41(F) Sqn Disbandment

[41(F) Sqn]

41(F) Sqn is planning its disbandment for 24-26 Mar 06. Details of the celebrations are still to be finalised but it will be a historic event and a party to remember. All ex-41(F) Sqn members (of all ranks) are invited to register their contact details at www.41sqn.org

Moderators, would you please make this a sticky to help us build our database.

[Jackonicko]

I'd like to express my thanks to 41(F) for years of distinguished service, for setting an example of excellence and elan (under some superb bosses, such as Billy P, Harps and Graham W), and for its sacrifices and hard work. It would be a disgrace if the most distinguished squadron of the Battle of Britain period were to disappear altogether when it discards the Jaguar.

Let's see the first Typhoon ADX squadron being called something different (a Wing, perhaps, since its CO will be a Wing Commander), with it's A Flight taking on No.3 Squadron's mantle, and B Flight becoming No.41 Squadron.

I hope it's a great party.

[whowhenwhy]

Jacko, you're not suggesting that a Sqn Ldr leads a sqn are you?

Now there's an idea to rationalize personnel and make sure that our short-lived history doesn't get flushed down the toilet of obscurity! You could probably get away with a lot less air rank officers then as well. Bean counters are you listening???

[FJJP]

...and FLIGHT lieutenants command sqn flights.

And warrant officers become Eng Offs.

And FLIGHT sergeants run eng flights.

And... [must stop thinking logically - it does not make sense]

[Jackonicko]

"Make sure that our short-lived history doesn't get flushed down the toilet of obscurity!"

That would never do, I'm sorry. Though it's only what the Army have done with cap-badged battalions and what the French Armée de l'Air do. Perhaps Grey Funnel Lines could put one name on one side of the boat, and another on the other.......

[soddim]

Let's not demean our Air Force by minimising it's longevity. It was, after all, the first independant air force and could hardly have been formed much earlier; it also has a well-earned reputation for excellence, particularly in the thoroughness and professionalism of its' training.

Squadron numbers are important but it is, in my opinion, a mistake to try to hang onto a numbered squadron by calling either a training outfit or a small flight a squadron. An operational unit is known as a Squadron and a number of squadrons is known as a Wing - let's keep it that way and retain what little tradition we have.

[whowhenwhy]

Soddim, I'm not trying to demean what has been achieved in such a short period of time. Believe me, I'm as proud as anyone. But if we're going to have large sqns, with maybe 2 flts of 8-10 ac, why not split them up into sqns, with a Wg Cdr in charge of 2 Sqns and call it a Wg? From an eng point of view it needn't make much of a difference, but it will mean that the famous sqn number plates remain!

Audax:ok:

[soddim]

But when you call a flight a squadron does it not cause those who served on that squadron to feel that it is no longer a real squadron? And when you call an OCU or training unit a squadron perhaps it becomes just a paper number?

Please let's preserve what little tradition we have.

[DSAT Man]

How I long for traditon! (Not that we in the RAF have much, according to our dark blue and wiffy mates). In my 'Defence' organisation, a sqn ldr commands a group!

[Jackonicko]

If you called what are now Flights 'squadrons' you could preserve historic numberplates without resorting to using such numberplates for OCUs and FTSs. No.19, for example, might still be flying fighters, rather than Hawks.

As to what people who served with a unit might think, I can tell you that my old Dad would be much happier to see 206 still in existance than disbanded, and there seems to be no reason at all that the Nimrod force should be using only two numberplates.

I'm quite sure that most of those now on 41 would also like to see their old unit continue in service, whether with eight or 16 jets.

[soddim]

So, we would have an air force with lots of flights called squadrons and each would have the administrative infrastructure of an independant unit? Quite an overhead.

Our squadrons are already a mere shadow of their former size and even putting three together hardly forms a wing let alone a cohesive fighting unit.

One step forward three backwards - been doing it for years.

[Jackonicko]

"......each would have the administrative infrastructure of an independant unit?"

No. It's just that A Flight of 6 would be called 6, and B Flight would be called (say) 54. Squadron Leader Bloggs would be OC 6 Squadron, and Squadron Leader Smythe would be OC 54. They'd share a crewroom, and the jets would have 6's markings on one side of the fin, and 54's on the other.

In the same building, the ultimate boss would still be Wing Commander Brown, though he'd now be OC No.5 'Neville Duke' Wing (or No.5 'Granby' Wing, or No.5 'Hornchurch' Wing, or just plain No.5 Wing), with the Ops clerks and Adj et al still reporting to him.

[soddim]

And would the aircrew wear the 6 sqn badge on one sleeve and the 54 sqn badge on the other?

And what about poor old 41 - would they have to muck in with strangers?

Even NATO would notice that it was not a real squadron.

[Jackonicko]

1) Why would it make any difference to NATO? There'd still be a unit the same size as any othe NATO Squadron, it's just that the individual flights would have squadron identities - just like the French!

2) A Flight aircrew would wear one badge, B Flight the other.

3) 41 would be an identity for A Flight of another fighter squadron, perhaps with 92, or 74, or one of the other otherwise lost units.

Even with the present tiny force structure, we could have all of the major Battle of Britain and interwar fighter units back in the orbat.

[whowhenwhy]

I'm with Jacko on this. We can preserve our heritage, with no real change as to how we do business. Otherwise, squadrons like 54(F), the highest scoring sqn in the Battle of Britain, are never going to re-appear. Unless as a UAV sqn-heaven forbid.

I'm really having trouble seeing what the problem is soddim. Does anyone else have any views on this, or is it just Jacko and me?

[soddim]

No real change in how we do business indeed - just how when why and where did you do the business?

When I did it on several famous squadrons we were able to raise more than two four-ships at once and we didn't have another squadrons badge on our aircraft. Our groundcrew belonged to our squadron and we were self-contained for admin and fully deployable as a fighting unit to a bare base. In short we were a squadron - not a flight.

If you want to pretend we still have a particular squadron in service, that's up to you, but I would rather my old squadrons had their silver, standards and reputations in storage just in case our country gets the urge to defend itself properly again. In the meantime I don't want a bunch of pretenders wearing the crown.

[whowhenwhy]

Come on Soddim, I'm not suggesting that I have 'done the business' you can see my place in the food chain by looking at my profile. (However, as an aside, plenty of controllers are and have been in places that are a lot less safe than a UK tower over the last 4 years. Nowhere near as dangerous as running at AAA at 500kts at 100', but it is being done!)

Anyway, as Jacko says, rather than have an A Flt and a B Flt, you could have a 41(F) sqn and a 54(F) sqn, with a Wing Cdr as OC. A station could have a couple of Wings. The ground crew would belong to the wing, serving both Sqns.

As far as the silver, colours and standards are concerned, there is no way that this country could mobilize itself again, as we have in the past, and reform old Sqns. So we either find a way of preserving the heritage that we have, or we leave it as part of our history and move on.

[soddim]

Let's just preserve our history and traditions rather than degrade our famous squadrons as you suggest.

Yes, it would be nice to see all our longest serving squadrons still in the front line but not as you and Jacko suggest. If you had your way then very soon each would be identified as just a flight and not long after they would be remembered as such - their reputations ruined forever.

As an example, the reputation of 19 Sqn was earned as a front line Fighter Command squadron. What is the current identity in the minds of those who have trained on 19 in the last few years and what is its' reputation in their eyes? How many of them know anything about the history that made its' name and how many care? Do they even consider themselves as ex-19 Sqn members in the same sense that those who served when it was a front line unit?

At the moment it looks like we will preserve 6 Sqn as a real sqn and it will continue its' unbroken service. Let's not ruin that opportunity by a half-baked effort to preserve two squadrons and end up with neither.

[Jackonicko]

Sod,

We agree on one thing. Calling what was once No.4 FTS No.19 squadron is an insulting farce.

But there's a HUGE difference between using a squadron numberplate in that way and using it to describe a real operational frontline unit - and one which, in size, wouldn't be appreciably smaller than units were for much of the interwar period.

Such a unit could even add to a Squadron's record and reputation, and not just keep it active.

I'm interested that you should choose No.19 as an example, because, by coincidence, I have spoken about this to two of the Squadron's old boys from the very period to which you refer - when the squadron was at Duxford with Spitfire Is, fighting the Battle of Britain.

Wing Commander Gordon Sinclair (who died a few weeks ago, but who was one of my best friend's uncle) and Sergeant George 'Grumpy' Unwin certainly both felt that the French had it right and would have preferred to see 19's identity being used by one flight of a real frontline fighter unit than being used by a training unit or comms flight, or being consigned to oblivion.

[soddim]

Jack,

I'm glad we have some common ground. Very interesting that your ex-19 wartime contacts feel that way. My service was all essentially peacetime despite invasion of Cyprus, Falklands war and Gulf wars. However, I would not like to see my old squadrons preserved at all costs if that meant losing their independant unit status and their effective operational capability.

Horses for courses maybe but I guess their lordships are supporting present policy so don't hold your breath for two sqns in one.

[Jackonicko]

My dear old Dad feels the same as Gordon and Grumpy about those of his old wartime Squadrons that have vanished - 206 and 26. Retired since 1978 (after 36 years in the mob) he still goes to his main wartime Squadron reunions and still reads the RAF News. He approves of the 8/23 way of doing things - the fact that the French do it is not a positive point! He would definitely approve of anything that kept 206 and 26 in being!

Like you, he deplores the use of proper numberplates for FTSs and OCUs.

Interestingly, he's not that bothered about the peacetime units he served with, except those he served with that saw active service (eg in Malaya).

I would emphasise that I'm suggesting using Squadron numberplates for flights - which really can be operational units, putting up autonomous formations and missions and even manning rotational detachments.

[Archimedes]

What you're actually suggesting, then, JN, is that the RAF adopt the model that Sir Frederick Sykes initially intended it (well, the RFC) to have in 1912 when he was setting the service up - had there been enough officers of suitable rank to command the number of units that would have been created under this pattern...

Although a little hard to divine from subsequent documentation (and his autobiography), it would appear that the RFC squadron would have been about eight aircraft strong had there been enough suitably-qualified Majors in the British Army at the time.

[Jackonicko]

Top man, Sir Fred. I hadn't realised that my thinking was quite so ancient.

There's also the point that a young Squadron Leader would have the opportunity to shine by throwing himself into some of the non-essential 'relations with Squadron association' and social event stuff, and differentiate himself from his peers.

[Rakshasa]

Dont the Mushroom Sqns already double plate?


How about sticking a 12 ship sqn? Would hurt an individual sqns capability, of course but would put a few more number plates back into use than a 16 a/c sqn would.

[Jackonicko]

That would be the tail wagging the dog! If the right sized major unit is a 16 aircraft Squadron, then the primary unit for operations should have 16 aircraft. But as long as such units are sub-divided into flights, then why not give those flights historic numberplates and since they are commanded by Squadron Leaders, and the bigger units by Wing Commanders, particular designations would seem to make sense.

The Army have done it by cap-badging Battalions, the French do it, and we have arguably the most historic fighter units of the RAF facing disbandment, number-plating training units, or already consigned to oblivion.

With numberplates for Flights you could 'bring back' 19, 92, 56, 74, 41, 54, 208, 17, 20, 35, 50, 83 and even perhaps 249.....

[soddim]

If it looks like a Flight, flies like a Flight and has the reputation of a Flight, then it is a Flight - not a Squadron.

I rest my case.

[Jackonicko]

If it's commanded by a Squadron Leader, if it's the size of many fighter squadrons in the RAF's glorious history, and if it can deliver more capability than a WWII Wing, then why not let it preserve a Squadron identity, rather than lose that identity for ever?

It's good enough for 'Les French'. It's good enough for 8/23.

I rest mine......

And I don't understand what you mean when you refer dismissively to 'the reputation of a flight'.

[Rakshasa]

Has there been any rumors about which badges the Typhoon sqns will be, yet?

[eagle 86]

C'mon chaps - lot of talk about tradition here - we all know that air forces don't have traditions - they have habits and most of those are bad!!
GAGS
E86

[captain sanity]

Jacko
Quote "it's good enough for 8/23". What is?

C S

[ZH875]

if it can deliver more capability than a WWII Wing,Wow, each Tyhpoon F2 can be in its own squadron, and each (proposed) Typhoon GRXX can be in two or more squadrons all by itself. Must let their airships know, they can promote their children a few more times. We will need a few more bigwigs.:rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

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.

[H Peacock]

Nothing to do with 41 Sqn's demise, but I've heard that 54 Sqn name-plate is going to some OCU type outfit at Waddington, with a few E3, R1 and Nimrod aircraft! I believe it will therefore be a reserve sqn, ie 54(R).

Anyone know where 39 Sqn name-plate might go?


H Peacock


PS. 41 Sqn, Have a great party!!!

[Mowgli]

I am proud to have served on 41(F), I have some of my best memories from that time.

We have recently dispanded another fine sqn: 54(F).

The RAF may not have the long history of the other Services, but when you look at sqns like these, what a glorious and fine contribution they have made. And in the summer of 1940 when our country's future was hanging by a thread, the men and machines of these sqns were in the thick of it, dying and fighting and spilling their blood and, in the end, winning. They were fine heroes, but when you speak to them (and I have), they did not know they were being heroic. They just felt lucky if they saw tomorrow.

When I run the country we will reinstate these sqns and the word disbandment will be banned. "Bad Lads army" will be expanded to clean up street crime and the Annual Reception will be called the Battle of Britain Cocktail party. It will all be sponsored by the Chinese.

Jeremy Clarkson will be my minister for political correctness.

[jumpseater]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/CRW_4950.jpg

[Mowgli]

Thanks jumpseater, great pics!

[pr00ne]

What's Jim Carey doing in the cockpit of that pussycat in the 4th piccy?

[Bob Viking]

Jim Carrey!!!
Thats just started a whole new line of p1ss taking!!
I shall have to mention it to the pilot in question when I see him!
BV

[Rakshasa]

Captain sanity:

8 and 23 Sqn share the same AWACS a/c. They carry 8 Sqn's badge on one side and 23's on the other.

[Jag engineering]

FAO whowhenwhy


Anyway, as Jacko says, rather than have an A Flt and a B Flt, you could have a 41(F) sqn and a 54(F) sqn, with a Wing Cdr as OC. A station could have a couple of Wings. The ground crew would belong to the wing, serving both Sqns.

I am perplexed as to where whowhenwhy's elitist attitude is coming from. Groundcrew are an integral part of any Squadron by simply "Sticking us into a wing" is an arrogant and blinkered attitude to take on. Why not have Aircrew Wings and dispose of the Squadron numbers all together, then some historical issues can be laid to rest, like the Squadron of Aricrew that Strafed it's own Groundcrew whilst fleeing or the Squadron who left the Groundcrew to be massacred by the advancing German Army to name but a very small few.


Remember you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. I'm warming to the use of UAV's..

[captain sanity]

Rakshasa
Yes, but they are two totally different sqns, each with a full sqn compliment and nearly 250 people between them. They are not badges of convenience; they merely share the ac and little else. (As do many large jet Sqns).

[jumpseater]

I myself deleted these images. I had not received any messages from any party regarding the content. To whoever wrote to Danny, perhaps if you'd look at the last sentence which I've left. This was an RAF authorised photoshoot. There are many pictures of similar content on many many websites of the event. Clearly if image security issues were going to be a big problem, the staff would have asked us to leave our cameras outside the base before admitting us on site for the photo event. :ooh:
I'm currently photoediting and will repost some images of the event shortly for those who enjoyed seeing them.

Thanks to all the Coltishall staff for the photoday :ok:

[Danny]

Just received this message:This is the reason that the user gave:
Please remove these pictures from the site. This is a major security issue because you are linking non-display military aircrew to specific aircraft and squadrons and in this case the pilot has his name on his helmet.
Now, being a bit of a thick civvy, if any spotter or North Korean/Soviet/al Quaida operative can stand on the roof of their van and take piccies like the ones shown on this thread, does that constitute a "security issue"?

If it was such a security issue, wouldn't the top brass make you all paint out the names on the side of the airframe (better still, put false names on there!) and make you take your 'secret' squadron logo's off before getting anywhere near the airframe?

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll remove the pics. :hmm:

[ZH875]

the pilot has his name on his helmet... Must be a harrier thing.:ooh:

[whowhenwhy]

Jag engineering, sorry maybe I touched a raw nerve or something, certainly wasn't trying to put over an elitist attitude. Just trying to highlight an option to maintain our history. Yes you have a point that the idea put forward to give our current flights, squadron number plates could result in the removal of groundcrew from squadrons. I didn't realize that that might be considered such a bad thing, especially after you go to such pains to explain how badly groundcrew have been treated before. On a day to day basis I'm sure that it wouldn't make that much difference to the groundcrew as the aircraft would be shared by the wing.

[Safety_Helmut]

whowhenwhy !

Good name, just glad it does not reflect the usual aircrew attitude toward the groundcrew.

Have a read of some of the other threads on this forum on here regarding the preservation of squadron ethos and what its erosion can lead to. Attitudes such as the one displayed by you reflect an almost startling lack of understanding of the situation. Given the choice between preserving the history of a squadron number or having a well motivated and effective integrated squadron, both air and groundcrew, I know which I would choose.

Safety_Helmut