Which RAF Sqdn has had longest operational time?

[atdb27]

Of all the RAF Sqdn's I was wondering which sqdn(s) has seen the longest cummulative 'Active' service in that time frame?

Or indeed the 'Shortest'?

ie 1 sqdn may have done 75 yrs etc with gaps of 17 yrs.

I'm sure some educated chaps here may have some answers/suggestions?

Also do some sqdns seem to be favoured more than others by the top brass?

Adrian

[Roland Pulfrew]

Adrian

It isn't as simple as saying that certain sqns are favoured by the top brass. The operational pedigree is closely monitored (IIRC) by the Air Historical Branch at RAF Northolt. There is a strictly list of seniority for all sqns. Operational time counts towards the seniority of a sqn, but time stood down or disbanded, as well as "Reserve" sqn status does not count. Some more info taken from PPRuNe:

The most up-to-date figures we have for squadron seniority are from 1968 (tho' I think that another 'which are our senior units?' ex was carried out in 1972-74, which means that the papers might be in the PRO soon), so to work out the most senior plates now means taking the 1968 list, adding on the years of service since then and working out the order - but this is imprecise.

As a for instance, if the GR9 migration to 2 x RAF and 2x RN units goes ahead as planned, one of the RAF GR 7 plates will go. However, as all three are so senior, the plate of the unit that goes will almost certainly be reused for a Typhoon sqn.

Using the 1968 plus service since criteria, 3 Sqn is the most senior of the units, so I suspect the decision will come down to whether 1(F) should be the first front-line Typhoon unit or retain its links with the Harrier.

As for the rest - difficult to tell... Why? Well:

120 and 617 are special cases - they were awarded their standards ahead of schedule in recognition of their WW2 record, and have been treated as being 'undisbandable' [ugh!] ever since.

Seniority is tracked by the Air Historical Branch monthly. It is worked out on reckonable service which is effectively active service not in a 'reserve' role. For example 56® became the Tornado F3 OCU in mid nineties and so its seniority 'froze' at that stage. Time disbanded doesn't count for anything and I seem to recall this means that II(AC) is the senior squadron because 1(F) spent a short time on the bench. Role doesn't count for much either as 25 Sqn gained a large lump of seniority as a Bloodhound Sqn and 100 Sqn earn equal credit to a frontline unit despite having what some might consider a second-line role. It is only the training units that pick up ® roles who's seniority is frozen.

When it comes to selecting which number to cull there is a policy paper which comes into play. First of all you look at the base to lose a sqn then go for the junior sqn at that base. In the late nineties this led to 29(F) being disbanded at Coningsby despite it being senior to 43 or 111 at Leuchars. Their airships then enter the equation and issues such as role changes, relocations and 'special pleading' come into play and the last time we did this exercise we also ensured that a proportion of ex-RNAS sqn numbers were retained (can you imagine the dark blue being equally even handed or sympathetic to us?) hence 201. 216 etc despite their relatively junior status.

The upshot is that the last 2 sqns in the RAF will be 1 Sqn and 617 Sqn unless the CAS of the day happens to have been OC II(AC) Sqn

Its complex, and neither of these mention the 200 series sqns which were originally RNAS sqns so are actually older than the RAF as are many of the former RFC sqns

[XV107]

24 Squadron has never disbanded since formation in September 1915 and will thus hit 95 years of continuous service this year.

Of the other squadrons, there are several worth noting which have only been out of action for a very short time indeed:

II(AC) is the senior RAF squadron (as noted in the quotes below) and has seen near-continuous active service since creation in 1912, apart from a break of 10 days in 1920

Until a few days ago, IV (AC) [as was] had unbroken service, and although the numberplate has survived as a reserve 'plate, the policy has been that reserve service doesn't count towards seniority, although it may be that the AHB has changed the policy recently - normally, what would've happened is that the IV(AC) plate would've been used - as the senior available numberplate - for the 4th (frontline) Typhoon squadron to form

1(F) was out of commission for 3 months between November 1926 and Feb 1927.

6 had continuous service between 1914 and its disbandment on Jags - although there was a disbandment parade, there is a possibility that as far as reckoning service is concerned, the fact that it had been announced as the third Typhoon squadron may - I stress may, since it seems unlikley - mean that as far as working out service and seniority is concerned, it will be regarded as having reduced to cadre status (i.e. without aircraft or personnel assigned) so that its service is considered to remain unbroken. That'll require a change of numberplate policy to have been enacted, and I don't know if it has been (although I know a man who will).

With regard to Roland's point, all the extant RAF squadrons (bar 230 and 617) were formed before 1 Apr 1918 and predate the formation of the service.

Edited April 14, 2010 by XV107

[Max Headroom]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that the CO of a soon to be reactivated squadron, could choose which 'plate' to dust off.

74 Sqn sharkmouthed Tiffie or Lightning II please?

MH

[atdb27]

Roland & XV107

Gents

Some very interesting info you have given that I was unaware of.

Did not realise 'reserve' status was not counted!

Thank you very much for replying to my 'query'.

Adrian

[XV107]

I'm sure that I read somewhere that the CO of a soon to be reactivated squadron, could choose which 'plate' to dust off.

74 Sqn sharkmouthed Tiffie or Lightning II please?

MH

IIRC, there is a suggestion that the CO of what was to become the C-17 squadron was given a choice between 99 and 53 and went for 99 (rumours that he likes a flake with his ice cream are unsubstantiated - I've never seen him with a 99 ice cream, anyway...), but this would be completely contrary to policy. The AHB is very strict on this, and the rule of thumb to date has always been that any attempt (usually by Air rank officers) to get a particular squadron reformed ahead of a more senior available number plate is met with a polite request for the individual attempting to get 'their' squadron back on the books to rewrite the numberplate policy. The AHB, over the years, has found this awkward enough with access to all the records, and their request has - to date, anyway - been met with a 'Perhaps we'd better leave it as it is...'

What usually happens is that suitable squadrons will be identified, with some reference to role being taken into account. For instance, when the F-4J(UK) Phantom squadron was formed - to become 74, of course - there was a more senior numberplate not in use at all, namely 39 Squadron (disbanded in 1982). Also, 45 - which was in use as the 'Shadow Squadron' for the Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit - was senior to 74.

However, the Air Staff had been trying to get 74 back into play since 1971 (in fact, possible opportunities to reform it had been identified pre-emptively while it was still operating out in Singapore, but with its disbandment date known). It had been suggested as the numberplate for one of the Hunter FGA9 Squadrons which formed at Wittering while the Jag force was being established, but since the 45 and 58 'plates were both available and senior to 74, these were chosen instead; it was also suggested as a Strike Command F-4 unit, but 6, 54 and 41 were senior so got that. There was also a plan to form a further Phantom FG1 squadron using the aircraft freed up by the disbandment of 892 when the old Ark Royal was retired and 74 was the candidate for that squadron numberplate - but the plan was changed and the FG1s went up to Leuchars to create an all FG1 wing, while 111 Sqn's FGR2s were put into circulation to boost that mark's attrition/fatigue life reserve pool of airframes.

Thus, when the chance to reform 74 presented itself, there were two obstacles - 39 and 45 Squadron. How did we get the Tigers back?

First, 45 Squadron. When the RAF contracted in size after the Sandys review, several squadrons had been renumbered - for instance, 256 squadron became 11 Sqn, while 96 sqaudron renumbered as 3 Sqn. This proved to be bad for morale, since the squadron personnel affected were proud of their current unit and couldn't see why they had to adopt the traditions, etc of a completely different squadron. To make matters worse, 3 Squadron had to be renumbered again in 1961 (59 Squadron being the 'victim' this time) to keep it going. It was subsequently agreed that no extant squadron would be renumbered. Now, it would appear that this rule was bent slightly, in that as the 45 Squadron numberplate was in use for the TWCU it was deemed to be in use - even though, as noted earlier in the thread, it had hitherto been the case that use as a reserve numberplate didn't count towards calculation of seniority, and thus it meant that the numberplate was in effect resident with an OCU, but 'dormant' rather than properly in use (reserve squadrons were not permitted to display their 'shadow' identity's standard in public, for instance).

However, it seems that on this instance, the desire to get a fast jet Tiger squadron back into life came into play, so the 'in use' rule was interpreted to mean that it could be in use by an OCU - although not so much 'in use' as to prevent it being renumbered: see the renumbering of 20 [Reserve] as IV[Reserve], and before that, the TWCU numberplate was changed from 45 to XV when XV squadron disbanded. In fact, XV is junior to 45, but the decision to renumber was taken by the Secretary of State since XV was disbanded after its efforts in Op Granby and it was politic to say that it was taking over the TWCU role, rather than being disbanded entirely.

Having got 45 out of the way, the question of 39 then arose - this is where the rule about association with a role was applied. 39 had a period as home defence squadron (WW1) and a night fighter unit (1940s-50s) , but had less of a 'fighter' heritage than 74. There was also the possibility that the RAF might re-establish a full-strenght photo-recce unit, or have a third Tornado GR1A unit, and for both of these, it was thought that the 39 'plate would be very appropriate given its long time on Canberra PRs (and, of course, in 1992, 1 PRU became 39 Sqn again).

Thus, 74 was chosen. This means, for example, that if there were to be a need to create a new transport squadron (say, for instance, if we get up to eight or nine C-17s, and the decision is taken to create a second squadron), if the policy is pretty much as it was before, it is more likely that the 10 Sqn numberplate will be resurrected than one of the former Tornado F3 squadron numberpaltes (25, 43 or 111) being assigned - although the Air Force Board may conclude that the more senior numberplate (in this case 25) should be resurrected if there is little chance of it being required in the foreseeable future.

As things stand, we're not likely to see 74 return unless there are some tweaks to force structures to give smaller squadrons (particularly fast jet) - there are arguments both for and against this, but despite some of the comments made on t'internet about this being window dressing, any alterations of this sort will be done as part of the defence review process and on the basis of preserving (or, if lucky, enhancing...) operational effectiveness to meet defence planning assumptions (I'll shut up now with the jargon, not least since some of the RAF types on these means will begin to work out where I work and possibly even who I am...)