1 Sqn to Stand up at Leuchars
Thread Starter
1 Sqn to Stand up at Leuchars
It's been reported in the local Courier Newspaper that 1 Sqn are to stand up with Typhoons at Leuchars. I don't know what this means long term altogether, but it is welcome news. Further, for what its worth, whatever the long term future of Leuchars, I can't see anything to worry about on the Horizon for Lossiemouth, I suspect as has been mooted, that F35s and or, possibly, P8 Poseidon will end up there. 
FB
FB
Rumour down here in Naaaarfolk is that the F35s are going to Marham to be close to USAF ones at Lakenheath.
Having said that, it was the local MP talking so as her lips were moving, she was probably not telling the truth anyway.
Interesting times for all, I think.
Having said that, it was the local MP talking so as her lips were moving, she was probably not telling the truth anyway.
Interesting times for all, I think.
sitigeltfel,
I think it's more to do with the yanks refusing to release all of the top secret jiggery pokery wiggly amp and computery sort of stuff that we will need to do updates and repairs etc. That way Uncle Sam can just nip over from Lakenheath to Marham and thus keep their secrets out of undesirable hands. There was quite a thread going on this some time ago.
I think it's more to do with the yanks refusing to release all of the top secret jiggery pokery wiggly amp and computery sort of stuff that we will need to do updates and repairs etc. That way Uncle Sam can just nip over from Lakenheath to Marham and thus keep their secrets out of undesirable hands. There was quite a thread going on this some time ago.
Last edited by Doctor Cruces; 21st May 2012 at 16:13.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That way Uncle Sam can just nip over from Lakenheath to Marham and thus keep their secrets out of undesirable hands.
If the MOD/RN/RAF are going for the -B then wasn't the planning originally for them to be based at Lossie (partly due to noise) with all the GR4s being moved South and then slowly withdraw from Service at Marham? Were the infrastructure works halted there when the decision was "temporarily changed" to the -C? Unless the RAF get -C as a replacement for the GR4 I can't see RAF Norfolk surviving (as an operational airfield) past the GR4.
Besides, not sure the 'locals' will be too happy with the -B at RAF Norfolk (but at least they will have no shortage of fingers to stick in their ears
)
Besides, not sure the 'locals' will be too happy with the -B at RAF Norfolk (but at least they will have no shortage of fingers to stick in their ears
)
The clue was in the "Basing? Decisions?" thread when CAS mentioned "Scottish bases" and named all the others. Maybe he knows that Morayshire is radioactive!!!
I reckon a Leuchars/Lossie U-turn is just around the corner - bring back Maggie and 'this lady is not for U-turning'!
LJ
I reckon a Leuchars/Lossie U-turn is just around the corner - bring back Maggie and 'this lady is not for U-turning'!
LJ
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon, you need to give up on Leuchars. The decision makers have.
Air Commodore Parker said:
I don't see much of a reason for changing that plan any time soon.
Air Commodore Parker said:
“As we prepare to transition the Typhoon Force in Scotland to RAF Lossiemouth over the next few years, having two squadrons will improve our resilience and increase our flying capacity, allowing us to maximise our training opportunities, whilst meeting our operational commitments.
The RAF's fighter force?
3, 11, 6 and 1.....
And not 19, 92, 56, 74, 43 or 111. Someone's been paying too much attention to arcane length of service calculations and ignoring actual heritage and history.
3, 11, 6 and 1.....
And not 19, 92, 56, 74, 43 or 111. Someone's been paying too much attention to arcane length of service calculations and ignoring actual heritage and history.
AP
You may be right, but this is a rumour website; plus, knowing Gav, it wouldn't be the first time for him to be wrong!
JN
I think you're right. The mud-mover mafia took over the Asylum a while ago (there are a few 1-star/2-star fighter mates in the wings, but the last bunch didn't really get a look in (excepting Simon the CInC!)). I always fancied seeing a Typhoon with Tiger stripes, but that was never to be...
LJ
You may be right, but this is a rumour website; plus, knowing Gav, it wouldn't be the first time for him to be wrong!
JN
I think you're right. The mud-mover mafia took over the Asylum a while ago (there are a few 1-star/2-star fighter mates in the wings, but the last bunch didn't really get a look in (excepting Simon the CInC!)). I always fancied seeing a Typhoon with Tiger stripes, but that was never to be...
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 21st May 2012 at 19:07.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF's fighter force?
3, 11, 6 and 1.....
And not 19, 92, 56, 74, 43 or 111. Someone's been paying too much attention to arcane length of service calculations and ignoring actual heritage and history.
3, 11, 6 and 1.....
And not 19, 92, 56, 74, 43 or 111. Someone's been paying too much attention to arcane length of service calculations and ignoring actual heritage and history.
and you might add, 201 Sqn, ex No1 Sqn RNAS, Flt Sub Lt Warneford, the first true fighter suadron in defence of the homeland? Zeppelin LZ 31-37 over Bruges.....
...and he wasn't even flying a Nimrod!
JN - this is the way that business over numberplates has been done since the 1950s. The reason that analysis of worth (if you will) of numberplates' heritage isn't given much in the way of weight is because the AHB worked out when attempting to ascertain which squadrons should survive in the post-Sandys era that 'worth' is based upon subjective judgement. They concluded that going with what you call 'arcane' seniority rules was imperfect, but probably the best way to go about things.
There is some free-play, since if you go by 'arcane calculation' 74 wouldn't have reformed on the Phantom. 39, which was dormant at the time, was ahead in the queue, and there was a case for 45 to drop the TWCU reserve plate and step up to being the F-4J squadron.
3 suffered over 100% loss of unit establishment at Cambrai (pressed into service as mud-movers). 11 is arguably the first dedicated fighter squadron in any air force in the world (albeit the Vickers FB5 wasn't much of a fighter...). Until the Jag went, 6 had absolute unbroken service, which included flying around in Hurricane IIDs at skightly lower airspeed and height than was desirable in the face or the flak surrounding German armour. Who's to say that those squadrons don't have equally distinguished records of achievement/historical reasons for survival? Throw into the mix the risk of AOCs arbitrarily deciding that they didn't like X Squadron, bitter rivals of Y Squadron (the AOC's first squadron...), and the seniority-based approach looked sensible. Submit a well-reasoned piece of analysis to the AHB explaining why they should change this long-standing policy and I can guarantee that they'll at least consider it.
Leon - I suspect, by the by that the Air Staff probably has at least a small faction in it working out how to reform 74, since the records show that the period 1971-1984 was filled with efforts to reform the Tigers/Ginger Toms (delete according to prejudice) on Hunters, the Phantoms from 892, Victors (there was a hint of desperation creeping in here...) and then the aborted third Lightning squadron. I know that there's a suggestion out there that the squadron was deemed to have put up a 'black' by painting the tails of the Lightnings black when out in Singapore, which is why it took so long to reappear, but that simpy isn't the case, just as Trenchard's supposed 'revenge' against 8 Sqn becomes a difficult legend to sustain when you realise that he personally chose that numberplate to be one of the founding squadrons of the post-1918 RAF, and it ended up overseas because there was less chance of it being disbanded where it was than it it were in the UK... <removes anorak>
There is some free-play, since if you go by 'arcane calculation' 74 wouldn't have reformed on the Phantom. 39, which was dormant at the time, was ahead in the queue, and there was a case for 45 to drop the TWCU reserve plate and step up to being the F-4J squadron.
3 suffered over 100% loss of unit establishment at Cambrai (pressed into service as mud-movers). 11 is arguably the first dedicated fighter squadron in any air force in the world (albeit the Vickers FB5 wasn't much of a fighter...). Until the Jag went, 6 had absolute unbroken service, which included flying around in Hurricane IIDs at skightly lower airspeed and height than was desirable in the face or the flak surrounding German armour. Who's to say that those squadrons don't have equally distinguished records of achievement/historical reasons for survival? Throw into the mix the risk of AOCs arbitrarily deciding that they didn't like X Squadron, bitter rivals of Y Squadron (the AOC's first squadron...), and the seniority-based approach looked sensible. Submit a well-reasoned piece of analysis to the AHB explaining why they should change this long-standing policy and I can guarantee that they'll at least consider it.
Leon - I suspect, by the by that the Air Staff probably has at least a small faction in it working out how to reform 74, since the records show that the period 1971-1984 was filled with efforts to reform the Tigers/Ginger Toms (delete according to prejudice) on Hunters, the Phantoms from 892, Victors (there was a hint of desperation creeping in here...) and then the aborted third Lightning squadron. I know that there's a suggestion out there that the squadron was deemed to have put up a 'black' by painting the tails of the Lightnings black when out in Singapore, which is why it took so long to reappear, but that simpy isn't the case, just as Trenchard's supposed 'revenge' against 8 Sqn becomes a difficult legend to sustain when you realise that he personally chose that numberplate to be one of the founding squadrons of the post-1918 RAF, and it ended up overseas because there was less chance of it being disbanded where it was than it it were in the UK... <removes anorak>
It applies to all the squadrons, TB7 - the most 'precious' is arguably 24 (first single seat fighter, unbroken service).
I do find it slightly ironic that discussions about heritage and history get dismissed as coming from knuckleheads/and anoraks (although I am a self-confessed metaphorical wearer of the latter garment), and then when efforts are made to destroy the RAF, or strip it of capabilites using arguments based upon wild factual inaccuracy or what can demonstrably be proven to be an 'interesting reinterpretation' (i.e. wilful lying) of what actually happened, it's the 'knuckleheads' who have to deploy their anorak skills while those who come onto Pprune to deride the knuckleheads are utterly unable to do anything to refute the case of the 'opposition' because they can't engage with the supposed 'facts' that make up the seemingly plausible rationale for doing something. It happened in SDR, it happened in SDSR and will doubtless happen again at the time of the next SDSR. If those who you deride as 'knuckleheads' because they have some historical interest in the service were in complete control, you'd have cause for concern - but the sad, proven fact of defence reviews is that you need some of them/us around...
I do find it slightly ironic that discussions about heritage and history get dismissed as coming from knuckleheads/and anoraks (although I am a self-confessed metaphorical wearer of the latter garment), and then when efforts are made to destroy the RAF, or strip it of capabilites using arguments based upon wild factual inaccuracy or what can demonstrably be proven to be an 'interesting reinterpretation' (i.e. wilful lying) of what actually happened, it's the 'knuckleheads' who have to deploy their anorak skills while those who come onto Pprune to deride the knuckleheads are utterly unable to do anything to refute the case of the 'opposition' because they can't engage with the supposed 'facts' that make up the seemingly plausible rationale for doing something. It happened in SDR, it happened in SDSR and will doubtless happen again at the time of the next SDSR. If those who you deride as 'knuckleheads' because they have some historical interest in the service were in complete control, you'd have cause for concern - but the sad, proven fact of defence reviews is that you need some of them/us around...