Tigers @ Linton
19, 92, 56, 74, 29, 23 all seem to have more claim to existence than some current frontline numberplates, if tradition and history are supposed to be the guide.
25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)
25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see you can still get out of trouble as fast as you get into it PA! I would love to see the boys pitch up at VLY with their badges if only to see OC Dolphins reaction. After all I hear the 'old core' still wear their tiger badges on their PJs. Remember, only 50 chopping days left to Christmas, unless you are working weekends to chase IPS60?
P.S. How is the new rug rat?
P.S. How is the new rug rat?
'19, 92, 56, 74, 29, 23 all seem to have more claim to existence than some current frontline numberplates, if tradition and history are supposed to be the guide.
25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)'
Interesting debating point here. The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks. By this token, both 5 and 25 qualify. Attempts to save number plates on the grounds of 'quality' of service by a unit alonewere rejected, as judging this 'quality' was too subjective. Maintaining number plates by renumbering 'junior' units was rejected after the 50s as this was confusing and unpopular with the crews of the units affected.
Consequently, 74 suffers by dint of the confusing decision to leave it in limbo between 1971 and 1974 (I've seen the evidence - in the public domain if anyone looks for it - that 74 was supposed to be an STC Phantom unit and would presumably have moved onto Jaguars in the mid-1970s).
When 25 stood up, all the numberplates mentioned above were in use: Bloodhound was being drawn down into one unit (85) and 25's plate became free. Although 25's history in WW2 was theoretically less-distinguished (but be fair - it brought AI into use, which meant that actually shooting anything down was damned difficult for a good couple of years), which was then followed by service with SAMs (also deemed 'less distinguished'), the point was that it was the longest-serving free numberplate on the books.
Applying the 'no renumbering of extant units' principle was bu&&ered about by Malcolm Rifkind - the decision to save the plates of XV, 16, 20, 27 et al post Desert Storm by giving them reserve status was political, and led to 45 Squadron (with longer service than XV) being chopped.
There are two solutions to the problem of keeping 'numberplates we all love':
1: Reduce unit size to accommodate all the numberplates (but let's not get into a detailed debate over force structure at the current time)
2: Increase the number of squadrons by buying more aircraft and then obtaining and retaining more people to fly and maintain them.
3: Have the spirit of some of the lamented units maintained in some way, which appears to be outlined above (BTW, flying training units don't get numberplates for a whole host of reasons that would require me to purchase another anorak if I explained them here).
Option (2) would be best, but (3) seems a reasonable alternative in the interim.
25? 5? (Friendly or otherwise....)'
Interesting debating point here. The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks. By this token, both 5 and 25 qualify. Attempts to save number plates on the grounds of 'quality' of service by a unit alonewere rejected, as judging this 'quality' was too subjective. Maintaining number plates by renumbering 'junior' units was rejected after the 50s as this was confusing and unpopular with the crews of the units affected.
Consequently, 74 suffers by dint of the confusing decision to leave it in limbo between 1971 and 1974 (I've seen the evidence - in the public domain if anyone looks for it - that 74 was supposed to be an STC Phantom unit and would presumably have moved onto Jaguars in the mid-1970s).
When 25 stood up, all the numberplates mentioned above were in use: Bloodhound was being drawn down into one unit (85) and 25's plate became free. Although 25's history in WW2 was theoretically less-distinguished (but be fair - it brought AI into use, which meant that actually shooting anything down was damned difficult for a good couple of years), which was then followed by service with SAMs (also deemed 'less distinguished'), the point was that it was the longest-serving free numberplate on the books.
Applying the 'no renumbering of extant units' principle was bu&&ered about by Malcolm Rifkind - the decision to save the plates of XV, 16, 20, 27 et al post Desert Storm by giving them reserve status was political, and led to 45 Squadron (with longer service than XV) being chopped.
There are two solutions to the problem of keeping 'numberplates we all love':
1: Reduce unit size to accommodate all the numberplates (but let's not get into a detailed debate over force structure at the current time)
2: Increase the number of squadrons by buying more aircraft and then obtaining and retaining more people to fly and maintain them.
3: Have the spirit of some of the lamented units maintained in some way, which appears to be outlined above (BTW, flying training units don't get numberplates for a whole host of reasons that would require me to purchase another anorak if I explained them here).
Option (2) would be best, but (3) seems a reasonable alternative in the interim.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes,
Regarding your point 3:
Please explain why flying training units can't have Sqn numbers when training units at Valley, Shawbury and Cranwell already do?
Agree with your sentiment regarding the idea.
Sqn identity seems to work well at these places and keeps a bit of spirit going. Surely it can only be beneficial to give Sqn plates to other units and keep a bit of history going?
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: rudekid ]
Regarding your point 3:
Please explain why flying training units can't have Sqn numbers when training units at Valley, Shawbury and Cranwell already do?
Agree with your sentiment regarding the idea.
Sqn identity seems to work well at these places and keeps a bit of spirit going. Surely it can only be beneficial to give Sqn plates to other units and keep a bit of history going?
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: rudekid ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interestingly, the policy outlined by Archimedes for allocation of sqn numberplates was overturned for the reformation of 74 Sqn with F4Js. In '83, MOD's strict 'last out, first in' interpretation had us forming as 39 Sqn (a Canberra recce sqn that had disbanded in Malta); thankfully, following some careful lobbying, CAS of the time overturned this absurd recommendation and ordered the resurrection of 74 Sqn. Just goes to show that occasionally Chiefs can make sensible decisions.
Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years.
As to the Linton Tiger Flt......good on yer. Just design your own appropriate and exclusive badge and, most importantly, gopping drink.
T! T! T!
Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years.
As to the Linton Tiger Flt......good on yer. Just design your own appropriate and exclusive badge and, most importantly, gopping drink.
T! T! T!
There were some very stupid decisions - such as numbering a Buccaneer squadron '216'! Which formerly flew VIP Comets, and latterly TriStars. Numbering the Shacklebomber AEW outfit '8' enraged ex-Hunter heroes and binning 35 sqn in favour of the 'one raid and one dead dog mob' did the same in the V-force!
Those who have a fondness for tabby cats, ginger toms or other, slightly bigger, stripey moggies should remember that THE LION IS KING!!
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Those who have a fondness for tabby cats, ginger toms or other, slightly bigger, stripey moggies should remember that THE LION IS KING!!
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toom4evr,
"Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years."
Cheers, just one minor edit to the above " how well 230 Sqn are STILL CARRYING the tradition." About to host 20 jets for a Mini meet!
Linton boys, good on you, just make sure you do it properly, we may well be in touch.
TIGER TIGER TIGER
KITA CHARI JAUH
"Tigerness is not the exclusive preserve of FJers...just look at how well 230 Sqn carried the tradition in those 74-lean years."
Cheers, just one minor edit to the above " how well 230 Sqn are STILL CARRYING the tradition." About to host 20 jets for a Mini meet!
Linton boys, good on you, just make sure you do it properly, we may well be in touch.
TIGER TIGER TIGER
KITA CHARI JAUH
rudekid,
sorry, was imprecise in my phrasing (trying to make the post less long and less boring). It was suggested at some point that one way of keeping numberplates alive would be to use them within FTS's - the reasons against this being adopted (and I'm relying on Jeff Jefford's book for this - an excellent source) included:
1. Students weren't there long enough for there to be any benefits.
2. A trg unit couldn't realistically extend the history of an operational unit (yes, I know....)
3.this would blur the demarcation between aircrew in trg and those who were qualified.
4. The FTS's had histories of their own.
Nowadays, it would seem that arguments (1) - (3) are less applicable?
As a rule, numberplates are applied to units that would stand up in certain roles in wartime - for the TWUs, this dates back to when 63,79,151 and 234 had Hunters (I seem to think that there may have been some other plates used before these). I'm not certain whether an emergency operational role is theoretically envisaged for 60, 55 and 45 (and again, it's not the time to go into details if there is), or whether this is another bit of bu&&ering about with the rules.
Toom4evr's point about 39 is a good one - I think I'm right in saying that it was appreciated that there was a need for some flexibility, so that previous use in the role could be taken into account (but see 216 and the Bucc), hence 74 was chosen ahead of 39. 45 was also possibly in the running, but it might have been scuppered by the fact that its 'fighter' heritage was not as impeccable as 74: 45 had flown Vengeances, Beuafighters, Brigands and Canberras (et al), whereas 74 had always flown fighters.
[edited for spelling mistaiks]
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
sorry, was imprecise in my phrasing (trying to make the post less long and less boring). It was suggested at some point that one way of keeping numberplates alive would be to use them within FTS's - the reasons against this being adopted (and I'm relying on Jeff Jefford's book for this - an excellent source) included:
1. Students weren't there long enough for there to be any benefits.
2. A trg unit couldn't realistically extend the history of an operational unit (yes, I know....)
3.this would blur the demarcation between aircrew in trg and those who were qualified.
4. The FTS's had histories of their own.
Nowadays, it would seem that arguments (1) - (3) are less applicable?
As a rule, numberplates are applied to units that would stand up in certain roles in wartime - for the TWUs, this dates back to when 63,79,151 and 234 had Hunters (I seem to think that there may have been some other plates used before these). I'm not certain whether an emergency operational role is theoretically envisaged for 60, 55 and 45 (and again, it's not the time to go into details if there is), or whether this is another bit of bu&&ering about with the rules.
Toom4evr's point about 39 is a good one - I think I'm right in saying that it was appreciated that there was a need for some flexibility, so that previous use in the role could be taken into account (but see 216 and the Bucc), hence 74 was chosen ahead of 39. 45 was also possibly in the running, but it might have been scuppered by the fact that its 'fighter' heritage was not as impeccable as 74: 45 had flown Vengeances, Beuafighters, Brigands and Canberras (et al), whereas 74 had always flown fighters.
[edited for spelling mistaiks]
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
"The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks."
I don't believe it's ever been that hard and fast, and if it was, how did 617 escape after disbanding as a Vulcan squadron, or as a Tornado GR1 unit (when it effectively became what had been 208)?
Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?
How come 99 has reappeared?
No, I believe that subjective factors are taken into account - including whether current senior officers ever served on the units in question.
I don't believe it's ever been that hard and fast, and if it was, how did 617 escape after disbanding as a Vulcan squadron, or as a Tornado GR1 unit (when it effectively became what had been 208)?
Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?
How come 99 has reappeared?
No, I believe that subjective factors are taken into account - including whether current senior officers ever served on the units in question.
"The established principle (which took a bashing post Options for Change) was that those plates with the longest overall service survived any cutbacks."I don't believe it's ever been that hard and fast, and if it was, how did 617 escape after disbanding as a Vulcan squadron, or as a Tornado GR1 unit (when it effectively became what had been 208)?
617 is a special case: it was awarded its standard purely for its wartime service and not according to the 25 years of service rule applied to all other units save one. 120 is the other unit in this position.
There was agreement (repeated in several sets of Air Staff minutes over the years, in public domain) that these two units would be 'protected' as a result of this: thus, the GR 4 force could be cut back to just one squadron, and it would be 617 if this held true; 120 would be the sole remaining Nimrod unit in similar circumstances (and assuming no 'rule' changes).
What happened with the 12/208 situation was that 27 was renumbered as 12 (breaking the 'rule' about not renumbering extant units), rather than 208 being renumbered 617.
Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?
25 does have longer service than 19. When the F3 unit stood up, 19's plate was in use, and couldn't be reassigned. When 19 disbanded, 25 might have been renumbered, but the rule against this was applied. Now, since service as a Reserve Sq doesn't (or didn't, it may have changed) count, 25 has longer service than 19. It doesn't have longer service than 56, but the 25 plate was in use when 56 gave up its F-4s, so couldn't go. I think it's also fair to note that the renumbering rule doesn't apply to reserve units, which is why 65(R) became 56(R). So by this token, 45, 64,79,151,234 and 65 all disappeared.
XIII is a slightly odd case, and I suspect that because of its Canberra PR role, it was deemed an appropriate plate for the GR 1A.
Not sure about why 99 was chosen - although it has a longer history than 53, the other contender.
It may be that the past history in a role is having ever more effect. We may see some hefty renumberplating when Eurofighter emerges: although I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of 19,56, 74 and 92 ended up with Eurofighter GBmH's finest peroduct to date.
I don't doubt that there is politicking over plates, though, and would agree that the rules are not applied as rigourously as they might be: if they were, there'd be less contention, but it would also suggest that some well-loved numbers might never appear again.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
617 is a special case: it was awarded its standard purely for its wartime service and not according to the 25 years of service rule applied to all other units save one. 120 is the other unit in this position.
There was agreement (repeated in several sets of Air Staff minutes over the years, in public domain) that these two units would be 'protected' as a result of this: thus, the GR 4 force could be cut back to just one squadron, and it would be 617 if this held true; 120 would be the sole remaining Nimrod unit in similar circumstances (and assuming no 'rule' changes).
What happened with the 12/208 situation was that 27 was renumbered as 12 (breaking the 'rule' about not renumbering extant units), rather than 208 being renumbered 617.
Does 25 even have a longer period of service than 19, or 56? How about XIII?
25 does have longer service than 19. When the F3 unit stood up, 19's plate was in use, and couldn't be reassigned. When 19 disbanded, 25 might have been renumbered, but the rule against this was applied. Now, since service as a Reserve Sq doesn't (or didn't, it may have changed) count, 25 has longer service than 19. It doesn't have longer service than 56, but the 25 plate was in use when 56 gave up its F-4s, so couldn't go. I think it's also fair to note that the renumbering rule doesn't apply to reserve units, which is why 65(R) became 56(R). So by this token, 45, 64,79,151,234 and 65 all disappeared.
XIII is a slightly odd case, and I suspect that because of its Canberra PR role, it was deemed an appropriate plate for the GR 1A.
Not sure about why 99 was chosen - although it has a longer history than 53, the other contender.
It may be that the past history in a role is having ever more effect. We may see some hefty renumberplating when Eurofighter emerges: although I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of 19,56, 74 and 92 ended up with Eurofighter GBmH's finest peroduct to date.
I don't doubt that there is politicking over plates, though, and would agree that the rules are not applied as rigourously as they might be: if they were, there'd be less contention, but it would also suggest that some well-loved numbers might never appear again.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this thread is slightly historic now, but I thought I'd just put the record straight on behalf of those destined for Valley... Although it was originally presented as 'some studes at Linton have...', the idea was very much pushed by the Staff of the Flt involved as well !
Personally, I'm all for course/Flt/Sqn spirit but I'm also all for respecting other traditions of which Tiger history is not just a Royal Air Force one and therefore perhaps should not have been 'abused' as our International Tiger colleagues may be more upset by what's happened...!??
Personally, I'm all for course/Flt/Sqn spirit but I'm also all for respecting other traditions of which Tiger history is not just a Royal Air Force one and therefore perhaps should not have been 'abused' as our International Tiger colleagues may be more upset by what's happened...!??
