Tigers @ Linton

[Colon]

Some studes @ LOO have just formed a tiger Flt :eek: How much stick will they get for that @ Valley?

[Zagzagel]

None, I shouldn't wonder, since 74(F) Sqn was disbanded last year! And the 'fishy' sqn doesn't count he he.

Sharpen up Colon.


Tiger Tiger Tiger :D

[Poison Arrow]

The 22nd of September to be precise. A sad day.
74 with Hawks didn't do the Tiger badge justice, and now 'the Tiger flt' have got Tincans?, get real.

To the members of 'the Tiger flight':
Wear the badges near Valley and we'll chop you, wear them when I meet you on detachment and I'll chop you, later if you mention that you were a member- I'll chop you, in fact boys, you've got to work pretty hard on just staying alive (in the training system anyway).

Hey Zag- are you qualified to say T, T, T!?

Gib rules.

Have you been Bished today?

[Audax]

:mad: Just who are you, Poison Arrow, to threaten the studes in this way; maybe you meant your post to be humerous, if so you failed badly. Just because a bunch of studes (and their QFIs?) try to put a bit of spirit into things you demonstrate the antideluvian attitudes that are not part and parcel of todays flying training system. No wonder the studes look to going to Valley with some trepidation, I suggest you have a look at one of the course badges currently on display at Linton which partly describes their feelings.

Maybe you've had some connection with 74, I don't know, but what you must realise is that 74 ceased to be a 'real' outfit when it disbanded with Lightnings, albeit a slight redemption with the F4.

A question: do you display your attitude to members of the RAFs current Tiger Sqn?

[BEagle]

Poison Arrow, you total ar$e, haven't you ever heard that 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'? So if some students decide to have a 'Tiger course' then, so long as it isn't some separatist clique, good luck to them.

And I quite agree - the last RAF FJ 'Tiger Sqn' was 74 with the F4J. The pretense of a trainer being a 'Tiger' was a total joke.

[Yozzer]

Training tigers a joke?

Have to disagree, there is no such thing as an ex tiger, which means that I am still one, and I have never served on an FJ sqn.

I suspect 74 will be back soon with Eurofumbler which I welcome, but I also think that keeping sqn ethos alive with (R) sqns was also better than letting all our finest traditions slip slide away.

T,T,T.

Yozzer

Gutersloh TM `82
Cameri TM `88
Montijo TM `87

Bin there seen it flown with the hangover..hic!

Now a mature aviator that does not do such foolish things :p

[AllTrimDoubt]

To the members of 'the Tiger flight':
Wear the badges near Valley and we'll chop you, wear them when I meet you on detachment and I'll chop you, later if you mention that you were a member- I'll chop you, in fact boys, you've got to work pretty hard on just staying alive (in the training system anyway).

Poison Arrow:
Grow up. If that is an attempt at humour, then 'tis pretty poor. The "I" in your job title stands for "Instruct" not Intimidate. Those days are gone and your comments dont do justice to those of us trying our best to get these kids to the frontline (in whatever hardware). Whilst I won't hesitate to chop those not trying 100% or unable to reach the standard, the idea of a bit of military course spirit is EXACTLY what we are trying to resurrect. As long as it doesnt denigrate the proud Tiger tradition then I'm all for it.

[Firestreak]

Totally agree with Audax and the subsequent posts. Arrow, for someone who has chosen such a pointed name, you are seriously off course.

2 things should now happen:-

Firstly, an authoratitive figure from Valley should appear in this thread to assure all studes that PAs comments are simply off the plot.

Secondly, PA should be identified (should be easy with his attitude) and sacked.

[Mavrik]

Poison Arrow you sad little power hungy deluded individual. You are the opitimy of RAF QFI's i remember at Valley. Tell you what mate you ever come near the front line (do you know what that is?)then i'll ****ing chop you.

I feel sorry for you mate ... at least the students only need to stay on the island at weekdays ... you have no where else to go ..

Go on mr powerhungry tell us your real name so we all no what to look up to ! :D

[Tourist]

Anyone who thinks that only FJ can be tigers should go to a tiger meet. The RN Tiger Sqn has just been rededicated, and I suspect that one of their Aircraft will soon be the most photographed Helo in the world, as the last one was. Being a tiger is about spirit, and having a good excuse for a pissup, not elitist crap from QFI tw*ts. Good on the students for having a laugh. ;)

[tengah chum]

AS a long retired Tiger I wish them well,
just keep the badge warm until those who should have known better decide to reform
74.

[ShyTorque]

KITA CHARI JAUH ;)

[Poison Arrow]

Wow, I must admit reading my previous entry without the aid of a bottle of wine makes for serious reading. The original 'I'll chop you' speech was supposed to be a parody of a famous (perhaps to people under 40, sorry Beags!) quote from Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels, and was in fact meant as comedy and not a prelude to those nasty QFI types on the paradise Isle of Anglesey. All that trimming scares me too!

To all those baby FJPs: you can sleep well in your beds tonight, because don't worry, I'm not at Valley. ATD speaks the truth, give 100% etc and the instructors will do the same for you; work hard, play hard etc, still applies. But please note there is still a tiny thread of Tiger spirit at TWU level. They continue to TEACH the studes how to drop bombs, kill people and break their stuff. Without accepting whinging lightweights and non-team players. Which is what its all about, ask any Talibanarian. What was meant as banter I hope hasn't highlighted the fragile make up of today's would-be fighter pilot?

So, my apologies for a misguided attempt at humour.

And to answer the other banter:
Yes, I am/was a Tiger.
Yes, I know what the front line is.
Hey, Mav, give me a call, I'll fly with ya. :cool: Good luck in the sun fellas.

Bring back 74!

[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: Poison Arrow ]

[BEagle]

Thank you for your retraction; incidentally I do know LS&2SB, but I thought that 'Snatch' was much more amusing.....

"My badge says 74(F) Tiger Sqn, whereas yours just say 74 replica Tincan flight. Now, f*ck off" is the sort of thing a Vinnie Jones-type QFI inspired by the pub scene in 'Snatch' might say perhaps?

Why didn't we just keep 63, 79 and 234? They were TWU sqns for years and would have been far more appropriate for the Valley sqns than misuse of recently disbanded frontline number plates. As the over-20s may recall, perhaps?

But the greatest loss was Chivenor - the RAF's finest aerodrome. Did 234 at Brawdy in the 70s and 63 at Chivenor when it re-opened; the Chivenor attitude was by far the best training environment I've ever known! The worst was the appalling 237 OCU.......

[ 08 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[AllTrimDoubt]

OK P.Arrow - Thanks for 1 more pass to reassure us! :cool:

[Farfrompuken]

PA

I have a sneaky suspicion I may have been 'bished' by your very self, late in '99, whilst on the said 74((F)?) Sqn. Were you 'bishing' back then, or am I imagining it?
If so, many regards. If not, I probably make no sense.

Just who was Norman anyway?! ;)

[Poison Arrow]

I never did any 'Bishing' myself, just poor imitations.
Love, MM.

Norman who?

To amswer the original thread- the traditions of the training Tigers are now just distant memories; the tiger meets, the spirit, the badges so smart they had a PHd from Hull, the mid-airs with F16s, even the Tiger's Head on the Valley Mess wall is well faded. So if you Tincan chaps arrive 'badged up' it'll go down just fine. A habit you'll have to get into on 208....

[Hairdefender]

I never thought that a bit of fun and spirit could have caused such a debate, but none of you have considered the possibility that since there are a number of ex Navigators and an Ex Observer on said Tiger Flt that they may have already served on a Tiger squadron in a previous life?

Interestingly though this has caused the odd bristle I read many threads asking where has all the spirit gone, when some crops up it gets a bit of a pi**ing on. :(

[AllTrimDoubt]

HairDefender

Whilst I am delighted Poison Arrow has lightened the tone of this thread considerably after the orig post, may I refer you to part of my reply on the previous page?

"Whilst I won't hesitate to chop those not trying 100% or unable to reach the standard, the idea of a bit of military course spirit is EXACTLY what we are trying to resurrect. As long as it doesnt denigrate the proud Tiger tradition then I'm all for it."

Some of us are all for a bit of spirit!

[awizso]

Hi to one and all, long time no "speak". Another interesting PPRuNe thread. A tad threatening 'per-chance' but stimulating none the less. If a flt or sqn wants to adopt a tiger emblem and the colours then what should be anybodies problem? I thought all "Tigers" welcomed all fellow "Tigers" in the bar for a drink, if they had been a Black and Gold badge wearer for 5 minutes or 50 years. I look forward to having a drink with the new 'Tigers', new blood is always welcome and should always be so. Pilots come and go, but spirit lives on for ever.
P.S. Going to Acapulco, C U. ;)

[Jackonicko]

19, 92, 56, 74, 29, 23 all seem to have more claim to existence than some current frontline numberplates, if tradition and history are supposed to be the guide.

25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)

[BISH]

Nice to see you can still get out of trouble as fast as you get into it PA! I would love to see the boys pitch up at VLY with their badges if only to see OC Dolphins reaction. After all I hear the 'old core' still wear their tiger badges on their PJs. Remember, only 50 chopping days left to Christmas, unless you are working weekends to chase IPS60?

P.S. How is the new rug rat?

[Archimedes]

'19, 92, 56, 74, 29, 23 all seem to have more claim to existence than some current frontline numberplates, if tradition and history are supposed to be the guide.

25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)'

Interesting debating point here. The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks. By this token, both 5 and 25 qualify. Attempts to save number plates on the grounds of 'quality' of service by a unit alonewere rejected, as judging this 'quality' was too subjective. Maintaining number plates by renumbering 'junior' units was rejected after the 50s as this was confusing and unpopular with the crews of the units affected.

Consequently, 74 suffers by dint of the confusing decision to leave it in limbo between 1971 and 1974 (I've seen the evidence - in the public domain if anyone looks for it - that 74 was supposed to be an STC Phantom unit and would presumably have moved onto Jaguars in the mid-1970s).

When 25 stood up, all the numberplates mentioned above were in use: Bloodhound was being drawn down into one unit (85) and 25's plate became free. Although 25's history in WW2 was theoretically less-distinguished (but be fair - it brought AI into use, which meant that actually shooting anything down was damned difficult for a good couple of years), which was then followed by service with SAMs (also deemed 'less distinguished'), the point was that it was the longest-serving free numberplate on the books.

Applying the 'no renumbering of extant units' principle was bu&&ered about by Malcolm Rifkind - the decision to save the plates of XV, 16, 20, 27 et al post Desert Storm by giving them reserve status was political, and led to 45 Squadron (with longer service than XV) being chopped.

There are two solutions to the problem of keeping 'numberplates we all love':

1: Reduce unit size to accommodate all the numberplates (but let's not get into a detailed debate over force structure at the current time)

2: Increase the number of squadrons by buying more aircraft and then obtaining and retaining more people to fly and maintain them.

3: Have the spirit of some of the lamented units maintained in some way, which appears to be outlined above (BTW, flying training units don't get numberplates for a whole host of reasons that would require me to purchase another anorak if I explained them here).

Option (2) would be best, but (3) seems a reasonable alternative in the interim.

[rudekid]

Archimedes,

Regarding your point 3:

Please explain why flying training units can't have Sqn numbers when training units at Valley, Shawbury and Cranwell already do?


Agree with your sentiment regarding the idea.
Sqn identity seems to work well at these places and keeps a bit of spirit going. Surely it can only be beneficial to give Sqn plates to other units and keep a bit of history going?

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: rudekid ]

[TOOM]

Interestingly, the policy outlined by Archimedes for allocation of sqn numberplates was overturned for the reformation of 74 Sqn with F4Js. In '83, MOD's strict 'last out, first in' interpretation had us forming as 39 Sqn (a Canberra recce sqn that had disbanded in Malta); thankfully, following some careful lobbying, CAS of the time overturned this absurd recommendation and ordered the resurrection of 74 Sqn. Just goes to show that occasionally Chiefs can make sensible decisions.

Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years.

As to the Linton Tiger Flt......good on yer. Just design your own appropriate and exclusive badge and, most importantly, gopping drink.

T! T! T!

[BEagle]

There were some very stupid decisions - such as numbering a Buccaneer squadron '216'! Which formerly flew VIP Comets, and latterly TriStars. Numbering the Shacklebomber AEW outfit '8' enraged ex-Hunter heroes and binning 35 sqn in favour of the 'one raid and one dead dog mob' did the same in the V-force!

Those who have a fondness for tabby cats, ginger toms or other, slightly bigger, stripey moggies should remember that THE LION IS KING!!

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Emerson Cahooners]

Toom4evr,

"Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years."

Cheers, just one minor edit to the above " how well 230 Sqn are STILL CARRYING the tradition." About to host 20 jets for a Mini meet!

Linton boys, good on you, just make sure you do it properly, we may well be in touch.

TIGER TIGER TIGER

KITA CHARI JAUH

:cool:

[Archimedes]

rudekid,

sorry, was imprecise in my phrasing (trying to make the post less long and less boring). It was suggested at some point that one way of keeping numberplates alive would be to use them within FTS's - the reasons against this being adopted (and I'm relying on Jeff Jefford's book for this - an excellent source) included:
1. Students weren't there long enough for there to be any benefits.
2. A trg unit couldn't realistically extend the history of an operational unit (yes, I know....)
3.this would blur the demarcation between aircrew in trg and those who were qualified.
4. The FTS's had histories of their own.

Nowadays, it would seem that arguments (1) - (3) are less applicable?

As a rule, numberplates are applied to units that would stand up in certain roles in wartime - for the TWUs, this dates back to when 63,79,151 and 234 had Hunters (I seem to think that there may have been some other plates used before these). I'm not certain whether an emergency operational role is theoretically envisaged for 60, 55 and 45 (and again, it's not the time to go into details if there is), or whether this is another bit of bu&&ering about with the rules.

Toom4evr's point about 39 is a good one - I think I'm right in saying that it was appreciated that there was a need for some flexibility, so that previous use in the role could be taken into account (but see 216 and the Bucc), hence 74 was chosen ahead of 39. 45 was also possibly in the running, but it might have been scuppered by the fact that its 'fighter' heritage was not as impeccable as 74: 45 had flown Vengeances, Beuafighters, Brigands and Canberras (et al), whereas 74 had always flown fighters.
[edited for spelling mistaiks]

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]

[Jackonicko]

"The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks."

I don't believe it's ever been that hard and fast, and if it was, how did 617 escape after disbanding as a Vulcan squadron, or as a Tornado GR1 unit (when it effectively became what had been 208)?

Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?

How come 99 has reappeared?

No, I believe that subjective factors are taken into account - including whether current senior officers ever served on the units in question.

[Archimedes]

"The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks."I don't believe it's ever been that hard and fast, and if it was, how did 617 escape after disbanding as a Vulcan squadron, or as a Tornado GR1 unit (when it effectively became what had been 208)?

617 is a special case: it was awarded its standard purely for its wartime service and not according to the 25 years of service rule applied to all other units save one. 120 is the other unit in this position.

There was agreement (repeated in several sets of Air Staff minutes over the years, in public domain) that these two units would be 'protected' as a result of this: thus, the GR 4 force could be cut back to just one squadron, and it would be 617 if this held true; 120 would be the sole remaining Nimrod unit in similar circumstances (and assuming no 'rule' changes).


What happened with the 12/208 situation was that 27 was renumbered as 12 (breaking the 'rule' about not renumbering extant units), rather than 208 being renumbered 617.

Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?

25 does have longer service than 19. When the F3 unit stood up, 19's plate was in use, and couldn't be reassigned. When 19 disbanded, 25 might have been renumbered, but the rule against this was applied. Now, since service as a Reserve Sq doesn't (or didn't, it may have changed) count, 25 has longer service than 19. It doesn't have longer service than 56, but the 25 plate was in use when 56 gave up its F-4s, so couldn't go. I think it's also fair to note that the renumbering rule doesn't apply to reserve units, which is why 65(R) became 56(R). So by this token, 45, 64,79,151,234 and 65 all disappeared.

XIII is a slightly odd case, and I suspect that because of its Canberra PR role, it was deemed an appropriate plate for the GR 1A.

Not sure about why 99 was chosen - although it has a longer history than 53, the other contender.

It may be that the past history in a role is having ever more effect. We may see some hefty renumberplating when Eurofighter emerges: although I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of 19,56, 74 and 92 ended up with Eurofighter GBmH's finest peroduct to date.

I don't doubt that there is politicking over plates, though, and would agree that the rules are not applied as rigourously as they might be: if they were, there'd be less contention, but it would also suggest that some well-loved numbers might never appear again.

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]

[BEagle]

But hey - don't let's get as anal with our sqn numbers as the pongos are with 'cap badges'. Whatever the heck they are!

[Happy.on.FW]

I know this thread is slightly historic now, but I thought I'd just put the record straight on behalf of those destined for Valley... Although it was originally presented as 'some studes at Linton have...', the idea was very much pushed by the Staff of the Flt involved as well !
Personally, I'm all for course/Flt/Sqn spirit but I'm also all for respecting other traditions of which Tiger history is not just a Royal Air Force one and therefore perhaps should not have been 'abused' as our International Tiger colleagues may be more upset by what's happened...!??