Rumour: 25 or 43 to return?
It would be easier if they stopped the pretence of there being seniority rules. How can time spent as a non-flying squadron count as seniority?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or how 'Reserve Status' numberplates don't count despite those Units being flying Sqns.
The whole thing is a bugger's muddle.
Last edited by ExAscoteer; 23rd Aug 2017 at 13:22.
Such as 92 (East India) Sqn - of RAFG Lightning F2A and Phantom FGR2 fame - not to mention shooting down the most aircraft in WWII (317) and since (1 x Jaguar) - now being No 92 (Reserve) Tactics & Training Sqn [formerly Tactics & Training Wg] at the Air Warfare Centre.
From this:
To this [deliberately omitting the Hawk era which I also felt was an abomination !]
From this:
To this [deliberately omitting the Hawk era which I also felt was an abomination !]
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV
Yes, and nor I you. But note that I am engineer.
Agree with all of that. I couldn't claim to not be biased or swayed by old allegiances. The problem is that too much of this, and much worse besides, features in decision making now. So many of MoD and service decisions are based on the best (selfish) interests of an individual rather than what is best for the Services.
As others have pointed out, this is unlikely to be based on any logic. It will be an inviduals whim, or maybe even some quasi-political decision.
S-D
Have you ever been a member of a flying Sqn? I don't know you from Adam. I assume, since you are on this forum, you have at least a passing acquaintance.
You could easily argue that none of it matters. Those of us that have been on Sqns would of course disagree. It is the same as asking an infantryman if he cares about being a member of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Would he rather just be a member of number 36 infantry regiment with no associated history.
Whilst your military colleagues may not care I'd be amazed if any of them that have been on Sqns would claim not to.
I just think the world would be a sadder place if we all stopped caring. It would, however, keep on turning I'm sure.
BV
Whilst your military colleagues may not care I'd be amazed if any of them that have been on Sqns would claim not to.
I just think the world would be a sadder place if we all stopped caring. It would, however, keep on turning I'm sure.
BV
As others have pointed out, this is unlikely to be based on any logic. It will be an inviduals whim, or maybe even some quasi-political decision.
S-D
Last edited by salad-dodger; 24th Aug 2017 at 09:07.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,535
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
16 Posts
I've been thinking that it is about time that the RAF renumbered all their Sqns, starting at 1 and going consecutively up to however many Sqns we actually have now. All these numbers, 47, 70, 99, 101, 617, to highlight a few, give the impression that we have a larger air force than we actually have.
There is no disrespect aimed at any of those, or any of the other higher numbered Sqns, but if the Sqn number plates represented what we actually had, then perhaps joe public may realise just how small the RAF is now.
There is no disrespect aimed at any of those, or any of the other higher numbered Sqns, but if the Sqn number plates represented what we actually had, then perhaps joe public may realise just how small the RAF is now.
Some of the top fighter Squadrons surely deserved the protection that was accorded to No.120 and No.617 Squadrons?
When I was young and slim, the foremost fighter squadrons (most of them flying silver-painted Lightnings with gaudy checkerboard markings) were the great squadrons from the Battle of Britain and the war years, and were, pretty much, the same squadrons, with the same gaudy checkerboards that my Dad had seen as a boy when they were flying Furies and Gauntlets and the like.
How can it be that 19 and 92, 56 and 74, 43 and 111, 41 and 54 are all moribund when the frontline includes the relatively undistinguished 1, II, 3, and 11, and 31?
RAFEngO74to09 makes a good case for 92, but an equally good case could be made for 19 (first Spitfire Squadron, Duxford wing, prominent in the BoB), or for 74 (Sailor Malan's outfit) and for 56, 43 and 111.
Not for the first time, I'd strongly support an adoption of the French system, with individual Flights being given squadron identities, and with squadrons carrying one unit's markings on one side of the tail, and another unit's colours on the other. OC 'B' Flight on what is now No.3 Squadron might thus become OC 111 Squadron… a Squadron Leader commanding something called a Squadron. Twice as many squadron number plates in use and saved from oblivion. It will never catch on.
When I was young and slim, the foremost fighter squadrons (most of them flying silver-painted Lightnings with gaudy checkerboard markings) were the great squadrons from the Battle of Britain and the war years, and were, pretty much, the same squadrons, with the same gaudy checkerboards that my Dad had seen as a boy when they were flying Furies and Gauntlets and the like.
How can it be that 19 and 92, 56 and 74, 43 and 111, 41 and 54 are all moribund when the frontline includes the relatively undistinguished 1, II, 3, and 11, and 31?
RAFEngO74to09 makes a good case for 92, but an equally good case could be made for 19 (first Spitfire Squadron, Duxford wing, prominent in the BoB), or for 74 (Sailor Malan's outfit) and for 56, 43 and 111.
Not for the first time, I'd strongly support an adoption of the French system, with individual Flights being given squadron identities, and with squadrons carrying one unit's markings on one side of the tail, and another unit's colours on the other. OC 'B' Flight on what is now No.3 Squadron might thus become OC 111 Squadron… a Squadron Leader commanding something called a Squadron. Twice as many squadron number plates in use and saved from oblivion. It will never catch on.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been thinking that it is about time that the RAF renumbered all their Sqns, starting at 1 and going consecutively up to however many Sqns we actually have now. All these numbers, 47, 70, 99, 101, 617, to highlight a few, give the impression that we have a larger air force than we actually have.
There is no disrespect aimed at any of those, or any of the other higher numbered Sqns, but if the Sqn number plates represented what we actually had, then perhaps joe public may realise just how small the RAF is now.
There is no disrespect aimed at any of those, or any of the other higher numbered Sqns, but if the Sqn number plates represented what we actually had, then perhaps joe public may realise just how small the RAF is now.
Everything and its dog seems to be given a squadron number at the moment - and it's getting a bit laughable.
S-D
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the score with 71(IR) Sqn? I've never heard of this type of squadron numbering before other than for RAF Regt.
71(IR) Sqn
Similarly, maybe allocate the unused historic flying squadron numberplates to admin, logistic and engineering squadrons at MOBs.
71(IR) Sqn
Similarly, maybe allocate the unused historic flying squadron numberplates to admin, logistic and engineering squadrons at MOBs.
Two Tunnels,
I believe that 71 (Inspection and Repair) Squadron harks back to No. 71 Maintenance Unit.
Further proof that the RAF recognises that it is a broad church and not just a bunch of fighter Squadrons from 1940...
I believe that 71 (Inspection and Repair) Squadron harks back to No. 71 Maintenance Unit.
Further proof that the RAF recognises that it is a broad church and not just a bunch of fighter Squadrons from 1940...
And who cares about them?
Oh yes, there was someone, once, long ago. Elderly fat bloke. Now what was it he said?
"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."
It was certainly the RAF's finest hour, and well worth celebrating and commemorating, even if you weren't quite good/lucky enough to serve on one of these squadrons yourself, I'd have thunk.
Oh yes, there was someone, once, long ago. Elderly fat bloke. Now what was it he said?
"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."
It was certainly the RAF's finest hour, and well worth celebrating and commemorating, even if you weren't quite good/lucky enough to serve on one of these squadrons yourself, I'd have thunk.
On the subject of daft titles, it wasn't long after the South Atlantic war before an organisation entitled 'Tactical Admin' appeared down South.
Surely an oxymoron?
Or did they use DPM typewriter ribbon?
Surely an oxymoron?
Or did they use DPM typewriter ribbon?
Jackonicko,
Who said ANYTHING about not caring about them? They are one part of an illustrious near 100 year history, but only 1.
Shame that the quote never came true, a bit like the Third Reich not lasting for a thousand years, nor did the British Empire.
And I served on two of them, you?
Who said ANYTHING about not caring about them? They are one part of an illustrious near 100 year history, but only 1.
Shame that the quote never came true, a bit like the Third Reich not lasting for a thousand years, nor did the British Empire.
And I served on two of them, you?
Deliverance,
I suppose you have a point, they are doing something broadly similar with Groups, but there are plenty of Squadrons with a proud fighter history still in existence, 56 is still going at Waddington for example.
And most of the famous fighter squadrons started out as Corps Reconnaissance outfits anyway, as a specialised squadron the term "fighter" in reality didn't last that long.
I suppose you have a point, they are doing something broadly similar with Groups, but there are plenty of Squadrons with a proud fighter history still in existence, 56 is still going at Waddington for example.
And most of the famous fighter squadrons started out as Corps Reconnaissance outfits anyway, as a specialised squadron the term "fighter" in reality didn't last that long.
Because the system, for all its faults, attempts to deal with the subjectivity highlighted in your analysis of 'relatively undistinguished'.
The counter to your argument - and before we start, this is Devil's Advocate time to highlight the point - would be this.
1 Squadron is one of the first three squadrons in RFC/RAF history. A highly successful fighter squadron in WW1, it served throughout the interwar period, was the RAF's most successful squadron in the Battle of France, fought through the Battle of Britain, had at worst a 'solid' record for the rest of the war (some historians would argue that even that's unfair), flew during Op MUSKETEER, introduced the Harrier, was particularly successful during CORPORATE (Julian Thompson is on record as saying that the Harrier attack at Goose Green was, in his opinion, the critical element in tipping the Argentines into surrender) and has been involved in every operation in which the RAF has sent FJ bar Granby.
2 Squadron - highly successful in WW1 (including first VC awarded to an aviator), served with distinction - and complication when it came to Ireland - in the interwar era and after the travails with the Lysander in 1940, became one of, it not the, premiere Fighter Recce squadron(s) with Mustang I/II and then Spits. Also notable because with
3 Squadron - flew the first ever sortie by the RFC when to avoid subsequent banter (failed) , the squadron OCs decided upon a pairs take off. Then very distinguished WW1 service, particularly in the A-G role in 1917; served throughout the interwar period. Again, like 1 Squadron, record in WW2 was at worst 'jolly decent'.
11 Squadron - the RAF's first fighter squadron and quite possibly the world's first dedicated fighter squadron. Record in WW1 includes flying FE2 and Brisfit with distinction; record in WW2 includes gallant efforts against Japanese (when squadron had Blenheims) and then actually fairly distinguished service in Burma on Hurricanes - but being in Burma, largely forgotten/ignored.
31 Squadron - more of a 'in right place at right time' for some of history one would accept, but operations in interwar period and against Japanese (and then in Indonesia in 1946) do help the squadron stand out rather more than people think.
On the flip side...
54 - Decent WW1 record and clear period of distinction in BoB. Then out to Darwin and Far East and a relatively speaking quiet war. Flew Atlantic in 1948, and then record of solid achievement throughout Cold War, into Granby, former Yugoslavia, etc. But more distinguished than 2 Squadron?
74 Squadron - formed late in WW1, did extremely well in short period of existence, then disbanded and reformed in 1935. Distinguished record in BoB (stand fast Battle of Barking Creek or similar blue-on-blue). Then out to Middle East doing canal defence and a period which was, to borrow a phrase 'relatively undistinguished'. Back to NW Europe on Spits for final combat operations. Successful in Fighter Command and distinction imposed upon it by selection as first Lightning squadron. Thence to Far East, solid service, disbanded and then victim of lack of seniority until reformation in 1984. More distinguished than 11?
Now, you can do the same for the other squadrons - the point is that you can take a squadron's record and describe it as distinguished or otherwise, depending upon how you tackle the history, the problem being that when you start comparing those histories, the subjectivity comes into play. The Air Staff and AHB recognised this in the post-war era and thus the system of seniority we have comes into play in a bid to remove that subjectivity. The correspondence in the PRO/National Archives about squadrons is interesting in that it rather gives the lie to the idea that a very senior officer will always interfere and a squadron will re-emerge at their whim - attempts at influence clearly happen (e.g. 139 Squadron where former members enlisted the help of the Jamaican government to try to keep it on the books as a Buccaneer squadron after the Victor B2 went), but the evidence suggests that they rarely succeed in the face of the (granted, with some flex) 'rules'
Not for the first time, I'd strongly support an adoption of the French system, with individual Flights being given squadron identities, and with squadrons carrying one unit's markings on one side of the tail, and another unit's colours on the other. OC 'B' Flight on what is now No.3 Squadron might thus become OC 111 Squadron… a Squadron Leader commanding something called a Squadron. Twice as many squadron number plates in use and saved from oblivion. It will never catch on.
I believe that this was looked at. After a bid by a very senior officer to get 79 Squadron into the front line (on Typhoon, IIRC) had been dealt with by AHB, I believe that those responsible for the counting and allocation of beans concluded that while the idea was splendid in theory, there were some resource and budgeting implications which militated against doing this, and that the admin changes and implications (particularly in terms of the fact that you'd instantly have more people who'd done squadron command, which would, it was said, cause problems for Innsworth [as it was at the time]) were the final nail in the idea's coffin. I believe - from the horse's mouth, as it were - that at least one current senior officer is, metaphorically, poised with a crowbar to lever off the coffin's lid, but it's not the most important thing on his agenda.
The system isn't perfect, and there is a balance between wanting to preserve heritage (which is, in my experience observing this, the actual driver rather than attempting to con the public) and going too far - Trenchard would never have approved of the Grob Tutor being flown by a former front line unit, and the current set up with the Hawk T2 wouldn't have arisen, since they'd be operating with 4FTS and without any reserve numberplate as the great man argued that this was quite inappropriate.
