Airborne Operations

[Chilme]

I'm asking this question just to get some outside feedback. 

In the modern battlefield, tactically how relevant is static line jumping?  Does the CF ever use it outside of training?  When was the last time the CF static line dropped soldiers into battle?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Tactically relevant? Probably not. Strategically relevant? Absolutely.

Having the capability of emplaning in one country and dropping into another to chop up some evil doers, who have decided to start zapping your nationals, is a good incentive for the potentially bad guys to behave themselves.

It worked at Kolwezi. It worked in Sierra Leone (well done 1 PARA!). It kind of worked in Grenada and Panama. It COULD HAVE worked in Rwanada... if it wasn't all messed up by the UN of course.

Now, going up against fully AAA-ed up first world ground force would probably be a non-starter these days without some serious back up. But there's nothing like the possibility of an Airborne Brigade full of fanatics dropping unannounced into your backyard at midnight to keep you spread out and looking up.

 

[HItorMiss]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/21/terrorism.afghanistan7

Rangers Static line jump onto Kandahar Airfield and Mullah Omar compound. The relevance is there and no a Ranger Bn is not Special Ops persay more like really elite Infantry so essentially like our old CAR. They dropped a large element onto the airfield to seize it. Wether Canada has the political will to do something like that is totally another story however.

 

[Infanteer]

Wether Canada has the political will to do something like that is totally another story however.

Political will is one thing.  Strategically relevant for how long is another.  How long could we realistically sustain an airdropped force?

 

[HItorMiss]

Obviously it depends on the context of the Operation, alone we can't, should we do it in an allied construct it is possible, IF we blended all of the Jump Coys into one and dropped them.

 

[Infanteer]

Don't get me wrong, I all for airborne delivery (I like Slim's policy of everyone gets qualified) but I've seen convincing arguments that parachuting as a whole is an ability largely relegated to precision insertion for SOF.  In the context of conventional forces, helicopters are likely the method of choice.

 

[HItorMiss]

As the above examples state it is not just for SOF. I am not sure it is a capability Canada really can say they have but it "could" be done. I am neither for nor against it really to me it's just another way to get to work but it does provide a interesting flexibility into an otherwise perhaps non per missable to helo environment.

Another tool n the tool box so to speak  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

I fully concur with you.  However, when it comes to the resource crunch, I'd take LAVs and CH-47s over parachutes.  Some tools are just handier than others....

 

[Swingline1984]

As the above examples state it is not just for SOF. I am not sure it is a capability Canada really can say they have but it "could" be done. I am neither for nor against it really to me it's just another way to get to work but it does provide a interesting flexibility into an otherwise perhaps non per missable to helo environment.

Another tool n the tool box so to speak  ;D

As a casual jumper and support trade I'm not up on my tactics.  What exactly would a "non per missable to helo environment [sic]" be?  From my perspective (and limited experience of thundering in like a bag of potatoes) anywhere RW couldn't land I don't think I'd want to be dropped.

 

[Jungle]

What exactly would a "non per missable to helo environment [sic]" be?  From my perspective (and limited experience of thundering in like a bag of potatoes) anywhere RW couldn't land I don't think I'd want to be dropped.

The biggest limitation to airmobile ops is the helicopter's limited range.

 

[Swingline1984]

The biggest limitation to airmobile ops is the helicopter's limited range.

I had never thought of that.  Thanks.

*edited for grammar.

 

[ArmyRick]

I was sure I read some where one of the task of The Canadian Airborne Regiment was to be prepared to parachute into our great white north to deter or slow down a soviet threat.

Could that still not be a major role in airborne operations? Have a force that can be rapidly deployed to the North? Thoughts?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Thanks ArmyRick you beat me to it  :warstory:

The strategic abilities afforded by Airborne forces is a great one; however, it would be damn near impossible for Canada to deploy Airborne forces at the strategic level given our current capability.  The current capability of 3 Light Infantry Jump Coy is simply the CF and more so the Army maintaining a capability.  I would argue that in the present way our Airborne forces are structured we would not realistically be able to respond to a whole lot.

Given this fact; do I see a capability for airborne forces in the future.  Absolutely! though it is not for insertion into foreign lands.  One of the major policy objectives of the Canada First Defence Strategy is Northern Sovereignty.  As of right now if a major international incident i.e. an large aircraft (Airbus 380, Boeing 747) were to crash in the North, Canada would have no ability to respond.  The Canadian Airborne Regiment was the only ability we had to do that and we have lost that.  As of right now the CF has no credible way of being able to respond to a crisis in the North and this is where I believe renewed focus on an Airborne capability should be placed.

If we are to argue for a renewed airborne capability in the future I believe we should target our arguments towards Northern sovereignty, and go from there.  The argument that airborne forces will be jumping into foreign lands, as much as we soldiers would like to see that, simply will not fly.

 

[Chilme]

My initial question was focused on the relevance on static line jumping.  In my mind, I would think it is more relevant and a better use of resources to train troops on High Altitude jumping vs the static line jump.

Your thoughts?

 

[vonGarvin]

Stymiest:
I think that response to a major aviation disaster in the North would fall to SAR, not a jump company.

Chilme:
I'm not sure of the difference between high-altitude jumping vice static line; however, that, to me, appears to be a difference between method of transportation.  If we are to use parachute-delivered forces in any role (combat, sovereignty, SAR, etc), then certainly there needs to be a needs analysis to determine possible methods of delivery.  I'm fairly certain that someone has done that.  In any event, "they" have determined that a parachute-delivery option, via static line, is still viable.  It may not be a consideration for combat operations in foreign lands; however, that does not negate its worth.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have spoken alot on other threads about a marine force (based more on the smaller Royal marines and not so much the USMC). What about creating a new unit based on an infantry battle group and similar to the CAR. Make it a truly light infantry unit and have trained to do real amphibious operations (not just a company paddling its way in ten assault boats but use at least rigid raiders and LCVP), airborne operations and airmobile operations.

I would base this unit on a similar orbat to a Royal Marine commando (there pretty slim size units but pack a nasty bite). The foreseeable task for these guys
1. To protect our North and be able to deploy by parachute or assault landing craft (a realistic scenario in summer months). They would also become arctic ops SME
2. To train in mountain operations and become SME
3. To conduct annual training in Belize or Panama and develop Jungle Fighting skills
4. To be prepared to conduct operations in Canada's rugged enviroment (There is probably 75% of our country that we can not use AFV on).
5. To be prepared to conduct operations in foreign rugged enviroments (Afghanistan Mountains or Sierra Leone Jungles)
6. To react to a major disaster anywhere in the world, primarily Canada's north

I would make this unit with combined companies (3 platoons of infantry, heavy weapons troop (mounted in Viking ATV, airlift and parachute dropable) and a reduced engineer troop). I would have 5 of these companies for the unit. The idea would be not to deploy the unit as a whole but rather make it a force generator. The companies would be very well suited for operating in remote regions of canada or they could be used as a force multiplier overseas.

It sounds alot like the Canadian Airborne Regiment? Kind of what I thought. When we created the 3 Light Infantry Battalions, we did not use them as such. I have served a tour in Bosnia with 3RCR (we re-roled to mech prior to deployment). My point on keepin 3LIB is we can't realistically do it. The LIB were in reality "infantry battalions on the cheap".

My idea would see this unit be created and used ONLY as true light infantry force. I can see some people saying there would be some cross over with CSOR?

CSOR is special ops and this unit would be responsible for conventional operations in adverse terrain.

Thoughts? Idea? Rotten Tomatoes chucked at my head?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Stymiest:
I think that response to a major aviation disaster in the North would fall to SAR, not a jump company.

Yes because a mass casualty scenario on the scale of Swiss Air is something that a few SARTECH's is capable of dealing with.  I am not saying this should be a renewed Airborne units primary focus, I am just thinking that the only way we could possibly sell this to the government would be to focus on Northern Sovereignty. 

 

[Swingline1984]

My initial question was focused on the relevance on static line jumping.  In my mind, I would think it is more relevant and a better use of resources to train troops on High Altitude jumping vs the static line jump.

Your thoughts?

Can you expand on this line of thinking?  What exactly is the answer you are looking for?  When you say "static line" are you aware of static square, or are you limiting yourself to thinking along the lines of mass round chute jumps from 1000ft?  Don't forget most jumpers in the CF are qualified "basic", which is a low tech way to train a large group to fall out of aircraft and land quickly (potentially under fire).  This would seem to be more relevant than training everyone for free fall which has a lot more nuance and room for error (keeping in mind static square also uses a steerable chute and I don't think the CF is doing it right now, any CFLAWC guys out there?).  I know PSP monitors the basic course for injuries etc, is this your real angle?  You don't like the rate of speed at which dudes hit the ground?  Most injuries on landing are due to individuals messing up their drills or being unfit.  I know guys that have hit tarmac and walked away clean.  Feet and knees together.

 

[DCRabbit]

This country will never pay for Airbourne capability, IMO.. and if any word got out that the CAR was being reformed, the left would scream so loudly that any gov't that wanted re-election would drop it like a hot potato. This country just refuses to adequately fund it's military. It's been like that since I've been alive.. (born in '67) and I don't see it ever happening.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes because a mass casualty scenario on the scale of Swiss Air is something that a few SARTECH's is capable of dealing with.

Ah, hence that expression, "stay in your lane."

SAR has the lead for MAJAID (Major Air Disaster). While the planning basis is a major air disaster response for high Arctic crashes, it was actually last used for Swissair off Halifax.

The plan sees pre-loaded pallets of tents/medical eqpt/etc dropped in and SAR Techs from across Canada jumping in. Additional support personnel are slated to come from CFLAWC as required, primarily for non-medical tasks like creating/running the camp until the crash site is evacuated.