Is the airborne concept outdated?

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!"

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

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.

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

I don't think the concept is outdated.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.

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.

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

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?

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)

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