No.12 Typhoon Squadron

[Harrierpilot]

There's a rumour going about that when No.12 Squadron disbands with the dambusters next April they have been earmarked to be the third Typhoon FGR4 Squadron to move into Lossiemouth with No.1 and 6 Squadrons.

[thomastmcc]

whats the source ?..

[Dave Fleming]

Been floating about for a while,

[thomastmcc]

so rumour control ..

[XV107]

It is rumour control, but...

Although there's the obvious point that 12 is not, traditionally, a fighter squadron, the rules for numberplates being assigned come into play.

Yes, they have been rather abused over the years - the Grob squadrons should not, for instance, have reserve numberplates assigned to them, and nor should the Tucano squadrons (now squadron) have been granted reserve numberplates - but they do have a great deal of relevance still.

Put simply, when the GR4 goes, 12 becomes the most senior numberplate not assigned to a squadron. The rules are clear that the most senior available numberplate will be assigned to the next squadron formed which requires a numberplate. So if 12 disbands on the GR4 before the next Typhoon squadron forms, then 12 should be the assigned numberplate. Although 4 Sqn's numberplate is assigned to a reserve unit, it is deemed to be in use (under the way things are currently done), so won't go to the Typhoon squadron unless the approach adopted is changed.

As I've observed before, the complicating factor may be 2 Squadron, which is the RAF's most senior unit. If it appears to the Air Force Board that the RAF is unlikely to form a second RAF-numberplated F-35 squadron for some time after the withdrawal of the GR4, then I suspect that they will rejig things to re-equip 2 with the Typhoon so as to ensure its continued existence. Even allowing for the doom and gloom about the F-35, though, I suspect that at some point in the next four or five years, we'll have the announcement that another batch of F-35s is to be bought, and some of these will go to replace the GR4 with 2 Sqn.

As this question seems to crop up quite frequently - the twelve most senior numberplates on the most recently available list (i.e. released into the public domain), in order are: 2, 1, 6, 4, 14, 24, 8, 60, 5, 12, 70 and 3. 60's time as the Reserve 'plate for DHFS will have pushed it down the list, though, and a rough calculation suggests that it'll be no higher than 12th on the latest list, and possibly have gone down a little more, possibly as low as the mid-20s.

The first numberplate traditionally associated with the fighter role that is dormant is 25 (13th in the list) followed by 20, 23, 111, 43,19 and 74 (although I have a feeling that 20 and 23 may have swapped places thanks to the former's time as the Harrier OCU which won't count towards the accumulated service which makes up almost all of the consideration of seniority). 92 Squadron is currently in reserve, without aircraft, but might - at a push - be considered not to be in use, in which case it gets in ahead of 74 but behind 19 in that list - which, I hasten to add, is not the most up-to-date one, but an extrapolation from the one most recently released into the public domain.

I strongly suspect that unless the RAF tinkers with the size of squadrons (making them smaller to increase the number of squadrons, probably with a Sqn Ldr in command as part of a restructured Expeditionary Air Wing were that to happen), then we are unlikely to see the re-emergence of any of the above noted fighter numberplates. Although often talked about, the administrative issues associated with increasing the number of flying squadrons to achieve the return of more historic numberplates seems - as far as I can tell - to be an interesting idea that is also unlikely to happen in the near future.

Edited October 8, 2013 by XV107

[Vickers McFunbus]

Yes, they have been rather abused over the years - the Grob squadrons should not, for instance, have reserve numberplates assigned to them, and nor should the Tucano squadrons (now squadron) have been granted reserve numberplates - but they do have a great deal of relevance still.

Go on then, I'll bite. Why not? (and I assume you include the King Air, Squirrel, Griffin and Hawk in your statement too...)

[XV107]

It's a long-standing policy. In a moment, I'll I quote a loose minute from June 1970 (referring to decisions made 18 months before). But the context...

The war reserve element of 226OCU (then on Lightnings) was to be assigned to SACEUR and was thus subject to TACEVAL and various other exercises. AOC-in-C Strike Command, Sir Denis Spotswood felt that this merited the award of active status to the unit and a numberplate which bore a standard (and squadron silver). He proposed either 66 or 73 as the numberplate, with his preference being for 73.

This sparked a round of correspondence, during the course of which one loose minute said:

...the policy for the allocation of squadron number plates was decided by the Air Force Board only 18 months ago, when it was agreed that active numbers should not be given to squadrons whose primary function is training. This decision was not reached in haste, but was preceded by an extensive canvas of the service which revealed that opinion for and against was fairly evenly divided... The deciding factor was that neither AOCs-in-C nor the majority of staffs of the Air Force Department gave any strong support for the peace-time use of numberplates by reserve squadrons...

It seems that...145 Reserve Squadron's NATO tasks merit special consideration and that there may well be a case for us to suggest to the Air Force Board that an exception be made

The AFB agreed, and the Lightning OCU numberplate became 65 Squadron (because that was the most senior numberplate available; Spotswood accepted this). I've not traced the AFB record yet, but it may be the case that 65 Squadron was, in fact, active during the last years of the Lightning, rather than being the apparently simple renumbering of the Shadow Squadron from 145 to 65 that it's presented as having been by several sources.

If I recall, Trenchard himself decreed that training units should not have squadron numberplates, and that tradition was upheld by the Air Force Board as years went by. It was, in effect, repealed with the change in the way that Reserve squadrons were treated post-1991, but AIUI, there is no formal AFB repudiation of the old policy which is why 16, 72, 60, et al should not, in fact, have squadron numberplates because they are in the category of units for which a different form of designation existed (i.e. the Grobs, King Airs, Tucanos, 208 and DHFS should all be designated as Flying Training Schools, as should IV if it has no designated war role).

[kstater94]

If they decide to decrease the size of the squadrons in order to create more squadrons, what do you think the number of aircraft assigned would be? Just curious on guesses

Cheers!

John

[Dave Fleming]

XV107, I'm sure they changed the policy in the 90s, around the time the OCU numbering was dropped, so that, for example, 233 OCU became officially 20 (Reserve) Squadron rather than just a 'shadow' squadron. Can't imagine them doing that to the extent it happened without AFB approval.

123 Squadron is due to disband on GR4s next April, at the same time as 617 Squadron

[XV107]

Dave, sorry, wasn't clear in what I was saying.

What appears to have happened with the post Options For Change numberings is that this was done at Ministerial level. XV, 16 and 20 were all up for the chop, but were coming back from Granby to disbandment. Mindful of press reaction, the Sec of State said something to the effect that the squadrons would not disband, but would take on new roles. It appears - perhaps not what happened but this is what the available evidence suggests - that the AFB simply went against its own policy, rather than formally repudiating it.

Had they changed it, 76 Squadron wouldn't have been able to appear on Tucano, since a senior numberplate would've been assigned - the suggestion is that they simply - as is their right - decided that every case made for the assignation of numberplates was an exception, and this then became assumed policy over time without anyone issuing a full-on 'our policy has changed' missive. Which, strictly speaking, means that their are either two policies in place without anyone knowing it, or a policy which is very flexible in interpretation to the point where it isn't actually a policy but a set of generic guidelines which can be used as desired.

Sir Humphrey would be pleased...

[spike7451]

Got a couple Armourer mates on 12 & they haven't heard anything apart from they're binned when they get back from Afghan...........

[pigsty]

Sir Humphrey would be pleased...

I doubt it. One of the banes of our lives is Certain People wanting to ignore the rules when they don't like the results, while still insisting that everyone else abides by them.

[Procopius]

All I want is the rules strictly applied, aside from however many Nelsonian blind eyes it takes to get 74 Squadron reactivated on Typhoons. That's all.

[Vickers McFunbus]

From a non bureaucratical point of view, and with the more important issue of retaining the service's ethos and traditions, particularly in a training world with variable levels of morale, the allocation of reserve "number-plates" to training units is quite a good thing IMHO.

[XV107]

Oh, don't get me wrong - I agree. I was just pointing out the apparent anomaly, that was all.

[AjD]

60's time as the Reserve 'plate for DHFS will have pushed it down the list

An interesting topic. Just to clear up an inaccuracy amongst all that though, 60® is NOT a Reserve plate for DHFS. DHFS is an entity in its own right and the primary squadrons operating under the control of DHFS HQ are 60® Sqn, 660 Sqn AAC and 705 NAS.

It doesn't change the price of fish with regard to discussions of seniority but I hope you won't mind me straightening that small point out.

Cheers,

Andy

Edited October 26, 2013 by AjD

[HammerUK9]

It is rumour control, but...

Although there's the obvious point that 12 is not, traditionally, a fighter squadron, the rules for numberplates being assigned come into play.

Yes, they have been rather abused over the years - the Grob squadrons should not, for instance, have reserve numberplates assigned to them, and nor should the Tucano squadrons (now squadron) have been granted reserve numberplates - but they do have a great deal of relevance still.

Put simply, when the GR4 goes, 12 becomes the most senior numberplate not assigned to a squadron. The rules are clear that the most senior available numberplate will be assigned to the next squadron formed which requires a numberplate. So if 12 disbands on the GR4 before the next Typhoon squadron forms, then 12 should be the assigned numberplate. Although 4 Sqn's numberplate is assigned to a reserve unit, it is deemed to be in use (under the way things are currently done), so won't go to the Typhoon squadron unless the approach adopted is changed.

As I've observed before, the complicating factor may be 2 Squadron, which is the RAF's most senior unit. If it appears to the Air Force Board that the RAF is unlikely to form a second RAF-numberplated F-35 squadron for some time after the withdrawal of the GR4, then I suspect that they will rejig things to re-equip 2 with the Typhoon so as to ensure its continued existence. Even allowing for the doom and gloom about the F-35, though, I suspect that at some point in the next four or five years, we'll have the announcement that another batch of F-35s is to be bought, and some of these will go to replace the GR4 with 2 Sqn.

As this question seems to crop up quite frequently - the twelve most senior numberplates on the most recently available list (i.e. released into the public domain), in order are: 2, 1, 6, 4, 14, 24, 8, 60, 5, 12, 70 and 3. 60's time as the Reserve 'plate for DHFS will have pushed it down the list, though, and a rough calculation suggests that it'll be no higher than 12th on the latest list, and possibly have gone down a little more, possibly as low as the mid-20s.

The first numberplate traditionally associated with the fighter role that is dormant is 25 (13th in the list) followed by 20, 23, 111, 43,19 and 74 (although I have a feeling that 20 and 23 may have swapped places thanks to the former's time as the Harrier OCU which won't count towards the accumulated service which makes up almost all of the consideration of seniority). 92 Squadron is currently in reserve, without aircraft, but might - at a push - be considered not to be in use, in which case it gets in ahead of 74 but behind 19 in that list - which, I hasten to add, is not the most up-to-date one, but an extrapolation from the one most recently released into the public domain.

I strongly suspect that unless the RAF tinkers with the size of squadrons (making them smaller to increase the number of squadrons, probably with a Sqn Ldr in command as part of a restructured Expeditionary Air Wing were that to happen), then we are unlikely to see the re-emergence of any of the above noted fighter numberplates. Although often talked about, the administrative issues associated with increasing the number of flying squadrons to achieve the return of more historic numberplates seems - as far as I can tell - to be an interesting idea that is also unlikely to happen in the near future.

Golly, the RAF really does have a lot of free time on its hands!

Tim

[4scourge7]

Trying to predict this is trying to catch an eel wearing boxing gloves.

I remember, not that long ago, when it was a `lock` that the next two sqn would be 43 and Treble one due to the Leuchars connection.

Don`t be surprised if it all goes corporate and we get `Costa Coffee sqn` or 617 `Price-Busters`.

Boo to most things...

(especially shapes, sounds, and colours)

[AirfixAndy]

Costa coffee Squadron. ......that one has passed me by ..... ??

[XV107]

An interesting topic. Just to clear up an inaccuracy amongst all that though, 60® is NOT a Reserve plate for DHFS. DHFS is an entity in its own right and the primary squadrons operating under the control of DHFS HQ are 60® Sqn, 660 Sqn AAC and 705 NAS.

It doesn't change the price of fish with regard to discussions of seniority but I hope you won't mind me straightening that small point out.

Cheers,

Andy

Bad phrasing on my part - I meant 'for' in the sense 'subordinate to' - so worth noting, ta.