Author Topic: 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron Is Reborn  (Read 77718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Danjanou

  • Reporting from Goat Rodeo Central
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 92,699
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,385
  • Butt Party NCO on the 81mm Mortar Range
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2012, 14:12:42 »
That reminds me; at my new unit the RAAF Air Defence Guards are allowed to wear their berets, while the Australian Army (they have some engineers here I think?) were prohibited b/c of danger of skin cancer or something ridiculous that I heard 3rd-hand through my new co-workers. 

Maybe I should start wearing my RCAF beret just to poke the bear ('roo?)  Or my fur hat?  Choices, choices....   :blotto:

definately Yukon Hat and we want pics >:D
NASA spent $12 Million designing a pen that could write in the zero gravity environment of space. The Russians went with pencils.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 101,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,237
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2012, 14:33:24 »
Actually light infantry and rifle regiments wore glengarrys as far back as about 1880 ...



... and they still wear a variant of them as ceremonial dress today.

Is that your recruit ID picture, Edward?  >:D

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 126,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,773
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2012, 18:00:50 »
definately Yukon Hat and we want pics >:D

You make it sound like I wouldn't do it at a drop of a (Yukon) hat. 

I'm here all week.  Try the veal.   :bowing:
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,224
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2012, 18:08:12 »
We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^

Help us the get our Naval Aviation back and we can't be beat!













And yes I fully support the Army owning completely the aircraft, Chinooks and Griffons, that support them. Same as the RCN should own the Sea Kings and eventually the Cyclones.

Flame away light blue mutha's  :evil: :evilrifle:
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 18:15:23 by FSTO »

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,252
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,336
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2012, 22:34:48 »
Flame away light blue mutha's 
Take them...  It'll be the same people that drive and maintain them though.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline HeavyHooker

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,584
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2012, 12:38:55 »
Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.

HH

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,916
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,336
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
    • The Home of the Salt, Lilly, Winstall (Wincentaylo) & Blouin Family Tree Website
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2012, 12:46:41 »
Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.

HH

HH -- Just to let you know, the BIG airshows are on a separate budget through CanadaCom for Op CONNECTION.

Just throwing that in there so people don't think the RCAF is throwing all their money towards dog and pony shows.
Don't piss me off.  I have two older brothers, work with a bunch of men, and I can kick their asses!
BOOT TO THE HEAD!

Offline Inky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 380
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2012, 21:53:25 »

OMG, they look awful!

Nonsense, they look positively spiffing!

Mind you, it' probably the RMC cadet in me trying to rationalize our sticking to the wedge.

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 206,882
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,537
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2012, 22:12:07 »
We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^
1st Canadian Heavy Aviation Regiment.


I could care less what they wear on their heads.....as long as those babies fly and deliver.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2012, 22:28:28 »
Nonsense, they look positively spiffing!

Mind you, it' probably the RMC cadet in me trying to rationalize our sticking to the wedge.


They didn't look bad:


      


I see a lot less spiffy berets being worn these days.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 115,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,333
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2012, 19:31:42 »
Actually, they don't look bad - certainly better than some chef boyardee berets I see out there.

Having been to Kingston and seen the RMC Cadets out in their Full Dress (or whatever it is called), those kids look sharper than us in DEUs.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Privateer

    Looking for the bubble.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 18,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2012, 19:33:08 »
They don't look too bad in black and white, but in colour...!

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 461,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,723
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2012, 19:48:14 »
Having been to Kingston and seen the RMC Cadets out in their Full Dress (or whatever it is called), those kids look sharper than us in DEUs.

I'll say!   :nod:



     ;D
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,916
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,336
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
    • The Home of the Salt, Lilly, Winstall (Wincentaylo) & Blouin Family Tree Website
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2012, 20:19:44 »
Hey, at least they're not dressed like the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz like a certain American military academy.
Don't piss me off.  I have two older brothers, work with a bunch of men, and I can kick their asses!
BOOT TO THE HEAD!

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2012, 20:27:52 »
They don't look too bad in black and white, but in colour...!


I'll admit that, circa 1944, a few were a wee tiny bit ... how shall we say this? ... garish:

         




But we are not exactly subdued in 2011, are we?

   
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 165,752
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,306
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2012, 12:51:26 »
Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.

Look, also, at the US Army Aviation Branch and its status within the US Army as a whole. And some of us would prefer to be doing "actual" Army training, ie supporting ground units, than cross-country trips and airshows as that is our reason for being. Regardless of the service-of-ownership, anybody's budget could be slashed by higher HQ or the government-of-the-day.

If our Tac Hel officers moved up the Canadian Army chain-of-command, occupying their share of the positions currently held by ground-bound guys only, we would have considerably more influence there.

A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.

Offline dogger1936

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 19,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 770
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2012, 13:01:26 »
I am beyond glad to hear this news. I'm uncertain if I voiced this story here or not; so I'll write a bit of it again.

Seeing 6 chinooks coming across the red desert in formation then dropping into a VERY VERY hot LZ was one of the most touching things I've ever seen. Skids down scraping across the LZ as troops ran aboard; bullets and RPG still flying. It was a hell of a day for us after losing men and a non stop firefight after the incident. Watching the light guys extracted by these brave men and women in flight was amazing.

Flying out on a freedom flight on a Canadian Chinook at the completion of my tour was a awesome way to watch my FOB disappear below.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 461,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,723
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2012, 13:20:17 »
A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.
May as well; we let a Loggie have a go at it.   >:D
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2012, 14:05:42 »
May as well; we let a Loggie have a go at it.   >:D


Not to mention Signals and Engineer officers:

Lieutenant-General S.F. Clark (late RCCS) 1958-1961
Lieutenant-General G. Walsh (late RCE)    1961-1964

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 461,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,723
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2012, 14:12:40 »
They were at least Combat Support officers (and before my time ;) )
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 453,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,050
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2012, 14:17:56 »
They were at least Combat Support officers (and before my time ;) )


Actually, before your time, there were no such fancy-dancy designations; corps, and the officers and soldiers in them, were either arms (RCAC, RCA, RCE, RCCS, RCIC) or services (all the rest).  :D
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 461,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,723
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2012, 14:20:05 »
RCE and RCCS were arms? Scandalous (especially the Jimmies!)
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 196,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,263
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2012, 14:27:35 »
The RCE and RCCS were considered both arms and services, as they had roles that fell into each function.

And to make the Technoviking happy, the RCAC, RCA and RCIC were arms, but the RCAC and RCIC were also combat arms.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 356,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,436
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2012, 14:28:49 »
A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.

As opposed to now, where they top out as Chief of Staff, Land Operations.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline HeavyHooker

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,584
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: New Chinook Sqn
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2012, 16:26:50 »
Quote
And some of us would prefer to be doing "actual" Army training, ie supporting ground units, than cross-country trips and airshows as that is our reason for being

Agreed.  As an ex-combat arms soldier I fully agree that the Tac Hel community does not do enough "actual Army" training as you've termed it.  Every time we go to the range, I have to show pilots how their 9mm pieces all fit together!  Most of the ACs we had over seas acquired all of their knowledge of infantry patrols from reading "Bravo 2-0" when they were in BOTC.

Quote
Look, also, at the US Army Aviation Branch and its status within the US Army as a whole

Again, fully in agreement with adapting several aspects of the American System.  As a FE, their system (that we have been operating under thus far) is far superior to what we are adapting but that is another thread and it is not going to change.  Also, the Flying WO system makes sense and should also be adapted here.  It won't be but there you go.  As far as a pilots status within the US Army as a whole, ask some of their senior guys (CW5 or Sr Officer level) if they have anything close to the say that their Combat Arms equals do.  I can not see our Cbt Arms types being any different.  Within the RCAF, pilots have a lot of say but within the Canadian Army?

I do prefer my Green DEUs and Army Mess kit however...   ;D