As a thought provoker and diverting off another thread. I think there should be some clear tome on Squadron Numbers. The Squadron number clearly shows the origin of the unit, why bother with the F in the first place. 201 Sqn RAF is older tha 50 Sqn RAF so even the raf don’t put a letter on their Squadrons. Of the 50 “F” squadron only 32 remain if they have run consecutively since the formation of the ADCC then they should it could be said they should retain the “F”. Ten of the early Squadrons have reformed and I think quite rightly there’s no “F”. Now onto other things I see that Old Squadron numbers are re-appearing 105 Squadron is now in Camborne near cambridge . Is there any guidance into this a my local DF is getting big. I see that 3 Squadron is available.
A friend of mine was commanding a DF that achieved sqn status a couple of decades ago and he was given free rein to choose any available number. He chose one in the top 50, without any connection to the original sqn, but obviously didn’t get the F.
I don’t see that as much different to when RAF sqns are reformed in new roles. However, if there is an approved badge with a geographic identifier on it, I wonder if some thought should be given to only re-issuing that number for the appropriate location?
Edit: The RAF has a slightly different approach to letters, with F for fighter, B for bomber, AC for army co-operation, R for reserve (used for regular but non-front line units), VR for volunteer reserve, etc. However, these don’t relate to current roles but the original WW1 roles: so 18(B) Sqn flies Chinooks, for example.
Completely agree, so it was HQAC ho let the new CO. to decide on the number. As for the badge I wonder if 3F ever had a badge.
Many of the Squadrons in the first 50 are not the founding squadrons. 3 Squadron now, is Helston, 3F, was elsewhere.
But squadrons like XIX and 13 were F Squadrons in those locations on Founding that ‘lost’ their Fs, and I always thought that policy a bit dumb to be honest. “Oh, well done Exeter for reforming as a squadron, one of the original 50! But you can’t have your F back, you lost your right to that probably due to factors out of your control.”
Absolutely 
this iny option.
If 123 Sqn is in Anytown and closes the 123number can only be used within the “parish” of 123 be that the same town or city should it be used again.
It doesn’t erd to be the same site (ie building) but at least thevsane town/city.
Unlike RAF Sqns which have a history of moving around stations, ATC don’t
Many of our RAuxAF sqn number plates have geographic identifiers and only tend be to re-used when reforming sqns at least somewhere near that location. There are minor exceptions, such as 609 (West Riding) and 607 (County of Durham) sqns being reformed at RAF Leeming, which is in the North Riding of Yorkshire, 504 (County of Nottingham) Sqn at RAF Wittering, and 616 (South Yorkshire) Sqn at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire: but there’s usually some degree of respect to the original identifier.
It’s very interesting that units can just choose any number they like.
In many ways, structuring the numbers to give an immediate sense of where they may be, or at least, the order in which they were created, would be much more interesting than units picking what they want.
It would be even better if they were nudged towards picking a number for a disbanded unit that has an authorised badge, so that heritage can be preserved (and save another unit some money).
Stand corrected on the 3 Squadron, how far is Heston from Exeter.? Has anyone any history on 105 sqn ATC.just as an example?
Exeter is 13 Squadron, formerly 13F.
Helston is about 2.5 hours west of Exeter just before the Lizard.
Northern by any chance?
Feels disappointing to me that Helston had a sqn previously, designated 1274.
Can’t see that number in use elsewhere (correct me if I’m wrong, admittedly I don’t know availability at the time of Helston’s reformation), but for either the ego of having a low number or some “lowest available” allocation process to overrule local history would be sad.
I completely understand why a unit (or rather, an OC) would want a lower number, especially if it allows them to twin with an active RAF sqn (which was my friend’s motivation), but where a sqn number is already associated with a locality (especially if there’s an existing authorised badge) I think reviving the original sqn number plate should be incentivised.
Agree, I tink each case should be taken on its own merit, it would be up to the new unit to state its reasoning . What this says to me is there is little history of Squadron kept. Maybee AHB could use this as a project.