Is the airborne concept outdated?

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.

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.

The concept of "mass drops", for instance, Market Garden during WWII, may be considered outdated.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.

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 Just because the Navy floats around and never goes toe to toe with anyone other ship doesn't make them outdated just like not having mass tactical jumps into a contested area make it outdated.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.

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

The concept of sending brave men by dangerous passage to kill you will never be outdated.

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.

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.

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??

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