Nations where paratroops are Air Force

[Britboy]

What nations have paratroops/Airborne Forces that are part of the Air Force as opposed to the usual Army arrangement?

Are Fallschirmjagers now Heere or Luftwaffe?

I agree to have them in the Army makes the most sense for most countries, but as Marine Forces also fight on land but are part of the service that delivers them by sea, there could be a justification for having paratroops part of the service that delivers them by air?

Bit of an odd question but was surprised to learn that Fallschirmjagers were Luftwaffe and trying to figure out why...

Apparently in France their Marines are part of the Army, not the Navy, which is also odd.

PS. I know the USMC is not officially part of the USN, but believe they both come under the same umbrella administratively (DoN?) as well as working closely together: USN corpsmen in USMC units, Marine Aviation from carriers (not just transport helos from assault ships for putting the booties ashore, but fighter/attack squadrons) etc.

[sergentdarmes]

In France the Infantry and Artillery "de marine" regiments that are part of the Army are descendants of the "coloniale" units, they were stationed in the colonies, so after the independance of these countries they reversed to the 17th Century traditional name.
The equivalent of say, the Royal Marines are the "fusillers marins" (navy ranks and uniform - only the Commandos wear the WW2 Free French green beret of british origin with the insigna on the left side).
The first french paratroop units were also part of the Air Force. It seems that air forces want to take under their wing (pun intended) everyone who was flying, even whithout ever landing.

[Jarhead]

What nations have paratroops/Airborne Forces that are part of the Air Force as opposed to the usual Army arrangement?

Are Fallschirmjagers now Heere or Luftwaffe?

I agree to have them in the Army makes the most sense for most countries, but as Marine Forces also fight on land but are part of the service that delivers them by sea, there could be a justification for having paratroops part of the service that delivers them by air?

Bit of an odd question but was surprised to learn that Fallschirmjagers were Luftwaffe and trying to figure out why...

Apparently in France their Marines are part of the Army, not the Navy, which is also odd.

PS. I know the USMC is not officially part of the USN, but believe they both come under the same umbrella administratively (DoN?) as well as working closely together: USN corpsmen in USMC units, Marine Aviation from carriers (not just transport helos from assault ships for putting the booties ashore, but fighter/attack squadrons) etc.
Fallschirmjäger are HEER (part of our infantry units)

[muck]

What nations have paratroops/Airborne Forces that are part of the Air Force as opposed to the usual Army arrangement?

Are Fallschirmjagers now Heere or Luftwaffe?

Are there today any armed forces at all that have their paratrooper units subordinate to the Air Force? That's an interesting question.

German paratroopers during WW2 were a part of the Luftwaffe (which even had an Armoured Division then). Since WW2 though, a paratrooper has traditionally been an infantryman and no airman. The infantry of the modern German military is either part of the infantry troops corps (-jäger) consisting of Jägertruppe (Rangers), Fallschirmjägertruppe (Paratroopers) and Gebirgsjägertruppe (Mountain Infantry), or of the armoured troops corps (Panzergrenadiertruppe (Mechanized Infantry)).

[Britboy]

Ah right, so paras are all Army Infantry these days...

Interesting that the German model has Armoured Infantry in the Armour/Cavalry/Panzer corps. I'd have thought that being Infantry, they'd be under the Infantry corps so to speak. But I suppose if you view armoured infantry as urban/close-country protective troops for tanks, then it may make some sense to subordinate them to your tank corps.

I know that W Germany led the way in the development of IFVs and the doctrine was to fight mounted and only dismount when neccessary (compare this to Brit/U.S. lightly armed APCs of the time which were battlefield taxi's, dismounting always before contact) - fighting mounted wherever possible would also lend itself to being grouped with the tank corps rather than infantry.

I believe British armoured reconnaissance regiments have a squadron of men in the mechanised infantry role, carried by APCs as assault troops to supplement the Scimitars with. Although this is light cavalry regiments converting some of their members to an infantry-type role for dismounted close combat, not whole Infantry regiments and battalions being transferred to the Armoured Corps, so a different scale and more grassroots I suppose.

Interesting you mention Luftwaffe Armoured Divisions. I heard of Luftwaffe Field Divisions, but didn't know if this was pressing airmen into service as infantry (as the Royal Naval Division of WWI pressed sailors into frontline infantry service); or if it was a force protection effort, like the RAF Regiment (airmen trained in traditional army skills so they can defend their airfield better). I suppose one is moving in on the Army's role, whereas the other is an effort to preserve your assets and airpower.

I believe until recently the RAF Regiment also had an Armoured/Mech element for patrols to protect airfields; now it is all Infantry-type work on foot or motorised I think.

Cheers for clearing up the French situ too, thought your amphibious/marine/commando forces were in the Army rather than the Navy, now I understand they are Army regiments in an Army role, just with a historic title?

Regards
BB

[Britboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe_Field_Division
http://my.att.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=87&subpageid=250047&ck=

Ah, it looks like it was Airmen forced into Army-type service to beef up the land forces - I suppose they had a lot of coast to guard and territory to occupy after Dunkirk.

Seems an odd way of doing it though, the site mentions poor performance due to the NCOs and officer corps of the Luftwaffe not being suited to land operations - that's only to be expected, so why not transfer/second the men to the Army for the duration instead... O well.

I wonder if there was any German equivalent of the RAF Regiment for force protection of their airfields. After the raids by the LRDG and SAS in N Africa, surely the need for this was identified? I suppose Army units may have taken on the role though...

Cheers
BB

[Ordie]

In Mexico, the Air Force and the Army are under one department. By default the Mexican Army and Air Force are considered a single armed force in terms of policymaking, planning and deployment.

Ecuadorian Air Force has an Infantería Aérea (Air Infantry) paratroop force protection unit. Because some paratroopers were involved in an attempted coup, the Infantería Aérea was forced to give up its parachutes to the Army and adopt a blue camoflage uniform as a means to deter future coup attempts.

See:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DC1F31F93BA25752C0A961948260

Since the Cenepa conflict with Peru, the unit redeemed itself and got thier parachutes back.

Note: the Ecuadorian Army has its own paratroops and transport aircraft. The Ecuadorian Navy has its own Naval Infantry, transport aircraft and airborne "SEAL" unit as well.

[Britboy]

Interesting set-up, was the relinquishing of the parachutes to deter them from making an operational jump on Quito, or a sign of dishonour?:-P

I think the Russian model is interesting also, the VDV apparently has Service level status all of it's own, separate from the air force and ground forces. There again their air defence (PVO?) is it's own Service also, but I believe it's merging with the Air Force as some form of rationalisation... I also understand their nuclear forces are independent.

I remember hearing France created a new armed service for nuclear weapons but think that was confused as they would have to be delivered by the MN and Armee de l'Air. Maybe whoever said that was getting confused with the Gendarmes (MPs as well as rural civil police) or Foreign Legion.

Interestingly South Africa has a Military Health Service independent from Army, Navy and Airforce with it's own independent Service status, it's probably not a bad idea to consolidate all Defence tri-service medical services, but giving it parity to the 3 established services seems inordinate, after all it is not a fighting arm...

Apparently in Poland if you want to fly for the forces you join generically and are told Air Force/Army/Navy later. And there are horror stories of Officer Cadets from Middle Eastern countries arriving in the UK for their officer training and being told by their embassy staff 'You to Sandhurst, you to Dartmouth, you to Cranwell...' almost eenie-meenie-miney-mo...

Not sure what this disparate collection of musings is getting at, but m'eh.

I guess Mexico's aerial units are big on CAS and not so much independent strategic aviation then, really like an Army Aviation Corps than an Air Force...

[Ordie]

Interesting set-up, was the relinquishing of the parachutes to deter them from making an operational jump on Quito, or a sign of dishonour?:-P

Both

Latin American countries usually has a surrogate force to deter coups.

The Philippines has something similar. The Philippine Army relies on the Air Force for its helicopters and transports. Thus neither can act alone on a coup attempt without the committment of air and ground units. The Marines usually acts as a third player.

The key to any coup attempt is careful planning, confidentiality, trust and making sure everyone is on board. With a divided military, it becomes more difficult.

[Ordie]

I guess Mexico's aerial units are big on CAS and not so much independent strategic aviation then, really like an Army Aviation Corps than an Air Force...

That is true.

But the Mexican Army and Airforce is exceptionally mobile able to deploy large numbers of soldiers anywhere in the country. This is due to Mexico's vast network of regional airports that are able to handle commercial jets from US and Canada. Also the Mexican Air Force has a fleet of passenger Boeing 727 that can rapidly deploy troops anywhere within the region.

[Britboy]

Interesting they went for a Boeing, I'd have thought a rough-field capability a la C130 would've been better yet, there must be many plains or even roads where one of those could perform tactical airlanding ops.

So does Mexico have a separate Army and Air Force, just all administered under one political directorate, or are the two forces actually entwined?

As for their role, I suppose that has been a neverending dilemma in airpower theory. Do you use your airforce for supporting your army and navy, or do you give it independence on the strategic stage in it's own right?

Actually during the Cold War with AirLand Battle doctrine (and SAC becoming less viable due to ICBMs replacing manned strategic nuclear bombers and no B70/Skybolt) I can see that the USAF seems to be far more wedded to the US Army, whereas the USN seems to be a service on it's own. Perhaps if you merged the airforce and army a useful 'synergy' would emerge. Or of course it could just be a massive step backwards and not allow the airmen to perform the full range of missions they otherwise could.

Now with Mexico which I'm imagining doesn't have much in the way of strategic or longrange aircraft and is more ground attack jets, tactical air transports and helicopters, it could very much make sense to have the 'Air Force' as a Corps of the Army. They'll have better working relationships with the blokes they are supporting and they won't miss out on the strategic missions because they likely wouldn't be realistic even with an independent air service anyway. Plus I take it Mexico's Armed Forces are far more structured for home defence than expeditionary operations.

ORDIE, that sounds a sad tale of Latin American civil-military affairs. Thats why officers get appointed for political reliability over actual ability, not good. But a useful insight into why these things happen, cheers.

[Britboy]

Ooops, did a bit of research and looks like they have a good number of Su35s, Su27s, FA18s and F16s, together with 3 AEW aircraft; along with the expected ground attack jets, air transports and helos.

With those kind of multirole fighters the Mexicans actually could conduct operational and strategic actions far removed from providing CAS for their Army. I suppose it makes sense for them to retain an independent Air Force rather than subordinating it to the Army. The lack of air refuelling tankers might hamper this sort of 'independent air action' but all in all it looks like a force capable of BAI and offensive counter air as well as the expected CAS and AT.

I must do my homework BEFORE I post next time - sorry Mexico!

Regards
BB

[little icebear]

I remember hearing France created a new armed service for nuclear weapons but think that was confused as they would have to be delivered by the MN and Armee de l'Air.

Are you possibly refering to "Force de Frappe"? That is not a "Force" in the english sense as a military branche, like in "Air Force", but rather the French phrase for the whole concept of nuclear deterrence, provided by the nuclear weapons within the branches of the French military. Today that means only within the French Navy and Air Force, since the L´Armee de Terre no longer has nuclear missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe

[muck]

Ah right, so paras are all Army Infantry these days...

Interesting that the German model has Armoured Infantry in the Armour/Cavalry/Panzer corps. I'd have thought that being Infantry, they'd be under the Infantry corps so to speak. But I suppose if you view armoured infantry as urban/close-country protective troops for tanks, then it may make some sense to subordinate them to your tank corps.

I know that W Germany led the way in the development of IFVs and the doctrine was to fight mounted and only dismount when neccessary (compare this to Brit/U.S. lightly armed APCs of the time which were battlefield taxi's, dismounting always before contact) - fighting mounted wherever possible would also lend itself to being grouped with the tank corps rather than infantry.
Unfortunately nothing has changed so far and this is even today the doctrine behind all strategies of the land forces of the Bundeswehr. The German Army never had purebred Infantry outfits, and till a few years ago it relied totally on MBTs and IFVs (about 7000 MBTs and IFVs in total). In 1991, the German Army had (:-() 14 Armoured or Mechanized Divisions with 42 fighting brigades.



Interesting you mention Luftwaffe Armoured Divisions. I heard of Luftwaffe Field Divisions, but didn't know if this was pressing airmen into service as infantry (as the Royal Naval Division of WWI pressed sailors into frontline infantry service); or if it was a force protection effort, like the RAF Regiment (airmen trained in traditional army skills so they can defend their airfield better). I suppose one is moving in on the Army's role, whereas the other is an effort to preserve your assets and airpower.

Well, as far as I know the personnel of these divisions were thought to operate more closely together with war planes. Apart from Fallschirmjäger-officers though, the Luftwaffe never had officers experienced in ground combat and thus these Field Divisions weren't really successful. What I was talking about was actualy a Luftwaffe armoured division, called 1st Armoured Division (Airborne) "Hermann Göring" which was reinforced to the size of an Armoured Corps till the end of the war.

[little icebear]

The German Army never had purebred Infantry outfits

Jäger? Fallis? Gebirgsjäger? And what´s so bad about mechanized infantry?

I´m rather unhappy with the Idea of having only a few hundred MBTs left. We surely wont need as many as we had during cold war times anytime soon, but the decline in classical capabilities goes way to far for my taste...

[Ordie]

Ooops, did a bit of research and looks like they have a good number of Su35s, Su27s, FA18s and F16s, together with 3 AEW aircraft; along with the expected ground attack jets, air transports and helos.

With those kind of multirole fighters the Mexicans actually could conduct operational and strategic actions far removed from providing CAS for their Army. I suppose it makes sense for them to retain an independent Air Force rather than subordinating it to the Army. The lack of air refuelling tankers might hamper this sort of 'independent air action' but all in all it looks like a force capable of BAI and offensive counter air as well as the expected CAS and AT.

I must do my homework BEFORE I post next time - sorry Mexico!

Regards
BB

Britboy,

In reality
Mexico has a dozen F-5E fighters and a few AEW aircraft. The majority of its ground attack units are turboprop Pilatus PC-7. However, it does have a notable transport helicopter fleet.

The Boeing 727 are second hand commercial jets. As I said, Mexico has a modern and extensive airport infrastructure with the ability to handle jet aircraft. This arraignment is good enough given the limited resources and law enforcement priorities.

Mexico's long term foriegn policy during the Cold War and today is one of neutrality and non-interventionalist. Therefore strategic power projection was moot. However, given the importance of oil resources and ocean resource management, the Mexican Navy has proposed obtaining high perfomance Su-27 type aircraft.

The military resources of Mexico are well suited and experienced in civil defense and disaster relief. They have deployed units to Indonesia, New Orleans and Central America and are well regarded and appreciated by the locals. I recall a Guatemalan lady once told me that Mexican Army came to her aid after a devestating earthquake with field kitchens, bakeries and clinics. She had more respect of the Mexican Army than her own government's military.

Latin American countries have politically stablized and its militaries are more professional. They tend to stay above politics as much as possible. The major challenge is one of resources, modernization, maintenence and shifting priorities.

[Britboy]

Alright, now I have to stop relying on Wiki for even a quick cursory check of facts! Compare the Mexican AF ORBAT on here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Air_Force

with the more realistic:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/mexico/mex-af-aircraft.htm

So much for fleets of Sukhois, Hornets and Falcons! I feel a right arse now for taking Wiki's word for it! O well, that'll learn me...

Talking of Germany again, how do you mean no purebred Infantry units? Do you mean you had no real Light Infantry (and I don't blame you for wanting as many IFVs and AFVs as possible with the Cold War situation); or do you mean that Combined Arms is taken down to unit level, i.e. you have Regiments/Battalions where IFVs/APCs are mixed with tanks? That's an interesting way of doing things, I heard the French took that model (with AMXs?) and the U.S. is doing it today with Styker APCs and Stryker assault guns (105mm's) in the same battalions - good for cooperation and same vehicle type reduces maintenance/supply dramas I'd think.

A WWII German Airborne Armoured formation sounds unbelievable! Surely with airborne/parachute/airlanding operations being figured out on the job, the idea of delivering armoured vehicles by air was far in the future. I cannot imagine they had an Airborne Armour capability, but probably used spare Luftwaffe personnel to form a tank formation like any other, either to replace losses or for Luftwaffe prestige. Although the Russians today have BMD, a parachutable mechanised infantry combat vehicle...

And cheers LI, someone in another forum or book I read must've mistaken Force de Frappe for a new independent armed service as opposed to the equivalent term to 'Nuclear Forces' or Striking Force.

[sergentdarmes]

I forgot to mention that the French Air Force has units of company-sized "light infantry" units in the same role as the RAF Regiment called "fusillers -commandos de l'air (for the individuel airman), and , drawn from these, special forces units for CSAR and FAC called Commando Parachutiste de l'Air (for the unit).
So Air Force still has some paratroops.

[Kaapeli]

Sorry to go a bit offtopic but how is it possible for a large and populous nation like Mexico to have such a small and obsolete fighter fleet?
Are they part of some alliance that provides them air cover or what's their defence strategy? Relying almost solely on land based AA systems?

[muck]

Talking of Germany again, how do you mean no purebred Infantry units? Do you mean you had no real Light Infantry (and I don't blame you for wanting as many IFVs and AFVs as possible with the Cold War situation); or do you mean that Combined Arms is taken down to unit level, i.e. you have Regiments/Battalions where IFVs/APCs are mixed with tanks? That's an interesting way of doing things, I heard the French took that model (with AMXs?) and the U.S. is doing it today with Styker APCs and Stryker assault guns (105mm's) in the same battalions - good for cooperation and same vehicle type reduces maintenance/supply dramas I'd think.

What I meant was that the modern German army never had Infantry divisions, contrary to the United States for example.
During Cold War, the army consisted of the following units (marked units remained in service till today)

1st Airborne Div
1st Mountain Div
1st Armoured Div
2nd MechInf Div
3rd Armoured Div
4th MechInf Div
5th Armoured Div
6th MechInf Div
7th Armoured Div
10th Armoured Div
11th MechInf Div
12th Armoured Div
13th MechInf Div
(14th MechInf Div) to be disbanded

In 1994, 1st Airborne Division was merged with 4th MechInf Division and formed a new division-equivalent called Airmobile Forces Command/ 4th Division. This division had three Airborne Brigades (25th, 26th and 31st) with six Battalions and a bunch of individual companies each. 25th Airborne Bde ended up in the newly formed Special Forces Command (KSK), and 26th and 31st Airborne Bde lost two Paratrooper Battalions each. These three brigades formed then a new division which was called Division Special Operations.

[Royal]

I believe British armoured reconnaissance regiments have a squadron of men in the mechanised infantry role, carried by APCs as assault troops to supplement the Scimitars with. Although this is light cavalry regiments converting some of their members to an infantry-type role for dismounted close combat, not whole Infantry regiments and battalions being transferred to the Armoured Corps, so a different scale and more grassroots I suppose.

You believe wrong.

The light cav regiments have (in theory) a troop of Spartans per squadron (Support Troop) to be used in the dismounted role. In practice the Spartans are split 1 per troop to the rest of the squadron (as, sometimes, are the Strikers) - usually as the OCs waggon (where they can carry interpreters, FACs, extra ammo, dogsbodies (or EOD dogs :) and all manner of other atts.

[Ordie]

Sorry to go a bit offtopic but how is it possible for a large and populous nation like Mexico to have such a small and obsolete fighter fleet?
Are they part of some alliance that provides them air cover or what's their defence strategy? Relying almost solely on land based AA systems?

That's because Mexico has no enemies nor immediate outside threats. Eventhough Mexico may have a small military fleet, its commercial aviation sector and infrastrcuture is substantially large and modern.

Aeromexico, Mexicana, and Aerocalifornia operates an expansive route network domestically and internationally. They operate 737, 757, 767, 777, A319, A320 and MD80's. The recent deregulation in the airline sector has led to a number of low cost start-ups.

The primary focus of the airforce at the moment is drug interdiction. The inclusion of the AEW aircraft is dedicated to that role. The Mexican Air Force operates within the Mexican Army paradigm. This is why you see a fleet focused on ground attack and mobility. The Navy under a separate ministry, has taken on the role of littoral sea and air defense. I'm sure its proposal to purchase Su-27 type aircraft caused some noise within the Air Force brass seeking the same.

There has been an on-going debate over this subject in the past two years on the Mexican Armed Forces thread. In fact I believe that one of the MP members is in the Mexican Air Force. He could provide an update and perhaps you can ask your questions on that thread.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101145

[Britboy]

Cheers Royal, it was a Spartan troop per squadron then, and not a Spartan squadron per regiment - I never was too sure. Sounds good splitting them up for 1 Spartan per troop, but then I suppose you have the problem of it being a really distinctive vehicle. As in, if I had an ATGM and could take my pick of 4 light tank/armoured cars, or what looked suspiciously like a Command Vehicle, guess which one I'm going to have a pop at!

Another thing is, if you lose your 4 Spartans to the Scimitar troops as command and attachment wagons, then whose going to do the mech inf role and dismount to clear those likely sights for ATk launches? Maybe there are Warriors/432s about, but in a forward recce screen, or a formation which is light? I know Scimitar crews often dismount but thats more for OPs I think, and it leaves a veh unmanned - I can kind've see why you'd want some dismounts in the back of an APC ready to go now actually... Never understood why they just don't use 432s instead of Spartans though, I know its not based on the CVRT family, but it carries more blokes!

Talking of Striker/Swingfires, how are they organised then, is that 1 sqn per regt? I suppose a regt would have 3 sqns, each with 3 troops of scimitars and 1 Spartan troop to be divvied up, and then a sqn of Striker/Swingfire, and then probably HQ sqn too.

Cheers though, it's always good to know how it's really done, rather than what I've heard of, which is usually wrong! You might have realised with my posts on a couple of threads on MP.net I'm trying to just get an understanding of how things work, especially Armour, as that is a bit of an unknown at the mo.

[Britboy]

Sergeant, cheers for the insight into the Armee de l'Air and their ground troops, it sounds very like RAF Regiment actually as I think they handle CSAR and FACing as well as force protection.

Muck, don't the Mech Inf divisions count as Infantry Divisions to your mind? I'm getting that you mean you have no Light Infantry as such, but between the Airborne, Mountain and Mech Infantry (you could even leave the APCs behind as mech troops dismount to fight in any case), you could find some Light Infantry in short order if you ever needed it.

I'm sure it's just an overhang from the Cold War, back then if it wasn't armoured then it probably wasn't likely to be around long if it all went up! As the BW moves to a different stance surely this'll change in time, aren't the German troops deployed to Afg and on peacekeeping in the Light Role?

[Royal]

Cheers Royal

No worries :)


but then I suppose you have the problem of it being a really distinctive vehicle. As in, if I had an ATGM and could take my pick of 4 light tank/armoured cars, or what looked suspiciously like a Command Vehicle, guess which one I'm going to have a pop at!

That's why the boss gets paid more p-)


Another thing is, if you lose your 4 Spartans to the Scimitar troops as command and attachment wagons, then whose going to do the mech inf role and dismount to clear those likely sights for ATk launches?

Depends. Maybe no-one. Maybe an extra Spartan added to the troops (Engr Recce, a spare from another troop or the LAD). I'm not going to go any deeper into TTPs on that one - if you need to know, you'll learn what else can be used...


Never understood why they just don't use 432s instead of Spartans though, I know its not based on the CVRT family, but it carries more blokes!

In the past it was cos they're too slow. I've no experience of Bulldog, but I doubt its that much faster than an old 432.


Talking of Striker/Swingfires, how are they organised then, is that 1 sqn per regt? I suppose a regt would have 3 sqns, each with 3 troops of scimitars and 1 Spartan troop to be divvied up, and then a sqn of Striker/Swingfire, and then probably HQ sqn too.

When I've seen them on Ops they've always been 1 troop per sqn. You're right about an HQ Sqn.

[Britboy]

Cool, of course I'm interested in 'how things work' but don't want to wander into asking about anything sensitive on an open forum, Bad Skills indeed!

Didn't know 432 was v slow, there again I've never seen one in full charge, s'pose it explains one reason why they went for Warrior instead of a 432 with a Rarden on the roof...

432 must be bigger than Spartan too, maybe they wanted to keep it all small and lower for being sneaky in a recce way. Maybe CVRT vehicles are quieter than 432 types too...

Oh, and 'thats why the boss gets paid more' reminds me of a mate's cruel joke to a pilot-to-be - 'You don't get paid more, you just get it paid faster', harsh!:lol:

[CHERK]

I think the Russian model is interesting also, the VDV apparently has Service level status all of it's own, separate from the air force and ground forces. There again their air defence (PVO?) is it's own Service also, but I believe it's merging with the Air Force as some form of rationalisation... I also understand their nuclear forces are independent.

Russian Federation Armed Forces:


Ground Forces (Army) – PVO Forces falls under the command of GF.
Navy
Air Forces

Branches (separate from the main services):

VDV (Airborne) – Have mechanized units, artillery and aviation.
Strategic Missile Command – “Nuclear” :lol:.
Space Forces

[Yosy]

In Portugal the paratroopers were part of the Portuguese Air Force until 1993 when they were moved to the Army. A bad decision - when they were in the Air Force their training was much more harder and they were in fact an elite corps, a notch above, say, of the UK's Parachute Regiment. When they went to the Army the training and quality of the paras decreased. Nowadays, with the exception of the Pathfinders, the paras are basically airborne infantry, no longer the elite special forces they were.

[muck]

Why? What difference did that make? Is the esprit de corps in your Army lower?

[Yosy]

The espirit de corps of the paras when they were in the Air Force was higher yes, but that doesn't mean that the Army has a low espirit de corps. The fact is that the Air Force paras had a much more tougher training and selection and a bigger budget. When they moved to the Army the training and selection relaxed somewhat and the paras started admiting women.

[Britboy]

Umm aren't paras supposed to be high-standard airborne infantry?

I can see how some would grumble ('o I joined the Air Force, I didnt want to be a pongo, green doesn't go with me eyes!' etc) but sounds like you have dramas with training and selection more than organisation/what service runs the show. People didn't like the old British infantry regiments being amalgamated recently, but they got on with it and keep on soldiering to a high standard, not start monging it... That's how you consolidate your new identity I suppose.

Paras being in the Army makes sense really, their role is massively Army orientated. Maybe their higher spirits when in the Portuguese Air Force was because they were clearly different and better trained in ground combat than your average airman, whereas in the Army they no longer felt so 'specialist' when the contrast with comparable Army units wasn't so stark?

Interesting you compare Portugal's Paras with Brit Paras, you should have a mil skills competition...:roll:

Cheers
BB

[Yosy]

Maybe their higher spirits when in the Portuguese Air Force was because they were clearly different and better trained in ground combat than your average airman, whereas in the Army they no longer felt so 'specialist' when the contrast with comparable Army units wasn't so stark?

Wrong. The Army made the paras turn into a more conventional infantry force, and the standards for the paras decreased; in the Air Force they were better trained and more independent - they were a multipurpose unit, capable of conventional as well as special operations. Because the Army already had its special forces unit, the paras became just airborne infantry.


Interesting you compare Portugal's Paras with Brit Paras, you should have a mil skills competition...

Since you brought it up: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/1-12201.aspx

The third picture is the portuguese team, the ones in green berets.

[Boina verde]

I think I can help you understand. In the Air Force the Paratroopers were basically independent, we choose what we want to by, we act like there wasn’t an Army, so we had all sort of sub-units that aloud as to perform in an independent way. The training were much more complete and demanding (8 mouths until that knew that they weren’t to be kick out).
From 1994 to… let’s say 2005 the Portuguese Paras went from one of the best train and equipped units in Nato, to a unit extremely used in Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor and A-Satan, but with an equipment and training that is just average.
In 2005 one Para CO reached a position in the Army that aloud him to change some things. Know things are better, but they can improve a lot! Most of the equipment that we received is not top of the line like in the past, we need more NVG, new assault rifles (we are still using the Galil), and other stuff.

Yosy, the Paras were the first unit with women in the Portuguese Armed Forces (60’s), the famous “Marias” (Paratrooper-nurses). My Parachute Course Instructor joins the Paras in 1993, when we were in the Air Force.

A little video of her:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10fxa_saltoeimposicaodaboina_extreme

[Yosy]

Yosy, the Paras were the first unit with women in the Portuguese Armed Forces (60’s), the famous “Marias” (Paratrooper-nurses). My Parachute Course Instructor joins the Paras in 1993, when we were in the Air Force.

A little video of her:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10fxa_saltoeimposicaodaboina_extreme

I don't classify those women as "true" paras (although oficially they were paratroopers) because: a) they were very few; and b) they were only used in medevacs - they didn't go out on patrols, ambushes, etc and they weren't even allowed to leave the heli when doing medevac on the field.

[Boina verde]

They had the Green Beret, so they were Paras. But yes, you are right, they had allot of limitations (like the army soldiers that are in the BRR right now.

[Boina verde]

Umm aren't paras supposed to be high-standard airborne infantry?

Not exactly, for example the US Army Paratroopers are just normal Army guys with the Parachute course. The Portuguese Paratroopers were going the same way, but, because of the reason that I already say, since 2005, thinks changed for better. Today most of the Paras were formed 100% in ETP (Paratrooper School).

[CHERK]

Umm aren't paras supposed to be high-standard airborne infantry?


It is the way it’s done in Russia, the difference between “regular” infantry and Airborne troops not only that one are jumping but also in all-around higher standards.

[GETSOME]

They had the Green Beret, so they were Paras. But yes, you are right, they had allot of limitations (like the army soldiers that are in the BRR right now.
How many jumps does a Portuguese para need to make to get his or her wings?

[Tomahawk]

The Chinese Airborne Corps. All Chinese paratroopers units belongs to the Air Force.

[Toddy]

I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the Belgian Paras were part of the Airforce.

[Dominique]

The El Salvadoran Parachute Battalion is part of the Air Force. I got to spend a couple of days hanging out with them.

[baboon6]

I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere that the Belgian Paras were part of the Airforce.

You are wrong. The Para-Commando Regiment is part of the Belgian Land Component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army

[Alfacentori]

I think I'm right in saying that 3rd RAR (Paratroops) are 100% army but perhaps someone could clarify for me as to if RAAF ADG's count as paratroops?
Are they jump trained?
I'm reasonably sure they perform SAR and I saw somewhere that they train alongside 3rd RAR or was it 4th RAR (Commando)......

Anyone???


Alfa

[Boina verde]

How many jumps does a Portuguese para need to make to get his or her wings?

In the old days (very old days), 10 jumps, today it's 6.

[GETSOME]

In the old days (very old days), 10 jumps, today it's 6.
Thanks bro.p-)

[Toddy]

You are wrong. The Para-Commando Regiment is part of the Belgian Land Component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army

Thanks for clarifying that for me mate, was not sure.

[Britboy]

I think I'm right in saying that 3rd RAR (Paratroops) are 100% army but perhaps someone could clarify for me as to if RAAF ADG's count as paratroops?
Are they jump trained?
I'm reasonably sure they perform SAR and I saw somewhere that they train alongside 3rd RAR or was it 4th RAR (Commando)......

Anyone???


Alfa

Hey there,

I don't know of the RAAF ADGs, but the British equivalent, the RAF Regiment, does have a parachute component. Not all of these troops are parachute trained as the main role is usually force protection and training airmen as I understand it, but one squadron is parachute trained so as to be able to quickly seize an airfield or perhaps reinforce one where the runway is out of action, as I understand it.

Although, if there are rockapes here, feel free to put me right, all I know is what I picked up off a 'space cadet' camp at RAF Honington when I were a wee nipper p-)

[Dominique]

The RAF Regiment's parachute rolled unit is II Field Squadron.

[Britboy]

Yep, it is II Squadron.

But what of their role?

They wouldn't be used just as paratroops surely, as that is the role of the Parachute Regiment/Airborne Forces in the Army.

It must be an Air Force-specific role for the RAF Regiment to have this capability.

The only role that springs to mind is airfield seizure, because:

A) The USAF have 'Combat Controllers' with this role.

B) Airfields are generally Airforce's sphere of influence.

C) I have read Red Storm Rising (and can't believe I am seriously quoting it :oops: but meh) with the invasion of Iceland. Yes I know it's fiction, it's Cold War, and it's Clancy, but if you can quickly seize an airfield with these blokes and then use them to defend the airfield while you fly in strike fighters and C130s full of the ground support kit, that could really allow you to exploit your airpower into a previously unreachable locale. Throwing your enemy off-balance. Winning you a campaign or small war even?

Thoughts anyone (besides 'Stop reading Clancy for discourses on doctrine' p-))

PS: I promise it was only Red October and Red Storm, honest. :lol:

[Dominique]

Yep, it is II Squadron.

But what of their role?

They wouldn't be used just as paratroops surely, as that is the role of the Parachute Regiment/Airborne Forces in the Army.

It must be an Air Force-specific role for the RAF Regiment to have this capability.

They're parachute trained, but it's not their primary role. They're capable of supporting the Parachute Regiment if they're tasked with an airfield seizure role. If you want specifics, you can just read over their website they state quite clearly what they're capable of doing.


The only role that springs to mind is airfield seizure, because:

A) The USAF have 'Combat Controllers' with this role.

USAF CCT primary mission is not airfield seizure, airfield seizure is what the 75th Ranger Regiment does. CCT are basically AF pathfinders. Their job is to set up airfields/LZ/DZ and to support other SOF units. Many of them are also trained as JTACs. As I stated previously, if you want additional info on them, read over one of the many USAF "Fact Sheets" available on www.af.mil




C) I have read Red Storm Rising (and can't believe I am seriously quoting it :oops: but meh) with the invasion of Iceland. Yes I know it's fiction, it's Cold War, and it's Clancy, but if you can quickly seize an airfield with these blokes and then use them to defend the airfield while you fly in strike fighters and C130s full of the ground support kit, that could really allow you to exploit your airpower into a previously unreachable locale. Throwing your enemy off-balance. Winning you a campaign or small war even?

Most airfield seizure missions are conducted by Army units (usually some type of airborne or commando/raider unit). Most western Air Forces have troops specially trained to rapidly move into these fields, and to rapidly get them operational. The US, France, UK, etc. have parachute trained personnel that would either jump in with the assaulting unit, or rapidly airland soon as a runway becomes available.

[Britboy]

Well the RAF site states that the additional role of II Sqn is to "capture and secure landing strips and refuelling points", as well as the usual FP role, nothing about the Parachute Regiment. Although I understand they were deployed alongside the Parachute Regiment in Sierra Leone, and along with RM, Paras and RAF Regt provide manpower for SFSG. A different role to the parachute sqn of RAF Regt however.

Interesting that your CCTs are envisaged to be used as pathfinders, why the FAA ATC certification if they are in the pathfinder role? Surely this'd be more applicable to airfield seizure (capture airfield, then talk down aircraft).

In any case, it seems our ways of doing things are the other way round. You have pathfinders in the Air Force and people who are trained to take an airfield in the Army, and our pathfinders are Army and airfield seizure lies with RAF. No matter who carries them out I suppose, as long as the roles are covered, and carried out well.

I had little idea of the fact that 'seize an airfield and get it up and running' troops were a standing feature of most Airforces, I thought it was more a case of the people who would do it in the normal situ would just be flown in to do it in a more dicey situ. After all, you'd need to perform the tasks regularly to be able to maintain currency so that you could do it if and when you had to seize an airfield. And it doesn't make sense to not have these personnel working when, as usual, there is no recently-seized airfield to take over. A case of better that you nominate/designate a regular unit to go and do it, rather than have a specific dedicated unit set up but unused and (potentially) unpracticed?

[Dominique]

Well the RAF site states that the additional role of II Sqn is to "capture and secure landing strips and refuelling points", as well as the usual FP role, nothing about the Parachute Regiment.

They don't necessarily need an entire airfield to land a couple of Harriers or a helos. They could quite easily jump into a large clearing or dirt field and secure it for use. Or they could be used to rapidly reinforce an airfield that's under ground attack.


Although I understand they were deployed alongside the Parachute Regiment in Sierra Leone, and along with RM, Paras and RAF Regt provide manpower for SFSG. A different role to the parachute sqn of RAF Regt however.


Interesting that your CCTs are envisaged to be used as pathfinders, why the FAA ATC certification if they are in the pathfinder role?

Because only USAF certified ATC are allowed o direct USAF aircraft. It's also useful to have some ATC skills when you've got 25-30 aircraft (each with different specs) buzzing around in the dark, with no air traffic radar, and people on the ground shooting at you.


Surely this'd be more applicable to airfield seizure (capture airfield, then talk down aircraft).

Whenever the Rangers make a jump combat jump, a USAF Special Tactics personnel (PJs, CCT, SOWT) jump in with them. They direct the follow on aircraft, set up the airfield, clear the run way (that what those motorcycles and quad runners are for), and if they have to, control CAS missions.


In any case, it seems our ways of doing things are the other way round. You have pathfinders in the Air Force and people who are trained to take an airfield in the Army, and our pathfinders are Army and airfield seizure lies with RAF. No matter who carries them out I suppose, as long as the roles are covered, and carried out well.

The US Army also has Pathfinder units, they normally mark LZs for helicopters, and conduct recon missions, but they're capable of controlling AF aircraft (the AF limits what they can do), acting as JTACs and FOs, or whatever else their higher HQ asks of them. And as I said, last I checked, in the UK, airfield seizure was still a Parachute Regiment gig (assisted by other units of 16 AAB).

[Britboy]

I don't deny that the Paras could be tasked to secure an airfield, much as they could be tasked to secure an oilfield or any other feature, but seeing as the RAF Regiment site specifically states capturing landing strips as a role, rather than 'rapidly deployable security for air assets', surely it is their gig too. Especially as I imagine that Airborne Forces are going to be in very high demand on other taskings too.

Also, it's just been stated that USAF CCTs are in the Pathfinder role, so why the ATC certification? I didn't think you needed such a certification to set up beacons; or, in another role you mentioned, to act as a FAC/OC TACP? Unless they are meant to be Air Liaison Officers for the formation/area as well? In which case they are really 'forward ATC in a contested region' rather than 'pathfinders and JTACs'.

Agreed they'd need ATC skills to act as the ATCs on an airfield recently seized (by rangers it would seem). But I'm willing to bet the number of CCT personnel is higher than the number of ATCs needed for follow-on forces after an airfield seizure.

Also, why not just get an Air Traffic Controller from the regular Air Force, and have them go through the jumps course in their career so they can act in this role? If you want forward-deployable ATCs, get some ATCs and parachute train them, right? If push comes to shove, you only need a few ATCs jumpable and you can have the rest on the next flight in, or tandem-jump them even possibly?

That'd appear to make more sense, rather than giving the role to another group with already a myriad of other functions.

I must confess, the more I try to understand Combat Control types, the less I understand. They don't do airfield seizure, but some jump to carry out ATC with those who do. They are pathfinders, but they all must have ATC certification anyway, and the Army has it's own pathfinders anyhow. And they act as JTACs, when there are already USAF TACPs (ROMADs?) to provide air support to ground forces!

How bizarre! Should I just say 'they are a SOF which deals with air' and leave it at that?

[Dominique]

I don't deny that the Paras could be tasked to secure an airfield, much as they could be tasked to secure an oilfield or any other feature, but seeing as the RAF Regiment site specifically states capturing landing strips as a role, rather than 'rapidly deployable security for air assets', surely it is their gig too. Especially as I imagine that Airborne Forces are going to be in very high demand on other taskings too.

As I previously stated, II Field Squadron is parachute rolled, that means that means they are capable of conducting parachute operations, but that is not their primary role. They're primary roll is still providing airfield security, and securing RAF assets. Airfield seizure is handled by the Parachute Regiment, with support drawn from other units, including the RAF Regiment.


Also, it's just been stated that USAF CCTs are in the Pathfinder role, so why the ATC certification?

Because their parent service, the USAF, requires them to have the certification. It's that simple.


I didn't think you needed such a certification to set up beacons; or, in another role you mentioned, to act as a FAC/OC TACP?
Unless they are meant to be Air Liaison Officers for the formation/area as well? In which case they are really 'forward ATC in a contested region' rather than 'pathfinders and JTACs'.

As I just said, the USAF requires them to have the certification, just as it requires certain SOF personnel to hold a SOTAC certification before it allows them to call in air strikes. And unlike tactical ATC personnel, CCT (Along with their Special Tactics brethren) are the first people on the ground, they may or may not have an actual airfield to work with. It may be nothing more than a dirt clearing. They may have to clear the runway of debris, and obstacles, they may also have to fight their way into the place, before they can set their equipment up, etc., etc.


Agreed they'd need ATC skills to act as the ATCs on an airfield recently seized (by rangers it would seem). But I'm willing to bet the number of CCT personnel is higher than the number of ATCs needed for follow-on forces after an airfield seizure.

And you would be wrong.


Also, why not just get an Air Traffic Controller from the regular Air Force, and have them go through the jumps course in their career so they can act in this role? If you want forward-deployable ATCs, get some ATCs and parachute train them, right? If push comes to shove, you only need a few ATCs jumpable and you can have the rest on the next flight in, or tandem-jump them even possibly?

That'd appear to make more sense, rather than giving the role to another group with already a myriad of other functions.

The Army, unlike the AF, does have a Pathfinder and Jump qualified tactical ATC unit, but it's pretty much dedicated to supporting Army air operations. As far as getting AF personnel to do the job, your kidding right? Since an airfield assault would involve ground combat, that's not going to happen. The USAF only has four jobs that are designated ground combat roles (PJ, CCT, SOWT, and TACP). All of them support US Army, Marine, or SOF units. CCT training is one of the most demanding in the US armed forces, in addition to their basic selection course, they're all Combat Diver, static line, and MFF qualified. You're not going to get AF ATC to do that, or keep up with the airborne, and SOF units they support.


I must confess, the more I try to understand Combat Control types, the less I understand. They don't do airfield seizure, but some jump to carry out ATC with those who do. They are pathfinders, but they all must have ATC certification anyway, and the Army has it's own pathfinders anyhow. And they act as JTACs, when there are already USAF TACPs (ROMADs?) to provide air support to ground forces!

How bizarre! Should I just say 'they are a SOF which deals with air' and leave it at that?

As I said, they're job is to support the Airfield seizure mission. They're job is to get the airfield, DZ, or LZ up and running as rapidly as possible, then control the initial aircraft flow into, and out of the area. Reading over the mission statement will help clarify things for you.

As far as Army Pathfinders go, they primarily support US Army helo operations, not USAF ops. As to why CCT are acting as JTACs for SOF, it's because the AF is short of TACP personnel. CCT can do it, but it's not their primary gig.