Airborne drop by Paras planned to reinforce in Afghanistan [Archive]

Two's in

5th Nov 2006, 12:59

Even with the assumption that ground movement in theatre has its problems, what is the real benefit here of dropping troops in? Surely the logistics of supplying enough suitable airframes (the report says C-130 unserviceabilities prevented it happening before), securing the DZ's, the numbers of drop casualties, and ultimately joining the deployed troops up with the existing lines of logistics make this a risky enterprise.

It will definitely be a good photo oportunity for "force projection" and help all those blue badge of courage believers to reinforce why there even is a para deployable role for the Army, but this doesn't leap out as an obvious way to reduce our overstretch or clarify our muddled military objectives in Afghanistan.

Is this being driven by Des Browne or some ex-Aldershot General?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2438003,00.html

FormerFlake

5th Nov 2006, 13:10

Nothing like a good bit of OPSEC.

BEagle

5th Nov 2006, 13:11

"The process — strategic long-range parachute insertion — involves the aircraft being refuelled in mid-air."

And in just what sort of condition would the poor old paras be after several hours of a 'long-range insertion' involving AAR? Fatigued by the racket in the back of a C-130 and sick as parrots after AAR, they would hardly be up to an extended operation in a hostile area.

And how will they get back again?

The idea is frankly barking. Added to which, the reliability of stone age Mk 17 HDUs to refuel C-130s from jet tankers has always been poor. Is it any better now?

Good luck to anyone involved in this folly, should it ever be ordered.

Professor Plum

5th Nov 2006, 13:18

I think the article quite nicely sums up the state of the armed forces....

Paratroopers were expecting to jump into action in Afghanistan earlier this year.... Parachutes and the RAF dispatchers were sent to Afghanistan ahead of the jumps but there were not enough serviceable C-130s to proceed

and

Plans to dispatch paratroopers direct to Afghanistan from the UK to reinforce units already there is further evidence of lack of available ground troops

and

Lieutenant-General David Richards, .... was originally promised a battalion of British paratroopers .... But commitments in Iraq meant there were not enough spare infantry available

and

Senior commanders have admitted they do not have enough troops to mount operations at current levels in both Iraq and Afghanistan

and

General Sir Richard Dannatt, ... said last month that British troops needed to get out of Iraq “some time soon” to concentrate on Afghanistan.

and

The National Audit Office said last week the forces were more than 5,000 men short.

and good ol' Tony claims the forces aren't overstretched!! :ugh:

jindabyne

5th Nov 2006, 13:30

I take it that the Principles of War are no longer on the curriculum.

Two's in

5th Nov 2006, 16:10

Flake, I'm not sure, but I don't think Opsec applies to Government photo opportunities.

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

5th Nov 2006, 16:20

I wasn't aware civvy charter aircraft were cleared for para drops. :}

I think Michael Smith of The Times has got carried away here.

With 600 paras on 12 hour standby, we would presumably need these 6 (or 7?) Hercs on standby as well...

With refuel probes fitted...

And AAR Qualified crews on standby...

Once again, I wake up to find my arsehole has healed up.

Archimedes

5th Nov 2006, 16:28

Wasn't there a very similar story about an airborne drop doing the rounds just prior to 3 PARA's deployment? Either that or the sense of deja vu is overwhelming...

Compressorstall

5th Nov 2006, 18:06

A parachute batallion jumping out of 6 C130s?? Has anyone actually done the maths for a batallion drop? It might be a few more than 6...:ugh:

The Helpful Stacker

5th Nov 2006, 18:21

The Paras always have some sort of plan kicking around which justifies keeping so many of them (expensively) trained up and ready to go, but since Suez only very small groups have been dropped operationally. The simple reason is that opposed, mass parachute drops in an environment where every man and his dog has a trusty AK47 and the terrain seems to be made of cracks would produce casualty figures unacceptable to a modern government.

double albert

5th Nov 2006, 18:43

Ah........I see.... It was the unserviceability of the C130s that stopped this plan going ahead.

I'd been under the impression that it was because said plan was, in fact, bollocks.....

:ugh:

November4

5th Nov 2006, 19:01

A parachute batallion jumping out of 6 C130s?? Has anyone actually done the maths for a batallion drop? It might be a few more than 6...:ugh:

That was my first thought when I read the article. So that's 100 paras and their equipment per aircraft. Crammed onto the aircraft for however long the flight direct from Uk to AFG is. As BEagle says

And in just what sort of condition would the poor old paras be after several hours of a 'long-range insertion' involving AAR?

Sounds like a good bit journalistic licence in the story.

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

5th Nov 2006, 19:09

I don't think JPA would be able to cope with them arriving in theatre this way. :} They won't get their phone cards, medals, LSA or Operational Bonus.

And you're supposed to take your anti-malarials for two weeks before deployment.

And they might land in a burning poppy field.

Christ, I'm funny.

airborne_artist

5th Nov 2006, 19:19

In the early 80s we had the entire regt on one BA 747. We were going a week early (as in the opex, supposedly) into Hanover to collect our pre-positioned kit and fan out along the ex IGB for the full-on Ivan coming West scenario. The CO seemed to think it was a first.

Didn't see any rigging for static lines - but perhaps Q was still working on it.

Hosties seemed to appreciate the levels of testosterone - a bit more exciting than the bored businessmen and screaming babies on your typical LH route.

I_stood_in_the_door

5th Nov 2006, 19:42

Hello All,

Back from a long trip away. Has the J (damned fine kite it is) been fitted with a probe over my enforced holiday or have Marshalls delivered some shiny (ish ) new K's.

Takes me back to Kosovo in '99 - almost !!

LFOGOOTFW!

Airborne!!

ISITD

thunderbird7

5th Nov 2006, 20:10

That was my first thought when I read the article. So that's 100 paras and their equipment per aircraft. Crammed onto the aircraft for however long the flight direct from Uk to AFG is.

Think how many of those horrible butty boxes it would take... there'd be no room for any kit!

Pontius Navigator

5th Nov 2006, 20:31

Remember the big airdrop by the US Airborne over Egypt pre GW1? I believe they flew from Stateside to jump out. I wonder how they fared when they landed and no enemy fire.

The Burning Bush

5th Nov 2006, 20:47

Well I can remember doing Sim 45's out of the extended herc, yes I know that dates me. Wasn't very pleasant though:E That's nearly a 100:8

Flame Out

5th Nov 2006, 20:59

Remember the big airdrop by the US Airborne over Egypt pre GW1? I believe they flew from Stateside to jump out. I wonder how they fared when they landed and no enemy fire.

probably the same as when doing the annual REFORGER exercise:bored:

flipster

5th Nov 2006, 21:43

Aha!

I wondered how long it would be before someone in 16AAB dusted off the Op Order for OPERATION CERTAIN DEATH!

Of course, this plan sounds perfectly feasible.......except for the slight problem of finding enough serviceable and suitably protected ac!

That is even before you consider the logistics of finding enough qualified and current crews to formate and tank from the UK (or even from Al-You-Died/Basra, for that matter) and whom aren't busy doing other work for 'other people'.

This is a total non starter, I suspect, so don't get yourselves into lather. Unfortunately, all the logic in the world will not stop some half-crazed para-type making a name for himself and creating gawd knows how much extra work at PJHQ, HQ STC, HQ 2 Gp and LYE! Good luck to all.

Flip

movadinkampa747

5th Nov 2006, 22:20

Its ok I found all these Hercs off the mass Herc flypast thread.
http://www.csharpprogrammer.com/pictures/c130flypast.jpg
Whoops my mistake that was over twenty years ago.

flipster

6th Nov 2006, 09:02

These days, I'm not sure we can put that many ac together, serviceable or not!

At a minimum, you'd need 7 ac for the para (J?), and about the same for the eqpt (Ks only perhaps, depending on the load) - as, surely, no para commander would want to jump as para-wedge only and no stores?

Dream on!

Always_broken_in_wilts

6th Nov 2006, 09:57

I hate it when I bite but,

"At a minimum, you'd need 7 ac for the para (J?), and about the same for the eqpt (Ks only perhaps, depending on the load) - as, surely, no para commander would want to jump as para-wedge only and no stores?"

you are posting drivel again:=

Mike,

Came through Akronelli last week and never seen it so organised and efficiant................maybe the MP has had an effect:D

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

flipster

6th Nov 2006, 10:22

ABIW

(Sound of reel) Gosh, I have got a big one here!

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make? I think you'll find that a Btn-sized drop has always req'd the 15-ship. That is, unless it is someone at 16 AAB decides they don't want all their goodies - which I would find strange, if not a little risky. Not to have them, would be unrepresentative of a doctrinal para assault. Nonetheless, an 'admin' drop would be better than nothing, especially from the 16AAB/Para and HQ 2 Gp viewpoint, thereby justifying the continued existence of the costly airborne capability (as someone has already commented).

I would be very surprised to see us find 7-15 spare, serviceable and adequately protected ac, that's all - don't worry I wasn't having a go at you. You really shouldn't be so sensitive!

I was unaware that the J was now cleared for Double MSP, or equivalents - that is a relief! Now we can retire all the venerable Ks which, I think we all agree, is long overdue.

Good to hear that Akronelli is shaking off the last of it's 'fun in the sun' reputation!

Mmmmnice

6th Nov 2006, 10:24

I think the only people who would like this plan are the TB - it would be like an early Christmas (or other suitable religious celebration). Ironic that bits of the govt would like countryfolk to stop shooting at birds in UK - but seem keen to organise a turkey-shoot like this...............ho hum

Been There...

6th Nov 2006, 10:25

I hate it when I bite but,

"At a minimum, you'd need 7 ac for the para (J?), and about the same for the eqpt (Ks only perhaps, depending on the load) - as, surely, no para commander would want to jump as para-wedge only and no stores?"

you are posting drivel again:=

Depending on what those stores are ABIW, if CDS then fine you can drop them, but what if vehicles or guns are involved? I am pretty sure there isn't a clearance in place to drop something similar to the MSP from a J (and I know it isn't the MSP but can't remember the name - type 5?)

ORAC

6th Nov 2006, 10:49

So, will count as a training drop (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=216192)towards their wings qualification then....:rolleyes:

BluntedAtBirth

6th Nov 2006, 10:50

Well as we have the Marines there now does that mean they HAVE to get there in landing craft? Perhaps a bit of confusion over a having a capability and having to use it? A high-readiness parachute task force, perhaps the only high-readiness 'formation' we have available, can walk off the back of a plane as well.

Although I am reminded of the stories during TELIC about 16 AAB planning (enthusiastically) for contingency air drops into a disintegrating Iraq - while the QMs were getting as many Bedfords serviceable as possible.

diginagain

6th Nov 2006, 10:58

Bedfords?

16AAB are equipped with DAF-icopters.

Always_broken_in_wilts

6th Nov 2006, 11:17

Flip,

As the tea boy I may well be wrong but the last info I had was that MSP was a non starter due to amsl constraints. I am also reasonably certain the para's would not have much use for a boat in that neck of the woods so I could'nt quite see what you were, again, alluding to "vis a ve" J model capabilities:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

flipster

6th Nov 2006, 11:20

Blunted at Birth (love the name)

Yes, you are quite right. In 2003, Op CERTAIN DEATH plans involved a large formation of US hercs flying close to Bagdhad (30-ish, I think, with all the right protection and ESF) but with a few of ours (no 'kit' at all) tacked on the back as 'tail-end-charlies'. Thankfully, DSF/PJHQ wouldn't let us have our Mk3s back so it was a non-starter (alledgedly, you could hear the crews' huge sigh of relief all the way back in Lyneham).

In the event, even the spams realised the futility and stupidity of this plan and it was cancelled. Nonetheless, 16AAB and the paras were so keen to prove their worth, they were willing to jump from US ac - and who can blame them? The politics of this, I suspect, were too embarassing to contemplate.

Flip

ABIW - Yeah, I suspect that 4-6000' amsl might be problem - but I haven't retained that amount knowledge about MSP clearances!
In which case, I bow to your more current knowledge. As a result, the troops won't be going in with any transport other than what you can get on CDS/ME/AE-type baseboards (supercats and motorbikes etc). Therefore, this drop will, by definition, be a non-doctrinal para assault/admin drop to a totally secure DZ (one hopes) - for which we still require 7 spare suitable ac (of any type)....do we have that many lying about unused? That's even before you consider the para/SKE/AAR quals and currencies of the crews. 1, 2 or 3 minute-stream anyone?

That said, a long-range para-insertion would be an impressive result from 16 AAB/2 Gp perspective. However, would it not be a whole lot simpler and safer to exercise the RAL (Rapid/Rushed Air-Land) option at a 'nearby' airfield/strip (I can think of at least 2) and have troops pick up their transport there?

Should they persist with the para option, I agree that maybe Op TURKEY SHOOT might be a good 'handle'!

Two's in

6th Nov 2006, 19:48

In this day and age how can a complete Army Brigade and its supporting Doctrine be devoted to what is after all, just a means of transportation?

wokawoka

6th Nov 2006, 20:18

Back in June, 3 Para wanted to do a para drop somewhere in the hot triangle area on the birthday of their unit. There was no real tactical reason except for looking good on the newspaper. Thankfully it was quickly explained to them that we would rather drop them with our CH-47 ourselves than being standby IRT and pick the injured post the drop. The actual numbers of injuries they were prepared to accept was quite unbelievable.

Another point, without trying to be patronising to much more experienced ppruners, some discussions on this thread and others are really releasing to much information about our/your TTPs. People on my station have had a one way listening type of converstion from the staish for releasing much less info about SOPs that some people here seem to be. Don't be fooled, Terry Taliban reads the threads and we are not helping ourselves by being to open about our operations.

flipster

6th Nov 2006, 21:14

Wokka,

Thank Goodness that the paras saw your sensible viewpoint. However, they have a habit of planning in detail such foolhardy schemes and then cancelling at the last moment! Nothing would surprise me about the number of injuries they are prepared to accept, even in 'training'. Maybe they'll get the message one day.....but then again??

On the opsec front, there is nowt here that you couldn't get open source so, terry, if he has the time, is not going to learn anything he does not know already. Even he must know that we a bit short on the AT front!

Nonetheless, you have a valid point that we must be careful, thanks for a timely reminder. However, I was very surprised that the media was allowed to mention the plan at all - that is, if the op was ever seriously considered. Former Flake was unimpressed, so perhaps it was.

Thank the Lord, now that 'the plan' is in the open, such a drop is extremely unlikely to happen - which can only be a good thing for the crews and the paras themselves. Their senior officers will be fuming, however, as they won't get their name in lights and so, will have to find some other half-baked extravaganza to hasten their promotion.

Unless, of course, this is a General Melchett-esque "they-will-never-expect-us-to-do-what-they expect-us-to- do" type of double-bluff!!!!!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

7th Nov 2006, 02:05

Think how many of those horrible butty boxes it would take... there'd be no room for any kit!Aha! that's because this'll be the first ever mission using air to air re-buttying, the protracted development which is of course the REAL reason this plan has been delayed.

flipster

7th Nov 2006, 08:17

I think you'll find that the butty-boxes are essential! As everyone knows, the huge amount of 'hot air' produced in the freight-bay after the consumption of the said boxes, adds significantly to the lift produced by the ac wings.

This is the real reason why the old 'MOTS Part 2' (or its modern Tac SOP (?) equivalent) allows us to reduce the drop speed below 1.25 Vs!

nick0021

7th Nov 2006, 09:52

Slightly off topic, but a question i have always wondered. Do the Para’s warrant their status as an elite fighting force? I know they gained their reputation from WWII, but do they still justify this? I have heard mixed reports on them, so if anyone could clarify this for me, would be appreciated!

Secondly... I know the Royal Marines have a 32 week training course (i have heard to most intense non special forces training in the world?), but how does that compare to the Para's training?

Cheers

Nick:)

flipster

7th Nov 2006, 11:07

For sure, I would NOT want to argue with them. Respect where respect is due - anyone who willingly jumps out of an ac (even occasionally) is barking mad!

However, if comparing them with RM/SAS, I'm not sure that is totally fair. Different job, different people, perhaps? I am not qualified to comment, however.

Back to thread......................

airborne_artist

7th Nov 2006, 13:05

Nick0021

RM and Paras are in truth light infantry with a distinct training that is rewarded with a cap badge and beret. Bear in mind that there are plenty of green and red berets worn by RE, RA etc who have passed the all arms course (Marines) and P Coy and PTS (Para). Some Paras do have training and skills in specialist recce, and SFSG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Support_Group) is based on the former 1PARA. Neither RM nor Paras are SF - the only SF are 21/22/23 and SBS, though the boys at Poole are of course badged RM, and can only join after RM service, unlike the boys in beige, who actively draw from RAFR, RM and all Army cap badges.

The Paras' specialist skills in air mobility are not found in a general line infantry regiment, likewise the Marines' skills in amphibious landings. It could be argued that with the removal of county infantry regiments the esprit de corps of the red/green berets is now much stronger than most other regiments, but then perhaps you've not seen the Jocks/Guards in action :}
To answer your question - in the right environment with the correct support, the Paras are superb, as are the RM. I'm glad they are on our side :ok:

Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....:=

NURSE

8th Nov 2006, 08:20

Nick0021
RM and Paras are in truth light infantry with a distinct training that is rewarded with a cap badge and beret. Bear in mind that there are plenty of green and red berets worn by RE, RA etc who have passed the all arms course (Marines) and P Coy and PTS (Para). Some Paras do have training and skills in specialist recce, and SFSG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Support_Group) is based on the former 1PARA. Neither RM nor Paras are SF - the only SF are 21/22/23 and SBS, though the boys at Poole are of course badged RM, and can only join after RM service, unlike the boys in beige, who actively draw from RAFR, RM and all Army cap badges.
The Paras' specialist skills in air mobility are not found in a general line infantry regiment, likewise the Marines' skills in amphibious landings. It could be argued that with the removal of county infantry regiments the esprit de corps of the red/green berets is now much stronger than most other regiments, but then perhaps you've not seen the Jocks/Guards in action :}
To answer your question - in the right environment with the correct support, the Paras are superb, as are the RM. I'm glad they are on our side :ok:
Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....:=

So why do the RAF Regt keep banging on they are an elite and equivilent to the Paras and Marines. I remember watching the ensuing Fracas when one of the RAF's elite came of with this in front of some Paras

airborne_artist

8th Nov 2006, 08:29

2 Sqn RAFR is para-trained to secure FOBs, but more than that I don't know.

Mick Smith

8th Nov 2006, 10:25

RAF Reg were in fact the last to do a jump, into Sierra Leone. As for the number of Hercs needed, ingnoring the total potential package, six will do for 2 Para who currently only have 480 trained paras.

SALAD DODGER

8th Nov 2006, 11:19

Perhaps we should borrow some USAF C17s and have our own LGOPPs:
The C-17s entered Iraqi airspace at 30,000 feet, but descended to 1,000 feet for the actual jump. To reduce exposure to Iraqi air defenses, the aircraft literally dove down, with the paratroopers momentarily experiencing negative G-forces. At 2000 on 26 March, five C-17s dropped 10 heavy drop platforms of vehicles and equipment. One of the keys to successful airborne operations is to exit rapidly from the aircraft. Colonel William Mayville, commanding the 173rd, followed the heavy drop as the first paratrooper out the door at 2010. 963 soldiers followed in 58 seconds. Only 32 jumpers did not make it out of the aircraft.
Jumping the Red Light
During routine airborne training missions, soldiers frequently "jump the red light"-- sneak out of the aircraft a second or two after the "stop" signal flashes. They do this because it took too long for the first paratroopers to exit the aircraft and the trailing paratroopers do not want to miss the jump or have to "go around." In training, it is a relatively safe practice because the aircraft typically maintain a straight and level flight path after dropping the soldiers. However, during the jump into Bashur, jumping the red light could mean death as a late paratrooper would get caught in the jet wash as the C-17s powered up to make their violent escape back up to altitude.
While the jump was good, the aircraft "jumped long"; the brigade was strung out all over the airfield with some airplanes releasing 2,000-3,000 yards early, while others released that late. As the sun rose, it revealed "LGOPPs"--"little groups of pissed-off paratroopers"--strung out all over a now-10,000-yard-long drop zone. LGOPPs form when paratroopers link up with whomever is closest, regardless of unit affiliation, and move as a group to the assembly points. If there is a fight on the drop zone, the LGOPPs are trained to move to the sound of the guns and still fight as a team. Although it took all night for the soldiers to move through the thick mud to consolidate on the objective, the brigade achieved combat readiness far more quickly than if it had done an air landing. At 2 hours the brigade had occupied all assigned blocking positions on the airfield, and by 15 hours after the jump the brigade had completed assembly; the LGOPPS had become a brigade again.