Humour My Ignorance...

[UnwiseCritic]

Instead of rotating our jump company throughout the battalion why not set up a permanent jump company. I know our para capability is just in maintenance phase, but there's no reason to not keep training "paras". However not all of the people who qualify are really a para capable person. They might be able to land safely but I have seen some people not really bring the professionalism to table that I think is required of these soldiers. And it hinders a units ability to operate as effective as possible. I don't have all the finer details on how to do this. Just an idea that I'm sure has been proposed just wondering why it hasn't been set up this way. They might be more of shock troops than paras. And have it opened to the entire regiment, maybe something to strive for other than sf.

Proposed Requirements
Para Qualified
at least 1 year in Bn
Coopers test gold standard
A 20km ruck march at bft weight but faster (Again finer details to be sorted out) with a shooting test at the end
          -maybe higher shooting scores required
          -maybe a mental endurance test of some sort, Eg log carry similar to brits

Pros
You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again). But you could push them much harder.
They would tend to be some of the more motivated soldiers, so you could wage an effective battle on "white space". Thus they would be much better trained.
            -they would be more ready to do dry drills on section attacks, c-can village, comms, c-ied, etc
They would be much fitter and therefore more capable of some of the more difficult light infantry tasks
For the same amount of money now you could have better results.


Cons
Sf would tend to dry out a jump company
Other companies will be drained of quality leadership. You could counteract this with installing a two year limit on Mcpls and up subject to review of what the battalions need


I would have thought about it more seriously before posting if I thought it was a possibility. But first I would like to see what sorts of other views people would have (of significant rank or better yet ex-airborne), especially on the cons.

 

[dangerboy]

I think one of the things we need to ask ourselves is what do we want our Para Coys to be able to do.  Are they just there to maintain our Para capability, or do they have a greater plan.  One Coy by itself is fairly limited in what it can do, I have always wondered why they don't not plan an exercise that involves all three jump coys.  The cynic in me is that people don't want to do this as it would sound to much like the Airborne Regt and they are scared of that.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I was in the Third when A Coy was Para, and only A Coy (98-00).  The rotation is recent - I believe that is started during BGen Eyre's tenure.  Soldiers moved to the Coy vice the coy moving to the soldiers.  You are right - there are pros and cons to both.

I am, however, intrigued by this statement:

Other companies will be drained of quality leadership. You could counteract this with installing a two year limit on Mcpls and up subject to review of what the battalions need

Given that your only prerequisites for being posted to the Jump Coy is fitness related, how does this deprive the rest of the Battalion of "quality leadership"?  There is more to leadership, even in a light battalion, than fitness.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... Other companies will be drained of quality leadership ....

My experience is pretty old at this point, but am I wrong to think that not EVERY good leader necessarily wants to jump from a perfectly good airplane?  I stand to be corrected, of course, but I've known lots of Reserve and Reg leaders who were happy and motivated to bigger/better things without necessarily seeking wings.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

No not all good leadership would want too join. I only generalized where maybe I shouldn't have. In my experience a lot of good leadership is looking to better themselves both professionally and personally. So if a "shock" infantry unit were created it may attract a large portion of these men. As they would see it as an opportunity to learn new things, possibly become more proficient. That being said if these soldiers were returned to their original unit after after their stint it could have positive side effects. But maybe that's why we rotate?

As for it sounding too similar to an airborne regiment it... Call it something else.

 

[Ostrozac]

Within the light battalions, both approaches have been tried -- currently 3 PPCLI is rotating the jump role between companies, while 3 RCR has kept M Coy in the jump role since the mid-nineties, but it was routine to move soldiers in and out of M Coy as required. Both approaches seem to have accomplished the objective of keeping the parachute role alive within the light battalions.

There is a sticking point about expanding this approach to the entire regiments, though, as you suggest;

And have it opened to the entire regiment, maybe something to strive for other than sf.

The biggest potential for dissatisfaction in creating a para company that actively recruits regiment-wide is that you run into the reality that there are battalions in Shilo and Gagetown, and moving soldiers from them into a para role requires cost moves. If you create three "brigade-level indepedant para coys" in Edmonton, Pet and Val, and then say "2RCR and 2PPCLI need not apply" -- then that pisses people off, and reduces your recruiting pool. If you say "Open to all" -- then you risk spending half your posting budget moving guys in and out of jump positions.

Personally? The current model works at maintaining a para capability within the light battalions. However, I think that the biggest operational weakness of the parachute companies is the lack of sufficient numbers of parachute trained reservists to augment them. Right now there's simply no way to mobilize a para company for operations without stripping augmentees from elsewhere in the regular force. I think the current model has something like 30% reserve augmentation at the company level -- we need more reservists para qualified to be able to do that. Even if we had an operational mission for the jump companies (which we don't right now), we couldn't accomplish that mission anyway.

I know that CFLAWC is running PRes jump courses. I think we need more, if we want to be able to use a para company on operations.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

I'm not aware of the costs associated with relocating. By the sounds of it, it's probably quite significant. It would be interesting to see who would fair better than the other in a competition of some sort. The permanent para coy or the rotating para coy.

However I don't agree with investing too heavily into a reservist para capability.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

I know that CFLAWC is running PRes jump courses. I think we need more, if we want to be able to use a para company on operations.

Unfortunately I don't have a lot to add to this discussion due to my distance from the jump company's and their day to day operations and how they are organized, but I am intrigued at the points being brought forward. 

From the PRes stand point though it is difficult to stay current.  For myself personally I did the PRes Basic Para course that was conducted in July/August last year, and since graduating I have not been able to do another jump.  It's not from lack of trying, but because I am not physically close to the QOR or Trenton I don't know about upcoming jumps that are taking place.  I have buddies in the QOR, but the "friend" network does not pass timely reliable info all the time and therefore I've missed the boat on more than one occasion.  I know I'm not alone in this boat and many of the guys that were on my course have not done another jump and we're sitting at 1 year since getting our wings, currency is gone at this point.  As well with PRes soldiers there is an added cost at the unit level because of pay, TD, possibly R&Q etc that needs to be factored in with maintaining a capability that almost all reserve units don't see as a priority.  It's a difficult hurdle to overcome.

Other than the QOR support to CFLAWC and 3RCR is there a lot of PRes augmentation that takes place in the Para Coy's?

 

[MikeL]

Coopers test gold standard

What is the Coopers test gold standard? I'm only familiar with the Coopers test being graded by a point system, not a "gold standard", etc

-maybe higher shooting scores required

All members must qualify Marksman on PWT3? Or a different qualification shoot?
Also, why? Do other nations have their Airborne Infantry held to higher standards for marksmanship compared to the non Airborne Infantry, etc?



UnwiseCritic, what do you envision the future mission/tasking of this Jump Company? Is a company sufficient or would it need to be a Airborne Battalion? Also, what about Engineers, Artillery, etc?

You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again).

If you believe it is a role that is unlikely to be used, why retain it and build it into this super Jump Company you envision?

 

[GR66]

...You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again).

You could likely insert this quote into 90% of the organizational/equipment threads on this site.  I personally think that this really is THE fundamental problem with the Canadian military.  We don't have a political leadership that is willing to clearly define what exactly it is that it wants the CF to be capable of doing. 

How do you organize the battalions/brigades/divisions/areas/commands etc. if you don't know what size of force you might be expected to deploy and under what conditions.  How do you organize the Reserves if you don't know if they are to be used for individual augmentation, force generation for domestic ops, as a mobilization base for large scale expansion in time of war, public relations (or all of the above)?  Tracked or wheeled vehicles in what proportion?  What level of protection?  Airborne and air-mobile capability?  Anti-armour and anti-air capabilities?  Pioneers?  Mortars?  Aircraft types and numbers?  Warship types and deployment?  Airlift capability?  Sealift?  Logistical support for what size and number of deployed elements?

There is no right answer for ANY of these questions if we don't know what the expectations are.  With a government that expects the CF to be prepared to contribute something useful in virtually any conceivable situation it's not surprising that it seems (at least to me) that the CF is a high quality military that also seems to have a great many areas of specific weakness.  If we try to keep a bit of every possible capability we're not likely to excel at many of them (or be cost effective at them either).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You could likely insert this quote into 90% of the organizational/equipment threads on this site.  I personally think that this really is THE fundamental problem with the Canadian military.  We don't have a political leadership that is willing to clearly define what exactly it is that it wants the CF to be capable of doing. 

How do you organize the battalions/brigades/divisions/areas/commands etc. if you don't know what size of force you might be expected to deploy and under what conditions.  How do you organize the Reserves if you don't know if they are to be used for individual augmentation, force generation for domestic ops, as a mobilization base for large scale expansion in time of war, public relations (or all of the above)?  Tracked or wheeled vehicles in what proportion?  What level of protection?  Airborne and air-mobile capability?  Anti-armour and anti-air capabilities?  Pioneers?  Mortars?  Aircraft types and numbers?  Warship types and deployment?  Airlift capability?  Sealift?  Logistical support for what size and number of deployed elements?

There is no right answer for ANY of these questions if we don't know what the expectations are.  With a government that expects the CF to be prepared to contribute something useful in virtually any conceivable situation it's not surprising that it seems (at least to me) that the CF is a high quality military that also seems to have a great many areas of specific weakness.  If we try to keep a bit of every possible capability we're not likely to excel at many of them (or be cost effective at them either).

We maintain a general-purpose combat capability because we don't know what we are going to be tasked with.  I would love to see an Airborne Bn get stood up again because I am a real believer in light forces and task-tailored organizations but until we get clear direction from the government it ain't gonna happen.  Maintaining an airborne capability has always been a divisive issue in the CF and while parts of the army have gotten on board with it, the CF as a whole has never committed the necessary resources to make it even remotely feasible.

We have 17 Hercs and 4 Globemasters.  It takes 16 to 20 Hercs to drop a Bn sized force, so while the army may be all on board to get Airborne back the reality is we just don't have the airframes or necessary resources to make it happen.  I would love to see a Para Bn stand up mostly for commonality in training but with our present force structure of 3 Mech Bdes that are all relatively the same I don't see a place for them in the ORBAT.  Besides, CANSOFCOM has pretty much taken over that role anyways.  Basically, what other nations call their airborne forces, we call CSOR 

I am a bigger fan of disbanding the LIB's and re-rolling their PYs into something else then I am of maintaining this "Airborne capability" if you even want to call it that, I would rather call it a skill-set because a "capability" implies that you can actually do something with it and make use of it.  We would be far better off focusing on developing air-mobile capabilities within the CF then continuing to try and re-create the past. 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Maintaining an airborne capability has always been a divisive issue in the CF and while parts of the army have gotten on board with it, the government has never committed the necessary resources to make it even remotely feasible.

Wrong.  The CF has never proposed to the goverment that we allocate the resources to the capability.  If the government were to allocate an additional 20% to our budget tomorrow, I am certain that we, the CF, woiuld not chose to invest it in a true Airborne Capability.  And while we ait for that money to come, no one in the CF is working on capabilities to divest ourselves of so that we can afford said airborne capability.

We need to be careful about blaming "the government" for decisions that we ourselves make.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Wrong.  The CF has never proposed to the goverment that we allocate the resources to the capability.  If the government were to allocate an additional 20% to our budget tomorrow, I am certain that we, the CF, woiuld not chose to invest it in a true Airborne Capability.  And while we ait for that money to come, no one in the CF is working on capabilities to divest ourselves of so that we can afford said airborne capability.

We need to be careful about blaming "the government" for decisions that we ourselves make.

You are right, wrong of me to include the government in there, should have left it at "parts of the army" want an airborne capability. 

I was trying to allude to the fact that airborne forces are actually very expensive and we would be far better off investing our money in capabilities we will actually make use of. 

edit:  Fixed my initial statement

 

[dapaterson]

Any skillset to be assigned to the PRes needs to be assessed in terms of ability to sustain it.  PRes jumpers are not something that's easy to maintain.  Given the geographic dispersion of units, there's a very limited number of units that could be assigned such a role - arguably, the Hasty Ps are about the only one who are close enough to Trenton.  But even geographic proximity does not imply time available; most reserve units are hard-pressed to maintain basic skillsets; adding more to the training bill generally has poor results.

High training, high maintenance cost skillsets are more responsibly vested in the Reg F.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

Hmm for me it's not so much the Airborne capability capability that I'm worried about. I just used it as we already have them within our light infantry battalions. But I can't foresee us using them. Air mobile troops might be a little more relevant.

What my concern is: Is that we'll forget lessons learned in Afghanistan and that our check in the box training will remain in place. Fine (but not great) for getting soldiers ready for a specific mission. I'm also concerned there is going to be a lot of bored soldiers who will be really sick of check in the box training. So making a company more "elite" I hate that term, let's say "more capable of difficult tasks" therefore "different".

By putting a group of soldiers together who are more ready to train throughout the week (free training) who are also fitter. Don't pounce on me about the fitness aspect. I've seen plenty of people fall out of attacks. They could practice various types of insertions, tasks (from recce to raids). And make them the air mobile troops. It would just be a place where soldiers could strive for and where volunteers could rotate through thus spreading motivated well trained soldiers throughout the regiment. And hopefully it would be a unit that could be an example for the other companies/younger soldiers to follow. And they would be more ready to train and improve themselves both mentally and physically.  I would go more in depth but some points were raised about the costs associated with moving soldiers.

(*edited, I accidently deleted my summarizing paragraph)

I have since changed my mind on the best way to keep skill sets current and not lose lessons learned. I think inter unit competition would help breed some of this professionalism. As soldiers do have places to strive for, such as CSOR. Though in my opinion leadership by example is a huge and under utilized approach within the CF. By not having a unit that works closely with normal infantry such as CSOR no one is setting the example of what can be attained.

 

[MikeL]

What my concern is: Is that we'll forget lessons learned in Afghanistan and that our check in the box training will remain in place. Fine (but not great) for getting soldiers ready for a specific mission.

We can't focus training on Afghanistan, the future may hold something very different then what we experienced there.  IMO there has to be a mix of conventional training against a peer force as well as COIN, etc.

So making a company more "elite" I hate that term, let's say "more capable of difficult tasks" therefore "different".

What difficult tasks?  Are these tasks a Rifle Company currently can not accomplish?

By putting a group of soldiers together who are more ready to train throughout the week (free training) who are also fitter. Don't pounce on me about the fitness aspect.

IMO, an entire unit should strive for physical fitness, and training.  Why should only a select rifle company be held to a higher standard and train more then everyone else?

They could practice various types of insertions, tasks (from recce to raids). And make them the air mobile troops.

Why is conducting raids, and company recce tasks, etc specific to only one company?  Again, this is something IMO any Rifle Company should be able to do.  What happens overseas, when this company is at home, but other battalions are overseas and have to do these tasks?  Both Light and Mech Rifle companies have conducted Air Mobile/Assault missions.

What insertion methods must a Infantry Battalion be capable of? Would it be best to have 1 company be the jack of all trades, or spread the skill sets out? Could one company tasked as the Air Mobility/Assault Company, another Amphib, etc

It would just be a place where soldiers could strive for and where volunteers could rotate through thus spreading motivated well trained soldiers throughout the regiment. And hopefully it would be a unit that could be an example for the other companies/younger soldiers to follow. And they would be more ready to train and improve themselves both mentally and physically.  I would go more in depth but some points were raised about the costs associated with moving soldiers.

Is it not possible to have the unit as a whole strive to improve themselves mentally and physically? Why focus a single company within a regiment on this?

 

[UnwiseCritic]

We can't focus training on Afghanistan, the future may hold something very different then what we experienced there.  IMO there has to be a mix of conventional training against a peer force as well as COIN, etc.

I agree, thus the competition. And the need for no more check in the box training

What difficult tasks?  Are these tasks a Rifle Company currently can not accomplish?

Well you've answered your question there with what you expect of a rifle coy. I have seen almost entire platoons fall out of an uphill assualt

IMO, an entire unit should strive for physical fitness, and training.  Why should only a select rifle company be held to a higher standard and train more then everyone else?

Why is conducting raids, and company recce tasks, etc specific to only one company?  Again, this is something IMO any Rifle Company should be able to do.  What happens overseas, when this company is at home, but other battalions are overseas and have to do these tasks?  Both Light and Mech Rifle companies have conducted Air Mobile/Assault missions.

What insertion methods must a Infantry Battalion be capable of? Would it be best to have 1 company be the jack of all trades, or spread the skill sets out? Could one company tasked as the Air Mobility/Assault Company, another Amphib, etc

Is it not possible to have the unit as a whole strive to improve themselves mentally and physically? Why focus a single company within a regiment on this?

I 100% agree everyone should strive to complete all these tasks and have good fitness levels. But this is not currently happening within these battalions (ok, the Battalion I was with). So someone has to be the on the forefront and set an example. As for spreading it out, that's what we do now and it "works". Except when I was air mobile, never even saw a helicopter, when I was mountain troop the first time our company had 1 AMO and maybe 3 BMO qualified soldiers and never came within 200km of a mountain. There was no amphibious company.

And when I was jump company we had to practice/teach hand signals to some soldiers. 1/4 of the Coy had never done a live fire section attack for their first year in battalion (or in infantry training). And I don't know about you but that stuff bothers me.

 

[MikeL]

But this is not currently happening within these battalions (ok, the Battalion I was with). So someone has to be the on the forefront and set an example. As for spreading it out, that's what we do now and it "works". Except when I was air mobile, never even saw a helicopter, when I was mountain troop the first time our company had 1 AMO and maybe 3 BMO qualified soldiers and never came within 200km of a mountain. There was no amphibious company.

And when I was jump company we had to practice/teach hand signals to some soldiers. 1/4 of the Coy had never done a live fire section attack for their first year in battalion (or in infantry training).

Would making one "Super Rifle Coy" change this? Instead of focusing on having this company, why not the larger organization as a whole? There should be a push for the various companies to get out and work with helicopters, live fire ranges, etc. There would have to also be a push/coordination for other elements to train with the battalion as well(eg Tac Hel, etc). 

The Amphib comment was more directed at possible insertions/specializing a Company could do within a battalion; not saying it's something we currently have.

And I don't know about you but that stuff bothers me.

It does, I think it might take more then making a super company to change this.  I assume fiscal restraints, etc will be a issue for more ammo, training, etc. IMO it is going to take a lot more then this Company idea to fix the issues.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

It does, I think it might take more then making a super company to change this.  I assume fiscal restraints, etc will be a issue for more ammo, training, etc. IMO it is going to take a lot more then this Company idea to fix the issues.

Will it take more than one company to fix this? Yes. Is it a start, yes. Is it the right place too start, I don't know. You can still do a lot of training that costs nothing. In Edmonton we had the ability to practice nav, fibua, sat range maybe to practice a call for fire, c-can village, rappelling, obstacle course, first aid, setting up various kinds of trenches, etc. But we never really did much of that.

 

[Flaker]

Well I don't see this happening ("shock infantry") I think there is proof of concept but only in militaries that can afford it.

USA (Rangers, maybe marines, airborne)
England (paras, commandos)
France (marines, some para regiments)
Dutch (marines... Not sure if they are sf or not?)

However Canada is more similar to New Zealand/Australia. I don't believe they have non-sf units designed to be more proficient at light infantry skills.

IMO, the money saved when it comes to troop retention would outweigh the costs of transferring soldiers. Who knows maybe one day they'll finally make that Marine Commando Regiment. Which I would assume would have been based on the royal marines. I wonder what killed that idea?