Is the airborne concept outdated?

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 The Airborne concept will never be outdated because the Airborne mentality lives in the hearts and minds of those who live that life, and no other group of soldiers strikes more fear into their enemies.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!

It's only outdated and unneeded until it is...and then you need years to build the capability..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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.