New RAF Typhoon squadrons -place your bets!

[Truro Model Builder]

The current Chief of the Air Staff has a support helicopter background, so may not have any strong views in any case.

And, Ascoteer, how wonderful it would be to see those Poseidons with a figure of Perseus on a terrestrial globe on the tail.

[Inverted]

Perhaps image 13 over on UKAR of a typhoon coded GS yesterday gives a hint......

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=72136

[upnorth]

I'd like to see the 5 Sqn. numberplate pulled off the Sentinel squadron and put onto Typhoons, but I can't see it happening.

[XV107]

XV

Excellent analysis. My only caveat relates to point 2. Whilst you won't get a maritime squadron becoming a fighter unit, the reverse has of course happened with 8 Sqn (Hunters beforehand?), so there is a sort of precedent.

No doubt whatever happens there will be a 'logical' explanation. Pity, tiger stripes Typhoons (or Reapers!) would at least mitigate the grey tide.

Trevor

As it was the AEW Shack, the role association was deemed to be air defence (at a push, given that it was but one of 8's functions out in Aden)

The Typhoon coded GS is a II(AC) Squadron machine (17 were Ax; 29 are Bx; 3 are Cx; 11 are Dx; 6 are Ex; 1 are Fx and II(AC) are - nominally - Gx, but they of course prefer single letter codes in the same way that 3 resurrected the QO-x codes and employs them rather than the allocated Cx.

I'd note that the incoming CAS is a Tornado man...

[Boman]

Don't recall where I read it, but there was a similar thread either here or over at ARC, and there it was stated that current RAF policy was to retain the low-numbered squadrons; 1, 3, etc.

I think this may have come from the 2010 SDRS, but wouldn't swear to it. Anybody know?

[XV107]

I've seen that before, and I think it stems from a comment in the 1980s made in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft part-work, which did a section on RAF squadrons in the last twenty or so issues. It isn't correct.

The policy is based around seniority; because the lower number units tend to have been around longer, then... you can see why they tend to survive. That, in turn, means they accumulate more service and only if there were to be a significant expansion of the RAF - by about a dozen squadrons, say, would you see some of the 'higher' numbers like 74 return.

Edited April 12, 2016 by XV107

[Boman]

Thanks!

[Rich G]

Having been to Leuchars on an annual camp back in 1998 I'd like to see 43 or 111 taken up once again. Otherwise 19 and 74 would get my money. All of these squadrons would have the potential for some decent special schemes as well!

Rich

[alpine_modeller]

I think public perception is as important nowadays to the MoD as is tradition. Hence the naff names given to the carriers instead of traditional RN carrier names.

I therefore expect 74 and 111 to jump the queue.

Edited April 14, 2016 by alpine_modeller

[XV107]

The 'naff names' for the carriers are somewhere in the order of 400 years of RN tradition....

The tradition is that the monarch has a major ship - of the most potent type in the RN - named after them - thus HMS King George V and Duke of York; George VI had been DoY, and since having a KGV and a KGVI risked all sorts of confusion... Victoria's was HMS Queen, the pre-Dreadnought battleship Edward VII was named for her son.

The CVA01 would have been HMS Queen Elizabeth for the same reason; the Queen has been waiting over 50 years for 'her' ship. Given the service life projected for the carriers and the fact that Charles has not decided upon his regnal name (see speculation that he may go for George VII), then 'his' ship is the Prince of Wales. It has nothing to do with public perception and PR and everything to do with a tradition Nelson would've recognised.

The general public, I'm afraid, has no recognition of 74 or 111. The only RAF units most people can name are 617, the BBMF and the Reds, so while I'd be content for 74 and 111 to reappear, it'll be of interest to a relatively small number of people and hardly worth the PR effort. I don't think a PR dominated approach is the sort of thing that the incoming CAS, incoming AOC1 Gp, current AOC 2 Gp would be that interested in, to be honest.

(As an aside, 74 could be made a special case - if the Air Staff wanted a fighter Tiger squadron, then... And best yet, get CAS to get HMQ or Prince Charles to lament the lack of a fast jet Tiger squadron, and reform by royal appointment and you make the numberplate a special case like 617 and 120).

Edit - the tradition of naming a first rate ship of the line in honour of the monarch goes back to the Restoration of 1660: Royal Charles, Queen (for the second Queen Mary); Royal Anne; Royal George. If you include Charles I having HMS Royal Sovereign as 'his' ship, then the tradition goes back even further - hardly ye olde publick relationff gymickke...

Edited April 14, 2016 by XV107

[alpine_modeller]

The 'naff names' for the carriers are somewhere in the order of 400 years of RN tradition....

The tradition is that the monarch has a major ship - of the most potent type in the RN - named after them - thus HMS King George V and Duke of York; George VI had been DoY, and since having a KGV and a KGVI risked all sorts of confusion... Victoria's was HMS Queen, the pre-Dreadnought battleship Edward VII was named for her son.

The CVA01 would have been HMS Queen Elizabeth for the same reason; the Queen has been waiting over 50 years for 'her' ship. Given the service life projected for the carriers and the fact that Charles has not decided upon his regnal name (see speculation that he may go for George VII), then 'his' ship is the Prince of Wales. It has nothing to do with public perception and PR and everything to do with a tradition Nelson would've recognised.

The general public, I'm afraid, has no recognition of 74 or 111. The only RAF units most people can name are 617, the BBMF and the Reds, so while I'd be content for 74 and 111 to reappear, it'll be of interest to a relatively small number of people and hardly worth the PR effort. I don't think a PR dominated approach is the sort of thing that the incoming CAS, incoming AOC1 Gp, current AOC 2 Gp would be that interested in, to be honest.

(As an aside, 74 could be made a special case - if the Air Staff wanted a fighter Tiger squadron, then... And best yet, get CAS to get HMQ or Prince Charles to lament the lack of a fast jet Tiger squadron, and reform by royal appointment and you make the numberplate a special case like 617 and 120).

Edit - the tradition of naming a first rate ship of the line in honour of the monarch goes back to the Restoration of 1660: Royal Charles, Queen (for the second Queen Mary); Royal Anne; Royal George. If you include Charles I having HMS Royal Sovereign as 'his' ship, then the tradition goes back even further - hardly ye olde publick relationff gymickke...

Well, I am afraid I disagree with most of your post, fella.

Why isnt our first new carrier called HMS Queen Elizabeth II if its tradition to name them after the Monarch ? As far as I am concerned, the Monarch who this ship is named after died 413 years ago.

Why wasnt Indomitable named after her, and instead called Ark Royal ? Or any of the three for that matter ?

Charles himself is on record saying he is "relaxed" about POW being renamed Ark Royal 6

As for your squadron comments, just because I like planes ships and tanks and stick pieces of plastic together with carcinogenic glue, doesnt mean I am a buff on RAF squadron numbers and history, but even I have heard of 74 and 111 in addition to 617.

[Albert RN]

Well, I am afraid I disagree with most of your post, fella.

XV107 is quite correct.

As for other comments elsewhere about Tiger squadrons, we currently do have two - 814 NAS and 230 Sqn.

[Boman]

The cool thing with 74sq is that they seldom held back on fancy Tiger markings.

[alpine_modeller]

XV107 is quite correct.

As for other comments elsewhere about Tiger squadrons, we currently do have two - 814 NAS and 230 Sqn.

Sorry, I still dont see it. The carrier is named either after a monarch that died nearly half a millenia ago, or at best the present mother's monarch...

KGV was indentified specifically with the WW2 battleship, if we are honouring the monarch why isnt it QE2 (especially as there is no longer an ocean liner by the name)

Personally, I like the US Navy tradition that ship names stick with the class of the preceeding namesake. QE and POW were battleships.

Anyhooo, when is an announcement likely to be made about new reformed squadrons standing up to accomodate the retained Tranche 1s ?

Edited April 14, 2016 by alpine_modeller

[Dave Fleming]

Built in Scotland, there has never been another Queen Elizabeth here.

[XV107]

You try to provide some helpful information, and look where it gets you...

The general public - i.e those who do not build kits - do not know about 74 and 111. Which is why I put the word 'general' in. The idea that we modellers are illustrative of the general public is a bit optimistic.

And it is remarkably obtuse to claim that the lack of regnal number means the ship isn't named after the monarch, particularly when there are detailed files in the National Archive which explain the tradition and why the CVA01 was going to be Queen Elizabeth (again minus the regnal number). If Charles is relaxed about Ark Royal as a new name, that's fine (the monarch is not compelled to have a ship named after them, and if he were to say he would prefer it, that'd happen.

The irony is that the remaining of Indomitable as Ark Royal was the result of the sort of PR which was being decried, as a response to public dismay after the loss of Ark 5, just as renaming PoW - unless at Charles's behest - would be a similar response to opinion and PR rather than tradition...

[Procopius]

The tradition is that the monarch has a major ship - of the most potent type in the RN - named after them - thus HMS King George V and Duke of York; George VI had been DoY, and since having a KGV and a KGVI risked all sorts of confusion...

That's not precisely correct in this instance. George VI declined the honour and requested that the ship be named for his late father in 1936. The ships that were ultimately named Anson and Howe were initially to be named Jellicoe and Beatty, but in 1938, the original Anson was renamed Duke of York, while Beatty and Jellicoe were then renamed Anson and Howe in 1940, in light of the continuing vituperation over Jutland.

[Duncan B]

Built in Scotland, there has never been another Queen Elizabeth here.

Quite correct and, unfortunately, probably lost on 96% of the population. However was there not a battleship named Queen Elizabeth during WW2 so the name is still a traditional RN name.

I say the crusty old RN should get with the times and stop saluting various parts of their ships and other stupid, out-dated ideas. After all their not much more than fisheries protection nowadays anyway. (stands back and admires the glow from the blue touch-paper )

Duncan B (product of 3 generations of RN so was probably named after a Liberty boat)

[tc2324]

74 Squadron was, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, just sufficiently senior enough to merit reformation; there is circumstantial evidence that 39 Squadron, the most senior available numberplate and which had previous role association was already seen as a recce squadron and (quietly) earmarked for reapplication to what had become 1PRU, or to a Tornado GR1A squadron in due course; the Air Staff had been trying to get a fast jet Tiger squadron back on the books since 1971.

Air Officers, despite popular belief, have little influence on 'their' squadrons reforming, although they have tried in the past.

Just to add my two pence worth and also quote a line from the film Independence Day, `that`s not entirely acurate`.

Back in 82 when 23 Sqn went South to supply AD to the Falklands and a new purchase Phantom had been given the go ahead, 39 Sqn was the unit being named to reform and plug the hole in the UK`s AD. When word got around that a `bomber sqn` was going to get the new jets the senior air officer is reported to have crossed 39 off the list and wrote 74 over the top of it.

I don`t think 74 were senior enough back then, but just got lucky that the officer in question was a `fan`.

As much as I hate to say it, I think 74 has gone for good but I really, really, really, hope I`m wrong.

[XV107]

The problem with the story is that the way in which the numberplates are assigned doesn't come down to a single officer; a senior chap could indeed cross out 39 and insert 74, but this would make no difference, unless he did it at the AFBSC meeting which approved the plate...

Also, remember that 74 had been selected as the third Lightning squadron which didn't, in the end form. I would have to check, but ISTR that there was a view that as 74's numberplate had been agreed upon for the next 'new' fighter squadron and the decision had never been rescinded, it was the correct choice.

That's not precisely correct in this instance. George VI declined the honour and requested that the ship be named for his late father in 1936. The ships that were ultimately named Anson and Howe were initially to be named Jellicoe and Beatty, but in 1938, the original Anson was renamed Duke of York, while Beatty and Jellicoe were then renamed Anson and Howe in 1940, in light of the continuing vituperation over Jutland.

I have to admit that I hadn't re-read the whole of my copy of the file and didn't remember that bit...

[tc2324]

The problem with the story is that the way in which the numberplates are assigned doesn't come down to a single officer; a senior chap could indeed cross out 39 and insert 74, but this would make no difference, unless he did it at the AFBSC meeting which approved the plate...

I think the Chief of the Air staff intervening himself covers that.

My fault, I should of been more definitive in my description of the senior chap.

Edited April 15, 2016 by tc2324

[XV107]

I'm wasting my time trying to use the files against stories, here aren't I? I'm done.

[Dave Fleming]

I'm wasting my time trying to use the files against stories, here aren't I? I'm done.

Please don't be, some of us value your expertise

[tc2324]

Blimey...!

I`m not suggesting at all what you said was incorrect, just not the case for 74 back in 1983.

Dick Northcote, then a Sqn Ldr, was working with the Director General of Organisation (DGO), one of whose responsibilities was the allocation of sqn number plates to new units.

As you mentioned, historical precedent usually comes into play. However there was at the time constant lobbying by ex-Lightning crews who rallied behind 74`s cause when they heard a new fighter unit was to stood up.

It came as something as a shock therefore when the DGO recommended to his immediate superior, the Air Member for Support and Organisation that 39 Sqn, historically a Bomber unit should reform on the F-4J.

As I mentioned, once the Chief of Air Staff heard about this, he intervened. He decided that formal precedents should take a back seat on this occasion and instructed that the new Sqn would be 74.

Dick Northcote was then promoted to Wing Commander, organised the Tiger Trials and ferrying the `J`s over the Atlantic and became 74 Sqn`s first CO.

I`m sorry XV if my story is at odds with your written files. But this information is from one of the people who was closely involved in the whole process from start to finish, (i.e, Dick Northcote), and it is all noted in the official sqn history.

On the plus side of all this, if we all lobby the Chief of Air Staff today, you never know, we might get a proper fixed wing Tiger sqn back......

[Giorgio N]

Sorry, I still dont see it. The carrier is named either after a monarch that died nearly half a millenia ago, or at best the present mother's monarch...

KGV was indentified specifically with the WW2 battleship, if we are honouring the monarch why isnt it QE2 (especially as there is no longer an ocean liner by the name)

Personally, I like the US Navy tradition that ship names stick with the class of the preceeding namesake. QE and POW were battleships.

Anyhooo, when is an announcement likely to be made about new reformed squadrons standing up to accomodate the retained Tranche 1s ?

The naming traditions in the USN have changed in the same way as they have changed in the RN and very few ships today can claim a namesake in the same class of ships.

Names of US states have traditionally been used for battleships but started to be applied to SSBNs in the late '70s. And before them at least a couple of nuclear cruisers carried names of states.

The SSBNs on the other hand initially had names of former presidents or heroes of American history. Then president names started to be used for carriers, although some carried names of other personalities. And at least one president will see his name on a destroyer

Carriers previously used names coming from battlecruisers, generic evocative names or were named after battles in American history. Today cruisers are named after battles.

Previously cruisers traditionally carried names of American cities but starting with the Los Angeles class they have been used for SSNs. These were previously named after sea creatures following the tradition started with conventional submarines. After the Los Angeles came the Seawolf, with names all over the place, and then the Virginia class that is seeing SSNs named after states.. so now we have 4 different type of ships that have been named after states within 50 years (BBs, CGNs, SSBNS, SSNs).

While SSNs are now named after states, the names of cities are used for LPDs...