understanding modern airboure operations

[Raven22]

Was just reading an article by Major Paul Scanlan

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/L...AAJ/2012Summer/05-IsParachuteCapabilitySt.pdf

Am curious about his point of Plan Beersheba to have one Amphibious Battalion group for operations while also providing a Parachute battle group be better for the ADF than what the Government is pushing for in the White paper?

I wouldn't read too much into those articles. They're simply produced by students at Staff College as part of their masters. You can find similar essays talking about all sorts of random things.

I think the point you are referring too is that Plan Beersheba doesn't easily support the government requirement for a brigade deployed somewhere and another battle group available for operations. This is because 2 RAR would be part of the lodgement of the brigade, and therefore wouldn't be able to sit outside that rotation and be available for something else. Having the 1 Div direct command unit being a parachute battalion would improve this, as the FORCOMD brigades can rotate through the brigade deployment and keep the parachute battalion outside of that, providing options to government.

It's not a particularly strong point, however, as the 'left over' unit of the deployed brigade could just as easily provide the extra battlegroup as a parachute battalion could, just without the option of being inserted by parachute. That isn't much of an option anyway, as in the article he states the purpose of a parachute capability in FORCOMD is simply to create a lodgement for follow on forces. If there's no follow on forces, because they are deployed elsewhere, what's the point?

 

[Volkodav]

Maybe we could disband the entire conventional army and just make everyone Commandos? Or maybe the good ideas piñata just needs a bit of a rest.

I was actually thinking along the lines of the Belgian Para/Commando Regiment and the British re-roling of one of their Para btns to SOF support. To be honest I'm not sure if the Belgian unit still exists but my thinking was if you are looking to maintain special capabilities outside of the regular brigade structure then you may as well tie them into you existing special forces. On the other hand if you are not looking to maintain or create special capabilities as the existing structure adequately covers the required effect without a special capability then there is no point.

 

[t68]

So under the current construct Army does not have the ability to provide a Brigade & Battalion size deployments with rotations irrespective of them being amphibious or parachute trained. We are short two Battalions, even with a mobilisation of the reserves which would be supplemental to the Brigade formation.

 

[MickB]

Could an arguement be made for a platoon sized pathfinder unit. To parachute in to scout and prepare the LZ, both for helos and C27/C130s and act as air traffic control. Similar to elements of the US Air Commandos, or do 2 CDO and SAS cover these tasks.

Operation Eagle Claw is the first that comes to mind. A concept that might have worked with better interservice cooperation and training.

 

[old faithful]

And in WWI, with a population of 5 million, we had 60 battalions. So what? Apples to oranges comparisons aren't very helpful. Besides, reaching back to history won't help the cause for a parachute battalion, as there isn't much of a history to reach back to.



Mark Evans is retired, and Angus Campbell is the ex-CO of 2 RAR. I don't think either one are going to help the parachute cause too much, particularly as the next CA is almost certainly going to be Michael Slater, who is 2 RAR to the bone.

Mate, I was referring to peace time armies, what was the standing army in 1913?

Sorry to bother you with this thread mate, ill give it a rest now, just thought it was worth discussing, as some members here, have absolutly no idea of how airboutne operations work. I have read replies on another thread, where a current serving officer made suggestions about para,s being sitting ducks while they descend onto the DZ. Just wanted to start a discussion on the positive points, not the negatives, it appears that modern soldiers are so much smarter than us oldies.

You couldn't see a role for an airbourne btn in the Australian army, even if we had the extra units? I couldn't care less which unit it was, 9 RAR, 4 RAR or even 10

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Could an arguement be made for a platoon sized pathfinder unit. To parachute in to scout and prepare the LZ, both for helos and C27/C130s and act as air traffic control. Similar to elements of the US Air Commandos, or do 2 CDO and SAS cover these tasks.

RAAF 4 Sqn, special tactics operators, but for fixed wing. The helos don't need it.

Operation Eagle Claw is the first that comes to mind. A concept that might have worked with better interservice cooperation and training.

There was nothing wrong with the interservice coop in Eagle Claw just that the helo unit was a major weak link. The mission failure was entirely self managed by the helo unit. Not the USMC's brightest moment.

 

[t68]

Sorry to bother you with this thread mate, ill give it a rest now, just thought it was worth discussing, as some members here, have absolutly no idea of how airboutne operations work. I have read replies on another thread, where a current serving officer made suggestions about para,s being sitting ducks while they descend onto the DZ. Just wanted to start a discussion on the positive points, not the negatives, it appears that modern soldiers are so much smarter than us oldies.

You couldn't see a role for an airbourne btn in the Australian army, even if we had the extra units? I couldn't care less which unit it was, 9 RAR, 4 RAR or even 10

Considering how many nations across the world still have a parachute capability whether its part of the special’s or otherwise there must still be merit in the idea. It would also be enlightening to hear it from your perspective on how the ADF can still incorporate a parachute Battalion capability, from the little bit of information I have gathered there are several different lines of thought on the matter.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the thread and what you are trying to achieve, with the current standing of the ADF trying to build up an amphibious and airmobile doctrine in line with the USMC & UK-RM something got to give unless the government expands Army further, as for the capability of deploying a Brigade & Battalions size deployment simultaneously post-47 I don’t think with hindsight the ADF had a snowball chance in hell of ever being able to achieve this with except for a brief time during between 1965&73 when we were committed to Vietnam and contributed to the Far East Strategic Reserve.

 

[STURM]

From a Malaysian army perspective, para units are intended to be rapidly deployed to East Malaysia, by sea or air. The intention off course is not to have any of the 3 battalions of 10 Para Brigade jump over a hot DZ or to actually start fighting once they hit the ground, but to establish a presence until the arrival of heavier units [if history is anything to go by this sounds great on paper but in reality might turn out differently]. Like all or most other similar units however, 10 Para Brigade can only operate independently and be logisticly self-supporting for a limited period. The heaviest weapons available are Model 56s [these can be air dropped on pallets along with their towing vehicles], 81mm mortars and Eryxs.

Does anyone know what the average shelf-life of a parachute is; assuming its regularly used and well maintained?

 

[Waylander]

In many cases the examples listed used parachuting because that’s how the parachute unit wanted to deploy. There were available helicopter deployed units who got pushed aside so parachuting could be used (Grenada) and available airlanding (Panama). In many of these cases the utility of parachuting is debateable as it caused a number of casualties that could have been avoided if less dramatic means were used.

As for the Rhodesian fire forces they only used parachuting because they lacked transport helicopters. Whenever South African Pumas were available to them the Dakotas and chutes were left at home.

Further with new helicopter technology like V-22 and JMR the range and speed advantage of parachuting is become less so. Especially as the long and obvious lead times to prepare a parachute assault and the advent of wide access satellite imaging are destroying the operational/tactical surprise element of a parachute assault.

I doubt that the French in Africa could have been able to inserted that many troops over such a distance in so short a time with other means.

Opening the northern front in Iraq with heliborn troops alone while Turkey closed denied their country as a staging area may have been muh more difficult and resource intensive if done by other means. And I fairly doubt the jumps in Afghanistan were just for fun.

I also fail to see why an airborn operation needs more time than an air assault operation. It's not like putting your QRF paras into transport planes is any more time intensive than getting your transport helicopters close to the theater and putting your normal light infantry QRF into them.

And what does sat based intelligence assets to do with the surprise element of a para insertion?

 

[Raven22]

Mate, I was referring to peace time armies, what was the standing army in 1913?

Sorry to bother you with this thread mate, ill give it a rest now, just thought it was worth discussing, as some members here, have absolutly no idea of how airboutne operations work. I have read replies on another thread, where a current serving officer made suggestions about para,s being sitting ducks while they descend onto the DZ. Just wanted to start a discussion on the positive points, not the negatives, it appears that modern soldiers are so much smarter than us oldies.

You couldn't see a role for an airbourne btn in the Australian army, even if we had the extra units? I couldn't care less which unit it was, 9 RAR, 4 RAR or even 10

Of I could see a role for for a parachute unit in the Australian Army. If real world constraints aren't an issue, you could find use for any capability under the sun. You could have a camel mounted anti-tank battalion, and still find a use for it. If these sort of discussions aren't grounded in reality though, what's the point?

If you want to talk about about a parachute capability being useful, crack on. I dont doubt that, and in fact I've part of a real world operation where Australian soldiers jumped onto their objectives. If you want to discuss that there should be a parachute battalion In the current ORBAT, however, expect for it to be challenged.

 

[old faithful]

Disregard.....it was suposed to be a thread about understanding airbourne operations, not that we should have an airbourne infantry battalion, or an anti tank camel , or alien invasion standby battalion....

 

[Volkodav]

Thinking back to the early 90s I can remember the service attitudes towards snipers and marksmanship in general, I.e. It was an unnecessary wank. Tanks were a waste of resources, ATGWs and body armor were an unaffordable luxury that we would never need anyway. What I am saying is circumstances and attitudes change.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I doubt that the French in Africa could have been able to inserted that many troops over such a distance in so short a time with other means.

Do you mean Operation Serval? Where the French paras drove into Mali on trucks?

Opening the northern front in Iraq with heliborn troops alone while Turkey closed denied their country as a staging area may have been muh more difficult and resource intensive if done by other means.

The Bashur Airfield para jump is hardly an example of the utility and effectiveness of airborne deployment. The airfield was secured by Kurdish forces and SOF on the ground before the insertion. 1,000 paratroops jumped onto it and took 15 hours to form up. Foruntately the only Iraqi counter attack was some highly inaccurate artillery fire. Then it took two weeks of heavy airlift to build up a mechanised force of any weight. Operational Northern Delay showed up all the limitations of airborne forces and did very little for the Iraq invasion effort.

And I fairly doubt the jumps in Afghanistan were just for fun.

Sure but none of them were operations that couldn’t have been conducted by helicopter deployment.

I also fail to see why an airborn operation needs more time than an air assault operation. It's not like putting your QRF paras into transport planes is any more time intensive than getting your transport helicopters close to the theater and putting your normal light infantry QRF into them.

We aren’t talking about a QRF aren’t we? We’re talking about an airborne insertion which would no doubt require a lot of air dropped supplies and munitions to sustain a fight. Far hardly to prepare all that than just load stuff onto the back of a helicopter.

And what does sat based intelligence assets to do with the surprise element of a para insertion?

Ever seen an airfield in the middle of trying to prepare a significant airborne effort? Aircraft everywhere, paras and stores laid out ready for loading over hours and hours. It’s the biggest intelligence give away of all time. Back in the 1940s you could get away with it but not anymore.

 

[RobWilliams]

Do you mean Operation Serval? Where the French paras drove into Mali on trucks?

French troops (FFL) did conduct parachute ops in Mali as part of Op Serval. IR footage of the C-160 was from a Harfang UAS. Part of a combined assault on Timbuktu IIRC.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ElySEd8MOw"]French paratroopers of 2e REP Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment were parachuted on Timbuktu - YouTube[/nomedia]
French paratroopers of 2e REP Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment were parachuted on Timbuktu 2801132*-*Army Recognition

 

[the road runner]

I have been told, expect a 7th C17.

Off Topic ... Seems like the line has enough orders to keep it busy till the 3rd Quarter of 2014 if no more orders are placed.9 more C-17 to be handed over (7 to India and 2 to Kuwait) to international customers

http://www.janes.com/article/27052/final-c-17-handed-over-to-the-usaf

 

[Abraham Gubler]

French troops (FFL) did conduct parachute ops in Mali as part of Op Serval. IR footage of the C-160 was from a Harfang UAS. Part of a combined assault on Timbuktu IIRC.

After the rebels had fled the town to avoid French air strikes and as part of a combined op with forces moving overland. This is another example of a para drop that could have been conducted by other means. It was hardly a para or nothing type operation.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Despite pooh-poohing airborne operations in this thread I’ve always been a fan if things could be improved. Getting from a to b by aircraft and parachuting into action is a very quick way of moving combat forces. The problem is that the aircraft can’t carry enough combat weight and the process of preparing and deploying parachute forces is too time consuming. But if you could cut these issues with a purpose designed, blank sheet system, you could achieve a rapid deployable combat force that is far better than amphibious or other units.

The first thing you need is a parachuting combat vehicle in the combat worthy 30-40 tonne class that can be configured as a medium tank, IFV, SP155, etc. This vehicle would be slightly different to other similar classes of combat vehicles. In that it would have a self-contained air drop ability with the crew and any dismounts onboard. This way the crew would mount the vehicle and be driven into the airlift aircraft and then it would just be pushed out the back over the drop zone and land safely by parachute, glider, big bouncy balls or whatever and then enter the battle.

The advantage of this over traditional air dropping of vehicles is that it would not require considerable preparation for air dropping. Just a snap on parachute, rocket or whatever that could easily be attached before loading onto the aircraft and easily removed when on the ground. This way the combat unit can just be driven from its barracks to an airfield and straight into the air drop aircraft. Also be jumping with its crew onboard, that is having enough safety to do so and appropriate seating or whatever, there is a limited need to prepare and form up on the ground after parachuting. The vehicle can just use its radios and navigation system to find the other vehicles in its combat team and the air dropped unit would be into action far quicker than traditional parachuting units. If you gave this vehicle some gliding capability you could even deploy it via HAHO and have them form up in the air and fly in a few 10s of kms to the target.

The second thing you would need is heavy lift aircraft to carry a reasonable load. Ideally an aircraft able to carry 10 airdrop medium combat vehicles at a radius of several thousand kms would enable an effective combat force to be deployed from a single airfield. There are other possible options of achieving such a density (towing them as gliders) or even a two vehicle airlifter (C-17) that wouldn’t be so bad.

But until such a combat vehicle is available air dropping combat forces is a game that only armies with more resources to play with that Australia should be working on.

 

[Raven22]

Disregard.....it was suposed to be a thread about understanding airbourne operations, not that we should have an airbourne infantry battalion, or an anti tank camel , or alien invasion standby battalion....

Fair enough, but if it wasn't a thread about regaining a parachute battalion, then why post this:

With plan beersheeba happening, I can see a slim chance of 3RAR re gaining the parachute role. 6 bns needed for the plan, currently 7 bns on line.

Use of 2 CDO regt in these roles would be a waste of their capabilities for the most part.

I can't see why we would train only 1 bn in maratime ops, with the capacity to lift a brigade at once just a few years away.

I was just responding to what you wrote.

 

[Feanor]

Despite pooh-poohing airborne operations in this thread I’ve always been a fan if things could be improved. Getting from a to b by aircraft and parachuting into action is a very quick way of moving combat forces. The problem is that the aircraft can’t carry enough combat weight and the process of preparing and deploying parachute forces is too time consuming. But if you could cut these issues with a purpose designed, blank sheet system, you could achieve a rapid deployable combat force that is far better than amphibious or other units.

The first thing you need is a parachuting combat vehicle in the combat worthy 30-40 tonne class that can be configured as a medium tank, IFV, SP155, etc. This vehicle would be slightly different to other similar classes of combat vehicles. In that it would have a self-contained air drop ability with the crew and any dismounts onboard. This way the crew would mount the vehicle and be driven into the airlift aircraft and then it would just be pushed out the back over the drop zone and land safely by parachute, glider, big bouncy balls or whatever and then enter the battle.

The advantage of this over traditional air dropping of vehicles is that it would not require considerable preparation for air dropping. Just a snap on parachute, rocket or whatever that could easily be attached before loading onto the aircraft and easily removed when on the ground. This way the combat unit can just be driven from its barracks to an airfield and straight into the air drop aircraft. Also be jumping with its crew onboard, that is having enough safety to do so and appropriate seating or whatever, there is a limited need to prepare and form up on the ground after parachuting. The vehicle can just use its radios and navigation system to find the other vehicles in its combat team and the air dropped unit would be into action far quicker than traditional parachuting units. If you gave this vehicle some gliding capability you could even deploy it via HAHO and have them form up in the air and fly in a few 10s of kms to the target.

The second thing you would need is heavy lift aircraft to carry a reasonable load. Ideally an aircraft able to carry 10 airdrop medium combat vehicles at a radius of several thousand kms would enable an effective combat force to be deployed from a single airfield. There are other possible options of achieving such a density (towing them as gliders) or even a two vehicle airlifter (C-17) that wouldn’t be so bad.

But until such a combat vehicle is available air dropping combat forces is a game that only armies with more resources to play with that Australia should be working on.

What you're describing is a heavier version of the BMD-4M chassis. Which can already be used for a lot of what you describe. It's only problem is low levels of protection, and relatively low weight. That having been said it's the chassis for a future light tank, a BMD-3 chassis is used for the current Sprut-SD light tank, BMD chassis are used for the Nona-S which is a 120mm SP mortar. There's an armored ambulance, and APC, in the works, and an air droppable version of the Pantsyr air defense system.

The main limitation is the capacity of the heavy transports, both in terms of internal volume, and weight. So for what you're talking about, what kind of transport fleet do you envision? Massive numbers of An-124s/C-5Ms?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What you're describing is a heavier version of the BMD-4M chassis.

Sort of but not quite. Weight is extremely important in air dropping a vehicle. The BMD-4 is only a 14 tonne vehicle and I’m talking about something that can is three times heavier. So would require an means of retarding falling to earth three times more effective than that provided to the BMD-4. Which is an extremely large ask considering the BMD-4 has some of the world’s most effective parachute and rocket retardation. So it’s a lot more than just a “heavier” version.If you stay with the 14 tonne class BMD you have many of the problems of traditional paratroopers: lack of combat weight.

Heavier aircraft is not a big a limitation as being able to drop a heavier vehicle. You just build bigger aircraft. If you were to build a 500 tonne payload aircraft it would be expensive but not impossible. Also such an aircraft would probably provide the same kind of huge efficiencies to air travel that the 747 did when it was introduced. Especially in air cargo movements.

Of course if you built a 500 tonne payload aircraft that could land vertically you would even need an airdrop tank. While a conventional aircraft of such size able to land vertically is pretty out there it is normal means of operation for a lighter than air vehicle. See Aeros...