Disbanding Sqns Part 2

[insty66]

A long time ago I asked a question about how Sqns were chosen for the chop. It's HERE (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/121795-disbanding-squadrons.html) if you're interested.

Today I saw an IBN detailing the removal of the (R) from Sqn numbers (and other bracketed qualifiers) and amongst other things I'm sure it said that the removal would be backdated to allow seniority to be accrued.

Is this a sneaky plot to recover a favorite number plate by a senior officer or a way of making it look like there are more active Sqns?

[AberDabber]

It's not retrospective.

[Easy Street]

Today I saw an IBN detailing the removal of the (R) from Sqn numbers...
That’ll be IBN 3/18, published without protective marking or restriction on discussion.

...(and other bracketed qualifiers)
It says no such thing; in fact it’s explicit that formerly-held designators could be reapplied for by the ex-‘R’ sqns.

I'm sure it said that the removal would be backdated to allow seniority to be accrued.
I quote: “Former (R) Designated sqns will resume accrual of sqn seniority from 1 Feb 18”.

Is this a sneaky plot to recover a favorite number plate by a senior officer or a way of making it look like there are more active Sqns?
The note is explicit that one of the aims of the change is to (quote) “protect the seniority of sqns”. So nothing sneaky about it whatsoever. The sqn which sticks out a mile as the principal beneficiary of the new policy is IV and there’s plenty of senior support there. It’s also interesting to consider whether the new incarnation of 12 might have been as 12(R), and whether this incentivised ACAS - a former OC 12 - to push for change to this arcane bit of policy. IV and 12 will now stop sliding down the list. I’d imagine the plan would be to keep 12 alive when the Qatari deal ends, and maybe some numberplate-swapping shenanigans at Valley (not strictly allowed, but see II(AC) Tornado-Typhoon switch) to bring IV back into the STOVL game as a Lightning sqn in the distant future.

[Pontius Navigator]

Over the years there have been attempts to remove the bracketed suffixes but stiffly resisted at the coal face. To mind springs 1(F), II(AC), 12(B)*, 35(Madras Presidency), 44(Rhodesia)**

* One OC 12, with centralised servicing and the loss of B Flt wanted to drop the B. Once it was explained he demanded the return of the Garland and Grey portraits from 1Gp.

** This of course at the time of UDI.

[Davef68]

Over the years there have been attempts to remove the bracketed suffixes but stiffly resisted at the coal face. To mind springs 1(F), II(AC), 12(B)*, 35(Madras Presidency), 44(Rhodesia)**


And how quicky No 5 started using the (AC) qualifier again after moving from the AD role

[Dan Gerous]

Being cynical about it, isn't this a way of making it look like the RAF is bigger than it is. Lots of number plates, but not much on the frontline.

[Davef68]

Partially, but it's also a way of ensuring the most senior numberplates are maintained.

One way it may do that is to prevent some of the more 'left field' allocation of 'Reserve' numbers (e.g. 76) , which were never subject to the seniority rules in the same way that applied to 'operational' squadrons.

[teeteringhead]

I have sometimes wondered why we don't go the Royal Artillery-ish route (where tradition is more with Battery than with Regiment), and maintain numbers and tradition at present flight rather than Sqn level. We already have the "Force" concept and "Force Commanders", so why not extend the concept downwards.

So a 2 flight FJ Sqn would maintain 2 numbers, and a 3 flight Sqn would maintain 3. We'd have to invent names for Wings (old sqns), but we did that quite happily (sic) with Expeditionary Air Wings.

And of course, sqns would once again be commanded by Sqn Ldrs .........

[Pontius Navigator]

TTH, indeed, the UKAEW Force managed 2 Sqns and 7 aircraft.

[Davef68]

There have been rumours over the years about following that idea and making 'Flights' into Squadrons

[Heathrow Harry]

I think this is an awful waste of someone's time.........

[dctyke]

We must be very near to the time where we could give every individual aircraft a sqn number plate and still have some to spare 😉

[camelspyyder]

...and have a VSO to fly each one.:hmm:

[fantom]

I don't care what they do as long as they bring back 208.

[insty66]

It was a quick reading and then scooped from memory several hours later.

Glad they're not messing with the current list though but will IX(B) and 31 suffer in the long term?

[Heathrow Harry]

At current rates of price inflation and budget cuts we'll be lucky to have a single squadron in 30 years.........

[cargosales]

Being cynical about it, isn't this a way of making it look like the RAF is bigger than it is. Lots of number plates, but not much on the frontline.

Indeed.

The cynical amongst us always wondered why Volunteer Gliding Schools became Volunteer Gliding Squadrons.. well, I suppose it kept a scribbly or two in a job for a while, changing all the paperwork, names etc, instead of the money going to where it was actually needed :ugh:

[Davef68]

Indeed.

The cynical amongst us always wondered why Volunteer Gliding Schools became Volunteer Gliding Squadrons.. well, I suppose it kept a scribbly or two in a job for a while, changing all the paperwork, names etc, instead of the money going to where it was actually needed :ugh:


Maybe someone will rename the Flights, and 1435 Squadron will return!

[Wensleydale]

TTH, indeed, the UKAEW Force managed 2 Sqns and 7 aircraft.

Although to be correct, it was the UK Component to the NATO AEW & Control Force, with the NATO Component (3 Squadrons) at Geilenkirchen. (Now down to 2 Sqns I believe).

[Cyberhacker]

Give this topic, I've randomly come across this FOI request (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/squadron_seniority) which may be of interest - or rather the inability to answer.

[Cyberhacker]

As an aside, I note the discussion elsewhere about "special pleading" - I assume this is why the C17 Globemaster III aircraft were assigned to 99 squadron rather than a "more senior" squadron?

[Easy Street]

Whoever at AHB was responsible for that FOI answer needs to learn about number formatting and sorting in tables. The order is wrong because ‘10’ and ‘11’ months appear below ‘2’ months which says to me that it’s been sorted as text.

I hope they check their work more carefully before it gets used to make sqn numbering decisions :hmm: