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

[Jungle]

It means we will avoid carrying out Airborne "assaults" like in WWII. We will insert Paras where the local threat is low. This is what the Rangers did on the Kandahar airfield in Oct 2001, and the 173rd ABN BDE in northern Iraq, or the Marines in Somalia.
Obviously the use of ISTAR will be required before a tactical op, like an airmobile insertion, or the insertion of Pathfinders before a strategic para-drop.
Permissive means the threat level is low (or acceptable) in the insertion area. This is to avoid heavy losses while the Force is at it's most vulnarable stage of the deployment.

 

[a_majoor]

It means we will avoid carrying out Airborne "assaults" like in WWII. We will insert Paras where the local threat is low. This is what the Rangers did on the Kandahar airfield in Oct 2001, and the 173rd ABN BDE in northern Iraq, or the Marines in Somalia.
Obviously the use of ISTAR will be required before a tactical op, like an airmobile insertion, or the insertion of Pathfinders before a strategic para-drop.
Permissive means the threat level is low (or acceptable) in the insertion area. This is to avoid heavy losses while the Force is at it's most vulnarable stage of the deployment.

In the perfect world, that is exactly what we want (think of Market-Garden), but enemies are hard at work developing technologies and techniques to defeat ISTAR and similar (think of Market-Garden).

Whatever the notional situation is, our troops still must be prepared for the worst. When the fire department drives out to answer a call, the firefighters bring their truck and are all suited up. What may have been a small incident when it was called in might have escalated during the drive from the station. This will be important as the reach of expeditionary forces increases.

In the book "The Ingenuity Gap", the author notes a US exercise in the late 1990s where about 500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division were flown non stop from Georgia to Khazastan to jump into an exercise, the longest such jump in history. If a battalion is dispatched from North America to intervene half way around the world, the local situation might change for the worse during the flight, or even the final run in. That battalion might also be stuck there for a long time waiting for relief or ressuply, so they need to be able to engage in full spectrum (or "third block") operations just as a mater of principle.

 

[Jungle]

500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division were flown non stop from Georgia to Khazastan to jump into an exercise, the longest such jump in history.

What's so special about that ? Aren't these two republics neighbours ??

OK, couldn't resist !!! 

A force deployed by airdrop would never go without a Recce element in place (pathfinders). The Airborne Force Commander is in contact with the Recce element, and the aircraft captain is in contact with the DZ controller. So the chances of a big surprise are reduced.
I don't think it says anywhere in the document that the Light Force will not be equipped for the full spectrum of ops, I think what it says is that it will not be intentionnally dropped directly over an enemy position.

 

[Zipper]

It still leaves me wondering what the hell the difference between parachute dropped troops and Airborne is?

While the article indicated a move in a direction we have discussed on this board for some time (light forces). It still left me with some reservations as to just what those light units will be expected to do (besides backing up JTF2 all the time)? How do they fit into the greater scheme of being able to be deployed in a sustainable manner into the missions we have seen to date? Are they going to unify the light battalions under a single command (bring back the CAR?)? Or leave them spread across the country to make it look like everyone is sharing the fun?

What happens to the other 6 battalions? And are the emasculated armoured and arty units going to find a sustainable place in all this?

And yet another question. Now that the foreign policy review has been unveiled, I have either missed it entirely or, has the defense policy review come out yet?

 

[pbi]

I think a few of us are going overboard here. The "Light Force" hoopla appears to refer to the Light Task Force role that will be an ongoing part of the Army Managed Readiness program, with a single TF based on a LIB, available at any time to deploy as a Strategic Reserve or for "pop-up" missions. To assume that all three LIBs would be available at once would be to kick the AMR model in the ditch, for several reasons but not least because a TF consists of more than just "bayonets"; and, as usual, one of our crucial limiting factors for force generation will continue to be our very small number of CSS who are field deployable, especially in vital MOCs such as the EME 400 series (wpn techs, veh techs, FCS techs) without whom no modern unit can function for more than a day or so.

As for Matt's concern about delivery by parachute: I would not worry too much about that. IIRC, the Israelis long ago converted most   of their Para Bdes to air assault, in recognition of the fact that an opposed para drop today, in the face of SA-7s (and HN5, etc) ZSU 23-4, Coyotes and LAV-IIIS with 25mm chain guns,etc is probably suicidal. The best and most successful para drop would likely be to put the paras wherever the enemy is NOT.

The CLS stated pretty clearly in the last Army Op Plan (available to any DIN user) that he is accepting risk in not funding infrastructure, and the standing DND policy is to reduce infrastructure ownership as much as possible, or at least by 10%. Because of that, I would be very surprised to see any new base being constructed to house this "Light Force".

But, of course, we live in interesting times and all things may change: I stand to be corrected.

Cheers.

 

[FSTO]

Comment from an outsider here (From the Sea?). If the current party stays in power we will never see the name Airborne again. If the Conservatives get in we may see Airborne again just to poke ole' Chretian in the eye.

On a more serious not, the lack of Air Mobility is a huge concern, a rapid reaction force is pretty useless if it can't get anywhere quickly (DART? anyone). So unless we address our air transport question, this is all moot.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It still leaves me wondering what the hell the difference between parachute dropped troops and Airborne is?

The same difference between FIBUA and OBUA. Someone doesn't like the way one sounds so they change it.

 

[LawnDart]

we are for all practical purposes a light force, albeit an immobile one due to a lack of tpt.

Great line TC. Couldn't have said it better myself!

I've been criticized for not having anything positive to say on this site. Well, I guess I do now, sort of.

I would be willing to bet that this is the brainchild of Gen Hillier. And I think he really wants to do it. I also think it's a great idea and a total necessity. If we are going to maintain an army that can operate with our historic partners (UK, US, Aus) then we should have units that are compatible with them. The Brits have Paras and Marines, American's Rangers, and Aussies both an Airborne Battalion and Commando Battalion (3,4 RAR respectively).

One of the reasons this came about was from the operations in Afghanistan in 02, when we didn't have a medium intensity level, light unit, that was capable of supporting JTF2 operations to the level required. That capability hasn't existed in the CF since Feb 5th, 1995, as I'm sure all are aware.

So finally, the need has been recognized, and I think the CF can thank General Hillier for that.

What I'm skeptical about is how it will be implemented. I think it would take someone with the powers of Jesus Christ to overcome the Regimental rivalries, petty bickering, language politics, bureaucracy and anti-elitism that is a staple of the CF. And that will be a necessity to get the unit up and running. When you factor in the Airlift and infrastructure requirements the project will call for well...... That takes bucks, and they are always in short supply in our military.

I give the guy credit. He's trying, and it's been a long time since we had a top leader who appeared willing to do that.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Would the practical solution be to transfer all the light bn troopies into a new unit then? Would the troops go for that?

 

[LawnDart]

Anyway let us not revive the Airborne Regiment or 1 Can Para; no cap badge wars with the attendant angst â “ let us assign the jump role to one battalion.   Maybe others can rotate through the job (and the station) every five years or so, like we did in Germany in the '50s and '60s.

The problem with that Ed is that;

1: The calibre of personal in the average infantry battalion isn't up to the level required for a high speed, medium level rapid response, Airborne battalion. The personnel requirements would make it impractical to rotate them.

2: The Regimental rivalries would render any attempt to pick one particular Regiment as the parent unit for "Canada's Elite Force" impossible. You couldn't just make the Van Doos or Pats the only regiment to provide that type of training for it's members. Number one, the recruiting pool would be too small, ensuring a lower quality soldier, and number two, it would affect the morale of the Regiments not picked to service the tasking.

 

[TCBF]

Mr. Campbell's idea of rotating the parachute role from bn to bn is a proven one, and it worked in the MSF/DoC Force concept in the 1950s.  We actually had the equivalent of a parachute bde then, truly the halcyon days of military parachuting.

I remember a Weekend Magazine or Star Weekly story in the late 1960s where the same issues were raised. I think it was called "Here Come The Marines (That's the Canadian Marines to you, Buddy)" or some such.  The end of that process was the Cdn AB Regt in 1968 - a logical choice..

FM Slim, I think, said something to the effect of not needing special units, only special training.

Times have changed.  Be interesting to se the results

 

[Infanteer]

Just a question that may or may not be related to the issue - has anyone worked with 4 RAR?  I would imagine that our new fancy unit would be similar to them, so how do the Aussies do it.

How do our Light Battalions stack up with 4 RAR (in other words, how much of a "capability gap" do we have to make up in implementing this)?

 

[kj_gully]

As an old paratrooper, I would love to see the rebirth of the regiment. However, Gen Hillier seems intent on building a Marine Corps. I think you should be looking to the sea for your next elite force, Marine recon, SBS or what ever. Check out my post in the "how does disbandment of the CAR affect trg..etc" or something like that, its in the Combat Arms forum, just a couple down from this one.

 

[kj_gully]

In case you think I'm just guessing the CDS mind.. here's a link
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/main/toc_e.asp
, sorry, not literate enough to make it "hot"

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

mobility of light inf BN is a big prior for the CLS

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

which I am indirectly implying is probably a capability gap.

 

[a_majoor]

A force deployed by airdrop would never go without a Recce element in place (pathfinders). The Airborne Force Commander is in contact with the Recce element, and the aircraft captain is in contact with the DZ controller. So the chances of a big surprise are reduced.

I certainly hope so, but in the context of a fast moving operation (say some sort of crisis intervention), the time to put pathfinders in place (or fly in Global Hawk UAVs to provide coverage) would be very limited, and the appearence of planes bringing in the Pathfinders would certainly tip off the "bad guys" as to what may happen next. This is like 3D chess where the right combination of moves is difficult to forcast.

The idea of avoiding "hot" DZs makes sense from a limited perspective, you don't want the force chewed up like the British Paras at "Market Garden or the French Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu, but on the other hand, dropping them into a "cold" LZ and having them do a long "tab" to the AOR negates the entire idea of airborn/airmobile forces: their ability to arrive on the ground quickly. (I am not advocating dropping into a hot LZ BTW, rather I am pointing out the idea we can entirely avoid doing so is very questionable at best.)

 

[c4th]

DND Minister should simply reinstate the famed Canadian Airborne Regiment,

Unfortunately and realistically it will never happen.  Now, what would be interesting is once again raising '1 Can Para Bn' and adding a 2nd and 3rd Bn.  It would give those 5,000 new troops somewhere to go.

 

[TCBF]

Yup.   But, we already have 5,000 holes in the units and formations we have now, should we keep them as hollow entities as we knit a new formation?  

We have to fund the trg centres before we hire the 5,000.   What's our funded intake next year for infantry?   Barely to replacement level, I bet.

"Vision without funding is insanity."

 

[Jungle]

When they talk about parachute ops, I believe they mean something like the 173rd ABN BDE did in northern Iraq: secure an Air Point Of Entry (APOE) for a larger force to be airlanded. I know WE don't own the aircraft at this moment, but we are talking coalition ops right ?
This is probably the same thing they see for our future amphibious capabilities: to be able to send troops in to secure a Sea POE for a larger follow-on force. I don't see us doing amphibious assaults on defended coastlines anymore.
I am convinced in a full blown war things would change, and the risk analysis would be much different; but in today's low-to-med intensity ops, the Light Force will be very useful, not only in Para-related ops.