As opposed to a C-17 or C-130?
Well, a C130 at altitude makes a lot less noise than a Blackhawk at close range. 
For specialized ops, there will still be a use for parachute-inserted troops. But the days of mass drops are over.
They really were something to see. And, unlike the spectacle of massed infantry & cavalry charges, there’s little chance of their being done by re-enactment societies.
The parachute is a way to get to the battle - that’s it. As such, of course it isn’t obsolete, since airplanes are the fastest way we currently have to get to places. Anything that happens after that has nothing to do with the parachute part. Yes, you can get cut off, a tank army can be cut off too, that’s just a matter of knowing what’s going on. When you do, like during the Normandy Invasion, then things work out. When you don’t , and jump into the middle of an enemy tank division like during Market Garden, then they may not. As already mentioned, the actual marginal cost of maintaining such a capability is minimal, all the light infantry specific training that paras go through will be done regardless, the flying planes is the only expensive part and since you already have planes and pilots that need to log hours, the cost for the US Army and its allies is essentially zero.
I’m a little suprised that all you military types have such a pessimistic outlook on the future of the paratrooper. If anything, the role of the para has greatly expanded since the collapse of the FSU and the proliferation of “Bush* wars” where highly mobile light infantry rules the battle field where heavy armour had in the past.
*Bush, African, not Bush, George W…
Can someone explain to me how a paratroop drop can possibly be considered stealthy?
Define “stealthy”? Mass parachute drops from low alttitude are obviously not going to happen over your head without you noticing. It is possible to drop small numbers of specifically trained men using the HALO method, in which case the aircraft will be too high to be visible from the ground.
The point isn’t to get there without anyone knowing, if the enemy has any kind of radar or early warning system for approaching aircraft then he will probably know, the point is to suddenly arrive somewhere far away from the enemy heavy formations to attack “soft” targets in the rear, and eventually capture an airfield to which supplies and reinforcements can be quickly airlifted, and/or link up with the ground offensive that presumably will happen at the same time, and keeping the enemy heavy formations otherwise occupied. That’s how it was done in WW2, anyway. This particular approach may not be seeing much use today, there not being a great number of WW2 style set piece battles since, well, WW2, but the method of arriving at a destination via parachute is just as relevant as it ever was.
For those following along at home, HALO stands for High-Altitude-Low-Opening, which is where the plane flies at a very high altitude but the parachutist does not open his chute until he is close to the ground. The plane may not be easily noticed from the ground, especially if the enemy has poor radar capabilities, and so a small team of paratroops might be able to land undetected.
Or we could over-simplify and just say that while parachutes are not stealthy, they’re a hell of a lot more stealthy than helicopters.
Compared to a mechanized infantry unit, an airborne unit is extremely inexpensive. Cost is one of its many benefits. It’s a pro, not a con.
What exactly does this mean? Old people can be paratroopers too. And there are reserve and national guard airborne units. So what are you saying here?
Of course not. Unless you know of a better way to get a battalion of combat ready infantry from the US Mainland to anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. You figure that out, and then we can replace that method of delivery.
Just because current operations in Iraq dont call for Airborne doesn’t make it obsolete. This is just one war among many.
When you’re dropping 500+ soldiers at once, you dont want them steering. The individuals you see at air shows are seasoned soldiers with lots of experience. We have to drop lots of privates too. With unsteerable round canopies, the soldiers land basically where we want them to. Calculations are made taking into account wind speed and all that to determine just when to start pushing out soldiers. Also, those “advanced sky-diving” chutes you’re talking about take over a 1000 ft or more just to deploy. That’s not going to work when you’re leaving the door at 600 ft. Plus they’re not static line, and they take much more experience and training to master. The Army uses those basic round canopies for a reason.
As soon as you invent a working teleporter, they’re outa here.
HA! I actually thought of the exact same response before I posted. But then I thought I’d explain it a bit better.
But it’s true. There’s currently no better way to immediately deliver massive amounts of troops anywhere in the world.
I dont think they’re over. I’m better they might be of use against North Korea if war ever breaks out over there again. (no nitpicks about the war never ending, thanks)
And what’s with all the “Mass drops are a thing of the past” stuff? They were used in the current war furcrissakes. Let’s at least wait until we fight a war without using airborne infils before we start claiming they’re “obsolete”.
I thought there was some debate as to whether the 173rd ABN’s jump at Bashur Airfield was more of a PR move than a tactical neccesity.
If by PR, you mean “deep psychological impact on the Turks, Iraqis and Kurds”, then I’d say the debate is irrelevant. That is still a legitimate military objective.
Besides, even if they did know the field would be unguarded, was there really a faster way to get those troops there and secure the place?
And I’ve heard all the jokes about the same planes which they jumped from immediately landing on the runway. But really, why not push the troops out first and make sure it’s safe. It would have been silly to land the planes full of guys only to receive enemy fire from the ground. Then everyone would be saying “how stupid of them to just land on the airfield and assume it was safe just because it was technically in friendly territory! God how stupid of them! They needlessly lost all those soldiers and airplanes from a simple, stupid mistake”
Instead, everyone’s saying “How lame of them to jump out and call it a combat jump. Those badge hunters!” Which would you rather live with if you were the commander?
And actually, I think it was “reclassified” as a combat jump. As in, it was originally not intended to be a combat jump. Its original purpose may have just been the two things I pointed out earlier. 1) Psyops/ Show of Force 2) Better safe than sorry. But TPTB later decided it should count as a combat jump. So the debate really isn’t whether or not they should have jumped during the operation. The debate is only whether or not it should have counted as a “Combat Jump” on paper.
Regardless, the Rangers and some 82 guys made a combat jump 2 years earlier.
Well, not being in your army (actually, as of a few weeks ago, not being in any army 
) I wasn’t aware of the specifics. It was my understanding that the airfield was not merely unguarded, but in fact already secured by SOF on the ground. Seems that some of these were resentful of having to essentially stage and unneccesary mass parachute drop and all the risk/injury that entailed, just so that the commander would say that they did a combat jump. Of course, I defer to your superior information.
I’ve heard that stuff too. So I’m stuck doing the same balancing act of truth and tales that everyone else is.
I believe the “reclassified” as a combat jump rules out the “commander only did it to get a badge” theory. I think it was planned and briefed as a permissive jump but later was granted the glorious label of “combat jump”. Jumping was a faster method of delivery than landing and unloading on the small runway. So there were benefits of jumping which is what this thread is all about, I believe.
Here was a situation where we couldn’t stage nearby. Where a unit left their home base and was rapidly deployed for action in theatre.
A long time ago, the 82nd Airborne Division conducted a surprise drop 60 feet above my head, during a live fire exercise by the 15th Airborne Artillery Corps. I didn’t hear any airplanes. The noise level was impressive, the artillery loud, and the airdrop quiet. Just about the time I looked up at the automatic weapons firing troops above me, the 8th Special Forces guys who had dropped in the night before stood up about fifteen feet from me, and fired their weapons too. I was dead.
No, a major military field assault won’t use mass drop tactics in a modern battle field. But small unit ops, with highly trained veteran airborne infantry, and such still cause maximum disruption to enemy operations with minimal troop counts. Then you hit them with the air strikes using active target designators who have infiltrated from other drop points.
However, symmetrical force opposition is pretty rare, in the modern battlefield. Invading Iraq didn’t even provide that much of that sort of battle. In the modern world, if you know where it is, you can destroy it. It’s the not destroying stuff that gets tricky.
Tris
The thing is that while a parachute drop might theoretically be able to happen anywhere in the world, there are sound reasons why there are a lot of places it will not actually happen. If you drop a division of light infantry 1000 miles behind the front, how exactly are you supposed to support them? An airborne division can land with enough supplies to fight for about a week - after that they better link up with a supply line or they’re going to be overrun.
So realistically most airborne operations are going to occur within a hundred miles or so of the existing front line (or at some point scheduled for a conventional invasion). And at those distances helicopters will work just fine and will bring all of the advantages I’ve already mentioned.
The thing is the idea of airborne assault is still useful - it’s just the technological means for achieving it have changed. Airborne has to accept the switch from parachutes to helicopters the same way cavalrymen had to accept the change from horses to tanks and sailors had to accept the change from sail to steam.
Yes, you may be dropping only 100km behind the lines, but where do you stage the troops prior to the drop? On an already crowded front line with all the inherent logistics problems faced there. Being able to leap frog forces over the front line from a somewhat more organized rear staging area does have some attractions. Also as mentioned, being able to deploy in a crisis from a long way away as a stop gap is another useful arrow in ones quiver.
Admittedly these are niche applications and maintaining that ability certainly has a cost which at some point will be undercut by the cost/benefit of other solutions. Have we reached that point with helicopters replacing paradrops, well it is probably not far off.