78
78
0
Is the airborne concept outdated? In almost 14 years of war has there been any parachute deployments of troops into a combat zone?
Tactics
Parachuting
Paratrooper
Airborne School
XVIII ABN Corps
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 185
1
1
0
The concept is not outdated however as was pointed your in Grenada and operations in WWII there are problems pulling off a major operation. The Air Force is very reluctant to support such an operation on several levels lack of sufficient aircraft being one reason. Secondly, there is and has never been a need to have combat service support troops on jump status to include helicopter pilots, air crews, finance clerks, etc. We are wasting resources with these groups being on status. It is a capability that needs to be retained, but needs to be re evaluated for todays times.
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Very good point. The reason the 82nd Airborne Division did not conduct more combat jumps in Afghanistan because of the Air Force (yes, they did do one jump because the Commander for 2nd Ranger Battalion was a former 2/504th Commander who wanted his current and previous commands to jump together but got a company from 1/504 instead). Bottom line, the Air Force was too concerned about the mythical MANPAD threat and would not fly below 12,000 feet. The Air Force does have more than enough aircraft to support airborne operations though and yes the military has far too many combat support and combat service support soldiers on airborne status.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There will likely be a need for decades to come. However, the likelihood of large insertions is minimal and decreasing daily. Special Ops, Rangers and tactical Airborne associated with SoecOps support will always be there.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
FT. Bragg DRF rotation, as part of the U.S. Arsenal, is anything But outdated...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
During all Phases of OEF and OIF there were both static line and free fall insertions of both conventional and Special Operations forces throughout multiple theaters which all resulted in mission success that I don’t believe could’ve been accomplished by any other means. At least no means that would’ve have been as expeditious or decisive.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just because we didn’t use doesn’t mean we don’t need it. We have nuclear missiles that haven’t been used. Do we get rid of them?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
In some ways yes, in others no. If you want my opinion, we need to start focusing more financial resources on better parachutes so less soldiers lose their lives or suffer permanent, life changing, career ending injuries.
As far as I'm concerned anyone that defends the current, outdated way of approaching airborne is okay with every single one of those deaths and injuries.
As far as I'm concerned anyone that defends the current, outdated way of approaching airborne is okay with every single one of those deaths and injuries.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
It may seem like it’s not important to those who have served in the more recent asymmetric wars. The US had access to airfields and shipping ports. BUT... airborne capability is key to forced entry operations (invasion). USMC Amphibious Forces combined with Army Airborne Troops are the means of “kicking down the door,” so that airfields and ports can be captured or built, allowing the entry of follow on forces.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Still relevant. Problem with it is, in general, light infantry is a speedbump when facing anything but a similar force. Mechanized or armor can cause it huge problems. Resupply and logistics are a problem as well. It’s a damn good thing our airborne forces are highly trained and proficient at everything they do, including all the problem areas I mentioned. Never got an airborne slot, in fact the 7th ID made soldiers go to Ranger school before they could go to jump school. For the right mission, needing that force level, they are the right units and it’s the right insertion method!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google