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

[UnwiseCritic]

There we go those are the right questions. Alas I don't think I am qualified to answer those questions.

 

[IRepoCans]

The Engr Para Sect in 1 CER has been asking similar questions about its own sustainability.  When you consider individual tasks and career courses, how many guys need to be in the FG base so that a functional organization is available for collective training?  Is that size sufficient to ensure availability of pers for potential FE?

Before addressing either the engr or the pathfinder question, the first answer one needs is what the Army really wants in a parachute capability.  If we are serious about having such an ability, should it maybe be concentrated in a single location as opposed to being spread about the country in different sub units, sub-sub-sub units, and individuals?

Now I'm just going off a whim here and I don't think I'm qualified to make a statement but it seems your suggesting something similar to the British Army's 16th Air Assault Brigade. 16th AAB holds three of the four parachute battalions, and the air assault elements from other regiments/battalions, whilst 1st Para is under UKSF-SG.

 

[McG]

I was thinking more of a Canadian model that was developed in the '60s.

 

[cupper]

efore addressing either the engr or the pathfinder question, the first answer one needs is what the Army really wants in a parachute capability.  If we are serious about having such an ability, should it maybe be concentrated in a single location as opposed to being spread about the country in different sub units, sub-sub-sub units, and individuals?

So we need to look at what capabilities we want in our land forces, and if the answer includes some form of cohesive airborne capability is included, how do we want that capability to look like.

If that is so, do we want to look at standing up the Airborne Regiment again? Or create a new unit where the members are dedicated specifically to taht unit and not posted in and our on a rotational basis from other units? Or do we go with the current model where sub-units within each regiment are tasked as airborne capable?

 

[McG]

If it is "Airborne Regiment" or "Parachute Battalion" is really just cosmetic distinction.  The capability requirement and derived structure are what need to be determined.

… and if the requirement is found not to exist, then why are we investing in the current system?

 

[IRepoCans]

I was thinking more of a Canadian model that was developed in the '60s.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I was thinking more of a Canadian model that was developed in the '60s.

Care to elaborate?

CAR

 

[UnwiseCritic]

"and if the requirement is found not to exist, then why are we investing in the current system?"

My sentiment exactly. It's time to start asking the hard questions. And stop just accepting what is or was and look at the future on the CF as a whole. With the para question as one of the few.

If were going to do something we should do it right and not half-@$$ it.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

If were going to do something we should do it right and not half-@$$ it.

Well that is not the Canadian way.....  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

 
I don't think we have enough people in the infantry to draw upon for a sustainable parachute battalion. 

The capability could be given solely to CSOR. 

 

[PuckChaser]

 
I don't think we have enough people in the infantry to draw upon for a sustainable parachute battalion. 

The capability could be given solely to CSOR.

Absolutely makes sense given its proximity to Trenton and the Chinook Sqn.

 

[McG]

This brings us to an often repeated topic here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22233.0.html

 

[brihard]

Future reference for people on these forums. Don't play like a politician and try to discredit the person instead of discrediting the idea. It seems to happen on most of these threads. Even stupid people will have a good idea from time to time.

Or, alternatively, don't make pronouncements outside your arcs and way above your pay grade when you then immediately evidence a lack of necessary knowledge about the organizations you're speaking of to qualify your opinion. People are not 'attacking' you, they're saying that you obviously lack knowledge on certain matters. There's a distinction.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

I don't feel 'attacked'  and yes my having little experience may not qualify my opinion or should I say idea. But does that really matter? I see that as addressing me instead of the proposed idea. Which to me shows lack of intelligence or general laziness to really get into the nitty-gritty of the idea.

As for comments being outside of the pay grade. It happens all the time. Almost every time in an aar. Lots of times it's for the better. And when someone does have a bad comment/opinion etc they are never told "hey that's above your pay grade". They explain why and address the opinion. Unless the person running the aar are lacking in the brains department.

 

[brihard]

I don't feel 'attacked'  and yes my having little experience may not qualify my opinion or should I say idea. But does that really matter? I see that as addressing me instead of the proposed idea. Which to me shows lack of intelligence or general laziness to really get into the nitty-gritty of the idea.

As for comments being outside of the pay grade. It happens all the time. Almost every time in an aar. Lots of times it's for the better. And when someone does have a bad comment/opinion etc they are never told "hey that's above your pay grade". They explain why and address the opinion. Unless the person running the aar are lacking in the brains department.

I was not addressing the ideas, however- rather I (and others previously) take issue with you making normative statements that are patently incorrect, and which underlie the rest of what you're saying.

The lesson you need to learn here is not to wind your neck in and only talk about things at a Pte level, because that's not what we expect and few of us find anything wrong with talking about '(much) bigger picture'- but when you want to talk about how battalions are configured, the onus is on you to do your research, because you won't be coddled when it becomes evident that you haven't acknowledged your own limited set of knowledge and expanded it accordingly in preparation for the things you're going to create a post about.

 

[McG]

Take it to PMs

 

[Infanteer]

The Australian Army, having divested their para capbility to the SOF, are asking the same questions in the latest volume of the Australian Army Journal.

 

[brihard]

Take it to PMs

Fair enough; I'm done.

 

[ArmyRick]

Personally, I think getting all ramped up about a parachute capability at battalion level is not worth it. I agree that parachuting (in all its forms) is probably best left to special operations in this day and age.

I think a more realistic marine capability with amphibious, helicopter and mountain capabilities is a better investment. Absolutely having diver and free fall qualified pathfinder element would be a nice but given fiscal restraints we are facing, its all a pipe dream.

My bottom line, there is higher priorities than developing the battalion parachute capability.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Personally, I think getting all ramped up about a parachute capability at battalion level is not worth it. I agree that parachuting (in all its forms) is probably best left to special operations in this day and age.

I think a more realistic marine capability with amphibious, helicopter and mountain capabilities is a better investment. Absolutely having diver and free fall qualified pathfinder element would be a nice but given fiscal restraints we are facing, its all a pipe dream.

My bottom line, there is higher priorities than developing the battalion parachute capability.

The main reason that militaries from countries like Britain and France have a parachute capable force is for 'Out of NATO Area' operations. This is a euphemism for 'golly bashing in our old colonies and other areas of economic/political interest'. Even then, they fight continuously to maintain the capability, which is very 'admin heavy' and challenging to practise effectively given the joint forces - at the highest levels - approach required for success.

Having said that, it's obviously a useful skill to maintain for a variety of reasons. Ramping up for an airborne exercise really isn't that hard given that all the component parts are trained to do their jobs. I've always thought that we could practise some sort of simple cycle whereby we do a BGp/Bde level airborne/airmobile ex every other year, and focus on indivdual skills development in between. A good scenario might be some kind of NEO Op, which other airborne units around the world also train for. We've got such an excellent infrastrucutre in Canada for practising these kinds of ops we might even set ourselves up as the 'Airborne/Mobile NEO Op Training Ground for the Free World', and host the equivalent of a Boy Scout Jamboree evey couple of years, or something like that.

It would be a nice niche skill to be known for.