Is the airborne concept outdated?

It is an important tactical option that will hold value in war planning for the indefinite future.

For large scale combat jumps, yes, it is outdated; there are much safer delivery methods. For small scale insertions, no.

Though it may seem outdated to many, especially those that do not live the life of a Paratrooper, having the mere ability to execute a forcible entry into the enemy's territory can be a deterrent for many of our adversaries. As it was mentioned before, having everyone and their mother on jump status is unnecessary. 82ND, 173rd and 4-25 are all strategically located throughout the world to ensure we have the ability to react anywhere, anytime. So long as airborne operations are held to a standard where safety precautions are strictly adhered to, it minimizes the risk involved. AATW! Let's Go!

It is not out dated because there is a need, and they will be needed, but it can be updated with air assault.

Apparently the CPO is not schooled in the art of light infantry warfare. It's where the rubber his the road in ground conflicts and the Airborne concept can give surprise and or loads of trigger pullers dropped right in the lap of the enemy. If you want to delete that capability ask the guys that are still around that went into Normandy, Corregidor and numerous other Airborne operations of WWII and in Korea and Vietnam.

Absolutely. And I'm in an airborne unit. You will pretty much never get me to agree to be a slow moving target for someone to practice on. I'll train to jump out of planes all you want. But the days of combat jumps are over. And for good reason.

Hey Chief, Surely not, as a matter of fact I think airborne troops would help a great deal against a enemy like ISIS. We could drop a brigade right on top of them to disrupt their command and control as well as sending a clear message that we won't be trifled with. Then, we can reinforce them with conventional forces in the region, as long as they exist and don't run away, (Iraq).

I believe we will always have the need to conduct airborne operations. Just because we haven't had very many combat jumps during the past couple campaigns, doesn't justify "scrapping" the program. Same concept as the A-10 dilemma. They serve their purpose.

I believe that the airborne concept could be used differently. With a changing world I think new tactics are needed. Don't get me wrong the ability to have a joint forcible entry capability is absolutely necessary, but in addition new tactics and techniques are needed as well. I think normal airborne units could be more effective if small unit airborne operations were utilized, and I think the use of the CH-47 for this could help. I've been in situations where a company sized airborne drop could have been extremely effective in accomplishing our mission.

No, the concept of a surprise mass deployment of ground troops to seize key ground is not outdated. The airborne capability gives military planners another option in future scenarios. Imagine the need to take out a ground target composed of scientists, NBC development capability, and stored stocks. Because those can be buried, it may be the best option is to mass ground troops rapidly to take it out rather than to try to bomb it alone. With air combat and resupply support, you could maintain that force for them to conduct operations over 48 to 72 hours to assure the mission has been completed.