Is this a viable alternative to Airborne?

2018-09-18T19:39:58-04:00

Airborne can be a great combat multiplier.
That being said the C-130 delivery system is inadequate against a modern full-state military machine. The attacked country will have to be on the level of Panama during the Panama Invasion for Airborne to penetrate their airspace or even the near edge of the battlespace, if total air dominance is not in the hands of the airborne attacker. To keep it a viable solution improved delivery craft/systems need to be developed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2sT9KoII_M

Reasoned and thoughtful responses for or against requested please

Fly with the Jetman | Yves Rossy

http://www.ted.com Strapped to a jet-powered wing, Yves Rossy is the Jetman -- flying free, his body as the rudder, above the Swiss Alps and the Grand Canyon...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2018 7:52 PM

2018-09-18T19:52:41-04:00

I just imagined trying to train my dumbest, rock chewing, pig jumping gunner on that and I almost started crying. Maybe in SF land with "responsible" people, not conventional forces. Part of an airborne insertion is planning around anti-air systems, I'll keep what we have.

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Sep 18 at 2018 8:05 PM

2018-09-18T20:05:34-04:00

It’d need a whole lot of refinements to be used as a military deployment system. I jumped for 10 years and hated everyone of my jumps. I would never undertake this. I can’t imagine doing a mass tac jump. It’d take a C-5 to load a battalion with that system. You obviously couldn’t wear that for a long flight into your DZ. so you’d have to suit up during flight. You couldn’t safely jump the doors so I’m assuming you’d have to go out the tail. But it would be interesting to see a battalion jump this thing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2018 8:34 PM

2018-09-18T20:34:12-04:00

Hahaha there's a reason why mass tacs are performed with non-steerable parachutes. You'd have bodies littering the DZ with those things.

Response by CH (COL) Geoff Bailey made Sep 18 at 2018 8:49 PM

2018-09-18T20:49:46-04:00

ummm...no way!

Response by SFC Jeremy Smith made Sep 18 at 2018 10:08 PM

2018-09-18T22:08:54-04:00

I know Iraq had a shortage of Kevlar bottom planes....

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Sep 18 at 2018 10:21 PM

2018-09-18T22:21:25-04:00

No, it won’t replace airborne

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Sep 18 at 2018 10:52 PM

2018-09-18T22:52:45-04:00

Nice thought- but will it lift 300-400 lbs- fly say 100 miles, Avoid radar, bullet proof, stealth, etc?. GF1 we had Sf penetrated all the way into Baghdad- and they had a fine AAA system. 2. For an invasion the USAF will have to blast a corridor thru AAA for an airdrop- but then there are suppose to have air superiority anyway aren't they. 3. What the hell is going to bring in Anti-armor systems, vehicles, AAA systems etc? If ABN doesn't have those then we are just speed bumps.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Sep 19 at 2018 4:24 AM

2018-09-19T04:24:03-04:00

Yeah right!

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Sep 19 at 2018 10:31 AM

2018-09-19T10:31:25-04:00

You are correct...Airborne is a great force multiplier...anytime, anywhere. I disagree that C-130's will be inadequate against a full state military...neither will a C-17. If we are sending in Airborne the Airspace has been cleared for the insertion either by SEAD (Search and Destroy) aircraft or missiles and more than likely be escorted by the same. I agree that we should always be looking for improved delivery systems but what we have is, and will be, effective for many years to come. IMHO

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 19 at 2018 10:33 AM

2018-09-19T10:33:13-04:00

Interesting share brother.

Response by SGT Cort Landry made Sep 19 at 2018 10:53 AM

2018-09-19T10:53:18-04:00

"Yard Darts" come to mind littering the LZ.... ;)

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Sep 19 at 2018 11:13 AM

2018-09-19T11:13:53-04:00

Not my area of expertise, but unless it is a SF operation the LZ and airspace around it would have been long been cleared before any mass airdrop.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Sep 19 at 2018 3:31 PM

2018-09-19T15:31:25-04:00

This has been discussed back in the 80's with squad drop boxes, bad idea then, bad today. Anyone that has jumped a mass tac knows its bad enough dodging sky sharks and heavy drop, hell back when they first started issuing MC1-1s it was a traffic jam AGL with everyone turning and running for their rally point or parachute turn in. While dropping troops against a 1st world military is not really an option unless you can accept the losses it still has its place and time in other situations. I see ABN eventually going away when we have our first major loss of air frames and troops but unless someone developed a better way that doesn't involve 700-1400 paratroops flying wing suits into each other then it will have to be good enough. Paratroops have always been portable speed bumps against our enemy as well as the curse that keeps on giving once we where on the ground.

Response by SGT Aric Lier made Sep 20 at 2018 8:39 AM

2018-09-20T08:39:48-04:00

its viable, but I'd think it would be more applicable to para rescue, or pathfinder units

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Oct 14 at 2018 11:17 PM

2018-10-14T23:17:57-04:00

Yap, Jumping out of air-o-planes can get you hurt in a big way.

Response by SSG Steve Finlan made Oct 18 at 2018 11:40 AM

2018-10-18T11:40:17-04:00

While you make several valid points, I don't see a point in time now where the mass battles waged in WWII, or even Korea and Vietnam, will be repeated. At the moment there is no need for a mass drop of a whole Brigade, or Division - although the sight of such a thing alone could rattle enemy morale depending on their overall competence and readiness. If I am not mistaken most airborne operations now are company or below and rely on some modicum of stealth.
Also, as SFC Bradshaw points out, yeah probably not a great idea to give a whole Brigade of Infantry Joes access to flying wing rigs....

Response by SGT Ray Davies made Oct 28 at 2018 1:05 PM

2018-10-28T13:05:28-04:00

You have to remember that no matter how Elite, or tough an airborne trooper is . After you hit the ground You Are Infantry. When you jump out of an airplane, you just get there faster.

Response by SFC Jimmy Sellers made Nov 19 at 2018 10:26 AM

2018-11-19T10:26:06-05:00

I believe that the age of mass tactical airborne operations has ended. There was a plan to drop the 82nd Airborne outside of Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but upon careful study the Army determined that it was unnecessarily risky; for both the paratroopers and the aircraft.
There is still a need for small scale airborne ops for Special Operations using HALO or HAHO methods, but is is highly unlikely that there will ever be another major airborne operation like the one used in Panama.
Any thoughts on this subject from experienced airborne personnel will be appreciated.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 19 at 2018 7:37 PM

2018-11-19T19:37:41-05:00

The battle started on 24 March 2003 when Rangers from 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, conducted a combat parachute drop onto H-1 Air Base, securing the site as a staging area for operations in the west.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Nov 19 at 2018 7:39 PM

2018-11-19T19:39:11-05:00

Interesting to say the least!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2018 8:35 PM

2018-11-19T20:35:00-05:00

The delivery system is not the multiplier of the Airborne, it's the "Can Do" and "Spirit" of the Paratrooper that he brings to the battle field.

Response by Lt Col John Plaza made Dec 8 at 2018 7:40 PM

2018-12-08T19:40:38-05:00

Forcible entry by airborne forces remains a viable option using existing equipment and tactics in many scenarios....but not all. Very few countries possess an Integrated Air Defense System and thus their defenses can be suppressed or destroyed without too much difficulty, especially in a limited geographic size objective area. Dropping at night with no moon (dropping in bad weather even better except follow on Close Air Support for the airborne forces may be limited as a result....although today's precision guided munitions make this less of a factor and if forces are dropped within range of their own artillery support even better), missile defense systems on the aircraft, SEAD/DEAD of enemy air defenses, etc. can all be used to reduce threat exposure. The enemy also faces the defensive dilemma of by trying to be strong everywhere they are strong no where. Unfortunately airborne forces ground mobility is limited and after their PLF they are essentially nasty legs so they cannot be dropped too far from their objective area

In a high threat environment where even a temporary shutdown of air defenses cannot be achieved the risks to an airborne forcible entry go way up. Fortunately not too many countries can afford integrated air defense systems. Those that can also have highly capable armies with armored forces that can put a lot of hurt on light forces unless we do have air dominance and can provide CAS. So airborne forcible entries are limited by the air defenses and the ground defenses. So an while airborne forcible entries are a tool they are not always the right tool.

Regards the flying wing it would complicate the enemies targeting. Instead of one Herc with 54 troopers on board you have 54 small individual targets to target and then expend a weapon on. The same concept of the mass drone attacks already being used against the Russians in Syria. Their systems are designed to locate, track and engage a group of full size aircraft not hundreds of basketball sized weaponized drones. The wing suit has several limitations. It has severely limited range. It has to be launched from another aircraft so 130s and 17s still need to get them close. It takes a lot of training to fly it. It can't carry much. May bring in your door bundle but not going to bring in your 105mm or it's shells so still dependent on the Hercs and C-17s for firepower and sustainment. Powered parachutes (steerable chutes with backpack props offer similar advantages and disadvantages.

I think the way to go if we want to insert airborne forces in to significant threat environments is to do what the Marines and Navy have done with amphib forcible entry.......move the delivery vehicles (ships) out of the threat range by allowing them to stand off from the target/objective. The Air Force has done the same with PGMs. We could turn airborne forces into PGMs by building what amounts to a WW2 glider. Instead of wings it would have steerable chutes and a guidance system and could hold a squad or 2 of troops or equipment. It would be extracted out of the back of a C-130 or 17 at high altit miles back from the objective and threat. It could be made stealthy relatively easy so would be difficult to target. The "container" would glide to its DZ, flare and land. The unit would arrive intact with its equipment simplifying assembly and limiting vulnerability as troops would no longer have to find their unit and their equipment in the dark. Would also eliminate the need to learn and stay current on the PLF. This is a pipe dream until the next major war when minds and resources will be dedicated to this. I'm betting the SF already have this or are contemplating this....or their using the backpack powered steerable chutes.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2019 4:32 PM

2019-01-05T16:32:49-05:00

Do you know how much training this will involve?

Response by MSG Lonnie Averkamp made Jan 5 at 2019 11:20 PM

2019-01-05T23:20:00-05:00

As an aircraft pilot, a master parachutist, and a free-fall jumpmaster, there is no way that you are going to get a division of "troopers" trained to safely operate those things. A parachute rig is "moderate" in cost, unlike those 1-man aircraft, and a conventional parachute does not stall (like those things easily could). Evan a ram-air parachute will not stall, without a bit of trying. Air superiority is going to be a "must" for paratroop operations. Even if you trained regular parachute infantry for high altitude cross country (maybe using a drogue for aircraft exit, like the Russians), the exit aircraft is still going to be within enemy missile range, and enemy fighter aircraft are not going to stop at their country's border, if they are being invaded.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Jan 6 at 2019 2:36 PM

2019-01-06T14:36:02-05:00

C130s have a single cold blooded factor critical to any hostile insertion op is that the loss of a relatively cheap C130 is 64 troopers and an expensive C17 lost is 102. C130s are more mechanically reliable too.

Simply put you ain't going into an airborne op w/out air superiority/dominance anyway. No one did so in WW2 nor since.

Response by SGT James Colbert made Jan 6 at 2019 5:37 PM

2019-01-06T17:37:15-05:00

You always can suggest being a "soap on a rope"
Air Assault

Response by SSG Brian G. made Jan 7 at 2019 1:22 AM

2019-01-07T01:22:51-05:00

No, this is not a viable option in any way for mass airborne insertion. Let's look at the specs of it straight off. It is a jetpack essentially with wings. IT is barely able to support a single operator, let along the load that that one operator has to take with him or her into combat. You have to remember that the soldier would have to take in his weapons to include an M-16 with attachments, possibly an SAW, ammunition for said weapon, grenades, explosives, basic kit and combat ruck not to mention MOP gear, comms, armor etc. Next we tackle range as these have a range of roughly 1-2 miles. That would be drastically cut down, along with its maneuverability once you start tacking on the operator as well as the combat loadout that goes with.

Now let's look at the fact that as shown, these are custom jobs where money really is not a factor. That will not be the case in the milspec version as the contract will go out to the lowest bidder than do the job for the military. That means less than high grade construction or materials. Then add in the fact that these bad boys are not going to be cost effective in any capacity as they are one shot wonders. That's a few hundred pounds of material, and empty tanks that have to be lugged out or destroyed. Then there is the little matter than these things would ping on just about any radar out there and you want a bloodbath? Think of a SAM or AA fire hitting on or near one of these. The shrapnel would take out a dozen troops easily. Not to mention these are not quiet, as they are effectively mini-jet airplanes without the speed or armor.

I could see these being useful in a small unit insertion of 6-12 operators but not much beyond that without serious redesign and upgrades and then we are talking serious dollar signs.

Response by SSG Frank J. made Feb 16 at 2019 1:49 PM

2019-02-16T13:49:13-05:00

If you are looking for alternatives, there is Air Assault. It's not the Air born you think about but it gets soldiers and equipment where you need them (Quickly).

Response by PFC Brian Hoyt made May 15 at 2019 9:57 PM

2019-05-15T21:57:44-04:00

There will always be a need for Paratroopers. (Airborne). When I first went into the Army, I enlisted for Airborne. There were people telling me I was crazy and "paratroopers" will be fazed out by helicopters. Here were are in 2019, and there still is a need for airborne troops. GO ARMY~~GO AIRBORNE...! GERONIMO....!