"Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"
- Thread starter claybot
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,346
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty much the difference between those that are first on the ground and follow on forces isn't it? Those that are tasked with securing the LZ or Beachead and those that are just supposed to pass through on their way to conduct an operation elsewhere.
The farther from the AOR that the LZ is the less risk to the landing, but increased risk to the overall operation. Both approaches (remote LZ and landing on the objective) have succeeded and failed in the past.
The farther from the AOR that the LZ is the less risk to the landing, but increased risk to the overall operation. Both approaches (remote LZ and landing on the objective) have succeeded and failed in the past.
- Reaction score
- 7,346
- Points
- 1,160
I guess what I am asking is: Would it be necessary for all forces to deploy like the first guys in, ie carrying full marching order and supplies for 72 hours attached to each individual trooper? Or might it not be possible for the Follow-On Forces to jump in fighting order with rucks and supplies dropped on pallets under the auspices of the CQ, as an example?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
it's possible, but not necessarily prudent. If the DZ/LZ/Beachead isn't secured, then you may be dropping a re-sup for the bad guys. I'd suggest that every troop should have his 24/48/72 hrs rats etc on his person, and if the ground is secured, then have a re-sup brought in. This way, if he has to fight, dig in, run, then he's good for X amount of time.
I guess I'm saying: "plan for the worst".
I guess I'm saying: "plan for the worst".
- Reaction score
- 16,933
- Points
- 1,260
You can still jump troops combat loaded with pallets in the Herc - best bet any combat terrain jump is full combat gear - any extra kit can be palletized. Troops exit then the cargo can get dumped (hint clear the DZ quick... -or "is that a 5 ton troops those yanks just dumped on us... - fuck run")
I dont think ANYONE would willingly jump into foreign territory w/o his ruck, unless its someone in civies doing SOE/OSS type stuff.
I dont think ANYONE would willingly jump into foreign territory w/o his ruck, unless its someone in civies doing SOE/OSS type stuff.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Why not just go all out and make basic para a part of 031 QL3, or whatever we call it this week? Oops, I already know the answer...$$$$$
Kat
Kat
- Reaction score
- 16,933
- Points
- 1,260
Yes - as long as you accept then jumping from Cassa's 
Realistically the Course is 10days training - plus J stage - and the LIB's have PI's and the appropriate facilties - Mock Towers, Racks, Landing Swings and Aircraft mockups to do them on site.
Given enough PI's you could run two courses side by side with 40ish troops / serial.
So within a few months you could get it done.
HOWEVER - you then need the infrastructure to maintain the capability - extra Riggers, drying towers (or whatever those damn thigns they hang the chutes in are), and AIRCRAFT to do real training (and that would be Herc's or god willing C17's)
*I've never jumped CASSA, but I understand its not a tactical aircraft nor can it dispatch a lot of troops quick.
Realistically the Course is 10days training - plus J stage - and the LIB's have PI's and the appropriate facilties - Mock Towers, Racks, Landing Swings and Aircraft mockups to do them on site.
Given enough PI's you could run two courses side by side with 40ish troops / serial.
So within a few months you could get it done.
HOWEVER - you then need the infrastructure to maintain the capability - extra Riggers, drying towers (or whatever those damn thigns they hang the chutes in are), and AIRCRAFT to do real training (and that would be Herc's or god willing C17's)
*I've never jumped CASSA, but I understand its not a tactical aircraft nor can it dispatch a lot of troops quick.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Hell, even take em all up and chuck em out of a chopper every six months. Or failing that a kind of "mini para" familiarization... launch all the boots out of the tower a few dozen times.... General Urquhart jumped into Arnhem with exactly zero jumps, if I remember correctly ;D
Kat
Kat
- Reaction score
- 16,933
- Points
- 1,260
FWIW - IMHO the Tower does zero once your already qualified.
I managed to go 8 years between jumps once and was not worry about such things (or required to do one) as a tower refresher. Flight - Check, Landings - Check, AC - Check - GTG Jumper...
Chopper jumps are good for Bare Ass fun - but rather unrealistic for much other than practise watching the ground come up at you. I mean - IF you have a chopper - land in it it nicer landing with a ruck in a helo.
I'd have CABC (whoops) I mean CPC as the centre for excellence inAirborne Para Operations - Running AMO, JM, PI, MFP and MFPI - then farming Basic Para out to the Bde's
I managed to go 8 years between jumps once and was not worry about such things (or required to do one) as a tower refresher. Flight - Check, Landings - Check, AC - Check - GTG Jumper...
Chopper jumps are good for Bare Ass fun - but rather unrealistic for much other than practise watching the ground come up at you. I mean - IF you have a chopper - land in it
it nicer landing with a ruck in a helo. I'd have CABC (whoops) I mean CPC as the centre for excellence in
- Reaction score
- 7,346
- Points
- 1,160
Stop teasing Kevin --- Cassa indeed.
How about the "Baby Herc" the C27J? That looks like a stand up exit ~40 Jumpers?
And the C17 for jumping? Kind of overkill isn't it? I thought they could only carry about as many jumpers as a stretch Herc, about 90 jumpers - maybe 120.
C17 excells on Kit more than bodies. The C130 and even the C27 seem to be a much more cost effective way of keeping jumpers current. Keep the C17s for hauling vehicles and those jumpers that you can put in the fuselage seats.
Cheers anyway
How about the "Baby Herc" the C27J? That looks like a stand up exit ~40 Jumpers?
And the C17 for jumping? Kind of overkill isn't it? I thought they could only carry about as many jumpers as a stretch Herc, about 90 jumpers - maybe 120.
C17 excells on Kit more than bodies. The C130 and even the C27 seem to be a much more cost effective way of keeping jumpers current. Keep the C17s for hauling vehicles and those jumpers that you can put in the fuselage seats.
Cheers anyway
B
BITTER PPLCI CPL
Guest
I just checked the C-17 can carry 102 para's and the C130J-30 (stretched) can carry 92, that's not much of a difference. Maybe we should look at the C130J-30 as a replacement?
- Reaction score
- 16,933
- Points
- 1,260
Yes but in a C17 you can have a large amount of palets (inc vehicles) that you can dump out on the DZ after the troops have jumped.
Since out Dinosaur fleet - whoops I meant Herc fleet -s archaic they need to be replaced - get the J-30 and be done with.
The C27 fufills no role for me - it might be a decent Buffalo replacement but I cant see how to employ it outside dropping small numbers of SF troops.
Since out Dinosaur fleet - whoops I meant Herc fleet -s archaic they need to be replaced - get the J-30 and be done with.
The C27 fufills no role for me - it might be a decent Buffalo replacement but I cant see how to employ it outside dropping small numbers of SF troops.
- Reaction score
- 7,346
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks BPC:
So - C17, 102 paras
C130J-30 , 92 paras
C130E/H/J 64 paras
C27J 34 paras (US) - 46 paras (Euro)
Kevin:
The first link below is to an article in the National Defense Magazine from the US about replacing the US Army's C23 Sherpa - a small aircraft that replaced the Buffalos and Caribous in their service. The article describes it as the most utilized aircraft in Iraq, even moreso (on a per aircraft basis) than the Herc. As far as I can gather it is like an airborne 5 tonne truck delivering everything everywhere. The Casa 295 and the C27 are both competing to replace it. The other link is to the FWSAR thread on this board.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Sep/Battle_Heats.htm
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.165.html
I guess where my concern lies is in the flow of troops and materiel to the field. Large aircraft carry large loads but cost a lot to run. Small aircraft carry small loads but cost less to run.
I am going to stipulate that we have need for large aircraft, in particular C-17s, but unlike some I don't see them as particularly useful for international operations. The C17 actually has quite short legs when maximally loaded meaning it has to land and take off 2 or 3 three times to get half way round the globe. Their expense means that we are unlikely to get a large number for the CF. By contrast a small number could be well utilized domestically making relatively short hops of 1-4 hours moving outsize cargo to any of a few hundred suitable airfields within Canada. Internationally it seems to me that the CDS's BHS (Big Honking Ship) and some medium lift helos make more sense.
Putting the movement of outsize cargo aside, and looking at the lifting of troops and supplies, after the initial lift of bodies and kit: How much materiel must be constantly lifted to support a unit in the field? And how dispersed is the unit?
I take your point on the C130J-30 for the initial delivery. But is it necessary for sustaining the force in the field, especially if the force is dispersed with deliveries being made to the dispersed locales? Also, for those periods when operations are not being conducted what other uses can the aircraft be put? Which is the lower cost training vehicle so as to allow more troopers to be kept current? A C17 carrying 102 troops, even a C130J-30 carrying 92 troops or something smaller that can carry only 30 to 50 troops?
The advantage of the C23/C27/C295 type aircraft is that they are (generally speaking) more useful in more situations. They can conduct SAR searches relatively cheaply, conduct training drops, carry supplies both administratively and operationally, and contribute to foreign operations. Larger aircraft are less flexible. In the C17 case that is obvious but the capability they supply can't be matched by other options. In the case of th C130 family vs the smaller aircraft the differences still exist but decrease.
I guess it comes down to this: Do we buy a semi to deliver the groceries on a preplanned route once every two weeks, 2 HLVWs to deliver them every week or 8 MLVWS that can deliver them on demand? Keeping in mind that the semi, like the C17, needs asphalt to get the goods to you. That means that, assuming a suitable airstrips are available near the dispersed locales that the C17, and even the C130s will have to make a lot of expensive landings and take-offs. Something like the Sherpa, or the C27, with short, rough strip capability can deliver closer to more locales more frequently.
Of course the other option might be for the C17 just to fly overhead once every week or so and throw the supplies out the back.
My own aircraft collection might be something along the lines of 3 to 4 C17s (200 MUSD each - Domestic outsize deliveries and possibly international deliveries) with 20 to 30 C27s (25 MUSD each for SAR, Transport, Training, Operational Resupply, Operational SOF Support) and if money permits 6 to 8 C130J-30s (50 MUSD each - Surge deployments and about 80% commonality in support with the C27J).
But this is wandering out of lane and probably should be continued under the FWSAR thread, the Tactical Airlift thread, or the Strategic Airlift threads.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22920.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27489.0.html
Getting back in lane, assuming sufficient assets, and looking at what you and paracowboy have written I gather that you both consider it do-able to train all infanteers to jump. As to keeping troops current, this doesn't need to be an army-wide regular occurence? 1-3 units, with supporting arms, could be kept current and the other units, brought up to speed readily with a short refresher course?
Again, my interest is not so much in seeing mass "coup de main" assault drops, as just getting large numbers of troops into inaccessible areas before the other guy gets there. Eg putting a body of troops on an uninhabited rock that can't be reached by other means in order to assert sovereignty. Or alternately moving troops into a secure FUP where they can take their time marrying up with their gear and conduct a conventional overland operation. Both scenarios seem suitable for Canadian domestic operations where we are unlikely to encounter large enemy forces and where we are likely to have dominance in our own skies and choice of a wide variety of locations from which to mount operations, but not many of which are likely to be well serviced.
Maybe an example - somebody has secured Resolute and established a presence there (reason unkown) - govt desires the presence to be cleared out. Option A - drop on Resolute. Option B - drop 200 miles away from Resolute with Bv206s etc and drive to Resolute for a conventional attack.
Anyway....curiosity.
Cheers.
So - C17, 102 paras
C130J-30 , 92 paras
C130E/H/J 64 paras
C27J 34 paras (US) - 46 paras (Euro)
Kevin:
The first link below is to an article in the National Defense Magazine from the US about replacing the US Army's C23 Sherpa - a small aircraft that replaced the Buffalos and Caribous in their service. The article describes it as the most utilized aircraft in Iraq, even moreso (on a per aircraft basis) than the Herc. As far as I can gather it is like an airborne 5 tonne truck delivering everything everywhere. The Casa 295 and the C27 are both competing to replace it. The other link is to the FWSAR thread on this board.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Sep/Battle_Heats.htm
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.165.html
I guess where my concern lies is in the flow of troops and materiel to the field. Large aircraft carry large loads but cost a lot to run. Small aircraft carry small loads but cost less to run.
I am going to stipulate that we have need for large aircraft, in particular C-17s, but unlike some I don't see them as particularly useful for international operations. The C17 actually has quite short legs when maximally loaded meaning it has to land and take off 2 or 3 three times to get half way round the globe. Their expense means that we are unlikely to get a large number for the CF. By contrast a small number could be well utilized domestically making relatively short hops of 1-4 hours moving outsize cargo to any of a few hundred suitable airfields within Canada. Internationally it seems to me that the CDS's BHS (Big Honking Ship) and some medium lift helos make more sense.
Putting the movement of outsize cargo aside, and looking at the lifting of troops and supplies, after the initial lift of bodies and kit: How much materiel must be constantly lifted to support a unit in the field? And how dispersed is the unit?
I take your point on the C130J-30 for the initial delivery. But is it necessary for sustaining the force in the field, especially if the force is dispersed with deliveries being made to the dispersed locales? Also, for those periods when operations are not being conducted what other uses can the aircraft be put? Which is the lower cost training vehicle so as to allow more troopers to be kept current? A C17 carrying 102 troops, even a C130J-30 carrying 92 troops or something smaller that can carry only 30 to 50 troops?
The advantage of the C23/C27/C295 type aircraft is that they are (generally speaking) more useful in more situations. They can conduct SAR searches relatively cheaply, conduct training drops, carry supplies both administratively and operationally, and contribute to foreign operations. Larger aircraft are less flexible. In the C17 case that is obvious but the capability they supply can't be matched by other options. In the case of th C130 family vs the smaller aircraft the differences still exist but decrease.
I guess it comes down to this: Do we buy a semi to deliver the groceries on a preplanned route once every two weeks, 2 HLVWs to deliver them every week or 8 MLVWS that can deliver them on demand? Keeping in mind that the semi, like the C17, needs asphalt to get the goods to you. That means that, assuming a suitable airstrips are available near the dispersed locales that the C17, and even the C130s will have to make a lot of expensive landings and take-offs. Something like the Sherpa, or the C27, with short, rough strip capability can deliver closer to more locales more frequently.
Of course the other option might be for the C17 just to fly overhead once every week or so and throw the supplies out the back.
My own aircraft collection might be something along the lines of 3 to 4 C17s (200 MUSD each - Domestic outsize deliveries and possibly international deliveries) with 20 to 30 C27s (25 MUSD each for SAR, Transport, Training, Operational Resupply, Operational SOF Support) and if money permits 6 to 8 C130J-30s (50 MUSD each - Surge deployments and about 80% commonality in support with the C27J).
But this is wandering out of lane and probably should be continued under the FWSAR thread, the Tactical Airlift thread, or the Strategic Airlift threads.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22920.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27489.0.html
Getting back in lane, assuming sufficient assets, and looking at what you and paracowboy have written I gather that you both consider it do-able to train all infanteers to jump. As to keeping troops current, this doesn't need to be an army-wide regular occurence? 1-3 units, with supporting arms, could be kept current and the other units, brought up to speed readily with a short refresher course?
Again, my interest is not so much in seeing mass "coup de main" assault drops, as just getting large numbers of troops into inaccessible areas before the other guy gets there. Eg putting a body of troops on an uninhabited rock that can't be reached by other means in order to assert sovereignty. Or alternately moving troops into a secure FUP where they can take their time marrying up with their gear and conduct a conventional overland operation. Both scenarios seem suitable for Canadian domestic operations where we are unlikely to encounter large enemy forces and where we are likely to have dominance in our own skies and choice of a wide variety of locations from which to mount operations, but not many of which are likely to be well serviced.
Maybe an example - somebody has secured Resolute and established a presence there (reason unkown) - govt desires the presence to be cleared out. Option A - drop on Resolute. Option B - drop 200 miles away from Resolute with Bv206s etc and drive to Resolute for a conventional attack.
Anyway....curiosity.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 16,933
- Points
- 1,260
Well for the C17 (kevin dreaming about real operations again) we coudl use it to jump and seize and airfield and land LAV or Gwagons for force protection /mobility usage - the nice thing about the C17 is it is a rough field craft as well.
Plus the C17 can bring choppers.
Like I said from my end I did not see the use for the C27 - thank you for illustrating one. I found one more - if your dropping a few Recce dets into an area you can deploy them in that rather than waste a Herc.
*I am NOT advocating C17's just for jumping - I'm advocating them for getting supplies and kit into theatre quick. 3 Fuel stops won't add a lot of time.
If you look at the kit a Pl has these days it could fill a Herc with justs its stores - If you had a Hummer type vehicle (or two) as a "PQ" you could add real legs and some teeth to your light forces - plus ATV's etc.
Ideally costing of AC would not play a part - just the bottom of line of sustainability and force protection. --- but...
Plus the C17 can bring choppers.
Like I said from my end I did not see the use for the C27 - thank you for illustrating one. I found one more - if your dropping a few Recce dets into an area you can deploy them in that rather than waste a Herc.
*I am NOT advocating C17's just for jumping - I'm advocating them for getting supplies and kit into theatre quick. 3 Fuel stops won't add a lot of time.
If you look at the kit a Pl has these days it could fill a Herc with justs its stores - If you had a Hummer type vehicle (or two) as a "PQ" you could add real legs and some teeth to your light forces - plus ATV's etc.
Ideally costing of AC would not play a part - just the bottom of line of sustainability and force protection. --- but...
