Is there any point to non-SF Airborne forces anymore? Will there

1. No.
2. No.
The same as ceremonial cavalry units still riding horses and military bands to play marching music, they are just leftover legacy units that get kept on because antiquated reggies believe the tradition and shiny badges win wars bullshit.

>>32550259
They can attack airfields and other strategic points of interest that ground forces can't get to quickly, so they still have a reason to be around. I could see Israel doing it to Egypt or some other country.

File: front towards enemy.jpg (121KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x600px

>>32550259
When we retake Britain.

>>32552103
Fuck off, Frog.

Not really. I still want to enlist with an airborne contract though because the units seem to be better. But I seriously doubt I'll ever make a combat jump. It's just a good way to ruin my knees I guess

File: anime.png (235KB, 561x364px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 561x364px

Rapid reaction forces designed around airlift capabilities from the start, theoretically equipped with light vehicles capable of supporting or dulling an offensive into a country.

Hopefully, this means the 82nd Airborne with M8 AGS in the upcoming years. It's been too long.

rapid deployment is still a need.

Also look at us invasion of iraq in 03: with turkey preventing use of their territory in the north. They can still be used to open up new fronts.

If we had gliders to drop armored vehicles with them
Then it would happen all the time

Every time a war happens they WANT to do it but they don't have the equipment for it

File: saut-antares.jpg (64KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1024x768px

French Foreign Legion dropped into Mali successfully in 2013.

>>32550259
No. There is little point in most military units in general anymore. The only things they're going to fight are untrained, uncoordinated terrorists with a horrible assortment of 30-60 y/o equipment. Which they mostly just bomb the fuck out and can't be retaliated upon anyway.

However in the future I imagine there will be minor wars with equal (in tech & training) opponents. No mass war but small underhanded ones for the economic and political interests of corporations. Especially if we are to expand into space more. Perhaps a future rendition of airborne forces, think akin to ODST in Halo but more like the pictured forces, less orbital and ineffective futurism for futurism's sake. Maybe they'll be actually relevant in such a future and type of war. In foreseeable and present conflicts of today? Almost completely useless.

>>32552248
Why?
What organised force actually prevented them landing on bush airstrips?
>theatre over actual strategic need

>>32551694
>>32552143

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team#Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_I

Dont talk out of your ass. The 82nd almost dropped into Afghanistan too but a company of Rangers jumped instead after Intel indicted the forces they where up against weren't as strong as believed.

>>32552485

Correction the 82nd almost jumped into iraq

>>32552461

The Legion loves using their Parachute Regiment. They usually get the first call to go anywhere. They also did an even more recent combat drop into Niger in 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4j9bgCbfc8

45:20. It's in French but they do a good job of explaining it with visual models.

>>32552173
Isn't the M8 AGS dead?

>>32552574
Nah, the Mobile Protected Firepower program is the Army's top priority.

Revived M8 AGS with modern thermals/some enhanced electronics/etc is the prime contender under BAE, there are a few other competing designs out there.


Probably going to be procured.

>>32550259
Until the Martian civil war kicks off and we see the first large scale use of orbital drop combat mechs, no.

File: 1474046452883.jpg (155KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x768px

>>32550259
>What is rapid deployment and QRF
Usually airborne forces are ready at a moments notice and can be deployed very quickly, much faster than by sea; very handy when things start escalating quickly or you need something secured. You're not going to drop guys near or above the enemy.

>>32552634
I thought the Stryker was in the M8's intended role

>>32552634
It would still be pretty damn cool if the army accepted it into service though, seems like it would do well.

File: 1046002252.jpg (73KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1000x541px

>>32553049
The M1128 isn't air droppable so they're looking into other options like pic related.

>>32550259
Easy. When an area needs a large infantry force but is too small for a proper airfield/lz and the weather is too dangerous to attempt some type of naval assault.

>>32553117
Nothing that is ever usable will be airdroppable
Just doesn't work that way

>>32553049
>muh m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVIObURCWwY

>>32552850
this, ukrainians used paratroopers to secure donetsk airport, no?

tho, they later fucked up cause they wanted them to ground assault after tug-o-war BS, so they took losses and ultimately lost

File: M8buford.jpg (65KB, 432x471px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 432x471px

>>32553117

I doubt they'd take that frankenstein creation when the M8 was already greenlit once before

Honestly pretty disappointed in GD, I'd like to see them get more contracts.

M8 is rad though.

File: ABkitchen159_72972_6454eb0076aa338.jpg (75KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x400px

>>32550259
Airborne cooks?

http://china-defense.blogspot.my/2009/09/airborne-backpack-kitchen.html?m=1

File: IDF_New_Parachute.jpg (60KB, 760x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 760x500px

>>32550259
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
It's a strategic ability. Perhaps a bad comparison, but you also won't dispose of your nuclear weapons because you're not actually going to use them.

When you fight in a more serious war, not against insurgents, and over large distances, airdropping becomes a more viable option that can offer you an advantage on the field, maybe even be a game changer.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 800x471px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x471px

>>32550259

> nur ein einziges Mal solches Material zu meiner Verfügung

They can be deployed quickly and in force far away.
Soviets ones were really light mechanized troops with a lot of specialized equipment that could be dropped, and so are Russian ones, and they are planning to expand them in near future.

>>32554102
>It's a strategic ability.
Correct. Half of the military's job of securing peace is through deterrence.

File: M551 Sheridan.jpg (965KB, 2839x1849px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 2839x1849px

>>32553909

You take that back

>>32551694
You're an idiot. When, not if, when there's another war with a conventional enemy who's technology and equipment are modern enough to force our tactics to employ a large number of soldiers deep behind enemy lines (invasion, capture an airfield or other strategic point) airborne will have a legitimate purpose.

>>32552143
it's not that hard on your body. i have 30+ jumps and I'm doing fine. also being in an airborne unit generally means being a higher quality soldier. leg units (units that don't jump) are usually less disciplined and lazy.

go for 18X or 11X if you make it you'll be SF or a Ranger. if you don't you'll still be a paratrooper who jumps out of planes, and an infantryman who gets to shoot bad guys.

>>32550259

The UK has it right. 16th Air Assault consists of troops trained for parachute and helicopter assault. Both of which give skills that are useful for battles that require neither - see the Falklands.

wasn't the role of airborne troops kind of replaced with heliborne troops?

>>32557247
not at all

File: rr.jpg (103KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 736x552px

iirc Rangers still conduct Airfield Seizure training all the time.

>what are my chances of jumping into combat as a Ranger in the next 4 years

It's very useful for combat in Africa

>>32552270
>There is little point in most military units in general anymore. The only things they're going to fight are untrained, uncoordinated territorials with a horrible assortment of 300-600 y/o equipment.
t. Europe in 1914

>>32557558
rangers are SF tho

>>32557741

lol

>>32550259

Quickest way to deploy troops I think.

>>32557772
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers

>The 75th Ranger Regiment is an elite airborne light infantry combat formation within the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC).

>role: special operations

I can't tell if I'm stupid or you're stupid or if the OP literally meant Green Berets specifically instead of all SOF type forces and that got lost in translation for me

>>32557821
He's baiting.

But I believe OP meant all non-SOF airborne forces.

>>32557831
oh

he got me pretty good

File: 1312259573754.jpg (54KB, 431x415px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 431x415px

>>32550259
Yes- see Africa.

Yes- see Africa.

>>32552130
>"Fuck off, Frog."

>pic shows an american soldier
>implying frogs want to "retake" something they never really took in the first place

anon, why are you so angry ?

>>32557247

Helicopters (and tiltrotors) are shorter range and slower than cargo aircraft, they are a tactical capability, paratroopers today are a strategic capability

A group of C-17s loaded with paratroopers enables the USA to put thousands of soldiers nearly anywhere in the world within a day or so with no need for local logistics or facilities.

File: USNS_Spearhead_(JHSV_1).,_Feb._10,_2013_1.jpg (682KB, 2805x1580px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 2805x1580px

>>32557797

If it's not within 250 miles of a coastline, maybe

File: JGSDF_1st_Airborne_Brigade_-_Fast_rope_20090111(Narashino).jpg (3MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3872x2592px

>>32557247

You can put more men down at greater distance with fewer machines if you Airborne rather than Airmobile

Helicopters are better for small unit operations.

>>32552500
>They usually get the first call to go anywhere

Not since the end of conscription. It was usual before due to the fact that they were fully professional troops at a time when other regiments had conscripts which may or may not be ready, qualified for combat drops, etc, and there were more stringent rules for deploying conscripts, like parliament approval and limited deployment time, don't really rememberthe details, so they usually sent the Legion first and assembled their following reinforcements out of the available forces. Now Legion regiments are treated the same way as any other and whoever is the operationnal regiments at a given moment gets to perform the drop.

>>32550259
We in the 82nd train airfield seizures all the goddamn time. When the time comes, we will be ready.

File: 346.jpg (62KB, 410x412px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 410x412px

If you got rid of all non-SF units, would they still be special?

>>32560840

Are you fucking high?

Rangers would be called in for that before the fucking All Alcoholics

>>32556282
>aluminum armor
>firing the gun fucks the missile system

yeah, nah

>>32560941
>>Aluminum Armor

I want Pentagon Wars to Leave, this is not a problem

>>firing the gun fucks the missile system

I want WarIsBoring to Leave, this isn't true

>>32558166

This so fucking hard

If you're just looking at it through the eyes of US command airborne troops look less and less relevant, but take a second to think about it from the perspective of an African nation.

How in the fuck do you secure or at least control vast territory cheaply? You can't use mechanized troops, you'd need bases all over the fucking place to be able to respond everywhere in any reasonable time, so what do you do?

Plop a paratrooper base in the middle of it.

File: Egyptian_Mi-8_Hip_helicopters_after_unloading_troops.jpg (1MB, 2716x1156px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2716x1156px

>>32561032

If we're talking about an area of operation the size of a single nation, why the FUCK would you use Airborne forces over Heliborne forces?

>>32561048
>African countries
>Having the capital, training, patience, or technical expertise to maintain enough helicopters to outfit an air mobile division

Pick one

>>32561032
?
How about you don't waste time and money in fucking africa unless you are colonizing the place

Why is France helping African countries when their own country is being swamped by shitskins?

>>32550259
>Airborne is antiquated
Yeah like Russia and China aren't massive open countries with very limited airforces.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is the lack of a drop-able IFV

File: J-11B Formation.jpg (286KB, 2048x1215px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2048x1215px

>>32561224

>China
>Limited Airforce

What?