Airpower

[wukong]

Air power is the ability to place and sustain combat elements of the US Army anywhere within hours of alert.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t285/carrabellefl/image202lg.jpg

[HairyEyeball]

Was there more to this, or...?

[Woody]

Is that photo real or photoshopped ? I count about 16 planes how big a drop zone would you need for that ?

[HairyEyeball]

Wouldn't 'air power' also include the ability to preclude hostile air elements from 'interfering' with the delivery or subsequent operations of ground troops? The presence of any such appears appears conspicuous by its absence. In any but a training exercise, wouldn't that equate to 'sitting ducks' in the air and a plethora of (surviving) 'small but moving' targets on the ground?

The photo appears to only support a portion of the supplied definition.

[wukong]

Twenty U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster IIIs fly over Charleston, S.C., Dec. 21, 2006. The C-17s, assigned to the 437th and 315th Airlift Wings at Charleston Air Force Base, S.C., were part of the largest formation in history from a single base and demonstrated the strategic airdrop capability of the U.S. Air Force.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Richard W. Rose Jr.)

Localized air superiority or air supremacy is required for this airborne capability to exist. Just as local naval superiority or naval supremacy is necessary for an amphibious landing. The capability to insert and support requires both offensive and defensive air operations.

I would imagine that a scene such as the above was evident in the drop of the 173d Airborne Brigade(?) into Northern Iraq.

The Chinese are working to acquire this capability. Perhaps the PLA can acquire the joint capability to execute a airborne amphibious operation that the US seems unable to accomplish since MacArthur's capture of Lae in WWII.

[Javelin66]

The 82nd routinely does mass tactical drops of battalion and brigade size on a number of drop zones at Ft Bragg and other places. The assault echelon of a 'mass tac' is mainly the shooters, key C2 (commanders and staff), and forward supporters (medics, etc) of the unit- mainly the 'line companies',

To put this in perspective, a line company has over a hundred men, so a battalion mass tac could put about 600 guys out the door once you add in mortars, artillery, and other combat multipliers. This would include a number of heavy drops (artillery, vehicles, etc)

A C-17 carries about 100 combat loaded paratroopers (there are a lot of factors, like in-flight rigging, heavy drops, pallets, etc, that cut down on the size of the chalk). This works out to about 6 C-17s to drop a battalion.

A brigade mass tac would be two or more battalions, plus more combat multipliers, so you are up to 12 or more C-17s.

The 173rd drop took 15-17 C-17s, depending on the source you reference. 10 of these were 'pax' (personnel), and just less than a thousand guys jumped. Since they were going to a remote area and were expected to operate independantly for an extended period, the balance of those chalks were probably pallets (ammo, medical supplies, fuel, water, and chow), artillery and combat vehicles.

One troop from each stick exits the aircraft every second (alternating so you do not have a chance meeting under the aircraft). Factoring airspeed, wind, and the need to avoid obstacles on the ground, the planning factor is that troopers in each stick will hit the ground spaced 75 feet apart, starting at the aptly named PPI- Personnel Point of Impact.

Sicily Drop Zone at Bragg is 4,975 yards long (1000 wide), and the 82nd routinley trains mass-tac operations there. Holland and Normandy Drop Zones (at Bragg), are also over 3000 yards long.

You usually think of the aircraft coming in one pass in a line astern formation, but usually we do multiple passes, and the aircraft can fly multiple formations based on the shape of the DZ.

'Air Power' does imply the ability to destroy or suppress air defenses around the Drop Zone. However, keep in mind that the whole point of this is to jump where the enemy ain't, thus 'placing him on the horns of a dilemma'- does he divert troops from other areas to face this threat (a brigade to take on a battalion, a division to take on a brigade), or does he accept having a sizable enemy force in his support zone, usually on or near critical infrastructure, lines of communications, or an airfield or port facilities that could facilitate follow on forces.

It looks like this: https://www.benning.army.mil/videos/video05/index.htm
or, more to the point, like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3721038400531353512

[Woody]

Thanks for that been enemy for a couple of airborne assaults .Though admittedly not the most realistic exercises.If the enemy know where you dropping its virtually all over before it begins .Just hope the journolists dont let the cat out of the bag before you go.:devil:

[Javelin66]

Large (brigade or more) airborne assaults allow for strategic/operational surprise (think theater or JTF level commanders). You are putting a brigade on the ground, ready to fight, where the enemy did not expect it. This generally implies that there is not going to be a large force on the DZ, and whatever is there is worked over pretty good by 'joint fires'- fast movers, TLAMS, naval gunfire, etc.

Most people think of D-Day when they think of airborne operations, but the better examples are the German operations at the beginning of the war, Market Garden (with the exception of Arnhem the airborne portion was a success). The 173rds jump in Iraq is another example, one brigade opened another front in the war.

That said, both the Grenada and Panama assaults were made with enemy resistance on the DZ. A combat jump is actually made at 500 feet (vice 800 in training): it takes less than 30 seconds to hit the ground.

Airborne operations can also support tactical actions. The Rangers (and at least one company from the 82nd) have done several mass tac operations in Afghanistan. In this instance, you are putting a smaller force (platoons and companies) on the ground much faster. There have also been a number of team sized HALO ops, which are an entirely different category.

[dukesix]

Looks like those fellas had a more than decent drop zone. Much better than we (LRSU School) had one night at Ft. Benning. Postage stamp drop zone......Pathfinder and Jump Master thoroughly confused....Blackhawk going just a little too fast....those tall Georgia pines sure do hurt!

Dukesix

[JohnP]

Try an OV-10 drop! 4 jumpers in a football field. If you're not the jumpmaster, you're usually running through someone's canopy.

[HairyEyeball]

Canopy? When Marines jumped from VMO-2's Broncos, they weren't issued chutes. Aside from flying low enough not to 'need' them, between M-14s, 1911s, and enough ammo among the 4 to hold off a VC division, there was no place to put them, nor room for them in the cargo bay.

Ah, the good old days (when we weren't so good because we weren't so old).

[O.O.O.]

Just a question (heh, heh,heh) for everyone that is gung ho about jumping into a hot zone.

How many actual airborne jumps into a combat zone have been made since WII?

[Javelin66]

Major drops:

Korea (187th RCT- two jumps, Sukchon and Op Ripper, 1950/51)
Vietnam (Junction City-173rd ABN Bde)
Honduras (Golden Pheasant was not actually a combat operation but it is a great example of how airborne units can use their strategic mobility to demonstrate resolve)
Grenada (Rangers)
Panama (Rangers and 82nd )
Afghanistan (multiple Ranger company sized operations and at least one 82nd company)
Iraq (173rd ABCT), plus a few planned but never executed 82nd jumps

In addition, there have been multiple small Special Ops HALO insertions (High Altitude Low Opening)

HE, those Marines sound tough, but it was the Army that perfected the HANO technique (High Altitude No Opening- it's like a HALO jump, but you flare at the last second)

[soccermark23]

Now this is air-power.

http://www.steevven1.com/images/air%20force%20budget%20cut.jpg

[dukesix]

Yeah JohnP, I heard about the OV-10 jumps. I guess the bird shoots straight up once the desired altitude is achieved....the rear door pops open....and they all just kinda fall out. You can have it. Getting whipped out of a C-141 was usually enough for me! Never had a chance to exit out of a C-17. Have you? If you have, how is it compared to jumping out of a C-130 or C-141?

Dukesix

[wukong]

I preferred UH-1, great view and mild opening. You can hear every band snap in the harness.

[Javelin66]

The C-17 is a great jump. There is plenty of room- you can actually walk between the rows of jumpers- and the exit is very smooth.

Initially there were problems with the wing-tip vortex, so they had to play around with the formations and add length to the static line so your parachute deploys lower. The vortex would actually invert guys in their canopy or cause it to collapse.

Never did a UH-1, but have done UH-60, MH-60, CH-53, and CH-47 as well as a Casa 212- all of which give you the effect that Wu is talking about.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ir59yOHCUpA/c_17_airborne_ops_part_ii/

[JohnP]

Yeah JohnP, I heard about the OV-10 jumps. I guess the bird shoots straight up once the desired altitude is achieved....the rear door pops open....and they all just kinda fall out. You can have it. Getting whipped out of a C-141 was usually enough for me! Never had a chance to exit out of a C-17. Have you? If you have, how is it compared to jumping out of a C-130 or C-141?

Dukesix

I was retired before the C-17 came into being. The C-130 and the C-141 each had their own unique methods of exit that when not done correctly caused the jumper the spend his air time running out the twists. A fun jump is when you can go off the tail gate of the 130 instead of the doors.

[JohnP]

The C-17 is a great jump. There is plenty of room- you can actually walk between the rows of jumpers- and the exit is very smooth.

Initially there were problems with the wing-tip vortex, so they had to play around with the formations and add length to the static line so your parachute deploys lower. The vortex would actually invert guys in their canopy or cause it to collapse.

Never did a UH-1, but have done UH-60, MH-60, CH-53, and CH-47 as well as a Casa 212- all of which give you the effect that Wu is talking about.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-ir59yOHCUpA/c_17_airborne_ops_part_ii/


There is little difference from the exit of a Blackhawk as compared to a Huey. It's still as simple as get you butt up and slide off.

My lists include the following:
C-130
C-141 A and B
UH-1
UH-60
CH-3
CH-53
C-123
Sherpa
OV-10
C-5 - (Test Jump) It beat the crap out of all off us. The monster couldn't slow down enough.

[dukesix]

C-5? I only heard about those. Had to be something else!

[JohnP]

C-5? I only heard about those. Had to be something else!


The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is an American military transport aircraft built by Lockheed. It was designed to provide strategic heavy airlift over intercontinental distances and to carry outsize and oversize cargo. The C-5 Galaxy has been operated by the United States Air Force since 1969 and is one of the largest military aircraft in the world.


38

[dukesix]

Knew about the plane ( I did a report on it in sixth grade).....just jumping from it was what I was referring to.

Dukesix

[JohnP]

Knew about the plane ( I did a report on it in sixth grade).....just jumping from it was what I was referring to.

Dukesix

I was in one of 10 separate test jumps. My stick was only 20 jumpers and we got the crap beat out of us. You can't slow that monster down enough for jumpers. The wind beat the chutes so bad that I thought I was going to have to deploy the reserve.

Mine wasn't as bad as the others.

[dukesix]

Ouch! Better you than me JohnP. Wukong is right about the Uh-1 as well. Easy 'pop'.

Dukesix

[wukong]

The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is an American military transport aircraft built by Lockheed. It was designed to provide strategic heavy airlift over intercontinental distances and to carry outsize and oversize cargo. The C-5 Galaxy has been operated by the United States Air Force since 1969 and is one of the largest military aircraft in the world.


38

One of the interesting facts of the C-5 was the airborne extraction and air launch of an ICBM in 1974. To quote General P.K. Carlton, "This was a demonstration of capability for the Russians. I doubt you will see it again." Air Power at the extreme.

[Woody]

Isn't there some company trying to sell the idea of launching satellites by
that method ?Love to have seen the crews faces when they were told what they were going to do :).

[JohnP]

Ouch! Better you than me JohnP. Wukong is right about the Uh-1 as well. Easy 'pop'.

Dukesix

The only reason I volunteered was to get the X in the experimental column of my jump records. It's called bragging rights!

The jump I heard that was the most fun was at the Brit jump school where you exit from a balloon. They tell me you actually get the feeling of the fall. In other words, when you exit a moving aircraft, you're at your velocity for opening shock. When you exit a static point, (i.e. Balloon) you accelerate to your opening shock.

It is said, that it test ones testicular viscosity.

[dukesix]

JohnP and Javelin....just heard about a SF Group that just recently finished jumping from a Osprey. I'll bet that had to have been something!

Dukesix