Is the airborne concept outdated?

All I was saying about the 173rd is that they have jumped and are the only conventional infantry element to do so in the last 15 years. As far as the SSG comment I realize you where at the 82nd before I was, but I agree with MG Johnson's statement to an extent. I think all 11B, 11C, 19Ds NCO should go to Ranger school, that's who it was designed for! The course itself is beyond bullshit most of the time but you do learn allot, especially casualty evacuation techniques if nothing else you learn allot about your self and how to motivate people to accomplish a common goal when you can't even see straight from fatigue.

2LT (Join to see) - Sir, you may want to check that attitude at the door. To get respect you may want to give some respect. First of all check what I said - "will be Ranger qualified". Big difference between saying "should be" and "will be". Though I did not go to Ranger School, I do have the back ground and experience to know of what I say. I won't name drop at this point, but I would suggest that you check my friends and contacts list not only here, but also on Facebook and on LinkedIn. But now I am going to name drop - If you are in the right place at the right time, you could ask MG(R) K. C. Leuer or BG(R) J. E. Mace about me. They will probably tell you that I am a hard headed mule. Or I could pull out my letters of recommendation for the USMA and Preparatory School, and for the 1st and 2nd Ranger Battalions, which I never took advantage of, I'm not always good at taking advice, though I think that I have been quite successful in giving it. I do have a bit of conceited ego, if I do say so myself.

Not sure why you felt disrespected or that I have an attitude, but that certainly was not my intent whatsoever. As a prior NCO I understand what that little tab can do for your career; that little piece of cloth on your left shoulder goes a long way and instantly holds you to a higher standard regardless of the task. It stamps you as leader for life, and that's what I want for all my men if they wish to stay in and especially NCOs. Think about how you felt as a young private and your squad leader or PSG was tabed how did you feel about them compared to one that was not? Or even your PL how did you feel about them if they did not have a tab. In 9 years if the PL wasn't tabed it wasn't going to well for him on first impressions.

2LT (Join to see) - Good take and good observation. Though you might consider a statement made by [SGM Mike Oldsen] in the "What is the most over and under rated schools in the military?" discussion thread.

The last 14 years of war were not outliers. In a larger historical sense, they are, but that's only because history tends to pay attention to conventional warfare prior to WWII. We have been invoolved in so many "small wars" since the inception of this country that it's staggering. Now, the risk of not being prepared for conventional war is much greater, but historically, airborne operations are failures. There are very few which were actually "successful" operations as would be described by conventional forces. Most were failures or so costly as to be near insane.

Special operations is a different story. Still need that ability.

You forgot about the escorts and pre-assault fires that would proceed an actual large scale airborne operation if air defense assets were determined to be a risk. That said, the acceptable casualty rate for an airborne operation by doctrine just for the initial jump is 15%. It is a high risk infiltration technique that can have high payoff if successful and devastating losses if certain basic tactics are not followed. The US learned a lot form WWII, however the disastrous French experience at Dien Bien Phu has really impacted modern airborne doctrine for the better. That said, you are right, the conventional military is focusing on airborne operations at too large of a scale.

Rangers are built for this. The 82nd is supposed to be about large scale vertical envelopment. Two issues here. Does ISIS have an integrated air defense capability with a peer air force...nope. Even though it's possible, there isn't a reason to do it because it still requires a land bridge from a port. The United States cannot be sustained from a single, or even multiple airfields. If we were going to fight ISIS on a grand scale again, we would need the capabilities provided by a port. If that's the case, it's hardly necessary to jump a division onto airfields and disperse our mass across the winds. That doesn't mean we can't...it just means we don't need to in order to be successful. Bottom line, if you don't need to do something risky...you don't. Now, if they had a neer peer airforce and integrated air defense...like China or Russia. Then sending the 82nd Airborne in would be akin to a WWII airdrop where 7K rusian soldiers were anihilated by the mechanized and regular infantry forces in the area.

Airfields aren't the only key infrastructure. Key bridges, oil assets, and supply sources, command and control could be isolated simultaneously to drastically reduce capabilities and bring ISIS to a screeching halt. Of course Rangers would want to hit command and control. Nothing is going to get done without boots on the ground with an element of surprise in places they don't expect.

LTC Jesse Edwards
Another good point Sir. Unfortunately I am out of up votes for the day otherwise I would give you one.

The concept of an airborne forced entry operation is not a stand alone method. It requires follow-on forces. It is just a means to gain a foothold and expand the airhead and the security perimeter to outside the MANPAD range and allow engineers time to clear, construct, or repair an airstrip for heavier aircraft that can transport the M1s, other heavy weapon systems, and additional troops. Airborne troops are only expected to fight without support for up to 72 hours.

And if it seems like I am quoting doctrine, well I am, but it is no copy paste job.

Lastly, the difference between the 82d Airborne and say the 10th Mountain is actually quite a lot. In the 82d, leadership is pushed down to a lower level and planning and knowledge of the overall operation is pushed down to a lower level as well. The 82d is better capable at deploying and managing forces in a decentralized manner and as a result, gets more school slots for advanced skills schools and leadership development courses than any other Infantry Division. There are many Infantry squads in the 82d that have more Ranger qualified personnel than some Infantry companies in the 10th Mountain. Also, the 82d conducts more company, battalion, and brigade training maneuvers than the 10th Mountain on average. So yes, once the parachutes are packed away and the 82d assumes its light infantry role, they fight better because there is more training and resources available to them.

So, the real differences is school slots. Tracking. If we give more school slots to everyone else, then it'll even out. I assume you mean that leaders at lower levels are empowered. Makes sense. They pretty much have to be in order to operate once they land all over hell's half acre. This is almost a chicken and the egg thing however. Why do they get more schools? If things were evened out would they still be as capable a fighting force? I don't agree that they are a better fighting force once they become light infantry, but that's opinion, not based on fact. I think that each type of unit has its ups and downs and it has more to do with leadership than anything. There are just as many bad officers and NCO's in that division as there are anywhere else...and they all have their ups and downs.

They get more school slots because the job is harder and has a higher priority than a standard infantry division. That means they need and have better soldiers and have a higher overall basic standard.

The main difference between the Ranger Regiment and standard airborne units is the same as airborne units and non-airborne units. Money, schools, and the luxury of a selection process beyond Basic Training and AIT.

Yes there are bad NCOs and officers in the 82d. However there are fewer of them than in other units and they are better trained and more experienced man for man.