22 Crews, 2 Sqns At Kinloss!!!!

[number-cruncher]

Just heard the latest that by 1st April 05 there will only be 22 crews and 2 operational squadrons left at ISK ( not including 42R ). I wonder which sqn will cease to be, 120, 206 or 201?????????????:{ :{ :{

[Archimedes]

NC - if precedent is followed, it will be the junior out of 201 and 206.

120 is protected (under the precedent) since it was awarded its standard early (for its work in the Battle of the Atlantic). Previously, this honour has ensured that it doesn't go in cuts. IIRC, there is evidence in the PRO that 120 wasn't due to receive Nimrod MR 1, but this was overturned when someone pointed out the matter of the standard.

By the by, this is why 617 is still with us - early award of standard, and despite being junior to a number of other numberplates, this has led to other units getting the chop.

When the RAF is cut back to 3 squadrons, they'll be II(AC), 120 and 617...

Now, where did I put my anorak?:8

[Archimedes]

Deliverance,

Bear with me - will answer later from home.

[J.A.F.O.]

So, does that mean 206 goes?

If so, when's the pi$$ up?

[Archimedes]

Didn't think it would be this much later...

Anyway, it runs something like this.

RAF sqns can be awarded their standard after completing 25 years of service (obviously, the unit must be extant and periods of disbandment are not included in the tally) or by 'earning the sovereign's appreciation following specially outstanding operations'.

120 and 617 are the only two sqns to fall into the latter category, which is why they have (or seem to) 'special' status when considering seniority, etc for disbandment/re-equipment.

All the other sqn numberplates are allocated/avoid disbandment on the basis of seniority. The Air Ministry and then MoD have drawn up lists of which units are the most senior in the air force, and these can be found in the PRO.

Obviously, the 30 year rule applies to these documents, but the order in 1973 was:

II(AC)
1
6
4
14
24
8
60
5
12
70
3
25 etc (there are 171 listed in total, so I'll stop there)

The order for the Nimrod sqns in that list is:

201 (43rd in seniority)
42 (77th)
206 (91st)
120 (98th)

All of them will have advanced since then, since some units ahead of them in 1968 are long gone, and will have slipped down the list.

If the precedent pertaining to standards is followed, then as J.A.F.O says, 206 will be the unlucky numberplate.

NB, though, that the rule does not always apply: when the F-4J entered RAF service, the number plate should have been 39 rather than 74, as the 39 plate was free (39 having disbanded and become 1 PRU in 1982 before the PRU was rebranded as 39 (1PRU) later on).

<removes anorak>

[J.A.F.O.]

when's the pi$$ up?

[Biggus]

I wonder how unusual it is, in more recent times, for an RAF squadron to get less than 6 months notice of disbandment. That is when they finally get around to announcing which one is to go (I presume that this hasn't happened yet or it would already be on this thread!).

Blow the Sqn fund on a big party guys!!



P.S I thought when you got down to 2 Sqns then a full blown OCU couldn't be justified on cost grounds, e.g current situation with VC-10s, E-3D, etc. (Not quite sure what the score is on C-130 fleet now there are 2 Sqns K and 2 Sqns J). I thought we ended up with Training Flights or embedded teaching cells within an Operational Sqn (I am old enough to remember the LTF at Binbrook!!).

[StopStart]

Conversion on the C130 is now done by Flights within Sqns: Ks on 70 and Js on 24.

[teeteringhead]

Same on SH - and I expect SAR ere long....

[Biggus]

So can we anticipate closure of the Nimrod OCU as well, being replaced by a flight within one of the two remaining Sqns, to bring the Nimrod fleet into line with current RAF widespread practice?

[buoy15]

Yes Biggus!

We went through lots of evolution in the 80-90''s
One brilliant idea at a Stn tactics board meeting, put forward by a Wg Cdr, was to create a local checking unit called the -"Training Wing Assement Team (****), which ,for some reason, didn't come to fruition - can't understand why?

Love Many, Trust a few, Always padle your own canoe!

Biggus old chap!

Youv\'e either been out of the system a long time, lost touch, or got some sort of aircraft type dementia.

The Nimrod OCU has long been recocognised as the most demanding OCU.

Everybody, but Navs, in particular, work very hard to achieve the objectives of every exercise, whch, as the course progresses, becomes more complicated and demanding, both in the Sim and in the Air.
At the same time, they are expected to develop "tactical awarness" to improve their potential for graduation

[Jackonicko]

It is often suggested that the most distinguished of the ISK squadrons is No.120, thanks to its early experience with VLR Liberators, though its late war service was 'easier', and No.206 had a more distinguished history generally, in both Wars, while 201 was sidelined, to an extent, by being a Sunderland unit.

My opinion on this is, of course, in no way conditioned by my Dad's Wartime service on Lib VIs and VIIIs with 206........

If there are to be 22 crews, why not four or even five numberplates covering what would otherwise be 'A Flight' and help rescue some worthy maritime units from oblivion. The Wing Commander CO posts could be named as (say) No.18 'Biscay' Wing and No.19 'Battle of the Atlantic' Wing, taking on the badges and traditions of 18 and 19 Groups, thereby commemorating Coastal Command's great wartime Groups and its greatest achievements.

[J.A.F.O.]

Jackonicko

You seem to be labouring (no pun intended) under the misapprehension that history began before 2 May 1997.

As far as the current government is concerned anything that happened before that date is irrelevant.

vptoo (ex 206)

:D

And I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous question:

:\ WHEN'S THE PARTY? :yuk:

[Strato Q]

Deliverance:

It may not be the "hardest" but it must be one of the longest, averaging over 8 months to complete.

Jackonicko:

Your distinguished history of maritime squadrons seems to have forgotten the two VCs that 201 Sqn have plus the "Croix de Guerre"

[Biggus]

B15

No need to get so defensive old chap. I was not having a 'pop' at the Nimrod fleet, or suggesting the conversion phase be shortened, dumbed down or whatever. All I was saying is that the conversion element of the Nimrod fleet could perhaps be embedded within one of the Sqns, as per 23 Sqn (I think) for E-3Ds (I am sure the E-3D conversion process is also demanding!!) and as per the rest of the RAF with 2 Sqn fleets it would appear?!! It would save a Wg Cdr post, 3-4 Sqn Ldrs, maybe a building, etc. Then again maybe that is why it hasn't been suggested!!!!!


As for being out of the system, lost touch etc,.... I think not!!

[keithl]

Everybody, but Navs, in particular, work very hard to achieve the objectives of every exercise, whch, as the course progresses, becomes more complicated and demanding, both in the Sim and in the Air.

Apart from the single-seaters, which OCU does this not apply to ?

[StopStart]

The Nimrod OCU has long been recocognised as the most demanding OCU.
:yuk:

As an aside, it's a fact that the Hercules OCU has long been recocognised as the most demanding OCU at Lyneham.

Everybody, but Navs, in particular, work very hard to hinder the objectives of every exercise, whch, as the course progresses, become more tedious and dull, both in the Sim and in the Air.

At the same time, they are expected to develop the ability to read and breathe at the same time to improve their potential for graduation.

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Clearly this will have no influence, but which sqn at Kinloss was AOCinC Strike NOT on?

[Vage Rot]

Biggus,

Don't hold your breath on '
"Blowing the Sqn Fund on a pi55 up"

The Shedster blew the fund on the 85th, in 2001, and it hasn't recovered since!!!

[Archimedes]

PN - according to the blurb on the STC website, AOC-in-C served with 120 and 206. However, the details are a little vague, and leave open the possibility that he may have been with 201 as well...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely it would be better to put your energy into opposing the cuts in aircraft and crews?

This link might interest you. (http://www.manw.nato.int/manw/pages/update/envision_2_03/patrol_aviation.htm)

[RubiC Cube]

In the 70s we had 3 squadrons with a nominal 8 crews each. The plan was to increase it to 9 crews per sqn to cope with the oil surveillance task, but we always struggled to maintain the 8 crews by juggling people around. I think we could probably have just managed 22 crews between the 3 sqns then.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned 201's claim to be the oldest sqn having formed from the old 1 RNAS Sqn.

[BEagle]

"It may not be the "hardest" but it must be one of the longest"

Hmm - what one has often heard about Nimrod folk?

:E

[akula]

Rubic,
The 22 crews mentioned is not just for the 2 Sqns it is for the entire station, trappers, teachers the whole deal.



ALWAYS assume NEVER check

[reynoldsno1]

At one time, 203 Sqn was considered to be the granddaddy of all the RAF maritime squadrons, since its origins could be traced to 1 RANU ... ho hum

[J.A.F.O.]

So, no date set for the party yet?

[Seak1ng]

Found it very hard to stay awake on the Nimrod OCU!

[JimNich]

....yeah, me too.

[circle kay]

JimNich,
Can't think of a time I went forward to the pointy end to serve you with tea when you weren’t carrying out eye lid inspection
be it 42, 236 or any number fromCXX to CCVI

[buoy15]

Biggus and JimNich
You may have missed the thrust of my thread
The Nimrod OCU has moved on in leaps and bounds since the wall came down.The fast progress of new software and hardware has resulted in at least 2 reviews of the training syllabus in the last 5 years, all conducted by the staff, some of whom have had limited experience in such major events. The newly established educator at the time (the expert), provided helpful info on positioning of magiboards etc, but never performed a Task Analysis, Lesson plan or Objective Syllabus, as he was out of his depth due to unfarmiliarality with the job. and the number trades involved in a short time-scale production.
Additionally, the course length remained the same. The OCU taught basics and the Sqn Training Teams (STT's) traditionally picked up "special fits" (at least 6) to bring individuals and crews up to full CR standard within 9 months.
They feventually felt the pinch, mainly through manning levels and other demands, so the Sqn bosses appealed to the Ninrod Training and Standards Board ( the school governors) to change the input standard - post OCU. Some of these special fits have now become core skills and are taught to LCR, within the traditionally ring-fenced programme.
They then did a beauty. Recognising areas where more slots would be needed to consolidate basics; they agreed the extra time, but the course length was adjusted by taking out buffer days;these are essential to cover weather and unserviceabilities
Particularly a simulator ride 1st thing monday morning (HO!HO!). This reduced the flex quite a bit.
I remember the Sqn boss saying at the initial meeting -
" Ok chaps. I recognise this latest review is a big job and will take up a lot of your spare time. Unfortunately. it's not possible to extend the length of the OCU to accommodate the extra core skills and there is no extra funding. However, if you can identify savings during the review, please let me know!!

Brilliant!! He plays off a handicap of 6 by the way!

[BEagle]

You mean your boss was actually prepared to accept inputs? Well, bugger me with a fishfork if that isn't a bit of a novel concept......

[MAD Boom]

Jimmy Nich,
How'd u enjoy Orlando? Saw u walk past while I was queueing at Universal.

Circle Kay,
Hope the family r ok.

As for the thread, is this news new? Thought it had been out for a while.

[Vage Rot]

Sea king old son!!

Me too - still, plenty of time to visit JoSpanners and enjoy some local hospitality!

[JimNich]

Circle old chap, I was just conserving energy for the consumption of the next dairy cream sponge. An arduous and demanding task requiring all of my multi-tasking skills. And you have to say, there are some VERY strange things afoot at the ISK.

Mad Boom, sorry I missed you at Universal. Was I wearing my " If any of these effing kids ask me when we're going home again I'm going to effing garotte them" expression? Anyway hope you had a great time, we actually really enjoyed it despite the whinging offspring (place is wasted on kids).

Bouy 15, not entirely sure what you're on about here but suffice to say I was on 42 when the "Review of Training" was carried out. I think you're being a wee bit unfair to the educator though, poor chap was virtually shut out from day one as the seperate trades closed ranks, scuttled off to their respective offices and didn't come out again 'til they'd finished their own reviews. Had the process been allowed to develop properly (within a sensible time scale of course. A trifle more than say, two nano seconds) the educator could have been employed to produce a full Training Needs Analysis (of which the Task Analysis is only a small part). Sure, a lengthy and tortuous process but one I'm sure he would have completed extremely well without the nuisance of having to stop and carry out his primary duty of instructing students all the time.

I've got a headache now.:zzz:

[J.A.F.O.]

Has the date for the party been set, yet?

:yuk:

[FEWNCOP]

Apparently, an ex OC B is still on the run with all the party money!!! (and a whole load of glassware!!)
;)

[Hoots]

Hopefully it will all be a lot clearer come monday morning. As CXX are first to get the briefing maybe its them who are disbanding. It would be the decent thing to tell the disbanding Sqn first. All speculation of course.

[tescoapp]

JimNich that wouldn't be the ugly sod who looks a wee bit like a famous tennis player?

I here you escaped flogging around the sea at stupid feet, to flogging around at stupid feet looking for fishing boats but are doing more hours in one month than the P1 and P2 were doing in one year. (good onya BTW)

I hope the fish suppers in the northern Isles are as good as they say.

[navoff]

JimNich

Check your private messages.

Navoff

[Jackonicko]

Hoots,

CXX seem like the right choice to go, but not the EASIEST, therefore I suspect it will be 206.

JN

[difar69]

And why exactly would CXX be the right choice to go? I suggest you research the situation regarding the disbanding Sqn, a little more. It has nothing to do with what is easiest!

[Jackonicko]

Why? Because, in my view, the policy of giving certain squadrons 'sacrosanct' status for one very brief episode in their history (as was given to 617 and CXX) is mistaken. Moreover, while I wouldn't want to do diminish what 120 achieved, I don't think that it did any more than the other Nimrod units.

Because, in my view, certainly 206, and probably 201 as well, are more 'worth saving' than CXX on the basis of their service record over the years.

Because I'm entirely biased, and several of the best men I know served with 206 on Libs during 44-46. Including my Dad.

Why is keeping 120 the 'easiest' option? Because spineless, know-nothing blunt bureucrats have already made their decision (on largely specious and spurious grounds), and have already consigned the RAF's most distinguished and historic maritime unit to the rubbish bin. These are the same people who thought that Strike Command's three Groups should be named as No.s 1, 2 and 3, and that retaining historic identities like 8, 11, 18, or 38 was unnecessary! The same tw@ts who have given us a frontline without 19, 92, 56, 74, and 111 Squadrons.

[Impiger]

Wouldn't normally read a Kipper thread but its a slow news day!

Jacko - last time I looked 111(F) Sqn was still flying F3 from Leuchars.

Archimedes you're almost right but seniority of squadrons doesn't start from the award of a Standard. Although you're right about the seniority required to receive a Standard. The seniority issue is worked out on total, accumulated active Service. Active in this case means on the active list rather than the reserve list such as the OCU squadrons like 42(R) or disbanded no matter how temporarily. Thus II(AC) steal a few months on 1(F) who were disbanded for a very short period. Some other anomolies are also thrown up such that 25 Squadron is quite senior because it lingered on as a Bloodhound unit quietly gaining seniority when lower numbers such as 11 did not.

As to which Kinloss Squadron should go - under current regulations it should be the most junior (cf accumulated seniority) - whicever that is. There is also a little appreciated point that the RAF should retain a proportion of 2xx squadrons that have their routes in the RNAS as they formed a proportion of the new Service when the RAF was formed.

For an up to date list on squadron seniority try the Air Historical Branch and for policy on how disbandment decisions are taken ask Director Air Staff in MOD. From 1 Jan 05 they have to tell all under the Freedom of Information Act ................

[Archimedes]

Impiger, sorry, obviously didn't make myself clear. The point about the standard is that a decision was taken in 1968 (ish) that squadrons that hadn't been awarded their standard would not be considered for reformation in future (although the policy did not apply to OCU/TWU plates). However, the documentation is equally clear that the early award of the standard to CXX and 617 had an interesting effect on the way in which their seniority was regarded.

CXX & 617 effectively overcame their lack of reckonable front line service by the early award of their standard - I have read several bits of documentation in the PRO in which very senior officers produced words to the effect of:

'Normally, 120/617 Squadron would be the unit to disband under this round of cuts, but as they were awarded their standard early for distinguished service in WW2, we are exempting them from the normal criteria of seniority, and the next most junior unit will be chopped'.

As a result, they've both gained what appears to be 'protected' status where they alone don't have to meet the criteria of reckonable service.

I haven't got it to hand at the moment, but IIRC, 120 were due to disappear with the Shackleton (42, 201, 203, 204 and 206 being the preferred candidates if my memory serves), but suddenly re-emerged as candidates after the 'rule' was pointed out; likewise, when the time came to disband one of the Scampton Vulcan B2 units, 617 were cited in the documentation as being the most junior numberplate, but it was 83 Sqn that got the chop!

That was the point I was trying (but clearly failed) to make.

[JimNich]

tescoapp,

Yup, thats me. Halved my wages and my MOA in one fell swoop (never was that bright but had a killer back-hand lob). Love the new job and am indeed doing a few more hours than I was on Kippers but the rations suck!

navoff,

No, no. YOU check YOUR private messages (I insist)!

[buoy15]

Heard a rumour

One morning in Star Chamber after morning prayers, a dice was thrown and turned up 3

If your number plate added up to 3 you were ok, viz: 120, 201

Very unlucky 206

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe:hmm:

[difar69]

" My dad was on it", "probably worth saving more because of their service over the years".....no more of an argument than keeping a number plate due to it's outstanding achievements during the Battle of the Atlantic.
Maybe if you were a little closer to the action at the moment you would see that 206 were always the obvious choice to go (even to their CO!), away from this blunty conspiracy idea you have.

[Jackonicko]

Difar,

Whether or not my Dad flew with 206 is, of course, immaterial to the argument. I've tried not to let it influence me too much ;) , and to examine CXX's claims with as close to objectivity that I can manage. You should try putting aside your own affiliations and do the same. :p Who knows, if they disband 120 you might get lucky and end up with an Octopus on your arm.

The idea that CXX's service in the Battle of the Atlantic was any more "outstanding" than 206's is both highly subjective and a little offensive. CXX did have a brief period when, because they were the only Liberator unit, they did make an outstanding contribution, but equally, for much of the war, they were a standard VLR mob operating from Iceland and Ireland. Tough work, to be sure, but work which allowed the removal of the mid-upper turrets. What does that say about the threat?

206 did their share of the gruelling VLR sorties out into the Atlantic when flying Forts out of the Azores, but also had their moments flying Ansons and Hudsons (and flying Ansons as a frontline type required heroism of a very high order) and flew their Libs out into the Bay of Biscay from St Eval and out to the Norwegian Coast from Leuchars - both areas that were crawling with enemy fighters. 206 attacked a U-Boat on the first day of the war, and lost the first British PoW of the war. Dunkirk? 206 were there. First Coastal unit with ASV radar? 206. D-Day? 206 was there. Arctic Convoys? Ditto. Operating in the Baltic (the enemy's backyard)? Ditto. First with LABS? 206.

120 did NOTHING during the Great War, forming as part of the Independent Force but disbanding without leaving the UK.

120 did NOTHING during the interwar period, not reforming until the Summer of '41, and then operating at a very low tempo initially (lack of aircraft).

206 has a distinguished Great War record, and operated from June 1936. By the time 120 formed 206 had been fighting for 22 months (in a 68 month war!). Put another way, 120 were absent for nearly one third of the War - they were almost as late to the Party as the Americans were!

206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops. What will count against it will be the fact that it was inactive from April 1946 to November 1947, and from February 1950 until September 1952, while 120's service has been unbroken since October 1946.

In the gap between the end of the War and 120's reformation, 206 flew clapped out and weary Libs in the transport role, and sustained many casualties while doing so. It was about as close to wartime flying as you can get, without being shot at, and the Squadron's performance impressed enough to be kept on in a smaller Transport Command with Yorks before it returned to the Maritime World in '52.

The impartial, informed observer would acknowledge that if distinguished service is the yardstick for keeping a Squadron, then the decision as to which unit to disband should be between 120 and 201. If it's length of service, then 120 are the obvious casualty.

At the end of the day, No.51 Squadron exists to fly just three Nimrods. With 12 or 16 aircraft and 22 crews in the Kipper Fleet there ought to be scope to keep four numberplates going - perhaps even more - they could even be commanded by Squadron Leaders!

[Archimedes]

I suppose someone ought to note that AOC-in-C Strike is late of 206 to inject the appropriate note of cynicsm...

I did hear rumours that someone very senior wished to do exactly as JN suggests - namely turn the flights into squadrons. The precedent for this <pulls on anorak yet again> is 84 Sqn with Wessex. It was agreed that a sqn could form with as few as three aircraft, since it was felt to be important to preserve sqn number plates of more historic units.

Despite the gap at the end of the war for 206, it's service overall that counts. 206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so.

[difar69]

Jacko, thanks for your somewhat patronising lecture. I too could post a long " why CXX should live" novel on this thread but I won't. You are right that 206 has a long and distinguished history, but length isn't everything! What about U-boat score? CXX also flew off fighter infested Norway (as the graves of ex Sqn members at Narvik testify. Are you arguing that because of the the lack of fighter cover CXXs job was less dangerous? The losses tell a different story. I am sure we could both quote stats and history all day to justify why each Sqn should live on. You did lose credibility with "206 has led the way in recent Ops". No single MR2 Sqn can claim to have led the way during the recent (post Sep 11th) Ops. All have proudly played an equal role (FACT-the force structure doesn't allow one single Sqn to lead the way).

You also make the assumption that i wear an 'orrible green & yellow badge.

[J.A.F.O.]

difar69

It's a good point that you make; green and yellow are horrible.

[Jackonicko]

Difar,

Not a patronising lecture, just countering your preposterous and empty claim that 120's "outstanding achievements during the Battle of the Atlantic" were somehow greater than 206's.

And yes, I am suggesting that the lack of enemy fighter cover did make 120's job in the mid Atlantic less hazardous than 206's.

And in view of Andy Flint's part in recent ops, I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading. He led the Telic Det, after all and was OC 206.....

[I was Lucky_B*]

So by that argument 120 led Gulf War 1 because OC 120 led the detachment, set up the whole show and got a medal for it, as well as a love for fruit, at least according to his leaving do!!;)

[Jackonicko]

And OC 206 led the Corporate Det at Wideawake.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Why not try opposing the cuts, instead of accepting them and worrying about which unit will go?

[Mad_Mark]

Why not try opposing the cuts, instead of accepting them and worrying about which unit will go?

Oh yeah :( If the big cheeses at the top of the pile have done sweet fook all about it what hope do us coalface workers have? It would have been nice to see some Air Officers being more openly against these CUTS and seen a few resignations offered.

Surely those on high can see that, at least in kipper fleet, we will not be able to carry on as we are now? Either they will have to cut our commitments (I'd love to see that bun fight - all those wanting our services fighting over who gets them and who doesn't in the future!) or accept that many will walk as the life gets even more s#!t :(

MadMark!!! :mad:

[difar69]

Jacko, you seem to assume (where has all your MR2 experience come from all of a sudden?) that because OC 206 was detcom on a certain det, that means 206 led the way by default? Do me a favour! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.......

As for my preposterous & outrageous claims (none of which were directed at 206), CXXs contribution to the Battle Of The Atlantic was outstanding, sorry to break it to you, and as a result the Sqn was awarded it's standard early(or was that another conspiracy?). Your claims that CXX had it easy are an insult to those that never made it back, and far more outrageous than any comment I have made so far. You come across as remarkably subjective and in my opinion (am I allowed one?) patronising. No more to be said.

[Jackonicko]

Difar,

Of course in ALL recent war ops, Dets have usually been the bast.ard children of many fathers - whatever the label attached to them, and whatever the affiliation of the CO. In Granby, for example, it was rare for even one squadron to form the majority of a det. We all know that. Claiming 'leadership' by one unit is thus dodgy, and has been since sometime after Pete Squire took No.1 Squadron to the Falklands. I thought that my comment: "I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading." made that pretty clear.

And when we leave behind the numberplate 'willy waving' it's pretty clear that it's very sad to be being faced with the prospect of squadrons that have seen near constant service since 1945 are now faced with the axe, and that all three units have long and proud traditions and histories.

It's especially sad because with a bit of administrative tinkering (like the Army's cap-badging) Flights could easily become Squadrons and we could be saving these numberplates and traditions. It's especially stupid since in these unpredictable and unstable post Cold War days, with the long and tedious deployments and frequent wars, we actually NEED our conventional armed forces like never before, though cynical politicians continue to raid the Defence piggy bank to fund tax cuts and to deliver up the peace dividend expected by an ignorant, uncaring, gullible public.

But that said, lots of people have already written off No.206 as the obvious choice of units to lose, and have done so on spurious, specious or shaky grounds. In terms of wartime service and seniority, 206 deserves to be the last to go, and not the first, and in terms of length of service, the second.

Save the Squid!

[ArmyBarmy]

Just heard - Its 206!

[achmedthecamel]

ArmyBarmy

Just heard - Its 206!

If it's true it still hasn't filtered out to those of us in the sandy places. When was it announced and by who???:confused:


Out of sight and out of our minds:bored:

[ArmyBarmy]

A/Staish by tannoy a couple of hours ago. Obviously the cunning plan to coincide the announcement with one out there worked then - not!

[Jackonicko]

Difar,

I have admitted to some partiality on this issue, but believe that even when one leaves aside subjective factors, it's clear that No.206 has a greater claim on continued existence than CXX. It's a tough call, and it's a shame (and perhaps unnecessary) that any of the current Nimrod units should disappear.

But let's look at the facts.

Ignoring the RFC/RNAS period, when I believe that 'Naval Six' had longer service than 120, the two squadrons have both amassed a proud record.

I'm not claiming that No.120 had it 'easy' (easier than 206 perhaps), only that their wartime service was significantly shorter, and certainly worth no more than that of No.206.

Since 1 April 1918, No.120 Squadron's accumulated service has been broken by a 21 year and seven month period (ending in June 1941) and by a 16 month period from June 1945. That's 22 years and 11 months.

No.206's breaks were 16 years and four months from 1 February 1920, from April 46 to November 47 (19 months) and from February 1950 to September 1952 (two years and seven months). That's 20 years and six months.

No.206 Squadron thus has seniority over 120, and this was indicated when 206's numberplate was retained after VE Day while 120's was not.

For 120 to be retained instead of 206, one would have to assert that No.120 Squadron's 46 months of wartime service were worth much MORE than 206's 68 months, thereby compensating for its shorter accumulated service, and for the fact that it was never operational before June 1941 (whereas 206 saw active service on the Western Front and during the interwar years).

I'm not seriously claiming that No.206's WWII record is MORE distinguished than No.120's - only that it is no LESS distinguished, and that seniority should thus be the deciding factor. I'm not going to sit here and dishonour 120 by suggesting that their contribution was somehow worth less than 206's - though you are doing exactly that to 206.

[Foxache Radar]

Jackonicko

Whats make you such an expert on Kipper Fleet ops? From what I believe, you were a UAS cadet and haven't even served let alone been frontline aircrew and you're arguing with guys currently serving on the Kipper Fleet!!
If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was.
Stick to poring over history books mate not advising Fleets how to organise themselves.

[Jackonicko]

Foxache,

When you're a bit more open about who you are, then, and only then, should you be making comments about my expertise, or otherwise. Even then, with just seven posts to your credit, and seven months behind you, you might consider whether you've been here long enough to learn the etiquette of the forum. Most here can at least dress up the abuse in what passes for banter.

Moreover, this particular issue is all about history (and not about current or recent ops), and the interpretation of the arcane rules and regs lying behind the concept of squadron seniority. I do have some limited expertise in this particular area.

Finally, while I don't have any frontline experience, and have never pretended to any (and I am completely open as to what I am on here and in my profile, unlike you) I am at least an amatuer pilot, and admit to having a licence of some description. I do speak regularly to many people who are 'at the coalface' including some who have put in more time there than most people here, and have done so for more than 20 years.

But rather than hurling silly personal abuse, and rather than playing another rivetting round of 'kick the journo' why not acquaint yourself with these facts:

Fact: 206 has greater accumulated service than 120, giving it seniority.
Fact: 206 served throughout WWII. 120 missed the first 22 months.
Fact: 206 saw active service in the Great War, 120 did not.

Archimedes pointed out that: "206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so." Thus 206 should not be the unit disappearing. This isn't rocket science.

Also please permit me to counter the ridiculous and offensive assertions suggesting that 120's Wartime achievements were somehow greater or more valuable than 206's - even if such assertions are being made by current Kipper mates. I know several wartime 206 blokes, and have interviewed blokes who flew Libs from Nutts Corner, Ballykelly and Reykjavik with a number of units, including 120. I think that people who actually flew Libs with Coastal know more about wartime ops than those who merely fly in the same role today. I will react angrily to any suggestion that 206's wartime aircrew were any 'lesser' than 120's.

You say: "If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was." I merely said that "206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops" - a bit cheeky, a bit of a stretch, a bit silly even, but hardly a terribly outlandish or offensive claim in the context of arguing for 206's survival. I suggest you re-read what I said, and especially the comment: "that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading."

Those who suggest that 206's recent record has somehow been such that they "were always the obvious choice to go" should perhaps substantiate their insinuations, back up and detail their assertions, or apologise and then shut up.

Save the Squid!

[Foxache Radar]

Oh you've got so much more 'PPRUNE' time than me, I'm not worthy. What was I thinking, you've got a PPL, you're obviously well qualified to comment on this subject.

[Jackonicko]

No not at all. Having a PPL or being current aircrew has nothing to do with this subject. I have always admitted to my inexperience in my profile and on these boards, and to being a journo whose experience of the RAF is limited to growing up with an RAF Dad, and to three years of undistinguished VR service on a UAS, very, very many years ago. Whereas from your profile and posting record you could be anything from OC 201 down to the lowliest clerical assistant.....

But at least I'm addressing the issue, rather than (OK, OK, as well as...) engaging in dim-witted and bad-tempered abuse (clever witty abuse would fine, but you don't seem capable of that). Just continue to take cheap shots from your empty and anonymous profile, and take no notice of the nasty civvy when he says that with your complete lack of facility when it comes to either courtesy or banter, he suspects that you're not proper aircrew yourself. :p

When the subject is arcane interpretation of history, then surely someone who's into that, and who has interviewed survivors of the period in question may have some small contribution to make. :rolleyes: This is the one time when "poring over history books" is likely to give some limited insight into the case for and against.

But rather than discussing the issue (206 Squadron's greater claim to continued existence) or addressing the arguments (I find your inability or unwillingness to do so interesting), do feel free to continue with your boring game of 'bait the civvy'. Forgive me if I don't continue to respond in kind. I'm not inclined to continue a battle of wits with you, since I was taught that it was bad form to attack an unarmed man. :}

I should perhaps be more gracious, since a member of Guernsey's Own is bound to be bitter and twisted when No.206 is being discussed. Twas ever thus, I'm told.

How else would you expect a member of Accrington Stanley to behave when the conversation involves Manchester United and Portsmouth......:hmm:

[J.A.F.O.]

Terrible news about 206.

Still, when's the party?

Jacko - I know you've had a rough time and, having read your posts, a lot of it is not deserved (I can't believe I'm siding with a journalist); however I have to say that someone with the name Foxache Radar must be aircrew. In fact I can probably guess who taught him on the BPRT at Finningley.

So, as usual, no-one with any power has listened to anybody anyway so we might as well send off 206 in a way that is befitting its history and contributions to the service and defence of this country.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks! Much appreciated.

I bow to your superior knowledge as to Foxache's aircrew status, though I did qualify it by doubting that he was 'proper' aircrew .... (two wings, not one!)

In 36 years my Dad served with a host of units, but 206 was always the one Squadron he seemed most proud of. What a slap in the face to him and his squadron mates - made worse by the fact that the old mob has gone despite its seniority. Still, at least he can take comfort in the fact that 120, with its greater and more distinguished wartime achievements, has been saved. Perhaps Difar would like to tell him, or maybe Foxache would like to explain how justice has been done.



I guess that now is the time for 206 to take my old man for a final flight. The old bug.ger is still as fit as a flea, and has just celebrated (with two of the five survivors of his wartime crew) the 60th anniversary of 'squeaking home' as far as Sumburgh after being shot up by three Bf 110s, with one gunner badly wounded and another dead. Lucky he wasn't with a unit that really saw action.....

Interestingly (and terrifyingly at the time) their Dak pilot for the journey back to Leuchars (they left the Lib at Sumburgh Cat 5) was one Pilot Officer Prune....

[J.A.F.O.]

Oh, do shut up.

'proper' aircrew .... (two wings, not one!)
I knew that if you were a proper journalist you would make me detest you eventually.

[MAD Boom]

I don't think squadron history had anything to do with the decision - they're just disbanding the squadron with the oldest, fattest and ugliest guys on it! Just glad it wasn't the mighty Flying Boat Sqn.

As regarding 206 leading the way in recent ops: In the initial stages of Telic, we weren't being led at all due to the very fact that OC 206 was the Det Com, what an a##e. Good job the Dep Det Com was 201!!

Joking aside, it is sad to see.

[BEagle]

"Interestingly (and terrifyingly at the time) their Dak pilot for the journey back to Leuchars (they left the Lib at Sumburgh Cat 5) was one Pilot Officer Prune...."

One wonders whether the Rental Air Farce of today would spare one of its precious corgi-carriers to recover a stranded crew from Sumburgh to Leuchars?

Sorry to hear about 206!

[Foxache Radar]

I see, clever and witty banter like "lowliest clerical assistant" and "proper aircrew". Nice one. How would YOU know anything about the behaviour of a member of the above 'teams' having never been one? One more question, do you actually have a life outside the internet? I'll bet these interviews have all occurred in some seedy chatroom with Kevin from Sutton Coldfield (pretending to be ex-206).

[Jackonicko]

Foxache,
Now that's more like it! The "Kevin from Sutton Coalfield/get a life" jibe was a masterstroke - nicely observed and well expressed. I withdraw my criticism of your bantering skills, and grovel in abject apology at ever having doubted you. I do resent the implication that I've never been a lowly clerical assistant, however. Don't you know what the word journalist means?

I am, however, going to bore you. Most of the wartime survivors I've met don't use e-mail, so fortunately it has to be face-to-face (always a privilege, often an honour, sometimes priceless!), and occasionally just over the phone. The scary thing is how quickly they are dying off. I wrote a book about the Sunderland only a couple of years ago, and three of the wartime chaps I interviewed for it have since shuffled off this mortal coil.

JAFO,
Excellent response. As long as you don't think I'm serious - though perhaps if its restored proper balance to the aircrew-journalist relationship......!

Mad Boom,
The exact opposite of what I'd heard, but with a ring of truth. How sad, if true.

[akula]

Well said J.A.F.O
Jacko has been antagonising a good few on the prune recently, I do think it is about time he took a break on this subject.

[Jackonicko]

Yeah, yeah. But it ain't gonna happen.....

Save the Squid!

[where2next]

Jacko,

Mad Boom is 100% correct in his statement, and I don't just mean about 206 having the ugliest guys!!

It had to be 206. 201 visit Guernsey every year, 120 visit Kef, where did 206 have an affiliation with...... Nairn. Now who wants to go to bloody Nairn? :yuk:

You may also notice my lack of posts etc. This, however, is because I can rarely be ar$ed to engage in slanging matches that are mostly name and faceless.

Ragards to all on 201. Was out in London yesterday (MARCOL)and met up with quite a few guys who've been posted away over the last 3 - 4 years. All doing well and not letting the side down when it comes to ale!!

Post all the 206 uglies to CXX(TS)!!!

[DP Harvey]

Jacko,
I think you've given a good account of 206 Sqn's claim to fame and I enjoyed reading your reasons why the sqn should be saved from the axe rather than CXX. Unfortunately, the RAF being a organisation with an objective and systematic approach to problem solving had to resort to the "Manual of RAF Simplicity and Painting by Numbers" rather than analysing the cumulative contributions by each of all 4 Nimrod MR2 sqns and then make a pragmatic and intuitive decision. We are in the wrong company for that approach to be taken up, though.

Don't let the other w'nkers wind you up. From an "non- real aircrew, ie without wings", kind of aircrew mate ;-)

[Charlie Luncher]

Have to back up Mad Boom he has hit it on the head.:}
Also hear they have a few closet doors about to open :uhoh:

Charlie sends

[wow400]

Who is the boss of 206 now? Not McLaughlin or however you spelt his name?
Can someone post when the wind-down party is - one I will attend for once!
Wow

[zedder]

I'm sure OC 206 wouldn't want his name on here, although it would have been in the Torygraph when he was posted to RAF Kinloss. His surname has a very Christmasy ring to it though!

Just in case the above is too tricky. What is wrong with this alphabet:

ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ !!!

[incubus]

I'm sure OC 206 wouldn't want his name on here

Don't see why, so long as you aren't slagging him off. Name and mugshot are available in the public domain already.

[wow400]

Oops. forgot about the kss website.
See he's lost even more hair than when I saw him last!
Miles better than AM tho.
Any news on the 206 demise party?

Wow

[WgCdrFlaunt]

Pity about the old sqn. The new boss obviously didn't raise the profile enough.

Anyone seen a picture of me lately?

Regards to my public.

The Flaunt

[FE Hoppy]

Just looked at the photo on the isk website.
Was that bloke skipper of 201/1 in the early 90s?
If so he's been through the wars in the last ten years.
Memory fading due too many G n Ts.

[J.A.F.O.]

Hoppy

Don't pretend that you look like you did in 1990, either.

I don't believe that you can remember anything since the mid-eighties, anyway.

Isn't the Tanqueray frightfully expensive in your neck of the woods?

[FE Hoppy]

My Dear Chap!!
Yes its true to say that my dashing good looks are not quite what they were, I would however like to think I can still hold my own with the best of them.

Sits back and waits for guffaw guffaw.

The price of Tanqueray here has forced me to re-think my drinking philosophy.

[kippermate]

where2next,

I believe that 206 had an exchange pi$$up with the Portugese at Lajes (something to do with that wartime record that jackonicko's been on about). However after a certain 'knocker' was invited to leave the island, by the US admiral, they were no longer invited back!

Well done Jacko. Keep it up!

Nihil nos effugit!

kipper

:ok:

[J.A.F.O.]

Hoppy

No guffaws at all, I can't pretend that the years have been kind to me; and think of the level that I started from.

It's a poor show if Swiss prices have forced you to re-think your drinking philosophy; however, once again, you're ahead of me - I had to re-think my drinking philosophy when I woke up naked in a Biffa bin with my car keys in my mouth, for the second time.

This isn't based on you at all then?

http://www.wagenschenke.ch/index2.htm

Seasons felicitations and stay lucky.

JAFO

[FE Hoppy]

Its uncanny!!!

I ought to sue for copyright.

3 meters is my record.

[J.A.F.O.]

67 metres which, by sheer coincidence and to bring the thread back to its origins, was the exact distance from the scruff's bar to my room at ISK.

[MightyHunter]

JAFO
did you ever get a reply to your original question - When is the disbandment party?

Jacko,
I am v. impressed by your erudition and knowledge, and agree that 206's wartime service was no less impressive than 120's, but when did logic ever come into this argument?


Having passed 236 and served on 201, 203, 206 and 120, enjoying every minute of it, I must admit to a greater fondness for 120 - probably only because by I finally got to sign for the jet myself!

Anyway, if its going to be anything like 203's final party, I need to be there, so when is it????

[Jackonicko]

If you're aiming to come all the way from Oz I hope the party lives up to expectations....

[Jackonicko]

Air Cdre S.D. Butler Air Officer ISTAR and Chairman of the No.206 Squadron Association recently wrote the following to Association members.

"Dear Association Member,

It is with considerable regret that, following a major review of aircraft and crew numbers, I wish to inform you that, with effect from 1 April 2005, No.206 Squadron will cease to exist as an operational squadron and will become dormant. You will no doubt be aware of the process covering the withdrawal of a Squadron; however, it might be useful to outline the process as it related to this case. The junior Nimrod Squadron is currently 42 Squadron; however, as the Squadron is not subject to a change of role, type or location, protocol states that it remains in its current form. This brings the decision down to the junior Squadron that will face a change of use, which is currently 120 Squadron. However, in this case, 120 Squadron is one of the few RAF Squadrons that is considered to have "special historical significance" in that its Standard was awarded by the Sovereign, in advance of the normal 25 years of continuous operational service for "exceptional wartime service". Also considered as part of the review was the small squadron concept (essentially placing small squadrons under Squadron leader level Squadron commanders) and utilising an embedded Operational Conversion Unit. In both cases, the advantages were not seen as compelling. Clearly, the closure of 206 Squadron will come as a bitter blow to both serving and ex members of the Squadron; however, you will appreciate that the move is part of a much wider review aimed at configuring the Royal Air Force for the future. I will of course be able to give more detail to Association Members at the next reunion; however, in the interim, please feel free to give me a call should you have any additional questions.

Stu Butler

1) What change of use are 120, 206 and 201 facing that 42 is not?
2) As Archimedes and Impiger intimated, the factors which result in the early award of a Standard should have no bearing on seniority.
3) What on earth is the Association Chairman playing at in implicitely agreeing with the extremely contentious view that No.120 had "exceptional wartime service" (which infers that 206 did not) in a letter to wartime 206 Squadron veterans? The idea that CXX's service in the Battle of the Atlantic was any MORE "outstanding" than 206's is both highly subjective and very offensive to these men, who deserve very much better. CXX did have a brief period when, because they were the only Liberator unit, they did make an outstanding contribution, but equally, for much of the war, they were a standard VLR mob operating from Iceland and Ireland. Tough work, to be sure, but work which allowed the removal of the mid-upper turrets. What does that say about the threat?
4) What action, if any, did this twit take in trying to fight for 206's continued existance, if only as the Nimrod training unit?
5) Why was the 'Small Squadron Concept' dismissed quite so readily, I wonder? It's clear that all three surviving Kipper squadrons deserve to be retained. It's a shame (and perhaps unnecessary) that any of the current Nimrod units should disappear.

To recap the facts:

120 did NOTHING during the Great War, forming as part of the Independent Force but disbanding without leaving the UK. 206 had a distinguished Great War record on the frontline in France.

120 did NOTHING during the interwar period, not reforming until the Summer of '41 (22 months into a 68 month War), and then operated at a very low tempo initially (lack of aircraft). Put another way, 120 were absent for nearly one third of the War - they were almost as late to the Party as the Americans were! By contrast, 206 reformed in June 1936, and flew during the darkest days of the war, with inadequate aircraft which gave their crews little prospect of survival.

206 did their share of the gruelling VLR sorties out into the Atlantic when flying Forts out of the Azores, but also had their moments flying Ansons and Hudsons (and flying Ansons as a frontline type required heroism of a very high order) and flew their Libs out into the Bay of Biscay from St Eval and out to the Norwegian Coast from Leuchars - both areas that were crawling with enemy fighters. 206 attacked a U-Boat on the first day of the war, and lost the first British PoW of the war. Dunkirk? 206 were there. First Coastal unit with ASV radar? 206. D-Day? 206 was there. Arctic Convoys? Ditto. Operating in the Baltic (the enemy's backyard)? Ditto. First with LABS? 206.

206's postwar record has been equally exemplary.

I'm not claiming that No.120 had it 'easy', only that their wartime service was significantly shorter, and therefore worth no more than that of No.206.

For 120 to be retained instead of 206, one would have to assert that No.120 Squadron's 46 months of wartime service were worth much MORE than 206's 68 months (and its Great War and interwar service), thereby compensating for120's shorter accumulated service, and for the fact that it was never operational before June 1941.

I'm not claiming that No.206's WWII record is MORE distinguished than No.120's - only that it is no LESS distinguished, and that seniority should thus be the deciding factor.

And if you must keep 120, then why should 206's numberplate not survive with the OCU? 42 is very junior, by comparison.

[buoy15]

Flaunty

Did you mean picture or profile?

Check the Tac Nav and Radar scratchpads - I think you still get a mention.

As for the demise of 206 - Undoubtably because you were the last Boss perhaps?

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

Jacko

What on earth is a "dormant" Sqn as Stu Butler refers to - is it waiting to errupt?

I don\'t know how to spin this any better, but surely a Sqn is either active/front line, disbanded or laid up