Best current RAF Aircraft

[JamieKnight95]

Hi all,

I would appreciate any opinions and info on my query below.

I would like to know what is the best fixed wing aircraft in the RAF to fly at the moment? In terms of piloting experience, ie, most hands on flying, most hours, most exciting and enjoyable to fly, what does the most low level these days..etc but also the varied missions and ops.

My guess would be one or more of the following(Excluding the BBMF fleet of course as they would top everything) : Hercules, Hawk T1, C-17, Shadow?

I would have expected it to be the Typhoon or F-35 but from what I've heard they hardly do any low level these days, they don't fly very often anyway and the flying is very automated and computer management based, ie a far cry from the Hawk T1 or Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier, Phantom...etc?
However please correct me if I'm wrong or have missed any out that tick the criteria above.

Thanks,
Jamie

[Herod]

Hhmph; thanks for that. You've automatically excluded the Lancaster. :*

[JamieKnight95]

Hhmph; thanks for that. You've automatically excluded the Lancaster. :*
Sorry, obviously that's the ultimate and rawest flying experience! What would you say is the closest thing to flying it in service? Or might give the best chances of flying it afterwards further down the line?

[Sloppy Link]

Apache AH-64E

[rolling20]

As a school boy in the 70s, one would lust after the Phantom, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, Buccaneer and dream that one day you might fly the Lightning..
Then there was the Vulcan, Victor and Nimrod, Dominee, Jetstream.
Even the Belfast, Andover, Argosy, Shackleton and Hercules and others.
When on the UAS you had a choice of plenty of squadrons to spend a week on attachment.
Where did it all go wrong?

[switch_on_lofty]

You won't be doing any LL in a C-17! Hercs do some.

If you want time on the controls in the LL environment you'd better pray for rotary!

[Less Hair]

The Boeing P-8.

[Non Linear Gear]

Typhoon as it is capable of carrying out the roles it is designed for and the other facets surrounding it to do so are in place.

[Tashengurt]

As a school boy in the 70s, one would lust after the Phantom, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, Buccaneer and dream that one day you might fly the Lightning..
Then there was the Vulcan, Victor and Nimrod, Dominee, Jetstream.
Even the Belfast, Andover, Argosy, Shackleton and Hercules and others.
When on the UAS you had a choice of plenty of squadrons to spend a week on attachment.
Where did it all go wrong?

We won the cold war. Allegedly.

[bluesideoops]

A400M! - see those low level over the lake district all the time!

[Runaway Gun]

The Reaper MQ-9A

[Cyberhacker]

I would like to know what is the best fixed wing aircraft in the RAF to fly at the moment?
Given the size of the current RAF fleet, I was expecting replies to include specific airframe serial numbers!!!

[Bob Viking]

I think your question is not really comparing apples with apples.

You said fixed wing but, as I’m sure you’re aware, there is a huge difference between flying a C17 and flying a Typhoon. I don’t think you can compare the quality of the job based on the flying alone and certainly not the amount of time spent at low level.

I cannot speak for the multi engine airframes and I’m a bit too far removed from the frontline to speak with any authority on the current platforms. However, if you were to ask me now which platform I would most like to fly it would be F35 in a heartbeat with Typhoon so close behind in second place that they would be barely distinguishable.

My comment, though, is based on the fact that I have previously spent an awful lot of time at low level and, whilst I still love it (I was last flying at low level about 50 minutes ago), I would not be so bothered about whether or not my platform were still employed in that environment.

I don’t think anybody would join the RAF to fly the Hawk T1 specifically but you are probably correct that they (100 Sqn and 736 NAS) spend the most time at LL. The Valley based Hawk T2s still do some LL but not as much as they used to.

Provided your only aim was to fly at LL and the aircraft type were of no concern, you may find that the Tac Hercules Sqn spend more time down there but I genuinely have no idea.

BV

[JamieKnight95]

Thank you for all the comments, there is a reason why I said fixed wing, as I'm sure the answer would be rotary if it were out of all RAF aircraft at the moment but it's just the fixed wing I'm interested in knowing about.

Low level isn't the be all and end all factor as I mentioned the other criteria and factors(most hours, most exciting and enjoyable to fly, what does the most low level these days, varied missions and roles) But obviously today, bar rotary, sadly there is generally little time spent down at low level. (Except for the Hercs and Hawk T1's)

"I don’t think anybody would join the RAF to fly the Hawk T1 specifically" Oops as that's me... It's the closest thing to the flying in the era of the Phantom, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, Tornado...etc in my eyes?

Although I also feel it should be Typhoon or F-35 based off of previous fast jets, I think there is a stark difference between flying any fast jet today(In the RAF) and those of yesterday, not just in terms of low level time but what the experience is from a pilot's perspective, hands on flying, number of hours you fly per week/month/year, a raw and manual flying experience...etc

I thought the C-17's might do low level given what it can do and that the Americans and Australians seem to throw them around everywhere doing all sorts? Maybe the Herc does all that and is more interesting over here.

Thanks for the comments and opinions, I do appreciate them, although it seems quite conflicted.
Jamie

[rolling20]

We won the cold war. Allegedly.

That victory was a lifetime ago.
We are way behind the curve on the Mk2 version.

[pontifex]

The closest to a Lanc I have flown has been the Valiant. The most exciting was the Gnat at low level in Snowdonia. To be honest the Lanc is not actually exciting although it is a great priviledge and an honour.

[622]

You won't be doing any LL in a C-17!



Hopefully you will at least twice in each sortie! :E

[rolling20]

The closest to a Lanc I have flown has been the Valiant. The most exciting was the Gnat at low level in Snowdonia. To be honest the Lanc is not actually exciting although it is a great priviledge and an honour.
I believe hearing loss/ back problems were common place amongst WW2 heavy bomber pilots later in life.
I had an instructor who had done 2 tours on the Shackleton and he wasn't too complimentary about it.

[Alchad]

You won't be doing any LL in a C-17! ......!

Occasionally a visitor might:)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1800x1200/461a9246red_d6e6f67fdce6f6fc8eb4cf56a3e6f41de1c663fe.jpg

[Buster15]

Apache AH-64E

Fixed wing?

[132bod]

Curious that we appear to be looking directly down 3 & 4 when the aircraft itself is pointing slightly left of our viewpoint. Are C17 engines mounted slightly nose-in?

[Ken Scott]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1320x2000/869ede67_1145_4ab8_af57_040192e83515_adc1be8350b56ee2fed97a4 fd62efac3f92cb8ba.jpeg

The proper attitude for an aircraft given the discussion in this thread.

[Fareastdriver]

There must be a deaf and blind cyclist on the road.

[Green Flash]

There must be a Ford Focus driver looking for the showers and a laundry :ok:

[The...Bird]

Thank you for all the comments, there is a reason why I said fixed wing, as I'm sure the answer would be rotary if it were out of all RAF aircraft at the moment but it's just the fixed wing I'm interested in knowing about.

Low level isn't the be all and end all factor as I mentioned the other criteria and factors(most hours, most exciting and enjoyable to fly, what does the most low level these days, varied missions and roles) But obviously today, bar rotary, sadly there is generally little time spent down at low level. (Except for the Hercs and Hawk T1's)

"I don’t think anybody would join the RAF to fly the Hawk T1 specifically" Oops as that's me... It's the closest thing to the flying in the era of the Phantom, Jaguar, Harrier, Hunter, Tornado...etc in my eyes?

Although I also feel it should be Typhoon or F-35 based off of previous fast jets, I think there is a stark difference between flying any fast jet today(In the RAF) and those of yesterday, not just in terms of low level time but what the experience is from a pilot's perspective, hands on flying, number of hours you fly per week/month/year, a raw and manual flying experience...etc

I thought the C-17's might do low level given what it can do and that the Americans and Australians seem to throw them around everywhere doing all sorts? Maybe the Herc does all that and is more interesting over here.

Thanks for the comments and opinions, I do appreciate them, although it seems quite conflicted.
Jamie

"I thought the C-17's might do low level given what it can do and that the Americans and Australians seem to throw them around everywhere doing all sorts? Maybe the Herc does all that and is more interesting over here."

I guess because the US has about 200 C-17's they can do that and fully utilise what they are capable of. Although that doesn't explain it for the Aussies as they only have 8, the same amount as the RAF, yet they also use them for low level, tac drops, air drop...etc

[Specaircrew]

If you want to spend hours at low level, day and night, then MPA is the way to go. Plus you get free DCS and Honkers!

[ExAscoteer2]

Albert.

Every. Single.Time.

[JamieKnight95]

In answer to my question, sounds like it's the Herc!

[Ken Scott]

n answer to my question, sounds like it's the Herc!

The trouble I always had with low level was the lengthy planning cycle then you spend 50% of sorties reading the map rather than flying...!

[4468]

In terms of piloting experience, ie, most hands on flying, most hours, most exciting and enjoyable to fly, what does the most low level these days..etc but also the varied missions and ops.

There is one current fleet in the RAF with a very large number of medals to it’s crews’ names. Including one individual with three DFCs. If that’s not exciting flying I don’t know what is?

But as you’ll be restricting yourself to fixed wing you’ll not be flying it.

[JamieKnight95]

The trouble I always had with low level was the lengthy planning cycle then you spend 50% of sorties reading the map rather than flying...!
Interesting, but it isn't just the low level, sounds like everything about the Herc ticks all the boxes.

[Herod]

Interesting, but it isn't just the low level, sounds like everything about the Herc ticks all the boxes.
Yep. Last flew one in '75, but still think it's the best.

[Ken Scott]

I enjoyed my 20 years on the C130 but it’s rather like on old Landrover Defender when compared to the A400M which is more of a Bentley Bentaga. The latter is much better to operate on a daily basis but I would think twice about taking it off-road...!

[The...Bird]

No mention of the Reds? Surely that's the answer, however you'll have to fly F-35 or Typhoon for a number of years beforehand.

I'd take an old Defender over a modern Bentley every time, much more fun and characterful.

Something worth noting is if you do somehow end up going Herc you'll most likely get moved onto A400M soon after.

[BEagle]

Interesting, but it isn't just the low level, sounds like everything about the Herc ticks all the boxes.

FFS don't set your sights that low if you want to get through your interviews!

420KIAS at 250' - anything else is for pussies!

[ExAscoteer2]

And you did that for how long Beagle afore you got chopped? :}

Night Tac Landings into strips on NVGs - "anything else is for pussies!" :p

[BEagle]

OH what a shining wit you are, ExArscecoteer2, to misquote Dr Spooner!

About 500 hrs on Gnat / Hunter / Buccaneer / Phantom /Hawk since you ask. Plus a tour on 300KIAS/300' Vulcans, all of which beat flying some creaking old garbage scow into a cocked hat, NVGs and tactical strips notwithstanding.

Did you ever fly at 420KIAS / 250'?

[ExAscoteer2]

Ooooooh looks like I hit a sore spot!

So you did, what, 500 hrs FJ and got binned. Hmm...

Vulcans? Oh do me a favour.

While I may never have flown FJ, unlike you I never got chopped. ;)

[Ken Scott]

Now, now children, play nicely!


While I may never have flown FJ, unlike you I never got chopped. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Anyone who didn’t go single seat FJ was at the least ‘positively streamed’ in a slightly downwards direction...!!

[ExAscoteer2]

Anyone who didn’t go single seat FJ was at the least ‘positively streamed’ in a slightly downwards direction...!!

When I went through FJ was not an available option.

[Herod]

Come on, guys. You may try to hide it, but in reality you know: REAL PILOTS FLY ROTARY.

[H Peacock]

...420KIAS at 250' - anything else is for pussies!

Utter hoop! I’ve been lucky enough to do both, but can assure you that in its day, rotary at 50ft agl (not msd, so forget about the trees and wires - but don't hit them) at 160kts was far more exciting!

[Bob Viking]

Let’s at least compare like with like.

If you’re going to talk about 50’ in a helicopter let’s talk about 100’ and 500+ knots in a FJ.

Whilst I’m sure the helo is still exciting I can assure you the FJ at OLF heights definitely is.

BV

[4468]

Utter hoop! I’ve been lucky enough to do both, but can assure you that in its day, rotary at 50ft agl (not msd, so forget about the trees and wires - but don't hit them) at 160kts was far more exciting!

Why were you at 50’?

Were the brakes stuck on? 🤔

Always a touch embarrassing when you burst the tyres at low level! 😳

[The...Bird]

It's irrelevant talking about how great FJ low level is (was....) and saying that flying anything other than FJ is inferior, because it doesn't even happen anymore (in the RAF....) and the whole point of this thread is basically saying the closest thing today to the flying in the heyday, the frequency of flying, the flying experience, hands on manual machines, exciting missions and all the rest, is by going Herc or rotary.

They aren't FJs but let's compare like with like? Typhoon and F-35 to Phantom, Hunter, Buccaneer, Hawk and Tornado, 500 knots at 100'...etc Apples and oranges. You're on the ground in the sim more than you are in the air today on FJs.

[H Peacock]

Why were you at 50’?

Were the brakes stuck on? 🤔

Always a touch embarrassing when you burst the tyres at low level! 😳

Not an issue, we put the gear up! :)

[Herod]

What's rotary doing at 50'? "If you don't hit your wheels on the ground every hundred yards, you are not low flying" Anyone on 72 in '69/'70 will recognise the author of that phrase.

[Bob Viking]

Aside from the fact I last flew at 100’ and 500kts on Thursday should we at least get the word from a current RAF Herc pilot as to the relative merits?

You’re right that you will probably get more annual flying hours on the Herc than FJs nowadays, but should we talk about how many minutes/hours of actual hands on flying you get and how much of that is at LL?

150 hours of FJ flying in a year might be better than 90 minutes of hands on Herc time at LL in a similar period even if it isn’t at LL.

Obviously I am plucking numbers out of thin air but that’s why I say a current Herc person should comment.

As much as I believe you about the fun of LL rotary flying it’s outside the scope of the current conversation.

This isn’t about Willy waving but trying to pretend a Herc person will spend 350 hours at LL every year and that FJ pilots will be sat in the sim every day is a little disingenuous.

BV

[Ken Scott]

As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.

Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.

Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
Sounds like you need a better planning system 😉

[JamieKnight95]

As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.

Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!

But that was in the C130 from 25 years ago, surely the J model today has made that easier/faster?

500 kts at 100 ft on Thursday, I take it that was in a Hawk?

So after all the discussion, is the answer to my question still FJ even today?

[BEagle]

From around 65 years ago:

Flying training within the (RAF) Swift FR5 force was realistic. Legs between targets were normally flown at 420 knots rising through 480 to 540 knots (up to a maximum of 600 knots when desirable and practicable in simulated hostile airspace) according to the task. Officially, operational training was carried out at the lowest permissible height in Germany (then 250 ft above ground level) in preparation for lower heights in war,

To train for rapid response in war, planning might be carried out against the stopwatch, with 30 minutes the standard time allowed to plan a three-target sortie over 380-400 miles. Each target had to be covered in one pass, at tacticsl speed and height, ideally with an IFREP transmitted (even blind) whenever the facility was available as soon as possible thereafter.

Long before the days of GNSS, INS, automated planning systems and the like - just paper charts, G4F compass and stopwatch. Single seat, 'German' LL Wx and no navaids.

I wonder whether many RAF pilots could match that sort of skill these days? OK, I know that high speed FJ LL isn't the be-all and end-all that it used to be, but surely it's a skill worth maintaining?

[Bob Viking]

Many of today’s pilots would still be able to do what you describe using a map and stopwatch (it wasn’t that long ago that we were still teaching it). But why would we?

With modern planning systems we could plan for ten targets and be ready in 15 minutes. I could pretty much guarantee time over target accuracy to the second as well. Weather permitting, as was always the case.

I might as well ask if the pilots of yesteryear could have managed a swing role mission involving self designated LGB targets, Brimstone deliveries, AMRAAM tactics and all manner of other tasks.

The answer to all of the above is that all of the pilots could cope with all of the tasks. If they were trained to do so.

The basic qualities of the pilots have not changed over the years. The tasks and requirements have.

Why am I still having to tell you this?!

BV

Jamie, yes it was in a Hawk.

[flighthappens]

Jamie,

Low-Level is a means to an end. What I mean by that is that it gets you in position to do what your supposed to be doing (employing weapons, picking up or dropping stuff at various places).

As such, it is not the be all end all. In a modern fast jet it is not even close to the the most stimulating part of the role. You will be way more stimulated at medium level in a 60 ship Red Flag package, opposed by 20+ red air and a dense SAM belt, than you will be blasting through the Mach Loop for the 20th time.

Or consider dropping weapons danger close CAS, coordinating both within your element, and outside, where the precision and timeliness of your employment has real world effects on if the good guys or bad guys live or die. There are many more examples.

I’d suggest that you should be asking more questions about what people find stimulating/satisfying about their current roles, than dreaming about 40 year old (and now largely irrelevant) aircraft and employment methods.

[Ken Scott]

But that was in the C130 from 25 years ago, surely the J model today has made that easier/faster?

Jamie,

Not quite. Twenty-five years ago we did it all by hand, the Nav’s had a bit of string with minute marks on so that we could do non-straight legs down the valleys. Planning cycle was around 3 hrs as I recall.

Today it’s all done on computer, lots of lovely maps printed out, route run through another computer to ensure no conflicts at LL. Planning cycle around 3 hrs.

Computers have improved the quality of the product but not speeded things up.

[Il Duce]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Andover...............

[Uplinker]

I'd take an old Defender over a modern Bentley every time, much more fun and characterful.


Even if you were driving from, say London to Edinburgh? (Or even London to Birmingham for that matter ! )

[Tim27]

Miss the Fin....100 ft / 500 kts....Mach Loop...Star Wars Valley...Caliente...the purple haze....even Happy Valley and the sand pit....such memories, T-shirts and stories...however (reluctantly!) have to admit, IMHO ugly as it looks, the F-35s do look impressive turning over the house in the circuit at Marham...

[Herod]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Andover...............

Here ya go. "The Andover"...Done

[esa-aardvark]

Tim27, not far from Marham, not a sound of F-35's.
Have they gone sound-stealthy, or has tier 5 grounded them.

[cafesolo]

The great thing about the Andover was....Only one door: impossible to have a collision after jumping from an Andover. Ask any ex-para.

[The...Bird]

Tim27, not far from Marham, not a sound of F-35's.
Have they gone sound-stealthy, or has tier 5 grounded them.

Or they just never fly because of costs and need?
I don't think they are as impressive and interesting to fly on the inside as they 'are' on the outside. I personally think they look ugly, the C variant looks the best as it at least looks proportionate with the larger wings and looks to have much better visibility than the B.

[Boeing Jet]

The Harrier looked a lot better!!

[Tim27]

Tim27, not far from Marham, not a sound of F-35's.
Have they gone sound-stealthy, or has tier 5 grounded them.

There was a beautiful CAVOK day, (the sort of weather the Stn Cdr goes flying!) recently and it looked as if someone was having fun in the radar circuit...haven’t noticed anything today.

[betty swallox]

Jamie. There’s clearly a lot of egos on this thread, the “back in my day” gang, and some “look how high I can pee!” comments.

If you fancy a real challenge, taking nothing away from any other aeroplanes mentioned above, you could do a lot worse than the Poseidon MRA Mk1. A very varied job, with a good bunch of low level flying thrown in. There’s a huge amount of information available on line, and the RAF Facebook page has lots of great info (yours etc) on Poseidon.

Best of luck!

[betty swallox]

Jamie. There’s clearly a lot of egos on this thread, the “back in my day” gang, and some “look how high I can pee!” comments. And, as ever, some really good stuff, thank goodness!

If you fancy a real challenge, taking nothing away from any other aeroplanes mentioned above, you could do a lot worse than the Poseidon MRA Mk1. A very varied job, with a good bunch of low level flying thrown in. There’s a huge amount of information available on line, and the RAF Facebook page has lots of great info (yours etc) on Poseidon.

Best of luck

[Paying Guest]

Or they just never fly because of costs and need?
I don't think they are as impressive and interesting to fly on the inside as they 'are' on the outside. I personally think they look ugly, the C variant looks the best as it at least looks proportionate with the larger wings and looks to have much better visibility than the B.

Just as well we didn't select the Boeing X-32 then! Now that was an ugly aircraft.

[typerated]

Surely it is this?

https://live.staticflickr.com/894/40621829254_1ddc13b012_h.jpg

Sadly they don't have many

[chevvron]

From around 65 years ago:





Long before the days of GNSS, INS, automated planning systems and the like - just paper charts, G4F compass and stopwatch. Single seat, 'German' LL Wx and no navaids.

I wonder whether many RAF pilots could match that sort of skill these days? OK, I know that high speed FJ LL isn't the be-all and end-all that it used to be, but surely it's a skill worth maintaining?
DECCA TANS; and you forgot the Doppler based GPS (Ground Positioning System)

[chevvron]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Andover...............
I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.:ok:

[Green Flash]

Chipmunk T10. :)

[Bob Viking]

We all have a sense of humour but the Chipmunk? Do me a favour.

BV

[JamieKnight95]

"yes it was in a Hawk" - I rest my case.

Is 100 Sqn still a streaming option after AJT, particularly if you have a desire to be streamed there onto the Hawk T1?

If not, then I feel the answer to my original question probably isn't FJ if the only option is Typhoon or F-35, could somebody comment on this?

From everything posted on here so far it seems to either be the Herc or Poseidon, I still think the C-17 must be as well, they seem to be constantly flying going all over the world doing all kinds of missions.

What's wrong with the Chipmunk?

In response to the Spit, that's why I wrote excluding the BBMF in my original question. Although the question now is do you HAVE to go FJ if you want to fly Spits and Hurricanes and the rest further down the line? Surely hours and experience in a Chipmunk or other vintage taildraggers is more useful and relevant to getting into WWII fighters than hours in an F-35 or Typhoon?

Thanks again for all the input and info,
Jamie

[Bob Viking]

I think you need to have a long hard think about why you want to be an RAF pilot and what you want to get out of it.

You also need to think about how you would present yourself to the RAF.

Firstly if your username denotes the year of your birth you need to be sure you can start IOT in time. I will admit to having no idea if there are caveats based on age due to COVID currently.

My main point though is that you shouldn’t be planning to fly as an RAF pilot just so you can see what it is like at LL.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should join the RAF with the ambition to fly the Hawk T1 so they can watch the world rush by at 250’.

Just because I have been stuck on the Hawk for years and still get to do some fun flying it does not mean I think anyone should have Hawk flying as their ambition.

If your reason for not wanting to fly Typhoon or F35 is because of the lack of LL flying I suggest you need your head read!

Sure you may not get as many flying hours or time at LL as some multi engine pilots but there is a lot more to it than that.

I’m sure Poseidon, for example, offers a very fulfilling career but I wouldn’t suggest you follow that path just so you can fly at 500’ over the sea for hours on end.

Please take this as friendly advice but if you are a genuine wannabe and not just trolling for fun then I suggest you have a long hard think about what you’re really after.

To everyone else who probably thinks I’m just a FJ throbber who is trying to big up FJs over Multis you are wrong.

Anyone who offers advice should try to be subjective.

Just as I (as an ex Jag mate who is now on my sixth Hawk tour) can suggest not to make the Hawk your end goal, multi engine guys shouldn’t pretend that their flying job is constant wanging around the Welsh valleys at LL.

As for the Chipmunk, I flew in it many times as an Air Cadet. I enjoyed the experience of flying immensely but I found the Chipmunk to be bloody uncomfortable and noisy (the helmets were like a medieval torture device).

If you are thinking about BBMF I would suggest you need to put that on the back burner.

Most guys I know who head that way have 15-20 years flying experience beforehand.

BV

[JamieKnight95]

I think you need to have a long hard think about why you want to be an RAF pilot and what you want to get out of it.

You also need to think about how you would present yourself to the RAF.

Firstly if your username denotes the year of your birth you need to be sure you can start IOT in time. I will admit to having no idea if there are caveats based on age due to COVID currently.

My main point though is that you shouldn’t be planning to fly as an RAF pilot just so you can see what it is like at LL.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should join the RAF with the ambition to fly the Hawk T1 so they can watch the world rush by at 250’.

Just because I have been stuck on the Hawk for years and still get to do some fun flying it does not mean I think anyone should have Hawk flying as their ambition.

If your reason for not wanting to fly Typhoon or F35 is because of the lack of LL flying I suggest you need your head read!

Sure you may not get as many flying hours or time at LL as some multi engine pilots but there is a lot more to it than that.

I’m sure Poseidon, for example, offers a very fulfilling career but I wouldn’t suggest you follow that path just so you can fly at 500’ over the sea for hours on end.

Please take this as friendly advice but if you are a genuine wannabe and not just trolling for fun then I suggest you have a long hard think about what you’re really after.

To everyone else who probably thinks I’m just a FJ throbber who is trying to big up FJs over Multis you are wrong.

Anyone who offers advice should try to be subjective.

Just as I (as an ex Jag mate who is now on my sixth Hawk tour) can suggest not to make the Hawk your end goal, multi engine guys shouldn’t pretend that their flying job is constant wanging around the Welsh valleys at LL.

As for the Chipmunk, I flew in it many times as an Air Cadet. I enjoyed the experience of flying immensely but I found the Chipmunk to be bloody uncomfortable and noisy (the helmets were like a medieval torture device).

If you are thinking about BBMF I would suggest you need to put that on the back burner.

Most guys I know who head that way have 15-20 years flying experience beforehand.

BV

Thank you for the advice, I have thought about everything you mention. As I said before LL is not the be all end all. Let's drop LL given we know it's irrelevance, insignificance and what still does it and what does not.

The original question, if it did not come across, was which aircraft from the perspective of the pilot and flying, is the best to be on. Not just about LL.
Which aircraft gives you the best 'piloting experience'. That could come under, most hands on raw experience with the aircraft, the roles and missions of the aircraft, where they go in the world for what purpose, how often they fly, will hours on X aircraft be better for you and open up more opportunities further down the line than hours on Y aircraft...etc ? I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

What is wrong with having the Hawk T1 as an ambition? It's a streaming option and a unit and type carrying out a specific role in the RAF? For me it's mainly because of the flying experience it offers and is said to be one of the best aircraft ever made. If that isn't appealing or a big enough reason then I don't know what is.
Did you, and to anyone else, not have the ambition of flying the Phantom or Tornado or Jaguar when you joined?

[Bob Viking]

When I joined I wanted to fly the Tornado GR1 (as it was then) having made my mind up as a 14 year old after watching Gulf War videos. I later opted for the Jaguar as I progressed through training several years later and was successful in my crusade.

The Hawk is a training aircraft. It is a means to an end. Although 100 Sqn use it in a support role (and other nations have used it in an operational role) it should not be the jet you join the RAF to fly.

Being a Hawk QFI after having gained front line experience is a different kettle of fish.

As much as I loved my tour teaching Tac Wpns on the Hawk T1 (before we formerly started to use the Skymap GPS I might add) I have no desire to fly it again. I much prefer the avionics of the later marks of Hawk. I simply cannot bring myself to fly a jet without a HUD in the year 2021.

Yes, the Hawk offers a great flying experience and is a lot of fun but would you really take that over a Typhoon or an F35?!

All future frontline FJ pilots will spend time on the Hawk as a rite of passage (or maybe even the T38!) and can always come back to it later but it really should not be the aim. You cannot make a career out of flying the Hawk without at least having gained some experience elsewhere either before or after a Hawk tour.

As for which frontline type is the best for pure flying I’m going to butt out of that argument since I haven’t flown any of them.

BV

[Video Mixdown]

The original question, if it did not come across, was which aircraft from the perspective of the pilot and flying, is the best to be on.
You’re not really listening unless it’s what you want to hear, are you? There is no 'best' aircraft. The distinguished pilots on this forum have eloquently written about the enjoyment and satisfaction they have gained from flying just about every aircraft type that has ever entered service - even those types that are now the butt of jokes because of their well-documented shortcomings. These aircraft were not provided for them to have ‘fun’ in, and I suspect much of this enjoyment and satisfaction is more to do with the mission and the people with whom they served than the particular aircraft type in question. They will also confirm that service life can also be tedious, unpleasant, uncomfortable and dangerous at times. The same is equally true of the many non-flying professions in the military. If you just want to have fun you’d be better off joining a flying club. As BV says “you need to have a long hard think about why you want to be an RAF pilot and what you want to get out of it”.

[LOMCEVAK]

A few thoughts of mine on this:
1. It is not the type that you fly that matters but what you do with it. You could fly the most powerful and agile aircraft in the world but if all you were allowed to do is 30 degree banked turns at 10 000 ft you would be bored very quickly. Even an exciting and challenging flight profile such as high speed, low level soon becomes boring if you can only fly that one profile. Variety of tasks is definitely what gives job satisfaction, and as has been said above the 'fun' comes from job satisfaction.
2. No two pilots are the same and each of us has different motivations and enthusiasm towards different forms of flying. For example, I really enjoy inverted spinning but many do not!
3. Two pilots, three opinions.