Talk:No. 90 Signals Unit RAF

This is out of date now , including the group captain, will look into changing it, but not sure where to get a source from --109.144.241.55 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The TCW and 90SU Branch of the Royal Air Forces Association. Formed on 01 Apr 10 the Branch has been created not only to promote the relevance and aims of RAFA but also to be a focal point for current and ex serving members of the Unit. To develop further the friendships and the esprit de corps they experienced whilst serving on the Unit. There has been for many years an interest in forming an Association/Organization for those who have served, or are serving, on the most prestigious Unit in the RAF. It is hoped that the RAFA Branch will provide the conduit for this. Being the first virtual Branch of RAFA this initiative has paved the way for similar Branches to be formed within the Association. It has created a new method of promoting RAFA and demonstrating that it has as much relevance today as the day it was formed. The Branch is also the first to have its own website (tcwand90su.com) and this initiative also helps to promote the Association in a way that has previously not been done before. The RAFA Branch will ensure that the Unit Memorial, dedicated in 2008, and located at the Armed Forces Memorial Arboretum will stand as apermanent reminder to those who lost their lives whilst serving in the Royal Air Force. For those wishing to visit the emorial it is situated at the beginning of the RAF Section. A suitable location for considering that TCW are inevitably the first Unit to deploy in support of conflicts past and present.

Merger proposal

I propose that Tactical Communications Wing RAF be merged into No. 90 Signals Unit RAF. The majority of this article is duplicated on the 90SU page and parts that are not could easily be explained within a TCW section. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 09:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a great deal of the information on the TCW page is replicated on the 90 SU page; seems like a no-brainer to me. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure if there's a length of time we need to leave this open for? Don't think the page is visited / edited that much at the moment, so we might not get much engagement. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - one to two weeks is normal for waiting out on these sort of things. If there are a myriad of responses, waiting longer is usual to allow for any disagreements to be ironed out. The joy of all things (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and merged it this afternoon. Could still do with some pruning IMO. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 13:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Tidy-up on merge

As I said in the merger discussion above, I think there's a lot of fluff in this article and (unsurprisingly) a lot of military 'isms'. I think it needs a bit of tidying/rewriting/shuffling. Thought I'd lay out my thoughts on what could be done;

• Lede - 90SU does a lot of Information Systems and Communication Systems work, but doesn't do it all (no mobiles, for instance) and to say 'facilities' is incorrect in terms of much of the infrastructure work.

The DPM / Blue uniform is a moot point now as most have reverted to wearing DPM anyway. It's unsourced so could probably do with going all together to be honest.

The formation sentence conflicts with the relocation section. 90SU was created by amalgamating multiple elements, including TCW.

• History - Crest sentence could do with embedding in the rest.

I like the 90 Signals Group bit, perhaps a separate article on the cards for that, if there's enough info?

Relocation section could do with moving up into this section.

• Unit Role - Fine.

• Organisation Structure - Not sure about this section. Misses out a lot from their structure. Merging TCW into this article may highlight problems with this section ... we'll see.

• RAFA - Not really sourced at all. May need a small rewrite. Would be nice to get a photo of their memorial at the Arboretum. LookingYourBest  Done Not sure how RAFA are linked to that though, may need some research.

Open to any comments. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

LookingYourBest I doubt there is too much on 90 Signals Group, however, there is this page RAF Signals Command, which I think would be better served as being in this page with a fuller history. Thoughts? Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The joy of all things Yeah, that sounds really good. My only worry is that it could be difficult to marry up TCW's history as well (as there's is pretty different), once it's merged? -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 08:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Stag colour

I thought it was pretty strange that people keep changing the stag colour to black, so I asked someone in the know today. Apparently there's a rumour going around that whoever sent off the first heraldic crest request messed up and asked for blue instead of black, hence the stag is actually supposed to be black. This sounds like a tall tale to me, as even the unit page lists it as 'blue' (not Royal Blue, though). -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 15:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Its probably rubbish - 90 SU have a habit of making their own badges anyway. The badge was adopted from 90 Signals Group which had a very dark blue stag. The original approval for this would be on parchment and dependant on when it was approved, it would either be The Queen, George VI or King George. What's the bet that it would be blue? As I said in my edit summary when I reverted the IP who changed it to black; the Excalibur sword on the RAF Leeming badge is actually red, but for ages was coloured grey and no-one knows why. The original parchment submission to King George has the sword in red. Anyway, in Heraldic terms, the stag would be described as being Sable, not black. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Was at the Gatwick Drone chaos operation

https://www.janes.com/article/85528/raf-team-completes-c-uav-mission

BlueD954 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)