Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
Thanks for the link Infanteer. Very interesting reading, and certainly extremely pertinent with the coming reorg of our LIBs.
For some reason Airborne, or Parachute, troops have always attracted some people, and repulsed others. From my limited experience, it has a lot to do with the required "can-do" attitude, or the absence of it !!! I have met with many outstanding Soldiers who don't have Wings, even though they had the right attitude; they simply chose not to go Airborne. I respect them. I also met with many who don't have the required attitude, and who despise those who do; I don't respect those.
For some reason Airborne, or Parachute, troops have always attracted some people, and repulsed others. From my limited experience, it has a lot to do with the required "can-do" attitude, or the absence of it !!! I have met with many outstanding Soldiers who don't have Wings, even though they had the right attitude; they simply chose not to go Airborne. I respect them. I also met with many who don't have the required attitude, and who despise those who do; I don't respect those.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Thank you for Capt Rickard's article. I don't want to get into a real slanging match but a will make a few observations.
The most recent US airborne ops were really for show and not tactically necessary. Certainly Grenada was just to get combat stars and was close to a disaster. Probably all of the earlier ops would have been airmobile if the helicopters had been available. The later US jumps were just salemanship.
You may be able to jump in conditions that preclude a heli-borne op, but what current commander would authorize an op that could not be extracted or supported by helicopters? It's not enough to have a capability you must have the will to use it. Imagine the faces in NDHQ when they read of a proposal to drop a company or battalion into the White Mountains without support. No go.
Jump casualty figures are difficult to gauge because we select our training DZs, altitude and wind conditions with care to prevent casualties. I suspect the casualties from a night jump into the mountains of Afghanistan would be a bit more dramatic than 1/2 %.
I can't see why you would choose to entry a battle by parachute rather than by helicopter. The helicopters give so much more flexibility
firepower, and tactical mobility that the mass para drop is simply obsolete. What do you do if the enemy has packed up and run in the time it took to mount the drop...chase after them carrying our combat loads? How do you propose to move your guns and ammo? Evac casualties? Helicopters can land you on the ridge tops...DZs will likely be in valley bottoms. You're at a tactical disadvantage as soon as your jump boots hit the ground.
If you are concerned about building an adventurous mindset in the troops I suggest mountaineering. It's more dangerous than parachuting and has a practical purpose. Perhaps an eidelweiss could replace jump wings as a sign you were fit, tough and brave.
The most recent US airborne ops were really for show and not tactically necessary. Certainly Grenada was just to get combat stars and was close to a disaster. Probably all of the earlier ops would have been airmobile if the helicopters had been available. The later US jumps were just salemanship.
You may be able to jump in conditions that preclude a heli-borne op, but what current commander would authorize an op that could not be extracted or supported by helicopters? It's not enough to have a capability you must have the will to use it. Imagine the faces in NDHQ when they read of a proposal to drop a company or battalion into the White Mountains without support. No go.
Jump casualty figures are difficult to gauge because we select our training DZs, altitude and wind conditions with care to prevent casualties. I suspect the casualties from a night jump into the mountains of Afghanistan would be a bit more dramatic than 1/2 %.
I can't see why you would choose to entry a battle by parachute rather than by helicopter. The helicopters give so much more flexibility
firepower, and tactical mobility that the mass para drop is simply obsolete. What do you do if the enemy has packed up and run in the time it took to mount the drop...chase after them carrying our combat loads? How do you propose to move your guns and ammo? Evac casualties? Helicopters can land you on the ridge tops...DZs will likely be in valley bottoms. You're at a tactical disadvantage as soon as your jump boots hit the ground.
If you are concerned about building an adventurous mindset in the troops I suggest mountaineering. It's more dangerous than parachuting and has a practical purpose. Perhaps an eidelweiss could replace jump wings as a sign you were fit, tough and brave.
- Reaction score
- 22,450
- Points
- 1,260
I take issue with Michael Shannons comments about recent jumps.
The jump into Iraq by the 173rd Abn Brigade was a necissity to show the Kurds that this time the US was thier to stay (they could not get out) and put troops inbehind Sadam
The US has done numerous SOF jumps in smaller amounts in Afghan.
Secondly - want to seize an airfield? Paratroops are still the #1 method to get in and seize it in a hurry without laying waste to the airfield.
Helicopters are an asset - but they cannot fly far or in many types of weather.
Defend the North in a hurry - YOU NEED JUMPERS.
Until teleporters have a NSN the Airborne has a riole despite the naysayer's
Supplies can be LAPES'd or door/ramp bundled onto the DZ..
The jump into Iraq by the 173rd Abn Brigade was a necissity to show the Kurds that this time the US was thier to stay (they could not get out) and put troops inbehind Sadam
The US has done numerous SOF jumps in smaller amounts in Afghan.
Secondly - want to seize an airfield? Paratroops are still the #1 method to get in and seize it in a hurry without laying waste to the airfield.
Helicopters are an asset - but they cannot fly far or in many types of weather.
Defend the North in a hurry - YOU NEED JUMPERS.
Until teleporters have a NSN the Airborne has a riole despite the naysayer's
Supplies can be LAPES'd or door/ramp bundled onto the DZ..
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Of course there is also the issue that helos cost millions, as do their crews, require forward operating bases, and, perhaps most importantly, the ones we own are pretty useless in terms of capabilities.
The limited range of helos, and their susceptability to ground fire is also an issue.
Even if we used every gryphon in Canada, we could'nt insert a Bn anywhere out side Canada.
Other than that, they are a great idea.
No one is advocating that we start jumping into every mission every time. But parachuting remains a useful tool that could have a place in modern warfare.
In addition to this, mountaineering is only as hard as you make it, and I have yet, in 9 years of mountaineering seen an event to test a soldier's fitness and bravery like a full kit, double door mass exit at the beginning of a 2 week exercise.
The limited range of helos, and their susceptability to ground fire is also an issue.
Even if we used every gryphon in Canada, we could'nt insert a Bn anywhere out side Canada.
Other than that, they are a great idea.
No one is advocating that we start jumping into every mission every time. But parachuting remains a useful tool that could have a place in modern warfare.
In addition to this, mountaineering is only as hard as you make it, and I have yet, in 9 years of mountaineering seen an event to test a soldier's fitness and bravery like a full kit, double door mass exit at the beginning of a 2 week exercise.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
If CF wants to be able to insert small patrols by free fall fine, but no US mass jump op has been necessary or even wise since at least early Viet Nam. The US does them because they can get away with it not because it's necessary. The French have a different situation in their old colonies...one that we don't have.
Defend the north? It was war gamed extensively. Parachuting into the high north didn't make sense against the Soviets and who else is left?
Mountaineering versus parachuting. I guess it's a matter of taste, but I think mountaineering is more difficult and dangerous.
The difficulty of airborne ops has always been the logistics side and air crew training more than the actual parachuting. For a Canadian airborne unit to make sense you have to invent missions that:
a. we have never done
b. are in a strategic vacuum and
c. are in a political vacuum.
Sure a para bn could be useful if we were going to seize an airfield in West Africa but we always work with allies and a simpler way of achieving the same thing would be for the local MEU to take it from the sea. Almost all para strategic missions i.e. "rescue the foreigners from rioters in Central Africa" require a level of ruthlessness the Canadian government doesn't have. Even if the government did decide to invade (!) Gambia the CF shows no inclination to maintain forces at the high readiness required to pull it off. Finally we (like almost all the rest of the world) lack the airlift required for a strategic bn drop and follow up.
The Griffon is a crummy helicopter and airmobile ops would be better served with a good medium lift copter. Let's lease some now and stop wasting effort trying to resurrect the airborne regiment.
Defend the north? It was war gamed extensively. Parachuting into the high north didn't make sense against the Soviets and who else is left?
Mountaineering versus parachuting. I guess it's a matter of taste, but I think mountaineering is more difficult and dangerous.
The difficulty of airborne ops has always been the logistics side and air crew training more than the actual parachuting. For a Canadian airborne unit to make sense you have to invent missions that:
a. we have never done
b. are in a strategic vacuum and
c. are in a political vacuum.
Sure a para bn could be useful if we were going to seize an airfield in West Africa but we always work with allies and a simpler way of achieving the same thing would be for the local MEU to take it from the sea. Almost all para strategic missions i.e. "rescue the foreigners from rioters in Central Africa" require a level of ruthlessness the Canadian government doesn't have. Even if the government did decide to invade (!) Gambia the CF shows no inclination to maintain forces at the high readiness required to pull it off. Finally we (like almost all the rest of the world) lack the airlift required for a strategic bn drop and follow up.
The Griffon is a crummy helicopter and airmobile ops would be better served with a good medium lift copter. Let's lease some now and stop wasting effort trying to resurrect the airborne regiment.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Lest you forget,
Your last line Michael was the answer to all of the problems mentioned above. The Airborne was airmobile capable, a quick reaction unit, and had the ruthlessness required to undertake such a mission as you concieved.
In reference to your point about "a mission we have never done before" you're right. Let's never do anything new, it would just be too hard.
Defence of the north?
1 Denmark raising the flag on our soil in 2004.
2 The northwest passage being free of ice year round in less than a decade, and subject to foreign shipping.
3 Canada has never - in our 138 glorious years undertaken a unilateral mission in another nation, and no event happens in a strategic or political vacuum anyway, which makes parachuting even more valuable. Joint ops anyone?
As to asking the "local MEU" to perform our national obligation - why not - we can contract out coastal defence to KBR at the same time. :
The three goals of any nation's foreign policy are to increase power, presitge and influence. By maintaining the capability to insert 130 hard chargers where and when we need them, we can send message, even if they are extracted by truck.
Your last line Michael was the answer to all of the problems mentioned above. The Airborne was airmobile capable, a quick reaction unit, and had the ruthlessness required to undertake such a mission as you concieved.
In reference to your point about "a mission we have never done before" you're right. Let's never do anything new, it would just be too hard.
Defence of the north?
1 Denmark raising the flag on our soil in 2004.
2 The northwest passage being free of ice year round in less than a decade, and subject to foreign shipping.
3 Canada has never - in our 138 glorious years undertaken a unilateral mission in another nation, and no event happens in a strategic or political vacuum anyway, which makes parachuting even more valuable. Joint ops anyone?
As to asking the "local MEU" to perform our national obligation - why not - we can contract out coastal defence to KBR at the same time. :
The three goals of any nation's foreign policy are to increase power, presitge and influence. By maintaining the capability to insert 130 hard chargers where and when we need them, we can send message, even if they are extracted by truck.
mdh
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Michael,
This topic is out of my lane but I've found it a pretty fascinating. I read Capt. Rickard's article and thought that it was trying to shoe-horn a rather traditional concept of airborne ops into what is essentially a Special Forces role.
I don't know what other guys who have actually experieced airborne ops think, but the notion that you can achieve an airborne response against an insurgent target within 24 hours sounds ambitious. (The level of organization and coordination would have to be phenomenal.)
Moreover I thought Rickard's using Dien Bien Phu as a vindication of the soundness of airborne ops was odd. Although he may have been referring to a specific raid, the use of airborne forces to bring the Viet Minh to a decisive battle was undermined by all the usual reasons airborne forces often fail - too isolated, too light, and eventually cut off from supply - the battle was lost - (and ironically the use of airborne was indeed decisive - for the Viet Minh.)
In the final analysis I thought Rickard was left - when you scratch the surface - arguing for what is essentially an SF role for parachute troops.
Any one else have thoughts on this?
Cheers, mdh
- Reaction score
- 22,450
- Points
- 1,260
I do not want to be a dick and use the L word here - but Michael you seem to have a pathological hatred of an Airborne capacity.
GO!!! gave a good consise disertation as to why we NEED it and you seem to be offering half assed excuses as to why not...
Furthermore like GO!!! I am rather disgusted by your attempt to hand off our tasks onto others, I guess your not an awe inspiring Canadian Nationalist? I for one think Canadians have the right to expect that WE as CF members will put it on the line to ensure their safety.
IF we where required to do a NEO mission paratroops may be require to seize and hold an airfield - perhaps as part of a larger International Mission - but it is one Canadian soldiers have trained for and are quite capable of executing.
Secondly that MEU that you mention - what happens if it outside the Range of a SeaKnight? (Labrador) which is only 132 NM to which you have to deduct the distance the BattleGroup is offshore.
We could always enplane in US A/C and use them as a means of delivery - circa Dragon Rouge which the Belgian Para's did in the Congo. It is a valuable asset that WE should maintain.
You missed the whole rationale for the 173rd's jump into Kirkuk, Iraq - the kurds would not have fought Sadam w/o US troops on the ground beside them. I guess you still be shutteling them in via Griffon? "2 more on the next lift" :
Plus everyone knows Paratroopers are inherently better people; both lovers and fighters ;D
GO!!! gave a good consise disertation as to why we NEED it and you seem to be offering half assed excuses as to why not...
Furthermore like GO!!! I am rather disgusted by your attempt to hand off our tasks onto others, I guess your not an awe inspiring Canadian Nationalist? I for one think Canadians have the right to expect that WE as CF members will put it on the line to ensure their safety.
IF we where required to do a NEO mission paratroops may be require to seize and hold an airfield - perhaps as part of a larger International Mission - but it is one Canadian soldiers have trained for and are quite capable of executing.
Secondly that MEU that you mention - what happens if it outside the Range of a SeaKnight? (Labrador) which is only 132 NM to which you have to deduct the distance the BattleGroup is offshore.
We could always enplane in US A/C and use them as a means of delivery - circa Dragon Rouge which the Belgian Para's did in the Congo. It is a valuable asset that WE should maintain.
You missed the whole rationale for the 173rd's jump into Kirkuk, Iraq - the kurds would not have fought Sadam w/o US troops on the ground beside them. I guess you still be shutteling them in via Griffon? "2 more on the next lift" :
Plus everyone knows Paratroopers are inherently better people; both lovers and fighters ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
the Yanks and Brits do it. Look at the the 82nd and Haiti a few years back. Entire Division wheels up, stood up, hooked up, and waitin' on a green within 24 hrs.mdh said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
What the Yanks do is not relevant. What ex colonial powers do isn't relevant. Our government has decided not to field all purpose combat capable forces. It doesn't want to spend the money. It doesn't want to send troops into unknown danger. Can it get more unknown than a hastily prepared 8,000 mile flight followed by a parachute jump? Can anyone imagine a Canadian government sanctioning a strategic airborne operation?
The jumpers are the least worrying part of an airborne operation. The key is trained airlift in sufficient quantities to make the operation feasible. Forgetting fanciful talk of defeating the mighty Danes in the north, what would a battalion drop into Africa take? How long do you have to plan and stage the operation? How many C130s for a battalions worth of troops and combat supplies? For how many days? What kind and how many vehicles do you take? What happens when you can't make a runway safe for airlanding because it's under indirect fire or AAA fire.
Those are just some of the problems before you get to the cost of aircraft, aircrew and maintenance, political and legal questions.
The jumpers are the least worrying part of an airborne operation. The key is trained airlift in sufficient quantities to make the operation feasible. Forgetting fanciful talk of defeating the mighty Danes in the north, what would a battalion drop into Africa take? How long do you have to plan and stage the operation? How many C130s for a battalions worth of troops and combat supplies? For how many days? What kind and how many vehicles do you take? What happens when you can't make a runway safe for airlanding because it's under indirect fire or AAA fire.
Those are just some of the problems before you get to the cost of aircraft, aircrew and maintenance, political and legal questions.
- Reaction score
- 22,450
- Points
- 1,260
:
Michael - I take it back your not an Airborne hater - your a CF hater. Just because we have not yet done some tasks does not mean we should give up that capability. You seem to be pushing for compete dismantling/ of the CF and outsourcing it.
Herc are rough field capable - so as long as the airfield seizure goes I doubt the NEO tasking scenario is going to invovle anyone with the capability to seriously crater the runway, you cannot ignore missions in search of the perfect zero risk one - you just cannot. With your North African mission - figure 64 paratroopers per chalk. Basically three per company with some supplies - make it four with 48hrs rats POL and ammo (it been a long time since I gave some serious thought to this option)
SO 12 HERC for 3 rifle companies - In my "worst case NEO task" a company would seize an airfield - semi permissive. Another compnay would secure the perimeter and the other coy would deploy to the main concentration of non combantants we where evac'ing with Assaulter elemets for the surgical doorkicking. Once the airfield was secured a road patry could be dispatch via HErc landing conventionally and offloading Gwagons/ ML ' s and SOC Hummers. Ideally for that we would borow (since we are not in a vacum right) C17's from the US AF (and then LAVIII's could be used for a less permissive environement). The road convoy would run to the assemble point and retrieve the non combatants with the LI-SOC group fighting a rear guard if necessary or being pulled at the same time.
IF we had C-130J-30's the lift requirement would be reduced to 3 Hers / coy with supplies.
IF it took longer Herc's running from Italy could easily make the trip 2x a day IF NEC for medevac and more supplies/vehicles.
If we had to bug out in a hurry we could always torch the vechiles on the airfield and scram (people are worth more than kit).
Michael - I take it back your not an Airborne hater - your a CF hater. Just because we have not yet done some tasks does not mean we should give up that capability. You seem to be pushing for compete dismantling/ of the CF and outsourcing it.
Herc are rough field capable - so as long as the airfield seizure goes I doubt the NEO tasking scenario is going to invovle anyone with the capability to seriously crater the runway, you cannot ignore missions in search of the perfect zero risk one - you just cannot. With your North African mission - figure 64 paratroopers per chalk. Basically three per company with some supplies - make it four with 48hrs rats POL and ammo (it been a long time since I gave some serious thought to this option)
SO 12 HERC for 3 rifle companies - In my "worst case NEO task" a company would seize an airfield - semi permissive. Another compnay would secure the perimeter and the other coy would deploy to the main concentration of non combantants we where evac'ing with Assaulter elemets for the surgical doorkicking. Once the airfield was secured a road patry could be dispatch via HErc landing conventionally and offloading Gwagons/ ML ' s and SOC Hummers. Ideally for that we would borow (since we are not in a vacum right) C17's from the US AF (and then LAVIII's could be used for a less permissive environement). The road convoy would run to the assemble point and retrieve the non combatants with the LI-SOC group fighting a rear guard if necessary or being pulled at the same time.
IF we had C-130J-30's the lift requirement would be reduced to 3 Hers / coy with supplies.
IF it took longer Herc's running from Italy could easily make the trip 2x a day IF NEC for medevac and more supplies/vehicles.
If we had to bug out in a hurry we could always torch the vechiles on the airfield and scram (people are worth more than kit).
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Considering getting around inside Canada requires transporting elements for distances that most other nations consider strategic, the idea of an Airborne/Airtransportable/Airmobile force makes a huge amount off sense. Forgetting about the high arctic, Gambia or Lower Volta for a moment; how long would it take for the CF to deploy troops from Pet to Windsor in response to a major terrorist event? Responding to anything in Saskatchewan or Manitoba is pretty problematic, since troops are so thin on the ground, and should a major earthquake hit the West Coast, driving 1 Brigade through the rockies would be a bit of a problem.
If you want to provide forces to respond in a hurry, air transport is the only way to go. Military commanders and theorists through the ages have always known that speed can be more important than mass (Bedford Nathan Forrest getting there "Firstest with the Mostest", M.N Tukhachevskii's Deep Battle or Liddel-Hart's "Tank Marines" for examples at different scales and eras). In fact, if you want to be flexible, you need to augment the "1rst Canadian Parachute Battalion" with airborne engineers (minimum), and start adding support capabilities as well (a real "Airborn Battlegroup) to be able to deal with the many and varies problems commanders would face in "home Defense" and "DomOPs" situations. Once we are able to do that, the same skills and capabilities also become available for "expeditionary" work
If you want to provide forces to respond in a hurry, air transport is the only way to go. Military commanders and theorists through the ages have always known that speed can be more important than mass (Bedford Nathan Forrest getting there "Firstest with the Mostest", M.N Tukhachevskii's Deep Battle or Liddel-Hart's "Tank Marines" for examples at different scales and eras). In fact, if you want to be flexible, you need to augment the "1rst Canadian Parachute Battalion" with airborne engineers (minimum), and start adding support capabilities as well (a real "Airborn Battlegroup) to be able to deal with the many and varies problems commanders would face in "home Defense" and "DomOPs" situations. Once we are able to do that, the same skills and capabilities also become available for "expeditionary" work
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I give up. You guys are right. We definitely need an airborne capability to hold off the Danes, save Saskatchewan from terrorists and rescue people in Africa, if the US will lend us the planes and don't just go ahead and rescue the foreigners instead of waiting for the Canadians to show up.
- Reaction score
- 6,851
- Points
- 1,360
Seems to me he only has problems,.....no solutions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Not that I disagree with you guys on this, but I see Michaels point (I think). Maybe we should try to get what we have already down solid before expanding (back) into areas that are going to cost quite a bit in support and organization. Much like the Tanks, we're not going to be seeing the airborne ability back in any big way for some time. Mores the shame.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The subject has been 'beat to death', but here we go. We have a public that is almost totally apathetic to the military, as well so morally bankrupt that they can't even find the courage to get rid of a corrupt third world government.
Com'on people face REALITY, when the CAR was disbanded that was the proverbial 'beginning of the end'. The last real vestage of what had been a real 'kick a** ' Army was done. It's gone; it's not coming back!! The Liberanos will do anything to keep control. They would make Islam the state religion if they have to.
The next election is going to be the most critical in Canadian history. If the Libs aren't tossed.........?? I was talking to our MP today and he says that he doubts if they (Conservatives) will win.
Com'on people face REALITY, when the CAR was disbanded that was the proverbial 'beginning of the end'. The last real vestage of what had been a real 'kick a** ' Army was done. It's gone; it's not coming back!! The Liberanos will do anything to keep control. They would make Islam the state religion if they have to.
The next election is going to be the most critical in Canadian history. If the Libs aren't tossed.........?? I was talking to our MP today and he says that he doubts if they (Conservatives) will win.
- Reaction score
- 10,768
- Points
- 1,260
LF(CMO) said:
Are you sure about that? Judging from the comments of our American allies, we haven't been doing too bad in Afghanistan.
Why do people assume that the Canadian Army of today is a big sack of pussies because we don't have The Airborne Regiment/Tanks/insertyourcausehere?
Similar threads
