prospective new typhoon squadrons

[Tiger331]

Given my previous association with 74(F) Squadron, it very much pains me to stay that reformation as a Typhoon unit is highly unlikely. As a previous co-respondent has already stated, 'number plating' tends to be based on a number of factors but one of THE most important criteria is years of unbroken service. In spite of 74(F) extremely rich history, particularly during WW1 and the Battle of Britain and its highly colourful Post-War period, the squadron was missing from the RAF ORBAT for 16 years between 1919-35 and another 13 years between 1971-84 so it does not have much in terms of accumulated service. There are a number of other BofB era Squadrons with equally rich histories and achievements that will almost certainly be considered before the 'Tigers', sad to say.

[Max Headroom]

Slightly off topic, but if the RAF's getting more drones, won't they need squadron numbers too? Would that make the prospect of 74 Sqn more realistic?

Trevor

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

43 or 111 up here and whatever you like down there

803 NAS to add a bit of colour if they allow it on the F-35. (Well senior moment or not..I can but dream)

If they are to be pure fighters then perhaps the Falklands unit will exchange airframes. Don't know anything about that unit. Is it still a Flight or did it get Squadron status?

Richard

[Ascoteer]

Just stick the F-35`s at Yeovilton under Naval Air Command, 3 x NAS`s plus the OCU, just like it used to be!

While I understand the sentiment (albeit I disagree), unfortunately that idea ignores the fact that F35 is also supposed to be the Tornado replacement.

One of the extra Typhoon Sqn`s at Lossie to cover Northern QRA, the other at Coningsby for Southern QRA or form another third Typhoon Wing at Wyton.

Cheers

Tony

Wyton is a non-starter - the airfield is due to be sold off for housing development. As it is there are private firms occupying the dispersals on the N side.

If P8 goes to Lossie, then even with the disbandment of XV Sqn (the Tornado OCU) there just will not be the space.

I'd suggest the extra Typhoons will go to Leeming.

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

If there is no space at Lossie then how do they cope with Joint Warrior? Plenty MPAs on that side of the airfield as well as XV's Tornado or two.

When XV go there will be a couple of hangars (K type?) ready for conversion and their other buildings

Regarding the fighters,if they are to be just that, then it makes sense to have them based where they are for Q North and South so perhaps the existing Typhoon units at Lossie move or re-equip with non air to ground capable aircraft ?

The bombers could then be based wherever (Leeming?)

RG

[Ascoteer]

If there is no space at Lossie then how do they cope with Joint Warrior?

There is a huge difference between short term deployed aircraft and permanently based aircraft.

[PLC1966]

Why not make 617 Sqn one of the new Typhoon squadrons and then give the Fleet Air Arm responsibility for all three of the proposed F-35 units. After all the F-35 is primarily destined for the new aircraft carriers as a naval asset and if they are required for land based operations too then naval pilots can do that too on behalf of the MoD! It doesn`t need to be a Joint Force.

Most other navies in the world wouldn`t involve the air force in its air defence and strike operations,.....so why should the RN?

Cheers,

Tony

As I understand it, the Maritime environment is paying for the boat and the Air Environment is paying for the jets. Therefore Joint Force F-35 will have an RAF Sqn or two. Besides which, the F-35 will be covering holes left by Jag, Harrier & Tornado therefore there is a genuine requirement for the RAF to Operate.

[PLC1966]

Surely the new P-8 squadron should come from the old RNAS 200 series as these are just as senior as the ex RFC units yet there are hardly any in use?

I`d like to see 19 & 43 Sqns reformed on Typhoon`s but I`m just relieved in general that the RAF is expanding slightly at last!

Hopefully the Fleet Air Arm will get another one or two extra squadrons reformed for F-35`s too, but it will probably end up being 2 x RAF & 2 x RN sqns?

Cheers

Tony

About right I reckon.

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

There is a huge difference between short term deployed aircraft and permanently based aircraft.

Yes I know but your post just said 'space' not infrastructure. Anyway let's not argue! At least we're getting an MPA.

I'm not up to date with the damage done to HMS Fulmar by decades of RAF occupation but harking back to Lossie's glory days , when you consider the number of aircraft based,stored,detached and visiting there,there will be room for a few grey airliners and the bods to operate them provided the powers that be spend the money where necessary. If,as being muttered,the Army are not happy with Kinloss then how about a twin base like Bentwaters/Woodbridge used to be?

Perhaps the P-8s will just be a glorified detachment and supported by Boeing.

RG

Stimulating debate as usual

[dambuster]

Yes I know but your post just said 'space' not infrastructure. Anyway let's not argue! At least we're getting an MPA.

I'm not up to date with the damage done to HMS Fulmar by decades of RAF occupation but harking back to Lossie's glory days , when you consider the number of aircraft based,stored,detached and visiting there,there will be room for a few grey airliners and the bods to operate them provided the powers that be spend the money where necessary. If,as being muttered,the Army are not happy with Kinloss then how about a twin base like Bentwaters/Woodbridge used to be?

Perhaps the P-8s will just be a glorified detachment and supported by Boeing.

RG

Stimulating debate as usual

Reckon Kinloss will be well out of the running given the airspace grab that Inverness are planning.....

Peter

[tonyot]

While I understand the sentiment (albeit I disagree), unfortunately that idea ignores the fact that F35 is also supposed to be the Tornado replacement.

In this era of Jointism and MoD control,.....couldn`t the navy squadrons just perform the Tornado role too when required,....does it have to be an RAF role? After all the RAF are going to fly in (and have done in the past!) the carrier based naval strike role!!!.........I`m just playing devils advocate!

That would mean that the RAF can muscle in on the navy`s role but wouldn`t want the navy to do a role for it? Didn`t the RAF tag onto the Future Naval Fighter (or whatever it was called) as a Harrier replacement, which is how it gained a foot in the door of the F-35 and then added the Tornado replacement to cover the majority of the project as they gained more influence on JFH with the demise of the Sea Harrier?

Pleae don`t think that anti RAF again as I`m not,......it is just the way that this particular project appears to me,.......I`ll be the first to admit that I don`t know the full picture and appreciate everybody`s views ,

PS- I mentioned Wyton as I thought that was supposed to be the new F-35 superbase at some point,.......did this get changed to Lossie? If so something would have to move out wouldn`t it,.....P-8`s, Typhoon Wing plus the F-35 force,...wow!

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 23, 2015 by tonyot

[tonyot]

As I understand it, the Maritime environment is paying for the boat and the Air Environment is paying for the jets. Therefore Joint Force F-35 will have an RAF Sqn or two. Besides which, the F-35 will be covering holes left by Jag, Harrier & Tornado therefore there is a genuine requirement for the RAF to Operate.

I wonder whether the new P-8 MPA is coming from the Air or Maritime environment budget?

Tony

[DOUGHNUT]

Have proposed this before.

To include as many retired RAF squadrons as possible it would not be difficult to allocated each C-17, Voyager, Atlas, Sentry and the new P-8 a squadron number plate. The VC-10C1 all carried names of Victoria Cross holders and it could work the same way. I simple badge below the cockpit window and maybe some kind of data sheet inside the cabin to inform the passengers of the history of the chosen squadron.

Paul

[PLC1966]

As the P-8 Will be flown by the Air Force, I will let you guess that one for yourself but I've clocked your jape...

The F-35 superbase was always going to be Marham, not sure of what becomes of Lossie post Tornado in 2019.

[PLC1966]

In this era of Jointism and MoD control,.....couldn`t the navy squadrons just perform the Tornado role too when required,....does it have to be an RAF role? After all the RAF are going to fly in (and have done in the past!) the carrier based naval strike role!!!.........I`m just playing devils advocate!

On the other hand, why have an FAA at all, you want to fly join the Air Force, you want to drive a boat, join the Merchants, oops, Royal Navy, see we can all play at being little devils !!!

[tonyot]

As the P-8 Will be flown by the Air Force, I will let you guess that one for yourself but I've clocked your jape...

The F-35 superbase was always going to be Marham.

Busted!!........ Oh thats it, Marham,....... I`d forgotten about that one! RAF/RNAS Marham or MoD Marham!

Tony

[tonyot]

On the other hand, why have an FAA at all, you want to fly join the Air Force, you want to drive a boat, join the Merchants, oops, Royal Navy, see we can all play at being little devils !!!

Aye but what if you want to jump out of aireyplanes and then fight baddies on the ground? Thats why I`m all confused see,......no particular box for freaks like me! I`m a wild spirit!!

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 23, 2015 by tonyot

[dambuster]

The F-35 superbase was always going to be Marham, not sure of what becomes of Lossie post Tornado in 2019.

Best ask the SNP defence minister.......

Peter

[fatalbert]

Bring back the Tigers ☺

[Truro Model Builder]

I would very much like to see 74 as a Typhoon squadron and 42 operating the Poseidons, but...

I would hazard a guess at 19 and 43 being chosen for the new Typhoon squadrons, but note that with the end of the Tornado 9, 12 and 15 will all disappear, and as three of the longest serving squadrons in the RAF I suspect that one of those will be the Poseidon squadron while the others may yet become Typhoon operators (though as 9 and 12 both carry a ( suffix it would stick in few throats).

[charlie_c67]

Unless the new FGR.4's go to 9 and 12?

[canberra kid]

My dad's old Sqn. 34 would be a good one for the Typhoo, but I can't see it hapening though

John

Edited November 24, 2015 by canberra kid

[XV571]

While I am somewhat biased , it would be great to have what were the final two Tornado F3 squadrons return with the Typhoon. Although probably too soon, It would be timely if 43 Squadron reformed next year since it's their 100th anniversary and we could then get an appropriately marked jet. Leuchars had the runway relaid before it was handed over to the Army and was set up for Typhoon operations, surely it can be restored to a fast jet base without a massive outlay.

As for the P-8, surely 120 Sqn will be in pole position as the other 'early standard' unit (along with 617 Sqn)? If there are to be two squadrons I think the other plate should be one of the '200' numbers, 201 for example, to acknowledge the Naval connection but more likely it'll be a lower number, quite probably 42Sqn.

Aren't the current Tornado units expected to soldier on until the F-35 enters service then convert on to the type? I thought this was why 12 Sqn was reprieved when II(AC) changed to Typhoons.

Still, whichever units get the nod, it's good to see the RAF expanding even a little bit - it must give the service a boost in morale.

[junglierating]

Hoofin idea tonyot but I very much doubt the Navy have the aircrew let alone the maintainers!

Not sure how to start a topic but......what about new ships names?

[XV107]

I would very much like to see 74 as a Typhoon squadron and 42 operating the Poseidons, but...

I would hazard a guess at 19 and 43 being chosen for the new Typhoon squadrons, but note that with the end of the Tornado 9, 12 and 15 will all disappear, and as three of the longest serving squadrons in the RAF I suspect that one of those will be the Poseidon squadron while the others may yet become Typhoon operators (though as 9 and 12 both carry a ( suffix it would stick in few throats).

It all depends on the order in which certain things are done.

As I've said on the P-8 thread, the plan for 9 MRA4 was for 42 as the OCU plus 201 and 120 as the squadrons. The reason for this was because of the number of personnel on each squadron in formed crews, even though the airframes would be shared and 9 aircraft at first sight didn't merit the formation of 3 squadrons. However - there were to be 16 crews, thus 160 aircrew, and although there were bomber squadrons of that size during the war, the view was that 160 aircrew (never mind those maintaining the aircraft if not assigned to centralised servicing) was too many for a single squadron, thus dividing them between 3 squadrons (with a smaller number of personnel on the OCU) was a better way of doing things. Although the P-8 crews are likely to be smaller, you're still looking at 140+ aircrew overall, and the preferred method (not least because it offers more command opportunities, which is a retention-positive measure) is to split them between more squadrons, although a balance has to be achieved.

While the opportunity to revisit is clear, I would suspect that we'll see squadrons with a maritime heritage operate the P-8. If we leave them out of the equation, then...

74 could be a Typhoon squadron if a new Reaper unit is formed rather than the extra RPAS/UAVs/Drones being added to the ORBAT of 13 and 39 Squadrons. This isn't an impossibility, since you might want a third (and perhaps even a fourth?) squadron to provide crews to operate the force and an expansion of airframes means that the squadrons become larger in terms of pilots/systems operators, and the principle above applies - not least since you might want different squadrons maintaining different orbits for their RPAS, which can be done more effectively through the vehicle of more squadrons. If doubling the number of airframes, doubling the number of squadrons is a possibility.

The question, of course, is when this will be achieved, since that will predicate the formation dates of the squadrons, and consume numberplates if this occurs prior to the formation of the two extra Typhoon units and the third F-35 squadron which is almost certain to follow. Furthermore, the date of the Tornado GR4 retirement (likely to be phased) will affect this as well.

I'd guess that at least one of the seven Typhoon units will be one of the current GR4 units; since 9 Squadron is the most senior, I would imagine that the Air Force Board will - as with 2 Squadron - have a debate as to whether:

1. It is certain that 9 will survive, as an F-35 squadron, because there will be the need for another unit to form, and it will be the most senior available numberplate or because it will simply re-equip on type at Marham.

2. It is not clear that it will survive, since there is doubt over the formation of another F-35 squadron (either because of numbers or because of a decision that the numberplate should be an 800-series 'plate; as I've said before, I can't see the RAF accepting a position where 800-series plates outnumber RAF squadrons, though...). In which case, they will probably announce that upon return from a particular roulement on Op Shader (if that's still going, etc, etc) 9 will re-equip with Typhoon. It may be that the roulement on/off Shader dictates this, or the decision to reform dictates when 9 makes its last deployment.

3. Whether the squadron should be taken out of role ('role' as in a fast jet squadron, rather than bomber) and the numberplate given to the third MPA squadron (if the MRA4 model is dusted off) or to an RPAS unit.

I would suggest that (3) is the least likely, although not impossible.

That then leaves 12 and 31. Again, we might see one of the numberplates go to an RPAS squadron, or to a third F-35 unit, or to Typhoon.

This all depends on phasing. But - in a bit of displacement activity, I've worked out that 19 is now behind 43 and 111 in the seniority list, since its time on the Hawk (thus as a reserve squadron) knocks it down the league table by some way.

My reckoning - but I stand ready to be corrected by the Air Historical Branch - is that the list of available fighter number plates is in this order - 25, 23, 43, 111, 20, 19, 74

To complicate matters further: 15 Squadron is also pretty senior and would come in ahead of 74 in the list of seniority, as would 92 if a decision (unlikely as it seems) to restore it to flying status is taken at any point; also, 100 Squadron is another very senior unit, and it might be re-equipped with spare Typhoons if the idea of them being used as some sort of enhanced aggressor squadron above the extant role is taken up.

Complicated....