"You can't kill a Squadron"

[kluge]

.......and rightly so given the history of conflict and the sacrifices made.

How and who decides which Squadron's are reformed and why ?

A genuine question from the ignorant (not a journo) and asked with the greatest of respect for past and present members of HM Royal Air Force.

And will there ever be new ones formed and if so what would that take ?

Thank you

Kluge

[Roland Pulfrew]

kluge

Have a read through this topic (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/121795-disbanding-squadrons.html). Should answer some of your questions.

[kluge]

Appreciated sir.

Thank you for the guidance.

Best

K

[Tiger_mate]

The decisions are made at the highest levels: AOC level.

There have been trends in recent years to preserve elderly Sqns. ie The lower the number the more likely to survive. Whilst one could argue that therefore No1 Sqn will be the final survivor to switch the lights off, there are influencing factors such as:

Sqns with history well known in the public domain: ie 617 Dambusters.
The fact that some of the most elderly sqns are ex coastal command and therefore 3 digit starting with '2' ie 216 / 230 rather then 1-2-3 etc.

Resurections of dormant Sqns are very rare although not unknown. 99 C17s comes to mind.

OCU/OCF were rebadged in a laudable attempt IMHO to retain Sqn identities.

Worth remembering that some wartime Sqn numbers were allocated to Czech, Dutch and Polish Sqns and I believe that some of these (now ex RAF) sqn numbers survive in their respective countries.

On occasions when the RAF is further reduced aircraft role and history in that role appears to influence number retention. Cynics will state that the background of certain senior officers having risen to the decision making levels are biased to their own Sqn history. Trends change over the years and it would be impossible to predict the number of the next sqn that will definately go.

[Roland Pulfrew]

TM

Almost correct, only the 200 series are older than Coastal Command. They were originally RNAS sqns which were renumbered by adding the 2 in front ie 1 Sqn RNAS became 201 Sqn RAF and 2 Sqn became 202 etc, etc.

:Anorak On:
According to Jefford's book "RAF Squadrons" 1 - 200 were RFC/RAF Squadrons; 201 - 299 were ex RNAS; 300 - 309 were Polish sqns; 310 - 313 Czech; 315 - 318 Polish; 320 - 322 Dutch; 326 - 329 French; 330 - 334 Norwegian; 335 - 336 Greek; 340 - 347 French; 349 - 350 Belgian; 353 - 399 RAF; 400 - 445 Canadian; 450 - 467 Australian; 485 - 460 NZ; 500 - 509 Special Reserve/RAuxAF; 510 - 599 RAF; 600 - 616 RAuxAF; 617 - 650 RAF; 651 - 673 Army associated; 674 - 699 RAF.
:Anorak Off:

Edited to add: I believe that the 700 and 800 series were all Fleet Air Arm and according to the RAFHT 900 series were Aux AF Balloon Sqns

A lot of the badges can be seen here (http://www.griffon.clara.net/rafh/badge_a.htm)

[Archimedes]

If you know which fleet is to lose a squadron, then it is reasonably easy to predict.

In essence - it won't be 617 or 120, since their being awarded their standards ahead of the required 25 years accumulated service for award of the same has saved them from disbandment in the past.

AOCs do attempt to interfere, but in the past 15 years or so have be confounded by the head of the AHB, who tells them that there is a policy on number plates, which was established by the Air Force Board, and that if they wish it to be changed, they will (a) have to write a new policy and (b) then get it through the Air Staff.

The usual account used for stating the influence of senior officers concerns the reformation of 25(F) on the F3 back in the late 80s, where it is often alleged that a member of the Air Staff brought it about because that was his old squadron, thus ensuring that 85 and 60 Sqns, which had (it was said by some) a better claim to being reformed, were left in the lurch.

This rather overlooks the fact that on the AHB list of seniority, 25 was way ahead of the other two units and that of the numberplates not in use at the time, it was the obvious candidate if the rules were to be followed.

Any new squadrons formed in future - unless we have an expansion of the service on the same scale as the late 1930s - will have their numberplate decided upon the following:

1. Seniority
2. Past history in the role.
3. Possession (or not) of a standard.

If a training unit is to be awarded a numberplate, though, then other factors apply and seniority is not key; had it beem 76(R) would have reformed using a different numberplate. Service as a reserve squadron does not count towards reckonable service and thus (to date) does not affect the calculation of seniority.

[kluge]

What a wonderful read from Mr RP post #2. Thank you, sir.

Seems to be from the a fore mentioned link, the answer to the first question comes down to:

- Tradition
- Seniority (Influence - OCU status)
- WWII record (617 and CXX are special exemptions)
- Cranwell or St Clement Danes (laid up) and written with the greatest of respect esp the latter.
- Convenience
- Badge Style
- Can of worms
- Politics

And the potential for the formation of new squadrons ?

Asked with respect.

[teeteringhead]

The "seniority" question is not straightforward either. The figure is arrived at from the time the squadron was "active", ie, front line and not disbanded. So for a start there are two "divisions", depending on whether or not the sqn was disbanded between WW1 and WW2. Those not so disbanded are likely to have the thick end of 20 years more "time in" than those who were .... which is one reason why 230 "beat" 72 for the NI sqn numberplate. :{

Once a sqn goes to reserve status, gets its (R) as an OCU or FTS, it gets no more seniority as it is no longer deemed "active", so will continue to lag even further behind ......

[c-bert]

One thing I've never understood is why 606 was passed over during the 30s/40s as a RAuxAF sqn number and only created in the 90s.

Anyone know?

[Pontius Navigator]

Anorak on:

There are other odd ones too as not every number has been allocated. I believe 188 is the lowest number not to have been allocated but it did feature in a film - can't remember which one.

The very newest sqn was 360 as it had never been formed during the war and 361 was also allocated at the same time but not formed. It might also be said that 360 was the first training sqn with a number as it had no operational war role in its peacetime guise. It was earmarked for airborne relay so, in that role, it might have claimed operational status.

[Tiger_mate]

I believe "360" was the sum total of a RN Sqn added to the number of an RAF Sqn, but I could be wrong.

[Green Flash]

Where do the Rock squadrons fit into the numberplate scheme of things, then? And the FP Wings too?

[Archimedes]

Initialy, 360 was meant to bear the numberplate of a dormant unit. As it was to be a joint unit, it was suggested that 207 might be an appropriate 'plate, given its heritage as a former RNAS unit.

I forget why, but it was decided to start from a clean sheet of paper in terms of unit heritage and seniority, and 360 and 361 were chosen instead.

Although Jefford's bible doesn't have 188 squadron listed, there is some evidence that it got as far as getting some chaps together with the intention of it being a home defence squadron; however, before this was made official, the personnel earmarked for the squadron were sent to other units, and the formation did not go ahead.

606 Squadron was meant to form; it got to the point that squadron code letters were reserved for it at about the time of the Munich crisis.

Anorak off...

[diginagain]

I believe 188 is the lowest number not to have been allocated but it did feature in a film - can't remember which one.

"Appointment in London", 1952.

There is some speculation that 188 was allocated to a night fighter training unit based in Kent between December 1917 and March 1919.

[TwoTunnels]

maybe you can..but at least you'll get promoted!

[Pontius Navigator]

Google is your friend - I have found that 188 did exist even if only from 1917-1919.

The Royal Air Force - History Section (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/h188.html)