Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)

[redleafjumper]

I believe it was Field Marshall Slim who said in his book Defeat into Victory words to the effect that specialists were unnecessary because they cost too much and expected special treatment, however he said that the one exception to this is paratroops. 

Slim also wrote that all infantry should have the opportunity to take parachute training as it builds esprit de corps, pride and trust. 
Paratroops tend to be can-do types who take pride in physical fitness and personal training skills. 

Being a jumper is much more that being someone who takes advantage of an expensive transportation system to go into battle.  Those who have jumped have conquered fear within themselves and not only that, they know that every other jumper has also conquered that fear.  That knowledge builds a very strong bond.  An incident many years ago brought this home to me personally.  I was coming home from a training course and my ride picked me up and told me that we are going to a garden party.  I said, no thanks, I want to get out of my greens, have a shower and read a book.  I got talked into it (hard to say no to mom!).  Well, there was an old gentleman at this party who came up to me and said in a slight accent, " I see you have jumped.  May I ask how many times?"  I responded that I had only seven jumps from the CF basic parachutist course.  He said "That is more than me.  I have only 5 - 2 training jumps, with Model in Holland at the start of the war, Crete, and when our Junkers was shot down by a P-38 in Czechoslovakia!"  Needless to say we had a grand chat and I was glad that I got to meet a member of the airborne brotherhood who had served in some amazing operations and through some of the toughest fighting in the war.  It was time much better spent than reading any book.  The point is we bonded instantly and it was much beyond something to chat about.  I could see the look on his face as he relived his experiences as a fallschirmjaeger all those years ago. 

Does Canada need paratroops?  It is a long thread and it has been said before but as long as we have an army we need paratroops, or something very like them.

 

[McG]

Our government has decided not to field all purpose combat capable forces. It doesn't want to spend the money.

Have you read the new defence policy?

It doesn't want to send troops into unknown danger.

That must be why we have a PRT going to cuddly Kandahar.

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 ...

You sure are sarcastic in defeat.  What if we consider our recent NEO deployment to Haiti.  Do you think that paratroops might have been a decent asset had there not been a secure airhead?

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!!  

You could also do with a read through the new defence policy and the progress of the LFWG.  The 'kick a** ' army is here with 'kick a** ' leadership taking us in a bold new direction.

One thing that I feel is critical for our small army is that our airborne elements must be special operations capable.  We cannot afford to have pers filling separate Abn and Abn-SOC elements.  ... But, I don't imagine anyone in a position to influence things would consider a "non-SOC" Abn.

 

[Zipper]

You could also do with a read through the new defence policy and the progress of the LFWG.   The 'kick a** ' army is here with 'kick a** ' leadership taking us in a bold new direction.

Well to play devils advocate on this statement. But...

  ...a defense policy is an "intention" to do something. It hasn't happened yet, and we can only hope they stick to it. But like they've stuck to any in the past?

Kick ass army is here? Where? Ok, I'm game. Have we solved all the problems over night?? Lets say that we're a kick ass army with what little we've got, just like we were yesterday and the last 50 years or so.

Kick ass leadership? Ok again, where? Hillier? One man with good intentions has finally made it to the top position. Great. Lets support him, but not hold our breath. To much history of disappointment to finally go running in the streets cheering. If he manages to get the policy all the way through and it all comes true, I'll be the first in the streets. Maybe even naked. ;D

 

[Michael Shannon]

Kandahar Air Base. Unknown? The PRT will be at a major established US airbase with about a brigade guarding it. Coalition troops have been in the area for over three years. The PRT will be able to hide in the fort if things get overly dangerous. This hardly equates to the danger of a para jump onto an insecure airfield on 24-48 hours notice without ground or air support.

    The problem with the parachute solution to a problem is that they are always militarily unnecessary, politically unrealistic, logistically unsustainable or come out of desperation.  For the para option to be required you need the airhead to be insecure and the enemy to be pathetic, no ground or naval forces available, and the airmobile option impossible. Before that you need political will, legal authority and the aircraft to make the drop. The Hercs might make it to the area but what about CAS? Does a parachute or any operation have to be within fighter range? How about the weather? The enemy also have a major say in this. Can you drop the combat power needed to overcome the enemy?

    These are basic staff questions. Until they can be answered the para option will sit on the shelf, like it has for 60 years. Improved amphibious capability, better helicopters and aircraft like Osprey will make para ops less rather than more likely.

    Just to be clear. How many para bns should Canada have? If the answer is one what do you do with the other 3rd battalions? What do you mean by Special Operations Capable?  I get the feeling you mean patrolling or do you want the CF to develop unconventional warfare units?  We haven't fallen so far that the recce patrol has become "special ops", or have we?

     

 

[McG]

Kandahar Air Base. Unknown? The PRT will be at a major established US airbase with about a brigade guarding it. Coalition troops have been in the area for over three years. The PRT will be able to hide in the fort if things get overly dangerous. This hardly equates to the danger of a para jump onto an insecure airfield on 24-48 hours notice without ground or air support.

No.  The PRT will be by itself in town (just as the PRT that we are replacing).

 

[McG]

The problem with the parachute solution to a problem is that they are always militarily unnecessary, politically unrealistic, logistically unsustainable or come out of desperation.  For the para option to be required you need the airhead to be insecure and the enemy to be pathetic, no ground or naval forces available, and the airmobile option impossible. Before that you need political will, legal authority and the aircraft to make the drop. The Hercs might make it to the area but what about CAS? Does a parachute or any operation have to be within fighter range? How about the weather? The enemy also have a major say in this. Can you drop the combat power needed to overcome the enemy?

I see you are one that likes to situate the estimate.

These are basic staff questions. Until they can be answered the para option will sit on the shelf, like it has for 60 years. Improved amphibious capability, better helicopters and aircraft like Osprey will make para ops less rather than more likely.

The Osprey is not yet an option, and movement by sea for an amphibious approach is significantly slower than air movement.

What do you mean by Special Operations Capable? 

Think US Rangers.

 

[Jungle]

These are basic staff questions. Until they can be answered the para option will sit on the shelf, like it has for 60 years.

Follow this link: http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/paratrooper.htm
Scroll down the page, you will find a multitude of Airborne Ops that took place since WWII, like the Indonesian drops in East Timor in Dec 1975, the French 2-Battalion drop in the Congo in June 1997, or the dropping of 3000 troops by Russia in Chechnya in April 2000.
That's quite the shelf...

Note: it may be hard to reach the site linked above. Since I posted the link, they are experiencing bandwidth problems... Try in the morning if you have difficulty reaching it.

 

[buzgo]

We just got a bunch of info on JATF, I'm not going into details other than:

The org chart looks alot like the CAR;

JATF is a placeholder. They will have a 'proper' name shortly;

Looks like things will get rolling in 06 for the HQ and Coy leaders.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

ohhhh Rob's curious.

 

[Sapper6]

We just got a bunch of info on JATF, I'm not going into details other than:

The org chart looks alot like the CAR;

JATF is a placeholder. They will have a 'proper' name shortly;

Looks like things will get rolling in 06 for the HQ and Coy leaders.

The ORBAT I saw didn't look like the CAR at all.  With consideration for OPSEC, I will say that my take is that each Coy will have a specific role. More to follow if this becomes open source.

Heard the same thing about the JATF name.  Possibility of a name change in the months/years to come....heck, it didn't take them long to change SOG to CANSOFCOM.

S6.

 

[McG]

Word is that the JATF is now known as the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. 

 

[TCBF]

Well, if we are going to stick with the geographical names of our regiments, lets call it "The Yukon Regt".  That way, at least somebody can have 'Siberia" as a battle honour.
;D

Tom

 

[Sapper6]

Word is that the JATF is now known as the Canadian Special Operations Regiment.  

Yup, heard the same this week.

S6.

[....sitting in Ottawa, close to the heartbeat of CF Transformation (sic)...]

 

[silentbutdeadly]

Thats a way better name then the last one! Will make the guys have some pride ! If it wasn't for this tour i would love to be apart of this org.!

 

[Journeyman]

Having read through this thread, I just couldn't help but have deju vu flashbacks to several other recurring discussions, such as what colour berets the VP TOW troops posted with LdSH would be wearing. Maybe we should just create a standing thread addressing such critical fashion issues.

Mind you, my issued berets have been green, black, scarlet, maroon, UN blue (career attention deficit disorder; when bored, remuster  ) - -  personally, I'm just happy to have a fleece toque now, rather than that itchy wool thing!  ;D

 

[McG]

Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment [proposed by the Conservatives] would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.

I like what I heard tonight but was really curious about that point.  What does this promise mean for the army exactly?  I understand the CSOR will be a company from 3 RCR to begin with and will 'grow with the army' from there.  Would the new Airborne Regiment just be an amalgamation of the the airborne brigades?  If so, where is the advantage?  (Seriously ..I really wouldn't know.  Anyone?  Arguments for or against..?)  and what of the rest of the army ..the same but without jump battalions?

Joe,
We do not have airborne brigades or jump battalions.  We have three parachute companies (one in each of the light infantry battalions). 

 

[Joe Blow]

Thanks for the help MCG.  (Clearly I need some education about the proper organization of a regiment.)

As regards my question about the advantage of amalgamating the jump companies over the status quo ..and the wider implications for the army of having a CSOR and an Airborne Regiment  ..well, I'm going to read the thread.

 

[Infanteer]

(Clearly I need some education about the proper organization of a regiment.)

There is no "proper organization" for a Regiment in the Canadian Army - in the British tradition it is a "tribal affiliation".  Regiments are made up of battalions, all of which share the same customs and traditions.  Canada has, for the time being, settled on 3 battalions each for its regular Infantry Regiments; it used to be 1 or 2.  Australia has made all 6 (IIRC) of its infantry battalions part of the same Regiment, the RAR.  On a side note, Armoured units call their battalions "regiments", as do Engineers, but they are battalions for all intensive purposes.

Check out www.regiments.org for an explanation of the Commonwealth tradition behind the regimental system.

Now, if you go to the US or other, non-Commonwealth militaries, the Regiment is an actual field unit which is similar in size to a brigade.  The US Army has Armored Cavalry Regiments, the US Marine has Artillery and Marine (infantry) Regiments, and most former Eastern-Bloc countries use the Regiment as a form of organizing battalions.

 

[McG]

As regards my question about the advantage of amalgamating the jump companies over the status quo ..and the wider implications for the army of having a CSOR and an Airborne Regiment   ..well, I'm going to read the thread.

To revisit your question, you want to know if we need three parachute companies spread across the three light battalions, if we need three parachute companies grouped into one parachute battalion/regiment, or if we need a parachute brigade (three parachute battalions).  You also want to know if a special operations battalion/regiment should exist in addition to the parachute capability, or if the same unit should fill both rolls.  Does that sound about what you want to ask?

 

[UberCree]

I say this whole thread is moot if Hercs cannot fly in formation... which they cannot correct ???  Otherwise a 'para' or 'airborne' unit is an airborne unit in name only.