Is the airborne concept outdated?

Light infantry is always necessary. How fast do you want it in action?

Still seems that the option to put a lot of people on the ground very quickly still should be an option.

I have to say no. The reason for my answer is that the Airbone concept is currently used as a deterrent so to speak. There is a reason that many countries still use and train airbone operations. If your enemies know that you have a capability, and you continue to enhance that capability. Then they will think twice about how to defend and prepare for the possibility that such capability can be used against them.

Panama was caught off guard by the airborne capability of the US. The ironic part of the invasion is that Panamanian military leaders at one point were part of the palanning of such invasion. This was when 1/508 PIR was stationed there. However the Panamanian government did no think the US would use any planned invasion on them.

I dont think that we will see large scale air drops into combat like the ones on D-Day, but we will still plan for and execute small level drops.

I believe our current method of Airborne Ops May be outdated. Our enemies have made huge advances in Radar, ADA, and EW, just as we have Is there a better way to jump our troops in and mitigate the advances the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and NKs have made? Full disclosure I’ve never done a jump in my life, 100% leg.......

I don't think it's outdated. It is the only way to go in undetected in a lot of situations

just because our last three coc's had no concept of how to utilize these troops does not mean they are outdated ... maybe it means our last few presidents just didn't pack the gear

Our military leadership lost touch with how effective airborne & air assault operations can be. When the 101st did a large air assault operation in Iraq, the operation was very successful. All the Pentagon could focus on that helicopters were lost or damaged. In 2003, when OIF kicked, there were airborne operations in northern Iraq. Not just SF folks. It wasn't a very large force but it drew Sadaam's forces away from the main invasion force. You don't have to drop a very large force to tie up an even larger force of the enemy. It also has it's psychological factor. The enemy will fear paratroopers suddenly appearing in their rear echelon. Disrupting the rear echelon like transportation & logistic really robs the enemy grunts from waging an effective battle too. The moment we get rid of the airborne, we will have a terrible need for it. Leave it intact.

by this logic troops are not needed at all we can launch nukes and clean the rest up later with UN forces

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Maybe, we should get rid of the Nuclear Weapons? We haven't used them since 1945.

The first Combat jump from the new C17 Cargo planes of the USAF in 2003 of the 173rd Airborne into Northern Iraq. 1,000 troops from both the 173rd which included 20 from the USAF, 786th Security Forces Squadron, USAF made the jump to secure and airfield there. pictured here are USAF members that made that combat jump. USAF Security Forces has some units all jump qualified at the Army Jump school and also Ranger Qualified at the Army Ranger School. The operation was a success and achieved all the intended goals. The picture is some of the USAF People that jumped with the 173rd Airborne .
Once the airfield was secure the USAF brought in more Security Forces troops on C130s plus other USAF support people to operate the airfield. Once they were in place to relieve the 173rd Airborne they were able to spread out into the countryside and accomplish more of their mission.