21st Rapid Deployment Division
-
Read slowly leh...Originally posted by gary1910:Based what you are saying, 6 C-130 for one Bn of commando, along with number of Chinook for LSV etc
Afterwhich they will secure the DZ, then 4 C-130 with 8 AFVs will come in doing LAPES, possible?
Btw ,the operators were already airdrop with the rest of the commando.
The largest air-drop was done b4 my time. 6 X C130 for CDO BN if I am not wrong.
ai ya why you still dun understand no such area for LAPES. Even the N.S.H. is a NO.
The largest air inserted so far oni 1 X BN+ which I am in till now a BN+ is what SAF have done. C130, SP and Chinook all involve. What you think? Time is the main thing here. We cannot have the window open too long like the LAPES.
The main point is man and equipment must go in together.
Sorry time to take to land 1 BDE or 1 BN will not be say in here
And ya when did all our operator airborne train
You still in D-day
-
I remember last year Airforce 35th celebration in TAB, where a C-130 flew in low to the runway as if she was going to land , but it just flew for a while , only a few meters above the runway then takeoff again.
Was the pilot demonstrating the C-130 LAPES capability in front of the audiences?
I think so. -
Originally posted by gary1910:I remember last year Airforce 35th celebration in TAB, where a C-130 flew in low to the runway as if she was going to land , but it just flew for a while , only a few meters above the runway then takeoff again.
Was the pilot demonstrating the C-130 LAPES capability in front of the audiences?
I think so.
did it drop any loads? NO.
Going at 130kn... you go calculate how long it need b4 you make this kinda reply again leh. Just to remind you, we not talking one load here.
-
huh?? i really blur of what u trying to say now...in ur e.g above... if u saying that there are other heli going in.. then... what is the diff with what we have not and that???? there is confirm an advance party going in the secured the area either by airborne or heli...then it will be save enough for ur c130 and main party to come in....my main point is that there's no way u can have a high level airdrop on highways and if it's low level one.. then if it's so save u might as well land it right?? why drop??Originally posted by gary1910:I hv say it in the previous post to bcoy. why C-130, why not Chinook, the reason is that it could carry a heavier & better protected AFV than a Chinook could. One C-130 could carry abt 2 -3 such vehicles, and Chinnok only one and also lighter AFV which is less protected.
The whole operation is not limited to only C-130, 12 Chinook for lighter asset like the LSV, LG105mm etc, whereas the 8-10 C-130 will have abt at least 16 heavier AFVs.
The combined airlift capacity will be greatly increased when both type are used right?
like i stated in my first post... i guess we are using heli borne unit like the 82nd....so there is no need or not much diff in our case to have a real air borne div -
And I also cannot vouch for the enitre SEA that is no such area for such operation , and u seem to know that is none in SEA available for such operation or maybe we are only restricted only small area of operation in certain country?!?Originally posted by Joshua1975: did it drop any loads? NO.
Going at 130kn... you go calculate how long it need b4 you make this kinda reply again leh. Just to remind you, we not talking one load here. 
and also why can't the C-130 go thru two LAPSE to clear two loads? i.e. one load at a time.
You seem to be restricted in your thinking, for example why can't the operators of the airborne armour asset be airborne trained as well??? -
I really hate to repeat myself, please read this again:Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):huh?? i really blur of what u trying to say now...in ur e.g above... if u saying that there are other heli going in.. then... what is the diff with what we have not and that???? there is confirm an advance party going in the secured the area either by airborne or heli...then it will be save enough for ur c130 and main party to come in....my main point is that there's no way u can have a high level airdrop on highways and if it's low level one.. then if it's so save u might as well land it right?? why drop??
like i stated in my first post... i guess we are using heli borne unit like the 82nd....so there is no need or not much diff in our case to have a real air borne div
http://www.parachutehistory.com/military/lapes.htmlLAPES allows cargo loads to be placed directly on the ground in exactly the right place. Some of these places would not allow for aircraft landings. Sometimes the terrain was unsuitable, sometimes it was because of enemy fire. LAPES was better at spotting heavy loads than Heavy Load Air Delivery.
-
Did you do your math not? You know 1min how long that the 130 going to cover in KM.Originally posted by gary1910:And I also cannot vouch for the enitre SEA that is no such area for such operation , and u seem to know that is none in SEA avialable or maybe we are only restricted on small area of operation in certain country?!?
and also why can't the C-130 go thru two LAPSE to clear two loads? i.e. one load at a time.
You seem to restricted in your thinking, for example why can't the operators of the airborne armour asset be airborne trained as well???
Next as i say b4 how far you want to go Do SAF need to go so far And yes I think I have had read/study more maps than you read on books.
Next on why can't the C-130 go thru two LAPSE to clear two loads? If you do the math part of the answer is there or why not go read somewhere on air traffic 1st than ask why not carry out 2 LAPES. Maybe military air traffic cannot fine, but more or less it still there. One more point, we are talking abt Rapid Deployment in large number and not 1 or 2 you are slowly going out of point here.
When have all the tankee go for airborne? Guards oso have problem to get this done oredi now you are talking abt operators. why not go serve your NS 1st.
Can never understand why lots of ppl here like to insist on thing when they dun have any facts with them -
Like I said - carrying a M113 with a Chinook - I still don't think so. Despite whatever lifting capability qouted (be it Chinook or C130) - you have not explained your objectives of having an airborne (parachute) unit in the local context.Originally posted by gary1910:Well, Chinook's central hook is capable to carry 12 tonnes load, a M113A1 combat weight abt 11 tonnes and unloaded weight about 9.6 tonnes, I believe it could be done.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/chinook/index.html
As for 2nd qn, heli borne lift is limited thus you could lift armour asset of thin armour say maybe up to 12 tonnes?
But a C-130 could you give heavier air lift capability thus able to have armour asset of higher weight abt 17 tonnes.It could 2-3 such AFVs.
Thus you could hv better armoured veh for today warfare. -
I really hate to repeat myself too, i have read that.. and it still dun answer what i'm answer u.. maybe my english is so bad that u dun see what i am asking.. maybe i highlight the main point for u...Originally posted by gary1910:I really hate to repeat myself, please read this again:
http://www.parachutehistory.com/military/lapes.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAPES allows cargo loads to be placed directly on the ground in exactly the right place. Some of these places would not allow for aircraft landings. Sometimes the terrain was unsuitable, sometimes it was because of enemy fire. LAPES was better at spotting heavy loads than Heavy Load Air Delivery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's about thesmae to what bcoy is asking belowOriginally posted by I-like-flings(m):huh?? i really blur of what u trying to say now...in ur e.g above... if u saying that there are other heli going in.. then... what is the diff with what we have not and that???? there is confirm an advance party going in the secured the area either by airborne or heli...then it will be save enough for ur c130 and main party to come in....my main point is that there's no way u can have a high level airdrop on highways and if it's low level one.. then if it's so save u might as well land it right?? why drop??
like i stated in my first post... i guess we are using heli borne unit like the 82nd....so there is no need or not much diff in our case to have a real air borne divOriginally posted by bcoy:Like I said - carrying a M113 with a Chinook - I still don't think so. Despite whatever lifting capability qouted (be it Chinook or C130) - you have not explained your objectives of having an airborne (parachute) unit in the local context. -
Eh. who posted this Orbat out ah? Last I checked this kinda stuff still have that stupid word -SECRET- as header and footer hor.
Pls delete this thread. =D -
IMHO Coastel defence up north across the straits of johore can be neutralized with heavy artillery guns from our island.Originally posted by gary1910:That is why I said that we do need to have another dimension in our RDD.
At this moment, we hv Amphi ,heli borne but no airborne.
As for armour asset (AMX-10s) are all marine variant, no air/heli borne variant.
( Maybe we do have but classified)
What if the our amphi armour asset cannot be used due to the nearest coastal area are heavily guarded or simply the area of operation is too far inland, far away from the coast thus making amphi landing not feasible ?
(deleted) ...
Secure the 2nd link bridge and causeway and we can move whole ABG across in no time...
Do we really need to insert anything more than a Bdn throught airborne?
Well maybe just heliborne 1 or 2 coy of guards units to secure senai airport? -
If you missed the 1st post 1st 3 line here is it againOriginally posted by Shotgun:Eh. who posted this Orbat out ah? Last I checked this kinda stuff still have that stupid word -SECRET- as header and footer hor.
Pls delete this thread. =D As i said b4, all those that mention in here can be found in-ter-net. This was back dated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/Army.html
Almost 3 years and we have add more things in SAF. The web has the whole SAF Orbat why not you go tell them delete that page or maybe can report to MSD. -
What can i say man? I am not sure I find it comfortable to see our whole orbat down to the number of vehicles posted on the net like that.
Do u guys think its right? -
for those who knows, that side is not 100% accurate.Originally posted by Shotgun:What can i say man? I am not sure I find it comfortable to see our whole orbat down to the number of vehicles posted on the net like that.
Do u guys think its right?
quite alot of sensitive information r not there, or out-dated. -
they hv change name again...me was a pioneer there during NSF
-
huH? when was the last time the name was changed???
-
Originally posted by gary1910:You seem to be restricted in your thinking, for example why can't the operators of the airborne armour asset be airborne trained as well???
Just for some humour sake, i'd really like to see the expression on the faces of the operators on the 4th level of the airborne training tower carrying equipment loadOriginally posted by Joshua1975:When have all the tankee go for airborne? Guards oso have problem to get this done oredi now you are talking abt operators. why not go serve your NS 1st.
Since they've been suggested to insert together with the cdo, they will be trained to land as battle-ready as possible (with full-equip), and not scrambling searching for equipment in the vegetation - easy target for picking! (okay la, now got precision equip drop right?).
Those involved with training airborne courses will have their hands full, the training apparatus even more regular maintenance, the air force overseeing drops more headaches and the cdo in their bunks laughing quietly at the ghastly sounds of the non-cdo airborne trainees emanating from the training grounds
On the flip side, more demand for riggers! -
Originally posted by psykror7:Just for some humour sake, i'd really like to see the expression on the faces of the operators on the 4th level of the airborne training tower carrying equipment load
-
I was busy as well as looking for data for a Lapes operation by a C130, so far I have not found the data for the length for the exact extraction zone for C130, I dun think you know too since you have not seen such operation too.Originally posted by Joshua1975:Did you do your math not? You know 1min how long that the 130 going to cover in KM.
Next as i say b4 how far you want to go Do SAF need to go so far And yes I think I have had read/study more maps than you read on books.
Next on why can't the C-130 go thru two LAPSE to clear two loads? If you do the math part of the answer is there or why not go read somewhere on air traffic 1st than ask why not carry out 2 LAPES. Maybe military air traffic cannot fine, but more or less it still there. One more point, we are talking abt Rapid Deployment in large number and not 1 or 2 you are slowly going out of point here.
But I did find a video of a Lapes operation performed by RAAF Caribou, from that video I have timed the entire operation , it take abt 12+ sec descending from treetop level to ascending to tree top level.
The openinng of parachute to the landing of the load is abt 4sec.
Here is where you could find the video(2nd row , 1st col):
http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/interactive/video.htm
Since it is really not representative to C130 but I believe is abt there , for C130 at 130km/h , 12 sec is abt 433m. So to be on the safe side , let double the time needed for the C130 for such operation , that means abt 866m. ( but I dun think so think such a long time is needed)
Therefore I think for a C130 to perform such operation is abt 1km length for such operation, most probably lower cos I have given a lot leeway.Originally posted by Joshua1975:
You are so restrictive in your thinking, I now tell you guys something that I know, dun ask me abt when , where & what cos I dun want to get into trouble.
When have all the tankee go for airborne? Guards oso have problem to get this done oredi now you are talking abt operators. why not go serve your NS 1st. Can never understand why lots of ppl here like to insist on thing when they dun have any facts with them [/b]
I have seen a evaluation of a new AFV by Mindef, and the crew for the AFV were all wearing red berets!!!!
Likewise as you said, Mindef was thinking abt getting the Guard units airborne trained.
Therefore, it is not unthinkable to have tankee to be airborne trained or commando to operate AFVs. It has been done before!!!!!!
As for whether they have implemented it , also dun ask me.
What I was saying is that having a specialised airborne AFV crew for a specialised airborne armour asset has been evaluated before by SAF & it has been done by many armies!!!
Just like what they did for 7 SIR in the 70s when they convert infantry unit to Guards, specially trained infantry to Heli-borne, and you now have Guards units. -
friend, certain information u know just keep it to yourself lah.....Originally posted by gary1910:You are so restrictive in your thinking, I now tell you guys something that I know, dun ask me abt when , where & what cos I dun want to get into trouble.
I have seen a evaluation of a new AFV by Mindef, and the crew for the AFV were all wearing red berets!!!!
Likewise as you said, Mindef was thinking abt getting the Guard units airborne trained.
Therefore, it is not unthinkable to have tankee to be airborne trained or commando to operate AFVs. It has been done before!!!!!!
As for whether they have implemented it , also dun ask me.
What I was saying is that having a specialised airborne AFV crew for a specialised airborne armour asset has been evaluated before by SAF & it has been done by many armies!!!
Just like what they did for 7 SIR in the 70s when they convert infantry unit to Guards, specially trained infantry to Heli-borne, and you now have Guards units.
but have another though, having a Bn night drop with AFVs... the damn drop zone will kana like.... mass orgy. -
you're such a disappointment.... the things you'll say to lend your case. I sure hope you do not/will not hold a position of responsibility in the armed forces. I won't trust you one bit.Originally posted by gary1910:You are so restrictive in your thinking, I now tell you guys something that I know, dun ask me abt when , where & what cos I dun want to get into trouble.
Lion02's right. Yes, AFV day/night drop capability, IMO if under orders, can be done. For cdo, anything realistic can be done. But think of the feasibility in terms of deployment logistics, the scale, control and surprise element of the operation to be effective in a (presumbly) corvert mission, if going along the lines of cdo ops.
And if the personnel are airborne trained tankees, i'm quite sure they won't appreciate your suggestion if they're due for ART (Airborne Refresher Training) though that can't be helped if it happens. If the powers that be decides so, there will be airborne tankees... i'm sure their judgement will be a matter of hot debate.
Ahh... the joys of ART and landing on your rifle handgrip. -
It is well known fact that SAF or any other armies conduct evaluation on all kind weaponary from various countries regularly.Originally posted by psykror7:you're such a disappointment.... the things you'll say to lend your case. I sure hope you do not/will not hold a position of responsibility in the armed forces. I won't trust you one bit.
Lion02's right. Yes, AFV day/night drop capability, IMO if under orders, can be done. For cdo, anything realistic can be done. But think of the feasibility in terms of deployment logistics, the scale, control and surprise element of the operation to be effective in a (presumbly) corvert mission, if going along the lines of cdo ops.
And if the personnel are airborne trained tankees, i'm quite sure they won't appreciate your suggestion if they're due for ART (Airborne Refresher Training) though that can't be helped if it happens. If the powers that be decides so, there will be airborne tankees... i'm sure their judgement will be a matter of hot debate.
Ahh... the joys of ART and landing on your rifle handgrip.
All I have disclosed is just that airborne trained AFV operator were once doing so, nothing abt the actual AFV or anything else, it is only a evaluation not the orbat. Thus nothing classified has been disclosed.
As for airborne armoured asset, this is not something that has not be done in other army, for example the Sheridan and recently 82nd felt that they need more armour & firepower for their operation since the retirement of Sheridan thus requested to have the number of old prototype M8 inducted into their units becos they have a real operational need for them. Those who are familiar with M8 should know abt it.
In this case , I am not suggesting a surprise covert commando strike operation to use a AFV .
But what I am suggesting a AFV to support Heli borne RDF, I once said what if the amphi AMX-10s are not available for them during operation, the best way is to either Heli borne or airborne deployable AFVs to support them.
A heli borne deployable type AFV will be very light weight = very little armour thus low in survivability. LSV might even be better.
A airborne deployable type AFV will be heavier thus more armour for survivability and also better firpower.
As for arguing a case, I was just suggesting possibilities.
In fact it is just a natural evolution for RDF or other any units, more capability will be inducted into it as time go by, as technology improve as well as the need to expand capability.
Eg. 7 SIR into 1st Guard.... till today RDF with all the heli borne asset, it is really unthinkable for a future airborne armour asset ???
Especially our neighbour are getting more armour asset!!! -
funnily euf..when i was nsf..there was such a rumour gg on abt cmdo tankees and tt only regulars were involved...
anyway i thot the amx10s go under hq armour banner which is XX div instead of 21 div? -
the epitome of the 'shag face'. ;-pOriginally posted by psykror7:Just for some humour sake, i'd really like to see the expression on the faces of the operators on the 4th level of the airborne training tower carrying equipment load
riggers - blech!and the cdo in their bunks laughing quietly at the ghastly sounds of the non-cdo airborne trainees emanating from the training grounds [/quote]
all hit-it!, all day!
"one thousand two thousand three...."[quote]On the flip side, more demand for riggers! 
[/img] -
LAPES low altitude- we're talking really low altitude. Passes are made at about 2 to 10 feet off the ground. It's done at high speed too, around 130 knots.Originally posted by gary1910:I was busy as well as looking for data for a Lapes operation by a C130, so far I have not found the data for the length for the exact extraction zone for C130, I dun think you know too since you have not seen such operation too.
But I did find a video of a Lapes operation performed by RAAF Caribou, from that video I have timed the entire operation , it take abt 12+ sec descending from treetop level to ascending to tree top level.
The openinng of parachute to the landing of the load is abt 4sec.
Here is where you could find the video(2nd row , 1st col):
http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/interactive/video.htm
Since it is really not representative to C130 but I believe is abt there , for C130 at 130km/h , 12 sec is abt 433m. So to be on the safe side , let double the time needed for the C130 for such operation , that means abt 866m. ( but I dun think so think such a long time is needed)
Therefore I think for a C130 to perform such operation is abt 1km length for such operation, most probably lower cos I have given a lot leeway.
Pls if you have no idea what C130 is, at least read what you give us http://www.parachutehistory.com/military/lapes.html 130kmh and 130knh is so much diff you know or not? 866m??? ask any CDO in here what is the DZ for them to drop 15 man than you come back ok. FYI the whole DZ is made up 2 X BZ or some call it SZ and 1 X DZ. No need to seach any more as I say you cannot find military air traffic related subject on net.
Seen? Yah you seen, when I giving the excution comand, excute, excute, excute. You were playing with your new gameboy. Dun come in here by heard say from this and that than say you seen. FYI again, the 1st Guards BN was not from any SIR. This you can find in-ter-net.Originally posted by gary1910:You are so restrictive in your thinking, I now tell you guys something that I know, dun ask me abt when , where & what cos I dun want to get into trouble.
I have seen a evaluation of a new AFV by Mindef, and the crew for the AFV were all wearing red berets!!!!
Likewise as you said, Mindef was thinking abt getting the Guard units airborne trained.
Therefore, it is not unthinkable to have tankee to be airborne trained or commando to operate AFVs. It has been done before!!!!!!
As for whether they have implemented it , also dun ask me.
What I was saying is that having a specialised airborne AFV crew for a specialised airborne armour asset has been evaluated before by SAF & it has been done by many armies!!!
Just like what they did for 7 SIR in the 70s when they convert infantry unit to Guards, specially trained infantry to Heli-borne, and you now have Guards units.