UK Defence Forum

https://www.forces.net/services/raf/one ... capability

Interesting

You may, or may not know that we initially leased the a/c and had to 'handle with care' if we were to (theoretically) hand them back some day.

That there is nothing new in this (except throwing caution to the wind ) is captured by " “exploit” the existing capability" in the linked article.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You may, or may not know that we initially leased the a/c and had to 'handle with care' if we were to (theoretically) hand them back some day.

That there is nothing new in this (except throwing caution to the wind ) is captured by " “exploit” the existing capability" in the linked article.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You may, or may not know that we initially leased the a/c and had to 'handle with care' if we were to (theoretically) hand them back some day.

That there is nothing new in this (except throwing caution to the wind ) is captured by " “exploit” the existing capability" in the linked article.

If you are so arrogant, start a site.

It is about time we started to fully exploit the capabilities of the C-17. Next may be we should look at being able to use its range to drop Airborne troops and equipment over strategic distances as part of out "Global" approach and make the Para's once again a go to first responder force.

Lord Jim wrote:drop Airborne troops and equipment over strategic distances as part of out "Global" approach and make the Para's once again a go to first responder force.

That's what the US did, straight from the good ol' USA into the Baltics... we were part of it, but can't remember what was used for our para contingent.

BlueD954 wrote: so arrogant, start a site.

OK, my last pot shot at your obsceneties: I take it that you would recommend Parler, and then to snatch a few members from here... in direct contradiction of the forum rules
... a topical quote to finish with: "Ohh, shut up man"

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:drop Airborne troops and equipment over strategic distances as part of out "Global" approach and make the Para's once again a go to first responder force.

That's what the US did, straight from the good ol' USA into the Baltics... we were part of it, but can't remember what was used for our para contingent.

BlueD954 wrote: so arrogant, start a site.

OK, my last pot shot at your obsceneties: I take it that you would recommend Parler, and then to snatch a few members from here... in direct contradiction of the forum rules
... a topical quote to finish with: "Ohh, shut up man"

Bang on in 2018 US and UK paras dropped into Latvia after a 7000 km non stop flight form fort Bragg

Strategic insertion over 7000km is a good way to get your airborne units killed!! If you have a fleet of 24 aircraft then we can talk battalion deep insertion/interdiction ops. We don't. Simply put, you need the means to support operations at depth or have organic support. Anything else is suicide. If you told me crab air was taxying us 7000k to the handbags I think I would have politely declined!!

Every airborne operation undertaken has shown that in peer or near peer conflict that airborne ops fail unless conducted within 20km of FLOT. If and I mean if, you have total surprise, minimal effective ground resistance, total air domination, and the ability to secure direct reinforcement (airbase with secure corridor or port) then it might work. In the modern era with every base likely surrounded by dickers with smart phones and WhatsApp it doesn't matter where you take off from, some twat will know something is up and join the dots. Why have airborne forces? Easy, they are elite units who have unique insertion parameters which force the enemy to hold back units to protect key interdiction points. If they don't, then a battalion/brigade insertion near FLOT is on. That can cause a natural choke point or worse, an enfilade which means shifting your OMG or stripping units from the line allowing exploitation from other points.

Some of you I suspect may know of or like me trained for 2 possible brigade insertions into Warpac territory if the balloon went up. Those mission plans were frankly terrifying and one way trips. They would have caused havoc, and may have actually forced a slow down or even entrenchment of the 2nd and 4th Guards armies, but it was suicide and we knew it. Airborne ops are incredibly effective and can be decisive but we aren't the nutters or glory boys that the public like to think of. I am sure if the 7kk insertion is on, there will be room at the front of the queue and plenty of chutes for you.

jimthelad wrote:we aren't the nutters or glory boys

Operation Mikado was a success, regardless?
... without the need to actually embark on it. Somebody did a lot of walking, though

That was an SF operation. Certainly that does merit long range insertion capabilities but manageable due to its limited size and logistics footprint.

I guess were it maybe of benefit is if your flying in airborne forces from much further back to take an objective to support a fwd deployed force. Or if more geared toward special forces.

Mind you if your load is around 100 paratroopers then a400m will reach out a couple of thousand nautical miles. It add flexibility to c17 but there would many more important things to but it.

jimthelad wrote: an SF operation

Wasn't that just a faint (a helicopter load) and the non-operation was to lead the Argies to expect Hercules-loads of troopers jumping out in the middle of their southern (navy) airbase, pinning down pretty much all their pro-like, and equipped to fight at night, bns of marines?

Using Para's as a strategic intervention force was not intended to drop them around Murmansk, but rather somewhere with a lower intensity, the sort of thing we used to plan for and what other nations still do. Of coarse follow up forces would be essential and being part of an allied force preferable.

A trip wire.

Like the 82nd went in (OK, was not dropped), to the Saudi desert, and then sat there for 6 months while the forces to take back Kuwait were built up, behind that trip wire.

jimthelad wrote:Strategic insertion over 7000km is a good way to get your airborne units killed!! If you have a fleet of 24 aircraft then we can talk battalion deep insertion/interdiction ops. We don't. Simply put, you need the means to support operations at depth or have organic support. Anything else is suicide. If you told me crab air was taxying us 7000k to the handbags I think I would have politely declined!!

Every airborne operation undertaken has shown that in peer or near peer conflict that airborne ops fail unless conducted within 20km of FLOT. If and I mean if, you have total surprise, minimal effective ground resistance, total air domination, and the ability to secure direct reinforcement (airbase with secure corridor or port) then it might work. In the modern era with every base likely surrounded by dickers with smart phones and WhatsApp it doesn't matter where you take off from, some twat will know something is up and join the dots. Why have airborne forces? Easy, they are elite units who have unique insertion parameters which force the enemy to hold back units to protect key interdiction points. If they don't, then a battalion/brigade insertion near FLOT is on. That can cause a natural choke point or worse, an enfilade which means shifting your OMG or stripping units from the line allowing exploitation from other points.

Some of you I suspect may know of or like me trained for 2 possible brigade insertions into Warpac territory if the balloon went up. Those mission plans were frankly terrifying and one way trips. They would have caused havoc, and may have actually forced a slow down or even entrenchment of the 2nd and 4th Guards armies, but it was suicide and we knew it. Airborne ops are incredibly effective and can be decisive but we aren't the nutters or glory boys that the public like to think of. I am sure if the 7kk insertion is on, there will be room at the front of the queue and plenty of chutes for you.

Firstly let me say having spoken to hundreds of airborne vets and aircrews from D Day and Arnhem and I have a idea of the pro's and con's this being said thank you for insight always good to read what people who have trained for this sort of thing think

The US are clearly looking at this form of operations as they followed up the 2018 drop with a 5000 km ( 400 + troops) battalion size drop onto Guam in June 2020

s suicide and we knew it. Airborne ops are incredibly effective and can be decisive

One of the 'so many' offsets emerging, in response to evolving operational environment, as US Army IBCTs are presented with the following challenges:
"
In the past, light infantry of the 82nd Airborne, 101st or 10th Mountain Division would either
air drop by parachute, helicopter air assault, or air land at a friendly or secured airfield or
land near one to seize it. However, Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) technology and
weapons, like air defense systems and anti-armor, mines and improvised explosive devices
(IEDs), have become both more effective and prevalent. These open the question of
whether traditional insertion drop or landing zone is feasible any longer. It is increasingly
likely that an “off set insertion” will be necessary with the ground force then moving by
land to the objective or operating area.
The concept itself is largely an upscaling of what U.S. and other nations’special operations,
reconnaissance, and even some airborne units have been doing for some time: using light
vehicles, including light armored vehicles that are inserted by airdrop, helicopter, or tactical
transport air landing. Using the vehicles they are able to insert discretely where they are
unlikely to be detected and then conduct their missions"

Other than the SF going in wit some vehicles in Chinooks, we are pretty thin on that ground
... which sort of poses the questions what should any other airborne troops than those assigned to SFSG
possess in the way of vehicles; and how would any such arrive with them

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

jimthelad wrote: an SF operation

Wasn't that just a faint (a helicopter load) and the non-operation was to lead the Argies to expect Hercules-loads of troopers jumping out in the middle of their southern (navy) airbase, pinning down pretty much all their pro-like, and equipped to fight at night, bns of marines?

The recce was real but due to mission problems was abandoned. The landing was seriously thought about, entailing a squadron of 22 Rgt landing in 3 Hercules on the main runway in an Entebbe style assault. The Helo team was inserted to estimate air defence and troop strength. A BlackBuck raid was intended on a suitable mainland military facility as cover but this too was vetoed. Apparently director SF (Gen DelaBillierre) was determined to authorise the assault but was overruled by cooler heads.

As for modern air insertion, I think the 82nd experiments have been most illuminating. Limited tactical air insertion to secure off axis austere airheads for tactical landing and resupply have real potential. In many ways they resemble the original Overlord operations using a mix of paratroopers and gliders to insert Bn and Bgd size formations in weak points of the enemy 2nd echelon. But, they need to be in secured non contested airspace and need complete tactical if not strategic surprise. Taking off from 7000km when the enemy knows you can do it and are coming isn't a good idea.

Better to move troops to within 30 minutes flying time of the theatre or using dummy air movement to hide the initial interdiction and tactical paradrop to allow exploitation of the landing zones and some pushback on any incumbent forces. This is not fiction as an interesting episode in 1998 proved.

ZZ177 used to transport Queen Elizabeth II coffin to London

C-17 Globemaster ZZ177 has taken off from Edinburgh Airport carrying the late Queen Elizabeth II's coffin, along with the Princess Royal.

The Queen's coffin was carried aboard by eight RAF personnel, the hearse was left behind in Edinburgh. Destination is RAF Northolt, north London. A second C-17 was also there, ZZ176, presumably a backup or spare.

Flight is KRF01R

I read somewhere HMQ specifically said she didn’t want to be brought back in a BAE146

The flight of ZZ177 used the official "Kittyhawk" callsign, reserved for royal flights when the Queen was aboard, although the actual flight number of ZZ177 was KRF01R.

There is a new theory going around as to why ZZ177 was chosen to transport the late Queen to London....



Look at the registry number upside down, it appears to say "LLIZZ" ! Coincidence?


https://www.forces.net/royals/queen/zz1 ... een-london

Doing what they do best