# AF resources for para training.....split for C-27 thread



## GO!!! (22 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OK so maybe we have to figure out how to pass the toggles through the shell so they can drive.... ;D
> 
> Plan A might be good enough for dropping infanteers .....



We already have a number of systems suitable for parachuting infantry onto positions, from high and low alt, with a combination of free - fall and static line technologies, oxygen, navigational aids etc.

A more pressing concern would be to get the AF to make military parachuting a priority, so that enough people could get qualified to do the different variations of it to make it tactically feasible. (ie 10 guys in the whole CF who can free fall with oxygen is not an especially useful capability - you need numbers)

Do'nt fool yourself, the technology already exists - no re-invention of the wheel required - we just need to do it more and more often.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> We already have a number of systems suitable for parachuting infantry onto positions, from high and low alt, with a combination of free - fall and static line technologies, oxygen, navigational aids etc.
> 
> A more pressing concern would be to get the AF to make military parachuting a priority, so that enough people could get qualified to do the different variations of it to make it tactically feasible. (ie 10 guys in the whole CF who can free fall with oxygen is not an especially useful capability - you need numbers)
> 
> Do'nt fool yourself, the technology already exists - no re-invention of the wheel required - we just need to do it more and more often.



And to do that GO!! the AF needs more airplanes.  Its not that the AF doesnt make it a priority.  Right now with the Hercs time-expiring we are short resources so we have to do what needs to be done RIGHT NOW.....like TAL in Afghanistan. i see you're still in the dark and loving it when i comes to all things air.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> A more pressing concern would be to get the AF to make military parachuting a priority,



Ack...  Everyday I go flying the boys in Orange want to jump.  They jump at least twice a day, freefall from 10'000, hop and pop and static line.  If you want to skydive either join the Skyhawks or become a SARTech


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> And to do that GO!! the AF needs more airplanes.  Its not that the AF doesnt make it a priority.  Right now with the Hercs time-expiring we are short resources so we have to do what needs to be done RIGHT NOW.....like TAL in Afghanistan. i see you're still in the dark and loving it when i comes to all things air.



I call BS on that one.

Parachuting can easily be done from a variety of different aircraft, from a Cessna 4 seater to a twin otter to a C5 Galaxy. Most of the basic para courses in Trenton do their first jumps out of a CASA. Hercs are slow and not always the best choice, and it would be far more economical to use a smaller platform most of the time.

Granted, the AF needs more birds - and the armour need new tanks, CSS needs new trucks, the Navy needs new boats, and the infantry needs a new TacVest - see a pattern here? That does'nt mean that you just neglect one aspect of your job.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I call BS on that one.
> 
> Parachuting can easily be done from a variety of different aircraft, from a Cessna 4 seater to a twin otter to a C5 Galaxy. Most of the basic para courses in Trenton do their first jumps out of a CASA. Hercs are slow and not always the best choice, and it would be far more economical to use a smaller platform most of the time.



Well...i'm sure that the AF, once it has managed to replace its Hercs, modernize its CP-140 and CF-18, buy C-17 and Chinooks, replace the Buffalo and Twin Otter.....there will be money for that.



> Granted, the AF needs more birds - and the armour need new tanks, CSS needs new trucks, the Navy needs new boats, and the infantry needs a new TacVest - see a pattern here? That does'nt mean that you just neglect one aspect of your job.



It is one aspect of the AF mission which , unfortunately has to take a backseat to other things. TAL in Afghanistan being one of them.  With less and less Hercs being servicable, we can only do so much.  You tell the guys in the Ghan that they cant be resuplied because the Hercs are busy doing  a MFF course in trenton. I dont see MFF skills being used too much in operations right now, do you ?  We have a finite amount of resources, and as we use these resoursces, they also dwindle ( the CC-130 comes to mind......as they are close to retirement, we have less and less of them available and the less we have available, the more hours we put on those we have, hastening their retirement) . We can't do everything.


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jan 2007)

Whoa - so we should'nt be expanding the para capability because;


> ...skills being used too much in operations right now, do you ?



...but you advocate the upgrading of CF - 18s?

When was the last time a CF - 18 did anything of use? Kosovo? Dropping 500lbs Mk82s?

This attitude is precisely the problem - that of this AF wish list with no bearing on operational requirements superceding very real and useful capabilities. How many more hercs could we buy by leaving the CF-18s in their present state? The US has successfully completed no fewer than 8 successful large scale para ops in the last decade - the Brits _may_ be doing them right now (3 Para in A'stan is comms locked), and we have the capability as tool for commanders to use. CF-18s cost untold millions, have an enormous logistical tail, and have not fired a gun or dropped a bomb in 15 years or so. Which capability do you think is a better candidate for the back burner?

If you are going to use the measuring stick of "current operational requirements" to gauge the importance of a piece of equipment or skill set, the only task of the AF *today* is that of moving the army to where it needs to go and resupplying it once there.


----------



## a78jumper (23 Jan 2007)

"CF-18s cost untold millions, have an enormous logistical tail, and have not fired a gun or dropped a bomb in 15 years or so. "-Actually they were used in Kosova when Clinton bombed the place into submission. 

The CF18s were one of the excuses used to get rid of the Chinook fleet in the early 1990s; the Air Force was being run by a bunch of ex fighter jocks and they got their way. 

Para has not been a high priority for the Air Force for years-I can not tell you how many times the Skyhawks were stop dropped in 1989 during my year with the team, This was one of the main reasons the training camp moved from Yuma, AZ using Twin Hueys to Perris Valley, CA using a civilian DZ and plane.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Whoa - so we should'nt be expanding the para capability because;
> ...but you advocate the upgrading of CF - 18s?
> 
> When was the last time a CF - 18 did anything of use? Kosovo? Dropping 500lbs Mk82s?



Well for staters GO!! they we dropping LGBs in Kosovo.  Thier abscence in Afghanistan is more symptomatic of the AFs lack of resources to deploy them and sustain them. Why ? Porbably because their numbers have been allowed to dwindle by years of neglect and that ( as a result of such negelect) it was decided to put the ones we can through a PHASED upgrade program. Wether you like it or not, Canada is part of NORAD and thus the fighters have a very real tasking in this country.



> If you are going to use the measuring stick of "current operational requirements" to gauge the importance of a piece of equipment or skill set, the only task of the AF *today* is that of moving the army to where it needs to go and resupplying it once there.



OK, you have a point when it comes to Op requirements but again GO!!! your amaze me.  last time i checked, SAR has nothing to do with the army. I'm quite sure that it is a very real requirement TODAY. Surveillance of the north and of Canada's ocean aproaches is also a very real requirement TODAY. You might as well say that the Navy has not role in this country because it doesnt haul you around   ( to do para jumps  ;D)



			
				a78jumper said:
			
		

> The CF18s were one of the excuses used to get rid of the Chinook fleet in the early 1990s; the Air Force was being run by a bunch of ex fighter jocks and they got their way.



You have a credible source for that or are you just spreading rumours that abounded at the time ?


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> the only task of the AF *today* is that of moving the army to where it needs to go and resupplying it once there.



While I admit that this is one of our core priorities at this time - I do not concede that this the Airforce's only task.  Cdnaviator has already touched on this and I concur with his assessment. 

If the CF-188 modernization project was not underfoot - that funding would have been spent on fuel for the Navy or more bullets for Afghanistan - not necessarily put back into AF coffers.


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jan 2007)

I am quite surprised that a know ledgable person such as GO! (no, not a swipe, seriously) isn't aware of the wide range of activities that the Air Force is involved in.   

"From GO!: 
When was the last time a CF - 18 did anything of use?"

The CF-18's do more than just drop bombs.  They are used continuously as part of air sovereignty missions, ranging from intercepting other country's aircraft trying to illegally enter our airspace, and interception of possible terrorist and criminal aircraft.   Granted they do spend some time doing tricks at airshows or doing dog and pony acts, but these are not their primary activities.    


"From GO!: 
The only task of the AF today is that of moving the army to where it needs to go and resupplying it once there."

I am surprised you say this.  While supporting foreign deployments of our ground forces is probably the most important job right now (you cant just drop them off and say good luck boys) this is far from the only task of the air force.  In addition to air sovereignty and the public affairs angles already mentioned, there is maritime patrol which is part of operations to interdict narcotics, smuggling, illegal fishing, and pollution violators; search and rescue operations across the entire country; patrol of the arctic regions as part of combined SAR and ground national sovereignty surveillance; domestic transport services for service members and supplies; and finally, training of aircrews so that they are qualified to fly overseas and move the army to where it needs.     

"From a78jmper:
the Air Force was being run by a bunch of ex fighter jocks and they got their way."

While there are a lot of ex-fighter jocks at higher command levels, there are just as many commanders from Herc and helicopter backgrounds there as well.  The 'fighter jock' commanders are just more vocal about their past work (and tend to wear their flight suits more often than required) so they stick out more.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jan 2007)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> "CF-18s cost untold millions, have an enormous logistical tail, and have not fired a gun or dropped a bomb in 15 years or so. "-Actually they were used in Kosova when Clinton bombed the place into submission.
> 
> The CF18s were one of the excuses used to get rid of the Chinook fleet in the early 1990s; the Air Force was being run by a bunch of ex fighter jocks and they got their way.
> 
> Para has not been a high priority for the Air Force for years-I can not tell you how many times the Skyhawks were stop dropped in 1989 during my year with the team, This was one of the main reasons the training camp moved from Yuma, AZ using Twin Huey's to Perris Valley, CA using a civilian DZ and plane.



CF-18's were in now way related to the CH147's retirement.  The decision not to allocate the $400M required to upgrade CH147002-CH147009 from C+ to D-models was entirely FMC's decision, LGen Foster in particular.  I saw the Comd FMC letter sent to Comd AIRCOM in 1989 stating the Army's reason why it would not pursue upgrading the CH147.   As a note, FMC funded aviation procurement from unification until 1992 -- AIRCOM (from 1975 to 1992) shared only AvPOL costs with FMC, not capital equipment costs.  After 1992, the Air Force paid for all Tac Avn O&M costs and ADM(Mat) paid for WSSP (wpn sys support plans) and National Procurement (parts/contracts with OEMs, etc...)   The Chinook essential retired from service because the Army felt that was the most prudent decision given its assessment that funding issues would apply huge pressures on its allocation of the overall departmental budget.

Support to the Army by the AF is only a priority if the Army states it as such, and that means at the strategic level, not at CPC or the Regiment or the jump battalions.  Regarding the Skyhawks, you folks were on the leading edge of ASD (alternate service delivery)...the CASA was monetarily and likely operationally more responsive than Twins in Yuma (which was a good go, BTW... ;D )

G2G


----------



## a78jumper (24 Jan 2007)

It was not a CASA that replaced the Twins in 89, but  Twin Otters or DC 3 belonging to the DZ at Perris Valley. The other limitation at Yuma was that it was a USMC  base and the airspace was often restricted due to test activities. Then followed a show season where about one in four demos were cancelled due to aircraft unavailability.

As for the Chinook retirement, $$$$ in the overall DSP was available, but it was being spent on activities that were short term feel  good vs long term. Retaining 3 CF 18 Sqns in Baden given the fall of the wall in 89 fell into that category IMHO. It would have been great to upgrade the Chinook airframes to the D model, but given that was not going to fly with the the current set of grown ups, they should have been retained in the inventory, not sold, after all they were only 14 years old.  I was heavily involved in the training of Aerial Delivery at the time, and the general consensus was that their retirement was an appalling lack of foresight and planning.


----------



## Globesmasher (24 Jan 2007)

I'm an airdropping trash hauler, and believe me I would rather be spending more time dropping the army out the back - it is one of the few things that I enjoy.  However, there are so many agencies pulling on the Air Force right now (just like there are in every branch) and not every priority is a priority.

Our SAR mandate keeps the first priority when it comes to daily aircraft tasking and availability.
Maintaining the supply line to the army in Afghanistan is the second priority and that one mission takes an enormous amount of effort and airframes just to keep that going.
Force Generation comes next.
Northern resupply and other "critical resupply taskings" (This used to be #2 ... not any more).
Then we're left with the army's airdropping training needs.

With a retirement rate of 4-5 aircraft per year in the ancient CC-130 E and H fleet, a mass exodus of pilots and technicians and there is very little resources left to spread around to all the other "priorities".  And, with a budget of only $10, one can't run a $12 Air Force.  Simple economics.

I don't necessarily agree with those listed priorities - but that is just the way they are right now.  It upsets me that we don't have better, more modern aircraft, more money for more fuel and YFR and plenty more incentives to retain highly qualified people so that we can go out and do all the things that everybody wants with the available aircraft.

We simply can't do everything with just a small handful of resources.  Trust me, the average line operator really wants to ..... one of my favourite activities is spending a week in Edmonton, flying around my home province and dropping the PPCLI out the back and helping them accomplish their training objectives ... and then in the off time spending time with family who I haven't seen for a long time.  But with budget cuts and restraints we very rarely do that now ..... the remaining resources are directed towards other "priorities".

That's just the way it is .... one can only squeeze so much out of a limited resource base ... and the Army's airdrop training is one of the facts that has suffered from this reality.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jan 2007)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> ...As for the Chinook retirement, $$$$ in the overall DSP was available, but it was being spent on activities that were short term feel  good vs long term. Retaining 3 CF 18 Sqns in Baden given the fall of the wall in 89 fell into that category IMHO. It would have been great to upgrade the Chinook airframes to the D model, but given that was not going to fly with the the current set of grown ups, they should have been retained in the inventory, not sold, after all they were only 14 years old.  I was heavily involved in the training of Aerial Delivery at the time, and the general consensus was that their retirement was an appalling lack of foresight and planning.



a78jumper, you will get absolutely no argument from me that it was in incredibly short-sighted move to get rid of the 'Hook.  I think that it may even have set the record for "shortest service" ac in the CF's inventory...ever.  She was a great machine to fly!  The boys loved jumping from her, IIRC -- apparently jumping off the 'Hooks ramp was one of the smoothest jumps going.  It all looked good from looking back in the review mirror.  Hopefully we stop messing around and get on with getting -G models (thinly-veiled hint to those in the procurement world  )

Globesmasher, good words!  +1

G2G


----------



## Journeyman (24 Jan 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> *Hopefully we stop messing around and get on with getting -G models (thinly-veiled hint to those in the procurement world  ) *


Ohhhhhh...you want Chinooks back?! Why haven't you said _anything_ before?


----------



## Green On! (24 Jan 2007)

I’m with Globesmasher on this, most CC130 operators (me included) love doing basic/cont paras.  They’re a great FG tool for the Air Force with a relatively small YFR cost and much more satisfying from a crew perspective than hauling cabbages to Alert.  

As far as their priority when compared to other tasks, the Army really hasn’t put much emphasis on the importance of para.  We in the Herc world were putting a lot of hope into the Army’s study on the future of parachute operations, but if I recall correctly it really did nothing for the capability nor support their low level requests for support.  By splitting the three jump companies and disbanding the airborne HQ element, the army brass at the time really didn’t see an operational role for the capability.  I believe that in the study, the main reason for keeping the basic para course was to keep some expertise alive and feed people into HAP/MFP, I’m far from an expert in CF Army doctrine so I could be wrong.  With that in mind, the Air Force prioritized accordingly and getting cabbages to Alert was determined to be more important than providing an elevator ride to what was perceived as an Army recreational pastime (which at time may have been somewhat true).  In all actuality, we need Army support to meet our training objectives just as much as they need us.

I do know that when a proposal to re-commence Pers/Wedge drops was staffed, the only substantiation was a letter from an Army MGen stating he’d like to have this capability back. I have no idea if this was ever an Armed Forces Council discussion item (doubt it) but I guess if parachute operations really mattered then the CLS would have made it an issue and CAS would have directed us to carry on. The Golden Wedge drop is great Canadian solution for dispatching pers and equipment in one pass, too bad it might never be used again as I don’t see us dropping this from the J in the future.  :'(


----------



## GO!!! (25 Jan 2007)

Green On! said:
			
		

> The Golden Wedge drop is great Canadian solution for dispatching pers and equipment in one pass, too bad it might never be used again as I don’t see us dropping this from the J in the future.  :'(



OK, I googled it, what is a Golden Wedge drop?

It sounds suspiciously like a hazing ritual for FNGs!


----------



## Green On! (25 Jan 2007)

This has nothing to do with hazing, although the media did have a field day with hazing and the CAR.

It's a piece of aircraft equipment thats placed on ramp, which allows you to drop equipment from the cargo door and pers from the para doors at the same time (3 sec seperation).  The actual ramp remains closed, but the door is open and due to the raised wedge, loads can be dispatched via gravity then the troops follow out the para doors.  Was used all the time when dropping CAR and their winter kit, 40 guys and their equipment all in one pass.

Go!!, if you've been jumping for more than a few years I'm sure you've seen it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jan 2007)

I've jumped with wedge loads many times. Never heard it called a Golden Wedge though. Have we lost this capability altogether?


----------



## GO!!! (25 Jan 2007)

Now I know what you are talking about, it's used to deliver cannister loads w/ toboggans/ heavy weapons bags sometimes, but I've never heard it called that - live and learn!


----------



## kj_gully (26 Jan 2007)

face it my Airborne brother, the days of mass drops of lightly armed shock troops will shortly be replaced with the ominous "whup whup whup" of large twin rotor helicopters flying dangerously low in the pre dawn gloom. Remuster for tons of canopy time.


----------



## Globesmasher (29 Jan 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Never heard it called a Golden Wedge though. Have we lost this capability altogether?



That is it's full formal name.  The Golden Wedge.  It was designed by Sgt Golden ..... but everyone just calls it "The Wedge".

We have pretty much lost the capability.  "Per/Wedge drops" had a Flight Safety moratorium placed upon by Commander 1 Cdn Air Div shortly after a few malfunctions that lead to some damage to the aircraft.  The moratorium came about in the 2002/2003 timeframe.

The system wasn't designed for repeated racetracks with the D-bags trailing behind the aircraft.  It was designed for one pass with the wedge load going first, and then 3 seconds later the pers would dispatch "double door".  One single pass over the DZ and the whole load would be dropped.  The LMs would then go about their D-bag retrieval operations and the aircraft would clean up, accelerate and depart the DZ.

During training .... training of several LMs and JMs all at the same time with limited resources ......  repeated racetracks were flown round and round the DZ with trailing D-bags which ultimately resulted in some of the D-bags becoming snagged on the wedge system, the edge of the ramp roller system and the cargo ramp assembly.  When the LMs used the winches to retrieve the D-bags the snagged D-bag and static line would tighten and in a couple of instances the electric winch was torn off the front bulkhead.  During the last incident the crew simply couldn't retrieve the D-bags on one side despite their best efforts, and wisely ceased using the winch before it too was torn off the front 245 bulkhead.  The aircraft landed with trailing D bags and static lines and some damage to the cargo ramp and door.

The Commander felt it was time to stop the Pers/Wedge drops until something could be done to stop this "snagging".

During 2002 - 2006, CPC (CFLAWC) and TRSET staffed several attempts to reinstate the Pers/Wedge drop with a simple procedural change.  It didn't work and the repeated reinstatement attempts were faced with frustration, especially as each winter season rolled around.  I know you guys pack your winter survival gear in those toboggans, and without them .... well there's not much of an option without them.

Since my last attempt to get the Wedge going again was met with a resounding "No, no money no time, not a priority, no ...." .... well, I have pretty much given up.  I simply don't know what to do.  I have also urged the CFLAWC staff to push the issue on the "Green side" of the coin since I have not met with much success on the Blue side.  They too have become frustrated and disappointed in the lack of positive movement with respect to reinstating this capability.

Now, pretty much all the original aircrew, those who have dropped Pers/Wedge previously, have gone.  There is basically just a handful .... 4 or 5 guys ... who have experience dropping via the wedge in the Air Force.  In a few more months there will be nobody left who has experience with this equipment.

Shame really.  :'(


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jan 2007)

Madness... it only takes a few weeks to train hammerheads like me to jump out of a plane, but it's the whole LM/JM thing that makes the airborne option a viable one. 

What are other countries doing? I assume that the US and UK amongst others can do this wedge thing? Maybe we should start a petition....


----------

