Air Mobile Army

[Tuna]

I was reading an article on how Afghanistan has turned the Canadian Army into a much more "air mobile" force, this means helicopters (I believe). I am not sure about the date of this article as I was just browsing the web. Also, not too long ago I watched an army news report on how engineers and artillery were for "the first time in many years" forming their own jump troops. My question is how many engineers and artillerymen are actually involved in air mobile and paratrooper training and operations? is it just a small amount of hype or has there been a large change towards air mobile/paratrooper operations among the combat arms (other than infantry)? What is the purpose of having engineers and artillery included? are the engineers there for building/demolitions or breaching minefields/recon or are they simply acting as infantry for the most part? Do the artillery bring mortars with them or are they acting as infantry as well?

And another related post that may or may not be considered radio chatter (please correct me if this is the wrong place to put these questions)
How do you feel about this change? What do you all think it means for the future CF?

See the video mentioned here:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=5463

 

[MikeL]

From what I've seen 2CMBG is really on the lead/pushing the Airborne/Air Mobile piece - 2CER and 2RCHA each have XX amount of pers jump qualified/tasked with supporting the 3RCR Jump Coy.  I know C Bty 1RCHA is tasked with supporting 3VP Jump Coy, not sure if 1CER has a specific troop tasked with supporting 3VP Jump Coy though. Unless things have changed since I left 1 Bde, outside of 3VP Jump Coy no one wears Maroon berets, unlike 2CMBG where the Engineers and Arty tasked with supporting 3RCR Jump Coy are wearing the Maroon beret.

As for the Air Mobile piece that isn't something new, it's been trained with on excercises for years, and before Afghanistan.  Having Engineers and Arty supporting Infantry isn't new either, or specific to Airborne/Air Mobile operations.



Purpose of having them, off the top of my head and very simplified.. Artillery - provide the Infantry with FOO/FACs, indirect fire, etc.  Engineers enable the Infantry to get to where they need to go(ie they breach walls, doors), dealing with IED/UXO, BIP caches, etc.  Also they both can be extra rifles when they aren't doing their trade specific role when out on patrol/operation.

Yes, the Gunners can/do jump with Mortars,  Gunners aren't brought out without their kit just to be out there and not do their job.

Theres a very basic non SME answer, and I'm sure someone more qualified/experienced will come by and give a much more detailed answer/insight.

*edit
For clarity on what I'm referring to

Airborne - Paratroopers jumping out of planes/helicopters
Air Mobile/Assault - Helicopters transporting troops to a LZ

 

[a_majoor]

The wheel is turning yet again.

Back in the 1970's (?) the Canadian Airborne Regiment began bulking up with more jump qualified attachments, including such things as a battery of 105mm artillery firing a lightweight howitzer and jump qualified Armoured Recce (although I don't recall if the "Lynx" recce vehicles were ever parachuted in on any exercise; at least I never heard of this myself during the 1980's to 1994...). There was even a "Service Commando" to jump in to provide logistical support; the Airborne Regiment had become the heart of a small airborne battle group.

Sadly, as times changed the supporting jump troops/batteries/companies etc. were lost and the Airborne Regiment slowly morphed back into a "light" parachute battalion. We all know the rest of the story, but one thing that seems clear is the institutional support fot the Airborne Regiment had been leaking away for many years before their demise.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The New Westminister Regiment was also tasked in the 80's to provide a jump qualified platoon.

 

[MikeL]

The New Westminister Regiment was also tasked in the 80's to provide a jump qualified platoon.

* Royal Westminster Regiment
Airborne Platoon 1985-1993
http://www.army.gc.ca/iaol/143000440001719/143000440001729/index-Eng.html

Also, Queens Own Rifles are the only Reserve unit now with the Airborne tasking; 1983 - Present
2 Platoons + Coy HQ
http://www.qor.com/history/history.html

 

[OldSolduer]

The word "air mobile" does not always denote "airborne".

Air-mobile, to me, means helicopters.

Airborne means soldiers that jump out of perfectly serviceable aircraft.

SO - are we talking air mobile or airborne?

 

[Old Sweat]

The word "air mobile" does not always denote "airborne".

Air-mobile, to me, means helicopters.

Exactly. 

Afghanistan has probably made a lot of people aware of the capabilities and limitations of moving troops, equipment and supplies by helicopter. I would not describe that as an air mobile army, which means to my mind a force that is structured and trained in helicopter movement as its main means of tactical transport across the battlefield.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Exactly. 

Afghanistan has probably made a lot of people aware of the capabilities and limitations of moving troops, equipment and supplies by helicopter. I would not describe that as an air mobile army, which means to my mind a force that is structured and trained in helicopter movement as its main means of tactical transport across the battlefield.

I agree that it has not made us an airmobile army, but I would like to think that it opened the doors as to how valuable the use of helicopters in multiple roles is valuable and that we should invest more time/training/money in the pursuit of building this capability.

Forgive the run-on sentence.

 

[Old Sweat]

Agreed, and I have seen, heck I've written, some real doozies of run on sentences.

If the experience has raised our awareness, good. There are all sort of techniques and little wrinkles that really make moving by helicopter easy. I suspect most of them are known by most folks that have done any number of moves. Heck, there probably is a four inch thick CFP somewhere.

 

[R933ex]

The LERs and the Regiment du Saguenay also had jump platoons during the same time.

 

[OldSolduer]

The LERs and the Regiment du Saguenay also had jump platoons during the same time.

That's very nice.

How often have the jump companies actually parachuted into combat lately?

 

[MedCorps]

It is not conducting airborne operations that is the important concept, it is the ability to conduct airborne operations. 

//start side note//

I was in a meeting not too long ago and the same questions were being asked about the need for the conventional Regular Force to be able to conduct airborne operations. It was agreed by the higher ups that this is a capability worth keeping for a myriad of reasons, some better than others.

One of the notables from the meeting was that the propensity to conduct airborne operations currently limited by the in service parachute (CT-1).  There is some concern that due to the increased weight of paratroopers + gear that the rate of decent is pushing the limits of safety (with respect to risk of injuries and malfunctions).

Once it was agreed upon that the retention of an airborne capability was in the cards it was decided that an interim parachute procurement should commence immediately to bridge the gap until a new parachute system is procured in 2015-16. 

Looks like we will not follow one of our Commonwealth brethren who have dropped / decreased their airborne capability.

//end side note///

MC

 

[Kirkhill]

Does shipping Leos, AHSVSs and TAPVs into theatre by means of C-17s (non-tactical moves) also contribute to having an Air Mobile Army?  Or is Air Mobile strictly a tactical construct?

Edited to add:

How about Rifle Coys arriving by CC-150 and JTF2 types arriving by CC-144? 

 

[Journeyman]

To carry on the parachute tangent....

Airborne means soldiers that jump out of perfectly serviceable aircraft.

Actually, one doesn't jump out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, you jump into perfectly good air -- that's why, on the civie side, it's called "skydiving" and not "plane-leaving."  ;D

Besides, the more pilots I know, the more I like getting out.  :nod:

There is some concern that due to the increased weight of paratroopers + gear that the rate of decent is pushing the limits of safety (with respect to risk of injuries and malfunctions).

Once it was agreed upon that the retention of an airborne capability was in the cards it was decided that an interim parachute procurement should commence immediately to bridge the gap until a new parachute system is procured in 2015-16. 

I'm not sure how the weight/increased malfunction equation works. As it stands, a CT-1 parachute has a suspended weight limitation of 170 kg -- rest assured, there is some fudge-factor included in that; if a troop can carry the ruck, I'm sure the weight is within CT-1 limits without causing any specific malfunction. As for injuries, yes increased descent speed will increase injuries. However, that is likely only a factor if you're going to land with your ruck, rather than lowering it.

That being said, CFLAWC/Airborne Trials and Evaluation has been conducting trials on two replacement 'chutes:

The SF-10A is a static-line mass drop steerable round canopy,
assuming we'll do mass drops with troops smarter than the CT-1 parachute. 

SF-10

The T-11/T11R (the  Advanced Tactical Parachute System - ATPS
[with "R" being the reserve version) is being tested as the next
generation static-line deployed non-steerable parachute system.

T-11


I now return you to your swing-wing talk, already in progress
(...because, yes,  "airborne" = parachute; "air mobile" = helicopter)

 

[GnyHwy]

Does shipping Leos, AHSVSs and TAPVs into theatre by means of C-17s (non-tactical moves) also contribute to having an Air Mobile Army?  Or is Air Mobile strictly a tactical construct?

Anything by C-17 would be strategic lift, and with our current number of C-17s, it would likely be more efficient to transport by ship; unless you're only sending a Coy size element.

Air mobile is tactical/operational.  With our 2021 concepts, we are expected to operate in full spectrum Ops in a battlespace that is likely very large and in that concept, there is not much mention of airmobile.  I think it is a major army capability that is missing.  Army/Airforce integration has a long way to go, and I'm not talking about the abilities of the troops or aircrew, I am talking about the policy to back it.

Also, from a fire supporter perspective, I hope that some day we can add air assault to this conversation.

 

[Old Sweat]

Anything by C-17 would be strategic lift, and with our current number of C-17s, it would likely be more efficient to transport by ship; unless you're only sending a Coy size element.

Good post. For a blast from the past, a very long time ago I was the Battery Commander of the AMF Battery. AMF stood for Allied Command Europe Mobile Force which was the NATO "strategic reserve." It was a multinational force of battalion groups from Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, UK and US. The aim was to provide a show of solidarity on NATO's flanks. Yeah, OK.

We were on seven days notice to move and kept our documentation, etc up to date. The point of this is, further to Gny Hwy's post,is that it took a ton of air lift to get us from Trenton to Bardufoss in Norway.  My recollection is that it took something like 70-75 Hercules chalks and 3-5 Boeing chalks to move the Canadian contingent. Most of the Hercules lift was carrying artillery ammunition, and our scales were not sufficient for a real shooting war.

Having said that, we used to practice it and actually move the whole shebang for annual exercises. If anyone wants to be bored to tears, Bruce Monhouse and I can oblige.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Having said that, we used to practice it and actually move the whole shebang for annual exercises. If anyone wants to be bored to tears, Bruce Monhouse and I can oblige.

What? Steak again?

 

[a_majoor]

Some older thoughts about airmobility here:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_4/CAJ_vol5.4_11_e.pdf

 

[HeavyHooker]

Just a quick step into the what-if zone here. 

Has thought been given to making 2 Brigade (or more accurately parts thereof) into a dedicated airmobile element.  I realize that the entire Combat Arms element should have this capability to some extent but I am thinking more of developing working, current TTPs with the new MHLH Sqn (Chinooks).  They are standing up next summer and should be online a year or two after.  I know that these TTPs exist but they are a work in progress and their evolution was continual up until the end of the Cbt Mission in Afghanistan.  An actual "sister battalion" kind of situation with the new MHLH Sqn could only improve on those techniques.

HH

 

[daftandbarmy]

The New Westminister Regiment was also tasked in the 80's to provide a jump qualified platoon.

Hellooooooo... I'm right heeerrreee....

Good concept, flawed execution, should try it again and get it right this time.