/k/ do you think airborne operations are still viable in today's military environment?
I'm airborne and I think it's a waste of fucking time, as does just about every other Joe in my battalion. The only people who love this shit are jumpmasters and the battalion commander.
(I do like my 150$ though...)
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.
Ask the french, they took Mali with para's and TALO.
TALO has the same advantages.
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.
>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
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.
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?
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
I don't like copy pasting wiki but
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. 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. The original Konkurs missile penetrates 750–800 mm of RHA while the improved Konkurs-M penetrates 750–800 mm of RHA after ERA due to an additional tandem warhead. The firing range is reduced to 2500 m during night time.
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!
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.
>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
We're the same, me and you. See? We're the same man!
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
>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
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
>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.