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very different views so far. Some are well reasoned whilst other merely inane. Keep convincing us guys and then the heat will die down. If LL skills are still a requirement (I really accept they may well be) why do you not practice LL over built up areas?
Conflict is not just over open countryside.
Conflict is not just over open countryside.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard - We get plenty of complaints from flying over the countryside where there are perhaps 100 people per square km. Imagine the number we'd get if we flew over urban areas with 10000 people per square km!
Also, if you have to throw the aircraft away there's much less chance of it hitting someone if you do it in the countryside - that's less of a concern during wartime.
There are places helis can practice for urban ops.
Also, if you have to throw the aircraft away there's much less chance of it hitting someone if you do it in the countryside - that's less of a concern during wartime.
There are places helis can practice for urban ops.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK PTT - Just so we may be clear on a point. LL flying is a critical survival skill that one must keep current EXCEPT if you are to get a lot of complaints! What am I missing here? Do you only do LL in combat over open country? Do you just not need to practice over towns? Should you not need to practice such a critical skill over all terrain types?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Age: 53
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard
Yes we do and yes we should. Considering some of the other answers on this thread, you do not seem to be taking in what is being said. We need and want to practice as much as possible but are only allowed to through the UKLFS, in certain areas and certain heights. We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints, so we have to make the best of what we have. Complaints will always happen, and we will never get enough practice.
As usual it will take aircraft being shot down and crews being lost to hammer this point home to the public, I fear.
Yes we do and yes we should. Considering some of the other answers on this thread, you do not seem to be taking in what is being said. We need and want to practice as much as possible but are only allowed to through the UKLFS, in certain areas and certain heights. We cant do it over built up areas because that is just a bloody stupid thing to do and we would get even more complaints, so we have to make the best of what we have. Complaints will always happen, and we will never get enough practice.
As usual it will take aircraft being shot down and crews being lost to hammer this point home to the public, I fear.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockspice I hope I have taken in all the points (worthwhile ones of course) and I understand what you say BUT I say again if training is so critical then why avoid areas such as towns? Either you need the practice or you dont. Either you operate in combat over towns or you dont. Just because you are to get complaints does not lessen the need for training. Do you use sims for LL training and if so what proportion of sim time to flight time? How good are the sims? Before anyone shouts at me I know full well there is no substitute. I, and no doubt others, are just trying to get a handle on what is actually needed. Helos are a different matter and the tragedy of the horse rider I would not lay at the door of the crew.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fastjets do not weave in and out between chimneys in built-up areas. Helicopters can and do, but in special secret built-up areas like Ulster, or some parts of Salisbury Plain. To me, Wiltshire can never meet that "If I'm awake, so are you." moment. Ahem.
Low-flying is a military skill across the board that you lose at your peril. Much like the missile/gun debate of the 60s.
Low-flying is a military skill across the board that you lose at your peril. Much like the missile/gun debate of the 60s.