What is the point of paratroopers in the modern era? with such

>>33902219
not every enemy you fight has MANPADs, we have to deal with low intensity threats as well, and sometimes an airdrop into low tech enemy liens can be very beneficial

>>33902219
move large amounts of troops and equipment in a short amount of time.

>>33902219
Maybe you are fighting a conventional force with strong air deterrence but want to air drop a large number of men into an area thought to be inaccessible and that is therefore lightly defended, and you've also heavily bombarded what few enemy AA assets are in that area.

Maybe you are fighting a non-conventional force without air deference and need to reinforce an isolated and cut off unit.

Maybe you want to move a whole lot of people to an area you fully control but you want to get them there really fucking quickly because you're worried about a large scale attack that might be coming.

Maybe you're fighting a war of occupation and you want to reassert control over a hard to reach area and also put the fear of god into your enemy by showing them you can instantly have boots on the ground in large numbers overnight.

Maybe parachutes are just cool as shit so shut the fuck up

They just do it for shits and giggles, its a tradition thing

Noone actually practices it, nor do they develop realistic doctrine, or procure proper equipment for it.

The US especially has more transport aircraft than they know what to do with.

File: Sentry.jpg (56KB, 500x603px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x603px

>>33902361
this post

>> lots of planes out tonight... good thing the enemy is not close...

>>33902219
They're essential shock troops nowadays. Trained to wreak havoc without supplies behind enemy lines. Doesn't necessarily require to be parachuted.

>>33902445

Since you are stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops

British paratroopers no longer learn how to parachute jump

realistic answer, air assault and seizure of airfields to bring in large amounts of reinforcements and supplies.

>>33904643
What? Why not?

File: 1376934111697.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>33902219
They're a strategic asset, capable of rapid deployment.

>>33904643
Yeah well, neither does the 101st Airborne...

>>33902445
>Noone actually practices it, nor do they develop realistic doctrine,
The French dropped paras in Mali in 2013.

>>33904971
No planes to jump from, no budget to fund jumps, politically incorrect for their military to act like a military.

>>33904995
They were converted to a chopper division, 82nd still does jump training

File: citizen04.jpg (50KB, 300x208px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x208px

>>33902219
>what is senior citizen

>>33902219
>What is the point of paratroopers in the modern era?
I hate this attitude. Just because you don't need it right now doesn't mean you should get rid of your capability and knowledge to do so if it becomes needed once again.

>>33902219

How else are you going to get infantry quickly on a point when infrastructure is either non-existent or destroyed? It might be dangerous, but paratroopers are a necessary evil, especially in regions like Africa.

You don't drop troops and equipment right on top of the enemy, you drop them a few km out.

>>33902219
>Planes are flown in without EW escort.

You see anon, even though radar is a thing for early warning it can also be nullified if there are waves of the same frequency hitting a crosswind. Also the thing is none of those transports are flying mach 2 with loud jets, but quieter turbofans.
Paratroopers have a role to maintain aircraft command and control by verifying strike targets and providing landing zones for heavy lifts.

>>33902219
We have gotten rid of a lot of paratroopers in favor of air assault (helo mobile) and will continue to

>>33902296
Who the fuck doesn't have MANPADs?
Al-Qaeda has MANPADs. ISIS has MANPADs.
Every fucking relevant country and some of the irrelevant ones have MANPADs.

Who the fuck are we going to be fighting that requires Paratroopers (not SF parachute insertions, but actual mobilized divisions) that doesn't have them?

File: gallonsofsemen.jpg (46KB, 300x193px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x193px

>>33902219

>>33902219

Paratroopers are not and have never been intended to be dropped into areas where the enemy has a lot of AA

>>33902361
>Maybe you are fighting a conventional force with strong air deterrence but want to air drop a large number of men into an area thought to be inaccessible and that is therefore lightly defended, and you've also heavily bombarded what few enemy AA assets are in that area.

Suicide to any competent opponent

>Maybe you are fighting a non-conventional force without air deference and need to reinforce an isolated and cut off unit.

Why parachute in if they have no AA? Apaches and Chinooks will get the job done fine without spreading your men with minimal equipment over miles

>Maybe you want to move a whole lot of people to an area you fully control but you want to get them there really fucking quickly because you're worried about a large scale attack that might be coming.

This is possibly the most retarded use. If you have full control, there is no need to parachute in.

>Maybe you're fighting a war of occupation and you want to reassert control over a hard to reach area and also put the fear of god into your enemy by showing them you can instantly have boots on the ground in large numbers overnight.

Again, why not Chinooks, or anything other than parachuting in?

>>33905059
what? The UK fucking worships there military.
Our army just doesn't do anything anymore because Iraq was a failure and killed the labour party so the torys are pretty sceptical to intervene now

>>33908787
>Suicide to any competent opponent
You do this before things get hot genius.
>Why parachute in if they have no AA? Apaches and Chinooks will get the job done fine without spreading your men with minimal equipment over miles
Helos can't carry as much and don't have as much range, if you don't have a large staging area in the region you can't use helos. See French in Mali.
>This is possibly the most retarded use. If you have full control, there is no need to parachute in.
Did you miss where anon said "quickly"? In 2008 VDV brigades suddenly popped up along the Georgian border within 24 hours right before the shit hit the fan.

>>33902219

>Being able to deploy a strategic level of troops into am area that you aren't expecting a strategic level of troops
>What's the point?

You can open up a two front war without notice or time for you to move your troops. You suddenly have a division of troops fucking up your supply lines and breaking shit. You lack the air mobility assets to mobilize your own forces to counter them because "muh MANPADS". The 82nd just fucks your shit up senpai.

We aren't talking a couple dozen guys. We are talking thousands. You send in your SEAD forces and open up a pocket. Your airborne get in. It's not that hard to understand.

File: 1493434887698.jpg (1MB, 1280x4079px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x4079px

anyone have a better screencap of this?

>>33902219
the ability to put boots on the ground anywhere in the world within a twelve hour period is not a concept to sneer at.

>>33904643

Are you sure?

As of 2015 they were in the process of paving the way for full cooperation between the USA's 82nd Airborne and the British Parachute Regiment to drop as an integrated force https://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/13/82nd-british-airborne-exercise/25544073/

In 2016 the British paras dropped alongside the 82nd on an exercise in Europe http://www.army.mod.uk/news/28593.aspx

Unless there has been a sudden change in policy in the last year, you're talking bollocks.

>>33908854
>paratroopers with no heavy equipment get fucked up by first mechanised unit they meet
what's the heaviest weapon you can jump with?

>>33908787

Look at the range of a C-17 compared to a Chinook or even an Osprey. Paratroopers can deploy on a strategic scale.

> If you have full control, there is no need to parachute in.

If you have an operational runway, the preference will always be to land, however, even if you do have a runway of a sufficient size to land a relatively STO airlifter like the C-130J, it might be damaged, or threatened by enemy artillery.

>>33905122
It's sad though

The US Army is retarded with paratroopers. Most people that go to the school are 5 jump chumps. that do it for the promotion points.

i say, either everyone goes through jump school after AIT and OSUT, or only those that will be in jumping airborne units can go to jump school and jump qualified people can only ever be in jumping units.

>>33909310
Russians jump with light armor and
>paratroopers with no heavy equipment get fucked up by first mechanised unit they meet
>What are ATGMs?
Generally paras are for rapid deployment and securing of strategic locations/assets. You're not going to send them into enemy territory alone.

>>33909310
AT-4. Carl-G Maybe a stinger or two.
Any mech infantry will BTFO airborne troops, and if airborne troops get bogged down they're done.

Its important to remember that the mere existance of airborne divisions is effective, even if they are never utilized as airborne troops. Knowing that your enemy has the capability to drop strategic numbers of infantry and light mech practically anywhere forces you to take that into account when deploying yout own assets. Instead of putting more troops at the front, you now have to keep more assets in reserve and spend more resources protecting high value locations than you would have to if there was no threat of enemy paratroopers.

Even if we never use our airborne troops in their intended capacity ever again, they are still forcing the enemy to reposition as if we are going to use them. If they dont, then they leave things open to getting btfo by our paratroopers. Forcing the enemy to spread out and focus on other potential threats makes the ground invasion that much more likely to succeed.

>>33909486
And all of those air insertions could be done with Helicopters and Ospreys.
Face it airborne is an outdated concept that made sense in the pre helo era.

>>33909486
>. Instead of putting more troops at the front, you now have to keep more assets in reserve and spend more resources protecting high value locations than you would have to if there was no threat of enemy paratroopers.
And then wild B-2 appears and drops dozens JDAM on your assets and troops reserves can't do anything about it. STRATEGY.

>>33909310
>>33909452

Modern ATGMs, like the latest versions of the TOW, and the Javelin can be dropped quite easily. Besides, you would not drop paratroopers to hold open ground with no prepared fortifications. Light infantry in dense forest/jungle, mountainous terrain, and urban environments would all have a good chance against heavier formations, if they have the air support to outweigh enemy indirect fire support.

>>33902219
>>33902311
>>33903432
>>33908854
Op take notice that all the people defending pushing people out of planes for no reason to get hurt backs and knees are the same guys who shit on Marines for being redundant tactically.
(Even though the real reason they keep Marines around is so president can deploy at his discretion).

>>33909518

What exactly are you trying to probe with this? That bombers blow shit up?

???

File: 648457b435644c56a13d4a672c65d653[1].jpg (44KB, 736x488px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 736x488px

how long do you think it would take a SPAAG, turned off and hiding under trees and camo netting, to activate everything and start blasting away at a cargo plane ?

>>33909513

Please, tell me how you you would move a division size formation of infantry from the CONUS to an island lacking a full-size airbase in the South China Sea or the Mediterranean Sea using only rotary wing assets within 48 hours.

That is what strategic mobility is.

>>33909596

A short enough amount of time to the point where it would be blasting away the moment those planes were in range of doing so. Obviously.

>>33909600
you send the Muhreens. which can assault the island with helicopters and amphibious vehicles.

>>33909513
What part about range and cargo capacity do you not understand? if you don't have a large base/staging area in the region, helos are worthless.

File: v_22_hero_lrg_1280x720[1].jpg (158KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x720px

>>33909625
Hellooooo

>>33909622
>Assault the island
The idea is be there before the bullets start flying, dumbass.

You're logic is flawed. AA has always been good, and the fact is when paratroopers are deployed they are usually deployed from hundreds of planes, not just 1, so will some die? Yeah probably, however the whole point of it is mobility, and is a huge strategic advantage against countries with underdeveloped AA systems.

>>33909513

Yes, but only if your target is in range of those helos and you have enough of them to carry the entire division+ of infantry. It makes sense to us because our military has a fuckhuge logistic network and never enters battle without having a massive overkill of assets on hand or in reserve. Airborne's role is more geared towards conventional warfare, something we practically never see.

>>33909600
It's almost like you're trying to prove the point: you send in amphibious Vehicles and helos. If only we had a branch that specializes in amphibious operations. You know since 80% of the world population lives near coasts.....

>>33909649
Marines can still do that better, and bring heavy vehicles and weapons. There is at least a heavy mechanized division's worth of marine equipment always out at sea.

you move the marines stuff into position and the marines come and meet up with it.

>>33909640

As if that has anywhere remotely near the cargo capacity or range of a c17. Literally proving the point you are arguing against.

>>33909640
>Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey
>Range: 1000 mi
>Capacity: 20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook)
>Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
>Range: 7,300~ mi
>Payload: 270,000 lb (122,470 kg)
You retarded or what?

>>33908787
Apaches have a combat radius of ~260nmi, and a ferry range of just over 1,000nmi. Chinooks have a range of 400nmi, a combat radius half that, and a ferry range of 1,200nmi.

A C-130 has a range of ~2,000nmi.

If you still want aircraft to provide support, making some parts on a F-5 fold like they do on Naval Fighters, you could potentially get one to fit inside the cargo bay of a C-130J, or have 7' hanging out of the cargo bay of a C-130. Less folding would be required to launch the F-5 out of a C-17 or C-5.

>>33909659
Please tell me in what world we have ever invaded a country that wasn't supported by a regional base or aircraft carrier. No general Will ever send a divisions worth of troops off unsupported again after Market Garden. That cluster fuck proved that tanks are table stakes for modern war.

>>33909582
>That bombers blow shit up?
Yes they do. Now your move porotroopers.

>>33909705

None? Why are you asking retarded questions?

Its a strategic asset. We dont fight conventional wars anymore where strategic assets are useful. Apparently in retard faggotville (your hometown) that somehow means we will never fight a conventional war ever again so we might as well dismantle all of our strategic assets and doctrines completely. Just because they havnt been useful in decades doesnt mean they will never ever be useful again.

>>33909622
>>33909663

The speed of a LHD/LHA is 20-25 knots. An amphibious warship sailing to the Western Philippines even from somewhere as close as Okinawa or Guam is going to be far slower than a para-drop from the CONUS. These same paratroopers can respond as needed to anywhere within 10,000 km of their base. The response time to a developing situation is incomparable, it doesn't even need to be used, the fact that the USA can put so many troops on the ground anywhere so quickly has got to factor into anyone's planning.

>>33909683
>>33909687
Ospreys are already in the region. They can start shuttling Marines in sooner. They can extract marines.

.

>>33909772

Maybe, you know, there are some objectives that are better captured than they are destroyed? Sure, a B2 can rape an airfield no problem. But what if capturing that airfield is key to the overall strategy, as it will allow supplies to be brought in by transport aircraft in strategic quantities literally right at the frontline? Thats where airborne comes in.

Again, we dont see this because we havnt been fighting conventional wars and there hasnt been a need for an entire airborne division to be dropped. We have, however, dropped in rangers to capture airfields - same principle on a much smaller scale.

paratroopers could be used as shock troops in africa

>>33909828
So what part of "if you don't have a large base/staging area in the region" do you not understand?

>>33909807
yeah, a bunch of light infantry. which has to hold out for days until the marines show up.

that whole 18 hours ready bn nonsense is an outdated cold war strategic deterrence.

plus you aren't going to drop paratroopers in contested airspace. So the navy and marines will have to win the skies and conduct SEAD first.

File: 1200px-Amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Belleau_Wood_(July_7_2004)[1].jpg (163KB, 1200x758px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1200x758px

>>33909852
toot toot

>>33908684
It worked in Grenada at least

>>33909828
This isnt a zero sum scenario. Both assets are tools in the commanders belt. The existance of one doesnt negate the usefulness of the other.

Again, you are obviously not grasping the ridiculous strategic value of being able to drop divisions of infantry from the US mainland to anywhere on planet earth in under 48 hours. Just because we havnt had any need to do so doesnt mean we shouldnt keep such a capability in reserve - forcing our enemies to deploy their assets accordingly. Maybe helo insertions are more practical 95% of the time; the enemy still needs to deploy to defend against airborne assaults despite expecting just helos.

File: 10289302183901.png (224KB, 358x310px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 358x310px

>>33909871
What is Carter and Tehran

>>33909871
Still slower than an airborne QRF and we're talking about the concept/usage of airborne units. Not everyone has force projection capabilities.

>>33909871

Cool and where is the division+ of infantry and the rotary aircraft to transport them supposed to be in that pic?

Why do you assume every target will be within range of a naval-borne assault to begin with? This is fucking retarded.

>>33909310

You don't leave them there to fight the war alone, goofball. You use them to cut off the enemies forward elements so you can overrun them with your own armour and then link up.

>>33909909
scrubbed by brown out and Carter's unwillingness to do anything else.
>>33909908
you aren't dropping an entire division anywhere these days. there was some small scale airborne ops in Iraq2. some of those were just for show so people could get a mustard stain.

>>33909310
My dick

>>33909858

>yeah, a bunch of light infantry. which has to hold out for days until the marines show up.

Unless we are talking about dropping them in open terrain or in an area where the enemy can rapidly move up large numbers of forces, this isn't a problem. As you have pointed out, there will be other assets, like the marines, approaching the area so they do not need to hold out indefinitely.

>that whole 18 hours ready bn nonsense is an outdated cold war strategic deterrence.

Is it? Conventional strategic weapons are actually still very popular simply because they can be used more freely than nuclear ones. "Prompt Global Strike" was very much a post-Cold War program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike Being able to move forces globally at short notice is always going to be a useful capability as long as the USA has global ambitions.

>plus you aren't going to drop paratroopers in contested airspace. So the navy and marines will have to win the skies and conduct SEAD first.

If the air space just needs to be secured for the duration of the drop, a long range tanker supported mission, or aircraft carrier aviation (no, most carrier groups don't keep large amphibious forces as a matter of course) is adequate.

>>33909957

>these days
Correct. And when you share your magical crystal ball that confirms that never again will we have that need, maybe the army will finally scrap its airborne assets. Until then we keep them just in case.

>>33909687
Before or after it crashes?

>>33904995

They were converted to air assault. Still "airborne" cause they're trained fo be deployed by air assets (helicopters), they're just not paratroopers

File: 1429502509048.jpg (724KB, 1529x2048px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1529x2048px

>>33909957
Yeah Doesn't change the fact an egress was considered and was fucked up because there wasn't a present friendly OA like an AA would have

JK thats all conjecture. Fuck carter though, I solemnly believe he is caused the Gulf war because not having large OPs inna theatre(or no theatre at all) was bad for the health
>>33909950
This also Asspreys cant drop at least a Regiments size Tank unit in under a week like a C-130 can.

You're also forgetting pallets full of javelins, SMAAW, and just about a million M72s and M136 as well as everything you need for a well rounded task force to take on anything.

C-130s and the 82nd can reek hell on IS if given another excuse

>>33910020
>All this C-130 talk getting my dick hard
The MC-130 is God's gift to earth
t. Maintainer

>>33908739
>sees picture of guy drinking what is clearly water
>his mind immediately turns it into cum

Anon, I think we should talk....

>>33908787
>Why parachute in if they have no AA? Apaches and Chinooks will get the job done fine

Have you been asleep for the past 50 years?

Airborne troops use helicopters now.

File: 9868696708b06cd3de4e7139fb397f71.jpg (334KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1365x2048px

>>33910307
Not to mention at least for the US Green berets have been in the "State Destabilization" biz for decades now. This means they can locate EVERYTHING that can impede a landing.

Not to mention just about every other SF and SOF unit the US military has.

Really most modern wars are easy to get into, easy to kill 9.2 million different people in 15 years, but its explaining it back home thats hard.

File: 4085597.jpg (66KB, 750x644px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x644px

>>33902219
I don't know but we still use them.
It seems to be a fast and cheap way to deploy large troops near the battlefield.

>>33902219
Rapid mobilization, rapid deployment, deterrence.

Consider the following:

Against a conventional enemy, there are still numerous points of entry that are not readily defensible. Of course, if you mobilized a regular infantry/armored/motorized division to that point, it would be detected and the area would become defensible. So, you drop light infantry several km away, and they can trek in, securing a foothold.

Or, you're in afghanistan. You control a province, and have political and military control, but Pakistanis are crossing the border and shooting shit up, which is causing the borderline and not so friendlies in the province to become militant. Now, you drop in a bunch of troops, very, very quickly. This does two things. One, it's a terrifying show of force. To these mountain-bound goatfuckers, 100+ armed men falling from the sky, and telling you to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up as an effect.

Two, you just provided reinforcements to your force, and can now overwhelmingly put pressure on the enemy.

Or, you're in a country like Iraq or Iran, or Syria, or any other bumblefuck middle eastern shithole, where there just isn't the infrastructure, and there are large areas that the enemy has abandoned or been pushed out of, that you can now occupy with airborne.

>>33909972
Must be why they're considered light infantry.

>>33902219
I was on the jump into Bashur airfield in Northern Iraq during operation Northern delay with the 173rd. I see your point, OP. The reason for paratroopers is that it's a big middle finger to an enemy landing a brigade in your back yard

>>33902219
Range.

>>33903906
The Russians are retarded tho.