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

[Old Sweat]

I'm showing my age but I was on one of the last serials trained at Rivers that used the high tower in Shilo prior to J Stage. It was a ball with a very responsive chute and very, very soft well-cultivated ground to land on. You donned a chute which was deployed. It was then connected to a circular dome shaped frame and hoisted up one of the four arms of the tower, depending on wind direction. The figure of 256 feet or just about 80 metres rings a bell, but I ain't sure. There was a helluva view, even if there ain't a lot to look at in Shilo. Then the frame dropped you and you practiced flight procedures and landing while the para instructor gave you kind words of encouragement over his bull horn. It was a lot of fun.

Rumour has it that it was replaced with the Single Otter. I can't confirm that, but I did jump from an Otter a few times after I had my basic para. The interior of the cabin was cramped so the stick sat on the floor and bumped butts along it to the door. And yes, boys and girls, it took a verrrry long time for the canopy to deploy.

 

[cupper]

You're not falling; it's just really, really windy

.....as the earth moves in and becomes more focused beneath you.  :nod:

You're really just getting sucked into the Earth's gravity well.

Either that or your gravitational attraction is pulling the Earth closer to you.

:dunno:

 

[Loachman]

Either that or your gravitational attraction is pulling the Earth closer to you.

You BUGGER.

His ego is about the last one that needs any artificial inflation.

This is like a mental "wafer thin mint".

Quick, dive for cover. Forget the bucket.

 

[captloadie]

So, I`m going to go back to my original question about, in this day and age do we, as the CAF, still need an Airborne Assault capability? When was the last time conventional forces were dropped in an area of operations? Given our limited resources, is the CAF going to risk an airframe to drop paratroops, unless we have full air supremacy, in which case wouldn`t we just insert using rotary wing. Dropping equipment and resupply yes, but troops?

We keep bringing new capabilities online, but we never seem to make the decision on what to give up to do that. There is a discussion on littoral assault ships in another thread, but we can barely get by now with what we have. If we want to go that route, would Airborne assault be the sacrifice?

 

[Towards_the_gap]

So, I`m going to go back to my original question about, in this day and age do we, as the CAF, still need an Airborne Assault capability? When was the last time conventional forces were dropped in an area of operations? Given our limited resources, is the CAF going to risk an airframe to drop paratroops, unless we have full air supremacy, in which case wouldn`t we just insert using rotary wing. Dropping equipment and resupply yes, but troops?

We keep bringing new capabilities online, but we never seem to make the decision on what to give up to do that. There is a discussion on littoral assault ships in another thread, but we can barely get by now with what we have. If we want to go that route, would Airborne assault be the sacrifice?

I'll be that guy.... I'll go back down that rabbit hole (sorry George, but I will try and frame it in relation to engineers and airborne engineers specifically)

I know that an airborne insertion was at one time considered for an op in Afghanistan, somewhere between 2007-2009, but the limiting factor was not the airframes or the troops, but the 'chutes. Your normal grunt in afg weighed too much for the issue parachute and would lawn dart into the kandahari dust. Therefore it was ixnayed.

Saying that, my troop in 2010 did an 'airmobile crater group operation' where we inserted via chinhook and humped horrendously large rucksacks full of dems over and through grapefields, blowing great big holes in roads and tracks. Yes it's not a true Pegasus/ex coelis/ride of the valkries airborne operation, but my goodness it was certainly light role and certainly a gut checker. You say we keep 'bringing capabilities online' well yes sure, big hand small map wise yes DND buys all sorts of wonderful high tech wizardry. But as an anecdote, let me say this: for all the money poured into CIED technology, I still spent, as a combat engineer, most of my tours clearing trails and roads in a manner that could have come straight out of a WWII book, mine detector and prodder. And Mk I eyeball. Sure the mine detector was more high speed than before, but the techniques were the same. I think the same way about airborne capabilities, until they invent a tactical transporter a la Star Trek, I think it behooves the CF to retain a capability, even if it's on life support, so that, should the time come, it can be ramped up again to support wartime ops. 

 

[Journeyman]

Tangent (after all, I did point out to the Loadie officer that this is an Engineer thread...)

I know that an airborne insertion was at one time considered for an op in Afghanistan, somewhere between 2007-2009, but the limiting factor was not the airframes or the troops, but the 'chutes. Your normal grunt in afg weighed too much for the issue parachute and would lawn dart into the kandahari dust.

I'd love to see a source for that.

I just happened to be in Afghanistan for 10 months 2007-08 and pretty much in the loop with various groups' operations (I cared about deconflicting stuff).  I'm also pretty familiar working with Airborne Trials and Evaluations (including older memories of the weighted descent rate of a CT-1 parachute -- including factors like ASL weight factors).  I've heard neither end of your statement.

Seriously, if you could tell me where you got that, I'd be grateful.  :nod:

 

[PanaEng]

Maybe this should be in one of the other thread mentioned by Journeyman:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne-jumps.htm

the French also have done some in Africa as well as the Brits:
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/01/29/hitting-the-silk-15-airborne-operations-carried-out-since-world-war-two/

Some key features: destination is far from airhead (Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Mali) aircraft more efficient that helicopter insertion in these circumstances; element of surprise; pre-op security/OPSEC; securing Key terrain for follow on forces - these may be in helicopters or landing at a cleared or built airstrip at the OBJ or by wheels/tracks.

 

[cupper]

Wasn't there a significant drop by the 82nd Airborne sometime after the end of Desert Storm.

I recall watching a video I borrowed from someone who was there at the time. It was a compilation of footage of various things that occurred during the rotation he was on. It included among other things footage of a flyover of the highway of death, and a drop carried out by the 82nd Airborne in response to Saddam making gestures to the south again.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Tangent (after all, I did point out to the Loadie officer that this is an Engineer thread...)

I'd love to see a source for that.

I just happened to be in Afghanistan for 10 months 2007-08 and pretty much in the loop with various groups' operations (I cared about deconflicting stuff).  I'm also pretty familiar working with Airborne Trials and Evaluations (including older memories of the weighted descent rate of a CT-1 parachute -- including factors like ASL weight factors).  I've heard neither end of your statement.

Seriously, if you could tell me where you got that, I'd be grateful.  :nod:

JM - PM sent, but for the benefit of others, I'll say here that it was from a source that would have every reason to be credible....that being said, I should have qualified my initial comment with 'allegedly'

 

[ArmyRick]

Hay Maroon berets look awesome! Seriously, thats a tough question about keeping parachuting troops capability alive. I see the need for free fall parachuting for sure (CANSOFCOM, pathfinders, skyhawks who earn us PR points).

How about getting a company to the arctic in super quick time to conduct a tactical action? or assist in MAJAD? Seems like static line parachute is the fastest way to get there and the arctic has a whole of drop zone ish land scape.

Now your thoughts?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hay Maroon berets look awesome! Seriously, thats a tough question about keeping parachuting troops capability alive. I see the need for free fall parachuting for sure (CANSOFCOM, pathfinders, skyhawks who earn us PR points).

How about getting a company to the arctic in super quick time to conduct a tactical action? or assist in MAJAD? Seems like static line parachute is the fastest way to get there and the arctic has a whole of drop zone ish land scape.

Now your thoughts?

IMHO.....

As long as we keep sending Canadian civilians, and others, on 'mercy missions' into harm's way in an increasingly unstable world, we should retain the ability to deploy an independent airborne force, of at least a battle group size (inf, engr, arty, armd recce, sigs, med etc), on short notice (by C19/ C130) to rescue any of our nationals in danger of being turned into hamburger helper by machete wielding local cannibals etc.

To do otherwise, or to rely on others to do it for us, is national negligence of the highest order.

 

[medicineman]

...To do otherwise, or to rely on others to do it for us, is national negligence of the highest order.

This bunch will likely send in people in orange jumpsuits and matching berets to try spreading hope and joy instead of lead...and if they all get captured, hey they're already conveniently dressed for You Tube.

MM

 

[McG]

... we should retain the ability to deploy an independent airborne force, of at least a battle group size (inf, engr, arty, armd recce, sigs, med etc) ...

Can we retain something that we already do not have?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Can we retain something that we already do not have?

We've got 3 jump companies.

You could augment them with 'jump troops' of Engrs etc and concentrate them a couple of times of year in Petawawa or Wainwright, or wherever, for a BGp Airborne Ex. The Regiments/ Divs with the jump companies (PPCLI, RCR and R22R) could take turns leading the exercises.

 

[a_majoor]

Just another tangent, but using a combination of fixed wing aircraft and parachute insertion from verrrrry low altitude (I seem to recall 600') the Rhodesians were able to respond very quickly against insurgent incursions back in the 60's and 70's. The drill seems to have been fly in the troops to slam the door shut on potential escape routes and then using more conventional troops to root out insurgents or drive them into the paratroopers.

Obviously that worked well for that time and place, but in an environment where there is limited GBAD threats something like this still seems viable. Certainly being able to insert troops extremely rapidly still has a place in military operations, and being able to find the right tools to do the job in various circumstances would seem to call for retaining some capabilities so you can pull things out of the hat when you need to.

 

[captloadie]

IMHO.....

As long as we keep sending Canadian civilians, and others, on 'mercy missions' into harm's way in an increasingly unstable world, we should retain the ability to deploy an independent airborne force, of at least a battle group size (inf, engr, arty, armd recce, sigs, med etc), on short notice (by C19/ C130) to rescue any of our nationals in danger of being turned into hamburger helper by machete wielding local cannibals etc.

To do otherwise, or to rely on others to do it for us, is national negligence of the highest order.

Except, this is no longer a world where we can can just openly ignore another countries Sovereignty and send in a force. Nor would any party have the political will to do so.
Also, in this day and age, only certain organizations are going to be tasked for this type of insertion.

We need to except the realities of the 21st century and stop clinging to roles that are outdated.

 

[Journeyman]

... this is no longer a world where we can can just openly ignore another countries Sovereignty and send in a force.

Iraq, Mali, Libya, Burkina Faso.....

We need to except  accept the realities of the 21st century and stop clinging to roles that are outdated.

Then why ask the question if your mind is already made up?    :dunno:

 

[dapaterson]

Then why ask the question if your mind is already made up?    :dunno:

You must be new to the internet.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We need to except the realities of the 21st century and stop clinging to roles that are outdated.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article490450.ece

 

[Kirkhill]

Except, this is no longer a world where we can can just openly ignore another countries Sovereignty and send in a force. Nor would any party have the political will to do so.
Also, in this day and age, only certain organizations are going to be tasked for this type of insertion.

We need to except the realities of the 21st century and stop clinging to roles that are outdated.

Piling on - if you can intrude on foreign airspace to drop bombs why can't you intrude on foreign airspace to drop paras?

I think the only real objection would be the willingness of the para's originating government to accept casualties.