The return of 19 Sqn and 78 Sqn
Gentleman Aviator
I have often thought it would be better to allocate the numbers to (flying) flights. Then tradition and memorabilia etc could be held at sub-unit level, just as the RA keep tradition at Batteries rather than Regiments.
So a current "Squadron" would become a Wing - commanded by a wg cdr! - and would comprise 2 or 3 (or more) numbered Sqns.
As an example, a "Puma Wing" could comprise 33, 230 and 78, with perhaps an additional one (with or without (R)) for the OCF.
And for Old-Duffer's "Bogs and Drains", maybe the motto of 617 - if not the badge - would be entirely appropriate!
I see no snags ........ and think of all the Standards at Dining-In Nights!
So a current "Squadron" would become a Wing - commanded by a wg cdr! - and would comprise 2 or 3 (or more) numbered Sqns.
As an example, a "Puma Wing" could comprise 33, 230 and 78, with perhaps an additional one (with or without (R)) for the OCF.
And for Old-Duffer's "Bogs and Drains", maybe the motto of 617 - if not the badge - would be entirely appropriate!
I see no snags ........ and think of all the Standards at Dining-In Nights!
I have wondered why the 1950's idea of linked squadrons to preserve traditions etc. wasn't revived. 19 was linked to 152 between 1940 and '54. Obvious pairing that come to mind include 5/11, 15/16, 19/92, 22/202, 43/111, and 55/57, or even 23/56/74. Until the 1990s ther were plenty of double number army regiments particularly cavalry e.g 16th/5th Lancers and the 17th/21st Lancers.
I have wondered why the 1950's idea of linked squadrons to preserve traditions etc. wasn't revived. 19 was linked to 152 between 1940 and '54. Obvious pairing that come to mind include 5/11, 15/16, 19/92, 22/202, 43/111, and 55/57, or even 23/56/74. Until the 1990s ther were plenty of double number army regiments particularly cavalry e.g 16th/5th Lancers and the 17th/21st Lancers.
Jack.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
But the Thor and Bloodhounds were potentially fliers, Swanick isn’t, what next the RAF Cricket team becoming a Sqn?
it all just degrades the things carried out by these Sqns in the past to defend this country.
it all just degrades the things carried out by these Sqns in the past to defend this country.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
And your Sqn number this week will be...............
I have wondered why the 1950's idea of linked squadrons to preserve traditions etc. wasn't revived. 19 was linked to 152 between 1940 and '54. Obvious pairing that come to mind include 5/11, 15/16, 19/92, 22/202, 43/111, and 55/57, or even 23/56/74. Until the 1990s ther were plenty of double number army regiments particularly cavalry e.g 16th/5th Lancers and the 17th/21st Lancers.
The idea of resurrecting squadrons and then returning the silver, standards and other stuff has a flaw in it.
When units/squadrons closed down, the memorabilia was returned to the original donor (if known) or it went to the central repository and standards were laid up in a church or someplace similar. In some cases items were auctioned before the balance went to the repository.
The stuff in the central repository was at one stage in RAF Quedgeley (No 7MU), supposedly with a 'Property Book' ie the inventory of non-public property. When 7MU closed it went to another stores unit and is now apparently at a joint service storage unit near Telford. Concern was expressed some years ago that the security of the stuff was suspect and there have been suggestions that - how can I put this politely - some items might have been mislaid! The RAF seems not to be interested in the matter and there are no plans to carry out any sort of audit of what is actually still held and hence the property is at risk.
I wonder what the response would be to a PQ asked in the Commons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old Duffer
When units/squadrons closed down, the memorabilia was returned to the original donor (if known) or it went to the central repository and standards were laid up in a church or someplace similar. In some cases items were auctioned before the balance went to the repository.
The stuff in the central repository was at one stage in RAF Quedgeley (No 7MU), supposedly with a 'Property Book' ie the inventory of non-public property. When 7MU closed it went to another stores unit and is now apparently at a joint service storage unit near Telford. Concern was expressed some years ago that the security of the stuff was suspect and there have been suggestions that - how can I put this politely - some items might have been mislaid! The RAF seems not to be interested in the matter and there are no plans to carry out any sort of audit of what is actually still held and hence the property is at risk.
I wonder what the response would be to a PQ asked in the Commons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old Duffer
I have often thought it would be better to allocate the numbers to (flying) flights. Then tradition and memorabilia etc could be held at sub-unit level, just as the RA keep tradition at Batteries rather than Regiments.
So a current "Squadron" would become a Wing - commanded by a wg cdr! - and would comprise 2 or 3 (or more) numbered Sqns.
As an example, a "Puma Wing" could comprise 33, 230 and 78, with perhaps an additional one (with or without (R)) for the OCF.
And for Old-Duffer's "Bogs and Drains", maybe the motto of 617 - if not the badge - would be entirely appropriate!
I see no snags ........ and think of all the Standards at Dining-In Nights!
So a current "Squadron" would become a Wing - commanded by a wg cdr! - and would comprise 2 or 3 (or more) numbered Sqns.
As an example, a "Puma Wing" could comprise 33, 230 and 78, with perhaps an additional one (with or without (R)) for the OCF.
And for Old-Duffer's "Bogs and Drains", maybe the motto of 617 - if not the badge - would be entirely appropriate!
I see no snags ........ and think of all the Standards at Dining-In Nights!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the ORP
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I will have got the names terribly wrong but here goes.
When the Army amalgamated the following:-
The Royal Green Jackets
The Duke of Wellingtons
The Prince of Wales Own
the result was
The Prince of Wales Own Green Wellingtons
When the Army amalgamated the following:-
The Royal Green Jackets
The Duke of Wellingtons
The Prince of Wales Own
the result was
The Prince of Wales Own Green Wellingtons
This isn't new (although it is an extension of the policy) - for example the RAuxAF ground units were given the numbers of former RAuxAF flying squadrons as long ago as the late 90s, and 92 have been the Tactics and Training Wing of the AWC for a number of years
I cry, foul!
Lucky escape for some, my understanding is the seniority of the first 10 dormant squadrons was V, 43, 111, 208, 20, 19, 15, 78, 55, 207. I thought the RAF system was at least straightforward unlike the RN's appears to be. Or are there six secret establishments with squadron numbers?)
Ooooh, I think that should read Green Howards?
I do wonder what the late great Air Cdr Joan Hopkins would say?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,754
Received 2,738 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Many, many great Sqns and their identities have gone in the past and if you are going to let Sqns go as the RAF “declines” in numbers then please do it with some respect and let them go.
To rename offices and the like as Sqns is disrespecting the RAF’s history and those that came before. those people fought and died as part of those Sqns.
I for one quite liked the idea of making existing Sqns Wings and the flights Sqns, that at least would realign some of the rank structure with the format.
But naming buildings after Sqns, what next, the tea trolley.
To rename offices and the like as Sqns is disrespecting the RAF’s history and those that came before. those people fought and died as part of those Sqns.
I for one quite liked the idea of making existing Sqns Wings and the flights Sqns, that at least would realign some of the rank structure with the format.
But naming buildings after Sqns, what next, the tea trolley.
Many, many great Sqns and their identities have gone in the past and if you are going to let Sqns go as the RAF “declines” in numbers then please do it with some respect and let them go.
To rename offices and the like as Sqns is disrespecting the RAF’s history and those that came before. those people fought and died as part of those Sqns.
I for one quite liked the idea of making existing Sqns Wings and the flights Sqns, that at least would realign some of the rank structure with the format.
But naming buildings after Sqns, what next, the tea trolley.
To rename offices and the like as Sqns is disrespecting the RAF’s history and those that came before. those people fought and died as part of those Sqns.
I for one quite liked the idea of making existing Sqns Wings and the flights Sqns, that at least would realign some of the rank structure with the format.
But naming buildings after Sqns, what next, the tea trolley.
Squadron - a unit or military organisation.
I'm glad the numbers are in use again, and I'd be pretty sure that the people who in future become part of those Squadrons will cherish the often hard won history and ethos of the former flying unit. Times change, roles change..
I'm glad the numbers are in use again, and I'd be pretty sure that the people who in future become part of those Squadrons will cherish the often hard won history and ethos of the former flying unit. Times change, roles change..
Mea Culpa! It should be 203. I had forgotten 207 jumped the queue as the former No, 7 Sqn RNAS. “I am very pleased to announce that the Operational Conversion Unit for the UK’s F-35B Lightning fleet will be 207 Squadron. The squadron has a proud and distinguished history, not only as an RAF squadron but as one of the earliest squadrons of the Royal Naval Air Service which, with the Royal Flying Corps, came together to form the Royal Air Force on 1 April 1918." Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier
Especially given its former SACLANT role and greater seniority, I can't see why it wasn't 208 if they were looking for an ex-RNAS unit.
Especially given its former SACLANT role and greater seniority, I can't see why it wasn't 208 if they were looking for an ex-RNAS unit.
"But naming buildings after Sqns, what next, "
Some lunatic will probably suggest naming FAA/RNAS bases after warships and calling them HMS .................
Some lunatic will probably suggest naming FAA/RNAS bases after warships and calling them HMS .................