The return of 19 Sqn and 78 Sqn
Mog
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
From the Jersey Evening Post on 7 May ... I hope their caption writer informed Horse Guards about their new acquisition.
Just moving back onto SLXOwft ’s list
V
43
111
208
15
55
20, 19, 78, 55 with all these now taken.
We will also have the following coming up soon:
8 - there will be a air gap between Sentry and Wedgetail. Should it not take one of the above?
32 - with BAe 146 due to go next year and no announcement on CSAT, is it time to go into the list and the A109 becomes a Flight?
33 and 230 Sqn - with the announcement of Puma going and an air gap between Puma and “Medium Lift Helicopter”. They will add to the list.
13 and 39 Sqn - Protector will be 31 Sqn, already announced. So which of 13 or 39 will become a second Protector unit?
203 Sqn was mentioned, there have been mutterings of a Poseidon OCU. Could that be next? 54 Squadron is becoming a little unwieldy as “The ISTAR OCU” being split over several stations. Is there rationalisation coming for that?
V
43
111
208
15
55
20, 19, 78, 55 with all these now taken.
We will also have the following coming up soon:
8 - there will be a air gap between Sentry and Wedgetail. Should it not take one of the above?
32 - with BAe 146 due to go next year and no announcement on CSAT, is it time to go into the list and the A109 becomes a Flight?
33 and 230 Sqn - with the announcement of Puma going and an air gap between Puma and “Medium Lift Helicopter”. They will add to the list.
13 and 39 Sqn - Protector will be 31 Sqn, already announced. So which of 13 or 39 will become a second Protector unit?
203 Sqn was mentioned, there have been mutterings of a Poseidon OCU. Could that be next? 54 Squadron is becoming a little unwieldy as “The ISTAR OCU” being split over several stations. Is there rationalisation coming for that?
Timelord
I know I’m the guy that usually challenges the ‘grumpy old men’ on here but I might surprise you this time.
I agree with you!
In the same way that RAF Regt Field Sqns have their own numbering system I would rather they had adopted a similar thing for these units.
Since I’m still serving I look at it through the lens of Sqn association dinners.
I will use 6 Sqn as an example (since I am a former member).
I would feel uncomfortable as a currently serving pilot turning up at a 6 Sqn dinner populated by lots of junior Typhoon pilots. Once I am retired I would have no problem showing up. However, if 6 Sqn were to become an administrative unit I don’t think I would want to go to an association dinner as a former pilot. It just wouldn’t feel the same.
I am also a proud former member of 19 Sqn (yes I know, not from when it flew proper jets) and this is how I would feel about a current 19 Sqn dinner. I just wouldn’t feel the same way about an association dinner now as I did several years ago.
I realise nothing I say will affect anything and my ego should have no bearing on it but I can’t help the way I feel.
BV
I agree with you!
In the same way that RAF Regt Field Sqns have their own numbering system I would rather they had adopted a similar thing for these units.
Since I’m still serving I look at it through the lens of Sqn association dinners.
I will use 6 Sqn as an example (since I am a former member).
I would feel uncomfortable as a currently serving pilot turning up at a 6 Sqn dinner populated by lots of junior Typhoon pilots. Once I am retired I would have no problem showing up. However, if 6 Sqn were to become an administrative unit I don’t think I would want to go to an association dinner as a former pilot. It just wouldn’t feel the same.
I am also a proud former member of 19 Sqn (yes I know, not from when it flew proper jets) and this is how I would feel about a current 19 Sqn dinner. I just wouldn’t feel the same way about an association dinner now as I did several years ago.
I realise nothing I say will affect anything and my ego should have no bearing on it but I can’t help the way I feel.
BV
Timelord
I try to only challenge what I deem to be unnecessary and knee jerk grumpiness.
Well considered and, what I deem (my opinion is not the law!) to be, necessary grumpiness is fine.
I can be so fickle.
BV
Well considered and, what I deem (my opinion is not the law!) to be, necessary grumpiness is fine.
I can be so fickle.
BV
At the risk of being controversial - not without precedent. How many Bloodhound squadrons carried the number plate of a former flying squadron?
I suppose it could be a way of packing out the numbers, but equally it’s also a way of keeping Sqns going and contemporary rather than them disappearing into the history books.
I suppose it could be a way of packing out the numbers, but equally it’s also a way of keeping Sqns going and contemporary rather than them disappearing into the history books.
Someone told me that the US Marines distinguish between “ Warfighters” and “. Enablers”. This seems very sensible to me, and Squadron numbers, Standards and so on are for Warfighters. The Bloodhound, Thor and indeed Predator units undoubtedly fitted the bill. I venture to suggest that the ASACS training unit, however valuable as an enabler, is not a warfighter. The blurring of the distinction between them can only be bad for esprit amongst the true warfighters and erode the respect they are due.
Given its new role, will the new 20 reverse its motto to verba non facta?
LJ, Putting my nerd hat back on; my list was just dormant squadrons and should have also contained 30 which disbanded after the list I have was compiled and has seniority close to V's. I think they are both senior to all you mentioned except 8 which serendipitously has the 8th highest seniority so would have to be dormant a long time to be overtaken, but it has already been announced as the Wedgetail squadron. 13 has just over a month's seniority over 39 so its a toss up. 32 is senior to both and to 33 which is senior to 230 all are senior to all the other dormant squadrons (i.e. Excluding V and 30).
As 33, (like 25 and 41) was previously a Bloodhound Unit, as a formerly dark blue interloper, I would hope the former members were not looked down on by their Puma successors.
I can't make my mind up if I think this numberplating of ground units as squadrons with a long history is a good idea or not; I have come around to the FAA using numbers from the 17XX series for a similar purpose (which may make more sense). In my gut I agree with Nutty and Timelord but in by head I think that in the networked, RPAS, and autonomous UAV dominated air battlespace of the future it may not be a bad idea from a morale and esprit de corps perspective to give them numbers but maybe it would be better to use ones from the RAF Special Reserve and RAuxAF ranges or the 551+ range allocated to OTUs for use under Operations Saracen and Banquet for defence of the UK in the event of invasion.
LJ, Putting my nerd hat back on; my list was just dormant squadrons and should have also contained 30 which disbanded after the list I have was compiled and has seniority close to V's. I think they are both senior to all you mentioned except 8 which serendipitously has the 8th highest seniority so would have to be dormant a long time to be overtaken, but it has already been announced as the Wedgetail squadron. 13 has just over a month's seniority over 39 so its a toss up. 32 is senior to both and to 33 which is senior to 230 all are senior to all the other dormant squadrons (i.e. Excluding V and 30).
As 33, (like 25 and 41) was previously a Bloodhound Unit, as a formerly dark blue interloper, I would hope the former members were not looked down on by their Puma successors.
I can't make my mind up if I think this numberplating of ground units as squadrons with a long history is a good idea or not; I have come around to the FAA using numbers from the 17XX series for a similar purpose (which may make more sense). In my gut I agree with Nutty and Timelord but in by head I think that in the networked, RPAS, and autonomous UAV dominated air battlespace of the future it may not be a bad idea from a morale and esprit de corps perspective to give them numbers but maybe it would be better to use ones from the RAF Special Reserve and RAuxAF ranges or the 551+ range allocated to OTUs for use under Operations Saracen and Banquet for defence of the UK in the event of invasion.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
My Lady and I fully agree with the thrust of that post and several others upthread. We both find this numberplate allocation idea somewhat embarrassing for former members of the ‘proper’ Squadron. As suggested above, other numbering systems (with a history of their own) already exist … use those! A Simulator/Training facility is NOT a Squadron.
.
Someone told me that the US Marines distinguish between “ Warfighters” and “. Enablers”. This seems very sensible to me, and Squadron numbers, Standards and so on are for Warfighters. The Bloodhound, Thor and indeed Predator units undoubtedly fitted the bill. I venture to suggest that the ASACS training unit, however valuable as an enabler, is not a warfighter. The blurring of the distinction between them can only be bad for esprit amongst the true warfighters and erode the respect they are due.
I take the point, and I raise my hat to anyone who served in those theatres, including members of my own family, but I am not sure that being vulnerable to attack qualifies,. By that measure the residents of London during the blitz should be awarded a sqn number. Surely it’s the units that fight back that deserve the honours.
I wonder how the army would feel about re badging, say, the REME training depot as, say, 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards ?
I wonder how the army would feel about re badging, say, the REME training depot as, say, 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards ?
Last edited by Timelord; 20th Jun 2021 at 19:20.
