617 & 12 Squadron Disbandment Parade
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
617 & 12 Squadron Disbandment Parade
Another black armband day 
Tomorrow, 28th March, will see the disbandment of Tornado Squadrons: 12(Bomber) and 617 at RAF Lossiemouth. However, 617 Squadron will return in 2018 as the RAF’s first operational F-35B Lightning II Squadron.
I still think that F-35 is just ugly ... a Pregnant Munky-pea comes to mind ...
Tomorrow, 28th March, will see the disbandment of Tornado Squadrons: 12(Bomber) and 617 at RAF Lossiemouth. However, 617 Squadron will return in 2018 as the RAF’s first operational F-35B Lightning II Squadron.
I still think that F-35 is just ugly ... a Pregnant Munky-pea comes to mind ...
Look on the bright side Coffers. At least that's a 50% better result than what the neighbours down the road experienced: 42(Torpedo Bomber), CXX and 201(Guernsey's Own) sqns possibly gone for good.
And any aircraft - even an ugly one, is better than no aircraft at all.
And any aircraft - even an ugly one, is better than no aircraft at all.
Following on from the recent thread regarding the reduction in aircraft types and squadrons since 1990, it is increasingly depressing to see so many fine and historic squadrons' standards being laid up. Let's be realistic, the chances of seeing them reconstituted is minimal, barring total war over the Crimea et al. Short of creating more training squadrons with these historic numbers, I suppose the last resort is rename all the ATC squadrons and give them all a standard!! What's happened to the RAF/ defence capability/regiments/ ships? Fourth largest defence budget - ha! we're not even in the top thirty of global armed forces.
Pass me the gin seeing as I'm on a downwards spiral......
Pass me the gin seeing as I'm on a downwards spiral......
Maxibon,
Bit of a rant?
617 ARE coming back as the first operational Lightning FG1 Squadron in a few years time.
Not in top thirty? BS.
If you have a submarine based strategic nuclear deterrent, nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, more frigates and destroyers than most comparable Navies, the best two fast jet types available, strategic transports, tactical transports, 60 odd Chinooks, the most capable attack helicopters anywhere, top notch Special Forces, an extremely battle hardened basic military, new RFA tanker, amphibious and store ships, a fully fledged amphibious capability, world wide reach, AEW, ISTAR platforms etc etc etc then you most certainly ARE at the top of any mythical top thirty!
Bit of a rant?
617 ARE coming back as the first operational Lightning FG1 Squadron in a few years time.
Not in top thirty? BS.
If you have a submarine based strategic nuclear deterrent, nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, more frigates and destroyers than most comparable Navies, the best two fast jet types available, strategic transports, tactical transports, 60 odd Chinooks, the most capable attack helicopters anywhere, top notch Special Forces, an extremely battle hardened basic military, new RFA tanker, amphibious and store ships, a fully fledged amphibious capability, world wide reach, AEW, ISTAR platforms etc etc etc then you most certainly ARE at the top of any mythical top thirty!
Pr00ne,
Not really a rant, just a melancholy ascerbic nostalgic view.
You are a little aggressive in your tone but what the heck, it's a public forum and some people clearly have to impose their PoV in order to self-fulfill.
The BS to which you refer is a point I'd take issue with. There always remains the manoeuvrist vs attritional context and I'm a relatively pragmatic type, however there comes a critical mass. Speaking as a convertee from light blue to green, we can talk about capability and technology until the cows come home but when you only have a finite number of resources - tanks, boots on the ground, ships and aircraft. There needs to be a sensible trade off against the two and without getting into the loft to find all my capability planning guides or the staff officer handbook from my staff course, I'm loathed to argue a case for cheaper technology vs numbers in light of a government that fails to understand anything other that the management of the defecit. We are constantly faced with the rhetoric of our armed forces being at a pre-Napoleonic size, however, there is always some magnitude of Napoleonic ego in the world.
Where am I going with this? No idea; I simply resent being messaged in such a pompous manner.
BTW, I'm well aware that 617 are re-forming; I simply referred to the number of squadrons lost since 1990.
You can call it a rant if you wish; quite frankly my dear....
Not really a rant, just a melancholy ascerbic nostalgic view.
You are a little aggressive in your tone but what the heck, it's a public forum and some people clearly have to impose their PoV in order to self-fulfill.
The BS to which you refer is a point I'd take issue with. There always remains the manoeuvrist vs attritional context and I'm a relatively pragmatic type, however there comes a critical mass. Speaking as a convertee from light blue to green, we can talk about capability and technology until the cows come home but when you only have a finite number of resources - tanks, boots on the ground, ships and aircraft. There needs to be a sensible trade off against the two and without getting into the loft to find all my capability planning guides or the staff officer handbook from my staff course, I'm loathed to argue a case for cheaper technology vs numbers in light of a government that fails to understand anything other that the management of the defecit. We are constantly faced with the rhetoric of our armed forces being at a pre-Napoleonic size, however, there is always some magnitude of Napoleonic ego in the world.
Where am I going with this? No idea; I simply resent being messaged in such a pompous manner.
BTW, I'm well aware that 617 are re-forming; I simply referred to the number of squadrons lost since 1990.
You can call it a rant if you wish; quite frankly my dear....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne,
Not really a rant, just a melancholy ascerbic nostalgic view.
You are a little aggressive in your tone but what the heck, it's a public forum and some people clearly have to impose their PoV in order to self-fulfill.
The BS to which you refer is a point I'd take issue with. There always remains the manoeuvrist vs attritional context and I'm a relatively pragmatic type, however there comes a critical mass. Speaking as a convertee from light blue to green, we can talk about capability and technology until the cows come home but when you only have a finite number of resources - tanks, boots on the ground, ships and aircraft. There needs to be a sensible trade off against the two and without getting into the loft to find all my capability planning guides or the staff officer handbook from my staff course, I'm loathed to argue a case for cheaper technology vs numbers in light of a government that fails to understand anything other that the management of the defecit. We are constantly faced with the rhetoric of our armed forces being at a pre-Napoleonic size, however, there is always some magnitude of Napoleonic ego in the world.
Where am I going with this? No idea; I simply resent being messaged in such a pompous manner.
BTW, I'm well aware that 617 are re-forming; I simply referred to the number of squadrons lost since 1990.
You can call it a rant if you wish; quite frankly my dear....
Not really a rant, just a melancholy ascerbic nostalgic view.
You are a little aggressive in your tone but what the heck, it's a public forum and some people clearly have to impose their PoV in order to self-fulfill.
The BS to which you refer is a point I'd take issue with. There always remains the manoeuvrist vs attritional context and I'm a relatively pragmatic type, however there comes a critical mass. Speaking as a convertee from light blue to green, we can talk about capability and technology until the cows come home but when you only have a finite number of resources - tanks, boots on the ground, ships and aircraft. There needs to be a sensible trade off against the two and without getting into the loft to find all my capability planning guides or the staff officer handbook from my staff course, I'm loathed to argue a case for cheaper technology vs numbers in light of a government that fails to understand anything other that the management of the defecit. We are constantly faced with the rhetoric of our armed forces being at a pre-Napoleonic size, however, there is always some magnitude of Napoleonic ego in the world.
Where am I going with this? No idea; I simply resent being messaged in such a pompous manner.
BTW, I'm well aware that 617 are re-forming; I simply referred to the number of squadrons lost since 1990.
You can call it a rant if you wish; quite frankly my dear....
Maxibon,
Fair enough, didn't mean to come across as aggressive or pompous, so sorry if that was the way in which you took it, not intended.
As a melancholic ascerbic nostalgic view I can't really argue, I just was triggered by the clearly nonsensical claim about not being in the top thirty armed forces wise.
As we DO have the 4th largest defence budget in the world, I also don't think that we have a need for a comprehensive 'cheaper technology vs numbers' review, we just need to be an awful lot better at the manner in which we spend that money.
You have absolutely every right not to give a damn or even two hoots about my opinion, but as my opinion wasn't meant to offend, I do take on board yours.
Fair enough, didn't mean to come across as aggressive or pompous, so sorry if that was the way in which you took it, not intended.
As a melancholic ascerbic nostalgic view I can't really argue, I just was triggered by the clearly nonsensical claim about not being in the top thirty armed forces wise.
As we DO have the 4th largest defence budget in the world, I also don't think that we have a need for a comprehensive 'cheaper technology vs numbers' review, we just need to be an awful lot better at the manner in which we spend that money.
You have absolutely every right not to give a damn or even two hoots about my opinion, but as my opinion wasn't meant to offend, I do take on board yours.
Maybe the time has come to reassess the balance of our forces - nuclear v non-nuclear. having to pay now for Trident and the launch submarines now, and funding their replacement certainly impacts on the funding available in other areas.
Can I mention to those who didn't know that keeping two carriers through the 1980s, and new ones at that, would have been half the cost of the Falklands war?
Of course, having really small forces and never using them is even cheaper.
Of course, having really small forces and never using them is even cheaper.
Pr00ne, don't mention it! We all have our views and thus entitled to them; as if posting on a forum will have any effect on the ever flaccid Hammond!
Very sad to see 12 go and I hope the parade went well despite the North British weather. Same to 617 but I had more history with 12 over the years!
Very sad to see 12 go and I hope the parade went well despite the North British weather. Same to 617 but I had more history with 12 over the years!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm sure other "official" pics will be issued of today's events idc ... but it's a bit of a shame that the BBC only mention 617 Squadron.
Image Credit : BBC News
BBC News Scotland
Image Credit : BBC News
BBC News Scotland
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So a bit sad that we couldn't have a final Tornado flypast ... but perhaps a couple of videos showing both 12 and 617 flying some classic British hardware will go some way to compensate ...
12 Squadron Buccaneers : 1978 Exercise Open Gate (full length feature)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3ECzpu6CQ
With at least one regular PPRuNer starring
617 Squadron Vulcans : The Last Days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I19niWNhpLA
12 Squadron Buccaneers : 1978 Exercise Open Gate (full length feature)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3ECzpu6CQ
With at least one regular PPRuNer starring
617 Squadron Vulcans : The Last Days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I19niWNhpLA
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 28th Mar 2014 at 18:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just released by MOD RAF ...
Image Credit : MOD RAF Media Team
Main RAF Press Release ...
RAF 12 & 617 Squadrons : Final Salute
Image Credit : MOD RAF Media Team
Originally Posted by RAF Facebook
Today the RAF’s Number 12 (Bomber) Squadron and 617 Squadron (the Dambusters) bid farewell to active service with a disbandment parade at RAF Lossiemouth, performing their final salute in front of His Royal Highness, The Duke of York.
As part of a planned drawdown of the Tornado GR4, 12(B) and 617 Sqns will disband by 1 April 2014. The disbandment of these squadrons is ahead of RAF Lossiemouth becoming a Main Operating Base for Typhoon.
Beginning in summer 2014 there will be a phased relocation of the Typhoon Squadrons currently based at RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth. These Typhoon squadrons are Number 1 (Fighter) Sqn and Number 6 Sqn. A third squadron will stand up at RAF Lossiemouth in April 2015, Number II (Army Co-operation) Sqn, one of the oldest squadrons in the Royal Air Force.
In addition to the Typhoon Squadrons, RAF Lossiemouth will also continue to be home to XV (R) Squadron until 2018. This Operational Conversion Unit is the largest and busiest fast jet squadron in the Royal Air Force with over 280 permanent personnel and up to 40 aircrew students at any one time.
As part of a planned drawdown of the Tornado GR4, 12(B) and 617 Sqns will disband by 1 April 2014. The disbandment of these squadrons is ahead of RAF Lossiemouth becoming a Main Operating Base for Typhoon.
Beginning in summer 2014 there will be a phased relocation of the Typhoon Squadrons currently based at RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth. These Typhoon squadrons are Number 1 (Fighter) Sqn and Number 6 Sqn. A third squadron will stand up at RAF Lossiemouth in April 2015, Number II (Army Co-operation) Sqn, one of the oldest squadrons in the Royal Air Force.
In addition to the Typhoon Squadrons, RAF Lossiemouth will also continue to be home to XV (R) Squadron until 2018. This Operational Conversion Unit is the largest and busiest fast jet squadron in the Royal Air Force with over 280 permanent personnel and up to 40 aircrew students at any one time.
RAF 12 & 617 Squadrons : Final Salute
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 28th Mar 2014 at 19:03.
As by April 2015 the total number of Tornado Squadrons will be 2, I can't see the O.C.U. being quite so busy. Putting the defence blackhole and financial pressure elsewhere aside for moment, is it really prudent to lose yet two more operational squadrons before 2018? I can't see that money is being saved on airfield maintenance either, as both Leuchars and Kinloss, I understand, are to be retained as active to serve as diversions for Lossiemouth? Without which, the nearest military runways would be Linton-on-Ouse and Leeming.
FB
FB
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fecks sake man grow a set.
People are hardly fainting in the streets about it are they?! Whose fault is that? The peoples? The history teachers?
We don't need squadrons of bleating crabs blethering about the old days!! Get up and get jobs in civvy street. Do you all good for a change.
Take it from me and others. Truly, nobody gives tuppenny **** about it.
Thatchers child, 4 cans later.
We don't need squadrons of bleating crabs blethering about the old days!! Get up and get jobs in civvy street. Do you all good for a change.
Take it from me and others. Truly, nobody gives tuppenny **** about it.
Thatchers child, 4 cans later.