Airborne Obsolete

File: 1484804738960.jpg (130KB, 714x1000px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 714x1000px

fast bump cause imma bitch

>>34298176
Because it's cool anon


> TFW Air Assault qualified, know it's way more useful in reality but still would prefer to jump

>>34298176
No, because if you to need to get a lot of boots on the ground in a hurry, airborne is a better way to do it.

>>34298207
Except we don't do airborne, except to do it because we can.

It hasn't been relevant since market garden.

>>34298226
That's not entirely true. It's just incredibly niche.

File: 1484811760593.jpg (87KB, 772x507px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 772x507px

>>34298188
I've been trying to figure that by having paratroopers jump out of helicopters would be the solution. Being able to fly NOE all the way to the LZ and then pop up quickly to let the paras jump. To the view on enemy radar, they wouldn't be thinking
>oh shit nigga we got skymen up in our shit
They would be thinking
>hey Joe, did you see that pop up target?
>No, no I did not Sgt.Fuckface
But even after thinking that that is a good idea, since you already have the helicopters, why not just land them?

File: burger oclock.gif (1MB, 294x228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 294x228px

>>34298176

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

How else are you going to quickly insert nearly 1000 soldiers into denied territory?

In larger scale operations, paratroopers make a lot more sense. If you need to move more than a few hundred soldiers to a fight by air, you need to do an airborne assault.

If you're talking about the practicality of that kind of insertion is going to be in a counterinsurgency, yeah it's obsolete, but even against a halfway organized 3rd world military, this capability is extremely useful.

Take for instance the amphibious assault conducted by the royal marines in the Falklands War; amphibious assaults have been considered "obsolete" since the second world war, yet it still proved a useful tactic in that conflict.

TL;DR, the practicality of large scale assaults seems questionable only because of the types of conflicts that have occurred in the modern era, and are still viable tactics given the right circumstances, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

File: IMG_9834.jpg (113KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x1024px

>>34298354
My issue isn't in the fact of practicalitiy within the context of an asymmetrical conflict. My problem is the possibility of a large scale airborne operation with the advent of modern anti aircraft weapons and systems even being possible. This is why I brought up the idea of paras in helicopters flying map of the earth to there destination. Expecting large transport aircraft flying a mere 1,200ft above ground being able to survive even basic shoulder launches AA weapons, never the less, going up against Sophisticated, strategic level AAA and SAM's is improbable at best.

I understand the need for large scale airborne assaults and the advantages they bring. But the means to go about it in this modern context says at the very least, there needs to be drastic changes in the tactics or mode of transport for airborne infantry.

>>34298588
Nobody drops troops directly on the enemy anon. You are showing a basic lack of understanding of airborne ops if you think that short range AA is the main threat to the transports..

It's air intercept and theater pop-up threats. They drop where there is nobody.

>>34298176
There isn't a better way to put boots on the ground in large scale. That being said it's incredibly niche

>>34298620
I brought up shoulder launched to make a point that even against non developed nations with minimal AA, can still pose a large threat if in the right place and right time. But you are correct in both shoulder launches weapons are the least of anyone's worries in a "real" war, and that we don't drop infantry directly on enemies. But you are forgetting or are unaware of the capabilities of modern AAA and more importantly SAM's, combined with radar arrays, AWACS and random enemy air patrols. Conducting a modern day Market Garden seems next to impossible.

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

155KB, 1024x768px

>>34298176
>Has the helicopter conducting Air Assault operations made Airborne units obsolete? Why push a few dozen to around one hundred men out of a slow ass low flying plane when you can send in a few helicopters and land quickly? Does Airborne still serve a purpose? Or can helicopters and infantry fully replace them?
No because cargo planes have more range and you don't do a drop into a contested area/theater.
Airborne drops are for rapid reaction prior to conflict; they're a strategic unit.

>>34298647
>implying these wouldn't be taken care of first
There's a reason the Russians have AWACS killers and the US has stealth bombers.

>>34298226
The FFL made combat jumps in Mali.

File: 1451449180852.jpg (1006KB, 2880x1916px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 2880x1916px

>>34298647
>Does Airborne still serve a purpose?
Yes, some prime examples of modern airdrops/usefulness of airborne drops are the French dropping in Mali, Russians moving VDV to the Georgian border prior to the war, and our invasion of Grenada and Panama.
The similar theme among these airdrops is that they were all done very quickly, right before a conflict(or possible conflict). How often do these events happen? Not very, but when you need a large force on the ground and you need it quick, there's nothing faster than an airborne QRF.

>>34298176
The inherent problem with this logic seems to be the implied assumption that Airborne troops are incapable of fighting in any other way unless they were dropped out of an airplane.

Since they are obviously just as capable of serving normal duties, it seems that it would be better to have them trained and not need them, than need them and not have them trained.

Have you even watched Red Dawn?

Paratroopers deployed from commercial airline routes. Just like they did in Afghanistan.

Can't do that from a helicopter.

OP should watch more Hollywood.

On third world countries yes. If we had to fight a superpower they would get blown out of the sky. Its the truth, sorry to upset the pogs on this board.

>>34298176
It would be absolutely vital if we ever needed to do large scale operations in Africa. Irrelevant to the theater=/=obsolete, or else all our strategic bombers and nukes are obsolete because they have no impact on the current ME conflict.

It's a strategic capability the USA and Russia currently wants to retain. Being able to put thousands of troops thousands of miles away without needing an airstrip in a day or so is a just in case capability to is worth retaining.

>>34299155
Which superpower are you thinking about fighting?

Even superpowers can have their air surveillance systems degraded by missile or air strikes ground assaults or just some good old fashioned hacking, then it's go go go.

Even without degradation you can keep air assets 'busy' whilst fast drops are made far from the action.

Superpowers don't really have superpowers.

Helicopters are wildly overrated and a huge part of the reason why the US can't win wars

They are expensive as hell, delicate, take tons of maintenance, and require large bases to operate out of.

>>34298620
>Nobody drops troops directly on the enemy anon.
They did regularly in WW2.

>>34298354
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Viking

From the wiki page:

"Shortly after its 10 April 2003 liberation, the Turkish government began to covertly dispatch their own special forces troops to Kirkuk. Disguised as aid workers, they were to train and equip members of the Iraqi Turkmen Front to destabilize Kurdistan and provide Turkey a pretext to intervene with a large "Peace Keeping" force. Elements of the 173d under the command of Colonel William Mayville identified and intercepted the Turkish soldiers, and escorted them back across the border with no shots being fired."

What the actual fuck? How was there not an international incident over this?

>>34298226
> Suez canal campaign.
Tell that to the Egyptians

>>34299347
This happens all the time.

Unless the international incident you are asking about is that it is reported on Wikipedia

US airdropped paratroopers into northern Iraq and established an airhead on Iraq's northern flank.

>>34298588
There are risk assessments involved. An airborne drop would probably come after some heavy SEAD ops and interdiction missions. MANPAD's aren''t that big of a threat, and it would be hard to figure out where to position them in range of a potential air drop.

When we finally get to build mechs to support paratroopers on foot on those quick response deployments into uncertain terrain, only a large fixed wing transport craft will be able to ferry it around internally and then toss it out the back. A large cargo chopper might be able to winch it around but speed and agility will be affected by 10~20 tons of metal swinging around below.

File: IMG_9830.png (415KB, 750x702px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 750x702px

>>34299414
Autism the post

>>34299474
Just letting you know that nobody should scrap their airborne assets until they're REALLY sure they no longer need them.

>>34299227
Found pog

>low flying

what part of HIGH ALTITUDE low opening dont you understand

>>34299347
?
Sounds like normal muslim behavior

>>34298226

>what is rhodesian bush war?

didnt they encircle the ZANU commies with paratroopers all the time?

The Fallschirmjäers might be the only capable troops my country has left,we sure as hell shouldnt dissolve them.

>>34298226
It's incredibly relevant in Africa

>>34299227
>Nearest SA-XX site is 100 miles away.
>they can't possible get us
>unclassified range for some SAMs is 400km/160mi.

Some can even touch multiple things at once with a high Pk chance.

>>34299660

Nah your Gebirgsjaeger are pretty badass, and the Panzergrenadiers kick ass when they are allowed to shoot back.

t. Was in Kunduz with them

>>34298239
isnt that mroe or less that what the russians did with AN2's and which more or less is possible with helicopters instead? Or is there a problem with the helicopter rotors?

>>34298176
Airborne makes events like "Black Hawk Down" not happen.
Literally just put some Reds in a helicopter and they jump out and the helicopter goes screaming away. No stopping required.
That's the difference.
Air Assault still has to get close enough and still has to stop.

Also, you'd never be able to push that many troops onto a battlefield in conventional warfare this way, it would be for injun tactics only.
It takes a lot less time to load up a few hundred people in a C130 and drop them into enemy territory to take a supply objective than it does to drop thousands of people off by air or sea a fuck ton of miles away from an objective and they have to fight their way across untold enemies needing supplies and other bullshit across the way.
Airborne will be a deciding factor in the wars to come for troop mobility when we are fighting China. Destroy their rice fields and what the fuck they gonna feed their people with, Iphones?

>52 jumps
>25 Hollywood (10 night)
>27 Combat Load (12 night)
Landed in a bush 3 times, had my helmet ripped off my head once, never landed in a tree.

>>34299414
>When we finally get to build mechs

We will rather see air dropped M1A2s filled with crews and ammo in the middle of a city than any kind of mech design.

>>34299813
How are your knees?

>>34299859
Until they hit the ground upside down. Or sideways. Or land anywhere that isn't a nice flat piece of road. Not that it is possible to parachute down such an incredibly overweight vehicle burdened by too many "upgrade packages", or that something that fat and clumsy would stand a chance against something that can properly use the building cover offered by cities and suburban areas.

And I was referring more to countryside or jungle or mountainous landings where you really don't want to drop anything that can't adjust its own landing angle and exact points of contact on touchdown. Bonus points for being able to get up even if it does land on its face, of course.

File: uni-tkr.jpg (2MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2048px

>>34299875

>>34298176

How do you intend to deploy a lot of personnel and equipment in a heavily SEADed enemy in deep territory and fast?

Will you just fill the sky with chinooks? Also, how do you drop any meaningful amount of supplies with just helicopters?

File: I_never_asked_for_this-e1472402375507.jpg (59KB, 500x305px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x305px

>>34299890

>>34298176
helicopters are drastically out ranged by airplanes

>>34299890
My dad has one of those. He's running with it like he's 12 again.

>>34298176
French forces when they intervened in Mali in 2013 did multiple airborne jumps.
One in particular was huge.

It's still alive and well, you just don't hear about it much since the US doesn't do them

File: 1453959386302.jpg (1MB, 1280x4079px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x4079px

No.

Paratroopers are okay but theyre realy not needed. Helicopters are objective shit that are only used to make lockheed more money. Gliders did the job perfectly fine and can still do it better OT THIS DAY.

>>34299628
That was more air assault. They were only dropping a few dozen men at a time and used it as a quick response force.

>>34298176
101 fags

>>34300762
Also essential reading:

>Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa

>>34300834

>Gliders did the job perfectly fine and can still do it better OT THIS DAY.

You must be like Pierre Sprey grandfather or something.

>>34301798
or the sperg obsessed with the M113

>>34298226
>It hasn't been relevant since market garden.

>Grenada
>Panama
>A-stan
>Iraq

All had airborne operations.

Airborne forces give you a large scale package capable of rapid forcible entry in pretty much any kind of environment that no other option can match.

You

>>34301858
in a-stan all of the non-MFF jumps were basically publicity stunts, didn't accomplish anything militarily

File: SAS ocean drop Falklands.jpg (268KB, 1278x956px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1278x956px

SAS ocean drop during the Falklands.

>>34299391
>MANPADS aren't a threat

As long as you have god tier countermeasures. Ukraine lost a Il-76 full of paratroopers almost to the day 3 years ago due to Russian MANPADs.

>>34299890
was that from the landings or the airborne shuffle?

>>34301858
Were any of those jumps critical to the success of the campaign?

The iraq jumps were done to get combat wings and nothing more. Many of them had trucks and bases waiting for them.

>>34301402

still,it had its uses.

>>34298176
We keep them around because they are the Army Infantry units that are actually still a bit hardcore. If we scrapped them we'd only have the shittier leg and mechanized units and the Marines would be the only worthy Infantry.

>>34302149
>Were any of those jumps critical to the success of the campaign?

Yes, as they secured airfields that facilitated the introduction of more combat units, logistics, and isolated the battlefield to prevent reinforcement.

>>34300762
does someone actually have a source for this, because I can legit find nothing

>>34298176

Congratulations, you caught up on the fact everyone else has known for over half a century now.
Airborne is no longer relevant for anything but pure nostalgia.

>>34302336
>Yes, as they secured airfields that facilitated the introduction of more combat units, logistics, and isolated the battlefield to prevent reinforcement.

they secured airfields that had been long abandoned and could have easily been taken by ground forces with less risk.

>>34301981

Running slow like a bitch, or in formations, on asphalt, is far more detrimental to your joints than landing.

I spent 10 years on jump status and the only time my knees every gave me problems was in the service schools when we were forced to run slow as fuck in formations. All that shit went away when I got back to doing squad PT and could stretch it out during the runs.

>>34302403
Grenada and Panama were both active airfields, had units stationed and overwatching them, and tried to engage the planes and jumpers during the operation.

>>34302442
sorry, forgot which post the reply was to. was referring to the Iraq and A-stan jumps

All these posts raise valid points, however. I do not think any anon has addressed the most important issue.
Will it blend?

>>34302442
We're those airfields a threat to anyone but the jumpers?

>>34302576
In Grenada, after Salinas was secured, it served as a staging area for incoming ground units and logistics, and outgoing U.S. citizens dumb enough to live in Grenada.

Both Panamanian airfields seized during Just Cause had military units that could have reinforced operations in Panama city, and could have served as escape fields for Noriega.

The bottom line is that airborne forces can rapidly secure terrain and facilities, which allows you to establish a foothold you can then exploit with other conventional forces and assets.

File: 1497367608558.jpg (10KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x240px

Same thing as saying, Amphibious operations are obsolete because we have airplanes.

>>34303168
When was the last one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqPiDeEcyxE

File: Iraq_invasion_northern_front.gif (74KB, 450x495px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 450x495px

>>34298176
No

>>34298176
Helicopters can't deploy from North Carolina to the other side of the world in the same time frame. They both serve completely different purposes; Air Assault is the modern equivalent of dragoons more than anything.

Honestly I think the Army is understaffed and we should double our numbers for the kind of conflicts we find ourselves in. Having a strategic reserve is a necessity if we're to maintain the balance of power. Reactivate the 11th and 17th Airborne; the only trick is convincing Congress.

Airborne certainly is a fast way to put a lot of men on the ground quickly. Looking back to WWII, entire divisions were being dropped into combat zones rapidly, think Arnhem, Crete and D-Day. It would take a hell of a lot of helicopters to move such a large force of say 12,000 men plus their equipment so rapidly. My impression was that air assault operations were more so geared around deploying battalion sized and smaller units over relatively short distances.