CH47 Chinook

[beenthere]

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/hst/page-eng.asp?id=744
This is mostly correct with the exception being that 450 also flew the CH-112 Nomad.
However it wouldn't surprise me that in reality the one CH-112 Nomad actually belonged to some other organization and was only being "hosted" by 450 Sqn.

 

[Good2Golf]

Beenthere, indeed, 450 was  "450 (Transport) Helicopter Squadron" until shortly after the SERT CH135 Twin Huey's showed up the fall of 1990.  Then, once the Chinooks were retired and 450 Sqn was supporting both the SERT through SAH (SERT Assault Helicopter) Flight and the Army via UTTH Flight, 450 was renamed 450 Composite Helicopter Squadron, to note the two roles (RCMP and DND support).  When 450 moved (back) to St-Hubert in 1994, UTTH Flight became A Flight and SAH Flight became B Flight.  A Flight disappeared in 1995, but B Flight survived, moving to 427 in 1996.  As you know, BT, 450 has a lot of rich aviation history, and it would be nice to see that captured when the Chinooks fly Canadian skies once again.

Regards
G2G

 

[RCR Grunt]

For what it's worth, the signage used in the groundbreaking ceremony yesterday that featured the artists rendering of the new facility featured a 450 Sqn crest on the flag and glass front entrance.  Now I know that doesn't really mean too much but it could be a clue.

 

[beenthere]

450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)

 

[Strike]

450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)

Is it bad that I actually understood what you just said?

 

[beenthere]

Is it bad that I actually understood what you just said?

It's not bad. Just logical.

 

[OldSolduer]

I understood it too. Wow.....amazing

and I'm Infantry...... ;D

 

[beenthere]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ground+breaking+ceremony+held+Chinook+helicopter+fleet+Petawawa/3968687/story.html
From the description of the facility it sounds very much like what I had in mind. I may have mentioned my concept about a year ago. It's ideal to have everything in one location rather than having to go to remote places for courses and to have first and second line maintenance located together.
Nice to have the warehouse which hopefully translates to supply of spare parts located where they will be needed.
There is no mention of a facility for the usual fleet of maintenance vans and other equipment necessary for field deployments unless it's what's noted as the back shop and parking lot. It will take a large number of maintenance vans and other vehicles to support a deployment of Chinooks.
Has anyone heard anything regarding the number of personnel that will be required to support this sort of an operation?

 

[Good2Golf]

Beenthere, the unit will likely be a fair bit bigger than any of the other Tac Hel Sqns, given that all 15 Chinooks and associated maintenance and training will operate from that single location.

Cheers
G2G

 

[beenthere]

That's a given. I would think that by this time there should be an idea of how many people would actually be needed. Probably more than all of the Tac Hel Squadrons combined just for the Chinooks.

 

[Gorgo]

It's not bad. Just logical.

Armed Forces logic.  Go figure . . .  :

 

[BillN]

I suppose you have to know the history of why the number '450' was chosen. 

When the 400 series was first used back in WW2, 400 to 449 went to the RCAF.  Scoot forward now to 1968 when 1THP was informed that it was to become an air force squadron, the CO of the day requested that a number not previously used by the RCAF be 'issued'. 

This was done because it was felt it was very important that the RCASC traditions of 1THP be kept alive and not swept under the carpet. And that the customs and traditions of a former RCAF squadron, now to be stood up in 1THP's place, would not be allowed to take priority.

As we now know DHist, not doing any proper research into the matter, assumed that 450 had never been used, and so it came to be that 1THP became 450 Sqn. 

During my time on the Sqn in the mid-1980's contact was made with 450 Sqn RAAF Association, who were thrilled to find out that 'their' Sqn had been reformed.  In fact many of them made a trip to Canada when our first Sqn Colour was presented.  I know the CO during my time, LCol David 'Doc' Purich - now sadly passed away, requested to DHist that 450 CAF be allowed to carry the battle honours won by 450 RAAF.  This was turned down, even though the Aussie's agreed to it.

The SWO of the day, himself an ex-RCASC boy soldier, always on formal parades had the band play 3 marches.  We marched onto parade to Waltzing Matilda, did the marchpast to Wait for the Wagon, and marched off parade to the RCAF marchpast.  And that was our history in music.

The Sqn Birthday was 12th December, and we always had a formal Sqn parade as close to that day as we could.  It was on that day when the RCASC was authorised to stand-up 1THP in 1963 at Rivers, Manitoba.

It was a great and very unique Sqn, and I for one will be immensely proud if 450 is stood up again with the new Chinooks.

"By Air to Battle"

Bill
A former 450 LM

450 Sqn. would be the logical designation for the unit. Of course 450 Sqn. was not a logical designation back in 1968 as it was hijacked from an Australian Sqn.  and the new crest was added.
Then again it would be logical to continue with the illogical logic that was considered logical back then.
Wouldn't it? 8)

 

[beenthere]

Thanks Bill. That's a logical explanation of an illogical designation given to the only illegitimate Sqn. in CF history.
I served in 1 THP and 450 Sqn. and would consider that 450 Sqn would be the logical designation for the new unit.

However with the logic expressed in some circles to move army aviation resources into a brown orientation 1 THP may be a more logical designation.

As per usual in the history of both 1 THP and 450 Sqn. something as mundane as the designation of the name of the new unit is shrouded in secrecy.
There can be no doubt about it--the RCASC lives on.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Choppers to be auctioned off as combat mission ends

The National Defence department has put “For Sale” signs on the air force’s Chinook helicopters in Afghanistan — two years after taxpayers shelled out $282 million to buy them.  The department recently sounded out allies in the war-torn country to see whether any are interested in the heavy battlefield transports, bought second-hand from the U.S. Army.  Some defence analysts suggest Canada might be better served by bringing the choppers home for domestic operations, perhaps improving the search-and-rescue system.  So far there have been no takers for the five CH-147D choppers, which were rushed into Afghanistan after the Manley commission made it a condition of Ottawa continuing the war until 2011 …. If no buyers are found for the Canadian Chinooks they will be packed up and brought home when the combat mission ends in July, said the general who leads the transition headquarters.  “We’re still looking to divest ourselves of them,” Brig.-Gen. Charles Lamarre said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press ….

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Choppers to be auctioned off as combat mission ends

I think  Mr Huebert has the best idea, bring them back. I'm sure the military can find a use for them.

 

[mover1]

Talking to a few of the FE's and they said that they are pretty much used up and require a lot of man hours to maintain so bringing them back may not be a good idea or even a bad idea. Depending if we intend to fly them or use them as training aids.

All we need is some mis informed defence critic to tell us that we need 5 less new helicopters because we brought some back with us from Afghanistan.
Or say something like well we don't need all the new choppers because we are bringing the old ones back so lets cancel the project.

Mind you we could paint them a different color too and use them for something else.


Any thoughts or opinions form those who have "been there and worked on them" in any capacity other than a passenger?

 

[NavyShooter]

If they were the same variant as the others that we're getting (have?) it would make more sense to bring them back.

Since they're not the same variant, does it make sense to double up the spare-parts, training, etc, and have to worry about young Private Bloggins accidentally installing the part for the old helo on the new, and no-one noticing it?

Just my thoughts....fleet manageent would be an issue with multiple variants onhand.

NS

 

[KJK]

Why not bring them back and trade them in on the new 'F's? Isn't Boeing looking for older models for the CHAPS program. Or would trading them in violate Treasury Board rules?

KJK

 

[GK .Dundas]

Why not bring them back and trade them in on the new 'F's? Isn't Boeing looking for older models for the CHAPS program. Or would trading them in violate Treasury Board rules?

KJK

I must say that makes perfect sense to me......so it must violate some regulation somewhere . ;D

 

[benny88]

Anyone care to speculate on whether new pilots will be piped directly to this aircraft? Also, I know this is a very general question, but what's flying them like? Tac Hel has begun to creep further and further up my list...