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

[cheechue]

I totally agree Ghost...but in order to fill those front line positions we need people and we just don‘t have the manpower for it.

By creating elite units we can utilize our smaller numbers.

And aren‘t you supposed to be in Pet right now? We‘ll go for a beer when you get back.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think beer comes out of the taps in petawawa instead of water but i‘ll take you up on that beer.

If we don‘t maintain or improve our military as a whole i think that would actually make the JTF less effective because they would be called upon to do regular military tasks. As much as many soldiers hate to admit it, were know as peacekeepers. In the future i can‘t see us doing anything besides peacekeeping really. A role which i don‘t think the jtf would be suited to at all.

 

[Slade]

i think the regiment should be resurrected. it was a great unit, except for its unfortunate history. i would think that the only thing that would hinder its resurrection is the public.

 

[Yard Ape]

Slade,
What do you think of reserve units maintaining Para Coys? I think that type of Coy belongs only in the Reg force. Reservists can‘t maintain the high readyness that makes Para units worth the while.

Yard Ape

 

[McInnes]

I do think that our reg force should be updated and expanded. and actually our manpower isnt that bad. we could expand it, its just that our government and general public seems to think that having a puny military on a "lean" budget that is actually...i will stay off that actually, but yes, i dont think we need another elite unit. better reg force, and proper transport capabilities, so that we can actually transport troops...that would be nice...

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Has any thought ever been given to raising a 4th battalion to one of the three regular regiments, and designating it as (Para) or better yet, (Cdo)?

I‘m thinking along the lines of 4RAR, which I think fills much the same role in the Australian Army as the CAR did in ours.

This would provide the army with a semi-elite force (like the Rangers) without the association of being "another airborne regiment" and it would provide natural lead-in training for JTF-2. It would also give the infantry room to recruit the extra bodies they need to bring the line battalions up to proper strength.

Just a thought.

 

[FlightSergeantRose]

Having an elite unit such as the Rangers or Paratroopers makes people want to be part of them because they are seen as being the best, and most people with drive and determination want to be with the best. But the CF has no elite unit at all, and definitely is not seen as an elite fighting force. JFT-2 is there but it‘s only accessable to only a very select few, and their media is very low key so they don‘t really count. I think that having a larger group of soldiers that are ‘above‘ the regular soldiers, considered the elite of the army‘s best, would increase recruitment and foster a healthy rivalry between the two.

 

[McInnes]

I think that having a larger group of soldiers that are ‘above‘ the regular soldiers, considered the elite of the army‘s best

first of all, with the army the size that it is, i dont think we can have a larger group of anything really. We cannot support a group of 900 troops for more than 6 months over seas. Our reg force is stretched to the breaking point as it is. I think we should increase the size of our regular force before we start worrying about "elite forces".

 

[Jarnhamar]

I agree with Mcinnes.
Everyones always talking about special forces and commandos this and airborne that. How much it raises moral. How people want to be the best of the best.

We sent 30 of our guys overseas with out weapons. Makes it a little difficult to picture highly trained crack troops dropping behind enemy lines taking out sentries with shoe laces and gerbers then blowing up bridges and disapearing into the bushes like wraiths. It was said the JTF is low key and very difficult to get into. Of course. ITS ‘special forces‘ so to speak. If it was a lot easier to get into then wouldn‘t they lose their effectiveness? Canada doesn‘t send troops all over the world. As far as combat soldiers deploying we send troops to bosnia and soon now afghanastan. It‘s putting a major strain on our military. How could we afford or even justify more special operations guys whom i bet require way more service support then regular guys.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? The d@mned government is just NOT going to kick in any more money than they absolutely need -- and then maybe not -- to keep the CF alive.

True enough, we don‘t need more special forces. If the British Army with it‘s pool of 200 000 soldiers has determined that it can only provide enough trained manpower for a 300-400 strong SAS regiment, where does our government -- with an army 1/10 the size of Britain‘s -- think it‘s going to get 500-600 operators for JTF-2? :blotto:

What does our army need? How about a comprehensive foreign and defence policy review, to begin with? How about the funds to bring all line units up to strength, or beyond? Get rid of "just in time" supply! Strategic airlift so they don‘t have to hitchhike would be nice, too, but this doesn‘t necssarily mean C-17s -- A400Ms would work just fine for us. RO-RO ships would be great, although I‘d take the navy‘s ALSC design, if that‘s all I had. Hey -- how about some helos that could carry something useful, like, say, a 105 piece, or a complete section. And on and on and on. . . .

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

 

[Yard Ape]

Much like some of the people who post here, I do not belive our government can grasp the difference between Commando Forces and Special Forces. The goverment wants CAR/Rangers and Delta/SAS in a single unit. They want to build that unit from the JTF. It won‘t work.

We need more Regular Force Airborne capability.

Yard Ape

 

[FlightSergeantRose]

I think you missed what I was trying to get at. I know very well that the CF is underfunded and the problems with keeping our troops supplied with proper equipment and so on. I also know that we have a small army. This is also due to funds.

What I was trying to say was simply there would be much more interest in the army and the CF (from the civies) if there was something better then the regular army. Something for people to aspire to join. To be apart of an ‘elite‘ force, the ‘best of the best‘. The government would then advertise this to the public and many people would become interested because of what being apart of this unit would stand for.

I know we shouldn‘t advertise JTF-2, and that it should be kept secretive, small, etc, etc.

I personally don‘t all that much care about that idea because I know I want to be an infantier, regardless of us having a ‘marines‘ type unit. But a majority of the public doesn‘t know jack schit about the army, or the CF in general. And those that have no ties to the army at all ( relative, friends ) think of our army as a joke. ( from my experience, anyways ). I was more addressing an idea of how to get more people interested in the army.

 

[Bert]

Theres been alot of interest in JTF2 and special forces, but rather than public opinion, it takes leadership to figre out what the do with the land forces in general.

The Canadian Army, specifically the land force ground pounders, are made up of reserve and
regular army, light infantry like PPLI and RCR, airborne cerified members, and JTF2. The special forces are designed for specific and special tasks where the regular infantry isn‘t the best option.

Infantry takes, holds, and occupies territory. Airborne units drop into an area, often behind enemy lines, and hold it for the regular army or special task. Light infantry are more mobile and handle the direct thrusts than regular infantry. JTF2 are the CBQ and counterterrorist specialists and from my understanding, are not a replacement for the Airborne though I‘m sure some members are jump certified. To have a special forces, or re-engagement of the airborne forces, the leadership has to identify if the Forces requires and wants to spend money on keeping and equiping such a unit. Once the government mandates the military, public opinion has little to do with the functionality of the Forces. I believe the airborne functionality of the Forces was not lost after CAR was disbanded, but yes, it was affected.

Its interesting to speculate how the military will organize itself in the coming years. Will it create more small special unit forces or update the regular army with equipment and multi-roles?

 

[Jungle]

I believe the airborne functionality of the Forces was not lost after CAR was disbanded, but yes, it was affected.

I believe it was lost. The Battalion is the lowest level that is self-sufficient in operations, and we lost the expertise in deploying and resupplying one when the CAR was disbanded. Even the Air force is having difficulties keeping crews current in TAT (Tactical Air Transport). In 99, they could not scrape enough qual‘d pers to fly a 3-plane formation in Trenton (actually, there was not a single crew qual‘d Adv TAT to lead a formation), but they could all fly in single-plane formation... not very useful in a tactical situation.

 

[skura]

I've asked this question on an airborne forum but have yet to receive an answer, most likely because all capable of answering are either currently over seas or far from a computer...so given the experience on this forums (as well as theirs) I'll ask here as well...

What are the roles of a paratrooper in todays Canadian Army?

On an unrelated note;

I've heard them (paratroopers) be referred to as "trained killers" by men who used to serve in the regs and by some who still serve on the reserves and my first thought was "aren't all infantry?"

Any comments?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I've asked this question on an airborne forum but have yet to receive an answer, most likely because all capable of answering are either currently over seas or far from a computer...so given the experience on this forums (as well as theirs) I'll ask here as well...

What are the roles of a paratrooper in todays Canadian Army?

On an unrelated note;

I've heard them (paratroopers) be referred to as "trained killers" by men who used to serve in the regs and by some who still serve on the reserves and my first thought was "aren't all infantry?"

Any comments?

Comments:

I doubt they're all deployed, probably just hiding. Maybe they have gotten tired of answering the same question 15 or 20 times a week from people who won't reserch the subject and just want quick answers.

Try these links:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/1739.0.html

http://army.ca/forums/threads/1821.0.html

If that doesn't satisfy you, try a simple little solution we have here called a "SEARCH". You'll find two pages of threads simply by typing "airborne" then try "paratrooper"

If you still have a specific question after looking through all 40 or 50 threads, feel free to repost.

 

[JasonH]

(Damn title was to long lol)

By land, by sea: If Canada wants to build a rapid reaction force the answer is simple
The Airborne Regiment
 

CREDIT: Pat McGrath, The Ottawa Citizen
In recent years, many senior officers and even government officials are coming to realize the potential value of the role the now-disbanded Airborne Regiment played in the Canadian Forces.

Chris Wattie
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Canadian defence planners and military strategists have been wrestling with the idea of some kind of rapid reaction force for decades, a large body of soldiers that can be sent quickly to a crisis zone anywhere in the world.

The troops would intervene in humanitarian crises, rescue Canadian citizens caught up in a civil war or natural disaster, or capture and hold an airport in a combat zone until Canadian or allied reinforcements can be flown in.

Major-General Brian Vernon, a retired army officer, believes he has the answer: the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

"If they want a strategically transportable, combat capable force of, let's say 1,000 to 1,100 men, then you want the Airborne Regiment," says Maj.-Gen. Vernon, who served with the now disbanded regiment for seven of his 39-year military career.

"Although you probably couldn't call it that," he adds quickly.

The very name of the now disbanded unit has been anathema to successive defence ministers and senior military officers since the regiment was stricken from the army's rolls in 1995 in the wake of the Somalia scandal.

But in recent years, Maj.-Gen. Vernon says that many senior officers and even government officials are coming to realize the potential value of the role the Airborne played in the Canadian Forces.

"To make that initial assault ... to get our guys in there quickly, then what you want is something that's going to look a lot like the Airborne Regiment," he says. "Imagine if we'd had them available to get to (Canadian General) Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda or in Afghanistan, should our troops over there get into serious trouble."

"These (airborne) forces can be very, very useful ... The French have proven that over and over again with their Force d'Intervention, which is based on their 10th Parachute Division."

He says the government appears to be trying to fill that role by expanding JTF-2, the Canadian Forces' secretive commando unit.

In 2001, as part of its response to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the federal government boosted JTF-2's budget by $119-million in order to double the size of the anti-terrorist force. But the unit has so far been unable to attract enough qualified applicants to reach its goal of 600 commandos, even after lowering its rigorous standards.

"I think it's doomed to failure -- our army isn't big enough to support that many special forces," says Maj.-Gen. Vernon.

As well, he says the training and work done by anti-terrorism or special forces units such as JTF-2 is not particularly well-suited to the role he envisions for a future airborne force.

"My professional opinion is that it has to be nothing smaller than a battalion ... big enough to be self-sufficient and pack a reasonable punch, and small enough to be easily transported and affordable."

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, the now retired head of UN forces during the siege of Sarajevo, agrees it is time the Canadian army got back into the air.

He envisions a parachute battalion forming part of a much larger force that is "air deployable" into whatever international hot-spot that the federal government decides to send them.

"By which I mean they can fit their kit into whatever aircraft we have to transport them."

The heart of such a "light brigade" would be a parachute infantry battalion along the lines of the Airborne Regiment. "But I would call it First Canadian Parachute Battalion," Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie says. "For historical reasons." (First Canadian Parachute Battalion was the airborne unit that jumped into Normandy on the night before D-Day, during the Second World War).

"You need guys with their kit all packed, ready to go the moment the balloon goes up."

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie says that the best argument for reforming the Airborne Regiment and a supporting "followup" brigade is the flexibility such a unit would give the government in responding to international crises.

"Seventy-two hours after someone in Ottawa sends out the call, an airborne regiment could be in the planes and on their way. That gives the government a phenomenally effective tool."

But Maj.-Gen. Vernon says it would be relatively simple to reform the Airborne Regiment -- under whatever name is eventually chosen.

"There are still enough experienced NCOs around from the Airborne Regiment that you have a good nucleus to form the unit around. It wouldn't take any time at all, once the decision's made."

What might take some time is acquiring the right aircraft to get the paratroopers there and to support them with air strikes or supply drops once they land. The air force's workhorse fleet of CC-130 Hercules is almost 40 years old and is plagued by maintenance problems that ground up to two-thirds of the planes at a time.

But the biggest hurdle to overcome might be the unfortunate legacy of the former Airborne Regiment which still looms large in the minds of government leaders, says Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie. "It's possible to sell this idea to the public," he says. "But I don't see any politician taking that risk."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2004

http://www.canada.com/national/features/tugofwar/story.html?id=27c69f1c-936e-439b-a497-23151a8b2af2&page=1

 

[Scott]

Well, if the gov't is serious about the forming of a new Brigade then they can put some of those alloted positions in here.

I think that this will turn into a very touchy subject.

 

[JasonH]

Screw the 5000 man peacekeeping idea.

Give a 1000 men to form a new Airborne reg. and put the rest in to fill out the other brigades.  Or you could have two but I'm pretty sure that's on the expensive side.

 

[Scott]

I like the idea of keeping our SF unit small, can't attract that many elite soldiers from a 60,000 pers military, small, simple and effective, creation of a CAR-like unit would take alot of the demand off of our SF unit. I am all for it.