Changes at Marham and Lossie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That appears to be one that vexes those who research the minutiae of these things - did 27 disband at 2359hrs and 12 reform at 0000hrs or was it a continuous existence with just a change of number?
Sgt.Slabber.
Er, just WHY do we need eleven Tornado GR4 squadrons now? To sustain a force of 8 jets in Afghanistan?
11 Sqns is the total of the force at the height of the Cold war. What would you do now with eleven squadrons of the things?
Er, just WHY do we need eleven Tornado GR4 squadrons now? To sustain a force of 8 jets in Afghanistan?
11 Sqns is the total of the force at the height of the Cold war. What would you do now with eleven squadrons of the things?
FB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squadron numbers
Taken from a signal released some years ago explaining the rationale behind sqn numbering.
...they took into account a number of considerations. First, the principle of seniority should apply in the allocation of numberplates. However, there should be no general attempt to re-number in service squadrons to keep the most historically senior numberplates in service. Thus, a squadron which is not subject to any change of role, type or location should retain its current numberplate. It was also agreed that priority should be given to the re-allocation of live numberplates of squadrons with a particular significant or distinguished war record. Finally, note should be taken of squadron historical association with a particular role. Against this background, the ...
There then follows detail of some renumbering.
Does that help anyone?
...they took into account a number of considerations. First, the principle of seniority should apply in the allocation of numberplates. However, there should be no general attempt to re-number in service squadrons to keep the most historically senior numberplates in service. Thus, a squadron which is not subject to any change of role, type or location should retain its current numberplate. It was also agreed that priority should be given to the re-allocation of live numberplates of squadrons with a particular significant or distinguished war record. Finally, note should be taken of squadron historical association with a particular role. Against this background, the ...
There then follows detail of some renumbering.
Does that help anyone?
Spurlash
It doesn't look as if those criteria were applied when 6 Sqn were closed down when the Jaguar departed a couple of years ago.
Weren't they were the only squadron that had, till then, never been disbanded?
Another tradition discarded.....
Weren't they were the only squadron that had, till then, never been disbanded?
Another tradition discarded.....
Last edited by bobward; 3rd Mar 2011 at 10:38. Reason: Trubble spilling my worms again.
Quite obviously, now, it seems that I never got the ‘squadron’ thing nor did I ever get the ‘tradition’ thing either. As for the equation of squadrons being similar to regiments – that merely emphasises the navy’s accusation of RAF bad habits rather than traditions.
On none of the several squadrons I worked on did I ever get the feeling of history or tradition, of binding into a brotherhood or even bond with the winged warriors, most of whom remained cocooned in their crewroom’s or special little hidey-holes on exercises.
Though I did enjoy detachments/exercises and inter-squadron banter and beers, it was because of my mates and colleagues on other squadrons.
To most RAF techies “squadrons” are just another place of work; a handy title for another hangar; an area of the camp where some more mates worked; or where I had to go to do something.
Even as a ‘bit of a spotter’, not once in 24 years did anyone that I knew prattle on about a history or tradition to do with a particular squadron except to say that in 19-hundred-and-blasted–to-death something stupid happened or the ruddy crew flew off and left their ‘support’ behind, again.
Not once in that time did I even think of visiting or even finding a squadron (or station) history room/museum.
The recent trend of rejecting techies as part of ‘squadrons’ emphasises yet more of the great divide between the strata of military life and its so-called tradition. Rejecting the lower ranks of “Squadrons” is like not having squaddies in “regiments”. So much for that equation.
It takes more than a few artefacts to make a squadron, and a good squadron is only a good squadron because of the personnel on it, of all types and trades, those that make it tick.
If you rely on history you will hardly ever make it.
The people I worked with made history, not the squadrons we were on. The squadron’s just got a band on a flag.
You should worry about people and aircraft, not numbers.
Rigga
On none of the several squadrons I worked on did I ever get the feeling of history or tradition, of binding into a brotherhood or even bond with the winged warriors, most of whom remained cocooned in their crewroom’s or special little hidey-holes on exercises.
Though I did enjoy detachments/exercises and inter-squadron banter and beers, it was because of my mates and colleagues on other squadrons.
To most RAF techies “squadrons” are just another place of work; a handy title for another hangar; an area of the camp where some more mates worked; or where I had to go to do something.
Even as a ‘bit of a spotter’, not once in 24 years did anyone that I knew prattle on about a history or tradition to do with a particular squadron except to say that in 19-hundred-and-blasted–to-death something stupid happened or the ruddy crew flew off and left their ‘support’ behind, again.
Not once in that time did I even think of visiting or even finding a squadron (or station) history room/museum.
The recent trend of rejecting techies as part of ‘squadrons’ emphasises yet more of the great divide between the strata of military life and its so-called tradition. Rejecting the lower ranks of “Squadrons” is like not having squaddies in “regiments”. So much for that equation.
It takes more than a few artefacts to make a squadron, and a good squadron is only a good squadron because of the personnel on it, of all types and trades, those that make it tick.
If you rely on history you will hardly ever make it.
The people I worked with made history, not the squadrons we were on. The squadron’s just got a band on a flag.
You should worry about people and aircraft, not numbers.
Rigga
Not once in that time did I even think of visiting or even finding a squadron (or station) history room/museum.
The recent trend of rejecting techies as part of ‘squadrons’ emphasises yet more of the great divide between the strata of military life and its so-called tradition. Rejecting the lower ranks of “Squadrons” is like not having squaddies in “regiments”. So much for that equation.
a good squadron is only a good squadron because of the personnel
You should worry about people and aircraft, not numbers.
I know you meant Sqn No's, but i'm with you in spirit. It should be the people who are important, and it quite blatantly isn't these days.
Originally Posted by Rigga
Quite obviously, now, it seems that I never got the ‘squadron’ thing nor did I ever get the ‘tradition’ thing either. As for the equation of squadrons being similar to regiments – that merely emphasises the navy’s accusation of RAF bad habits rather than traditions.
Originally Posted by Rigga
On none of the several squadrons I worked on did I ever get the feeling of history or tradition, of binding into a brotherhood or even bond with the winged warriors, most of whom remained cocooned in their crewroom’s or special little hidey-holes on exercises.
Well said miningund...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga,
You were obviously never on any of the same Sqns I was
To most RAF techies “squadrons” are just another place of work; a handy title for another hangar; an area of the camp where some more mates worked; or where I had to go to do something.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've served on many squadron's with a long and glorious history, with battle honours and which have lost brave individuals and crews.
Sadly none of this really mattered if the boss or anyone else I worked for/with was a total to55er.
Nor did the camaraderie depend on historical events.
So, whilst I believe that celebrating past glories and honouring those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice is a very worthy activity, I do not believe that those events took place because of the badge they wore on their sleeve or on the side of their aircraft. Rigga is (partially) right: a squadron really is only as good as the people working there at that point in time.
Sadly none of this really mattered if the boss or anyone else I worked for/with was a total to55er.
Nor did the camaraderie depend on historical events.
So, whilst I believe that celebrating past glories and honouring those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice is a very worthy activity, I do not believe that those events took place because of the badge they wore on their sleeve or on the side of their aircraft. Rigga is (partially) right: a squadron really is only as good as the people working there at that point in time.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marham Vs Lossie
From today's MOD Contracts Bulletin - the future or a case of left and right hand - or perhaps its Leuchars vs Lossie?
Date: 08-MAR-11
Title: GB-RAF LOSSIEMOUTH: CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR MILITARY BUILDINGS AND INSTALLATIONS.
Country: GB
Type of document: Contract Notice
Country: United Kingdom
GB-RAF Lossiemouth: Construction work for military buildings and installations.
Section I: Contracting Authority
Title: GB-RAF Lossiemouth: Construction work for military buildings and installations.
I.1)Name, Addresses And Contact Point(s)
Defence Estates, DE
Estate Management Scotland, Building 1057, , RAF Lossiemouth, IV31 6SD, United Kingdom
I.2)Type Of Purchasing Body
Contracting authority
Section II: Object Of The Contract
II.1)Description
II.1.1)Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority/entity: Provision of Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower - RAF Lossiemouth
II.1.2)Short description of the contract or purchase:
Construction work for military buildings and installations. Design and construction project for delivery of a new Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower, with supporting office accommodation facilities for ATC, Ground Radio Section, Engineering and Meteorological teams, their equipments and a ground floor vehicle parking / equipment workshop for MoD Ground Support staff. The works include all associated internal and external infrastructure, with the exception of MoD IT / communications installation. In addition, the existing ATC Tower building is to be demolished. The timing of these demolition works will be approximately 4-months following completion / handover of the new ATC Tower and accommodation facility.
JB
Date: 08-MAR-11
Title: GB-RAF LOSSIEMOUTH: CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR MILITARY BUILDINGS AND INSTALLATIONS.
Country: GB
Type of document: Contract Notice
Country: United Kingdom
GB-RAF Lossiemouth: Construction work for military buildings and installations.
Section I: Contracting Authority
Title: GB-RAF Lossiemouth: Construction work for military buildings and installations.
I.1)Name, Addresses And Contact Point(s)
Defence Estates, DE
Estate Management Scotland, Building 1057, , RAF Lossiemouth, IV31 6SD, United Kingdom
I.2)Type Of Purchasing Body
Contracting authority
Section II: Object Of The Contract
II.1)Description
II.1.1)Title attributed to the contract by the contracting authority/entity: Provision of Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower - RAF Lossiemouth
II.1.2)Short description of the contract or purchase:
Construction work for military buildings and installations. Design and construction project for delivery of a new Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower, with supporting office accommodation facilities for ATC, Ground Radio Section, Engineering and Meteorological teams, their equipments and a ground floor vehicle parking / equipment workshop for MoD Ground Support staff. The works include all associated internal and external infrastructure, with the exception of MoD IT / communications installation. In addition, the existing ATC Tower building is to be demolished. The timing of these demolition works will be approximately 4-months following completion / handover of the new ATC Tower and accommodation facility.
JB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've served on many squadron's with a long and glorious history, with battle honours and which have lost brave individuals and crews.
Sadly none of this really mattered if the boss or anyone else I worked for/with was a total to55er.
Nor did the camaraderie depend on historical events.
So, whilst I believe that celebrating past glories and honouring those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice is a very worthy activity, I do not believe that those events took place because of the badge they wore on their sleeve or on the side of their aircraft. Rigga is (partially) right: a squadron really is only as good as the people working there at that point in time. 4th Mar 2011 11:20
Sadly none of this really mattered if the boss or anyone else I worked for/with was a total to55er.
Nor did the camaraderie depend on historical events.
So, whilst I believe that celebrating past glories and honouring those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice is a very worthy activity, I do not believe that those events took place because of the badge they wore on their sleeve or on the side of their aircraft. Rigga is (partially) right: a squadron really is only as good as the people working there at that point in time. 4th Mar 2011 11:20
Then there were the aircrew, now that WAS a diverse mix..............................
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To most RAF techies “squadrons” are just another place of work; a handy title for another hangar; an area of the camp where some more mates worked; or where I had to go to do something.
Germany was more of a way of life than just another job. That way of life produced a special pride, that to be honest I did not see when serving on UK Sqns.
I always said that when they closed RAF Bruggen (the last operational flying station in Germany) the RAF lost more than a station; it lost a culture and a way of life that could never be replaced.
But the pride sticks forever. I know for a fact that the support from ex Germany “RAF techies” for Sqns such as the Crusaders and the Goldstars is still immense!
Just my opinion so please no offence intended to anybody serving on any UK based sqn