/k/ do you think airborne operations are still viable in today's

>>28645511

Sure. And I was an 0311.

What are you trying to do here? Seek validation for your job. Shut up shower shoe it all sucks. And only the lifers enjoy it, that's why they are still there.

Glider operations would be viable, as they don't spread people out over miles, and allow you to deliver armor with the troops.

Airborne operations as they currently exist in the US military are just a dated waste of money/lives.

But that's true with a lot of US doctrine, they half ass on everything because "muh air power will win the war".

Just shut up and stay current or get cool with whoever fills out the logs and just pencil push a few jumps.

It's pretty fun to break the daily routine to go jump. I like it man shacking shoots isn't even that bad either just shake your shoot and fuck off the rest of the day.

File: A400 Tactical Assault.jpg (40KB, 640x440px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x440px

>>28645511
Ask the french, they took Mali with para's and TALO.

>>28645849
TALO has the same advantages.

No the planes are too big, there's too much at risk if one gets shot down. If we returned to real parachute jumps they'd have to use smaller planes with less people in them

>>28645970
Need a runway for that.
Anyone with something of an air defense assets would shoot these cargo planes down, filled with hundreds of troops.

Well, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq involved airborne landings. So did Panama and Grenada.

Operation Serval in Mali did too.

Somebody tell all the generals that they've been doing their job wrong for using a capability that's cheap as fuck to maintain.

>>28645999
>Anyone with something of an air defense assets would shoot these cargo planes down, filled with hundreds of troops.
>Does not apply to gliders somehow.
You don't need an runway for a C-130, A400 or C-17

>someone is stupid enough to try an airborne operation against a conventional military

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srb4_7F3lAc

>>28646061
A glider need not be as fragile as a fuel filled plane.
Vastly cheaper, and not so packed full of troops either.

>>28646071
>airborne operation
>air assault
first learn the difference

>>28646088
Are we doing this?

Really?

>>28646101
Ignore the gliderfag. He's been at this for weeks already.

>>28646061
Yes, you do.
Maybe not a formal, paved runway, per se, but you need SOME sort of prepared surface. They aren't bush planes.

>>28646061
No, but is it worth risking a multi-million dollar plane on a risky unproven landing strip/road? It's much more efficient to either land a force by either air (some form of SOF) or amphib to capture a small remote airfield. You know....like how every army worth a grain of salt does it these days.

>>28646088
>combatreform.org
The fuel does not make the plane fragile, it also isn't responsible for killing everyone inside most of the time. Hitting the ground hard is.
How is a plane you can only use once cheaper?
Why would it be less packed?

>>28646101
Imagine a wave of F-35's towing thousands of troops in stealth gliders
And an LRSB towing a stealth glider with an abrams
Think about the possibilities for true airborne assault capability.

This is literally exactly what the military wants to be able to do in terms of long range rapid deployment of troops.

>>28646167
>Why would it be less packed?
Because a single plane can tow multiple gliders

>The fuel does not make the plane fragile
The fuel is what makes the planes BLOW UP.

>How is a plane you can only use once cheaper?
95%+ of the time you'll be able to reuse them.

In a total war situation yes it's viable. Sprinkling a bunch of terrorists over a region to just fuck things up is a good way to disrupt an enemy

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>28646149
No you don't
You just need to send SOF or pathfinders to find a right spot, a highway, beach, snow plain or flat desert will do.
Read up on the NEO ops of the brits in Libya.

My Godfather was a ranger who participated in 4 combat jumps in Vietnam. He told me that after the first one he was fucking flabbergasted that they ordered them to do it 3 more times. It was a disaster and massacre every time.

It made sense in WWII, when the basic doctorine of war was Blitzkrieg. You drop troops behind enemy lines, cut their supply lines, and hopefully relieve them in 72 hours at the most. After that they are prettymuch fucked.

Against an insurgency, its absolutely useless, basically target practice for the enemy. Against another conventional military an airborne assault would likely be blown out of the fucking sky before it even got started.

>>28646150
>implying not needing a runway is teh same as go in blindly and just land anywhere.

>>28646205
>Thinks fuel blows up
I'll just leave you alone with that ace combat tier fantasy

>>28645511
Its pretty much the essence of modern warfare...

>>28646279
When you mix fuel with air, it does explode, m8

Stealth gliders would be essentially invisible to existing air defenses.

Playing fast and loose with air lift assets against enemies that do not possess anti-air capabilities does not constitute rea; airborne operations.

Note: They never do these anywhere near enemy ground forces either.

>>28646149
not really. I've seen c-130s land on unprepped beaches. As long as the pilot knows the surface, he's pretty much good to go.

>>28646205
Jet fuel can definitively ignite and explode if its mixed with air, and leave a hollywood-type explosion. But if your fuel cell has just been obliterated by a missile, that doesnt really matter as you're fucked either way.

>>28646205
>Gliders
Are you fucking retarded?

>>28646371
No, they wouldnt. Radars would pick it up, and a long-wavelength ground radar definitively would. It's just a question whether the opponent has assets in the given area and if they expect gliders, you're cucked.

>>28646641
>>28646609
Don't bother, just found this jewel. I think he might be the author.
>http://www.combatreform.org/gliders.htm

>>28646205
>This is literally exactly what the military wants to be able to do in terms of long range rapid deployment of troops.

Reference or link, please. The closest I know of is the Marine's hardon for suborbital deployment.

Not as far as masses of soldiers parachuting out cargo planes. That's dead and gone, and in hindsight pretty fucking stupid idea to begin with. Medium altitude planes are too vulnerable to be packed with troops in defended airspace.

Low altitude penetration by helicopters has been proven far more effective.

Mass paratrooper landings are as dead as Hitler.

>>28646371
Wouldn't it be harder to use gliders ivo ground forces? When you past the rp you are on your own, no way to wave off.

>>28646796
Its not an assault, its a strategical deployment.

>>28646659
Are these long wavelength radars even mobile?
They would have eaten cruise missiles long before any airborne operation is started.
Even if mobile, they will be suppressed.

The gliders are more or less silent, and troops come out of it ready to fight immediately. All right where you wanted to put them.

No announcing your location like helicopters do.

I think if the US wants to develop real air assault capabilities against an actual "peer", stealth gliders are the way to go.

>>28646815
They are gliders, depending on how well they glide & what altitude/speed they have, they could abort to land somewhere else.

>>28646873
>abort to land somewhere else.
Still cucked

>>28646944
what did you mean by ivo

only cucks wave off landings
Real men bring armor to fights & win them decisively.

Something only a glider is capable of doing.

>>28646967
in the vicinity off.
This clearly shows you don't know shit about the military. Never been in a helicopter or transport plane either I reckon

File: bmd-4m_airborne_infantry_tracked_armoured_combat_fighting_vehicle_Russia_Russian_army_001.jpg (251KB, 1024x797px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1024x797px

>>28646967
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwizQfIiBuQ

>>28647010
Nope
Only a glider

>>28647022
Do they jump with the crew in the BMD?

>protection against 30mm ammunitions at the front, and 7.62mm caliber and shell splinters for the sides of the hull.

Literally just fodder, almost no point in even using them.

>>28646241
My mistake, thought you are talking of first boots being landed in off the back of a plane.
Its not uncommon to have a LS off the side of a cliff. They did it in Timor.

>>28647025
>Opinion discarded.

>>28647067
>Do they jump with the crew in the BMD?
Thats what the current doctrine is.
>Literally just fodder, almost no point in even using them.
Any armour is better than no armour. And the 100mm/30mm gun on the -4M is a pretty good argument for using it.

>>28647145
Parachutists are rarely the first boots on the ground.
The DZ is set up by PF or SOF in advance.

>>28647067
>Literally just fodder
anything that's armored is just fodder if one thinks that a tracked vehicle is impervious to anything that's thrown at it

Just gotta look at the Sauds and how they use Abrams and the other gulf states using the Leclercs.

how its used in battlefield > specs

They are fire support vehicles for infy with extra armor in the event that they encounter heavier units.

>>28645849
Not you again...glider fag please go, no motorised, armoured, pointless heavy as fuck gliders for you.

>>28647239
Then why don't they have ATGM's? even Marders have ATGM's.

>>28647324
I don't like copy pasting wiki but

they do:

Additional ATGMs can be operated by the BMD-4. This is made possible by the 9P135M launcher post that fires the wire guided Fagot (NATO reporting name: AT-4 Spigot) and Konkurs (NATO reporting name: AT-5 Spandrel) missiles. The Fagot missile is a short range ATGM with an effective range of 2 km. While flying at an average speed of 186 m/s, it penetrates 480 mm of RHA.[20] The Fagot-M is an improved variant that has an increased effective range of 2.5 km and a penetration of 550 mm of RHA. The Konkurs missile has an effective range of 4000 m and flies at an average speed of 206 m/s.[21] The original Konkurs missile penetrates 750–800 mm[21] of RHA while the improved Konkurs-M penetrates 750–800 mm of RHA after ERA due to an additional tandem warhead.[22] The firing range is reduced to 2500 m during night time.[22]

>>28647356
lol Fagot.

>>28647318
Wait wait, but what if it was a NUCLEAR Glider? Right but the catch is... it's a one man glider! Dropped from a traditional bomber! And what if the nuclear glider rangers (just made that up, pls don't steal) each had a HELLFIRE MISSILE SYSTEM like a drone but with just two missiles! And they're stealth. Painted like Birds for camo!

>>28647324
Even Marders?
The fuck does that mean?

>>28645511
Yes, seems really stupid. Half of you will get shot on the way down.

>>28647510
THAT'S WHY NUCLEAR POWERED GLIDER RANGERS ARE FUCKING PERFECT!

You don't want a cloud of fallout every time you shoot one down right? They'll be too scared to shoot at them because cancer.

>>28647503
Marders are German IFV's. Didn't see an ATGM on the infantry support vehicle, so pointed out an example, don't be mad m8.

>>28647510
b-b-b-but muh war c-crimes!!!

>>28647541
Dude... it's a fucking stupid idea. Let it go.

>>28647175
I know I thought that was you implying.

File: 0_21_042308_gryphon.jpg (31KB, 450x350px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x350px

>>28647566
Fuck you nigger.

>>28646678
>Sparky posts on /k/
Jesus christ, no wonder there's all these shit threads
>carriers are obsolete because subs exist
>tanks are obsolete because ATGMs exist
>muh armored gunboat for amphibious landing!
>CAS = low and slow, muh BRRRRT

We literally have a schizoid man with an interrupted thought process, posting here when he's not manic enough to write his next article or edit another video full of BOLD YELLOW AND RED TEXT

>spending endless billions on V-22's/chopper's when gliders could do its job cheaper & better

Imagine, C-130's snatching gliders off the deck of the America's/Wasp's.
Cheaper and better than helicopters in every possible way

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgu5yh0HkgY

>Marines buy 110 million dollar tilt rotors to do something we could do in WW2

what a life

File: 5910-6009.jpg (14KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x240px

>>28647731
see
>>28647487
>>28647541
>>28647649
We're the same, me and you. See? We're the same man!

>>28645511

>do you think airborne operations are still viable in today's military environment

Yes. Oh god yes.

>I'm airborne and i think its a waste of time

Are you an ROTC retard or something?

Airborne not only is still viable, but small scale airborne operations are the most effective "ancient" tactics still used by militaries today.

The west really didn't get modern airborne correctly.

I think you should look at the soviet military and battle-plans that were based entirely on the VDV acting as their force projection with weaponry that could mount an effective defense and slight offense (more of a great diversion) behind enemy lines.

The BMP was an amazing platform for an airborne military.

We should have continued to upgrade Sheridans and produced that stingray. You would see what airborne's true strength was.

Instead now its a not secret or special special forces.

But even then, guiding bombs to target as a spearhead is amazing in modern warfare. Without it you fail.

>>28647656
Are you just now realizing this? Dude has been fucking up threads for months now with retarded ideas.

Throw in a couple of bb faggots and you can't have a naval discussion that doesn't automatically go to shit.

File: 1451448078810.jpg (308KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1280x853px

>>28645511
Combat drops are fruitless, however having a force which can be rapidly deployed to a nearby region to reinforce a unit or secure an area prior to or during a conflict is invaluable.

>>28648256
>combat drops are fruitless
What are Granada and Panama Alex?

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on all the intricacies of airborne operations. But from what small part of the pie I see the idea isn't so much to drop in and challenge the red army these days, as it is to rapidly deploy troops into low intensity conflicts.

I know for the Ranger Regiment- and I assume for the 82nd as well- their bread and butter for mass tactical drops is air field seizures. You can put enough boots on the ground quickly enough to seize an airfield and then start landing heavier equipment, as well as a base of operations to start conducting follow on operations.

It's not feasible against a well supplied conventional army- read Russia, China, ect- but against smaller countries where aren't going to be able to mount a proper defense it's perfect.

Even beyond airfield seizures if you rapidly need boots on the ground you have to go airborne. It might not be the solution for every situation, but it has its uses.

File: 20160121_113750.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>today
>airborne
>waist of time
>the only people who love this shit are jumpmasters and the battalion commander

You're in the wrong place

Right, OP here, i forgot about this post cause i got drunk. First off, im not saying i dont enjoy jumping. cause i do. Second >>28647883 nigger you must be a fucking idiot, ive been in the airborne for 2 and a half years. You think any vehicle is decent for airborne operations just wait till you see what it takes to get a vehicle functioning once it hits the ground.

Airborne operations are an exercise in a dead technique

>>28649204
What do you think about bringing back military gliders?

>>28649366
Honestly, I think that the air assault program is the best way to combat an insurgency. Otherwise in a conventional conflict there's not many ways to get a one up on an enemy other than nuclear deterrence.

>>28649204
Well, you're stupid.

Any military worth a damn has cargo aircraft.

Any military period has infantry.

Infantry + cargo planes + parachutes = a cheap, versatile means of force projection.

Even countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Rwanda have used airborne operations to great strategic effect.

It's not that expensive, and it has a niche.

>>28649417
Only works against tinpot regimes with non-functional equipment, and poorly motivated troops.

>>28649407
Air assault is shit to counter insurgencies
every time these insurgents shoot down a chopper and kill another dozen americans, they gain 1000+ fighters

You need tanks, heavy AFV's, and heavy APC's like namers to appear invincible and not give them successes

>>28649669
You say that like that isn't a reasonable, rational use for airborne.

>>28649703
>air assault is shit in counter insurgencies
>46 rotary wing aircraft shot down during all of OIF
>27 rotary wing aircraft shot down in OEF
>73 across the whole GWOT loss due to enemy fire
Yeah you're right, air assault missions are completely useless and the numbers really back up your opinion.

>>28649914
It's /k/, if it's not meant for a all out conventional war, or being used to great affect right at this moment, /k/ can't really wrap it's head around it.

File: help.gif (1MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x200px

>>28645511
Sounds like someone is in the 3/509th

>>28649669
You just described 90% of America's wars.

File: 1452034479820.jpg (33KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x360px

>>28645849

>>28645849
The fact that you still seek validation of your retarded ideas after being destroyed so many times just proves your a goddamn fool.

>>28645511
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29yUaVYdvlg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKMI_2ZZ8XM

>>28646218
Your godfather is a liar

>>28645511
>>28645511
In general, yes, they are a waste.

However, there is a (very narrow) strategic (not operational or tactical!) niche where it's one more tool in the toolbox.

The US is rich enough that it can afford to buy every tool just because, and the airborne units are brainwashed enough to milk that excuse for all they can get.

Realistically, the US would lose basically nothing if it stopped funding line airborne units and left all jumps to SF only. But with the long history of brainwash, it's not politically practical - yet.

>>28652595
>being destroyed so many times
You must be thinking of some other person

>>28645970
>Ask the french, they took Mali with para's and TALO.

If you're referring to Operation Serval, they were allowed the use of tactical airlfit by multiple nations, and strategic airlift on the part of the RAF and USAF.