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

[vonGarvin]

The use of airborne troops is the flexibility it provides.  They wouldn't necessarily be dropped "behind enemy lines" and await XXX Corps driving to Arnheim, but rather those ops previously mentioned: seizing SOMETHING that is beyond helicopter range.  Say an airfield (such as Port au Prince in 2004: could have been used there), or a sea port, or whatever.

Here's an example.  Suppose country "X" is falling apart, and the Canadian Government decides to deploy troops there.  An estimate reveals that in order to seize an airfield, a battalion sized unit is required.  Also suppose that this airfield is 20 feet beyond the practicable range of helicopter insertion.  Also, due to the deteriorating humanitarian situation, it has to happen now.  The CF digs into its back pocket and pulls out an airborne battalion sized unit (CSOR?  Amalgamated, plugged and played Para coys of the three battalions?) and drops them onto said airfield.  After say a day or two, the airfield and the surrounding area is deemed safe enough to land Antonovs (leased) or C-17s (purchased in a dream one day) and disgorge the DART, or a mech battalion, or whatever, to fan out and accomplish the mission (whatever that may be). 

So, don't discount the value of airborne units.  There is still a need for them, perhaps moreso than (dare I say it?) heavy armoured brigades  :crybaby:

Garvin out

 

[GK .Dundas]

It's not because Canada chooses not to use it that it is redundant; check out this link, especially the recent ops towards the end of the page, and make an informed opinion:
http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/paratrooper.htm

I was almost on the verge of becoming a true believer ..........up until I got to Sparky's page btw that's not a webpage, that's a psychotic episode! And a poorly written one at that.

 

[Echo9]

Airborne per se is dead as a current requirement.  Airmobile (helicopter) is still relevant.  Air drop for spec ops is conceivably still relevant.  Light Infantry is more relevant than ever.

Jump capability at the individual level is extremely valuable if for morale reasons alone.


One of the biggest shortcomings of the Airborne in Somalia (discipline aside) is that they were so eager to show that they could jump operationally that they didn't think through the logistical and tactical implications- the capability turned into a negative.

 

[vonGarvin]

Airborne per se is dead as a current requirement.  Airmobile (helicopter) is still relevant.  Air drop for spec ops is conceivably still relevant.  Light Infantry is more relevant than ever.

I disagree.  Heliborne troops are of course still relevant.  Air Drops for battalion sized elements are still relevant. The question is: Can we afford it?  Maybe or maybe not (it is rather expensive, of course). 
Drop the moniker "Light" in front of "infantry" and I'd agree.  By definition, light, mech, motorised, whatever, only really refers to their mode of transport.  The only reason not all of our infantry units have armoured vehicles is $. 

 

[geo]

One of the biggest shortcomings of the Airborne in Somalia (discipline aside) is that they were so eager to show that they could jump operationally that they didn't think through the logistical and tactical implications- the capability turned into a negative.

Huh????????????????
given that your profile is blank - I have no idea what your pedigree happens to be
having trouble seeing where you come from OR where you're going with that statement

 

[Centurian1985]

Failed your jump course, huh? ^-^
...and when you were doing[ cough,cough] all this, you only got "regular pay"?.........boy were you dumb!!

Ref your insults:

1) I have never failed a single course, military or civilian, since I joined up in 1985; that includes over 75 courses and over 25 training sessions in over 20 years. 
2) How is it dumb to serve your country? I didnt join up for the pay thats for sure! What was your motivation?
3) I did not say I 'do all this'; I can tell you in PM about soldiers who did all these things, if you are really interested.  Whats your point?  Im not allowed to refer to other trades who do good work? Do you have anything to contribute to this debate other than insinuation?

In summary, all arguments have positive and negative sides. Quit focusing on a couple of negative comments; read the whole thing!
You will note that I support the continuation of airborne training , but only dispute the fact that they claim elite status for themselves alone when there are other specialists and jobs out there that deserve equal recognition.

 

[Jungle]

1) I have never failed a single course, military or civilian, since I joined up in 1985; that includes over 75 courses and over 25 training sessions in over 20 years. 

That makes 100 courses and trg sessions: 5 per year  :
Let me guess: you never had time for leave... did you actually work too ??

 

[Armymedic]

If you speak of parachute capability as one tool in the tool box of the commander to get his forces into an area to which they will operate, then Airborne troops are not, nor ever will be "redundant". If you argue that airborne capability is redundant, then the same can be said about amphibious assault, airmobile assault, etc, etc. We need to keep as many options and capabilities open as we can, lest we become a one trick pony, and near useless to our allies.

I think that America's big stick, 82nd Airborne and their ability to drop in anywhere, anytime, has a positive effect on the US gov't foreign policy. Just be cause the CF can not currently effectively deploy parachute troops anywhere in the world (and questionably, not anywhere in Canada), does not make the effectiveness or need of those forces redundant.

 

[Centurian1985]

:  Not all training courses last 3 months!   :

Jungle, if you want to question my credibility and integrity go to PM, and I can send you a list.  

I note a disturbing trend here; instead of sticking to the thread, some people are attempting to use character assasination as a form of argument.  

Stick to the thread - What is your opinion on the status of the airborne?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from today,
I note a disturbing trend here; instead of sticking to the thread, some people are attempting to use character assasination as a form of argument. 

Quote from yesterday,
You think you're the only one who leads a dangerous life? Get over yourself!
Be glad you got the extra bucks and the badge and the beret because the rest of us only get regular pay and the satisfaction of a' job well done'.

But this wasn't??  I notice your a slinger but not much of a catcher.......

 

[Centurian1985]

Fair enough - in reviewing the words I used, I see that they can be interpreted at a slur against him and the airborne. My apologies to Jungle for my hasty words, my only intent was to demonstrate that there are many dangerous occupations that deserve recognition.  Sorry about that.   

In the case of Bruce, what have you to say?  I expect to have my credibility questioned, but I take great offense at having my integrity questioned.   

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I was just very unhappy with the "shot" at the Airborne and specifically Jungle who I know has done a whole lot more than most and certainly a whole lot more than "No Tour Bruce".

You retracted yours and I now retract mine.........now back to the topic.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

;D

 

[ArmyRick]

To some people here, it seems if you question anything to do with airbourne, then you get labelled a weak knee piece of garbage leg, etc, etc.

I think some good points were made. Airborne capability should be kept alive. Should Canada maintain a large (brigade size) airborne unit? Hell no.

But the CSOR using para as a means of inserting to seize vital points? Yeah, I could see it.

But like airmobile and amphibious (a capability we are VERY lacking in) we should keep the skills alive.

One more point I am not a big fan of us having huge 70 ton monster AFVs either simply because we lack the means to move said monstrous AFVs from point A to B without a civilian or foreign assistance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Under the heading of stealth/surprise:

Which force can infiltrate with least warning.  A heliborne force or an airborne force?

If you are doing raids, such as the first Ranger assault on Kandahar, aren't you more likely to be able to infiltrate undetected with fixed wing aircraft than with rotary?  Exfiltratrion seems likely to be a different matter but in that case stealth has gone out the window in any case.

As to the need for a full unit - even if you don't do a unit drop don't you need to keep a full unit current to guarantee a sub-unit available?

 

[Centurian1985]

My apologoies to Bruce for my heated comments.


Ha! Brilliant! LMAO  ----> 

 

[Echo9]

Geo-

I got the information from my dad (retired LCol), who is doing a project for the war museum on the somalia deployment, who got the info from the various interviews that he's doing for that project (yes, it's third hand, but that's a couple of degrees better than usual for the internet  ;D ).  The reference was to the desire to take an airport (Belet Uen, I think) by airborne insertion.  Eventually, the CO was persuaded otherwise, and opted for airmobile instead, but the battalion was still without log support for a few days, when they could just as easily have occupied it in a more conventional manner and still achieved the mission.

Where I was going with it is that if we're looking at real deployments, instead of theoretical constructs, the airborne capability proved to be not only not an advantage, but in fact a detractor from mission performance.

 

[a_majoor]

I will wade in on the side of a battalion sized airbore capability, not because I think that we will be taking out large targets with a battalion sized drop (although you should never say never....) but because in today's security environment we will be tackling "problems" spread out over a wide area of space and time. A battalion sized unit give the commander the depth to deploy to several distinct targets and still maintain a reserve, or to carry out an extended operation, inserting fresh troops and supplies to keep things going and apply continuing pressure on the enemy.

My fear is the CF, being fairly small, could become too fragmented now that we are trying to get all the "Gucci" capabilities. This could lead to bunfights over staffing, training and logistics at home, as well as bulky and fragmented staffs and COC problems on ops as everyone fights to get in on a "jump" operation (Jumpmaster: "Lets see now, we have two platoons from the 1rst Canadian Parachute battalion, a CSOR platoon, a platoon from the 3 R22erjump coy, a pathfinder section from the school, some guys hiding in the back wearing long hair and hippy beads today [nice outfit, by the way], a jump qualified signals det from each organization and a freaking Antonov following behind us with the joint staff....).

One way to deal with this in my mind is to incorporate most of these capabilities into a real airborn battlegroup of regimental size, with CSOR capabilities being built into the "First" battalion. Of course, a powerful and flexible airborn battlegroup will need jump capable artillery and light armour as well....

 

[Centurian1985]

OK, lets say you got this - what type of missions could it conduct in support of todays operational commitments?

 

[Armymedic]

what type of missions could it conduct in support of todays operational commitments?

Nonpermissive Noncombatant Evacuation Operations.