Is the airborne concept outdated?

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.

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!

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

- Short answer: No, the airborne concept is not outdated.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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

"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