Low-level ground attack missions in today's context

[Zius]

At the last stages of the Cold War, doctrine on both sides dictated that low-level flying was the only way to penetrate the anticipated heavily defended (mainly by SAM but also by CAP / AWACS) enemy air space.

 

However the last 20 years or so we have had mostly fairly one-sided wars without too much opposition in terms of air defence (at least from a Western perspective) and it seems that NATO now has only high-level ground attack missions since the only threat are guns (incl. AA guns) and MANPADS.

 

Also I suppose that stealth aircraft have somewhat shifted the perspective in terms of potential large scale combat against a strong adversary.

 

But personally I think that stealth may be of somewhat limited use against a modern adversary and low-level flying would still be the way to go.

 

Any thoughts?

[Cupra]

Low level does not meet the actual tactics... actual tactics are far away fromt that what flight simmers want to do  RL is all standoff.....no one will go low level those days and deliver some Mk82`s.... you drop GBU-39 and go home.

[TLTeo]

Low level didn't become a thing at the end of the Cold War, it was the main tactic for most of it precisely because of the introduction of SAMs and EWRs (which dates back to the late 50s/early 60s). It was a large part of the tactics during e.g. both Vietnam and the Six Day war. In fact, by the late 80s it was on its way out.

 

What has happened since then is that low level tactics have mostly been replaced by guided standoff weapons, regardless of what the aircraft launching them is. It's much, much easier to avoid air defenses by staying the hell away from them, than it is by flying close to them but low level in order to try and shrink their envelope. Stealth makes low level even less attractive (and standoff delivery more attractive), but it's not the only reason why it's gone, far from it.

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, Zius said:

But personally I think that stealth may be of somewhat limited use against a modern adversary and low-level flying would still be the way to go.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Limited in what way?  Detection of stealth aircraft is about at 1/8th to 1/10th the distance of the average gen 4 fighter.   There's no magic to radar, you can only make it marginally better for certain application (STAP algos may let you detect them 'far away') and only marginally better for taking shots at them.   A little ECM makes them next to undetectable.

[Zius]

5 hours ago, Cupra said:

Low level does not meet the actual tactics... actual tactics are far away fromt that what flight simmers want to do  RL is all standoff.....no one will go low level those days and deliver some Mk82`s.... you drop GBU-39 and go home.

 

GBU-39 would not be stand-off in a scenario where the enemy has, for example, plenty of S-300 / S-400 systems.

In such a scenario you would probably need long-range (cruise) missiles to stand a chance.

Or... go back to low-level flying?

 

2 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Low level didn't become a thing at the end of the Cold War, it was the main tactic for most of it precisely because of the introduction of SAMs and EWRs (which dates back to the late 50s/early 60s). It was a large part of the tactics during e.g. both Vietnam and the Six Day war. In fact, by the late 80s it was on its way out.

 

Yes, you are right. But I would say that the most effective low level aircraft were 1970's-1980's aircraft like the Tornado.

 

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Limited in what way?  Detection of stealth aircraft is about at 1/8th to 1/10th the distance of the average gen 4 fighter.   There's no magic to radar, you can only make it marginally better for certain application (STAP algos may let you detect them 'far away') and only marginally better for taking shots at them.   A little ECM makes them next to undetectable.

 

In principle that is correct, but I get the feeling that stealth vs. radar is a kind of arms race, where I guess it's easier to improve radar than stealth features.

Although it is obviously difficult to get any specifics, it seems modern radars are not doing too badly against stealth. Stealth probably still decreases detection/engagement range but perhaps not enough. But I guess all of that is somewhat off-topic.

 

In any case, while dropping GBU's from high altitude works fine in Afghanistan and similar places, I'm not sure about an all-out war between the US and Russia or China, hypothetically speaking.

[TLTeo]

3 minutes ago, Zius said:

Yes, you are right. But I would say that the most effective low level aircraft were 1970's-1980's aircraft like the Tornado.

Obviously yes, the technology to do low level improved over time. Just like the Tornado itself improved as it changed from a low level strike aircraft, to the standoff strike aircaft of today

 

4 minutes ago, Zius said:

Or... go back to low-level flying?

Or still do standoff delivery but with a full package of aircraft around you that can jam, suppress or destroy the IADS on the way to the target. Low level flying won't save you from modern SAM systems, EW and staying as far from them as possible just might. Besides there are plenty of weapons that outrange the GBU-39, should it be necessary.

[Zius]

5 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

 Low level flying won't save you from modern SAM systems

 

Why wouldn't it?

Modern SAM systems still can't look over the horizon, so depending on the terrain you may avoid known SAM installations or at least limit their envelope.

 

But you are right, "jam, suppress or destroy the IADS on the way to the target." did work well in Iraq which was I guess fairly capable at the time.

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Zius said:

Modern SAM systems still can't look over the horizon

 

These days they sure can ... check out SM-6, capable of OTH engagement thanks to an ARH seeker and target feed from the AEGIS network, including any airborne radar.   I suppose you can't always have full coverage but either way, there are plenty of counters to low altitude ingress, MANPADS of some form being the most common or other SHORAD capabilities.

[TLTeo]

Also, unlike older systems, modern ones have no problem engaging a target at low altitude

2 hours ago, Zius said:

But you are right, "jam, suppress or destroy the IADS on the way to the target." did work well in Iraq which was I guess fairly capable at the time.

Exactly - and that's with only ~10% of ordnance dropped being guided and a fair amount of low level still being used. There are a few reports on the effectiveness of air power during Desert Storm out which, if you read between the lines, basically spell the requirements for JDAM/LJDAM/JSOW/SDB et al.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[Bozon]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:39 AM, Zius said:

 

GBU-39 would not be stand-off in a scenario where the enemy has, for example, plenty of S-300 / S-400 systems.

In such a scenario you would probably need long-range (cruise) missiles to stand a chance.

Or... go back to low-level flying?

In case of a war against a modern power S-300/400 and other similar large SAMs will be fighting for their own lives at the start of the war. They will be a high priority target and be constantly suppressed by EW and attacked by drones, roving munitions, cruise missiles, or highly accurate ballistic missiles, again and again until destroyed - I would NOT want to serve in a S-300 unit when a war starts…

One of the major things that limited the use of low flying were radar guided AAA - these are deadly to planes trying to hide from SAMs over the front - for all the hype about SAMs, more planes fall to AAA than to SAMs. The big SAMs are relatively easy to suppress in a local region and thus allow operations from altitude over the front.

Flying low is still a thing for deep penetrations through relatively sparsely defended (by AAA) regions.