Is the airborne concept outdated?

The concept of "mass drops", for instance, Market Garden during WWII, may be considered outdated. But the idea of using vertical envelopment as a means of, for instance, inserting Special Forces (HALO), or large scale units, up to Brigade strength, is still a viable tactic. Weather and terrain, in my opinion, are the greatest hindrances to airborne operations. The goal is to put an effective force in the fight, and Airborne is a capability that can be utilized to meet that goal, and should be considered together with other means as what is the best means of getting forces in the fight.

CPO Gregory Smith only a leg would think that. When was the last amphibious assault landing? When was the last ship to ship battle? Just because the Navy floats around and never goes toe to toe with anyone other ship doesn't make them outdated just like not having mass tactical jumps into a contested area make it outdated. It provides us with options and capabilities that others do not have. We can be anywhere in the world fast and with a lot of Soldiers capable of fighting and supporting themselves for some time before other forces can join them and take the fight to the enemy.

Remember the almost invasion of Haiti. They surrendered and our planes did a 180 back to Pope AFB.

The concept of sending brave men by dangerous passage to kill you will never be outdated.

You don't just plan for the current wars but what future might hold. It's not like if a war hits & we need paratroopers, you can magically create an airborne force. Sure, you can have all kinds of people with jump wings but that does not create a force multiplier. In between Korea & Grenada, we only had one airborne operation in Vietnam. Three decades but we were glad we had the force in Grenada, Panama, & even the invasion of northern Iraq. I also feel the same way about Air Assault. Keep it, we will need it some day.

Airborne school is not only a jump school, but most importantly a leadership course. Some of the most renowned soldiers/ leaders in the U.S. Army are indeed airborne soldiers.

The main issue is how to justify giving up slots for Airborne school to combat support or combat service support troops. Airborne JAG or paralegal NCO? Airborne unit mail clerk?? Buehler??

AS A LARGE INVADING FORCE, YES. FOR THE SPECIAL FORCES, SEALS, RANGERS, AND OTHERS, NO.

Airborne!

My two cents...Airborne elements are still very useful during operations where runways, beachheads, and road access is limited.

During OEF and OIF, several jumps were made by the 173rd, Ranger Regiment, and SF and SOF elements. Just Cause and Restore Hope also used airborne operations. However...Airborne operations factor in a loss rate of 25% during the initial phase of movement to, and infil, the drop zone. This would make most US Army units combat ineffective (and the reason Hitler stopped their use after Crete). The proliferation for advanced SAM technology has rendered our mainstay airlift platforms (C-130 and C-17) obsolete. The ability of Russian SAMs to take down troop carriers from far behind their FLOT is going to severely limit the use of parachute infantry