What if we detached ourselves from the RAF…..like fully.
Not that we should, but I guess then we wouldn’t be bound by the policies.
3 Likes
Years ago, we used to see a lot of aircrew on the Island, and they all used to be covered in various patches, all relevant to their history or with a bit of comedy in there design.
Sure, but then we’d have no entitlement to the sort of badge that everyone wants.
We’d just be like the local youth club.
We could then manage our own internal system, but I’d still argue for having it standardised and closely controlled.
I could get through them pretty quickly though!
2 Likes
Careful not to confuse the RAFAC logo, unit badges, and flying suit patches.
These are not the same thing.
2 Likes
This also now needs formally signing off in the RAF. It’s not a free for all anymore
3 Likes
I think the bottom line for this is that we absolutely MUST have a process with OVERSIGHT, QUALITY CONTROL, and official APPROVAL, managed ROBUSTLY with unbending STANDARDS to be maintained.
Otherwise you’d end up with cadets wearing something absolutely ridiculous like an eagle with phallic symbology. We simply must avoid this at all costs.
I see no other way than to take a HARD line on this.
7 Likes
This comes to my point again were I wish there was a RAFAC department who could sign off unofficial RAFAC crests what still follow the official rules in place by the collage of arms.
An idea I had was why don’t we reimage the badge so its not a RAF style badge and its not affiliated to the collage of arms??
That has actually been corrected now. Before long, I’m sure the phallic versions will become highly sought after relics.
1 Like
Any message with that many capital letters in just begins to look like a truth social post to me…
2 Likes
Yeh but I’ve already addressed this problem.
One first needs to understand where we are and how things work before looking at how to remake it.
Sure, if I was internally managing everything then it’d be a lot quicker. But you’d still need designers, you’d still need to stop people copying etc.
You would basically wind up with the system we currently have, but we’d have a little more flexibility. For example, I could issue digital badges only and not need paintings.
But in my opinion, our heritage would be poorer for it.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but our badges are currently granted on behalf of the sovereign. That sort of prestige is worth some process in my opinion.
6 Likes
Have you got a picture of the new versions? Only ever seen the phallic ones personally
Seen them in a recent delivery of new stock, but I can’t find any images online.
1 Like
MAKE HERALDRY GREAT AGAIN!!!
5 Likes
That’s interesting.
I’ve not seen that one before, but there’s something odd about it.
The central image touches the circlet. I’d be interested to know the background here. Maybe someone has just made their own digital version and filled the centre incorrectly.
1 Like
There was some rule changes/tightening up around 2016 around military healdric badges that’s was the genesis of what we have occurring now.
DHFS became / merged into 1FTS in 2020 so perhaps badges prior to that date were where things were iffy.
I would be interested if the badge was official registered & if it went through Army or RAF route
If it is official then that your precedent for CCF sections.
Indeed! Could well have been a local job then.
Looking at things like Army Air Corps badges, there are clear differences but also clear similarities. Must be interesting to be involved in creating a new type of badge.
Perhaps once AGSs and the new drone unit have proven they’re around to stay, I may have the same privilege my predecessor enjoyed and be involved in forming the template for subtly different types of RAFAC units.
Although any changes will be far more subtle!
2 Likes
Not going to lie, my initial reaction was that looks quite good 