JN etc,
This idea of multiple Sqn identities for a single Sqn is one that has been tried before, it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
40/50 Sqn and 47/53 Sqn spring to mind on Canberra and Beverley respectively, they were neither one thing nor the other and were soon dropped.
If you give multiple Squadron identities to what is only ever going to be a single squadron you completely and totally undermine the very principle of Sqn identity, heritage and tradition. A squadron CANNOT ever be more than one squadron, it just won’t work.
Even in my day the idea of a squadron being split down into A and B Flight with it’s own aircraft, air and groundcrew and leadership was virtually non existent. I understand that today this is even more the case with the Flight Commander tending to have exec responsibilities such as Flt Cdr (Training) or Flt Cdr (Operations) etc in addition to their more traditional identity as A or B Flight commander. I know the SH folk are more traditional in this respect but even there you would be mucking about with semantics if you were to give a current Chinook squadron 3 separate squadron number plates.
Modern logistical and servicing trends are in fact going the other way with larger squadron establishments being the trend. The soon to be 101 Sqn with 16 VC10’s is an example of this, as is the Canadian Forces who are merging CF-18 and C-130 squadrons to twice their normal size with one Sqn number plate where there was previously two in a wing.
As for 8 and 23, surely you are wrong in quoting that example as they are entirely separate squadrons who merely share the use of a common aircraft fleet that is centrally maintained and owned, just as the Herc and Nimrod folk do?
Therefore it is NOT good enough for 8/23 as there is no such thing?
A Squadron is a Squadron and a Flight is a Flight.