Is the airborne concept outdated?

2015-07-12T13:48:22-04:00

Is the airborne concept outdated? In almost 14 years of war has there been any parachute deployments of troops into a combat zone?

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 12 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-07-12T14:03:05-04:00

Small inserts - yes.
Large inserts - probably not.
Again .. it's not just the Airborne .. it's the Airborne Trooper that's the dangerous part.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 12 at 2015 2:46 PM

2015-07-12T14:46:50-04:00

Yes, it is absolutely outdated above the squad level. I challenge anyone to cite a *combat relevant* drop that exceeded that size after Korea.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 12 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-07-12T14:57:11-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith Excellent question. I would say no, for certain instances. It is capability we need to have in our kit bag. It is essential for special operations, in the HALO (This happens daily) mode for getting to places quietly... I believe for the Army, in a traditional static line sense, we need to maintain several BCT (Brigade Combat Teams) on jump status, and the Ranger Regiment and Battalions for those times when we may need to do a force entry. We need that capability. We don't need what we had before 911, where all of Fort Bragg was on jump status... Not just the Brigades of 82nd, but all the helicopter pilots (?), MP Brigade, Engineer Brigade, and the Support Command... I always thought that was redunk... and often argued with people about why do we need helicopter pilots, fuel handlers, the MP Brigade Commander (Colonel) on jump status, or the 3 Star 18th Airborne Corps Commander and Staff.... are they really jumping in on an initial forced entry operation?

All we need is the Airborne Brigade Combat Team(s), and its habitual support slices. That is where we are now. The 82nd grew a Brigade after 911, which is going away, so there will be 3 Brigades at Bragg. The Ranger Regiment, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion, are Special Operations Command and have a different focus. We have a an Airborne BCT in Alaska, Hawaii, and Italy. Do we need the remaining? Yes, but the size of the Army will dictate how many we can afford. The 101st Airborne Division is not an Airborne unit anymore.

During Operation Just cause, Army Colonels were trying to bump PFCs off of birds, so they could get a combat jump... The 82nd MP Company jumped in... and then tried to borrow trucks (1025 HMMWVs) from the MP units on the ground... MPs are not very useful on the battle field without the trucks, weapons platforms, or radios... Silliness.

Great question.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 12 at 2015 3:30 PM

2015-07-12T15:30:03-04:00

I think there is a time and place for them. There will be a time when we want to throw in the Infantry into the fight in critical places and time. In the old days the military flanked the enemy and conducted deep operations by land and sea. Airborne operations uses the sky for flanking and deep operations.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 4:26 PM

2015-07-12T16:26:57-04:00

As long as the USA needs a forcible entry capability the Airborne will be necessary. There are plenty of places in the world where we won't be able to charge divisions of tanks towards an objective. The Airborne capability is another valuable tool at our leadership's disposal. Better to have it than not.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 12 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-07-12T16:39:39-04:00

What really bothers me about a number of the answers or statements of opinion is that not a single individual commenting apparently understands the "airborne concept". And I know that a large number of my airborne paratrooper brethren will disagree, but the 101st Airborne Division in its current form is an Airborne Division. As was discussed in another thread Glider troops were Airborne, and the current evolutionary part of that is the Air Assault methods used by the 101st and the 82nd, when assets are available. There is also another type of Airborne unit that everyone tends to forget about and has only been in existence twice within the US Army since the beginning of Airborne units and that is Air Land. And there is only one unit in the entire US Army that has been active in every single role, and it is still on the rolls of the 82nd Abn Div, it's sister regiment happens to be in the 101st but it was never an Air Land unit.

Response by SGT Timothy Rocheleau made Jul 12 at 2015 5:02 PM

2015-07-12T17:02:07-04:00

There have been many drops into current situations. Iraq, Afghanistan and other locales that the general public are unaware of. This aspect of our military is not only relevant but very important for success in many situations.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jul 12 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-07-12T17:43:21-04:00

When the aircraft that don't need airstrips can fly to the other side of the world on no notice, but that's just a replacement for a parachute delivery system, if that still needs special soldiers for the operation, it's still airborne

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 7:31 PM

2015-07-12T19:31:13-04:00

I've held jump slots my entire career in the Army and I would say that it's something that needs to be maintained. Maybe not quite to the degree that it has in th past where everyone able to jump on Bragg is holding a slot but the BCTs and small elements of supporting units should still hold parachutist positions. On the SOF side, yes... Keep that as a complete airborne force in order to not lose the capability.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 7:39 PM

2015-07-12T19:39:14-04:00

ATLW

Response by SSG John Bacon made Jul 12 at 2015 7:43 PM

2015-07-12T19:43:28-04:00

Until we get the stealth jetpack corps yes it is still relevant and needed. I wouldn't say we need to do anything as massive as a D-Day type of Airborne drop but in small groups at night, where a silent infiltration is needed.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 12 at 2015 8:02 PM

2015-07-12T20:02:53-04:00

Excellent question. I would say no, for certain instances. It is capability we need to have in our kit bag. It is essential for special operations, in the HALO (This happens daily) mode for getting to places quietly... I believe for the Army, in a traditional static line sense, we need to maintain several BCT (Brigade Combat Teams) on jump status, and the Ranger Regiment and Battalions for those times when we may need to do a force entry. We need that capability. We don't need what we had before 911, where all of Fort Bragg was on jump status... Not just the Brigades of 82nd, but all the helicopter pilots (?), MP Brigade, Engineer Brigade, and the Support Command... I always thought that was redunk... and often argued with people about why do we need helicopter pilots, fuel handlers, the MP Brigade Commander (Colonel) on jump status, or the 3 Star 18th Airborne Corps Commander and Staff.... are they really jumping in on an initial forced entry operation?

All we need is the Airborne Brigade Combat Team(s), and its habitual support slices. That is where we are now. The 82nd grew a Brigade after 911, which is going away, so there will be 3 Brigades at Bragg. The Ranger Regiment, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion, are Special Operations Command and have a different focus. We have a an Airborne BCT in Alaska, Hawaii, and Italy. Do we need the remaining? Yes, but the size of the Army will dictate how many we can afford. The 101st Airborne Division is not an Airborne unit anymore.

During Operation Just cause, Army Colonels were trying to bump PFCs off of birds, so they could get a combat jump... The 82nd MP Company jumped in... and then tried to borrow trucks (1025 HMMWVs) from the MP units on the ground... MPs are not very useful on the battle field without the trucks, weapons platforms, or radios... Silliness.

Great question. CPO Gregory Smith

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:17 PM

2015-07-12T20:17:43-04:00

A U.S. Army Airborne capability is crucial to future successful United States military operations. America's adversaries have taken extreme technological measures to impede future United States Navy amphibious operations that traverse the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. United States Army Airborne rapid deployment capabilities must be able to compensate for impediments, produced by adversarial technological genius, to United States Navy amphibious operations. The answer to your question is no. U.S. Navy amphibious operations can be effectively impeded by current technology existing within the arsenals of the communist block. The perils of the ocean coupled with current adversarial technology requires the United States to maintain at least a three dimensional forced entry capability.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 12 at 2015 8:32 PM

2015-07-12T20:32:11-04:00

Chief I'm sure the SEALs still find it relevant.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jul 12 at 2015 8:43 PM

2015-07-12T20:43:22-04:00

Rangers and special forces have jumped into combat. I'm sure the SEALs and force recon have too.
If we ever get serious about ISIS, the 82nd Division could be very useful dropping in and taking over key infrastructure such as oil refineries or airfields.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-07-12T20:59:56-04:00

This question is more difficult than a yes or no in my opinion, and trying to simply say yes or no is part of DoD's problem.

Free Fall operations and static line operations have to be separated. Free fall operations are very relevant and need to be maintained by both SOF and conventional forces that require the capability.

Static line, however, in my opinion, needs to be cut in many places. The reason it needs to be cut is because it's expensive. The country cannot afford to fund a bunch of "just in case" operations anymore. One of our greatest weapons is our economic might. If we do not get our fiscal house in order it will be our downfall long before any nation state.

Even moderate sized countries have the capability to shoot down the slow, low flying planes needed for statice line. I guess a handful of large conventional formations need to maintain static to use as a large offensive in conjunction with an air campaign, but a bunch can probably cut it along with SOF who have no reason for mass-tac BN + sized jumps. Also, get over the tradition argument and the fear of being a dirty leg. I don't care about badges or flare I care about getting the mission done. It would save DoD millions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 9:05 PM

2015-07-12T21:05:15-04:00

There are still limited times when airborne insertions are valuable, just like with true air assaults, not air movements. I would also argue that the mountain capabilities currently only in existence in the Vermont national guard, sadly not in 10th Mountain, are required. Just because we don't use the capabilities regularly doesn't mean we shouldn't still train for it. The past 14 years of war are historical outliers, we went into a region we already had a presence to fight an aggressor with ports, airports, and other transportation assets available to us, largely in the case Afghanistan because the special ops community still believes in and uses the aforementioned capabilities.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 9:24 PM

2015-07-12T21:24:51-04:00

We have owned the air and ground for the last 14 years. There's been no need, but the capability is a force multiplier and should be maintained until it is needed once again.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 9:40 PM

2015-07-12T21:40:46-04:00

Yes, several! 75th Rangers and 173rd

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 9:59 PM

2015-07-12T21:59:23-04:00

2nd bat at 75th Ranger Regiment did a parachute Deployment in 2003 in Afghanistan ,it also mentioned in book by Marty Skovlund (Ranger).

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Jul 12 at 2015 10:52 PM

2015-07-12T22:52:41-04:00

This has been a debate for quite some time and has resulted in the deactivation of multiple airborne units. While it might not be used in combat, its is better for us to have the capability and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

Response by SPC Daniel Edwards made Jul 12 at 2015 10:56 PM

2015-07-12T22:56:12-04:00

Apparently there was a debate about this in an article a while back. Someone up high believed at the time that Airborne qualification is not as elite as it used to be. Back when it was created, it was to get soldiers far, far behind enemy lines and only a select few had the ability to do it. With the use of helicopters, this article said, anyone could reach a remote point.
Another thing to consider is the injury rate of Airborne qualified service members. I have yet to see someone who is Airborne qualified that does not have severe medical problems related to jumping in some degree. In my last unit, I had some PT studs that could max out on every exercise you could throw at them - except running. Their busted up knees from all the jumps were the reason most fell out of runs. Note: I say most because there were a few that could manage it but not many.

Response by SSG Eric Trace made Jul 13 at 2015 4:12 AM

2015-07-13T04:12:05-04:00

Out dated perhaps, but what we must keep in mind, just because we have been fighting on type of war recently, doesn't mean that is all we will be fighting. A revamping of the types of personnel, types of equipment that can and should be dropped is what is needed. I thought when the Force 21 concept was brought into play all of this was being addressed?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 8:08 AM

2015-07-13T08:08:40-04:00

I posted the same question about 2 weeks ago in the general military forum citing this new article from CSI.

http://usacac.army.mil/node/936

Before going any further down this road in dialog, I recommend everyone read it and see if your opinion still stands.

When Failure Thrives | US Army Combined Arms Center

Response by SSG Sean Gallagher made Jul 13 at 2015 9:03 AM

2015-07-13T09:03:40-04:00

The 173rd jumped into northern Iraq in March of '03. The Airborne concept will never be outdated because the Airborne mentality lives in the hearts and minds of those who live that life, and no other group of soldiers strikes more fear into their enemies.

Airborne, All the Way, Let's Go!

Response by SGT Dee Stanley made Jul 13 at 2015 9:27 AM

2015-07-13T09:27:30-04:00

If we hadnt had good relations with other Countries in the region, many troops in the initial assault of Afghanistan would have had to have been inserted by parachute. It still remains a viable insertion method and I believe all BCT's should have an integrated Airborne element. If we were to go into Syria, we would need a huge Airborne Op. There is no better way of getting into hostile areas quietly until we come up with a quieter helo. We currently rely on speed to get us into combat but sometimes when you are inserting a large force speed isnt what you need, its quiet. unless you come up with a way to overthrow the compromise that is needed between stealth and speed, we will always need it. Just so you know, there have been a few operations in the recent history, I know at least a few guys with Combat Jumps. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne4.htm

Response by COL Gary Bridges made Jul 13 at 2015 9:39 AM

2015-07-13T09:39:34-04:00

The concept is not outdated however as was pointed your in Grenada and operations in WWII there are problems pulling off a major operation. The Air Force is very reluctant to support such an operation on several levels lack of sufficient aircraft being one reason. Secondly, there is and has never been a need to have combat service support troops on jump status to include helicopter pilots, air crews, finance clerks, etc. We are wasting resources with these groups being on status. It is a capability that needs to be retained, but needs to be re evaluated for todays times.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-07-13T10:37:31-04:00

Airborne has been used in OEF and OIF, and quite effective.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-07-13T11:28:48-04:00

To answer the first question -- no, the airborne concept is not outdated. To the second question, the short answer is yes. SSG Robert Webster has listed three instances of successful airborne assaults; but many discount larger operations as unnecessary because they do not delineate or know the difference between airborne assaults and airborne operations. Assaults are precise and efficient and the Special Operations Forces/Rangers have used them very effectively over the years. Simply stated, an operation simply is a way to deliver the force more efficiently. This often depends on a marked or secure drop zone, and the force’s primary task will usually to build up the airhead as a way to air-land even more follow on forces. Used when ground lines of communication are not established well enough, a great example of this capability would be the airborne operation into Northern Iraq by the 173rd in 2003. It would have taken weeks to air-land the force and then transport them to that airfield; establishing a ground LOC from the south would have taken resources that were not readily available. Just for the ground forces with minimal equipment, it takes at least 3-5 days to air-land a BCT; it takes a few hours to air drop them. It is a capability that has served us well, is also a great deterrent for forcible entry and one we should absolutely maintain.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jul 13 at 2015 11:43 AM

2015-07-13T11:43:04-04:00

- Short answer: No, the airborne concept is not outdated. Just because it has not been used in the past 14 years is not any indicator that it will never be used again.
- Long answer: To determine if the airborne concept is outdated, I recommend looking at the following information and criteria:
- History. History is deep with examples of things or ideas that were premature or considered to be outdated only to be brought back. The Army transitioned from horses to gas driven engines in the 1930s only to have SF mounted on horseback to attack the Taliban in 2001, WWI was "the war to end all wars" in 1918 only to have WWII in 1939, strategic bombing was ineffective in WWII only to have it as the primary option in Czechoslovakia in 1996. The lesson here is to never say never but to adapt old concepts to new and emerging conditions. Adapt it but don't throw it out.
- Doctrine. Joint doctrine includes JP 3-02 Amphibous Operations, JP 3-09 Joint Fire Support, JP 3-09.3 Close Air Support, and JP 3-18 Forcible Entry Operations. Army airborne doctrine is in FM 90-26 Airborne Operations. Also, US military doctrine is to fight joint combined arms.
- Theory. The Army is now looking towards the Army Operating Concept. Look at TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 and what this concept articulates for globally integrated operations, the operational environment, and the various elements, tenets, operational art, and development of the Future Force.
- Other means of fighting. If the airborne concept is outdated since it has not been used in the past 14 years then can not the same question be asked of the air assault concept? The amphibious concept?
- Operational Environment. My numbers are from memory and are a bit off but there are 6+ billion humans on planet Earth, about 90% of this number live within 50 miles of a sea shore and most live within an urban environment. Plus part of the purpose of an airborne capability is to have a forced entry capability. We can not rely in the future on having a country like Kuwait from which to conduct RSOI operations. We need the strategic capability to create the conditions to conduct RSOI and follow on military operations.
- Therefore, the airborne concpet may not have been used recently but it by no means is outdated.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Jul 13 at 2015 12:21 PM

2015-07-13T12:21:35-04:00

The Airborne will always be a decisive factor in a battle. It does not matter if we jump, walk or are brought in by helicopter. The light Infantry tactics are always necessary. Being Airborne, while just a method of being inserted into an area, is also a mindset, that those NAPs (Non-Airborne Personnel) will never know!

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 13 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-07-13T13:57:19-04:00

It's only outdated and unneeded until it is...and then you need years to build the capability..
Same with the Navy.. largely not needed day to day, year to year in the force size it is.. yet when it's needed, it is..
Same with all services, all ingress, egress tactics we currently train on.

Response by SPC Steve Stell made Jul 13 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-07-13T14:31:25-04:00

The idea of not having an Airborne solution who is capable of being on location around the world in 18 hours from go is like taking your local law enforcements Dodge Chargers and giving them bicycles.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 2:54 PM

2015-07-13T14:54:25-04:00

As a current paratrooper and master rated jumpmaster I truly believe in the airborne concept we are Americas shock force we are what scares the blank out of people and makes them think twice so yea were essential to national defense and U.S. Foreign policy

Response by SGT Edward Thomas made Jul 13 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-07-13T15:57:33-04:00

Yes Chief there has been. Iraq and Afghanistan I believe have both had combat jumps. Look up the Ranger battalions and 173rd Airborne Brigade

Response by CPT David Roy made Jul 13 at 2015 4:23 PM

2015-07-13T16:23:51-04:00

Brethren, I submit that the question to be asked is not whether an airborne force remains relevant rather, does the civilian and military leadership have the force of will necessary to commit to the use of such capability. The last ten years have seen improvments in static line and MFF parachute technology as well as improvement in planning tools and avionics. What has not changed is the doctrine to employ Airborne forces to minimize ground threat to aircraft and maximize combat power on the DZ and relevant engagement areas. What is needed is updates to our airborne doctrine and willingness to employ such forces.

Response by SGT Justin Lamb made Jul 13 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-07-13T16:30:04-04:00

CPO,

Why kill off a school just because we haven't used them as much? One day they could once again give us the upper hand in war. Continue to train until called upon again like the rest of us

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 13 at 2015 4:45 PM

2015-07-13T16:45:41-04:00

Of course not! Why if it was, there would be thousands of Soldiers out there who've made very regrettable tattoo decisions who may not be pleased at the assertion... So nope! Totally still an amazingly useful skill that is TOTALLY relevant, despite it being on the backburner for air assault missions for decades ;o)

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 13 at 2015 5:00 PM

2015-07-13T17:00:35-04:00

I think the whole concept should be looked at, why does it take three weeks to train to jump out of a plane when it takes 10 days to rappel out of a helicopter? How is it a lot of our NATO allies can do jump school in days instead of weeks? How many five jump chumps are walking around who will never serve in an airborne unit? The wings have become a merit badge. If there were no wings, red beret, and jump boots in Class A's would people sign up as much as they do? I think their would be a drop off.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jul 13 at 2015 7:05 PM

2015-07-13T19:05:36-04:00

We could ask the same thing about having an amphibious capability with the Marines. Do the weapons these days make amphibious assaults too costly? I think these are capabilities we still need even with conventional forces. If we remove a capability, we lost options and give our enemies one less thing to worry about and plan for. The follow up question to this and has been discussed by many is what do we really need in terms of capabilities. Is a BCT with some augmentees enough? Or do we need a complete division and corps HQs on jump status?

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 7:43 PM

2015-07-13T19:43:43-04:00

Need 2 teach the old ways as well as the new ways cuz U never know....HOOAH!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 9:25 PM

2015-07-13T21:25:07-04:00

Large Daytime airborne/ parachute operations without pre DZ preparations are largely impractical. A handful of soldiers with basic rifles could wipe out a hundred men by simple sniping during a daytime ops.

Response by SFC Wesley Arnold, Jr made Jul 13 at 2015 11:27 PM

2015-07-13T23:27:20-04:00

Excuse me but, I going to start with a question before I address the current one.
Why does it always result in pulling out rulers to measure who's .....

I'm only going to speak mostly from opinion, I enter the Army on a misconception of exactly what my MOS was compared to my "personal" career map. The recruiters point the icing on the cake when I did get airborne school "attendance", but they did not grantee me an airborne assignment. After the completion of airborne school I was able to acquire orders to Ft Bragg; well this Paratrooper was on cloud nine .... oohhh ... but I burned in I went to a non airborne unit. I reclassed later to Military Police and still hoping for my turn to jump. Nope, Germany bound ... so 5yrs pass before I can get station of choice (re-up) to Ft Bragg. Finally, All MP units were on Jump Status when I arrived. I finally got my chance with some hard work and a re-up perk. Had I not been given the opportunity would I have stayed a 5 Jump Chump? If I was not than that would be a loss of moneys for school attendance; that could be argued keep me in service versa a new recruit.
My assignment also crossed paths with a Senior NCO that spent 15 yrs out of the airborne community before jump #6.

Get to the point ... ok, ok ... At Bragg we had 82nd MP Co (ABN) that provide direct support to 82nd ABN DIV, and 16th MP BDE (ABN), 503d MP BN (ABN) an XVIII ABN Corps assist. Originally XVIII ABC had the 118th MP Co (ABN) as a direct access to corps main; later 118th MP Co (ABN) was joined with the 16th MP BDE (ABN) and the 503d MP BN (ABN). Over the years this very argument came up time an time again, and we had to cut those that were not in "valid" airborne positions. The 82nd MP Co was absorbed by the BCTs that COL Charles Williams referred to, the 16th MP BDE (ABN) later cut all but BDE HQ, BN HQ, two ABN MP Companies, and some air asset.

Was this a good thing or a bad thing? That would depend on what side of the street you are standing those who understand being a Paratrooper and those that say your just airborne qualified.

Will we ever use airborne resources to the extent of WWII? Probably not, but we will never fight another war like WWII. Doctrine has changed dramatically with the advancement of the overall US Arsenal.

We could "what if" everything to death and still not have the answer, will we need airborne assets? Yes, just as we made fast movement forward during OIF/OEF.

As for the ABN ENG, I would have to say, yes but maybe in the BCT and not a whole BDE. We can say air land everything if ground is not available, no. You have to have a secured airfield to land on, and if we weren't wanted to land the runways would be destroyed ... ie the need for ENGs.

It's going to be for quick insertions not mass attacks ... as, to the information regarding successes or failures of different Airborne Operations you have to really look deep at most of the mission plans before you can say the ABN OP was a failure. Take OP Market Garden, history says the joint UK/US ABN OP failed ... if you look at mission and execution of OP Market Garden it was not the ABN OP that failed the overall mission.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jul 13 at 2015 11:28 PM

2015-07-13T23:28:41-04:00

No, and until there is some advancement I can't foresee it ever will. To be able to deploy entire units of infantry and light armor with a single flight of several planes behind enemy lines, cutting supply lines, encircling enemy troops W/O alerting the enemy is an awesome tool/strategy. Step up a space and you get Airborne Rangers with additional skill sets. 200 Marines behind enemy lines is a dangerous force! Semper Fi!

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 14 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-07-14T09:02:39-04:00

I've read many of the posts both for and against, and while I'm a Dirty Nasty Stinkin Leg (with working knees), I think the Airborne while a tried and true entity is still relevant as a force multiplier. If we are going to say that they aren't needed, I'd propose doing away with Force Recon, ALL of the SEALS (and all book and movie deals), and any SOF group that isn't SF (I think UDT is needed but is it used anymore, and PJ's as the exception). All of them share many of the same skillsets. Now I know how absurd that sounds and thank goodness it won't happen. Like many have also said the moment we take a tool out of the box, we need it and pay 10x what it's worth to get it again. Leave it be, and let those that choose to fall/jump out of a piece of equipment made by the lowest bidder (helo/plane) carry on. IF we were to downsize them, at least allow a BDE or two to maintain proficiency in ABN with the ability to train others in a needed situation. Much love to my Airborne brothers and sisters regardless of service, but lets face it, LEGS lead the way. You jump, I hump, but we still fight the same battle in the same war side by side.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 11:04 AM

2015-07-14T11:04:59-04:00

I don't think the concept is outdated. I think that the particular war we've been fighting for the past 14 years - low intensity & counter insurgency - isn't the right battlefield for a mass airborne assault. In the right operation, say an all out fight with an organized, industrialized professional military force, we could see airborne units used as they are intended. In any case I think it's a capability that's better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jul 14 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-07-14T12:29:00-04:00

Oh yeah there has been. I was in Iraq in 2013 when the 82nd did a jump in Northern Iraq. Yes the same area that had been under coalition control for months so they could secure an airfield that was pretty much already secured. If you look it up on Wikipedia it is much more exciting than my version. More interesting was nobody on that jump got a CIB to go with the mustard stain.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jul 14 at 2015 12:30 PM

2015-07-14T12:30:58-04:00

No. I regard you ladies and gentlemen highly. You have a very dangerous job.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Jul 14 at 2015 12:35 PM

2015-07-14T12:35:34-04:00

Where have you been the last 14 years?

Multiple airborne insertions (MFF and static line) into Afghanistan at the start of OEF.
Multiple airborne insertions into Iraq at the start of OIF.
The French Army conducted airborne operations into the Central African Republic, an MFF in Niger, and multiple jumps in Mali.

Division size strategic drop, probably not a likely occurrence in the future.
BDE/BN and below tactical/operational jumps? Yes, there is still a need for that capability.

Response by CPT Chase Sanger made Jul 14 at 2015 12:41 PM

2015-07-14T12:41:26-04:00

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-07-14T12:52:38-04:00

Chief...I will point out that military and political leadership said the Atom Bomb made Amphibious Assaults obsolete after WWII, and then we landed at Incheon during the Korean War. Just because we haven't done something (when was the last time AEGIS or Patriot shot down a TBM), doesn't mean we won't need it.

The Joint Publications list 3 units capable of doing forcible entry into a theater...a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and the 82nd and 101st...To me, the option for vertical envelopment is something that will always be relevant. (And I am a nasty leg...was enlisted in the Marine Infantry before I became an Army officer).

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 1:50 PM

2015-07-14T13:50:17-04:00

Airborne is still useful in some circumstances.
It is also useful as a reward, and motivator for troops.

Response by SFC Jon Vandeyacht made Jul 14 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-07-14T17:15:27-04:00

I have been both airborne and air assault. I have been to Iraq 3 times. I have done multiple airmobile missions and zero airborne missions. Until we are looking at a real force on force battle, i feel there is no real need of airborne. I like the drops of equipment but that is all. My airborne brothers will disavow me for that statement but it costs tons of training dollars and isnt used. I see it as a serious waste of tax dollars. Im sorry fellow airborners, now that im out of the jet wash, i see the truth.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2015 6:19 PM

2015-07-14T18:19:16-04:00

The airorne concept is definitely outdated. The whole idea of jumping in to secure an objective such as an airfield is still something we need. I totally agree with COL Williams thought of not haveng MP Brigades and such not on jump status. There is no need for someone to tell me that I am falling too fast and give me a ticket. LOL. It;s just like saying that the air assault concept is outdated. Things are never outdated, but may need to be adjusted slightly.

Response by LTC J. Lee Mudd made Jul 14 at 2015 7:43 PM

2015-07-14T19:43:46-04:00

This question recently came up with one of our Group commanders; his response was that the true value of having units on airborne status is the ability to plan and conduct joint operations by a small command.

I have two companies and elements of a third who are each required to run two jump operations per year. They coordinate directly with airlift providers (USAF, USMC, Army Aviation), installation support (drop zones at Camp Bullis, Fort Hood, Camp Mabry, and others), rigger and medical support, and maintain pools of qualified jumpers and jumpmasters.

"If a company can successfully plan and conduct a jump, it can plan ANYTHING!"

Response by CPL Richard Flagg made Jul 14 at 2015 8:23 PM

2015-07-14T20:23:24-04:00

In my opinion the Aurborne Concept is not outdated; speaking as someone who served in Panama with the 193rd INF BDE's two Infantry Bn's: one Straight lEg, and the second Airborne; I will have to say that the Airborne BN was a force multiplier for the BDE.

We were more Air Transportable by either Helicopter or AF aircraft than the leg unit which were all in close proximity to the unit.

Not only did it seem that we had more missions than I had in leg land; we also had an intimidation factor in the Panamanian Defense Forces, who would never engage us whenever we showed up. They thought we all were "crazy" and that really showed the quality, or lack of it of them on a whole. Sure they would talk all sorts of trash about how bad they were; but whenever we showed up they turned tail and snuck off like rTs.

Just for the pure psychological advantage that the Airborne provides Commanders not to mention it's capabilities of Forced Entry Operations should be reason enough to keep an Airborne capability.

Response by BG Keith Gallagher, FACHE made Jul 14 at 2015 8:29 PM

2015-07-14T20:29:40-04:00

Just reading this, and yes the 173rd jumped into Northern Iraq. And elements of the Rangers/Spec Ops jumped into Afghanistan.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 14 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-07-14T21:08:07-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith No it is not. AIRBORNE Insertion is the only true "Forced Entry" capability in the US Military. I spent 15 years in the 82d AIRBORNE and can atest to the "Wheels Up in 18 Hours to anyplace in the World" that has been the Motto of the 82d for decades. A Naval task force can be tracked for days fo AMTRACKS and Landing Craft might be outdated, but to fill the air with parachutes and to be able to put 30 thousand pissed off highly trained gun fighters in one place at one time....NO ONE ELSE in the world can do that.

AIRBORNE...ALL THE WAY!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 12:43 AM

2015-07-15T00:43:33-04:00

I'll weigh in on this. Is the the concept of airborne operations outdated? No, it is not. Matter of fact there have been over 30 combat jumps since 9/11 that have involved American military forces and at least as many jumps that involved NATO allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. Most of these jumps have involved small units, a dozen or fewer men. For the US, there have been about 7 company sized combat jumps (mostly involving the 75th Ranger regiment and one involving a company from the 82nd Airborne) and one battalion sized or larger jump involving the 173rd.

What is outdated is the size of the element that the US military thinks is tactically viable for an operation. Most Airborne units are designed for battalion or larger operations. The reality is we should shift our focus to platoon or company sized operations. All reconnaissance units, that is Infantry, not Cav, should be airborne and have standoff capabilities (HAHO). Static line jumping at the battalion, brigade, and division levels should be maintained for Joint Force Entry operations but the focus needs to shift away from such large units.

Bottom line, air assault capabilities do not give the same level of rapid vertical envelopment of a target with the technology we currently have as airborne operations. Helicopters are too noisy and don't have the legs for transoceanic flight. That said, the US military needs to shift their doctrine from Battalion and Brigade sized operations and adopt the SOF mentality of Company, Platoon, and Team sized airborne operation.

Sad to see how many people, to include senior ranking members of the military are so clueless about what has gone on in the last 14 years of war. This is open source info for God's sake.

Response by SFC David Ocasio made Jul 15 at 2015 8:21 AM

2015-07-15T08:21:50-04:00

No I dont think so. We have to continue to be a combat ready force and even thou there may not be any reason for this type of operations we have to continue training and be in a ready state for any future operations that may come in the future. Train the way you fight thats the motto.

Response by SSG Dwayne Bellmon made Jul 15 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-07-15T11:07:12-04:00

Negative, History has a way of repeating itself if not now but some where in the future this concept will indeed be used again.. We should not let a lack in judgment destroy a way in which we deploy troops at a moment notice ie 18 Hours or less Let not this indoctrination be casted aside because of funding and spending of the military budget.

Response by SPC Michael Harville made Jul 15 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-07-15T13:34:16-04:00

* Yes and no. Vertical envelopment as a concept is wasteful, dangerous and pretty much rendered obsolete by the advent of Air Mobility. That being said, for small unit insertions it is absolutely vital. To answer your question about how often it has been used, I believe that the US has made maybe three or four large scale parachute drops since the end of WWII, I believe the most recent being when the Rangers dropped on Panama. To illustrate how obsolete this idea is, research the airborne invasion of Sicily, when an allied navy fired on a fleet of transports and wiped out a fair number of paratroops before they hit the ground.

Response by 1SG Edward Tushar made Jul 15 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-07-15T16:32:16-04:00

I agree that HALO/HAHO still have a valid reason to be trained but I do not believe the concept of a whole division being airborne still does. I believe we will not see jumps utilizing units larger than squad level (thus the HALO/HAHO) partake in Airborne Operations in any future conflict. However, unit history is hard to get rid of and that alone would keep the 82nd around for a long time to come.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 15 at 2015 4:50 PM

2015-07-15T16:50:05-04:00

No. Concepts do not become outdated, but if you can figure out away to deliver troops beyond the range of helicopter that is more cost effective, I would be willing to listen.

Response by SPC Richard Ramirez made Jul 15 at 2015 4:56 PM

2015-07-15T16:56:13-04:00

Yes the AIRBORNE ARE NECESSARY. How can an Navy mechanic ever understand?
AIRBORNE PARATROOPERS belong in the Armed Forces (First to fight last to leave)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 6:35 PM

2015-07-15T18:35:33-04:00

Ok, After serving in the only division that matters and going to Operation Just Cause... The need is their people... Let's not totally weaken our countries way to react in a fast matter... Does the division Commander need to be on jump status... What a way to lead, no better way by doing what you ask your troops to do. When I went to operation Just Case we jumped right next too some Col, LTC and yep the Division CSM.... Airborne it's not just a saying it is the way we fight!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 7:00 PM

2015-07-15T19:00:12-04:00

This sums it up well...
http://www.517prct.org/documents/82nd_airborne_poster/82nd_airborne_poster.htm

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Jul 15 at 2015 8:09 PM

2015-07-15T20:09:46-04:00

From Ft Bragg to kicking ass in 18 hours or less anywhere in the world, yes i think so

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 8:32 PM

2015-07-15T20:32:53-04:00

Static line airborne is outdated. Modern ADA has ensured that. Some traditions are embraced and will never be let go, like airborne. Some are never to officially live, like the stetson. With ADA, air to air combat, satellites, other countries having their own airborne, and the knowledge of what airborne is, unless it's like the Iraq jump where people jumped into a secured DZ because Turkey didn't want to allow people to travel through it, there will probably never be a real jump. There's no way it could be a success in modern combat. I urge people to take an objective look at airborne, put aside the fact that you've been in it for so many years and look at it strictly from a modern combat point of view. Any country we would need to really jump into has the defenses to expect and obliterate an airborne insertion.

Response by SPC Toby Cline made Jul 15 at 2015 8:53 PM

2015-07-15T20:53:33-04:00

Hell no! airborne is the ONLY WAY to insert a Batallion size unit within 48 to 72 hours. Period.

Response by SPC Anthony Martin made Jul 16 at 2015 6:27 AM

2015-07-16T06:27:20-04:00

If I remember 173rd airborne did a airborne drop in Afghanistan. I recall the Battalion commander wanted one done in order to claim that...It's a story I heard off of CBS news during the early part of OEF....As far as being outdated, I think so.....The glory days of paratroopers to me seem obsolete but I have much respect for the paratroopers. You gotta have big balls in order to want to jump out of a perfectly good plane...That's something I wouldn't want to do, because I don't have the big balls to do that....lol...

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 6:36 AM

2015-07-16T06:36:23-04:00

No - The mode adapts to the mission at hand, with all options on the table. To profoundly oversimplify for illustrative purposes, consider a someone who drives a cheap but sporty 2 - seater in their early 20's. Somewhere along the way, they upgrade to a more practical and safe midsized sedan. Then with marriage, kids, etc a minivan or SUV enters the picture. The kids learn to drive, & the family adds a used midsized to the mix. The young adult child may get a job and upgrade the used midsized to a newer sporty model. Eventually, the empty - nest couple returns to a midsized sedan that allows them to get around town and travel to visit kids/grandkids. All options are available & selected as the need arises.

Response by MSG Ronnie Snider made Jul 16 at 2015 7:28 AM

2015-07-16T07:28:01-04:00

It will never be out dated. Boots on the ground when they are needed. AIRBORNE!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SGT Josh Foit made Jul 16 at 2015 8:19 AM

2015-07-16T08:19:04-04:00

Actually yes they did jump in Afghanistan.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jul 16 at 2015 10:35 AM

2015-07-16T10:35:33-04:00

No, the concept of a surprise mass deployment of ground troops to seize key ground is not outdated. The airborne capability gives military planners another option in future scenarios. Imagine the need to take out a ground target composed of scientists, NBC development capability, and stored stocks. Because those can be buried, it may be the best option is to mass ground troops rapidly to take it out rather than to try to bomb it alone. With air combat and resupply support, you could maintain that force for them to conduct operations over 48 to 72 hours to assure the mission has been completed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 11:14 AM

2015-07-16T11:14:19-04:00

I believe that the airborne concept could be used differently. With a changing world I think new tactics are needed. Don't get me wrong the ability to have a joint forcible entry capability is absolutely necessary, but in addition new tactics and techniques are needed as well. I think normal airborne units could be more effective if small unit airborne operations were utilized, and I think the use of the CH-47 for this could help. I've been in situations where a company sized airborne drop could have been extremely effective in accomplishing our mission.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 11:44 AM

2015-07-16T11:44:24-04:00

Show me a man who will jump out of an airplane, and I'll show you a man who'll fight." - Gen. James "Jumpin' Jim" Gavin, World War II Commander 82nd Airborne Division

Response by SPC James Shirey made Jul 16 at 2015 12:04 PM

2015-07-16T12:04:03-04:00

I believe we will always have the need to conduct airborne operations. Just because we haven't had very many combat jumps during the past couple campaigns, doesn't justify "scrapping" the program. Same concept as the A-10 dilemma. They serve their purpose.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Jul 16 at 2015 12:45 PM

2015-07-16T12:45:54-04:00

Well depends if your including the Navy Seals in that question. If you are then yes there have been. Its still a fast attack method and you still need people trained to do it, even if you dont do it as much as we use to or with as many at a time. I would not like needing to do it and finding out we stopped training for that years ago.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 12:47 PM

2015-07-16T12:47:05-04:00

Hey Chief, Surely not, as a matter of fact I think airborne troops would help a great deal against a enemy like ISIS. We could drop a brigade right on top of them to disrupt their command and control as well as sending a clear message that we won't be trifled with. Then, we can reinforce them with conventional forces in the region, as long as they exist and don't run away, (Iraq).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-07-16T14:13:34-04:00

Absolutely. And I'm in an airborne unit. You will pretty much never get me to agree to be a slow moving target for someone to practice on. I'll train to jump out of planes all you want. But the days of combat jumps are over. And for good reason.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Jul 16 at 2015 3:13 PM

2015-07-16T15:13:26-04:00

The answer to this question can be answered throughout history. It was once stated that after WW2 and after WW1, the need for special operations combat teams, and sniper training wasn't necessary. By the time we reached Vietnam, through the events of Korea and the beginning of the cold war, JFK and LBJ saw the need, and use for Special Operations. This was the advent of SF, SEAL's and other operations groups. The Tehran hostage crisis in the late 70's early 80's showed us the need for a Special Ops Aviation unit, and 160th was born. Prior to these units being created people saw no need for the existence of these units. It's the same for Airborne. Right now, people do not see the need for units such as this, but, in future battle fields the need for these war fighters is there, just as there still remains a need for Marines. When was the last time the Marines waged a amphibious assault? It's been a long while, but, there is still a need to have them around. It's the same with the Airborne, it's more than just jumping out of an airplane, it's a light fighter mindset. Just the same being a Marine is more than just amphibious assaults, it's the mindset

Response by SGT Fred Easton made Jul 16 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-07-16T17:15:52-04:00

Apparently the CPO is not schooled in the art of light infantry warfare. It's where the rubber his the road in ground conflicts and the Airborne concept can give surprise and or loads of trigger pullers dropped right in the lap of the enemy. If you want to delete that capability ask the guys that are still around that went into Normandy, Corregidor and numerous other Airborne operations of WWII and in Korea and Vietnam.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jul 16 at 2015 7:01 PM

2015-07-16T19:01:11-04:00

It is not out dated because there is a need, and they will be needed, but it can be updated with air assault.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2015 9:44 PM

2015-07-16T21:44:00-04:00

"Show me a man who will jump out of an airplane, and I'll show you a man who'll fight." - Gen. James “Jumpin’ Jim” M. Gavin

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2015 8:06 PM

2015-07-17T20:06:59-04:00

Though it may seem outdated to many, especially those that do not live the life of a Paratrooper, having the mere ability to execute a forcible entry into the enemy's territory can be a deterrent for many of our adversaries. As it was mentioned before, having everyone and their mother on jump status is unnecessary. 82ND, 173rd and 4-25 are all strategically located throughout the world to ensure we have the ability to react anywhere, anytime. So long as airborne operations are held to a standard where safety precautions are strictly adhered to, it minimizes the risk involved. AATW! Let's Go!

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jul 18 at 2015 3:53 AM

2015-07-18T03:53:24-04:00

For large scale combat jumps, yes, it is outdated; there are much safer delivery methods. For small scale insertions, no.

Response by 2LT Scott Armstrong made Jul 20 at 2015 12:55 AM

2015-07-20T00:55:21-04:00

It is an important tactical option that will hold value in war planning for the indefinite future.

Response by LTC Mo Vanderslice made Aug 17 at 2015 12:02 AM

2015-08-17T00:02:02-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith. Keeping politics out of the analysis...As I recall, it was the 173d ABN Bde that gave us a forced entry in northern Iraq in 2003 allowing us to cut-off the Iraqi high command's escape after the Turks denied our request to send a mechanized division into Iraq over their southern boarder. The boys from Vicenza did a great job and forced Saddam and his two sons into hiding, while also taking some pressure off of our forces in the main attack from Kuwait.
Also, the surprise created by the 82nd's jump into Panama in 1989 was complete and safely took many Panamanian Army units out of the fight before they could rush in and get killed in the process. I suspect that the Russian use of airborne forces since WWII have had many similar successes that the west is unaware of.
I also suspect that Airborne troops will be around for a long time to reinforce our assault and initial entry forces, like the 75th Ranger Regt.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 4:12 PM

2015-08-17T16:12:34-04:00

No you still have Russia, china, and North Korea

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 11:08 PM

2015-08-29T23:08:07-04:00

Why are there paratroopers in that photo without their feet and knees together?!?

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 6 at 2015 4:09 PM

2015-09-06T16:09:17-04:00

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:01 AM

2015-12-30T10:01:03-05:00

I don't think it's outdated. I also don't think it will ever be used in the same capacity it was devised for. We won't be doing mass exits in combat zones like during WW2. It is a nice tool for the tool box though. Good thing about Airborne units now is that they can get anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2016 8:08 PM

2016-01-22T20:08:18-05:00

I don't think the concept is out of date at all. HALO and HAHO are the main reasons why it is outdated from a tactical standpoint. I believe being able to fly in high altitudes and having the capability to free fall into an intense area quietly is just amazing. I'm pretty sure the army will continue to add twist and turns to take tactics to another level. One day I pray and hope I will take part in these operations because day in and day out I work towards it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 20 at 2016 12:13 PM

2016-03-20T12:13:59-04:00

https://www.facebook.com/MartySkovlundJr/videos/ [login to see] 55179/

Top 5 Reasons We Still Need Paratroopers - Marty Skovlund, Jr. | Facebook

A lot of people think we should get rid of our airborne units. I don't agree with that. Nope, not one bit.#AirborneLivesMatter

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2017 9:26 PM

2017-01-13T21:26:03-05:00

ABCT, Ranger Regement, and DF capable units. Yes of course. Force projection speaks volumes in a number of scenario.

Response by SGT Drew Clark made Jan 27 at 2017 1:08 AM

2017-01-27T01:08:31-05:00

An Airdrop at night might be much more effect than the typical advancement.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made Jun 10 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-06-10T11:19:29-04:00

From drones to terminators...

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Jun 10 at 2017 3:08 PM

2017-06-10T15:08:24-04:00

I am going to weigh in on the side of NO, not outdated for several reasons, most of which I have read in one form or another here. First and foremost on my list is attitude, Airborne is more than just a skill, or an operational concept, it is an Attitude that is earned. A mentality that says "I am part of a tradition that does not accept failure on the battlefield" A nod to SFC Terry Murphy's post below. It is also the fastest way to get the troops to the schwerpunkt in fight condition from longer distances. We know that it is a very manpower intensive proposition with a high casualty likelyhood, but a few determined men, behind enemy lines can do as much if not more than full units on the frontlines, so we take that risk, because the payoffs are usually well worth the effort. Trench warfare is not something that has been used since 1918, but when I was still in back in 94 time, we still trained to take trenches. Just because there is no need TODAY, does not mean you should not be prepared for the need. And finally, there is the mystic of the Airborne, against the Russians or the Chinese it will probably not be AS effective, but the vision of planes flying overhead dumping troops out the door is still enough to scare the crips out of many around the world, because they know that once we are out the doors there is no way to be sure that you got ALL of us, which brings us back to the top. the mentality of never quit because my guys are counting on me to do my best, which can go from taking territory and holding, becoming the anvil for 1st Cav to smash them against (assuming most of the unit is formed) to individual acts of sabotage behind enemy lines if just a lone trooper or a mix-match squad.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2017 2:08 PM

2017-06-11T14:08:50-04:00

Our so called combat jumps since 2003 have been an utter joke. 2003 Sky Soldiers... SF and hundreds of Kurds were on the ground. Airborne is gone. Spec Ops is the exception.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2017 4:23 PM

2017-07-04T16:23:23-04:00

My two cents...Airborne elements are still very useful during operations where runways, beachheads, and road access is limited.

During OEF and OIF, several jumps were made by the 173rd, Ranger Regiment, and SF and SOF elements. Just Cause and Restore Hope also used airborne operations. However...Airborne operations factor in a loss rate of 25% during the initial phase of movement to, and infil, the drop zone. This would make most US Army units combat ineffective (and the reason Hitler stopped their use after Crete). The proliferation for advanced SAM technology has rendered our mainstay airlift platforms (C-130 and C-17) obsolete. The ability of Russian SAMs to take down troop carriers from far behind their FLOT is going to severely limit the use of parachute infantry

Response by SGT Mark Halmrast made Jul 4 at 2017 4:28 PM

2017-07-04T16:28:04-04:00

Airborne!

Response by SGT Sunny Lalingua made Jul 4 at 2017 5:24 PM

2017-07-04T17:24:33-04:00

AS A LARGE INVADING FORCE, YES. FOR THE SPECIAL FORCES, SEALS, RANGERS, AND OTHERS, NO.

Response by SPC Justin Foster made Jul 4 at 2017 6:25 PM

2017-07-04T18:25:45-04:00

I think those who may feel Airborne to be outdated are operating under the assumption that the United States will never be involved in another large scale war between traditional militaries, and I think that is a dangerous assumption.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2017 7:03 PM

2017-07-04T19:03:39-04:00

The main issue is how to justify giving up slots for Airborne school to combat support or combat service support troops. Airborne JAG or paralegal NCO? Airborne unit mail clerk?? Buehler??

Response by SPC Derrick Truax made Jul 4 at 2017 9:36 PM

2017-07-04T21:36:03-04:00

Airborne school is not only a jump school, but most importantly a leadership course. Some of the most renowned soldiers/ leaders in the U.S. Army are indeed airborne soldiers.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Jul 5 at 2017 10:42 AM

2017-07-05T10:42:40-04:00

You don't just plan for the current wars but what future might hold. It's not like if a war hits & we need paratroopers, you can magically create an airborne force. Sure, you can have all kinds of people with jump wings but that does not create a force multiplier. In between Korea & Grenada, we only had one airborne operation in Vietnam. Three decades but we were glad we had the force in Grenada, Panama, & even the invasion of northern Iraq. I also feel the same way about Air Assault. Keep it, we will need it some day.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jul 6 at 2017 12:35 PM

2017-07-06T12:35:04-04:00

I was an airdrop qualified C-130 aircrew member for over 8 years in the 1970s and 80s. We asked the same question then. In my opinion modern technology both limits and enhances the usefulness of airdrops.

Modern surface to air missiles make low altitude airdrops risky in a combat environment. The wide range of anti-aircraft guns and missiles with technologically advanced seekers would take a heavy toll on traditional formations of C-130s or C-17s executing low altitude personnel or equipment airdrops. When I left the C-130 business in 1986 we were developing tactics and techniques to lessen the effects of these weapons, but the anti-aircraft technology was ahead of conventional airdrop tactics then and probably remains that way.

In a lower threat environment, airdrops can deliver people, equipment, and supplies. High altitude personnel and CDS airdrops have been used successful in Afghanistan and other places. Modern technology, such as GPS, has improved the accuracy of these types of airdrops so they can be executed in all weather conditions with high confidence of success. In some cases, these types of airdrop were the only way relief supplies were delivered as part of a humanitarian mission. Special Forces use high altitude personnel drops for insertion of teams.

Is the airborne concept of the "battalion airdrop" outdated. I vote yes. It was overcome by technology as early as 1985.

Response by SSG Marshall Paul made Oct 23 at 2017 6:16 PM

2017-10-23T18:16:53-04:00

The concept of sending brave men by dangerous passage to kill you will never be outdated.

Response by SFC John Hatton made Jan 9 at 2018 11:29 AM

2018-01-09T11:29:18-05:00

Nope, nothing beats a suprize Airborn insertion, capture an Airfield and use it to bring in a full scale of Soldiers and equipment

Response by SFC John Hatton made Jan 9 at 2018 11:33 AM

2018-01-09T11:33:48-05:00

Remember the almost invasion of Haiti. They surrendered and our planes did a 180 back to Pope AFB.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2018 1:47 PM

2018-01-09T13:47:01-05:00

CPO Gregory Smith only a leg would think that. When was the last amphibious assault landing? When was the last ship to ship battle? Just because the Navy floats around and never goes toe to toe with anyone other ship doesn't make them outdated just like not having mass tactical jumps into a contested area make it outdated. It provides us with options and capabilities that others do not have. We can be anywhere in the world fast and with a lot of Soldiers capable of fighting and supporting themselves for some time before other forces can join them and take the fight to the enemy.

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made Jan 9 at 2018 5:37 PM

2018-01-09T17:37:12-05:00

The concept of "mass drops", for instance, Market Garden during WWII, may be considered outdated. But the idea of using vertical envelopment as a means of, for instance, inserting Special Forces (HALO), or large scale units, up to Brigade strength, is still a viable tactic. Weather and terrain, in my opinion, are the greatest hindrances to airborne operations. The goal is to put an effective force in the fight, and Airborne is a capability that can be utilized to meet that goal, and should be considered together with other means as what is the best means of getting forces in the fight.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Mar 21 at 2018 2:30 PM

2018-03-21T14:30:16-04:00

The first Combat jump from the new C17 Cargo planes of the USAF in 2003 of the 173rd Airborne into Northern Iraq. 1,000 troops from both the 173rd which included 20 from the USAF, 786th Security Forces Squadron, USAF made the jump to secure and airfield there. pictured here are USAF members that made that combat jump. USAF Security Forces has some units all jump qualified at the Army Jump school and also Ranger Qualified at the Army Ranger School. The operation was a success and achieved all the intended goals. The picture is some of the USAF People that jumped with the 173rd Airborne .
Once the airfield was secure the USAF brought in more Security Forces troops on C130s plus other USAF support people to operate the airfield. Once they were in place to relieve the 173rd Airborne they were able to spread out into the countryside and accomplish more of their mission.

Response by CPL Mark Greiser made Jul 24 at 2018 4:07 PM

2018-07-24T16:07:39-04:00

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Maybe, we should get rid of the Nuclear Weapons? We haven't used them since 1945.

Response by SGT Aric Lier made Jul 24 at 2018 4:22 PM

2018-07-24T16:22:43-04:00

by this logic troops are not needed at all we can launch nukes and clean the rest up later with UN forces

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Jul 24 at 2018 4:30 PM

2018-07-24T16:30:51-04:00

Our military leadership lost touch with how effective airborne & air assault operations can be. When the 101st did a large air assault operation in Iraq, the operation was very successful. All the Pentagon could focus on that helicopters were lost or damaged. In 2003, when OIF kicked, there were airborne operations in northern Iraq. Not just SF folks. It wasn't a very large force but it drew Sadaam's forces away from the main invasion force. You don't have to drop a very large force to tie up an even larger force of the enemy. It also has it's psychological factor. The enemy will fear paratroopers suddenly appearing in their rear echelon. Disrupting the rear echelon like transportation & logistic really robs the enemy grunts from waging an effective battle too. The moment we get rid of the airborne, we will have a terrible need for it. Leave it intact.

Response by SGT Leon Riege made Jul 24 at 2018 6:49 PM

2018-07-24T18:49:05-04:00

just because our last three coc's had no concept of how to utilize these troops does not mean they are outdated ... maybe it means our last few presidents just didn't pack the gear

Response by SSG Christopher Cannon made Jul 24 at 2018 7:18 PM

2018-07-24T19:18:38-04:00

I don't think it's outdated. It is the only way to go in undetected in a lot of situations

Response by CPT Nick Bryan made Jul 25 at 2018 10:00 AM

2018-07-25T10:00:47-04:00

I believe our current method of Airborne Ops May be outdated. Our enemies have made huge advances in Radar, ADA, and EW, just as we have Is there a better way to jump our troops in and mitigate the advances the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and NKs have made? Full disclosure I’ve never done a jump in my life, 100% leg.......

Response by SFC Francisco Rosario made Jul 25 at 2018 3:00 PM

2018-07-25T15:00:03-04:00

I have to say no. The reason for my answer is that the Airbone concept is currently used as a deterrent so to speak. There is a reason that many countries still use and train airbone operations. If your enemies know that you have a capability, and you continue to enhance that capability. Then they will think twice about how to defend and prepare for the possibility that such capability can be used against them.

Panama was caught off guard by the airborne capability of the US. The ironic part of the invasion is that Panamanian military leaders at one point were part of the palanning of such invasion. This was when 1/508 PIR was stationed there. However the Panamanian government did no think the US would use any planned invasion on them.

I dont think that we will see large scale air drops into combat like the ones on D-Day, but we will still plan for and execute small level drops.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Sep 17 at 2018 4:21 PM

2018-09-17T16:21:29-04:00

Still seems that the option to put a lot of people on the ground very quickly still should be an option.

Response by Cpl John Grier made Sep 17 at 2018 5:04 PM

2018-09-17T17:04:39-04:00

Light infantry is always necessary. How fast do you want it in action?

Response by SSG Cliff Karolak made Sep 17 at 2018 6:44 PM

2018-09-17T18:44:00-04:00

I think you are referring to deployments you don't know about Navy

Response by SFC William Huse made Sep 17 at 2018 7:01 PM

2018-09-17T19:01:24-04:00

Absolutely not! I was airborne and am still proud of it today. It may be that airborne units could possibly be downsized a bit, as they actually may not be as much mainstream as in the past. This would allow for only the best to be chosen to serve in an airborne capacity. We had some shitheads when I was in also, complained constantly. But, there will always be a place for airborne units.

Response by MAJ Steve Daugherty made Sep 17 at 2018 10:23 PM

2018-09-17T22:23:37-04:00

The mass airborne attack is probably outdated as your too easy a target, but can still see a place for night time infiltration modalities or individual soldiers using individual flying tech

Response by Cpl Mark Sullivan made Sep 17 at 2018 10:56 PM

2018-09-17T22:56:34-04:00

You absolutely need it in the playbook

Response by SPC Phillip Hersman made Sep 18 at 2018 2:45 AM

2018-09-18T02:45:12-04:00

Yes, I got lazy and didn't read all of the comments, but did everyone forget about rangers jumping in to Kandahar in Oct 2001?

Response by SP5 Patrick Oxford made Sep 18 at 2018 2:55 AM

2018-09-18T02:55:58-04:00

Until they build helicopters that can carry a hundred men 5000 miles and land them in an area with no runways or any close coast line the question self answers. But as I understand it, our sole Airborne division is nowhere near totally airborne anymore. I believe the division commander if not on jump status should at least be jump qualified. Battalion commanders and below should be on jump status. No, they may not go in the initial jump, but maybe the next day or so. Battalion and brigade staffs should be able to jump in on D-day plus two or three. Yes cooks and supply as well.

Response by SFC Edwbl Edwbl made Sep 18 at 2018 5:36 PM

2018-09-18T17:36:45-04:00

Absolutely not....

Response by SSG Pat O'Flaherty made Sep 18 at 2018 5:36 PM

2018-09-18T17:36:56-04:00

Yes, mullah Omar's compound.

Response by SSG Pat O'Flaherty made Sep 18 at 2018 5:37 PM

2018-09-18T17:37:14-04:00

I meant not outdated.

Response by SPC Terry Eli made Sep 18 at 2018 6:15 PM

2018-09-18T18:15:11-04:00

I believe the rangers completed a combat jump when the country of Turkey wouldn't allow our troops to use their country to come into Iraq from the North. Rangers were used as a blocking force against Saddam's troops fleeing the south

Response by LtCol Lourie Salley made Sep 18 at 2018 6:46 PM

2018-09-18T18:46:16-04:00

I am an Airborne qualified Marine. The 82nd jumped into Panama in 84(?), and the 173rd AIB jumped into Northern Iraq during the 2nd gulf war. I would not be surprised if there were not Airborne ops in Afganistan..
Airborne gives much the same capability that the Marine Corps provides, forced entrusting into foreign territory. We seize ports. They seize airfields.

Response by PFC Elijah Rose made Sep 19 at 2018 1:24 AM

2018-09-19T01:24:45-04:00

Yes, they're outdated. The last mass paradrop was during the Battle of the Rhine when we invaded Germany.

I shoukd be stating the obvious when I say all airborne infantry units should be redesignated as airmobile units.

Response by PO2 Killashandra Leigh made Sep 19 at 2018 5:31 AM

2018-09-19T05:31:39-04:00

I gotta say no. The Airborne arm of the US Army is just as essential today as it was nearly 80 years ago. Missions change, deployment techniques have to change with them, and they have in leaps and bounds, but to consider doing away with the Airborne is not a good idea.

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Sep 19 at 2018 8:36 AM

2018-09-19T08:36:54-04:00

No Airborne isn't outdated. The DOD still needs forced entry capability. Not to mention the necessity of airborne missions within spec ops. No, it isn't a huge mission anymore this is one reason why there aren't 4 airborne divisions anymore only 1. The capability still is necessary.

Response by SFC Jay Ward made Sep 19 at 2018 10:15 AM

2018-09-19T10:15:07-04:00

The point is that enemy commands have to plan contingency’s to counter the threat. I hope we never see a war large enough to need it, but I also take pride in knowing that the Airborne community stands ready if needed.

Response by SPC Jason Hamilton made Sep 19 at 2018 10:22 AM

2018-09-19T10:22:17-04:00

Yes, if we are talking about mass drops. HAHO and HALO are essential for special ops, however a 12 man drop in a performance chute is a different animal than a mass drop of the 82nd, the 25th regiment in Alaska, the 325th in Italy.
They are based on being able to fly under the radar of a country and dropping a lot of troops quickly. The last combat drop of this type was december, 1989, 29 years ago into Panama. A small 3rd world nation. Even them it would not have worked against Russia.
Today nearly every country on earth has ground up radar, not radar that stops at 400 feet, the mass drop airborne concept has run it's course.
USASOC(A)

Response by SGM Ronald Cheatom made Sep 19 at 2018 11:28 AM

2018-09-19T11:28:58-04:00

Airborne troops, are a shock value asset, who not only provide a quick way to put troops, on the enemy's back door, but will demoralize them, by the sheer surprise, of troops suddenly showing up, from the sky. Plus, there are times when, you do not have access to a makeshift airfield, or a port to put troops in theater. And, as Col. Charlie William's put it, SOF forces need these capabilities, to get to places not easily accessible. I also agree, that there are certain troops, that do not need to be on continuous active jump status.

Response by Lt Col George Roll made Sep 19 at 2018 11:30 AM

2018-09-19T11:30:16-04:00

Yes there have been several tactical parachute insertions in Afganastan. Special Ops teams. Use HALO and HAHO techniques.
In more conventional conflicts the Airborne Airfield Seizure technique guarantees the enemy won't deny US Forces axcess by blocking runways with heavy equipment. Granada was an example of this. Contingency plans for Port a Prince Hati if American Ex-pats were threatened was to paradrop CCT and Rangers onto the Airport, clear the runway and establish air traffic control so follow on forces could land.

Response by SSG Carl Gamel made Sep 19 at 2018 3:21 PM

2018-09-19T15:21:34-04:00

When rapid insertin is nessesaryl, like Stanlyville in the Congo was, then you have to have airborne. Only airborne can be deployed anywhere in the world in less then 24 hours and be placed on the ground where you need them, without a operational airport.
I am not nor have I ever been airborne, but there is a place for them in modern warfare.

Response by SGT Robert Cupp made Sep 19 at 2018 3:34 PM

2018-09-19T15:34:53-04:00

There wasn’t a whole lot of need for airborne operations during the Iraq campaign due in part because there wasn’t much they could do against our superior firepower. But that won’t always be the case and if we ever need to insert combat troop behind enemy lines, airdropping them is still a valid method of delivery. It’s dangerous but still effective. We just haven’t needed it much against the scrubs we have been fighting against.

Response by SGT Marc Riordan made Sep 19 at 2018 3:57 PM

2018-09-19T15:57:07-04:00

We haven’t used a nuke since ‘45, but the availability is a deterrent, just like the airborne skill set.

Response by CPL Thom Mills made Sep 19 at 2018 4:33 PM

2018-09-19T16:33:43-04:00

Yes there has been. Google man. Google

Response by SSG Lance Wendling made Sep 19 at 2018 9:34 PM

2018-09-19T21:34:21-04:00

Are amphibious assaults outdated?

Response by SSG Patrick Sloan made Sep 20 at 2018 12:24 AM

2018-09-20T00:24:15-04:00

How often must this question be asked?? Every couple years some leg poses this question who obviously doesn't get out much. Research Mali 2013, French Foreign Legion and Operation Operation Serval.

Yes, airborne troops are still relevant today. Just as tanks and A-10's are and will be for the foreseeable future.

Response by CPL Jeff Choate made Sep 20 at 2018 6:49 AM

2018-09-20T06:49:09-04:00

I say no. It is more than the method by which he is delivered. Level of training and motivation. When did we stop calling everybody else LEGS?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2018 8:15 PM

2018-09-20T20:15:21-04:00

Absolutely outdated and we should abandon the concept completely except for the SOF guys.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2018 7:42 AM

2018-09-21T07:42:58-04:00

During the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan there were brigade level mass exit airborne drops. It is also essential for special operations. However, the best justification I have ever heard is that winning on the battlefield takes a certain mentality. The idea that you will win no matter what. And the airborne has a mentality that the rest of the regular Army lacks, because they're better than you and they know it.

Response by Sgt Robert Ace made Sep 21 at 2018 9:06 AM

2018-09-21T09:06:39-04:00

No it's still essential in some operations maybe not the Middle East but there are other parts of the world were it would be essential..

Response by SPC David Schuler made Sep 21 at 2018 7:34 PM

2018-09-21T19:34:07-04:00

Here I'll speak blasphemy. Airborne isn't really about how you get there. It's about what you do when you get there. At Normandy the bulk of the 327th GIR arrived at Utah by landing craft. During the Battle of the Bulge both the 82nd and the 101st were transported by truck and the mission and the objective were changed enroute. No sane commander of unit starts a battle out of supply, out of communication, or out of command and control. But this is essence of Airborne. They accept this going in and they know that it won't change until they change it. The Army needs units that embrace this and train for it, regardless of how they get there.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made Sep 23 at 2018 2:17 PM

2018-09-23T14:17:34-04:00

For a massive operation like in WWII, probably. But there are several and various size and type operations where it would be one of the most optimum methods of insertion for light infantry and low intensity conflict.

Response by LTC Eric Udouj made Sep 24 at 2018 1:09 AM

2018-09-24T01:09:54-04:00

Always one of those questions that is kind of dead before it can be answered. Does the Army need to give up on its capabilities to get forces to a battlefield would be the same question - just more blunt. Which nations have made combat jumps in the Long War so far and who has not really is not as important as knowing that we can do it anywhere on the globe when the time comes that the capability is needed. Can we ever get more than a single BDE to a place... now that is a great question to ask!

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 24 at 2018 8:58 AM

2018-09-24T08:58:10-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith this discussion was pretty good on a similar topic. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/strategic-debate-there-will-never-be-another-need-for-a-mass-airborne-drop

Special operators will always need it.

Strategic Debate - There will never be another need for a mass airborne drop | RallyPoint

Disagree One should shy away from the use of the word “never”. If there is anything to be learned from studying history and military art, its that you should never say never—events have a way of playing out in ways that challenge any preconceived notions. Another word that must bear scrutiny is the word “mass”. When mass is used in this context, one may imagine the classic images of operations Overlord and Market-Garden, where up to three...

Response by MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy made Sep 30 at 2018 3:12 PM

2018-09-30T15:12:23-04:00

Good question, CPO Gregory Smith. Credible sources that airborne ops is outdated are likely to surface when the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) deletes it from their Mission Essential Task listings based on POTUS' National Security Strategy. As one of the U.S. Army’s three "Dirt" Combat Training Centers, JRTC is home-garrison to the Army's 1-509th Infantry Battalion, which heralds history's first U.S. combat jump in WW II as well as JRTC's only airborne-capable infantry designed essentially to OPFOR against rotational units preparing for airborne operations. That said, it's only just that they furl the flag on such airborne history, IMHO. Uncertain when the last real-world parachute deployment was made, but from what I could muster on the fly, 'Conduct Airborne Operations' (Air Force Task 4.2.1.3) has aimed high in USAF doctrine since 1998, and some history buff from the 509th can answer your question way better than I can. Thanks for the question, Chief. Defensor Fortis!

List of References:
Globalsecurity.org. (1998, Aug. 12). Air Force Task List). Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1. Retrieved from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/afdd/1-1/afdd1-1.pdf

Silva, B. (2018, Apr. 19). STRIKE: 2nd BCT strikes down OPFOR at JRTC. Retrieved from http://fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_96caa9aa-4421-11e8-9885-87feecb257f8.html

Whitehouse.gov. (2017). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Wikipedia. (n.sd). 509th Infantry Regiment (United States). Retrieved September 30, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/509th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

afdd1-1.pdf

:?TøzôÔ/~!ßPùOÉ3TÌÿßU*wþ·øcnàbºÕ«tì»ªìEú?rp)ÿ"sÝ6}QF¶M/2](LÞKºï+ìSØ;ÄÂîJuÿLñ"XQwW·ÌS·Â;oÄnÂèÕã-_ñ|#Ôâ·PµÝ4¶Ýk?%ÆF7ÑvhqI[QÈ^ÔBý5:j]xÒXÔM%áDãÂk%p3áªui[~m{SÛågµ¿ÒöFÏj»_àÝß{{sAÿÆü·î·µ^¶ ÙÅÒÃv]ÞWßOß{@ß_¿æuû5·ÀSçÝU·êÜuÉCº¶=º5/êZâdÇCþEyKòÖóBÝøA^¡·ÁÐýcé#¿&$Ì«Í3ÕºçãA||ZÓûD~(iëÇókÿiüöQMè'¶îÇ4ïBËkCûpZ=Å"4ê@ï`øxu8CæÆ:&GÆÄ8óî¡;Ç&8Gý4Ág9@òwÃÿoìª6ãD{º'.ÅÆuN"¿ó3w »æ3µpä-§dù/c #Æ§$KkÂ 3çÆÒw'¶3# Ç«'õqÒÃúñþÿÃù¶)Ó6:þóUFËäÛ;:ãinÐêÉÉãq0ÿ[ÀÿÊ?]N;ÆæÂßBèg&sgR&Û?dìÂ(j...

Response by PO2 Vince Walsh made Oct 23 at 2018 12:50 PM

2018-10-23T12:50:30-04:00

Well Chief, in my opinion, (I used to be a EO2, so jumping out of aircraft isn't really my thing), the number of folks hurt in the jump itself, combined with the amount of ammo and food an individual can carry, lack of armor or heavy weapons, in my mind that is why no one has seen a "large scale" airborne operation since the second world war. Spec-ops are "special", so I'm not going to include them. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Response by MAJ Lou Giamo made Oct 24 at 2018 4:42 PM

2018-10-24T16:42:14-04:00

Will we need Airborne Ops the size we had during WWII? Probably not. However Airborne Ops is still the fastest way to get lots of "boots on the ground" when that ground is a long way away. We won't always be able to land an aircraft with troops in a hostile environment, but we can sure as hell drop paratroopers almost anywhere. It is faster and more efficient than trying to land multiple aircraft and then having to get them back off the ground in a hurry. In today's UW arenas, Special Ops need the ability to insert via HALO/HAHO. Rangers still need the static line ability for some of their operations such as the quick strike on airfields at the beginning of the current Iraqi Freedom campaigns. The ability to move an entire division, such as the 82d to a hot spot like Ukraine or N. Korea on a moments notice is also key to US defense. Just because we haven't had a major airborne op in the last 14 years, doesn't mean they aren't needed in the future.

Response by SSG(P) Ell Pizarek made Nov 18 at 2018 7:21 PM

2018-11-18T19:21:11-05:00

This is a question I would expect from a LEG. Airborne units remain a major tactical deterrent used in diplomacy. There are times when you don't want to start dropping smart bombs all over the place, so you can drop 20k paratroopers. There may not be an airfield or navy units in the area, airborne units can be on the ground within 24hrs. And from my experience, the mind set and discipline of paratroopers is over all much harder then non airborne units.

Response by Pvt Bruce Harting made Nov 27 at 2018 8:16 AM

2018-11-27T08:16:55-05:00

Yes, United States Marine Corps, Force Recon Company use free fall all the time.

Response by COL George Antochy made Dec 3 at 2018 3:23 AM

2018-12-03T03:23:45-05:00

Throughout time all militaries have to change and adapt to new threats. If we take the emotion out of the equation, I do believe that it is time to transform the 82d Airborne Division as we did the 101st. I do believe that we continue to need units that can be deployed via parachute drop, but those should be limited to Special Operations organizations. It just isn't practical nor are the risks worthy to continue to maintain a Division-size Airborne organization. Maybe we initially maintain 1 or 2 Separate Airborne Brigades, but that should be the most. Also, 18th Airborne Corps needs to be transformed as well. This would save the Defense Department a lot of funds that should be used for higher priority needs. I know that many are going to hate loosing their $150 per month allowance, but how many units struggle just to get the ability to have their Soldiers Jump. Again we need to take the emotions out of the discussion, and structure our forces against our threats.

Response by TSgt Michael Z Williamson made Dec 6 at 2018 1:53 AM

2018-12-06T01:53:58-05:00

Against a modern enemy, mass drop craft are not going to survive to get anywhere near the battle. Against an enemy where we have air superiority, the need is very limited. Special insertions like those used by the Selous Scouts and Rhodesian SAS in the Bush War, certainly. Mass elements? It's never going to happen again.

And the last relevant mass drop was long before Iraq.

The Iraq drop was into a secured location, as reinforcement for a feint to help pin Iraqi forces in place. Plenty of other options would have been as or more effective, including simply bombing them, or laying air-dropped mines.
"The operation was classified as a combat jump by the Army, although the landing zone was secured by Kurdish and American forces.[4]"

In Vietnam, the Junction City drop was effective, sort of, with heavy casualties, also with significant air superiority. They were unquestionably brave and motivated. Doable against a third world enemy, but had the politics allowed, would have probably been unnecessary. And I don't think there's much hope for future nancified governments to authorize even that force.

Operation Tomahawk in Korea might have been significant, except the enemy had already retreated.

It's certainly a valid tool for specific circumstances, but as a strategic element, their only time was in WWII, where they served with distinction.

Response by SGT Charles Bartell made Dec 8 at 2018 8:30 PM

2018-12-08T20:30:31-05:00

I would say just because we have not had to us it in past years does not mean we do not need it. The best weapon is one that you do not have to use all the time. I do belive that Airborne and Air Asualt and Air Moble Operations should be used to gether. As well Airborne and Air moble Operations should be combined. Trun the jump School at Ft.Benning into a one site combined traing. With this consept I belive we would have a more fexible option on the Battle field and a Force Multiplier.

Response by SSG Marshall Paul made Feb 22 at 2019 2:54 PM

2019-02-22T14:54:07-05:00

Even if it is rite of passage and not strategically sound, it was more fun than I could have had anywhere in this lifetime. And it stays with you. I am 69 years old and nothing scares me. Life will keep throwing stuff at you, but when your standing pulse rate is 60 BPM standing at an open door, you know who you are and what you can do.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Sep 15 at 2019 1:54 PM

2019-09-15T13:54:11-04:00

How can mobility ever be outdated? It’s a way to get a lot of guys on the ground in a hurry where they’re needed. As long as you need Grunts airborne units will of possible use. Guaranteed if you don’t have that capability you can’t manufacture it quickly, so better to hold that card in the deck.

Response by COL William Oseles made Sep 17 at 2019 7:25 PM

2019-09-17T19:25:43-04:00

They have to be able to recruit Jumpers from someplace.

Response by 1SG Dale Cantrell made Dec 24 at 2019 12:15 AM

2019-12-24T00:15:56-05:00

I served on the 82nd AB, we were on call every other month , no beer and could not leave Ft Bragg, the plan as I knew it, we were stationed at Pope AF base , and we would put on our chutes and draw weapons and amo. When called by the President our job was to jump into any situation world wide as ordered,this what see as the need for parachute regiments

Response by SSG David Stafne made Dec 24 at 2019 1:09 AM

2019-12-24T01:09:31-05:00

The Army can survive without Airborne Soldiers but will die without Paratroopers!

An Airborne Soldier is one who is school qualified but never willing to take it to the next level, their Wings are nothing but bling on their uniforms.

However, a Paratrooper is one willing to Jump behind enemy lines knowing that reenforcement or re-supply may never occur. The Rifleman Paratrooper knows that in a moments notice he may become the CO and must carry on the mission!

Paratroopers are the soldiers the Army depends on regardless of their current status!

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Dec 24 at 2019 8:27 PM

2019-12-24T20:27:09-05:00

While rarely needed it’s definitely not outdated

Response by SPC Kyle Salmon made Dec 25 at 2019 6:19 PM

2019-12-25T18:19:12-05:00

Yeah that’s exactly how we kicked off the Iraq invasion. You have to seize an airfield to bring in the rest of the invasion. It’s not used too often but still has a very important job.

Response by SSG Danny Anderson made Dec 26 at 2019 6:35 AM

2019-12-26T06:35:47-05:00

It depends on what the missions would require. In the GWOT there has been only 2 combat parachute assaults, 1 in Iraq by the 173rd, and 1 in Afghanistan by the Rangers. Most of the missions in the GWOT were Air Assault

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2019 10:08 PM

2019-12-26T22:08:23-05:00

It will be needed someday. Yes, it is still relevant.

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Dec 27 at 2019 7:39 PM

2019-12-27T19:39:08-05:00

They have not be used often but they’ve proven crucial in numerous wars

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Dec 28 at 2019 1:12 AM

2019-12-28T01:12:36-05:00

We haven’t needed it but I’d rather have the capability then not have it .

Response by SSG David Stafne made Dec 29 at 2019 4:51 AM

2019-12-29T04:51:09-05:00

The biggest advocate that Airborne Operations are obsolete is COL Charles Williams, who a Leg MP and thus a POG, that all you need to know!

Response by CPT Robert Holden made Jan 4 at 2020 9:45 PM

2020-01-04T21:45:56-05:00

Its always better to have something and not need it then need it and not have it

Response by SGT Scott Carter made Jan 5 at 2020 4:40 AM

2020-01-05T04:40:17-05:00

Still relevant. Problem with it is, in general, light infantry is a speedbump when facing anything but a similar force. Mechanized or armor can cause it huge problems. Resupply and logistics are a problem as well. It’s a damn good thing our airborne forces are highly trained and proficient at everything they do, including all the problem areas I mentioned. Never got an airborne slot, in fact the 7th ID made soldiers go to Ranger school before they could go to jump school. For the right mission, needing that force level, they are the right units and it’s the right insertion method!

Response by LCDR Tim McKenzie made Jan 5 at 2020 8:03 AM

2020-01-05T08:03:26-05:00

It may seem like it’s not important to those who have served in the more recent asymmetric wars. The US had access to airfields and shipping ports. BUT... airborne capability is key to forced entry operations (invasion). USMC Amphibious Forces combined with Army Airborne Troops are the means of “kicking down the door,” so that airfields and ports can be captured or built, allowing the entry of follow on forces.

Response by SrA James Cannon made Jan 5 at 2020 11:15 AM

2020-01-05T11:15:42-05:00

No, but there could be in the future.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2020 9:39 AM

2020-02-13T09:39:36-05:00

In some ways yes, in others no. If you want my opinion, we need to start focusing more financial resources on better parachutes so less soldiers lose their lives or suffer permanent, life changing, career ending injuries.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that defends the current, outdated way of approaching airborne is okay with every single one of those deaths and injuries.

Response by SFC Chris Mcintosh made Feb 17 at 2020 10:32 AM

2020-02-17T10:32:56-05:00

As a person who been in an airborne unit, I believe that airborne units are getting outdated, I believe that AA would serve the military far better than AB

Response by SSG Steven Chirco made May 3 at 2020 2:04 PM

2020-05-03T14:04:11-04:00

Nope

Response by 1SG Leroy Lucero made Feb 28 at 2021 12:45 AM

2021-02-28T00:45:58-05:00

Just because we didn’t use doesn’t mean we don’t need it. We have nuclear missiles that haven’t been used. Do we get rid of them?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2022 10:10 AM

2022-04-07T10:10:40-04:00

During all Phases of OEF and OIF there were both static line and free fall insertions of both conventional and Special Operations forces throughout multiple theaters which all resulted in mission success that I don’t believe could’ve been accomplished by any other means. At least no means that would’ve have been as expeditious or decisive.

Response by SPC John Miller made Apr 7 at 2022 5:02 PM

2022-04-07T17:02:03-04:00

FT. Bragg DRF rotation, as part of the U.S. Arsenal, is anything But outdated...

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jan 3 at 2024 8:33 AM

2024-01-03T08:33:16-05:00

There will likely be a need for decades to come. However, the likelihood of large insertions is minimal and decreasing daily. Special Ops, Rangers and tactical Airborne associated with SoecOps support will always be there.