"Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"

[Jungle]

Paracowboy; now you know how I see   our so called Airborne capability, I see it too in a certain way, a waste of $$$

I disagree... while our present Airborne capability is not "doctrinal", it will serve as a solid base for the coming Light Force, which has to have an Airborne capability. Like it or not, it's the way ahead...

 

[ArmyRick]

IMHO (I am not a paratrooper, however I spent a year with para coy, 3 RCR). I beleive we should keep para capability, but with a specific role. I don't beleive we need an entire battalion.

Now airmobile forces would be far more beneficial but we need decent choppers for that.

A light force that is airborne, airmobile, amphibious capable ? Damn straight. Thats what we should have. I also beleive we should concentrate our light (maybe future airmobile) units in petawawa. Its close to Trenton (for quick deployment) or maybe in the future Halifax bug outs (if we ever get the JSS going?).

Well those are my thoughts.

 

[KevinB]

I think ALL of our Cbt Arms should be Para qualified.

Ideally all of our Light Forces be MFP.

It is a needed capability

 

[paracowboy]

the fact that we do not have a proper Airborne capability, or that they have not been employed properly is not reason to eliminate them, rather it is reason to rid ourselves of the mentally lethargic individuals who are responsible.

I think ALL of our Cbt Arms should be Para qualified.

as should every CS and CSS pers who is even vaguely interested. It's far more than simply a course where they teach you to fall out of an aircraft.

 

[ArmyRick]

You two are really living in reality. Where do you get the aircraft and the funding? The manpower and the time allotment for trg everybody? I am for keeping jumpers but lets be a bit more realistic.

 

[paracowboy]

"Realistic" would be grasping that we are involved in a war that is not going to end any time soon, with the most asymmetric foe ever faced, and having money thrown at us until we ask them to stop.
"Realistic" would be having Aircraft built/purchased specifically to project force anywhere we needed.
"Realistic" would be training the guts out of the entire CF, to turn us from 'peace-keepers' to counter-insurgency specialists.
"Realistic" would be churning out soldiers at a rate that would make the brooms in The Wizard's Apprentice look like pikers.

However, Canada has not been particularly "Realistic" in the past 30 years. We prefer to cower in our beds, while others protect us. Then we bite them in the back for doing so.

aahhh! That's better. Now, where were we? Oh yes.
At a minimum, we should have an entire BN group, with CS capabilities, per Regt, Airborne capable. With the ability to project and sustain them.
We should have those units practice jumping into Exercises together, so they get SOPs down, and become inter-changeable.
We should have those units practice supporting the boys at DHTC.
We should have those units train in conjunction with the mechanized units, so that they learn the capabilities of each other, and the weaknesses.
We should have those units work with those of the UK, the US, Australia, and New Zealand (mostly so I can meet Lucy Lawless).
We should, but we won't.

 

[Blakey]

We should have those units practice supporting the boys at DHTC.

IMO That is, by far, the most reasonable argument put forth that I have seen.
Edited to add: Oh ya BTW im a Leg

 

[KevinB]

I kinda want to cry Para - that was perfect.

Fact we are at WAR - some people are too stupid or naive (or both) to realise that - the sooner we are a country come to grips with that the better.

Second the quicker our OWN Army come to grip with getting the RIGHT tool for the job - (COIN) the better LAV's and Coyote's are not very usefully in that operation despite what some people (for their own reasons) want you to think.

 

[ArmyRick]

If I was the CDS and told I could have extra funds for one of two options
(a) Really good choppers (Chinook Ds, EH101, black hawks, apaches or a combination of any of these) to develop a superb airmobile force or
(b) Stand up an airborne battalion....

I would go for (A).  Having spent a year with Para Coy 3RCR, I am very much aware of what you guys are capable of in a para role and to quote one of my previous section commanders (he was a pathfinder) "He would not want to jump into battle".

I think the are alot of things the army needs and do explain exactly how more paratroops are going to help the army ?

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

Don't think I hate Airborne, because I don't! If I was the CDS and we had a lot of money! This is what I would do; buy C-17's, C-130J's and the stretched versions and Chinook helicopter's. Then I would stand up an Airborne bn and an Airmobile bn. The only reason I say what I say is because at the present time we don't have the money to spend on this!

 

[ArmyRick]

Having thought on this idea and stuff, I think we really need more than anything is a battalion of troops that perform a similar role to US Rangers. If I were CDS, I would make their primary role airmobile and put the emphasis on those operations (assuming we get a decent chopper for it). They would also be trained in airborne and amphibious operations.
Their primary role would be a rapid deployment force capable of delivering a quick fast strike anywhere in the world from our JSS or trenton. They would also be tasked with supporting the Dwyer Hill gang.

I would also make it so that  members would complete a basic para, airmobile ops and a course similar to the Ranger course. This would help keep the ranks filled with motivated, physically fit and very aggressive soldiers that I served with in 3RCR Para.

Again I would emphasis their primary role should be airmobile as I beleive airmobile ops are far more flexible than airborne. But as Grenada shows, keep the para capability and skills in the back pocket just in case you need to seize that airfield.

 

[Jungle]

Having thought on this idea and stuff, I think we really need more than anything is a battalion of troops that perform a similar role to US Rangers. If I were CDS, I would make their primary role airmobile and put the emphasis on those operations (assuming we get a decent chopper for it). They would also be trained in airborne and amphibious operations.
Their primary role would be a rapid deployment force capable of delivering a quick fast strike anywhere in the world from our JSS or trenton. They would also be tasked with supporting the Dwyer Hill gang.

You are describing something close to what the coming Light Force will be. Also, according to the SCTF project, the LIBs would be deployed (one at a time) on the CDS's "big honking ship" (San Antonio class ??) and be ready for depl at short notice. They would be able to use amphibious assets from the ship, use Helos for airland or airdrop, or move to a safe airfield to board aircraft for a Parachute op inland. Airmobile is nice, but when you have to cross long distances, or insert large numbers of troops rapidly, nothing beats a half dozen C-130s; these can drop 240 fully equipped Troops in minutes in any area.

 

[claybot]

You got in during 2001 and its now 2005 and your already a  BITTER PPCLI CPL. And you never did mech crap until 2003 which means you were either in B or C Company which merged into C Comany for the deployment. Also means you were a private at that time. So I'm sure you have amassed a lifetime of experience during those short few years. Good For You...... Hows Shilo........

Obviously my 2 years in Germany and my 3 UN tours and 1 NATO tour in 2 different battalions plus 1 published article about the Army and intrest in Military history (On Infantry is a great book to read over and over) plus the great time I spent in the MEDAK POCKET in no way compares to your established career of what 4 years.........

Oh and by the way I was clarifying that C Company was a Mech Company before they became a Light Company But of course how would you know that, you were a Civvie when they were MECH.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

Thanks Claybot for responding, I read your posts. And concur with what you say.

 

[claybot]

Yes there are wars going on and in case you haven't noticed we have not really deployed to any of them except OP APOLLO, which by the way its primary role was to guard the airstrip not go into combat. Our primary mission still is PeaceMaking and that is what our government likes and always will.

Yes there are people who are trying to convert the LIB's into a US Ranger type force with full Jump capability. And if the LIB's get enough good press this will probably happen, there is no way it will be called the Airborne.

But is this the way to go? Is this going to work going back to a single specialist unit? Able to deploy at a moments notice when we have a govement unwilling to do so?

All this talk about if  I were the CDS I would do this........... If you were the CDS and tried to this you would be unemployed......

More than likely it will go back to the way it was the former members of the Airborne will get there beloved unit back under a new title specializing in rapid response to a mission that will never come.

Just like the the past the Unit will sit on their rucksacks waiting and hoping a war will start and off they go only to have the mission cancelled at the last moment (Remember the Sahara). While the remaining 6 Infantry Battalions will rotate through mission after mission with very little breaks, doing all the work. Sending their social misfits to this new unit trying to keep the best soldiers for themselves.

History repeats itself........

 

[2 Cdo]

The last line in your second last paragraph is exactly why I don't like or respect the higher ups who ran the battalions in the late 80's, early 90's. Plus putting up with the 2 VP Germany crowd, where EVERY Germany exercise story began with "Remember when we pulled up to the Gastof,,,,". The attitude in the 2nd was extremely anti-airborne, I don't begrudge anyone if they don't want to jump out of planes, but the people who slammed the airborne usually were those who couldn't even pass the PT test let alone the course.
Just one mans observation.

 

[Brygun]

I agree very much that any nation involved with international affairs, (Canada), needs a fast deployment force to deal with matters not on our own territory. This is one well known aspect of airborne even if they deploy without jumping. THEY GET THERE FAST.

Even if they do not get involved with immediate combat they establish a deterrent and the seriousness of our nations commitment to the situation. This can limit or deter the need for actual violence.

The actual act of the parachute jump has been debated by those more informed than myself. I personally feel the affect of the paratrooping ideal of higher than normal standards is very vital to the armed forces while the liklihood of actually doing large drops is very low.

I do agree Canada needs to have a means of putting a battalion, or larger, with all the support recources from artillery to logistics quickly in place into another nation. The cost of having them ready and getting them there is the challenge.

The US for instance to have a single battalion on short notice is/was running the 82nd airborne with nine (9) battalions rotating around different tasks. I do not feel without an unlikely shift in national funding we can sustain that same pattern. That does mean getting into a pattern of using non-para forces.

I do feel it is more plausible to build up a helicopter fleet that could act as transport force assigned en masse to operations. An airborne vs air drop arrangment has the transports remain in closer support of the infantry. The types of opposition we have been running into have tended to have (compartively) very little anti-aircraft ability so why not make use of tight air-ground interations to our benefit?

Is there a transport helicopter that can achieve a trans-atlantic/trans-pacific flight? Im not confident there is one (maybe with frequent in flight refuelling but it would be an exhausting ride).

We could perhaps, though costly, keep the helicopter force based in an allies territory. This would make it possible for them to bound from land based refeulling to land based refeulling until they got to the location.
An overseas basing gives access to Europe, Asia and Africa with minimal over water flight. Depending on the range of the helicopters and support of island nations they could also reach Australia and the numerous pacific islands. There is a major political hurdle to this approach in resolving over flight permission. A second helicopter transoprt/support force might remain in Canada for training and to deploy across the North and South America continents.
If we used this the activated land forces would fly conventionally and meet with the helicopters at an airport. Then the force could deploy a few hundred kilometeres (or less).
It does not though provide the same para-battalions ability to arrive without prior warning. It does retain most of the response time and the opposing force wont know for certain which drop/landing zones are used. It is quite likely from media sources they would know the helicopters where on the move.

I do feel we need to encourage positive qualities associated with paratroopers and a force that to go overseas is very much required for our foreign policies. A large paradrop though is beyond our $$$ so other choices need to be considered. An overseas helicopter transport force is one way. It would certainly be faster than using a ship for initial insertion of materials.

 

[paracowboy]

Having spent a year with Para Coy 3RCR, I am very much aware of what you guys are capable of in a para role

actually Rick, I don't think you are. I don't think anyone in the CF today outside of the few ol' Airborne dogs, and the very few who have witnessed foreign militaries do a MassTac, have any idea of what Paratroopers are capable of. When the sky turns black with 'chutes, and big metal things come tumbling down from the sky followed by angry men with guns, your entire worldview shifts slightly.

Grenada was mentioned previously, but there have also been combat jumps into Panama, Aghanistan, and Iraq. As well, there have been parachute descents into those, and other theatres, on a much smaller scale.

In closing, I wish to quote the bumper sticker:

When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight. You call, we fall. No sky too high

 

[Kirkhill]

Brygun:  

There is no Inter-continental helicopter.  Nor is there likely to be one.  Their operational range (100 to 500 miles) and their slow speed (max ~200 mph) means that they have to be deployed by ship.  The 101st is possibly the hardest division to deploy in the US  order of battle.    

To create an entire heliborne assault force of divisional size, (effectively turning the entire Canadian Army into the 101st Air Assault Division) requires a massive amount of helicopters, ships, gas, maintenance staff etc.  It is an extremely expensive proposition.   By contrast, teaching ALL Canadian Forces personnel (including cooks and clerks) to fall out of aeroplanes would be cheaper.  It is true that a few helicopters can be of immense usefulness in the area but look up the problems that the US had deploying Apaches to support operations in Kosovo.  And in that case they had a relatively secure base to operate from.

Enthusiasm is one thing Brygun, you have that in spades.  You also express yourself well.  However you have an unfortunate tendency to sound as if you are trying to be something you are not.  

You, like me, are not an expert.  You come across as if you wish your notions to be presented as expert opinions.  They are not.  They are notions.  And frankly some of them are ludicrous (vise reloadable claymores that Wes has called you on a couple of times).

When you have an idea, take the time to do a bit of research on it first.  Present it with a degree of humility and humour and be prepared to be told by those that have "Been There and Done That" that your idea is a load of old cobbler's.

You can get a lot more out of this site by asking questions than making statements.

Cheers and Wait Out.

 

[GO!!!]

Yes there are people who are trying to convert the LIB's into a US Ranger type force with full Jump capability. And if the LIB's get enough good press this will probably happen, there is no way it will be called the Airborne.

But is this the way to go? Is this going to work going back to a single specialist unit? Able to deploy at a moments notice when we have a govement unwilling to do so?

Just like the the past the Unit will sit on their rucksacks waiting and hoping a war will start and off they go only to have the mission cancelled at the last moment (Remember the Sahara). While the remaining 6 Infantry Battalions will rotate through mission after mission with very little breaks, doing all the work. Sending their social misfits to this new unit trying to keep the best soldiers for themselves.

History repeats itself........

The Airborne was never a specialist unit - it maintained capabilities (airmobile, amphibious) that the "working"  : Bns did not, at least in a meaningful context. So maybe it was a specialist unit - in everything.

Having a unit on standby is not a waste of time or money, any more than the firefighters who watch porn for four, four day shifts in a row, but no - one begrudges them that, because eventually, there will be a fire!

As for sending social misfits to the Airborne - I joined long after the Airborne was gone, but I've met alot more losers in uniform who trash the airborne, than people who were actually IN it. I suppose it's easy to critisize if you could never hack the entrance requirements, and had to watch all of those fit, well trained and disciplined misfits collecting jump pay while you pounded track in Winterpeg...