Named after birds, actually; Heron, Seahawk, Goldcrest etc. Not to forget HMS Sheathbill which is what We named the 650' tin strip for the SHARs at Port San Carlos in 1982.

Mog

Far be it for anyone here to contradict the lady....

Jack

has anyone told the Daily Mail??

From the Jersey Evening Post on 7 May ... I hope their caption writer informed Horse Guards about their new acquisition.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....85c6c1fce.jpeg

On a similar vein it seems 20 Sqn has quietly slipped back into circulation.

Even more bitter and twisted now, I bet my Harrier mates are as chuffed as I am!

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?

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

BV,

I was so anxious not to be that person that I deleted my post, and now you agree! Life can be very confusing.

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

All of them. The Bloodhound had an airframe, jet engines, electronics and a warhead (plus a few other explosive items). The only aircraft trades never employed on it were Aircraft Electrical / Air Comms / Flight Systems and the Safety Equipment (that is after the Guided Weapon Fitter trade was canned). One of the original Bloodhound Mk 1 Squadron commanders did note in his unit's ORB that giving the Air Defence Missile (SAM after June 1961) squadrons number plates of former flying units had been a very good idea as regards maintenance of morale and esprit de corps. However the SAM squadrons could and would have engaged the enemy without external support with a winged flying machine (Both Marks of Bloodhound system could search for and engage targets by themselves). Radar units should be called Signals Units, of which there are number plates and badges for a lot of them.

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?:E

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.

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.

41 Squadron most definitely make sure that anybody entering their offices at Coningsby see's that they were a Bloodhound unit (they have framed coloured drawings of the various aircraft operated by the unit dotted around the Corridors and a Bloodhound 2 on a Launcher is one of the set). Their Squadron Association also covers their time with the system. 33's Squadron Association on the other hand hardly mention the fact that had operated the system. 25 Squadron's Association folded in 2014 if memory serves, but their web site does cover the Bloodhound years (not surprising seeing that the web master for their site was a Type 86 radar fitter).
.

Hmmm ‘true warfighter’ … there’s a phrase that can only have come from someone who hasn’t served in recent conflicts. The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly didn’t ask whether people were enablers or warfighters before they launched attacks. And if you’ve read your Gerasimov then you’d know that ‘war fighting’ in the old fashioned sense is now very much about mopping up. Victory occurs well before the battlefield and the arrival of fielded forces.

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 ?