first, you’d want to send in your SIGINT assets to map the AD network

Rafale, for example, which has been developed for with deep strike in mind (low level penetration when needed) also has with SPECTRA a built-in SIGINT suite (and another interesting function is that it can map the AD network, but also the ground precisely and feed the databases of its airforce with all that data). What’s more, when you speak of the horizon, it is on flat terrain, but as soon as you have hills (not to speak about mountains), you’ll fly in the valleys, making you unseen from radars or, at most, for very short glimpses which are insufficient to shoot at you.. same for MANPADS, if your shooter doesn’t see nor hear you coming, he’ll have very little chance to point his weapon on you, arm it and fire.

An example of it was over Serbia, where most of the missions flown by the serbs went unnoticed (or at least unharmed) despite the AWACS coverage of the entire territory… as long as they stayed low, even the airborne radars had trouble spotting them, and even more directing interceptors on them (we won’t speak of SAMs as NATO had none there)

About modern radars filtering ground clutter, yes, but it is useful mostly when you see them from above… for a ground-based radar, the problem is not so much that the aircraft is hard to detect because of the background, but rather that it is behind “the background”… put a hill or a mountain between the radar and the aircraft and the aircraft simply can’t be seen as radar waves can’t pass through the ground

@ Marcellogo,

I know, and I agree, I simply wanted to underline the fact that the “high losses due to low level” presented at first were, in fact due to other reasons than just “flying at low level is too dangerous because of the defenses”

Of six losses one was shot down by its own bomb exploding prematurely and another hit the ground in a turn (night low level mission, potentially pilot error). Of the four remaining and shot down by AAA, two were at medium altitude, one on pop up to release bombs (in a climb over the target) and one being low, all of them hit over the target, not one was shot down on its way to it, even if for some of them (and probably many more missions without losses) the AAA against the attackers on their way to target was intense.

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…

No mention of medium altitude in that link. And SR-SAMs are very real threats at low level. More so than AAA

I beg to differ

Date: 24th January 1991
Aircraft/Code: ZA403/CO
Squadron: No.17 Squadron
Pilot: Flying Officer S. J. Burgess
Navigator: Squadron Leader R. Ankerson
Details: The aircraft was carrying out an early morning, medium level attack against an airfield in South West Iraq with 1,000lb GP bombs. As the weapons were released the aircraft was rocked by a large explosion from a proximity detonation of what the crew believed was a SAM that left the wings of the aircraft burning.

Date: 14th February 1991
Aircraft/Code: ZD717/CD
Squadron: No.17 Squadron
Pilot: Flight Lieutenant R. J. Clark
Navigator: Flight Lieutenant S. M. Hicks
Details: The aircraft was flying as part of a daylight, medium-level precision strike mission with Blackburn Buccaneers providing laser designation duties for the Tornado formation armed with Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs).

First, it would have to be defined what the european project is (requirements and fundings available, at least).. from there on, they’d be able to define somewhat the project and we’d have an idea about what to expect

While the F-4 was at first developed as a fleet defense fighter
Not absolutely correct. The F4 was born as an attack plane

In mid-1954, BuAer issued a request for a new all-weather fighter. McDonnell submitted both the single-engine F3H-E and the twin-engine F3H-G proposals, with Grumman and North American submitting proposals as well. The BuAer selected the F3H-G, issuing a “letter of intent” for two prototypes of the type, now to be designated “AH-1”, on 18 October 1954.
That was very encouraging, but there was also less to it than met the eye. The Navy was still considering needs, and in the absence of specific requirements there was no way to move on to “cutting metal”. However, the brass were definitely giving the matter serious thought, and over the following months clarified their needs. In the end, what they wanted was a carrier-based fleet defense interceptor that could patrol at a combat radius of 465 kilometers (250 nautical miles) for over two hours. As the machine was clearly no longer an “attack” aircraft, the designation was changed to “F4H-1”.
Source:
http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_1.html

you should read what you post: it states clearly that initially they did not have a specific requirement, asked for an all-weather fighter. They had a few proposals, but, basically, only mockups were made and some initial studies. Once they defined their needs, they wanted a fleet defense interceptor. From there on, the proposal from McDonnell became the F4H-1 and was developed for that role. Now where can you consider “born” something that had a different name and was never developed is beyond me. The name of the proposed aircraft by McDonnell was changed as it was a different project for a different purpose.. anyway, we’re getting away from the topic

for sure, at the time Tornado entered service, the “multirole” was something quite rare.. The F-16 which is labeled today as multirole was a light day fighter (becoming slowly “multirole in the 1980’s and 1990’s), F-15 an air superiority fighter (F-15E developed in the 1980’s),and so on… Every nation having a significant air force had specialized fighters for pretty much everything.

S400 also have ranges of several hundred of miles.

fact is, it can have such a range against high flying targets, a fighter flying below horizon won’t be seen until it rises above it (or you’d need an airborne radar connected to the S400 to look further) And the cruise missile can allow it to shoot from quite far away from its target as well and turn away then, which means that the potential missile running after it would turn from head on intercept to a tail chase… much less chance to catch up with it

technically and financially, that would be a good choice, but as partner of Eurofighter consortium, looks complicated to me for Germany to justify the Rafale buy.. Regardless of A2G capabilities differences between the two, it would be more “politically correct” for them to buy some more Typhoons they can make by themselves, no? Especially as it’s advertised it already as multirole