Is the airborne concept outdated?

Yes there has been. Google man. Google

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.