# Reactivation of 433 and 401 Fighter Squadrons (a split & merged thread)



## Mick (11 Jun 2015)

From the RCAF website:

433 TFS has been reactivated at 3 Wing Bagotville.  No mention of 409 TFS or whether it will remain in Cold Lake in addition to a newly reactivated sqn, or if 441/416 will return.

Also, 415 LRP Sqn is back, with a new 'Force Development' designation, whatever that means.

I apologize for not providing links to the articles - the RCAF page isn't loading at the moment...


----------



## quadrapiper (11 Jun 2015)

mick said:
			
		

> Also, 415 LRP Sqn is back, with a new 'Force Development' designation, whatever that means.


Guessing wildly: either some sort of training squadron, or a unit focused on supporting overseas operations e.g. sending Aurora(s) to Iraq, rather than drawing on the coastal squadrons.


----------



## Mick (11 Jun 2015)

Not much info  given in the website articles:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=433-tactical-fighter-squadron-reborn/iaiipfjj

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=history-of-415-long-range-patrol-force-development-squadron/iaiipk0o


----------



## Crimmsy (11 Jun 2015)

mick said:
			
		

> Also, 415 LRP Sqn is back, with a new 'Force Development' designation, whatever that means.



Amalgamation of 14 Software Engineering Squadron and Maritime Proving & Evaluation Unit; two 14 Wg units.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jun 2015)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Guessing wildly: either some sort of training squadron, or a unit focused on supporting overseas operations e.g. sending Aurora(s) to Iraq, rather than drawing on the coastal squadrons.



415 LRP Force Development Sqn is the amalgamation of 14 Software and Engineering Squadron (14 SES) and Maritime Proving Evaluation Unit (MPEU).

http://www.kingscountynews.ca/News/Local/2015-06-10/article-4174746/415-Squadron-re-established-at-14-Wing-Greenwood-following-a-decade’s-absence/1


----------



## Mick (11 Jun 2015)

Thanks for the info ref 415 LRP.  At first glance, amalgamating MPEU and 14 SES seems to make good sense.

Will be interesting to see what happens in Cold Lake.  Looks like all the mergers / deactivations from 2005/2006 are now undone.


----------



## captloadie (12 Jun 2015)

Check back on the 30th of June and you'll have your answer to what is happening in Cold Lake.


----------



## dimsum (12 Jun 2015)

What's the reasoning behind the reformation of 433 and possible reformations of the sqns in Cold Lake?  If we didn't get any new fighters, what's the point of splitting the fleet?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2015)

Right now, we never have all of the Sqn pers at the squadron, at the same time.  Half of people are deployed, holding QRA, on exercise, etc.  this will enable Squadrons to deploy as an entity (exercises and ops).  Much easier to manage than pulling people from everywhere like we are doing now...


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jun 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's the reasoning behind the reformation of 433 and possible reformations of the sqns in Cold Lake?  If we didn't get any new fighters, what's the point of splitting the fleet?




To substantiate two more line LCols in the fighter force.


----------



## dimsum (12 Jun 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> *
> Right now, we never have all of the Sqn pers at the squadron, at the same time.  Half of people are deployed, holding QRA, on exercise, etc. * this will enable Squadrons to deploy as an entity (exercises and ops).  Much easier to manage than pulling people from everywhere like we are doing now...



....so, just like LRP sqns and _especially_ MH sqns?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Right now, we never have all of the Sqn pers at the squadron, at the same time.  Half of people are deployed, holding QRA, on exercise, etc.  this will enable Squadrons to deploy as an entity (exercises and ops).  Much easier to manage than pulling people from everywhere like we are doing now...



Depends. Are you talking just pilots, as you're want too, or all your techs also?

I often saw lots of our pilots\navs deployed, but none of the techs.

Especially if it was a jammy go. Saw lots of golf clubs, etc. loaded by us into belly panels and weapons bays, but none of us went.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jun 2015)

Both, tech and pilots.  I have yet to see an exercise where techs don't come with us.  Depending on training requirements, we may cycle pilots through but generally, those dets are not relax and other one day a week (generally Saturdays because there is no flying on Sunday), pilots will either fly that day (making it a 12-14 hour day) or plan for the next day (making it an 8-12 hour day, depending on what you are doing).

Techs generally have a 24 on/24 off sched which in reality is a 12 on/36 off.  I would trade that in a heartbeat if it was only for the schedule.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> To substantiate two more line LCols in the fighter force.



And --- We have a winner!!


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jun 2015)

Those positions already existed, just in other establishments.  Nice try though.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Those positions already existed, just in other establishments.  Nice try though.



And, now they are with "the fighter force" n'est pas (exactly as the quote states)?   

Perhaps the incoming rotor-head will move 'em back from where they came.

"Leading Change" = Score!!


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jun 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Those positions already existed, just in other establishments.  Nice try though.



Ah...I'll defer to your obvious expertise in Departmental establishment change requests, CF Organizational Orders and Ministerial Organizational Orders, then.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jun 2015)

Sounds good G2G.


----------



## Harrigan (14 Jun 2015)

To be fair to the Fighter Force, their aircraft to Unit ratio is higher than other arms of the Air Force, (with Sqns defined as LCol-led Units - I am not counting the CSS Sqns just to keep the numbers relative):

Fighters - 77 a/c - 3 Sqns (409, 410, 425) = 25.7 per Sqn
Tac Avn - 72 a/c - 7 Sqns (400, 403, 408, 427, 430, 438, 450) = 10.3 per Sqn
MH - 28 a/c - 3 Sqns (406, 423, 443) = 9.3 per Sqn
LRP - 18 a/c - 3 (now 4) Sqns (404, 405, 407, 415) = 4.5 per Sqn
AM - 37 a/c - 6 Sqns (412, 426, 429, 436, 437, 440) = 6.2 per Sqn
SAR/AAR - 33 a/c - 5 Sqns (103, 413, 424, 435, 442) = 6.6 per Sqn
EW - 0 a/c - 1 Sqn (414) = 0 per Sqn  >

With 5 Fighter Sqns (assuming Cold Lake goes from 2 to 3), that would be 15.4 per Sqn, which is still the highest ratio in the RCAF.

If the rumours I am hearing are accurate, 30 June should be an interesting announcement!  

Harrigan


----------



## Sf2 (14 Jun 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> To be fair to the Fighter Force, their aircraft to Unit ratio is higher than other arms of the Air Force, (with Sqns defined as LCol-led Units - I am not counting the CSS Sqns just to keep the numbers relative):
> 
> 
> Tac Avn - 72 a/c - 7 Sqns (400, 403, 408, 427, 430, 438, 450) = 10.3 per Sqn
> ...



What you fail to take into account is that 400 Sqn is now a maintanence sqn.  They don't have a full complement of aircraft.  438 in a similar boat being a reserve sqn has a fraction of aircraft strength compared to the operational units 430, 408, and 427 - all of which have 15 or so aircraft.

The other obvious point you fail to mention is 450, which has their own fleet of 15 that isn't divisible among the other tac hel units.


----------



## rotrhed (14 Jun 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> To be fair to the Fighter Force, their aircraft to Unit ratio is higher than other arms of the Air Force, (with Sqns defined as LCol-led Units - I am not counting the CSS Sqns just to keep the numbers relative):
> 
> Fighters - 77 a/c - 3 Sqns (409, 410, 425) = 25.7 per Sqn
> Tac Avn - 72 a/c - 7 Sqns (400, 403, 408, 427, 430, 438, 450) = 10.3 per Sqn
> ...



A more relevant comparison would be squadron manning ie. how many bodies does each LCol lead?


----------



## Harrigan (14 Jun 2015)

SF2 said:
			
		

> What you fail to take into account is that 400 Sqn is now a maintanence sqn.  They don't have a full complement of aircraft.  438 in a similar boat being a reserve sqn has a fraction of aircraft strength compared to the operational units 430, 408, and 427 - all of which have 15 or so aircraft.
> 
> The other obvious point you fail to mention is 450, which has their own fleet of 15 that isn't divisible among the other tac hel units.



I know that 400 and 438 Sqns are both reserve sqns without the same aircraft strength as the other three, but they are still led by LCol's, no?  And I didn't forget 450 Sqn - it is a Tac Avn unit like the others, and while I agree that their aircraft are not "spreadable", the point is that the average Tac Avn Sqn led by a LCol has 10.3 aircraft (if the overall numbers are correct).  I specifically excluded the CSS Sqns and their Griffons as their CO's are Majors.  

Come to think of it, I should have excluded 103 Sqn for the same reason, which would make it 30/4 or 7.5 a/c per Sqn in SAR/AAR.

In any case, my point is that the Fighter Force would still (with 5 Sqns) have the highest number of aircraft per Sqn.

Harrigan

edited for excessive underlining.....


----------



## Harrigan (14 Jun 2015)

bigzoomie said:
			
		

> A more relevant comparison would be squadron manning ie. how many bodies does each LCol lead?



I agree that would be a better comparison, but I don't have those figures handy.  I suspect, though, that the Fighter Force Squadrons would still be at or near the top in Establishment per LCol (for Air Force units at least).

Harrigan


----------



## Fraz (30 Jun 2015)

Any word on whch Sqn was re raised?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2015)

I saw that 401 was resurrected.  It was on my Facebook feed.


----------



## Mick (30 Jun 2015)

401 Sqn it is.  It's on the 4 Wing website, but no mention of its reactivation.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/4-wing/401-squadron.page


----------



## smale436 (1 Jul 2015)

It happened today. I was at the parade. For all intents and purposes the split has occurred, however everyone will still be working "together" for some time in the future in various ways. One hangar needed massive renovations after being virtually unused for years. Basic items like tools are another good example. You can't just split everything (aircraft, tools, techs, amse) in half and say Go when in some cases you only have one of everything and it's an item that is no longer produced. Thankfully everyone still thinks as one team no matter where they will end up by summer's end. At the end of the day, most everyone is glad the split is happening and wishes it happened years ago.


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Jul 2015)

But why do we need more fighter squadrons, right now?

Is this so that the RCAF can have a framework for managed readiness for the bombing campaign in the middle east? ie some squadrons deploy to Kuwait, other squadrons stay in Cold Lake/Bagotville, rotate as required.

Or is this to prepare for some squadrons being non-operational as they transfer to F-35, while the other squadrons carry on operational roles with CF-18 for the period of transition?

Or did the large squadrons simply prove too unwieldy for span of control? And now we have to backtrack to the old model.


----------



## Gorgo (2 Jul 2015)

Quick question:  How does the Air Force decide which squadron is allowed to come back into active service again?  Is there a set list or is it just random?  401 Squadron was always a reserve squadron based in the Montréal area; I'd suspect 416 or 441 would be brought back first.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But why do we need more fighter squadrons, right now?
> 
> Is this so that the RCAF can have a framework for managed readiness for the bombing campaign in the middle east? ie some squadrons deploy to Kuwait, other squadrons stay in Cold Lake/Bagotville, rotate as required.
> 
> ...



Or did they just need slots for a few more LCols?


----------



## cavalryman (2 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or did they just need slots for a few more LCols?


Taking a page from the Big Book of Reserve Unit Organisation?  ;D


----------



## Loachman (2 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I know that 400 and 438 Sqns are both reserve sqns without the same aircraft strength as the other three, but they are still led by LCol's, no?  And I didn't forget 450 Sqn - it is a Tac Avn unit like the others, and while I agree that their aircraft are not "spreadable", the point is that the average Tac Avn Sqn led by a LCol has 10.3 aircraft (if the overall numbers are correct).  I specifically excluded the CSS Sqns and their Griffons as their CO's are Majors.



1 Wing has 67 Griffons and 15 Chinooks, for a total of 82 machines, plus 2 inactive Griffons used for tech trg. That includes 427 Squadron, which actually belongs to SOFCOM rather than 1 Wing.

400 Squadron is a maintenance Squadron, and has no aircraft of its own. Its incoming CO is an AERE Officer. That, then, is an average of 14 machines in each of the six flying Squadrons - not radically different from the fighter situation. There are also a few hundred ground vehicles in the mix.

1 Wing is also more dispersed. Despite that, though, there is only one Colonel Wing Commander for the lot.

Neither 400 nor 438 Squadrons are Reserve Squadrons. To date, they've been "Reserve-Heavy", but that no longer applies. Both Squadrons' re-roling and resultant pers changes has ended that. 438 Squadron is absorbing the Advanced Trg Flt (ATF) and Land Aviation Trials and Evaluation Flight (LATEF) from 403 Squadron.

I see nothing wrong with reverting to an earlier organization for the fighter squadrons.

I am curious about the choice of 401 Squadron, though, which was last a Reserve Kiowa Squadron in St-Hubert, until disbanded in 1996 and folded into 438 Squadron.

Disbandment of a (semi) Tac Hel Squadron is bad enough. Turning it into a fighter squadron, though? That's a real junk-kicker.


----------



## Mick (2 Jul 2015)

It makes sense to me that neither 416 nor 441 TFS were reactivated since choosing only one of the 2 could have been seen as controversial.  It made sense to reactivate 433, as it had been rolled into 425, which continues to exist.

Of the other CF18 Sqns, 421 "Red Indians" may not have been a politically correct choice, and 439 is now 3 Wing's Combat Support Squadron.

I'd wager that 401 was chosen as it was the only RCAF fighter squadron that fought in the Battle of Britain, and this year marks the 75th anniversary of that battle.

While 401 Sqn represents a conversion from Tac Hel to Fighter , it balances out 439's conversion from CF18 to CH146  ;D


----------



## geo (3 Jul 2015)

401 city of Westmount squadron colours were recovered from Westmount last week. They should be in cold lake by now.


----------



## geo (3 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> 1 Wing has 67 Griffons and 15 Chinooks, for a total of 82 machines, plus 2 inactive Griffons used for tech trg. That includes 427 Squadron, which actually belongs to SOFCOM rather than 1 Wing.
> 
> 400 Squadron is a maintenance Squadron, and has no aircraft of its own. Its incoming CO is an AERE Officer. That, then, is an average of 14 machines in each of the six flying Squadrons - not radically different from the fighter situation. There are also a few hundred ground vehicles in the mix.
> 
> ...


401 sqn has a fine history as a fighter sqn during wwII.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ...That includes 427 Squadron, which actually belongs to SOFCOM rather than 1 Wing...



Pedants will note that 427 SOAS remains under Full Command of 1 Wing, and OPCOM of CANSOFCOM.


----------



## McG (3 Jul 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Pedants will note that 427 SOAS remains under Full Command of 1 Wing, and OPCOM of CANSOFCOM.


What does that mean in practice?  Is it more than a symbolic relationship on a piece of paper?


----------



## Loachman (3 Jul 2015)

geo said:
			
		

> 401 sqn has a fine history as a fighter sqn during wwII.



That's no excuse.


----------



## Loachman (3 Jul 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> What does that mean in practice?  Is it more than a symbolic relationship on a piece of paper?



It seems to mean whatever they want it to mean, and it sometimes changes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It seems to mean whatever they want it to mean, and it sometimes changes.



That's because anyone that would bitch about it is dead, so they can say, and do, as they please. :nod:


----------



## geo (4 Jul 2015)

Don't have to like it, but there is no reason to disrespect 401s track record. 
It is a shame to retire a respected unit, but it is good to see a respected unit come back from oblivion. IMHO


----------



## dimsum (5 Jul 2015)

geo said:
			
		

> Don't have to like it, but there is no reason to disrespect 401s track record.
> It is a shame to retire a respected unit, but it is good to see a respected unit come back from oblivion. IMHO



And considering 401 Sqn was originally 1 Sqn RCAF, historically it would make sense to reactivate it.


----------



## geo (5 Jul 2015)

Believe 401 sqn traces its roots back to 115 reserve sqn in 1934....


----------



## geo (5 Jul 2015)

Just checked my facts.... 115 auxiliary sqn was combined with 1 sqn rcaf for overseas service.... And became 401 sqn when sqn numbers were reassigned


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That's no excuse.



Really?  :

The fighter guys could just as easily said the same about some floppy-winged guys taking over the namesake in 1968.  It was a hard, war-time fighter squadron in WWII with a rare heritage of involvement in the Battle of Britain, and an Aux Fighter Sqn post-war flying Vampires, Sabers and T-33s until unification.

 :2c:
G2G


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2015)

That was just a temporary measure until God invented Helicopters.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jul 2015)

At Flightglobal:



> Canada’s newly reborn CF-18 fighter squadron conducted its first operational fight since reactivating on 30 June.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) announced on Facebook that the 401 Tactical Fighter Squadron based at Cold Lake, Alberta, took to the skies 20 July, marking the unit’s first operational flight since disbanding in 1996.
> 
> ...



Presumably 16 aircraft in each of the four operational squadrons, rest in 410 training.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jul 2015)

So, a 65 plane F-35 purchase leaves 14 per Squadron and 9 for the training squadron?


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2015)

Why not leverage international training and send our guys to the USA for their OTU?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jul 2015)

Makes sense - contribute to a combined air training program.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Makes sense - contribute to a combined air training program.


And of more than Canada and the U.S. buy, and buy into jointness on this one, _maybe_ further economies of scale?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why not leverage international training and send our guys to the USA for their OTU?



Max, that kind of thinking will get you put on DND's "Top Ten - Most Wanted" list...you're picture will go up in the foyers of all HQs for people to keep an eye out for.

      ;D

G2G



* - some might actually agree with you and consider that line of thinking to be practical and reasonable in today's fiscally-constrained resource environment.


----------



## HB_Pencil (27 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, a 65 plane F-35 purchase leaves 14 per Squadron and 9 for the training squadron?



No, there will likely be no training squadron aircraft. Basically the use of simulators and operational aircraft loaned from squadrons will replace the OTU portion as it is currently established. This is very much in flux however.... due to the government's pause on this file. A lot of questions remained unanswered: would the conversion training be done at the two wings, or just at one: what trainer we would use, what would the proportion of flights to sim time would be established.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why not leverage international training and send our guys to the USA for their OTU?



I think that will be one of the options looked when progress is restarted. Because we're so far behind the eightball on the program, it might be cheaper and easier to go down this route.


----------

