What's safer, Airborne or Air Assault?

Safe?

OK, lets have a brief discussion on Jump Pay and Hazardous Duty Pay. Thoough I have no idea why the Pentagon came up with those payments. The tiny amount of payment clearly screams INCENTIVE PAYMENT not COMPENSATION PAYMENT. So for those that say you get the payment for the Hazzard and because it is dangerous I do not believe to be correct, I think that is an over simplification. Instead you get the INCENTIVE because the DUTY IS VOLUNTARY and they need to INCENT people so that they VOLUNTEER. It is the exact same philosophy behind an enlistment bonus. Though one could argue that some of the gigantic enlistment bonuses for SF troops during the GWOT that approached $150,000 could in part be a COMPENSATION payment because they were so large. Generally enlistment bonus's are intended as a INCENTIVE to induce voluntary behavior. I would argue the same is probably true of Combat Pay. Just a guess on my part.

One would have to dive into the deepest part of Pentagon thinking to be sure.

The best judge is yourself by doing both.

As a Marine I had this debate with soldiers a lot.

Arriving in a hot LZ with an egg beater overhead that makes a lot of noise that can be heard from a good distance is dumb.

Arriving in a hot DZ dangling from Sister Mary's pillow case by some string is dumb.

Arriving across a contested beach in a bullet trap that opens to the front is dumb.

That said... we do what we must. I hope that helps, but bet it doesn't.

Level of safety lies in Risk mitigation and probability. Composite Risk Assessment. METT-TC is a prime factor in identifying and mitigating risk analysis between the two types of insertion techniques. Each having it's own pros and cons.

BLUF: not a cut and dry answer of one over the other.

Individual experiences vary, but nothing is a cool as a combat jump.

More dangerous in the sense that the helicopter had to hover in position. Less dangerous in the sense that the last time anyone fast roped in was Mogadishu. Airborne might be more dangerous in the sense that the enemy can shoot a paratroopers while they descend and your weapon in strapped to you in a case.

I'd bet there's more risk doing anything via a bird from a combat perspective jumping or roping from them. I'd say this is apples and oranges as well as Airborne infill is large and AA is usually smaller unit infill. Safety is in the numbers thing. As well mission and all sorts of things play into this like terrain and weather. I'd put the Osprey into the bird basket as well.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html

Do you like apples or oranges?

Even back in the 70's & 80's, the 82nd was drilling on the same thing on a regular basis the stuff taught in Air Assault school.