Squadron Numbers

[dctyke]

In the dim and distant past when a low numbered squadron disbanded it never had long to wait till it reformed in a similiar role with a posh new aircraft type. Sadly that will not be the case anymore and in the future (post Stan Tornado draw-down) it is only going to get worse. Surely the Royal Air Force will not go any length of time without a No 1 (f) Sqn?. Who is going to lose, who will gain? Maybe there is a case for just renumbering all of what we have from one upwards, if nothing else it would certainly show joe public and the world how little we have left! I realise everybody is going to be up in arms protecting ‘their’ squadron number from the chop however there are going to be many good squadrons going to the wall soon, some of them too good to lose forever.....or are they?
Ps, in my case I ‘demand’ 1(f), XV, 45 & 58 (damn that owl looked good)

[MATELO]

So, where would that leave 617 Sqn ??

[Pontius Navigator]

Reduce each sqn to 6 aircraft. Not wholly illogical as they are all supposed to be much more capable than in the past.

Brigade sqns as wgs under one wg cdr - say 3 sqns each commanded by a sqn ldr. Two wgs on a station commanded by a gp capt.

That would up the sqn numbers and cut the number of wg cdrs - win - win.

[teeteringhead]

There was so much kerfuffle in ('92?) the SDR before last, that rules were laid down.

IIRC "seniority" is not down to numbers, but accumulated years of front line service. So if your Sqn disbanded between WWI and WWII, you were likley to be very much a second class citizen compared to those who hadn't.

Which is why 230 trumped 72 :{

Keeping Sqn Numbers going as (R) Sqns keeps the standard and the books, but earns no more seniority .......

Personally I would guess the RAF's last (FJ) Sqn numberplates to go would be 1 (F) and 617 .......

[Union Jack]

So, where would that leave 617 Sqn ??

"Dammed" if I know .....

Jack

[skippedonce]

PN,

I seem to remember Wak suggesting something along these lines when he was ACAS (2003?) but was not supported by the rest of the airships.

[Pontius Navigator]

Things change.

Who, in 2003, would have thought that we would have 4, 3, 2, 1 or none in MPA?

[dctyke]

To the people who say 617 sqn must be a cert, a quick google of just 1 - 5 Sqn's (3 of which will be gone soon and the 4th post stan) puts them way ahead in front line service, after all they had 1918 - 1942 start! They must be quite a few more in the same ilk!

[goudie]

When 617 Sqdn re-formed with Vulcans, it was a tad embarrassing to be hailed in the USA, during a detachment in the late '50's, as the 'Dambuster Boys'.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I recall someone posting recently that the most senior squadrons; and therefore most likely to live longest; were II, 1, 6 and 14.

[Squirrel 41]

Archimedes is the most obvious Pprune resident expert on such things. See inter alia:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/405401-oldest-raf-squadron.html

S41

[Archimedes]

'Expert': such a nicer word than the more precise one - 'dullard'...

To save anyone going through that thread again:

617 have an advantage in that they were awarded their Standard ahead of the 25 year qualifying period (i.e you have to have 25 years service before the Sovereign will grant the award of the Standard), and this, to date, has made them invulnerable to disbandment other than briefs period in limbo before getting a new type (e.g. transition from Vulcan to GR1).

The interesting question here is what happens to 120 - they too gained their standard ahead of time (likewise in recognition of their distinguished work in WW2) and have enjoyed similar benefits in terms of surviving ahead of more senior units

As for 1(F), I assume that they will simply become the next Typhoon sqn to form, since they are ahead of any of the other possible candidates in terms of seniority.

In truth, there has been a growing school of thought that says that the squadron needs to be rethought, and I suspect that PN's idea of us seeing a number of smaller squadrons (say of eight aircraft each for the FJ) may gain traction with the chaps on 5th floor who are looking at force structure issues.

[Finningley Boy]

Who knows, we may be looking at an entirely different set of circumstances, just a few years down the road.

FB

[2Planks]

How about 1(RAFAT) Sqn.....?

[Easy Street]

In truth, there has been a growing school of thought that says that the squadron needs to be rethought, and I suspect that PN's idea of us seeing a number of smaller squadrons (say of eight aircraft each for the FJ) may gain traction with the chaps on 5th floor who are looking at force structure issues.


Splitting one existing Sqn into 2? I can just see the political spin: "This Government has doubled the number of RAF squadrons even during these financially straitened times...."

Such units would be mutually dependent on each other for supervision and training; current sqns are barely big enough given the high dilution rates and rapid turnover of crews. So they would not be independent fighting units by any sense of the word.

[BBadanov]

Just a historical note. When 237 OCU Buccs at Honington (later Lossie)picked up its war role in 1984 for designating for RAFG Tornado, the unit was going to receive a "shadow sqn" number.
At that stage TWCU had 45 Sqn, 237 OCU was muted to be getting 58 Sqn. Shades of Wittering! However, it never came to pass. I bet not many people knew that bit of trivia. :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

So they would not be independent fighting units by any sense of the word.

What's wrong with a 4-ship?

V-bomber sqns only had 8 aircraft.

As for dilution, if one sqn could not split to two operational smaller sqns then you imply more than 50% dilution now. But there should be a lot more experience available next year.

[bobward]

Why not make the RAF Memorial flight No 1 Squadron?

[Willard Whyte]

Indeed, if the RN can claim 'Victory' to be operational then why not.

[Easy Street]

I was just thinking that the last aircraft in the RAF could be a red Spitfire of No 617 Sqn, equipped with a smoke pod, a Paveway 4, an ASRAAM, and able to drop off a single paratrooper from a hastily-bodged ramp in the rear fuselage...

[Willard Whyte]

Best not get BAES to do the mods, it'll cost £200m and take 20 years to reach IOC.

[Pontius Navigator]

Just had a thought to help out our dark blue brethern. I am posting here for what I hope are obvious reasons.

The RAF is running out of sqns to number and the RN is running out of ships.

My plan is simple; it would either double the number of bombers or halve the cost of replacement.

As we know, each bomber has two crews, a port and starboard (or it had). Instead of calling then port and starboard call them Oberon and Oberoi for instance. Instantly 2 boats for the price of one. As they spend most of their time submerged, who would know :}.

If they went for the '4-boat' option they could buy another 4 T45s as well.

[Willard Whyte]

I think it would be easier to give each airframe an individual sqn number, there are enough (sqn numbers) to go around.

Not sure a Wg Cdr would be needed for each one though.

[XV277]

If the rumoured second Reaper squadron comes into being, could we see 1 as an RPV operator?

[muttywhitedog]

The disbandment of 1(F) Sqn must be sending out shockwaves. Its not 12 months since we were briefed along the lines of "They are going to scrap a Harrier Sqn - will it be the oldest Sqn in the world or one of the other two - I know where my money would go".

[Union Jack]

As we know, each bomber has two crews, a port and starboard (or it had). Instead of calling then port and starboard call them Oberon and Oberoi for instance. Instantly 2 boats for the price of one.

Great lateral thinking PN!:ok: Next pair could be VICTORY and VICTORIOUS, but VICTORY would always have to be the off crew - and inevitably the "port" crew .....:sad:

As they spend most of their time submerged, who would know?

Not all of them apparently .....:O

Jack