Is the concept of Vertical Envelopment still viable?

Concur. Small specialized teams to do operations is one thing. The concept of vertical envelopment (large scale airborne operations), may have seen its best days (and that's a stretch considering the track record laid out here) in WWII. The piece also states that when it was successful after WWII, it was unecessary. Conventional troops would have been quite capable of doing the job. Of course this piece could be entirely wrong and one sided as well.

Obviously, large scale ship to shore landings were prevalent at the time of the inovation of vertical envelopment, so I will address the air assault or air movement piece. It's a different set of risks. In my opinion, Air Assault operations are inherently less of a tactical risk. I won't get into operational risk because there are too many factors that can bear on a larger operation. A tactical mission can fail and the operation can still succeed. The ability to make contact with a smaller element through air assualt versus the mass acheived from a large scale airborne operation allows the situation to develop versus throwing all your eggs out of one plane so to speak. You also have the ability to retreive your troops during an air mobile operation which you do not have during an airborne operation. While the risk to the airframes are different, I think modern air defense systems negate this risk factor to little difference between the two. Even then, I think I'd rather be in an agile helicopter low to the ground than a slow moving mass of C130's or C141's subject to everything an enemy can throw at them. Take a gander at the case study and see what you think.

The study was a hair verbose (not that I'm not), but it seemed to align with your comments and my initial assessment.

One thing of huge note, was the focus on "prestige." The idea of having an elite status is great, but (and I'm trying to phrase this correctly) there must be a functional need for it. The document highlights more of a "lack of need" than a need, which in turn questions whether this particular skill set should be used for that elite status.

It is verbose, but it's an intellectual piece by the "Combat Studies Institute" at Fort Leavenworth. Can't expect something half done there. I concur that there is little time spent on identifying possible needs. That being said, there can always be a reason to keep something "just in case." The prestige and heritage argument is one that we see and live up to throughout the Army. When it comes time to cut capability, no one wants to see the unit they commanded die off. There is an especially strong kinship in the Airborne community as well as places like Fort Hood. We tend to defend those units we have served in and the community in which we have fought. It's natural. This piece points out the logical problems with that.

COL (Join to see) Concur on all points. But I don't think units have to "die" when they can "evolve." Cavalry used to be horses. When was the last time someone actually rode a horse in a combat capacity? What will Cavalry be in 50 years?

Marines used to be Shipboard protectors, now we have a very defined "Littoral" mission. I'm a huge proponent of the evolving model.

It's just a case of how "Airborne Units" can evolve.

Unless you are surrounded and summarily anhiliated, which happend to the Russians not once...not twice...but three times in WWII. More airborne operations have been failures or pyrhic victories than have been successes (at least according to this study). When they were successes, they were unecessary (against a weakened foe which would not have stood up to a conventional attack).

Welllllll ... they are not supposed to know we are coming!
The U.S. Army Airborne ops at Normandy didn't quite go off as planned as well, but it did have the Germans in a "Look! A Squirrel" mode for a few.

I will concede your point. The problem today is that it would be extremely difficult to surprise a peer competitor with a Division size airborne operation. Nigh impossible. With lack of surprise comes preparation and the possibility of being killed to death rather quickly on arrival.

And I concede yours as well. A Division sized assault would be doomed.
However small units should still work. but in a special ops capability.