New RAF Typhoon squadrons -place your bets!

[Truro Model Builder]

So, now that we know that the RAF is retaining its Tranche 1 Typhoons and reforming two squadrons to operate them purely in the air defence role, the big question is...

Which squadrons will it be?

So, let's have your thoughts, your guesses, your considered opinions.

As for me, well I'd dearly like to see No.74 reborn and hear the Tigers roar once more, but while I Fear No Man I do fear that it will not happen, as there are many other squadrons above them in seniority.

The remaining Tornado squadrons may be held in abeyance as possible future Lightning units -or even for the Poseidon- which is just as well as to see Nos. IX (B) and 12 (B) Squadrons reform as AD units would be akin to nails down a blackboard for many.

Nos.19, 23 and 25 Squadrons are all historic fighter units, and could all claim seniority rights, while No.43 is not far behind, and of course No.208 has just disbanded. As far as I can work out, in order of seniority (and including No.20 Squadron as a low number squadron and the remaining Tornado units), these squadrons should stand in the following order:

-No.9 Squadron (96 years)

-No.12 Squadron (96 years)

-No.25 Squadron (92 years)

-No.111 Squadron (90 years)

-No.23 Squadron (85 years)

-No.208 Squadron (84 years)

-No.43 Squadron (83 years)

-No.20 Squadron (74 years)

-No.19 Squadron (67 years)

-No.15 Squadron (65 years)

Remember that seniority is applied on the basis of the amount of time a squadron has been in front line service, not the entirety of its existence or the date it originally formed. Unless it is 617, of course. Based on that, my best guess is that the new Typhoon squadrons will be either Nos.9 and 12 or, if they are held over for Lightning use, Nos.25 and 111. I am, however, still holding out for 74 (46 years ).

[Stosh65]

Would love to see 111 back. Mostly due to many happy years in proximity to Leuchars, but also because a gloss black Typhoon would look awesome.

[Duncan B]

I'd take either 43 or 111, both very successful Air Defence Squadrons in their previous incarnations (and with firm Scottish roots in the modern era too).

Duncan B

[mtd350]

It would have to be the Squabbling chickens and Tremblers (43 and 111Sqn's) for me as i went on many a det with both Sqn's, also would be great to see them back at their last home Base RAF Leuchars

[mtd350]

Black Tiffie Hmmmmm. Wasn't keen on it when I refuelled ZH588 when it was being trialled.

Now give me a 74sqn Tiffie with properly painted tiger stripes and not the gairish attemt that "ze germans" flew

[Harley John]

Got to be the Fighting Cocks & the "Knee" Tremblers for me. Both have a long & glorious history in Air Defence. And in a perfect world flying from a re-instated Leuchars (I can dream!!!). If they don't get it, 74 is the next best choice.

[Troffa]

I would love to see 43(F) back on AD duties, but suspect that T7's guess is on the mark- although the current RAF Deputy Commander Operations, Air Marshall Greg Bagwell has strong links to IX( so who knows- at least 617 have already pushed to the front of the F-35 queue!

[F-32]

111 and 74 for me

[mhaselden]

Based on seniority, surely 56 Sqn should move from being the "number plate" for the C2ISR OEU at Waddington so it can become a "proper squadron" again, probably alongside 25 Sqn. That would open up the OEU plate for 111 Sqn which is appropriate (IMHO).

[jenko]

111 and 74 for me

Ditto

[Ascoteer]

I very much doubt it would be IX or 12 given that their numberplates indicate that they are Bomber Sqns.

[Max Headroom]

i would also like 74 Sqn. A Typhoon in non boring colours would be a sight! Won't happen though.

Slightly off topic but wotabout 208 for the Poseidon?

Here's a thought. An online petition to gather support for them?!

Trevor

[Graham Boak]

The other possibility is re-badging. If there are to be two dedicated AD Typhoon squadrons, then other Typhoon units can be seen more as bomber units, thus "deserving" a bomber number. Then the two displaced numbers will be free for the dedicated AD units. I suspect however that the comment on reserving the bomber numbers for Lightning (sic) squadrons may hold true. Or even for Drone squadrons?

Never forget that squadrons have switched roles in the past. If it is required to keep a "big" number in play, then it will happen again.

Personally, I'd like to see 19 and 92 together again, but a better question is "What squadrons did the present and incoming Air Staff fly with?"

Edited April 11, 2016 by Graham Boak

[Miggers]

The other possibility is re-badging. If there are to be two dedicated AD Typhoon squadrons, then other Typhoon units can be seen more as bomber units, thus "deserving" a bomber number. Then the two displaced numbers will be free for the dedicated AD units. I suspect however that the comment on reserving the bomber numbers for Lightning (sic) squadrons may hold true. Or even for Drone squadrons?

Never forget that squadrons have switched roles in the past. If it is required to keep a "big" number in play, then it will happen again.

Personally, I'd like to see 19 and 92 together again, but a better question is "What squadrons did the present and incoming Air Staff fly with?"

Agreed there,I'd love to see 19,92 or even 257 resurface.

Picture a Tiff with 257's "Burma"flash on it.

[Selwyn]

Would love to see 111 back. Mostly due to many happy years in proximity to Leuchars, but also because a gloss black Typhoon would look awesome.

A bit like this one you mean?

http://www.fotolibra.com/gallery/184353/eurofighter-typhoon-da2-zh588/

Selwyn

[Ascoteer]

Slightly off topic but wotabout 208 for the Poseidon?

Pah!

That should be 42(Torpedo Bomber)Sqn (or, at worst CXX Sqn).

[mackem01]

I'm just happy to see some squadrons being reformed, it makes a change from all the axing that has taken place over recent years.

With a nod to auxilliary air force units being reformed as support units who knows - maybe one of the "eggies" will throw a curve

ball in (I can dream)

[Tiger331]

In my heart, one of the Squadrons would simply have to be 74(F) Sqn, given that I am a former member but I know that will not happen….for a number of reasons and not simply one of seniority. I tend to agree with some of the co-respondents that IX(Bomber) and 12 (Bomber) Sqn are, in spite of seniority, most likely being lined up for the J-35 Lightning Force and it would be a nice touch, given its long standing nautical connections, if 208 Sqn became the P-8 Poseidon Squadron. That leaves (in seniority order) four 'traditional' Air Defence Squadrons available to take the two number plates…….Like many others, I would like to put my money on 43 and 111 Sqn since they were synonymous with the Air Defence of the UK for well over 40 years during their Service with the BAC Lightning, McDD F-4 Phantom and Tornado F.3, they have rather nice standard Unit markings and turned out some spectacular Specially marked jets too…That's not to say others didn't do the same, such as 23 and 25 Sqn but given their 'Northern exposure' 43 and 111 Sqn were regularly at the forefront of intercepts against Bears etc.

[Max Headroom]

Pah!

That should be 42(Torpedo Bomber)Sqn (or, at worst CXX Sqn).

I was thinking of keeping the last RNAS squadron alive.

Trevor

[tc2324]

Hmmmm, tough one for me....

(unfortunately there are no ex `Tigers` walking the corridors at the MOD to plead their case like there was back 1983).

[Ascoteer]

I was thinking of keeping the last RNAS squadron alive.

Trevor

Surely that's a job for the FAA?

[PLC1966]

19 F are in the bar tonight

A little bit loud and a little bit tight

19 F are in the bar tonight

The WO Man says it will be alright

There can only be one..................although I suppose hissing sid, 92Sqn, can come along..........

[arbrownra]

92 Sqn - would be great to have them back!

[XV107]

As noted before - the rules are fairly strict and fairly well applied:

1. Seniority takes precedence

2. Role association is important - thus a maritime squadron is unlikely to reform as a fighter squadron

3. 617 and 120 squadrons, by dint of the early award of their standards at the behest of King George VI are treated as special cases

4. Time spent as a reserve numberplate does not count towards accumulated service

5. Reserve numberplates do not have to follow the seniority rules as strictly (hence reformation of 76[R] some years ago

6. Renumbering of squadrons is to be avoided (does not apply to reserve numberplates)

7. A numberplate which is in use is not to be reallocated, although

8. A squadron may re-equip on a new type of aircraft while its former incarnation may be renumbered (see II(AC) becoming 12)

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.

We have the following things to note.

First, there is no reason why the 'new' Tranche 1 Typhoon squadrons shouldn't, in fact, be drawn from four of the current five (II(AC) as an AD unit might be pushing it), with the new squadrons getting Tranche 2/3 airframes. This would involve nothing more than shuffling airframes around.

Second, we do not as yet know the phasing of the arrival of the extra Typhoon squadrons and the disappearance of the GR4. Given the pressure on aircrew numbers and engineers at the moment, I would not be at all surprised if the plan involves the 6th Typhoon squadron appearing at around the same time that the GR4 force draws down to two squadrons (2018), with the 7th appearing when the last two GR4 units go (2019). If this is the case, then despite the 'B' suffix, 9 and 12 would be in prime position to survive, quite possibly by re-equipping. Remember that the suffixes are, as it were, ceremonial - thus 18 is 18(B.) despite the fact that it's an SH unit and has been for half a century. Role-suffixes should've disappeared in the early 1960s by order of the Air Council (as was) and I believe that this edict is still in place, with the suffixes being employed for historical reasons.

Also, 31 Squadron is senior to 9 and 12.

Third, the RAF is going to have at least 20 Protectors (the new, cuddlier-sounding Reaper) - which will represent a doubling of the force numbers. It is quite possible that this will mean that we go from two to four squadrons; there are a number of sound practical reasons why this could be the way forward, and such a step would bring another two numberplates into use.

Fourth, the F-35 OCU (5 aircraft) will be at Marham from July 2019, with national conversion training starting (rather than with VMFAT-501). That unit will require a numberplate, but the XV[R] plate is likely to be available at that point (the rough estimate is that an OCU will close 12-18 months prior to the retirement of the type it provides aircrew for)

Given their prodigious seniority, it would require a significant change of policy for any of 31, 9 and 12 to go into abeyance with the risk of becoming dormant.

Edited April 12, 2016 by XV107

[Max Headroom]

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