Tornado was not designed to fight Desert Storm, it was built to fly interdiction missions deep into Warsaw Pact territory. And as much as Coalition air forces liked to claim so at the time, Iraqi air defences were very unlike what could have been expected to be encountered over Eastern Europe. Their most powerful equipment were SA-5, SA-6, SA-8 and Roland – all of them at least 15 years old technology already back then! All of them had been met in combat by Western air forces (particularly the IDF) before, so their characteristics were well known and counter-tactics had been developed. By the mid-1980s, WP air space OTOH would have been defended by S-300, SA-11, Tor and Tunguska in substantial numbers – flying high in a non-VLO aircraft against the former two would have been a complete blood bath.

Except that NATO or at least US tactics had shifted from trying to bypass the air defences (which, yes, would have gotten them massacred at med-high altitude), to making the tackling of the ADGE their first order of business – with SARM-Ds, HARMs, EW and so on. While using F-117s, CALCMs, Tomahawks, etc for deep strikes. And of course, the B-2 might have been in service by the end of the decade, if the USSR hadn’t started to crumble gouging western defence budgets in the process.

A war between the two blocs would have been a bloody business either way. For both sides – the odds faced by the Soviets on offence, weren’t much better.

Sure, low-altitude losses might have been similar to Desert Storm on account of the SHORADS which were also more modern, but terrain masking by the more hilly terrain would have afforded at least some protection. You don’t need to stay undetected as in a “tunnel” from end to end, as long as nobody tracks you long enough to successfully guide a missile to your location you have a chance.

Oh come on! Low level in Iraq was a danger in and near the target area. Since the defences were mostly static, the rest of flight path was relatively low risk. Whole different situation in Europe, where AD would have been mobile, dispersed, plentiful & modern – SA-13s, SA-15s & Schilkas, topped up by Iglas everywhere. And then of course were the MiG-21s & MiG-29s running point defence.

Terrain masking works both ways – there’s no warning about what’s waiting round the bend for the pilot and relatively little room to maneuver if set upon by interceptors.

They couldnt, not without a massive amount of hindsight.

I didn’t mean that literally. I was talking in terms of how the assumptions that went into planning & tactics, were likely to have evolved in a few years time.

strange question, when it comes from somebody who started the thread by posting stuff about Gulf War and Vietnam War

Two entirely different things and I’d thank you not to mix the two.

One line of discussion has been about the Tornado and the underlying concept and whether in retrospect it would have been better, in retrospect, to have pursued a different platform (like the F-15E, for example). Also, mentioned on that subject were the Israeli & US experiences.
_____________________________________

Our discussion (i.e. yours & mine) has been apropos your assertion about the continuing relevance of low level penetration on the modern battlefield. To wit –

“Today, with more modern terrain following systems, you can go even lower and faster, and shoot from a safer distance your weapons… the days of low level penetration aren’t over yet…“

..which I took to mean that you were referring to the current threat environment.

Which includes, on one hand, improved terrain following radars allowing for lower altitude flight. As you quoted. And includes, on the other hand – hi-res SAR modes on fighter AESA radars filtering out ground clutter, JSTARS-type ground surveillance aircraft, mobile QR-SAMs, instantaneously slewing radar/EO-guided AAA systems, 4th gen MANPAD systems with FPA seekers. As I quoted.