RAF - Standing up/down and rebadging
Another good idea, but how about School CCFs and ATC units being given some of the responsibility? To remain alive in every sense, the past needs to be integrated with the future, not just the present.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still feel proud of the squadrons on which I served but have little affinity with being part of the Admin Wg at RAF Much Binding in the Marsh.
Idea's such as centralised servicing, removed technical staff from numbered squadrons and severely dented this pride, so how can an administrator that spends his/her life in a succession of SHQ's partake?
A good idea, we have already seen non-flying units adopt historic squadron numbers (The RAuxAF units spring to mind).
I recall a proposal to have the Wing/Squadron relationship nominally changed so that the Wing became the basic unit and the squadron a sub-unit (allowing Wing Commanders to command wings and Squadron Leaders to lead Squadrons) - this allowing an effective doubling of squadrons for numeric purposes. Don't think that ever took off, if you pardon the pun!
I recall a proposal to have the Wing/Squadron relationship nominally changed so that the Wing became the basic unit and the squadron a sub-unit (allowing Wing Commanders to command wings and Squadron Leaders to lead Squadrons) - this allowing an effective doubling of squadrons for numeric purposes. Don't think that ever took off, if you pardon the pun!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3WMB
I can see potential for confusion for the casual observer in dropping the designations (F), (AC), etc; if II(AC) were to become just II, it could be seen as 11 (XI) by, say, non-RAF peeps. But this is perhaps the only circumstance where it could happen (I can't think of any other Roman-Arabic numeral other than this).
Davef68
Whatever next? You'll be wanting flight lieutenants running flights and group captains commanding groups as well, I suppose. Don't you see how career-limiting this would be for the greasy pole promotion system.
Mister B
I can see potential for confusion for the casual observer in dropping the designations (F), (AC), etc; if II(AC) were to become just II, it could be seen as 11 (XI) by, say, non-RAF peeps. But this is perhaps the only circumstance where it could happen (I can't think of any other Roman-Arabic numeral other than this).
Davef68
Whatever next? You'll be wanting flight lieutenants running flights and group captains commanding groups as well, I suppose. Don't you see how career-limiting this would be for the greasy pole promotion system.
Mister B
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the CCF/ATC idea is that ATC sqns and even CCF sections have our own histories. Not as illustrious of course but still a part of where we come from. Eg our own CCF section was part of 1056 Sqn ATC, another part of which became 2121DF then 2121 Sqn ATC. We are holding a 75th anniversary reunion next year. Sad to lose that identity and history even if rescuing a defunct RAF Sqn number.
Perhaps the answer to the CCF/ATC situation is as follows.
ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.
CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.
O-D
ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.
CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.
O-D
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the answer to the CCF/ATC situation is as follows.
ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.
CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.
O-D
ATC sqns with a number which existed in an RAF/RNAS sqn should take on the mantle.
CCF(RAF) sections in being as air sections of the school OTC pre-war were affiliated to an RAF sqn. Perhaps they could go back to that particular set of roots.
O-D
The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.
201 - gone not too long ago
202 - closing this year
203 - 'ceased trading', awaiting formal disbandment
206 - survives, albeit as a specialist unit rather than a typical sqn
207 and 208 - very unlikely to survive the advent of MFTS
216 - recently gone
230 - safe and sound for now
All others already long gone
TMM - True enough about CCF histories. My first school's CCF was older than the RAF, and indeed older than the formal CCF movement. I think it's 110 now. I was thinking about the RAF section for CCFs.
The specific information regarding the pre-war air sections is available from various sources. For example, I helped at Rugby School CCF and their pre war air section was affiliated to 18 Sqn at Upper Heyford, as shown in the schools CCF history.
The wartime ATC included the 200 or so air sections at schools and it was not until about 1948 that the CCF as such came into being, claiming back the ATC units and calling them 'RAF Sections' of the CCF. At the same time the current ATC set up was formed and based largely on county boundaries, although things have of course changed. With several thousand numbered ATC units, the reason why there are still sqns in to the 2000 series is because these units mostly survived the post war reduction/rationalisation of the ATC and for whatever reason were able to resist attempts to renumber them.
The gliding schools are another interesting subject but not now!
Old Duffer
The wartime ATC included the 200 or so air sections at schools and it was not until about 1948 that the CCF as such came into being, claiming back the ATC units and calling them 'RAF Sections' of the CCF. At the same time the current ATC set up was formed and based largely on county boundaries, although things have of course changed. With several thousand numbered ATC units, the reason why there are still sqns in to the 2000 series is because these units mostly survived the post war reduction/rationalisation of the ATC and for whatever reason were able to resist attempts to renumber them.
The gliding schools are another interesting subject but not now!
Old Duffer
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta love those blunties...
With all the money spent, and the meeting seemingly centred on where the sqn crest should go, he asked whether there were any plans to change the side guidance to a system that accommodated RAF pallets, and if not, how many US pallets were being provisioned?
There was silence, before the discussion returned to sqn crests.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we'll not even go near the famous naming of the Mitsubishi Starion car in the late '70's....................
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As ex-35 groundcrew, I was always a bit disappointed that 35 was never reformed as a Tornado unit given the other ex-Vulcan units that were (two with lower number, so perhaps reasonable, but the other a lot higher and known for no more than bashing holes in walls). I expect ex-50 and 44 people feel much the same. I was also a bit non-plussed that when the TWCU (on which I spent a little over 5 years) was given a number, it got 45 (anyone know why?). I would have thought that would have been a perfect candidate to take on one of the old Vulcan numbers.
They move in mysterious ways...
They move in mysterious ways...
Last edited by midsomerjambo; 2nd Apr 2015 at 16:02. Reason: Didn't want abuse from ex-Dumbo Airlines people
It was because of 45's seniority - at the time of the TWCU formation, it'd have been about 19th on the list of seniority, whereas 35 was approximately 52nd and 50 was around 90th on the list.
45 was the most senior numberplate not in use at the time. Although the rules/policy permitted another numberplate to be used for a reserve squadron if there was a good reason for it (e.g. 76 Squadron's reformation as a Tucano unit at L-O-O because of the association between the squadron and LOO during the war), 45 was senior and had 'role association' having served in a number of different roles during its existence (fighter, fighter-bomber, light bomber, ground attack), making it appropriate for the MRCA.
The approximations are because I'm using the 1973 list and there is a possibility that, post Hunters, 45 would've slipped a place or two, while 35 and 50 might have moved a couple as some squadrons just ahead of them in the list had disbanded, enabling 35 and 50 to overtake them through length of accumulated service; there was often very little between units at that time, and short periods of disbandment could allow squadrons to swap places in the list.
45 was the most senior numberplate not in use at the time. Although the rules/policy permitted another numberplate to be used for a reserve squadron if there was a good reason for it (e.g. 76 Squadron's reformation as a Tucano unit at L-O-O because of the association between the squadron and LOO during the war), 45 was senior and had 'role association' having served in a number of different roles during its existence (fighter, fighter-bomber, light bomber, ground attack), making it appropriate for the MRCA.
The approximations are because I'm using the 1973 list and there is a possibility that, post Hunters, 45 would've slipped a place or two, while 35 and 50 might have moved a couple as some squadrons just ahead of them in the list had disbanded, enabling 35 and 50 to overtake them through length of accumulated service; there was often very little between units at that time, and short periods of disbandment could allow squadrons to swap places in the list.
