Paras to be grounded due to wrong chutes

[NutLoose]

Ahh.... the Daily Fail, by the image used they are planning to drop them in boxes... :ugh:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/634x592/image_aed279c07e6d0d37d008288cec0c3afed1c16664.png


The British Army’s elite Parachute Regiment is set to be grounded because the introduction of new parachutes was delayed by Whitehall bungling, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The famous Red Berets are expected to suspend combat parachute jumps and training for new paratroopers next year in an embarrassing blow to one of the Army’s most formidable units.

The move comes as the Parachute Regiment prepares to celebrate its 80th anniversary and is understood to have infuriated senior officers.

Based in Colchester, Essex, the Paras are the only force in the world to use the so-called Low Level Parachute (LLP), which allows them to jump at just 450ft from the C-130J Hercules aircraft.


British Army's Parachute Regiment is set to be grounded by the wrong type of parachute (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-army-s-parachute-regiment-is-set-to-be-grounded-by-the-wrong-type-of-parachute/ar-AAZUeS2?ocid=winp2sv1plus&cvid=ed3effc8c90d4892ab4a77ae121bd802)

[ZH875]

Does it matter if they haven't got the parachutes to jump out of the C-130J that the RAF will be getting rid of at the same time. No Herc, No Parachute, No Problem

[luckyrat]

You don’t need a Herc, anything with wings will do!

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1242/0e7c01c1_5079_4dcd_9fc1_7db737fccccd_fcc4405823b9fe6fe2c0d76 2d39fd7f894fa7da5.jpeg

[ShyTorque]

A good reason not to ever throw anything away.

[Ninthace]

In other outlets they are not grounded but will not be able to do low altitude drops.

[ORAC]

The last time the UK did a large combat para drop was at Suez in 1956.

I think the capability gap till the new chutes arrive might be considered acceptable.

[langleybaston]

I hold no brief for sensational press media and have very low expectations of accuracy.

However, much of the media [including broadcasting and the posh papers] are to a degree self-censoring.

If there is a grain of truth in sensational aviation/ military stories [probably leaked by a middle-ranking serving member] then I for one would wish to know of it.

Always provided that such leaks did not advantage potential enemies ............. a difficult proviso.

A free press is a most precious jewel in a democracy. Don't shoot the messenger!

[212man]

The famous Red Berets are expected to suspend combat parachute jumps
Do they have any planned - I wasn't aware we are at war with anyone right now?

[SASless]

Buy American....I am sure the US Army can spare enough to outfit the British Paras.

There is a small unite near me that does a bit of jumping now and then.....the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army Special Forces, and the Army Rangers along with other lesser publicized groups.

[Ninthace]

Buy American....I am sure the US Army can spare enough to outfit the British Paras.

There is a small unite near me that does a bit of jumping now and then.....the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army Special Forces, and the Army Rangers along with other lesser publicized groups.
Unless they can jump from just 450ft, and arrive under a fully inflated canopy, and the equipment is cleared for use in an A400M, your kind offer will not be of any use.

[langleybaston]

What is the point of jumping from 450 feet ............ it might reduce vulnerability of the troops by reducing flash to bang, but it seems very unhealthy for the "delivery platform".

[Ninthace]

What is the point of jumping from 450 feet ............ it might reduce vulnerability of the troops by reducing flash to bang, but it seems very unhealthy for the "delivery platform".
I suppose it means you can approach using all available cover and provided you pick an undefended drop zone ...

[The Helpful Stacker]

What is the point of jumping from 450 feet ............ it might reduce vulnerability of the troops by reducing flash to bang, but it seems very unhealthy for the "delivery platform".

(In a world where every man, woman, child and their dog can seemingly get hold of an AK variant.....)

Having completed the meat bomb course, I for one would have wanted to have spend as little time floating helplessly in the sky as I could, had I ever had to use the training for 'real'.

Weighing up the options, which would you rather take your chances with? Low height with a suitable chute or more chance of getting brassed up by a disgruntled local?

[langleybaston]

(In a world where every man, woman, child and their dog can seemingly get hold of an AK variant.....)

Having completed the meat bomb course, I for one would have wanted to have spend as little time floating helplessly in the sky as I could, had I ever had to use the training for 'real'.

Weighing up the options, which would you rather take your chances with? Low height with a suitable chute or more chance of getting brassed up by a disgruntled local?

Clearly a minimum time in the air, but a bit tough on the aircraft I would have thought .......... which was the point I was trying to make.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Clearly a minimum time in the air, but a bit tough on the aircraft I would have thought .......... which was the point I was trying to make.

Surely the 'delivery platform' should be designed so it is suitable for the role, not the role compromised by any limitations of said platform?

The C130 of various variants seems to have been quite capable, if other platforms aren't then that is an issue of purchasing surely?

[ORAC]

I think the point is that most para drop roles have taken by helo insertion at short range and increasingly by V-22 and then FVL.

The scenarios where it would be safe to use C-130 or Aa-400M to perform insertion at below 500ft without risk of catastrophic risk of loss of £400M airframes and 100+ troops being vanishingly small.

Particularly at a time when the army is increasingly looking at ranger type forces used, and inserted, in packet sized units.

[uxb99]

I thought Paras were so hard they didn't need chutes?
What about HALO?

btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?

[Bing]

I thought Paras were so hard they didn't need chutes?
What about HALO?

btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?

Crete? Was almost a failure though,

[langleybaston]

I think the point is that most para drop roles have taken by helo insertion at short range and increasingly by V-22 and then FVL.

The scenarios where it would be safe to use C-130 or Aa-400M to perform insertion at below 500ft without risk of catastrophic risk of loss of £400M airframes and 100+ troops being vanishingly small.

Particularly at a time when the army is increasingly looking at ranger type forces used, and inserted, in packet sized units.

Quite so. In WW II the German fallschirmjaeger had some successes but casualties were usually severe and such troops take a long time to replace.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I think the point is that most para drop roles have taken by helo insertion at short range and increasingly by V-22 and then FVL.

The scenarios where it would be safe to use C-130 or Aa-400M to perform insertion at below 500ft without risk of catastrophic risk of loss of £400M airframes and 100+ troops being vanishingly small.

Particularly at a time when the army is increasingly looking at ranger type forces used, and inserted, in packet sized units.

I'm not discounting what you say, just that, whilst the capability exists/is deemed as required, then the aircraft should be available to service that requirement.

I fully agree that, other than for very specific small unit requirements, the use of large scale parachute forces is pretty much dead.

[Kent Based]

I thought Paras were so hard they didn't need chutes?
What about HALO?

btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?

Bruneval - Operation Biting

[Herod]

As I understood it, following "Bold Guard" in '75, the JATFOR concept wasn't used again. I'm long retired, so willing to be corrected.

[Diff Tail Shim]

I hold no brief for sensational press media and have very low expectations of accuracy.

However, much of the media [including broadcasting and the posh papers] are to a degree self-censoring.

If there is a grain of truth in sensational aviation/ military stories [probably leaked by a middle-ranking serving member] then I for one would wish to know of it.

Always provided that such leaks did not advantage potential enemies ............. a difficult proviso.

A free press is a most precious jewel in a democracy. Don't shoot the messenger!
Do shoot the messenger as the Daily Mail has long been incapable of self restraint when actually deciding what is objective and subjective news. Their weather forecasting is more accurate.

[Diff Tail Shim]

Quite so. In WW II the German fallschirmjaeger had some successes but casualties were usually severe and such troops take a long time to replace.
Watch the VDV meme Youtube videos taking the mick as IL 76 full of VDV troops attacked defended air strips in Ukraine. "200 guys on an one way trip!" The Crete op is mentioned.

[BATCO]

....
btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?

Yes, Operation LEOPARD/BONITE in Kolwezi in 1978.

Batco

[Just This Once...]

I'm not sure why large-scale para drops have been dismissed as ancient history in this thread. If you need to insert troops at scale over larger distances and where simply landing isn't an option you quickly find yourself looking at para. Clearly this tactic is not new but it has its place in warfare.

From the UK perspective a number of Herc crews became spectators and then manned evacuation aircraft when Turkey undertook a massed para drop to seize a good chunk of Cyprus in 1974. By 1982 the weather limits curtailed the planned static-line para insertions for the Falklands Islands but SF and stores insertions were used extensively, including drops into very uninviting seas. The planned but clearly ridiculous drop in 1991 was successfully avoided when the (US-directed) UK AoR became so localised that the joint event with the USAF would have taken troops further away from their objective than they already were and with less kit and logistics. By 2001 the UK found itself conducting warfare over strategic distance where parachute insertion was the only option until FoBs were established - very much an SF event for sure but it drew crews from across the TacAT squadrons that worked at or beyond human endurance levels with repeated 24hr+ crew days in unforgiving terrain, weather and by night with almost zero support. When the requirement for a low-level static line mass drop hit the planning table in 2001 it was clear that the RAF TacAT fleet would have no ability to support the task with everything already committed. Likewise with the tasking for massed static-line para in 2003, with the US objective now so far away from the UK AoR and the mistakes made in UK assumptions pre-conflict (seemingly focused on a certain FJ basing option that was not asked for or needed by the US vs actually planning for the one the US had actually asked for and did need... but involved "that aircraft with propellers").

From the US (and our principal war fighting partners) perspective, they did conduct operational massed-para drops through the '50s, '60s and '70s. By the '80s massed static-line drops were used less frequently but did include US Rangers into Panama in late 1989, with further drops that continued into early 1990. The operational drops for Gulf War 1 followed and by later that year a force was massed from late '91 to early '92 with the 82nd Airborne Division for contingency ops in Haiti. In 1994 the US were at it again, this time launching on the largest para insertion since MARKET GARDEN on objectives across Haiti. 2 hours into the mission with 60+ aircraft en-route an agreement was made for Cedras to leave power and the troops conducted an administrative landing in Haiti, complete with all their unused chutes. By 2001 the US had a new conflict with the UK as its principal partner in Afghanistan and in Oct 2001 the US conducted a massed para drop into Objective Rhino to start the ground offensive (the small UK element of this is often forgotten). 2003 was clearly the next major conflict to use massed-para insertion and did so on a few occasions. The most significant of which was the large-scale drop, primarily by C-17s, mounting in Italy for a low-level (400ft & 600ft) drop near the bottom of a large valley complex in horrendous weather on a pitch-black night in northern Iraq. Starting from 30,000ft+ with a rather rapid descent, on SKE, to drop height, surrounded by an unhealthy mix of cumulonimbus and cumulogranite. Respect.

No doubt I've missed quite a few but these are the ones that standout in my (rapidly failing) memory. I do not claim to be an expert in such things and easily dismissed as an ex-FJ dude, who knows nothing of the other realms, but I did serve on 47 Sqn, albeit for the smallest sliver of my career. I got to do amazing things, with amazing people in the most demanding of environments. My skin crawls when those around me who know nothing of that world dismiss it so readily. They do not know what they do not know.

[Fitter2]

Just because the current MOD can't envisage a future need for a use of some particular form of warfare is not a good reason to discount it.

Pre the Falklands campaign, the Nimrod entered service without air-to-air refuelling 'because it could fly the sortie lengths contemplated without A2A', and without a bombing system 'We are MR, old boy'. Availability of a long range aircraft already fitted with Inertial Nav, and with refuelling capability and bombing software would have enabled the Black Buck missions far easier and more effective. Staff College concentrates on how to fight the last war (or the war before the last) more effectively - not to think ahead.

[wondering]

Wouldn´t drop aircraft be easy prey to even a medium skilled air defense system? Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan etc were certainly not at the same skill and equipment level we are potentially facing in the east. Those were not near peer conflicts.

[ORAC]

Just because the current MOD can't envisage a future need for a use of some particular form of warfare is not a good reason to discount it.
We can’t afford the kit for the roles we are currently tasked with, without worrying about those we aren’t.

I too have nostalgia for what the Cold War UK forces were capable of, even into the early 2000s. But the army and the RAF are both far smaller with numerous shortfalls and “capability holidays” which need solving before worrying about anything else.

[dervish]

It must have been known that the old chute was not qualified for the new aircraft. Is it a case of not enough time? Did someone forget? Or is there anyone left whose job it was?

Edit to add. 16AAB is mentioned specifically. As JTO intimated, there are people in eg 16AAB who do far more than "normal" paras, and who must train extensively for their role.

[cheekychimp]

Wouldn´t drop aircraft be easy prey to even a medium skilled air defense system? Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan etc were certainly not at the same skill and equipment level we are potentially facing in the east. Those were not near peer conflicts.
This has been the case since the start of military paradrops, which is why SEAD etc is such an important factor in the planning. Even with Air Superiority any Air insertion is risky, it's the nature of the mission.

[WHBM]

Based in Colchester, Essex, the Paras are the only force in the world to use the so-called Low Level Parachute (LLP), which allows them to jump at just 450ft from the C-130J Hercules aircraft.
Long used by Russians, going back to Soviet days. 150 metre jump, no reserve, typically from an Antonov 2, which can get down to about 50 knots. One or two British skydiving clubs (including mine) went over there on visits in the 1990s and took the chance to give it a shot.

[langleybaston]

This has been the case since the start of military paradrops, which is why SEAD etc is such an important factor in the planning. Even with Air Superiority any Air insertion is risky, it's the nature of the mission.

A purely theoretical discussion because we have no ability to conduct mass drops, and they are in any case high risk and should only be ordered for extremely high stakes. A niche market in which we have no substantial ability.
NATO is supposed to be defensive, whereas drops are usually offensive. And so far as national interests are concerned, where on earth might we wish for a mass drop?

[cheekychimp]

A purely theoretical discussion because we have no ability to conduct mass drops, and they are in any case high risk and should only be ordered for extremely high stakes. A niche market in which we have no substantial ability.
NATO is supposed to be defensive, whereas drops are usually offensive. And so far as national interests are concerned, where on earth might we wish for a mass drop?
Who knows? That's the nature of a lot of conflicts, you don't see them coming. Which is why we keep certain capabilities or aspire to have them.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Trying to find my reference books (not easy with re-decorating going on at the mo') to see how many op descents the Rhodesian Fire Force teams used to carry out in one day (I think at a push they could manage 3) - all dropped from low level in close co-ordination with heli-borne troops, armed helis and (if within range) arty and CAS. Year after year of tactically - and occasionally strategically - successful para ops.

[uxb99]

Isn't the point with Paras that they take heavy casualties in the drop (potentially but not always) but then are able to punch well above their weight? The only force that can be deployed behind the enemy.
Also they are special forces ground troops irrespective of their airborne nature.

[langleybaston]

Isn't the point with Paras that they take heavy casualties in the drop (potentially but not always) but then are able to punch well above their weight? The only force that can be deployed behind the enemy.
Also they are special forces ground troops irrespective of their airborne nature.

Are the paras "special forces" as such? Is there such an official grouping, and, if so, other than SAS and SBS [or any new titles] who are the others?
Once on the ground alive, with wounded to care for, paras are soon short of ammunition, support weapons, mobility, artillery and often with rubbish comms.
Prime Minister, I have to advise against this venture.

[cheekychimp]

Are the paras "special forces" as such? Is there such an official grouping, and, if so, other than SAS and SBS [or any new titles] who are the others?
No, they are highly motivated infantry. SAS, SBS and SRR are SF, supported by SFSG and SF Sigs.

[langleybaston]

Thank you. I will go with highly motivated light infantry.

White Range Rovers pulling up on my drive, I wonder ..................

[VX275]

the Paras are the only force in the world to use the so-called Low Level Parachute (LLP), which allows them to jump at just 450ft from the C-130J Hercules aircraft.

The Specification for the LLP originally required a minimum drop height of 250 ft AGL at max AUW.
Towards the end of its trials at Boscombe someone came up with the idea of conducting a live drop at that height. The problem was, that whilst the test team were confident that the parachute would be OK 250 ft AGL was way below the minimum drop height for the (then) current reserve parachute. To de-risk the drop it was decided to carry it out over a French lake with some of the team deciding not to bother with the useless reserve, making it the first (non emergency) British Military parachute descent without a reserve since 1956. Once the trial was all planned it was quite comical the number of phone calls the team received from senior officers trying to pull rank so that they could be on the drop, only to be told that "we have all the Sergeant PJI's we need thank you". In the end the drop was a touch higher than 250 ft as there was some concern that the Hercs rad alt was reading the bottom of the lake and not the water surface. However, the time in the air for the jumpers from leaving the step to landing in the water under a fully inflated LLP was around 9 seconds.

[throwaway1]

Lovely to learn something from all the "TacAT experts" who've suddenly decided their opinion on how C-130 flies and despatches para is valid. Insertions sausage-side below 500' in all* weather by day and night, optionally as part of a package containing some of the world's most advanced ISR, air-to-air, and air-to-ground assets, may or may not be what the C-130 force trains for every day.
That the majority of folk seem have only ever experienced it as a particularly uncomfortable airliner and don't think about what else it gets up to might be one reason why it's being dispensed-with. Using all the aforementioned complementary assets and using LLP to spearhead an assault force, then keeping it supplied from the air or using a captured airhead is exactly what this sort of capability is for. The Russians got the first bit right-ish, just didn't follow up.

[etudiant]

The Specification for the LLP originally required a minimum drop height of 250 ft AGL at max AUW.
Towards the end of its trials at Boscombe someone came up with the idea of conducting a live drop at that height. The problem was, that whilst the test team were confident that the parachute would be OK 250 ft AGL was way below the minimum drop height for the (then) current reserve parachute. To de-risk the drop it was decided to carry it out over a French lake with some of the team deciding not to bother with the useless reserve, making it the first (non emergency) British Military parachute descent without a reserve since 1956. Once the trial was all planned it was quite comical the number of phone calls the team received from senior officers trying to pull rank so that they could be on the drop, only to be told that "we have all the Sergeant PJI's we need thank you". In the end the drop was a touch higher than 250 ft as there was some concern that the Hercs rad alt was reading the bottom of the lake and not the water surface. However, the time in the air for the jumpers from leaving the step to landing in the water under a fully inflated LLP was around 9 seconds.

Hugely impressive, the opposition is in deep kimchi unless they take out the para transport aircraft.
Sadly that is not a great feat any more, low level air defenses are brutally good. So where does this combination apply?

[Asturias56]

"the Rhodesian Fire Force teams used to carry out in one day (I think at a push they could manage 3) - all dropped from low level in close co-ordination with heli-borne troops, armed helis and (if within range) arty and CAS. Year after year of tactically - and occasionally strategically - successful para ops."

but no anti-air or defending airpower to overcome. . Lets face it - in the modern world a para attack against even third rate armed forces would make Arnhem look like a tea party.

You stand a chance against terrorists or guerrillas but many of those have reasonable antiair capability these days

[Test Monkey]

I thought Paras were so hard they didn't need chutes?
What about HALO?

btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?


Many, Normandy, Sicily, Panama Kandahar and there was one in US drop in Vietnam

[uxb99]

Many, Normandy, Sicily, Panama Kandahar and there was one in US drop in Vietnam
I think it could be argued that the Normandy drops were lucky rather than successful.

[wdew]

CASSINGA . ANGOLA .1978

[melmothtw]

btw has there ever been a parachute mission that was successful?

Crete, in terms of achieving the mission objective.


Originally Posted by Test Monkey View Post (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/647985-paras-grounded-due-wrong-chutes-3.html#post11268550)
Many, Normandy, Sicily, Panama Kandahar and there was one in US drop in Vietnam
I think it could be argued that the Normandy drops were lucky rather than successful.

Has there ever been a successful military operation that wasn't, at least in part, 'lucky'?

[SASless]

Not mentioned so far is the US Ranger Parachute Landing done during the Grenada Assault.

US Army Rangers jumped from 500 feet or below and were on the ground in about Ten Seconds.

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/rangers-at-point-salines/

[Diff Tail Shim]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzK1gl6UoM0

[NutLoose]

The Irish use chutes that deploy at 10 foot, so if they have a failure, anyone can jump down from that height.

Was it in the italian campaign they dropped them in error over the sea?

[MightyGem]

Was it in the italian campaign they dropped them in error over the sea?
Don't know about the Paras, but many gliders were released too early during the Sicily invasion and landed in the sea.

[ORAC]

To return to the main point, the MOD has now ordered the chutes, which are not a long lead item, so at best there will be a “capability holiday” for a few months - for a capability which hasn’t been used since 1956 and for which the MOD has no defined use - in Ukraine, Europe or elsewhere.

Not so much a storm in a teacup but under an electron microscope…

Seems more a case of paras throwing their toys out of the cot after realising where they currently stand in the pecking order..

[SASless]

During Sicily friendly AAA fire from the assault fleet shot down quite a few C-47's....over the sea.

Several loads of Troopers were dropped into the Channel during the D-Day jumps.

Jumping is a pretty interesting way of commuting to work.


More detail of the losses among the airborne and glider forces engaged in the Sicily Invasion.....sad story.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/friendly-fire-airborne-assault-sicily.html?safari=1

[chevvron]

Don't know about the Paras, but many gliders were released too early during the Sicily invasion and landed in the sea.
Only the WACO Hadrians; the Airspeed Horsas had a much better gliding angle and could reach land easily.
The Horsas used to assault Pegasus Bridge were able to fly a considerable distance after release and as we all know, landed right next to the bridge.

[NutLoose]

Here is about the Sicily landings and the loss of up to 70 gliders

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wwii-battles-airborne-drop-into-sicily/

Complicating matters, high winds began to kick up as the aircraft reached cruising altitude. Some gusts were clocked at up to 35 miles per hour, and for the Americans of the 82nd Airborne Division any training jump was canceled if wind speed reached 15 miles per hour. However, this jump into hostile territory would go ahead as scheduled. As a result, the 144 British gliders were buffeted by the winds and became unstable.

Out of fear that the aircraft would be mistaken for Germans by the invasion fleet headed toward Sicily, the pilots were ordered to fly a circuitous route toward their drop zones. After visually sighting the island of Linosa in the Mediterranean Sea, the pilots were to fly on to Malta and dog leg to the left over the southwestern shore of Sicily. The complicated flight plan, high winds, and pilot inexperience combined into a recipe for disaster.Paratroopers were scattered all over the southern end of Sicily, while the glider-borne British tragically lost as many as 70 of their aircraft which were released prematurely and crashed into the sea. Only 87 British paras reached their objective, the key bridge at Ponte Grande, and ran into heavy resistance. Less than 20 of them survived, but they held the bridge until relieved by advancing ground troops the following morning.