XXV - the RAF's most senior squadron
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hopton Wafers
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXV - the RAF's most senior squadron
XXV Squadron will disband on April 4th 2008. Is this the demise of the longest serving operational squadron in the RAF? Any counter claims but let's not have any of 'the Bloodhound bit doesn't count' stuff, please.
Feriens Tego – Striking I defend
Feriens Tego – Striking I defend
The AHB was called upon to draw up a list of squadron seniority in 1957 and a similar list has been produced on many occasions since; the last one I've seen dates from 1973, but I have it on extremely good authority that the principles underpinning the 73 list (which are the same as those for the 1968 list and almost identical to the 57 list) are still in place.
Assuming that the same rules still apply in terms of accumulated service, II(AC) will be officially considered the most senior RAF squadron (as it has been on every list of seniority that's in the PRO).
6 had unbroken service until it went last year; XXV was dormant from 1962 when it surrendered its Gloster Javelins until October 73 when it received Bloodhound. II(AC) was dormant for the grand total of 11 days in 1920, and has been with us ever since.
None of that, though, should take away from the fact that the squadron is one of the most senior numberplates and should, all things being equal, re-emerge as a Typhoon squadron in due course.
Assuming that the same rules still apply in terms of accumulated service, II(AC) will be officially considered the most senior RAF squadron (as it has been on every list of seniority that's in the PRO).
6 had unbroken service until it went last year; XXV was dormant from 1962 when it surrendered its Gloster Javelins until October 73 when it received Bloodhound. II(AC) was dormant for the grand total of 11 days in 1920, and has been with us ever since.
None of that, though, should take away from the fact that the squadron is one of the most senior numberplates and should, all things being equal, re-emerge as a Typhoon squadron in due course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hopton Wafers
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes - Thanks for your response. I always believed XXV was up there somewhere. Was it the seniority of XXV that saw the demise of 11 and 23 while XXV survived at Leeming?
The indicators for XXV are not good as there’s nothing on the horizon re the number plate being carried forward (not that I’m in the know but I’ve heard – always dangerous). Rumours do abound though about the lack of support for XXV from those on high who wish to promote the succession of squadron’s they served on. A terrible rumour that I'm sure is not true
. Hopefully the XXV number plate will reappear, it should do.
In the meantime lots of ex and current XXV'ers will be at Leeming on the 28th/29th March for the usual sedate social gatherings that occur when a great squadron goes (OK - a bit of bias there).
The indicators for XXV are not good as there’s nothing on the horizon re the number plate being carried forward (not that I’m in the know but I’ve heard – always dangerous). Rumours do abound though about the lack of support for XXV from those on high who wish to promote the succession of squadron’s they served on. A terrible rumour that I'm sure is not true
. Hopefully the XXV number plate will reappear, it should do.In the meantime lots of ex and current XXV'ers will be at Leeming on the 28th/29th March for the usual sedate social gatherings that occur when a great squadron goes (OK - a bit of bias there).
Was it the seniority of XXV that saw the demise of 11 and 23
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: @ a loss
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For reasons that I can't now recall, 1 and 3 squadrons were the first to form. As has been mentioned, 1 Sqn were equiped with balloons, hence 3 Sqn is the oldest 'aircraft' squadron - motto 'Tertius Primus Erit', 'The Third Shall Be First'.
However, like other posters, I understood 2 Sqn to be the most senior squadron when calculated by length of service rather than date of formation.
Thread Creep - When 3(F) Sqn was being presented with a new standard in the 80s I took a photo of a line up of aircraft from 1 through to 5 Sgn on the ramp outside the old Q shed on 3(F)'s site at Gutersloh (Harrier, Jaguar, Harrier, Harrier, Lightning). Many years later, while boring a squadron of air cadets with a presentation on my years of derring do in the RAF I asked them what the link was between the aircraft in the picture.
Quick as a flash, a little hand shot up.
'They all have Rolls-Royce engines?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
'They are all single seat?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
'You've flown them all?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
In the end I has to tell them the answer (1 to 5, in order), but the little philistines weren't particularly impressed
However, like other posters, I understood 2 Sqn to be the most senior squadron when calculated by length of service rather than date of formation.
Thread Creep - When 3(F) Sqn was being presented with a new standard in the 80s I took a photo of a line up of aircraft from 1 through to 5 Sgn on the ramp outside the old Q shed on 3(F)'s site at Gutersloh (Harrier, Jaguar, Harrier, Harrier, Lightning). Many years later, while boring a squadron of air cadets with a presentation on my years of derring do in the RAF I asked them what the link was between the aircraft in the picture.
Quick as a flash, a little hand shot up.
'They all have Rolls-Royce engines?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
'They are all single seat?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
'You've flown them all?'
'Yes, but that wasn't the answer I was looking for'
In the end I has to tell them the answer (1 to 5, in order), but the little philistines weren't particularly impressed
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In April 1911 the War Office formed an Air Battalion at Farnborough, consisting of two companies. No1 company had balloons, kites and airships whilst No2 company had aeroplanes.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: @ a loss
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In April 1911 the War Office formed an Air Battalion at Farnborough, consisting of two companies. No1 company had balloons, kites and airships whilst No2 company had aeroplanes.
ALock, senior officers do indeed attempt to get 'their' squadrons reformed, but the Head of AHB always tells them that if this is their wish, they must - personally, with no help from their SO2s - rewrite the squadron numberplate policy and put it through the Air Force Board (or whatever its called these days).
At which point, senior officers invariably surrender. When the time comes for the creation of a new squadron, if the extant policy stands, XXV will be the front runners to reform.
TSM - common misperception, but the creation of 1(N) came about later than that of 1, II(AC) and 3.
At which point, senior officers invariably surrender. When the time comes for the creation of a new squadron, if the extant policy stands, XXV will be the front runners to reform.
TSM - common misperception, but the creation of 1(N) came about later than that of 1, II(AC) and 3.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a long 'discussion' between 2 and 3 as to who took to the air first - until records came to light that showed that the COs of both units took off together to avoid such controversy.
"In the end I has to tell them the answer (1 to 5, in order), but the little philistines weren't particularly impressed"
Well I can't understand why. Lined up in order of Sqn numbers. What's not to like about that? Kids eh?
Well I can't understand why. Lined up in order of Sqn numbers. What's not to like about that? Kids eh?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes
The question relates to the first RAF Squadon.
As the RAF was formed on 1 April 1918, the very same day that 1 sqn RNAS became no' 201 sqn RAF.
Why therefore, do you feel that 1sqn was 'the first' ??
TSM
The question relates to the first RAF Squadon.
As the RAF was formed on 1 April 1918, the very same day that 1 sqn RNAS became no' 201 sqn RAF.
Why therefore, do you feel that 1sqn was 'the first' ??
TSM
TSM - because all of the extant RFC and RNAS squadrons became RAF squadrons at the same time.
1 Sqn RFC became 1 Sqn RAF at the precise same moment that 1(N) was re-numbered from 1 Sqn RNAS to become 201 Sqn RAF.
Renumbering of a squadron in this set of circumstances doesn't count as unit formation when calculating seniority. 201's high position in the RAF's seniority list stems from its formation as 1 Naval Sqn on 17 Oct 14, not from renumbering to the 201 'plate in 1918.
1 Sqn RFC became 1 Sqn RAF at the precise same moment that 1(N) was re-numbered from 1 Sqn RNAS to become 201 Sqn RAF.
Renumbering of a squadron in this set of circumstances doesn't count as unit formation when calculating seniority. 201's high position in the RAF's seniority list stems from its formation as 1 Naval Sqn on 17 Oct 14, not from renumbering to the 201 'plate in 1918.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes
What the question said was 'Is this the demise of the longest serving operational squadron in the RAF?' RAF being the operative word here.
If it is good enough for 1(F) Sqn to be regarded as the 'first' in your opinion because it was derived from 1 Sqn RFC, then why is not the same true for 201 Sqn, who as you rightly say was derived from 1 RNAS. Both squadrons became RAF squadrons on the same day, did they not?
Or, are you saying that because 1 Sqn was a RFC Sqn that in some way it 'outranks' 1 RNAS?
What the question said was 'Is this the demise of the longest serving operational squadron in the RAF?' RAF being the operative word here.
If it is good enough for 1(F) Sqn to be regarded as the 'first' in your opinion because it was derived from 1 Sqn RFC, then why is not the same true for 201 Sqn, who as you rightly say was derived from 1 RNAS. Both squadrons became RAF squadrons on the same day, did they not?
Or, are you saying that because 1 Sqn was a RFC Sqn that in some way it 'outranks' 1 RNAS?
Winco, I have attempted to answer the original query. The answer to that question is 'no'.
On re-reading my response to TSM, which was done in a hurry, I can see why it seems that I am arguing that 1 Sqn is older/first, but that was not my intent.
The reason for that is because it matters not which is the 'oldest' because, frankly, it doesn't matter how old a squadron is, it's seniority that counts in all these things.
All of the extant RAF squadrons, bar 617, became part of the RAF on 1 April 1918. Thus with one exception, they either all count jointly as the oldest squadron in which case 201 is joint oldest with all but one other RAF squadron or some distinction has to be made between them.
I assumed that TSM wasn't asking a rhetorical question taking 'oldest' in its most literal sense, since every current unit formed as part of the RAF on 1 Apr 18 is obviously the 'oldest' squadron, rendering the attempt to distinguish the oldest squadron meaningless. Since I've never known TSM to post anything meaningless, I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that he was asking about seniority.
If he was, then my answer stands - but its II(AC) that holds the position as most senior squadron, not 1(F); if he wasn't, then all of them apart from 617 are the oldest, which renders the distinction pointless.
On re-reading my response to TSM, which was done in a hurry, I can see why it seems that I am arguing that 1 Sqn is older/first, but that was not my intent.
The reason for that is because it matters not which is the 'oldest' because, frankly, it doesn't matter how old a squadron is, it's seniority that counts in all these things.
All of the extant RAF squadrons, bar 617, became part of the RAF on 1 April 1918. Thus with one exception, they either all count jointly as the oldest squadron in which case 201 is joint oldest with all but one other RAF squadron or some distinction has to be made between them.
I assumed that TSM wasn't asking a rhetorical question taking 'oldest' in its most literal sense, since every current unit formed as part of the RAF on 1 Apr 18 is obviously the 'oldest' squadron, rendering the attempt to distinguish the oldest squadron meaningless. Since I've never known TSM to post anything meaningless, I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that he was asking about seniority.
If he was, then my answer stands - but its II(AC) that holds the position as most senior squadron, not 1(F); if he wasn't, then all of them apart from 617 are the oldest, which renders the distinction pointless.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Hampshire,UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic - apologies
Given that all the Sqns currently extant in the Air Force (bar 617) were in existence on 1 Apr 1918 - why are 617 apparently considered special?
I understand their history but surely there were other Sqns with battle honours and more seniority which should still be in existence before them?
Purely curiosity
Thanks
Given that all the Sqns currently extant in the Air Force (bar 617) were in existence on 1 Apr 1918 - why are 617 apparently considered special?
I understand their history but surely there were other Sqns with battle honours and more seniority which should still be in existence before them?
Purely curiosity
Thanks