With the need for a more agile and mobile force, do you believe the army should expand its airborne operations?

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:40:59 -0500

I believe the army needs to put the PT standards a little higher and be more strict on Body Fat, but change it to be more accurate. I am seeing a draw down in Germany, which means it will be more difficult for the Army to rapidly deploy a large force without having a larger air drop ready force. What are your thoughts?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 5:33 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:33:47 -0500

I see our draw down in Europe having the same logistical impacts on Airborne Operations as with traditional operations. Sure, we can drop into almost anywhere in the world on short notice but without a supply line, it's unsustainable.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 5 at 2013 2:56 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:56:15 -0500

A full airborne division and several other airborne brigades are plenty for our purposes today. Airborne forces today are not used to jump in behind enemy lines like they have in wars past. The primary purpose of airborne forces is to seize aerial ports of debarkation (APOD) in preparation for follow on forces to air land and off load personnel and equipment. In most cases where we would be looking at entering major conflict, the APODs would likely be secured by SOF or Rangers as opposed to a regular army airborne brigade. Once they seize an airfield, any unit not just airborne forces can air land and continue on with the mission at hand. There is no need to jump in additional forces once the airfield is secure as this would lead to increased injuries, closure of the airfield for a short period of time, ect. As long as we have units like the 82nd Airborne Division and our plethora of SOF units trained in airfield seizure operations we can deploy a large force very rapidly throughout the world.

I have spent three years in 10th Special Forces Group and three years in the 82nd Airborne division and although I am all about airborne and the history of airborne I would have to say airborne operations as we know them today are obsolete. In 2010 I was in 2nd BDE, 82nd ABN DIV and we were part of the Global Response Force (GRF). Four days after the January 2010 Haiti earthquake we were on planes headed to Haiti to conduct HA/DR operations. Even though the buildings at the main airport were damaged the runway and airfield remained undamaged. Because the airfield was operational we were air landed as opposed to air dropped to minimize casualties.

So what I am getting at is as long as there are major APODs secure to conduct air lands their is no need to continue dropping paratroopers. The same planes that drop airborne forces into the fight are the same planes that air land other units and equipment. So it really isn't a matter of getting forces to the fight quickly it is just how you want to deliver them.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2013 2:13 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:13:34 -0500

Why should we expand an airborne capability that is useless within the current US Air Force structure? The USAF cannot meet the US Army's requirement to drop an airborne brigade within a specified timeline and inside a specified target distance.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 7 at 2013 2:45 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:45:58 -0500

Our military becoming more "agile" may not mean it becoming lighter and more modular in this sense. I think it's likely that cyber-based operations will be a more deliberate focus for our military in the coming decade. Yes, I know (and agree) that if the country is expeditionary with missions like we have had since 2001, we will always have to walk through the objective, etc. To answer your question, I would first ask what we think the military's future objectives would be, and then develop theoretical COAs based on that. Some of these OBJs may be able to be solved in new ways using really advanced technology. For example, look at the all the raids we have been able to avoid risking our SOF personnel's lives on, in lieu of employing drones. The answer isn't absolutely one way or the other, but I see a shift away from how we fought in Iraq and Afgh with what I believe our mission sets will be in the coming decades.