Disbanding Squadrons
Thread Starter
Disbanding Squadrons
Does anyone know how a RAF Squadron is chosen to be disbanded/ renumbered?
With (v) likely cuts coming soon this is a conversation I can see cropping up fairly often and I'd just like to know.
The 91/92 cuts seemed to involve an enormous amount of "badge shuffling" are we going to see more of the same or will it be thanks for the memories now sod off?
Following on from that ...........who's for the chop? Numbers not types of course.
In curiosity
Insty
With (v) likely cuts coming soon this is a conversation I can see cropping up fairly often and I'd just like to know.
The 91/92 cuts seemed to involve an enormous amount of "badge shuffling" are we going to see more of the same or will it be thanks for the memories now sod off?
Following on from that ...........who's for the chop? Numbers not types of course.
In curiosity
Insty
Oh yes there is a place to shuffle to
What about giving the AEFs a Squadron number. We are manned by old and bold pilots whom would love to carry on the tradition of one of our famous Squadrons. The 600 series might be a good start as we are all RAFVR pilots!!
HF
What about giving the AEFs a Squadron number. We are manned by old and bold pilots whom would love to carry on the tradition of one of our famous Squadrons. The 600 series might be a good start as we are all RAFVR pilots!!
HF
<pulls on numberplate spotter's anorak>
Seniority is the simple answer, insty, but, as always, this isn't an absolute rule (if it was, the GR4 OCU would still be 45 Squadron, not XV).
The most up-to-date figures we have for squadron seniority are from 1968 (tho' I think that another 'which are our senior units?' ex was carried out in 1972-74, which means that the papers might be in the PRO soon), so to work out the most senior plates now means taking the 1968 list, adding on the years of service since then and working out the order - but this is imprecise.
As a for instance, if the GR9 migration to 2 x RAF and 2x RN units goes ahead as planned, one of the RAF GR 7 plates will go. However, as all three are so senior, the plate of the unit that goes will almost certainly be reused for a Typhoon sqn.
Using the 1968 plus service since criteria, 3 Sqn is the most senior of the units, so I suspect the decision will come down to whether 1(F) should be the first front-line Typhoon unit or retain its links with the Harrier.
As for the rest - difficult to tell... Why? Well:
120 and 617 are special cases - they were awarded their standards ahead of schedule in recognition of their WW2 record, and have been treated as being 'undisbandable' [ugh!] ever since.
The next factor is convenience. It may be that the decision is taken to reduce the number of aircraft at a certain base, rather than just chop one sqn from a fleet. So, say, if it is decided that Lossie is to lose a GR 4 unit, it would probably be the case that 12 would go, only for the plate to supersede XV as the OCU plate. If, on t'other hand, it was decided that the GR4 fleet was to lose a unit, base immaterial, 31 (I think) would go as the most junior plate of the GR4 squadrons (617 special exemption kicks in here).
This means that until we know exactly what the planned cuts are, we can't say which for certain which units are likely to disappear and/or re-emerge.
You've also got to consider the fact that their airships have been known to save more junior units because they've served on them, and older plates get the chop instead...
Renumbering is regarded as a bit of a no-no after the farce that went on post-1957, where 3 Sqn kept re- emerging it went from flying Hunters to Javelins to Canberras in the space of 2 or three years, simply because the plate was transferred to less senior units.
An answer might be to abandon the traditional concept of what a squadron is, do admin, etc, via a wing/station system and simply rename each flight as a squadron. Sq Ldrs could command squadrons again...
Seniority is the simple answer, insty, but, as always, this isn't an absolute rule (if it was, the GR4 OCU would still be 45 Squadron, not XV).
The most up-to-date figures we have for squadron seniority are from 1968 (tho' I think that another 'which are our senior units?' ex was carried out in 1972-74, which means that the papers might be in the PRO soon), so to work out the most senior plates now means taking the 1968 list, adding on the years of service since then and working out the order - but this is imprecise.
As a for instance, if the GR9 migration to 2 x RAF and 2x RN units goes ahead as planned, one of the RAF GR 7 plates will go. However, as all three are so senior, the plate of the unit that goes will almost certainly be reused for a Typhoon sqn.
Using the 1968 plus service since criteria, 3 Sqn is the most senior of the units, so I suspect the decision will come down to whether 1(F) should be the first front-line Typhoon unit or retain its links with the Harrier.
As for the rest - difficult to tell... Why? Well:
120 and 617 are special cases - they were awarded their standards ahead of schedule in recognition of their WW2 record, and have been treated as being 'undisbandable' [ugh!] ever since.
The next factor is convenience. It may be that the decision is taken to reduce the number of aircraft at a certain base, rather than just chop one sqn from a fleet. So, say, if it is decided that Lossie is to lose a GR 4 unit, it would probably be the case that 12 would go, only for the plate to supersede XV as the OCU plate. If, on t'other hand, it was decided that the GR4 fleet was to lose a unit, base immaterial, 31 (I think) would go as the most junior plate of the GR4 squadrons (617 special exemption kicks in here).
This means that until we know exactly what the planned cuts are, we can't say which for certain which units are likely to disappear and/or re-emerge.
You've also got to consider the fact that their airships have been known to save more junior units because they've served on them, and older plates get the chop instead...
Renumbering is regarded as a bit of a no-no after the farce that went on post-1957, where 3 Sqn kept re- emerging it went from flying Hunters to Javelins to Canberras in the space of 2 or three years, simply because the plate was transferred to less senior units.
An answer might be to abandon the traditional concept of what a squadron is, do admin, etc, via a wing/station system and simply rename each flight as a squadron. Sq Ldrs could command squadrons again...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes, it's not as simple as seniority.
You forget politics!
For example, although 3(F) had aeroplanes while 1(F) were poncing around with the Women's Royal Auxiliary Balloon Corps, 3(F) has been disbanded for longer during its history (a long weekend back in '63 I think )
. And let's face it, it has a chicken for a badge.
You forget politics!
For example, although 3(F) had aeroplanes while 1(F) were poncing around with the Women's Royal Auxiliary Balloon Corps, 3(F) has been disbanded for longer during its history (a long weekend back in '63 I think )
. And let's face it, it has a chicken for a badge.
The Gorilla
What do you mean forthcoming? The White paper was published in December!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squadron Seniority et al
OK Time for a little education.
Seniority is tracked by the Air Historical Branch monthly. It is worked out on reckonable service which is effectively active service not in a 'reserve' role. For example 56(R) became the Tornado F3 OCU in mid nineties and so its seniority 'froze' at that stage. Time disbanded doesn't count for anything and I seem to recall this means that II(AC) is the senior squadron because 1(F) spent a short time on the bench. Role doesn't count for much either as 25 Sqn gained a large lump of seniority as a Bloodhound Sqn and 100 Sqn earn equal credit to a frontline unit despite having what some might consider a second-line role. It is only the training units that pick up (R) roles who's seniority is frozen.
When it comes to selecting which number to cull there is a policy paper which comes into play. First of all you look at the base to lose a sqn then go for the junior sqn at that base. In the late nineties this led to 29(F) being disbanded at Coningsby despite it being senior to 43 or 111 at Leuchars. Their airships then enter the equation and issues such as role changes, relocations and 'special pleading' come into play and the last time we did this exercise we also ensured that a proportion of ex-RNAS sqn numbers were retained (can you imagine the dark blue being equally even handed or sympathetic to us?) hence 201. 216 etc despite their relatively junior status.
The upshot is that the last 2 sqns in the RAF will be 1 Sqn and 617 Sqn unless the CAS of the day happens to have been OC II(AC) Sqn .......................
Are you reading this Sir Jock?
Seniority is tracked by the Air Historical Branch monthly. It is worked out on reckonable service which is effectively active service not in a 'reserve' role. For example 56(R) became the Tornado F3 OCU in mid nineties and so its seniority 'froze' at that stage. Time disbanded doesn't count for anything and I seem to recall this means that II(AC) is the senior squadron because 1(F) spent a short time on the bench. Role doesn't count for much either as 25 Sqn gained a large lump of seniority as a Bloodhound Sqn and 100 Sqn earn equal credit to a frontline unit despite having what some might consider a second-line role. It is only the training units that pick up (R) roles who's seniority is frozen.
When it comes to selecting which number to cull there is a policy paper which comes into play. First of all you look at the base to lose a sqn then go for the junior sqn at that base. In the late nineties this led to 29(F) being disbanded at Coningsby despite it being senior to 43 or 111 at Leuchars. Their airships then enter the equation and issues such as role changes, relocations and 'special pleading' come into play and the last time we did this exercise we also ensured that a proportion of ex-RNAS sqn numbers were retained (can you imagine the dark blue being equally even handed or sympathetic to us?) hence 201. 216 etc despite their relatively junior status.
The upshot is that the last 2 sqns in the RAF will be 1 Sqn and 617 Sqn unless the CAS of the day happens to have been OC II(AC) Sqn .......................
Are you reading this Sir Jock?
Just re-read my previous post, and realised a slight 'itch, in that when abbreviating my post prior to sending it, I chopped the bits around wrongly, so although what I meant to say about 1(F) was accurate (I head one of their airships debate whether 1(F) shd stay a GR7 unit or have Typhoon), me numbering was out.
Impiger is quite correct - II(AC) is the senior squadron in the RAF; it was in 1968 and remains so. 1 is second, 4 is fourth, and 3 was twelfth. So for '3 is most senior' read '3 is most junior'.
There is a debate over reckonable service, but AFAIK, the policy as outlined has not changed (the debate being that since elements of OCUs have deployed on ops, shouldn't they be credited).
I think I made the point about deciding which base is to lose a unit and the most junior one at that base being chosen - I used 12 Sqn as the example, since it is the third most senior GR4 unit (after 2 and 14) but could go if a unit is lost from Lossie, despite the fact that 9, 13 and 31 are junior to it.
The point about XV sqn is that the only way that its plate could have been resurrected in lieu of 45's plate was by taking time spent as a reserve unit into account (it was the equivalent of the SAEOU for ten or fifteen years) to say 'this plate is senior and must therefore be preserved (if frozen) by giving it to the TWCU' - the special pleading impiger talks of.
I'm a bit doubtful, with respect, about the named 200-series plates being saved 'despite relatively junior status', since 201, 202 and 216 are senior to 27,101, 54 and 22 , and since 201 and 202 have been extant ever since the 1968 exercise awarded seniority they can't have slipped down the list.
<returns anorak to hook behind door>
Impiger is quite correct - II(AC) is the senior squadron in the RAF; it was in 1968 and remains so. 1 is second, 4 is fourth, and 3 was twelfth. So for '3 is most senior' read '3 is most junior'.
There is a debate over reckonable service, but AFAIK, the policy as outlined has not changed (the debate being that since elements of OCUs have deployed on ops, shouldn't they be credited).
I think I made the point about deciding which base is to lose a unit and the most junior one at that base being chosen - I used 12 Sqn as the example, since it is the third most senior GR4 unit (after 2 and 14) but could go if a unit is lost from Lossie, despite the fact that 9, 13 and 31 are junior to it.
The point about XV sqn is that the only way that its plate could have been resurrected in lieu of 45's plate was by taking time spent as a reserve unit into account (it was the equivalent of the SAEOU for ten or fifteen years) to say 'this plate is senior and must therefore be preserved (if frozen) by giving it to the TWCU' - the special pleading impiger talks of.
I'm a bit doubtful, with respect, about the named 200-series plates being saved 'despite relatively junior status', since 201, 202 and 216 are senior to 27,101, 54 and 22 , and since 201 and 202 have been extant ever since the 1968 exercise awarded seniority they can't have slipped down the list.
<returns anorak to hook behind door>
Archimedes,
Your slight 'itch hath me confuseth.
"The point about XV sqn is that the only way that its plate could have been resurrected in lieu of 45's plate was by taking time spent as a reserve unit into account (it was the equivalent of the SAEOU for ten or fifteen years)"
Er, didn't the TWCU go from 45 to XV when XV got the chop after GW1?
When has XV EVER been non op or a Reserve plate? It's certainly never been an SAOEU equivalent.
45 was dormant for some considerable time after folding up as Canberra outfit in FEAF.
Pray eblighten this confused bod.
Your slight 'itch hath me confuseth.
"The point about XV sqn is that the only way that its plate could have been resurrected in lieu of 45's plate was by taking time spent as a reserve unit into account (it was the equivalent of the SAEOU for ten or fifteen years)"
Er, didn't the TWCU go from 45 to XV when XV got the chop after GW1?
When has XV EVER been non op or a Reserve plate? It's certainly never been an SAOEU equivalent.
45 was dormant for some considerable time after folding up as Canberra outfit in FEAF.
Pray eblighten this confused bod.
pr00ne -
Yes, XV replaced 45 as the plate for the TWCU (as then was) post Granby.
The argument that this should not have happened is based on the notion that 45 is senior to XV , and the senior plate should've been saved, even if it could not subsequently earn 'points' towards its seniority.
XV was disbanded between 31 Dec 1919 and 20 March 1924. It then reformed as a trials unit (my equvialent to SAOEU, but an A&AEE unit would have been a better example), a role it held for ten years before being restored to the front line.
Without getting too long-winded (I'm trying, I'm trying!), if you do the adding up of time regarded as a non-operational squadron 45 is senior to XV by 1 yr, 1 mth and 10 days.
However, the argument rests on whether the time as a Hunter 9 squadron was in an operational role or a reserve role - I have seen material arguing both sides of the case.
In any event, since 45 re-emerged as a plate soon after being displaced by XV, the point is pretty moot - just a question of whether the flying camel should be on GR4s or King Airs. I suspect a King Air marked up as MacRobert's Reply might be a tad inappropriate though!
Yes, XV replaced 45 as the plate for the TWCU (as then was) post Granby.
The argument that this should not have happened is based on the notion that 45 is senior to XV , and the senior plate should've been saved, even if it could not subsequently earn 'points' towards its seniority.
XV was disbanded between 31 Dec 1919 and 20 March 1924. It then reformed as a trials unit (my equvialent to SAOEU, but an A&AEE unit would have been a better example), a role it held for ten years before being restored to the front line.
Without getting too long-winded (I'm trying, I'm trying!), if you do the adding up of time regarded as a non-operational squadron 45 is senior to XV by 1 yr, 1 mth and 10 days.
However, the argument rests on whether the time as a Hunter 9 squadron was in an operational role or a reserve role - I have seen material arguing both sides of the case.
In any event, since 45 re-emerged as a plate soon after being displaced by XV, the point is pretty moot - just a question of whether the flying camel should be on GR4s or King Airs. I suspect a King Air marked up as MacRobert's Reply might be a tad inappropriate though!
This whole 'seniority' thing seems to be unduly rigid and 'numerical'. A Squadron may have 'clocked up' many years of unbroken service without having done anything as significant or worthwhile as another with notionally less 'seniority'.
We have already consigned No.19 Squadron (the first Spit squadron, Sailor Malan's mob, arguably the leading Duxford 'Big Wing' unit) to the dustbin, along with No.92 (the most successful RAF fighter Squadron of WW2, if I recall correctly), No.56 (the Firebirds!) and No.74, while No.25 Squadron and No.5 remain in being, despite having had far less distinguished histories.
The idea of assigning Squadron numberplates to what are now flights has a great deal of merit, in my view. Squadrons would be led by Squadron Leaders, for starters, and twice as many number-plates could be kept in being.
We have already consigned No.19 Squadron (the first Spit squadron, Sailor Malan's mob, arguably the leading Duxford 'Big Wing' unit) to the dustbin, along with No.92 (the most successful RAF fighter Squadron of WW2, if I recall correctly), No.56 (the Firebirds!) and No.74, while No.25 Squadron and No.5 remain in being, despite having had far less distinguished histories.
The idea of assigning Squadron numberplates to what are now flights has a great deal of merit, in my view. Squadrons would be led by Squadron Leaders, for starters, and twice as many number-plates could be kept in being.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the other advantage to this is that it allows the Govt of the day to claim it has doubled the number of the squadrons in the RAF regardless of the fact that its cut the number of planes - more admin, less teeth - a new labour dream fulfilled 
Jacko,
I thought Sailor Malan was a 74 Sqn chap? ISTR that some of the sqn's Hunters had his signature on them at one stage.
249 is said to have been the most successful sqn of WW2, since it had an awful lot of opportunities over Malta; 92 had fewer when it was in Italy.
The Air Staff agreed that past record shouldn't be used for sustaining a number plate in the 1968 review of numberplates - although 120 and 617 appear to contradict this rule, they're regarded as extra-special cases because of the award of their standards in recognition of their achievements, a distinction not granted to any other unit.
I thought Sailor Malan was a 74 Sqn chap? ISTR that some of the sqn's Hunters had his signature on them at one stage.
249 is said to have been the most successful sqn of WW2, since it had an awful lot of opportunities over Malta; 92 had fewer when it was in Italy.
The Air Staff agreed that past record shouldn't be used for sustaining a number plate in the 1968 review of numberplates - although 120 and 617 appear to contradict this rule, they're regarded as extra-special cases because of the award of their standards in recognition of their achievements, a distinction not granted to any other unit.
Thread Starter
All
Thanks for the excellent, most informative.
So, their airships not withstanding, if Colt does go the flying can openers number is safe(as a Typhoon sqn) but 16 (R) 41 and 54 plates might be in trouble. Likewise if a GR4 sqn goes 12 or 31 are most likley to go ( if they drop a recce sqn would that make a difference or would 13 simply re-role?). The Leaping Heap situation has already been explained but haven't all the Typhoon plates already been allocated ruling out 3(F) change of aircraft?
It still seems a right muddle or is it kept deliberatley so?
Thanks for the excellent, most informative.
So, their airships not withstanding, if Colt does go the flying can openers number is safe(as a Typhoon sqn) but 16 (R) 41 and 54 plates might be in trouble. Likewise if a GR4 sqn goes 12 or 31 are most likley to go ( if they drop a recce sqn would that make a difference or would 13 simply re-role?). The Leaping Heap situation has already been explained but haven't all the Typhoon plates already been allocated ruling out 3(F) change of aircraft?
It still seems a right muddle or is it kept deliberatley so?
Insty,
12 will only go if it is decided to lose a GR4 unit from Lossie. If it's decided to shuffle units about (i.e. move one squadron from Lossie to Marham) and lose one, then one of the junior plates will disappear instead (31). Although it's not meant to, role might come into it - but as 13 is senior to 31, it probably wouldn't affect the outcome.
I believe that there was a cunning plan for the disbandment and reformation of Jag/F3/Typhoon units (plan without details mentioned to the Commons Defence Cttee), but this could all go out of the window if the number of Typhoon sqs is cut. Plate allocations can change right up to the point of announcement. The F-4J(UK) sqn plate was meant to be 39 until it was decided that a more feline plate should be adopted....
41 may well survive, as it is senior to 111 and 43. 54's chances look less happy.
If it's any help, the seniority (roughly) for the extant Jag & F3 plates is:
6
11
25
41
56
16
111
54
43
Before anyone wonders, this is public domain stuff - for anyone sad enough to look in the PRO!
Although those in charge of the numberplating probably have a very good idea of which plates will be used, keeping the punters guessing seems a favourite trick. And as impiger notes, if the CAS of the time happens to have been with 43 and not, say, 56, when the time comes to form a unit....
12 will only go if it is decided to lose a GR4 unit from Lossie. If it's decided to shuffle units about (i.e. move one squadron from Lossie to Marham) and lose one, then one of the junior plates will disappear instead (31). Although it's not meant to, role might come into it - but as 13 is senior to 31, it probably wouldn't affect the outcome.
I believe that there was a cunning plan for the disbandment and reformation of Jag/F3/Typhoon units (plan without details mentioned to the Commons Defence Cttee), but this could all go out of the window if the number of Typhoon sqs is cut. Plate allocations can change right up to the point of announcement. The F-4J(UK) sqn plate was meant to be 39 until it was decided that a more feline plate should be adopted....
41 may well survive, as it is senior to 111 and 43. 54's chances look less happy.
If it's any help, the seniority (roughly) for the extant Jag & F3 plates is:
6
11
25
41
56
16
111
54
43
Before anyone wonders, this is public domain stuff - for anyone sad enough to look in the PRO!
Although those in charge of the numberplating probably have a very good idea of which plates will be used, keeping the punters guessing seems a favourite trick. And as impiger notes, if the CAS of the time happens to have been with 43 and not, say, 56, when the time comes to form a unit....
Quite right on Malan. I do apologise! 19's aces were of more humble rank - including 'Grumpy' Unwin, for example.
Quite wrong on 92, however, despite 249's derring do on Malta! 249 had brief moments, but 92 were more consistent for longer. Or maybe Neville Duke et al are more convincing......?
One hopes that 54 is safe. Their wartime record (both wars!) was impeccable, especially in the BoB, and 11, 25 and 16 have far less claim to continued existance, especially as FJ or fighter units.
Quite wrong on 92, however, despite 249's derring do on Malta! 249 had brief moments, but 92 were more consistent for longer. Or maybe Neville Duke et al are more convincing......?
One hopes that 54 is safe. Their wartime record (both wars!) was impeccable, especially in the BoB, and 11, 25 and 16 have far less claim to continued existance, especially as FJ or fighter units.
I admit that I always thought that it was 92 who were most successful - after all, when you have Tuck, Duke, Kingcombe, Kent et al flying for the unit, it must surely be in with the prize.
However, I then read that when Laddie Lucas (late of 249 oddly enough...) was an MP, he managed to have research carried out that apparently 'proved' that 249 shot down the most aircraft.
Brian Cull gives the credit to 249 in his history of the squadron and comes up with 328 .5, presumably from the F540s and the combat reports in the PRO he cites.
I don't have Aces High to hand so can't check Chris Shores' potted history of all the fighter squadrons to see what he says about this. Any idea what 92 scored? Despite scanning the bookcase behind me twice, everything with the answer in is at work...
On a completely different unit - 11 was the first fighter unit in the RFC, so might have a bit of a claim to stay on the books. I agree, though, that if the RAF is so keen on ethos and heritage issues, that the most famous units ought to be kept on, which would require looking at their achievements from WW1 onwards (which, I guess, would mean 56, 74 and 92 would all have to reappear).
However, I then read that when Laddie Lucas (late of 249 oddly enough...) was an MP, he managed to have research carried out that apparently 'proved' that 249 shot down the most aircraft.
Brian Cull gives the credit to 249 in his history of the squadron and comes up with 328 .5, presumably from the F540s and the combat reports in the PRO he cites.
I don't have Aces High to hand so can't check Chris Shores' potted history of all the fighter squadrons to see what he says about this. Any idea what 92 scored? Despite scanning the bookcase behind me twice, everything with the answer in is at work...
On a completely different unit - 11 was the first fighter unit in the RFC, so might have a bit of a claim to stay on the books. I agree, though, that if the RAF is so keen on ethos and heritage issues, that the most famous units ought to be kept on, which would require looking at their achievements from WW1 onwards (which, I guess, would mean 56, 74 and 92 would all have to reappear).