|
Welcome to IX(B) Typhoon Squadron
Thought I would welcome this new outfit, seeing as the RAF website has omitted to do so.....
|
IX
Go on. Tell us the name of the Boss. Just for a laugh! Anyway, before the inevitable whinging starts let me be the first to point out that a FJ force with 7 frontline Typhoon Sqns and a growing F35 fleet is not too shabby. I realise the numbers of sqns are far less than the good old days but consider capability. When I joined the RAF we had Jag, Harrier, GR4 and F3 (the RN still had Sea Harrier as well of course). Our current fleet far exceeds that fleet in terms of strike and AD capability if not in pure numbers. Anyway, if you really can’t resist feel free to start the complaining now. BV |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10440581)
Anyway, if you really can’t resist feel free to start the complaining now. BV CG |
They can still only be shot down once I presume?
|
I’ll join BV in pre-empting a standard whinge. Mine is ‘Why have they put a bomber number plate on a fighter squadron? What about 43/111/74/19 etc etc...’. Leaving aside the seniority rules that make it an uphill struggle for any of the above numbers to return, does anyone really think that a single-digit squadron, with the longest run of unbroken service of any currently active, that was selected alongside 617 for special duties in WW2, whose mission on night one of Op ELLAMY was one of the outstanding operational achievements of recent years, and whose former Boss is the senior military officer in NATO was going to be allowed to disappear? The next F35 unit is RN-plated and I strongly suspect the Air Force Board will have seen it as too risky to lay IX(B) up for the one after that. [Anyway, a tenuous little bit of fighter history is that Dowding was briefly OC9 before becoming OC16!] As for the Tranche 1 limitations vs the ‘Bomber’ suffix, well, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a reshuffle of Tranche 2/3 Typhoon airframes across all Sqns some years down the line, perhaps facilitated by still-greater use of synthetics. And 18(B) has managed all these years with no bombs! |
Blackfriar
You are absolutely correct of course but with Typhoon able to operate comfortably at higher altitudes with excellent manoeuvrability and F35 able to use complex wiggly amps their survivability is also significantly better. Yes I know about modern threats but not everyone has those. Yet. BV |
To the uninitiated ...
Having a new AD squadton with a B suffix makes little sense to me?
Especially when the numberplate of the first RAF Squadron to fly a monoplane fighter is available for use..... And 43 and 74 too! Adstantes TO |
Most squadrons don’t. No XXIV, which was the first squadron of any Air Force to be wholly equipped with single seat fighters has never to my knowledge used the suffix ‘F’, despite arguably having a more deserving fighter heritage than most RAF squadrons. Not having operated a fighter since 1930 is therefore not a problem.
Maybe some squadrons feel the necessity to prove something?! |
I agree that the suffix should be changed or dropped. There are no rules on it though, which means it's down to the whim of the VSOs...
|
The old Hunter pilots from Aden hated that No 8 Sqn came home to be a Shackleton squadron!
|
"What about 43/111/74/19 etc etc..." - and how about 92(F) Sqn, the RAF's highest scoring fighter squadron in WWII - doesn't history count?
We have to move on, chaps, there simply isn't enough hardware to keep all these historic numbers alive. Old operational squadron numberplates have long been compromised, using training units to keep squadrons artificially alive. An example?: 16 Sqn flying plastic pigs! Like many, I don't like today's reality, but I would rather see one of the the RAF's most successful senior squadrons - IX(B) - being kept alive with real aircraft, rather than overgrown R/C models - cf31 Sqn! |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10440648)
I’ll join BV in pre-empting a standard whinge. Mine is ‘Why have they put a bomber number plate on a fighter squadron? What about 43/111/74/19 etc etc...’. We are the only parent nation of the Typhoon without a NATO Tiger Typhoon Squadron. That is embarrassing. I want Tigers! I'd love to see 43 Sqn make a return also - my favourite air defence squadron. |
Originally Posted by BVRAAM
(Post 10442938)
Yes for 74!
We are the only parent nation of the Typhoon without a NATO Tiger Typhoon Squadron. That is embarrassing. Having been quoted twice by posters who seem to have missed my point, I think I need to be a bit less dry in future! |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10443040)
No, this is embarrassing. The RAF is more focussed on getting the most out of its fleet and improving its capability than it is on paint schemes and annual get-togethers. Having been quoted twice by posters who seem to have missed my point, I think I need to be a bit less dry in future! |
Could be worse. We might have to call it the 9th Fighter Squadron or some such, to join the 101st Air Refuelling Squadron and the 33rd Helicopter Squadron and so on.
|
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10440980)
I agree that the suffix should be changed or dropped. There are no rules on it though, which means it's down to the whim of the VSOs...
|
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10443040)
No, this is embarrassing. The RAF is more focussed on getting the most out of its fleet and improving its capability than it is on paint schemes and annual get-togethers. Having been quoted twice by posters who seem to have missed my point, I think I need to be a bit less dry in future! How many Tornado did we recently paint to celebrate removing an operationally capable platform? The squadron needs to be called something and there is almost zero cost associated with using a tiger number plate. What little cost there is would most likely be absorbed into already established budgets as Squadrons are still sent overseas on a regular basis for the purposes of training with foreign air forces and fostering good relations. |
Originally Posted by m0nkfish
(Post 10447328)
...would most likely be absorbed into already established budgets...
|
One has often wondered why one obvious (to me at least) solution to the "numberplate" issue has not been voiced or even tried.
For historical reasons, the Royal Artillery maintain their tradition at sub-unit level, i.e. Battery and not Regiment. Why not do the same thing with (current) Flights and Squadrons, whch could become Squadrons and Wings? So the new Typhoon outfit - assuming three flights - could be XI(B), 111 and 92 (or whatever numbers are top of the list), combining to be No ? Typhoon (AD) Wing. Three times as much Squadron silver and memorabilia , three standards (hmm - might be a problem) and more (probably) Squadron Spirit. And of course, most of those famous squadrons "earned their spurs" whilst being commanded by sqn ldrs. And the objections are.......??? |
I thinkt we should renumber all our Sqns starting at 1, thus highlighting just how few Sqns we actually have now. We can't have much more that 20 actual Sqns now, and with no disrespect to the Sqns and their histories, 101, 120, 617, et al, make it look like we have a larger air force than we actually do.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.