 |
| 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division |
I said we were being put on notice.
After a 16 hour flight, ending with a parachute drop into Talisman Sabre 2013, I'd say that the US Army just put the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and parts of the USAF on notice (with a big "how ya like us now to the SecDef") that they not only have a role to play in Air Sea Battle but that they're damn near demanding a seat at the table.
Nicely done "Sparta Brigade" (I believe that's their nickname...either that or "Sparta Lives"...I can't be sure).
 |
| SHOALWATER BAY TRAINING AREA, Australia (July 17, 2011) Australian Privates Matthew Sherring and Jeffery Gambell, both from the 1st Combat Service Support Battalion, 1st Brigade watch their first military parachute drop during Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11), at Kapyong Drop Zone, Queensland, Australia, July 17, 2011. Approximately 300 paratroopers, including Australian jumpmasters, made the 16-hour flight from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska in preparation for the unit’s deployment to Afghanistan. TS11 is a biennial joint international training exercise aimed at improving and validating the Australian Defense Force and United States combat readiness and interoperability as a combined joint task force. (U.S. Army Photo by Specialist Marcus Fichtl Talisman Saber Public Affairs) |
I am just not seeing the use of it.
ReplyDeleteGetting people anywhere in the world is the easy part. Susustaining them is the hard part.
That has always been the problem with air and it is only going to get worse as all the "light" ground troops keeping getting heavier with batteries, tents, HD TV screens for UAV feeds, and everything else that is necessary for "Network Centric Warfare."
That and how combat ready are paratroopers that have been crammed in for 16 hours?
everyone always says that but i can actually see the day that for every transport that's carrying paratroopers to have another transport carrying nothing but supply waiting to be airdropped flying right behind it. additionally once on the ground what are we really talking about? we're talking about the need to support that force for only a set number of days before reinforcements arrive. they might not have moved off the landing zone, they might be starving but they will get their first, be seen by the public to get their first and even if Marines arrive with bullets, bandages and beans to feed them, we'll still have lost our door kicking reputation.
DeleteStrategic airlift is also declining. The C-5 are unreliable and the Air Force is only reluctantly upgrading them and the C-17 was only purchased the last couple of years as Congressional pork.
DeleteIn both 2002 and 2003 the 82nd was originally supposed to take Kabul and then Baghdad by combat jump. Both times this did not happen because of all of the limitations of an Airborne assault. Instead Kabul was taken by Afghan militia and Baghdad was taken by a heavy Army tank brigade. (The Thunder Run, it is a cool story of tankers kicking the living crap out of the Iraqis.)
Airborne ops keep ending up still born just like Amphibious assaults for all the same reasons. Too much risk vs. too little gain.
you switched subjects but i'll play. the issue wasn't that an airborne assault on a city was still born, the issue was that it was a stupid idea. who is going to send an airborne division to take a city? that's asking for massive casualties. its not a classic airborne mission set. classic airborne missions are to either seize strategically important locations (typically airports but it can be a piece of land) and to hold that ground until follow on forces can link up. the Thunder Run was pretty damn awesome but whoever the staff officer was that even suggested sending in the 82nd into Baghdad after the botched assault by elements of the Combat Aviation Brigade that got mauled by Iraqi anti-air...after weeks of hardfighting to get up to the city...after having to conduct deliberate attack after deliberate attack and fighting back the sporadic counterattack.... should have been relieved, sent to a mental institution and dismissed from the military.
DeleteGranted it was a reach but my arguement is essentially as follows: no combatant commander is going to approve this because of the high risk. So if no combatant commander is going to approve it then why pretend that we do it?
DeleteTime and again when push comes to shove we drop the idea of a Airborne, Air Assault, Amphibious Assault in favor of pulling MPF ships into a friendly port to off load the gear and flying in troops to fall in on it. Then we drive to the hostile border and invade.
Basically having them fly a foot mobile infantry BN from Alaska to Australia leaves me impressed but not something i view as actually useful.
Maybe, one plane to drop a cargo UAV to stand by dropping supplies, providing air support. The enemy will have a say and shooting a couple of planes out of the air or mowing down a battlion on a drop zone will get the public's attention. Sol I don't know if you subscribe to the Journal of Military Operations (William Owen, Jim Storr - it's free), but in the current edition Jim Storr has a good article on airborne ops. An experienced paratrooper and former Marine told me the most efficient way to get troops from Continental U.S. to crap-istan is an aircraft capable of VTOL with C-17 type of speed and legs - sounds kind of MV-22ish, but without the speed and legs. The guy also said that until we have something capable of doing that airborne battalions are the next best option. I say put airborne battalions on amphibs or create Airborne Air assault brigades consisting of paratroopers and Marines. Fire works anyone!
ReplyDeleteParatroopers love to jump into foreign countries, train with their paratroopers, and get a set of foreign jump wings to wear on their uniform.
ReplyDeleteThe Army at the very most could muster 6 Airborne Brigade Combat Teams. That is about two divisions worth of combat power. It would take the Air Force almost two weeks to get them all into place unless they massively shifted air lift assets.
The Army does have a seat to play in the AirSea battle, but it isn't an agressive role, it is stationing troops in allied countries to deter agression. It is conducting joint exercises to build alliances. It is setting Patriot and THAAD batteries in islands in the middle of nowhere to counter a the missile threat.
In terms of offensive capabilities, AirSea is still mainly a Navy and Air Force centric fight. Even the USMC is an auxiliary to the core of AirSea, and the Corps has a lot more assets that are directly applicable to AirSea than the Army.