RAF - Standing up/down and rebadging

[Heathrow Harry]

Recently the RAF rebadged 2 Squadron (Tornado) as 12 Squadron and announced the 2 Squadron label would be transferred to a new Typhoon squadron.

Why not not just keep 2 Squadron as Tornados and make the new Typhoon Squadron number 12????

Save on paper and paint for a start

[pr00ne]

Heathrow Harry,

Because 2 Sqn has a future and 12 Sqn doesn't.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Traditionally, years stood up takes precedence. There would also seem to be a correlation between having a former Squadron Boss at 3* or above and who gets what.....

..mentioning no names (but it rhymes with Gick Darwood ;))

[Heathrow Harry]

I'd assumed that soemthing like Fox's explanation was the reason

Seems a pity when cash is so short to waste ANYTHING on this sort of thing

[Pontius Navigator]

12(B) Sqn didn't really fit the fighter image

[Akrotiri bad boy]

IIRC back in '79 when the Buccs turned up at Lossie they did so as 216 Sqn before valmorphorising into 12 Sqn.
I can't figure out why a transport squadron should be assigned Buccs, and then only for a very short period. What happened there?:confused:

[Davef68]

216 was supposed to be the third UK Bucc squadron until the Red Flag accident revealed the extent of the wing problem, and following repairs there were only enough aircraft to form two squadrons plus the OCU.

Can't recall if the Seniority rules wree in force then, but it was a historic number so the 'change of role' was to resurrect it.

As to why 12(B) was resurrected, the planning and formation of II onto the Typhoon was in motion long before the decision to retain a Tornado squadron, so it made sense to continue that and temporarily reform 12. saves another re-shuffle in 12 months

[polecat2]

Seniority


Back in 1918 the old RNAS squadrons were reallocated 200-series numbers, eg 1Sqdn RNAS became 201 Squadron RAF. Squadrons in the 2xx range have traditionally been Coastal or Bomber (ex-Handley Page 0/400) Units. So 216 Sqdn does have a fair bit of seniority and with the Bucc the maritime connection was retained.

[HTB]

PN


If you think 12(B) didn't fit the 'fighter' image, how do you reconcile II(AC) fitting that image? Army Cooperation, for much of its existence in a reconnaissance role (for the Tornado iteration remember that even the cannons were replaced by the SLIR/ILRS associated equipment).


Just maybe possible that a former II(AC) flt cdr, now 3*, might have had a little influence...


Mister B

[ian16th]

214 Sqdn having a former OC becoming MoRAF didn't save it :{

[kintyred]

I get the impression that anything to do with tradition or ceremony would be defended to the hilt here and yet we bemoan a lack of funding on defence spending......we're not helping the cause by standing up for, or explaining without criticising such a daft waste of money.

[Timelord]

As Davef68 says, I think that you will find that II (Typhoon) Squadron was simply too far along the process of forming ("NOT STANDING UP") when the decision was taken to retain the third GR4 Sqn.

[HTB]

When II(AC) squadron is equipped with Typhoon, would it be logical (and accurate) to drop the '(AC)', maybe assume '(F)', or maybe neither. The primary role would indicate which appellation is appropriate; or is it heresy to muck about with squadron designations?


Bear in mind that, despite what 1(F) might assert, II(AC) is the oldest RAF aeroplane squadron...:ok:


Mister B

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

XI dropped the (F) when they were designated lead mud-movers for the Tiffie (and they are the Oldest Fighter Squadron on the Planet). I should think most squadrons have been F, B and AC at some point.

[Pontius Navigator]

There can be much angst in dropping sqn suffixes.

There was a fashionable move in the 60s to drop appellation s such as Rhodesia and Madras with diehards pointing out the official coat of arms had these as did the standard.

[Dan Gerous]

Was this all not due to CMD on a visit to 2 Sqn in agfannystan, commenting that 2 were due to disband and he stated that they would now not be, obviously unaware of the fact that they were to disband on Tornados and reform on Typhoons , on the same day.

[Heathrow Harry]

rather like LBJ landing us with the the SR-71 rather than the RS-71 which was in his written speech...................

[OafOrfUxAche]

...or the European Helicopter Industries 01 Marlin which ended up as the EH 101 Merlin. Gotta love those blunties...

[Heathrow Harry]

we'll not even go near the famous naming of the Mitsubishi Starion car in the late '70's....................

[Old-Duffer]

The whole business of squadron numbers is a dog’s breakfast IMHO.

I accept that an arrangements needed to be made but whilst the principle of low numbers can be accepted, once one started to make exceptions, the line was difficult to hold. There are very many squadrons, some in the high numbers, whose squadron achievements can be matched to those currently in use. Two issues come into play. First, if you keep the low numbers as at present, they will de facto become the longest serving units with the passage of time. Second, the policy means that squadrons whose lineage is – say – bomber, suddenly become a transport unit. This loses any sort of corporate history. One must also allow that those in the current and future service will only have any knowledge of the sqns currently around and so will have no interest in the rich history of the RAF.

The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.

I proposed about thirty years ago that the OCUs should be renumbered as squadrons and when my proposal was aired in Air Clues, there was considerable opposition, some of it bordering on abuse and I thought the idea would die. However, Air Marshal Sir John Curtiss championed the idea and it happened, with the Reserve squadrons as we have now.

The only way that squadrons might be resurrected is with something like the parts of a station organisation being given numbers. So, for example, the base support wing at RAF ‘X’ becomes: 194 (Support) Sqn. It might be that the School of Recruit Training has – say – two training squadrons and these might be numbered 103 (Recruit Training) Sqn and 110 (RT) Sqn. These pseudo units would acquire all the remaining memorabilia, silverware – if it hasn’t already been stolen from the store – and the squadron standard. In my view it might help inculcate some pride in the organisation. Certainly for my part, I still feel proud of the squadrons on which I served but have little affinity with being part of the Admin Wg at RAF Much Binding in the Marsh.

Old Duffer

[Davef68]

Or the F-35 (which was a trap set for the politician concerned by the journos)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Another good idea, but how about School CCFs and ATC units being given some of the responsibility? To remain alive in every sense, the past needs to be integrated with the future, not just the present.

[ian16th]

I still feel proud of the squadrons on which I served but have little affinity with being part of the Admin Wg at RAF Much Binding in the Marsh.I agree 100%, but the bean counters put no value on such pride.

Idea's such as centralised servicing, removed technical staff from numbered squadrons and severely dented this pride, so how can an administrator that spends his/her life in a succession of SHQ's partake?

[Davef68]

A good idea, we have already seen non-flying units adopt historic squadron numbers (The RAuxAF units spring to mind).

I recall a proposal to have the Wing/Squadron relationship nominally changed so that the Wing became the basic unit and the squadron a sub-unit (allowing Wing Commanders to command wings and Squadron Leaders to lead Squadrons) - this allowing an effective doubling of squadrons for numeric purposes. Don't think that ever took off, if you pardon the pun!

[HTB]

F3WMB


I can see potential for confusion for the casual observer in dropping the designations (F), (AC), etc; if II(AC) were to become just II, it could be seen as 11 (XI) by, say, non-RAF peeps. But this is perhaps the only circumstance where it could happen (I can't think of any other Roman-Arabic numeral other than this).


Davef68


Whatever next? You'll be wanting flight lieutenants running flights and group captains commanding groups as well, I suppose. Don't you see how career-limiting this would be for the greasy pole promotion system.:=


Mister B

[tmmorris]

The problem with the CCF/ATC idea is that ATC sqns and even CCF sections have our own histories. Not as illustrious of course but still a part of where we come from. Eg our own CCF section was part of 1056 Sqn ATC, another part of which became 2121DF then 2121 Sqn ATC. We are holding a 75th anniversary reunion next year. Sad to lose that identity and history even if rescuing a defunct RAF Sqn number.

[Old-Duffer]

Perhaps the answer to the CCF/ATC situation is as follows.

ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.

CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.

O-D

[tmmorris]

Perhaps the answer to the CCF/ATC situation is as follows.

ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.

CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.

O-D

Didn't know that about OTC air sections. Is there a reference on this? A history of the CCF RAF is being written at the moment.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.


Very true, although this will happen whichever numbers are chosen to survive. To me, the greatest dis-service at the moment is being done to the 200-series Squadrons - having been the earliest RNAS units, they have an illustrious history yet nearly all are doomed with no sign of regeneration:

201 - gone not too long ago
202 - closing this year
203 - 'ceased trading', awaiting formal disbandment
206 - survives, albeit as a specialist unit rather than a typical sqn
207 and 208 - very unlikely to survive the advent of MFTS
216 - recently gone
230 - safe and sound for now
All others already long gone

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

TMM - True enough about CCF histories. My first school's CCF was older than the RAF, and indeed older than the formal CCF movement. I think it's 110 now. I was thinking about the RAF section for CCFs.

[Old-Duffer]

The specific information regarding the pre-war air sections is available from various sources. For example, I helped at Rugby School CCF and their pre war air section was affiliated to 18 Sqn at Upper Heyford, as shown in the schools CCF history.

The wartime ATC included the 200 or so air sections at schools and it was not until about 1948 that the CCF as such came into being, claiming back the ATC units and calling them 'RAF Sections' of the CCF. At the same time the current ATC set up was formed and based largely on county boundaries, although things have of course changed. With several thousand numbered ATC units, the reason why there are still sqns in to the 2000 series is because these units mostly survived the post war reduction/rationalisation of the ATC and for whatever reason were able to resist attempts to renumber them.

The gliding schools are another interesting subject but not now!

Old Duffer

[Bigbux]

Gotta love those blunties...

And you think a blunty gets anywhere near the process do you? I seem to remember when the J model was being brought in a friend of mine was invited to a meeting to discuss the finalities.

With all the money spent, and the meeting seemingly centred on where the sqn crest should go, he asked whether there were any plans to change the side guidance to a system that accommodated RAF pallets, and if not, how many US pallets were being provisioned?

There was silence, before the discussion returned to sqn crests.

[Bigbux]

we'll not even go near the famous naming of the Mitsubishi Starion car in the late '70's....................

Funnily enough, the MR2 didn't sell well in France either.:ugh:

[midsomerjambo]

As ex-35 groundcrew, I was always a bit disappointed that 35 was never reformed as a Tornado unit given the other ex-Vulcan units that were (two with lower number, so perhaps reasonable, but the other a lot higher and known for no more than bashing holes in walls). I expect ex-50 and 44 people feel much the same. I was also a bit non-plussed that when the TWCU (on which I spent a little over 5 years) was given a number, it got 45 (anyone know why?). I would have thought that would have been a perfect candidate to take on one of the old Vulcan numbers.

They move in mysterious ways...

[dctyke]

Non-plussed with 45 Sqn? Wash your mouth out! ��

[Archimedes]

It was because of 45's seniority - at the time of the TWCU formation, it'd have been about 19th on the list of seniority, whereas 35 was approximately 52nd and 50 was around 90th on the list.

45 was the most senior numberplate not in use at the time. Although the rules/policy permitted another numberplate to be used for a reserve squadron if there was a good reason for it (e.g. 76 Squadron's reformation as a Tucano unit at L-O-O because of the association between the squadron and LOO during the war), 45 was senior and had 'role association' having served in a number of different roles during its existence (fighter, fighter-bomber, light bomber, ground attack), making it appropriate for the MRCA.

The approximations are because I'm using the 1973 list and there is a possibility that, post Hunters, 45 would've slipped a place or two, while 35 and 50 might have moved a couple as some squadrons just ahead of them in the list had disbanded, enabling 35 and 50 to overtake them through length of accumulated service; there was often very little between units at that time, and short periods of disbandment could allow squadrons to swap places in the list.