12 Sqn Next for Typhoon

[4scourge7]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/12-squadron-named-new-typhoon-squadron/

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Whilst 43 or 111 would have been my choice,will see a nice fox marking  or kept neutral with that training job. 

Couple of other interesting bits on that link too

[4scourge7]

4 hours ago, Scimitar said:

Whilst 43 or 111 would have been my choice,will see a nice fox marking  or kept neutral with that training job. 

Couple of other interesting bits on that link too

I can remember the halcyon days when we thought it was a shoe-in that 43 and 111 would be reforming at Leuchars.

 

`But that was before the dark times......`

 

12 Squadron has a fine heritage though,  

 

Cheers, Ian

[Meatbox8]

Would have preferred 19, 56 or 92.  12 squadron has always been a bomber unit.  I know this is probably a can of worms and, frankly, I am very pleased that another squadron is forming, but is it cost effective to commission a new squadron when all that's been done is taking aircraft from other units?  Same amount of aircraft spread around more squadrons would suggest more administration, complications with basing etc.  Is this more to do with airmen/women retention rather than operational capability?   Mind you, I suppose the two go hand in hand. 

[Agent K]

I would doubt very much (i.e. not at all) that creation of squadrons would be done purely to address retention. I think it's all to do with operational requirements. Most detachments (Libya, Syria/Iraq, BAP etc.) of recent years have not been to a full current squadron strength, 4, 6 or 8 strength has been more normal. Hence I'd imagine that by reducing squadron strength aircraft wise and setting up additional squadrons would give greater flexibility to meet the operational need.