What were the circumstances leading to 10 Sqn's disbandment?

[ICM]

This may seem an odd question some 7 or so years after the event - but is there someone out there who can say, with some authority, why 10 Sqn was chosen for disbandment in 2005? I've been through the White Papers for the immediately preceding years on the MOD website and have been unable to find a specific reference to any such plan. My working assumption is that because the A400M and FSTA were expected to be in service long before now, and as target reductions in RAF manpower had been published, the amalgamation with 101 Sqn was, in effect, an 'efficiency' helping towards the latter, with the VC 10's end of service then planned to be a good deal earlier than 2013.

So I think my query has two parts:

- The context? Was it as I assume, or for some other reasons altogether?
- Why was 10, rather than 101, chosen for disbandment?

[Jelle Hieminga]

I'm just throwing in my 2 cents here but 10 Sqn has always been a transport squadron while equipped with the VC10, with the tanking task coming in later, 101 Sqn was a pure tanking squadron although they took on a bit of transporting as well when the C1Ks were transferred. The transport task of the VC10 was on the way out by then (although the decision not to carry passengers anymore was taken a few years later) so it made sense to combine the VC10s into one bunch of tankers with 101 and I'm guessing that they felt that the new aircraft coming in, being a tanker-transport, would be a better fit for the background of 10 Sqn.

This is just my guesswork so it may be completely off (and you asked for some authority so I should've stayed out of it ) but I think that the choice between 10 and 101 was also based on which of the two should take on the A330s coming in.

[Charlie]

Although I don't know, I suspect it may also have something to do with the operational record of 101 Sqn, which due to its extended time purely as a bomber Sqn (late 20s to early 80s) is very significant in the RAF's history. 101 Sqn suffered the highest RAF loss rate of any RAF Sqn in WW2, was the first RAF jet bomber Sqn when it equipped with Canberras, and was the second Sqn to re-equip with the Vulcan B1. It also served operationally in the Falklands war. Having been a transport Sqn since the end of WW2, 10 Sqn probably missed out on the high profile stuff.

[ICM]

Jelle, Charlie: Thanks for your replies. I would not be surprised if Jelle isn't close to the reason - it seems (see PPrune) that the first 10 Sqn Voyager flight took place on Sunday, just a bit of handling to Lands End and back, but that should almost certainly have happened many months ago. So, based on what MOD hoped for 5/6 years ago, it probably made sense for the 10 Sqn numberplate to be released for re-use in the AT/AAR roles. (The designation of choice now appears to be Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT).)

Charlie: There's not much difference in a comparison of the 10 and 101 histories as regards total service, which I have long understood to be a significant factor in Air Staff decisions about which squadrons are kept going. And, going on the stats in the Middlebrook/Everitt "Bomber Command War Diaries" book, each had a 2.5% loss rate in WWII. Also, 10 didn't get back into the transport business till 1966 - there was a Canberra and Victor period from 1953-64 in between.

Further contributions will be welcomed!

[Charlie]

And, going on the stats in the Middlebrook/Everitt "Bomber Command War Diaries" book, each had a 2.5% loss rate in WWII.

It may be casualty numbers I'm on about, due to the ABC role and its consequent increase in airframes, missions, and of course crewmembers. I can't say I have any figures to hand though!

Also, 10 didn't get back into the transport business till 1966 - there was a Canberra and Victor period from 1953-64 in between.

My mistake!

As for 101, IIRC it is slated to be a second Voyager Sqn anyway, unless I'm much mistaken. As long as it's not 216...

[ICM]

Charlie: You may well be right about more 101 Sqn personnel losses. The source I'm quoting deals only in aircraft losses against total sorties. 10 Sqn flew 6233 sorties, with 156 aircraft lost; 101 flew 6766 sorties with 171 aircraft lost. And the notes go on to explain that, as 101 was the only Bomber Command unit with the ABC kit and role, it was often tasked when its parent Group was being rested and took part in more bombing raids than any other Lancaster sqn in 1 Gp. (For those wondering, and I didn't know till recently, ABC = Airborne Cigar, which involved carrying an additional German-speaking crewman, to mix with the bomber stream and jam night-fighter comms.) So, a very honourable history.

When we did the 10 Sqn Association visit to Brize last year, we got a look at the new Airtanker building and hangar. There are certainly two sets of squadron office accommodation, and the feeling was that 101 would occupy the second set in due course. This year's visit is at the end of May, so we'll see what the story is then.

[DangerMouse]

I'm just throwing in my 2 cents here but 10 Sqn has always been a transport squadron while equipped with the VC10, with the tanking task coming in later, 101 Sqn was a pure tanking squadron although they took on a bit of transporting as well when the C1Ks were transferred. The transport task of the VC10 was on the way out by then (although the decision not to carry passengers anymore was taken a few years later) so it made sense to combine the VC10s into one bunch of tankers with 101 and I'm guessing that they felt that the new aircraft coming in, being a tanker-transport, would be a better fit for the background of 10 Sqn.

This is just my guesswork so it may be completely off (and you asked for some authority so I should've stayed out of it ) but I think that the choice between 10 and 101 was also based on which of the two should take on the A330s coming in.

Pretty much nailed it on the head.

No plans for a second voyager sqn at the moment... they're struggling to get one voyager flying anyway! And with no concrete plan on the OSD of the VC10 they can't bank on using 101 as a squadron for anything else!

Voyager has been sitting around for months... it flew for the 1st time in ages (AFAIK) on Sunday... without pods fitted... oh dear...

[ICM]

DangerMouse: I agree that there is no formal VC10 OSD in 2013 in the public domain, but the options for MOD are not endless as in-depth servicing at St Athan ended some 6 weeks ago. So, somewhere around then it will no longer be possible to operate the remaining airframes without a waiver of some kind, and 101 Sqn's numberplate should become available 'in due course,' as I said.

There is, nonetheless, an issue over Voyager being cleared for the full range of roles for which the Airtanker contract was signed. It now has Release to Service for AT plus Aeromed, and my guess is that this must be the most immediately pressing area for MOD, so that some offload of charter costs can begin. A formal statement can be found here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 22017224A:

And Voyager is being debated to death here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... -only.html

And back to the VC10 ........

[Tonkenna]

And Voyager is being debated to death here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... -only.html

Just to return to that briefly Ian, you are right that it is being debated to death, sadly though, it is being debated by very ill informed opinion!

Tonks

Ps, was on 10 Sqn when it disbanded... Will post about that later when I get a few more minutes.