RAF - Standing up/down and rebadging
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF - Standing up/down and rebadging
Recently the RAF rebadged 2 Squadron (Tornado) as 12 Squadron and announced the 2 Squadron label would be transferred to a new Typhoon squadron.
Why not not just keep 2 Squadron as Tornados and make the new Typhoon Squadron number 12????
Save on paper and paint for a start
Why not not just keep 2 Squadron as Tornados and make the new Typhoon Squadron number 12????
Save on paper and paint for a start
Heathrow Harry,
Because 2 Sqn has a future and 12 Sqn doesn't.
Because 2 Sqn has a future and 12 Sqn doesn't.
Traditionally, years stood up takes precedence. There would also seem to be a correlation between having a former Squadron Boss at 3* or above and who gets what.....
..mentioning no names (but it rhymes with Gick Darwood
)
..mentioning no names (but it rhymes with Gick Darwood
)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
12(B) Sqn didn't really fit the fighter image
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 17th Mar 2015 at 20:35.
IIRC back in '79 when the Buccs turned up at Lossie they did so as 216 Sqn before valmorphorising into 12 Sqn.
I can't figure out why a transport squadron should be assigned Buccs, and then only for a very short period. What happened there?
I can't figure out why a transport squadron should be assigned Buccs, and then only for a very short period. What happened there?
216 was supposed to be the third UK Bucc squadron until the Red Flag accident revealed the extent of the wing problem, and following repairs there were only enough aircraft to form two squadrons plus the OCU.
Can't recall if the Seniority rules wree in force then, but it was a historic number so the 'change of role' was to resurrect it.
As to why 12(B) was resurrected, the planning and formation of II onto the Typhoon was in motion long before the decision to retain a Tornado squadron, so it made sense to continue that and temporarily reform 12. saves another re-shuffle in 12 months
Can't recall if the Seniority rules wree in force then, but it was a historic number so the 'change of role' was to resurrect it.
As to why 12(B) was resurrected, the planning and formation of II onto the Typhoon was in motion long before the decision to retain a Tornado squadron, so it made sense to continue that and temporarily reform 12. saves another re-shuffle in 12 months
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near where the Wokkas live.
Age: 79
Posts: 112
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seniority
Back in 1918 the old RNAS squadrons were reallocated 200-series numbers, eg 1Sqdn RNAS became 201 Squadron RAF. Squadrons in the 2xx range have traditionally been Coastal or Bomber (ex-Handley Page 0/400) Units. So 216 Sqdn does have a fair bit of seniority and with the Bucc the maritime connection was retained.
Back in 1918 the old RNAS squadrons were reallocated 200-series numbers, eg 1Sqdn RNAS became 201 Squadron RAF. Squadrons in the 2xx range have traditionally been Coastal or Bomber (ex-Handley Page 0/400) Units. So 216 Sqdn does have a fair bit of seniority and with the Bucc the maritime connection was retained.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN
If you think 12(B) didn't fit the 'fighter' image, how do you reconcile II(AC) fitting that image? Army Cooperation, for much of its existence in a reconnaissance role (for the Tornado iteration remember that even the cannons were replaced by the SLIR/ILRS associated equipment).
Just maybe possible that a former II(AC) flt cdr, now 3*, might have had a little influence...
Mister B
If you think 12(B) didn't fit the 'fighter' image, how do you reconcile II(AC) fitting that image? Army Cooperation, for much of its existence in a reconnaissance role (for the Tornado iteration remember that even the cannons were replaced by the SLIR/ILRS associated equipment).
Just maybe possible that a former II(AC) flt cdr, now 3*, might have had a little influence...
Mister B
I get the impression that anything to do with tradition or ceremony would be defended to the hilt here and yet we bemoan a lack of funding on defence spending......we're not helping the cause by standing up for, or explaining without criticising such a daft waste of money.
As Davef68 says, I think that you will find that II (Typhoon) Squadron was simply too far along the process of forming ("NOT STANDING UP") when the decision was taken to retain the third GR4 Sqn.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When II(AC) squadron is equipped with Typhoon, would it be logical (and accurate) to drop the '(AC)', maybe assume '(F)', or maybe neither. The primary role would indicate which appellation is appropriate; or is it heresy to muck about with squadron designations?
Bear in mind that, despite what 1(F) might assert, II(AC) is the oldest RAF aeroplane squadron...
Mister B
Bear in mind that, despite what 1(F) might assert, II(AC) is the oldest RAF aeroplane squadron...
Mister B
XI dropped the (F) when they were designated lead mud-movers for the Tiffie (and they are the Oldest Fighter Squadron on the Planet). I should think most squadrons have been F, B and AC at some point.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
There can be much angst in dropping sqn suffixes.
There was a fashionable move in the 60s to drop appellation s such as Rhodesia and Madras with diehards pointing out the official coat of arms had these as did the standard.
There was a fashionable move in the 60s to drop appellation s such as Rhodesia and Madras with diehards pointing out the official coat of arms had these as did the standard.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
16 Posts
Was this all not due to CMD on a visit to 2 Sqn in agfannystan, commenting that 2 were due to disband and he stated that they would now not be, obviously unaware of the fact that they were to disband on Tornados and reform on Typhoons , on the same day.
The whole business of squadron numbers is a dog’s breakfast IMHO.
I accept that an arrangements needed to be made but whilst the principle of low numbers can be accepted, once one started to make exceptions, the line was difficult to hold. There are very many squadrons, some in the high numbers, whose squadron achievements can be matched to those currently in use. Two issues come into play. First, if you keep the low numbers as at present, they will de facto become the longest serving units with the passage of time. Second, the policy means that squadrons whose lineage is – say – bomber, suddenly become a transport unit. This loses any sort of corporate history. One must also allow that those in the current and future service will only have any knowledge of the sqns currently around and so will have no interest in the rich history of the RAF.
The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.
I proposed about thirty years ago that the OCUs should be renumbered as squadrons and when my proposal was aired in Air Clues, there was considerable opposition, some of it bordering on abuse and I thought the idea would die. However, Air Marshal Sir John Curtiss championed the idea and it happened, with the Reserve squadrons as we have now.
The only way that squadrons might be resurrected is with something like the parts of a station organisation being given numbers. So, for example, the base support wing at RAF ‘X’ becomes: 194 (Support) Sqn. It might be that the School of Recruit Training has – say – two training squadrons and these might be numbered 103 (Recruit Training) Sqn and 110 (RT) Sqn. These pseudo units would acquire all the remaining memorabilia, silverware – if it hasn’t already been stolen from the store – and the squadron standard. In my view it might help inculcate some pride in the organisation. Certainly for my part, 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.
Old Duffer
I accept that an arrangements needed to be made but whilst the principle of low numbers can be accepted, once one started to make exceptions, the line was difficult to hold. There are very many squadrons, some in the high numbers, whose squadron achievements can be matched to those currently in use. Two issues come into play. First, if you keep the low numbers as at present, they will de facto become the longest serving units with the passage of time. Second, the policy means that squadrons whose lineage is – say – bomber, suddenly become a transport unit. This loses any sort of corporate history. One must also allow that those in the current and future service will only have any knowledge of the sqns currently around and so will have no interest in the rich history of the RAF.
The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.
I proposed about thirty years ago that the OCUs should be renumbered as squadrons and when my proposal was aired in Air Clues, there was considerable opposition, some of it bordering on abuse and I thought the idea would die. However, Air Marshal Sir John Curtiss championed the idea and it happened, with the Reserve squadrons as we have now.
The only way that squadrons might be resurrected is with something like the parts of a station organisation being given numbers. So, for example, the base support wing at RAF ‘X’ becomes: 194 (Support) Sqn. It might be that the School of Recruit Training has – say – two training squadrons and these might be numbered 103 (Recruit Training) Sqn and 110 (RT) Sqn. These pseudo units would acquire all the remaining memorabilia, silverware – if it hasn’t already been stolen from the store – and the squadron standard. In my view it might help inculcate some pride in the organisation. Certainly for my part, 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.
Old Duffer