For you paratrooper types....

[addo1]

  Reminds me a little of disc 2 of BAND OF BROTHERS.  Pretty Good!

[♠SARKID♠]

Cat People paratroopers.  Oh yeah.

[Al Sayre]

OK Nate...

[dogboy]

As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.

I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.

Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.

[DHollywood]

As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.

I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.

Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.

You seem to not be current in your history.

There have been combat jumps in A-Stan and Iraq.  I am good friends with one of the Rangers who jumped in BOTH Grenada and Panama and their parachute entry was a deciding factor in the quick resolution of those conflicts.

You obviously have never been to jump school and served on jump status.

I wonder how many helicopters it would take to transport an entire brigade of soldiers into a hostile DZ?  How many would be shot down?  Compared to C141's full of Paratroopers at a much safer altitude in the dark of night.

And what does CAP Staff College have to do with the knowledge of combat jumps anyway?

Legs....

[Skyray]

Those same academics told us that the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and the Sidewinder had made guns on airplanes obsolete.  Then along came the unpleasantness in beautiful French Indo-China and all three services were scrambling to put the guns back on the airplanes.  Air Cavalry has its uses, but give me Airborne any day.

[NIN]

Yeah, Staff College taught me to use resources and not to be dogmatic.

Some strategic and tactical military terms I have learned over the years, and not just from staff college:

Power Projection
Vertical envelopment
Airhead
Global reach (not to be confused with "Global Reach")
Denied entry
Air/Land Battle

The deployment of troops via parachute is just one tool in your toolbox.

Rangers?  Jump into airfields and secure an airhead for the follow-on of more forces.  Nobody suggests that gigantic mass-tactical airborne operations, similar to Overlord or Market Garden, will be the way into the future. Far from it.

Gonna project a flight of 10 MH-47Gs from Fort Campbell to transport 100 SO troops into some god-forsaken airfield in Afghanistan to seize it for some C-17s to bring a division in?

No, but if you need to force your way into a land-locked place like Afghanistan without the ability to pre-deploy aviation assets nearby (K2, etc), then you've got to do stuff like fly in paratroops from fairly far away to secure an airfield to then bring in the heavy stuff.

Traditional heliborne air assault has a limit on the battlespace due to the inherent abilities for rotary wing assets to project power.  Want to deploy a helo 500 miles with 24 infantrymen?  You will need 2 refuel stops enroute.  Oh, and by the way, thats a 5hr drive.  Minimum.  So to put a company of infantry in, you're looking at 7-8 Chinook-class aircraft, crossloaded.   OK, there's 125-150 guys.

How about we take 2 C-130s for about 2hrs, no gas stops enroute, and drop the whole unit in.

Or 7-8 Herks and drop in 2-4 companies.

And do it from MUCH further away.

Helicopters do no represent the entire equation.  And I say this as a gigantic proponent of Army Aviation. 

[dogboy]

As anyone who has been to Staff College knows, they'll almost certainly never be another combat jump. Paratrooper training is a huge waste of money and resources.

I think the last combat drop (excluding commando operations and what were basically public relations events in Granada and Panama) was the Suez crisis in 1957.

Simply, the helicopter-borne troops can do everything paratroopers can do and better.

You seem to not be current in your history.

There have been combat jumps in A-Stan and Iraq.  I am good friends with one of the Rangers who jumped in BOTH Grenada and Panama and their parachute entry was a deciding factor in the quick resolution of those conflicts.

You are mistaken. Grenada and Panama were both publicity stunts without much military value. In both cases, they were without any real opposition or their would have been a paratrooper slaughter.

There have been useful jumps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Small commando type jumps as I stated.

The only large (about a battalion) recent airborne operation I am aware of was Bashar Airport in 2003 which was controlled by Kurdish forces and US Special Forces. There was no opposition, so I didn't include it as a "combat drop".

There are two fundamental problem with paratroopers. One, they are extremely vulnerable in descent and immediately on reaching the ground. Second, they almost completely defenseless against determined counter-attack because they lack armor, AA, and artillery.

You obviously have never been to jump school and served on jump status.

No, but I did 22 insertions under fire in Vietnam. How many combat jumps did you say you've made?

I wonder how many helicopters it would take to transport an entire brigade of soldiers into a hostile DZ?  How many would be shot down?  Compared to C141's full of Paratroopers at a much safer altitude in the dark of night.

I don't think there will be any more jumps from the C-141.  All C-141's have been retired.

Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.

A 2000 man brigade would require about 75 helicopters, more if heavy equipment is required.The US Army alone has over seven thousand helicopters.

And what does CAP Staff College have to do with the knowledge of combat jumps anyway?

It was Air University's Air Command and Staff College that I studied airborne operations in. Seriously, no one with half a brain in the military believes that even battalion-level paratrooper operations against opposition are feasible in modern warfare. They were barely feasible in WWII.

Think about it this way. The US Marine Corps is the premier US expeditionary force. They even have their own air division. How many paratroopers do they bother to have?

Airborne is important to the Army because it is an elite. Special selection and hard training make them excellent soldiers, among the best in the world. It's the jump training that is an anachronism, a waste of money and resources.

[dogboy]

No, but if you need to force your way into a land-locked place like Afghanistan without the ability to pre-deploy aviation assets nearby (K2, etc), then you've got to do stuff like fly in paratroops from fairly far away to secure an airfield to then bring in the heavy stuff.
<snip>
How about we take 2 C-130s for about 2hrs, no gas stops enroute, and drop the whole unit in.

Or 7-8 Herks and drop in 2-4 companies.

And do it from MUCH further away.

Helicopters do no represent the entire equation.  And I say this as a gigantic proponent of Army Aviation. 

I agree, that under the very unusual circumstances of very light opposition, an existing airfield that can be captured intact so that fixed wing aircraft can be landed immediately after it is secured, and all friendly bases are far away, paratroops would be the best device to deploy.

How many paratroops does that justify having? Maybe one battalion (about a thousand troops)? Maybe two or three? The Army Rangers already have three battalions why does the Army need two whole more divisions of the jump qualified?

[DHollywood]

You are mistaken. Grenada and Panama were both publicity stunts without much military value. In both cases, they were without any real opposition or their would have been a paratrooper slaughter.

There have been useful jumps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Small commando type jumps as I stated.

The only large (about a battalion) recent airborne operation I am aware of was Bashar Airport in 2003 which was controlled by Kurdish forces and US Special Forces. There was no opposition, so I didn't include it as a "combat drop".

Since you were not there you will understand if I take the word of those who were there over yours.    I'm confident that certain of the rescued students in Grenada feel there was much military value to our operations there.   I'm sure the families of the soldiers who gave their lives during these operations would disagree with you that there was no opposition.

But I'm sure it does not compare to Vietnam where you were. 

I dont claim any combat jumps.  I would however suit up and jump into a hot LZ anytime and anywhere I was ordered to do so.   I would do so because I am a Paratrooper.  I don't expect anyone would understand that who isn't a Paratrooper.

While I can fathom your academic premise that jump school and airborne troops are a waste of time/money, et. al., it seems better people than you and I are in charge of that particular military asset.  Seems there are no indications that jump school is going away anytime soon. 

In any event, I find your syllogism less than compelling and we will simply disagree on this issue.

[Stonewall]

How many paratroops does that justify having? Maybe one battalion (about a thousand troops)? Maybe two or three? The Army Rangers already have three battalions why does the Army need two whole more divisions of the jump qualified?

I'll agree with you that folks not going to jump units, i.e. on jump status, do not need to go to airborne school.  It's a waste of money and resources.

Are there two airborne divisions?  I thought there was just one, 82nd.  101st stopped being "airborne" years ago.

Why do there need to be 3 Ranger BNs and an Airborne division?  I'd say so they can share the work load, the "ready" status, regionally specific response AOs, and multiple insertions at the same time, against different opposition.  That's my uneducated reasoning.  But I've never been to Staff College.

The 3 Ranger BNs rotate the responsibility of being on RRF1.  This allows each battalion adequate time for deployments in between training, down time, refit, and so on.  With the 82nd, I would assume the same thing, each brigade holds a different status.  Some deployed, some returning from deployment, some training, some preparing for deployment....

Again, one brigade of paratroopers would be burned out from constant readiness, deployment/missions, training, and preparing for deployment.  Airborne insertions are simply a means to arrive at the edge of battle.  Parachute jumping, in and of itself, is not a weapon, but a means to place fighting men in strategic locations to bring the fight to the enemy.

In summary, I agree airborne school for clerks, cooks, ROTC, West Pointers is nothing but a morale and confidence boost.  Not worth the money and resources.  However, I do believe having Ranger Regiment along with at least a full airborne division is worthy of existence, support, and quite possibly, expansion to include a second division.  YMMV and I can respect that.

[LittleIronPilot]

Hoooaaaa Paratroopers!

307th Eng Bn, 82nd Abn!

BTW...I do know this, Saddam was deathly afraid of the 82nd when we went in the first time, deathly afraid.

Trust me, use them for what they are trained for and they are almost unstoppable.

[Hawk200]

Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.

Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.

Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.

Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.

[dogboy]

Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.

Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.

Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.

Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.

The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55

[dogboy]

it seems better people than you and I are in charge of that particular military asset. 

With an attitude that Airborne is a useful asset because it continues to exist, I predict that you will be very successful in a military career.

[dogboy]

Why do there need to be 3 Ranger BNs and an Airborne division?  I'd say so they can share the work load, the "ready" status, regionally specific response AOs, and multiple insertions at the same time, against different opposition. 

As I said, there are certain very limited circumstances where a parachute jump is a viable strategy.

I agree, that under the very unusual circumstances of very light opposition, an existing airfield that can be captured intact so that fixed wing aircraft can be landed immediately after it is secured, and all friendly bases are far away, paratroops would be the best device to deploy.

How often does this phenomena occur however? Actually, I can't think of another in American military history. I certainly agree that the US needs at least two divisions for rapid response. I simply disagree that jump school is a necessary skill. Except for commando type operations and the extremely unlikely  scenario we've discussed, paratrooping is simply an obsolete technique left over from "Band of Brothers".

Let's also understand that rapid response means "light infantry" that will not be able to defend itself against conventional forces.

In Afghanistan, some SF are horse-mounted. Would that justify resurrecting a Calvary Division?

You are correct that the 101st is now Air Assault rather than paratrooper. Although many of it's members are individually jump qualified.

Finally, I agree totally with your comments about West Pointers and ROTC types becoming jump qualified through glorified skydiving class rather than grunt jump school.

[SarDragon]

Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.

Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.

Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.

Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.

The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55

Does the Army own any of either of those platforms?

[Hawk200]

Its replacement, the C-17 carries only about a hundred paratroopers, about 20 more troops than a utility helicopter.

Uh, what kind of helicopter are you talking about? A Chinook won't carry that many. It will only seat 34 pax, basically a platoon size element. Doubling that would be unsafe at best, but more like suicidal.

Blackhawks only carry eleven. There aren't any Hueys around, but I'm fairly certain they don't carry more than a 'Hawk. Kiowa's aren't even worth mention when it comes to pax.

Even later Chinooks might have more weight capacity, but you're still limited to space. I don't think they're much bigger, if larger at all.

The Mi-26 carries 80 easily. The CH-53E carries 55

Mi-26 is Russian. The Ch-53 is a Navy/Marine helicopter. Neither of which you can use for troop movement planning for the US Army. Neither one of those airframes is part of the Army inventory.

The argument that they carry only 20 less than a C-17 is worthless when it's not an asset that you can actually use. You can't plug hypotheticals like that into a legitimate troop movement plan.

As pointed out earlier, Air Assault is not a long range movement. It's not practical. Airborne is far more practical over 100 miles. And there are numerous assets included with an Airborne division to include Field Artillery, Medical, Signal, and maybe on occasion, Engineers. 

Airborne isn't just grunts. There is a lot involved. You may have attended Air Command and Staff College, but it's obvious they missed a few details, or else they assumed you already were familiar with what an Airborne organization includes.

Just for the record, I'm not Airborne. I've dealt with them, and I don't care for some of the egos. But I still give them props.

[Trung Si Ma]

To clear up a couple of misconceptions -

There is one US Airborne Division, the 82nd at Fort Bragg, NC.

There are two separate US Airborne Brigades, the 173rd in Italy and the 4th Bde, 25th ID at Fort Richardson, AK.

There are three full, combat ready Ranger Battalions. The 1st at Hunter Army Airfield, GA, the 2nd at Fort Lewis, WA, and the 3rd at Fort Benning, GA.

There are five active duty Special Forces Groups, the 1st at Fort Lewis, the 5th at Fort Campbell, the 7th at Fort Bragg, and the 10th at Fort Carson.

This does not include the LRS units at Division and Corps as well as the various school units (509th, 4th, 5th, and 6th Ranger Battalions) or the folks in the reserves.

The US Army does not have troop carrying helicopters larger than the CH-47 - which is slow and extremely vulnerable to ground fire.  Read about Robert's Ridge.

You forgot the jumps by the 187th Regimental Combat Team at Munson and Pyongyang during the Korean War that prevented NKPA soldiers from escaping north as Eighth Army attacked them.

You also forgot the combat jump by the 173rd during Operation Junction City in Vietnam.  There are many who don't think the jump was a "real" combat jump, but a real good friend of mine got the PH to go with his little gold star.

No one can doubt the 173rd's jump to seal the Iraqi northern border after our "allies", the Turks denied the landing of the 4th ID was a mission that could not be accomplished by heli-borne soldiers.

I didn't get to jump in Grenada because other paratroopers cleared the runway for my C-130 to land.  Somehow, the helicopters didn't show.

Even though it wasn't a combat jump, C (Abn), 4th Bn, 9th Inf dropped onto Baranof Island with relief supplies after the '64 earthquake.

But the real point of having all of these paratroopers is not to actually use them.  The real reason is to make other countries have to account for how they would defend against them.  Benjamin Franklin said it best in 1784 - "Where is the prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought together to repel them?"

I am currently at a conference at USARPAC and one of the discussion points is how to move troops rapidly around the PACRIM in response to emerging contingencies of all spectrum's.  Would you like to guess the concensus answer?  Yep, C-17's full of paratroopers jumping in weapons, or food, or medicine, or ...

[Grumpy]

Wow, did we have airborne in Franklin's day?

Just inserting some fun.  I was never Army but being how my son is/was a 1st Sgt with the 101st, (he's going through Sgt Majors school at bliss right now, I say God bless you all.