Main uses of airborne forces

Reading an article on the early use of airborne troops brought me to thinking about their uses in a modern conventional war, beyond use as conventional light infantry.

What with modern SAMs and MANPADs, large scale drops seem too be asking for trouble. So, how would one go about using these troops, if the enemy isn't Iraq to your US?

I can see them being successful in A)surprise seizure of airfields, allowing for rapid reinforcement (dropped a few miles away then advancing to said airfield), reinforcement missions as carried out at Salerno, and in battalion size at best as blocking units used to interdict supply routes more permanently than an airstrike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leros#German_consolidation)

Also, what would be needed to ensure the success of these drops? I'm thinking lots of SEAD, local air superiority (if only temporary), plenty of CAS (preferably helicopters for loiter time), good organic weapons (enough mortars for the infantry), and well coordinated resupply/reinforcement.

Capturing remote areas before air defense forces can deploy?

Temporarily suppressing air defenses with long-range strikes, followed by airborne landings?

Use as airmobile infantry?

You could probably replace "airfields" with "objects of strategic significance"; it should work just as well for ICBM silos and the like.

This may be helpful.

I was actually looking for that! Once again, Allanea, thank you for your translations, they are immensely interesting and helpful.

NS being NS:


But assuming you don't have a fleet of stealth transports lying around...

As a Day One mission it's inherently high risk. Escort jammers can conceal the transports but are themselves vulnerable to emitter locators and radiation homing missiles. Flying low is always a gamble, you never know when you will run into a AA ambush.

Force density matters though. If it's too high you'll need to wait for at least local air superiority to come in high. If it's low enough you stand a good chance of slipping in unnoticed. Terrain that limits low altitude LOS like forests, hills or mountains is a big plus to.

Tech matters to. Supposedly there were airborne podded models of the AN/ALQ-7 Stingray that would be highly effective against EO sensors and eyes (unfortunately not FLIR's or IRSTs though). More recently there is the USAF's Proactive IRCM that is meant to detect and dazzle the full range of FLIR/EO sensors (this would not prevent an IIR missile from firing, but it would allow the launcher to be attacked) and the European FLASH large aircraft IRCM which is AFAIK the first IRCM able to destroy a seeker (making it potentially effective against all IR guided weapons).

Would fireforce (dispersed observers call in packages of infantry) be applicable to high-intensity warfare?

The CF has previously experimented with the idea of tactical airborne troops as an element to the main battle line. It was the primary driving force one portion of each of the three active regiments was transitioned to airborne after the CAR was disbanded.

The idea is really simple. Said unit (A battalion of infantry out of the main Brigade in total) is dropped ahead of the Brigade's movement. Far enough ahead to be of use, but close enough to make being reached not an issue, and for extremely short duration.

RMC wargamed 5CMBG engaged in a fight with Russian forces in the late 1990s. 3rd Batt, Royal 22nd, was dropped company by company as the advance happened 12-36 hours ahead of the brigade. The goal being recce in force, and capture of strategic elements. It proved extremely useful, in the wargame.

Also, you can use them to take mountain passes, islands, cities, small villes and towns, bridges, riversides, etc, all kinds of difficult to access terrain you want to lock down. Taking bases, missile silos, and airfields, as the others have pointed out, is one thing; denying the enemy some movement space within the flanking routes is well worth it too. EDIT: I should add to that; this also gives you a great degree of adaptability should things go south, as you can respond to new movements.

Moving an unmanned plane over the area could show if the area where you want to enter isn't guarded by AA guns; if the UAV doesn't get shot at, chances are good it is safe (and that also means the UAV could stay there to see if there aren't more enemies entering the area); if the UAV does get shot, well... That does mean you should be willing to send the UAV in potentially dangerous anti-air protected areas; and although this is what UAV's were designed for, they still do cost money. Also, fighter escorts.

Putting paratroopers in the countryside behind enemy lines could fuck with their supply lines, no?

Putting paratroopers in the countryside behind enemy lines could fuck with their supply lines, no?

Yes, but that's more of a special forces operation, large bodies of troops don't last very long behind enemy lines without more support than it would be worth.

Sumer, do you have anything solid on defensive applications?

Putting paratroopers in the countryside behind enemy lines could fuck with their supply lines, no?

Yes, but that's more of a special forces operation, large bodies of troops don't last very long behind enemy lines without more support than it would be worth.

Except this is an actual airborne strategy. The notion is to land airborne troops close behind the front line. The enemy's supply lines are disrupted, then he redirects forces to crush the airborne troops, and then you begin a massive armored assault on his front line and link up with the airborne.

I'm not sure about now, but WWII airborne divisions were terribly disorganized and scattered.

Ofc we have helicopters to transport and concentrate forces.

And better parachutes. And communications etc.