Army chiefs' fury as Paras lose their parachutes: New cutbacks mean recruits will no longer be trained to jump | Mail Online What are members thoughts on this? Also what are the RAF replacing the Hercules with?
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/postwar/52425-desert-rats-left-tankless.html I can sort of understand this one though; the need for largescale deployment of parachute troops has long vanished, airlanded by rotor'd aircraft is far more useful nowadays...and far less circumstance- and weather-sensitive.
There is a new huge heavy lift plane based ,I think, on the Airbus, which is supposed to take the place of the Hercules. As for airborne troops, they had their day, much the samr as battleships.
Also what are the RAF replacing the Hercules with? see this thread. http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/postwar/23016-airbus-a400m-maiden-flight.html Airbus A400M
They'll save a fortune on all that jump pay 2/6 a day in WW2. What was that Peter Seller's film in which the armed forces of some island nation consisted of a biplane towed by a donkey? We'll be there soon
Aircraft carriers without airplanes, armoured regiments without tanks, paras without parachutes, I suppose the Guards will be losing their Bearskins next. The role of the Para in modern warfare is a well established force multiplier especially in Africa - where the RLI /RAR used both helicopters and parachute troops in a rapid reaction roll enabling a relatively small force to dominate a large area. The air force will not mind losing the Herc in favour of keeping another fast jet however these present cuts are senseless and without any strategic foresight
The role of the Para in modern warfare is a well established force multiplier especially in Africa - where the RLI /RAR used both helicopters and parachute troops in a rapid reaction roll enabling a relatively small force to dominate a large area. ...against a particular type of opponent. In a particular geographical environment where there's have to be some VERY major political changes before the Parachute Regiment could ever be deployed in strength! Whereas the "traditional" role of paratroops I.E. flanking/blocking forces to secure the flanks of an advance/offensive was probably long gone for the Paras for the last 50 years :p
It's all a cover for the mass issue of Squirrel Suits... I see the Frenchies did a Mali drop in January.
The French could... How many former British colonial possessions would the Paras be welcome in? Although - the French drop was a "traditional" one - they were dropped across the path of withdrawal for militants from Timbuktu I.E. a blocking force in the classic sense. They and the belgians kept on using their paratroops for roles like that - the British seem to have preferred to keep the capability for tasks that fitted them...the LAST time the Paras jumped in a battalion-sized op was El Gamil during the Suez Crisis! 47 years ago.
Jumping has been compared with "randomly salting an area with troops." Never saw the value of that in most cases. I do remember one of my Gunny's who said he had no jumps and only three pushes.
I was told from a trusted and reliable source before Christmas that there were junior officers and paratroopers in the Parachute Regiment who had not received their wings for the simple reason that the MOD refused to budget their parachute training. I was astounded that this was happening....another example of the petty pinching and irrational policies of the MOD talking head.
I was astounded that this was happening....another example of the petty pinching and irrational policies of the MOD talking head. Well, 2nd and 3rd Battalions are the parachute infantry component of the 16 Air Assault Brigade...so in the modern world it makes sense to start rationalising the roles of the Air Assault brigade, the rest of which is delivered into action by helicopter (its heavier equipment by Hercules). I can't help thinking that making them all "airmobile" by chopper makes them a lot more flexible...
Having returned to engineering when the need arises or the interest is aroused (consultancy) I sometimes get air publications, was not totally surprised to see a couple of years ago that the MoD was looking around for commercial companies and aircraft to be used for para jump training! Jump master in a red suit and lipstick -don't forget your duty free - mind you they are duty free now! Perhaps a smaller cadre.
Hi Does anyone have any actual figures regarding the potential cost savings, from the Paras wings being clipped? Regards
Well, 2nd and 3rd Battalions are the parachute infantry component of the 16 Air Assault Brigade...so in the modern world it makes sense to start rationalising the roles of the Air Assault brigade, the rest of which is delivered into action by helicopter (its heavier equipment by Hercules). I can't help thinking that making them all "airmobile" by chopper makes them a lot more flexible... The heli argument is irrelevant - helicopters lack the range of a C130 or C17, and of course UK government has failed to buy enough transport helicopters for even a very limited deployment of any sort. Para insertion remains a valid capability, not least because UK still has the airframes and loading assets to deliver at least a full-strength parachute battlion group (para btn, gun bty, eng element, etc). The only thing that prevents the capability being used is (a) excessive safety culture in the CoC (b) usually a failure to deploy sufficient support assets to enable a jump to go ahead. Classic example was the "almost" parachute assault carried on Telic1: the target had been verified free of effective SAM by SF, and an assault force was standing by ("absolutely gagging for it" in para terminology...). The para assault failed to take place because of dithering (factor (a)), and the sh*t state of UK ground force logistics meaning that there weren't enough Bedfords available to bring forward the parachutes (factor(b)). By the time the poor old Brits got anywhere near getting their act together, the target had been overrun by US ground forces...
The heli argument is irrelevant - helicopters lack the range of a C130 or C17, It's not irrelevant if the Air Assault Brigade is EVER to be used as a cohesive whole - for then of course the airborne capabaility of one part of it far outreaches the rest! and of course UK government has failed to buy enough transport helicopters for even a very limited deployment of any sort Well, that's axiomatic! But it doesn't take away from the problems of having unmatched capabilites within one fieldable formation. Para insertion remains a valid capability, not least because UK still has the airframes and loading assets to deliver at least a full-strength parachute battlion group (para btn, gun bty, eng element, etc). No - it remains a valid one-battalion-sized capability; the problem THEN of course is finding the operation that's sized to one battalion! The only thing that prevents the capability being used is (a) excessive safety culture in the CoC (b) usually a failure to deploy sufficient support assets to enable a jump to go ahead. ...and 3/ weather and geogrpahical considerations - DZs etc., and 4/ the ability to reach/support a forward deployed paradropped force; the classic difficulty with parachute operations. You either RISK a Rotterdam/Dombas/Arnhem...or you PLAN such a "forlorn hope" operation (I.E. total loss), like a Kampfgruppe Von der Heydte blocking force in the Bulge. Classic example was the "almost" parachute assault carried on Telic1: the target had been verified free of effective SAM by SF, and an assault force was standing by ("absolutely gagging for it" in para terminology...). The para assault failed to take place because of dithering (factor (a)), and the sh*t state of UK ground force logistics meaning that there weren't enough Bedfords available to bring forward the parachutes (factor(b)). By the time the poor old Brits got anywhere near getting their act together, the target had been overrun by US ground forces... Yes - the classic example of why SO many parachute operations were cancelled between June 7th 1944 and MARKET GARDEN...and again after that; there's nothing magical that a paradropped force can do BETTER than a ground force - it can just....in the right circumstances...do it earlier. But then someone has to come get them... Meanwhile - as paratroops train and plan for the operation, fast moving ground forces do the job anyway! :p
The rationalisation of the Paratroop Regiment training,I would say is the result of these ill informed think tanks whose first priority is the clipping of expenditure...time and time again,the terms of reference are to deliver what the government wishes to pass.It would be interesting to see the balance sheet on the saving but I would think the saving would be insignificant. (I suppose it was the same rational to sell of public forests and the like for £100 million against the present budget....this smacked of a fire sale too far.) The reference to using helicopters for swift operations is apt.Look at the attempt of the US forces attempting to release hostages held in Iran over 30 years ago.To enhance the performance of the helicopters,the GT air filters were removed with disastrous consequences.A prerequisite for helicopter operations requires the task to be relatively short range, backed up by a costly assault ship as the forward base.Contrast that with the principle of an airborne operation, tailored to match the task. Are we saying that the force should be disbanded because it is not earning its keep?.....defence preparedness can't be relegated as is proposed. Furthermore the airborne expertise is not only required by the Paratroop Regiment.... no doubt,it will be found required in other units. Recently the nation has lost its maritime arm to save a reported £4 billion from the defence budget...what will be returned on this...£200 million was paid upfront to the aircraft manufacturers to wreck airframes from the production line. Then there was the loss of the vertical take off expertise....ongoing while the F35 conversion is awaited...doubt if there is likely to be much experience in handling this type of aviation when conversion is required.
