Airborne drop by Paras planned to reinforce in Afghanistan
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
"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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
(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!
Last edited by flipster; 6th Nov 2006 at 10:45.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Age: 53
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'!
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'!
Last edited by flipster; 6th Nov 2006 at 16:27.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
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?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!
Last edited by flipster; 6th Nov 2006 at 21:27.
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think how many of those horrible butty boxes it would take... there'd be no room for any kit!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a Cockpit near you
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......................
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......................
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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 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
Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....
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 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
Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....
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 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
Flipster - jumping out of the aircraft is the easy bit in my experience. The hard bit was .....