Posted on Nov 5, 2013
TSgt Logistics Management Specialist
1.71K
10
9
1
1
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 3203 Airborne School
Avatar feed
Responses: 4
CW4 All Source Intelligence Technician
4
4
0

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.            

(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Aaron Kletzing
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Executive Officer
2
2
0
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.  
(2)
Comment
(0)
TSgt Logistics Management Specialist
TSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Would you need sustainment if those forces are able to adapt and become resourceful in a foriegn enviornment? Do not get me wrong sir, I am transportation and understand the whole logistics picture. However, that initial airdrop into enemy territory where the enemy is caught by surprise with forces in their area, and they cannot predict their movement. Would that not be more effective than a line of tanks rolling through the desert?
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW4 All Source Intelligence Technician
CW4 (Join to see)
>1 y
SGT Garland, Airborne forces are light infantry. Once they hit the ground they aren't going to travel very far vary fast. Airborne forces are used to jump in and secure key terrain such as an APOD as referenced in my main response to this question. Everyone including SOF needs some type of sustainment especially in a desert environment as you mentioned. Don't get me wrong you could drop in small SOF teams and they could survive for quite some time however if you drop tactical airborne brigades as you reference they will definitely need continued sustainment.    
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Executive Officer
CPT (Join to see)
>1 y
Chief McCloud nailed it.  Airborne OPS have their place, but no large scale operation can be conducted successfully without sustainment.  Sun Tzu said "The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…" .  My favorite is Alexander the great though.  "My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close