Osprey collection (merged thread)

**Uboat509** · 07-11-2009

Despite being airborne, I am not a huge proponent of airborne ops. I believe that advances in airmobile technology like the helicopter and the Osprey have made the concept largely obsolete (Somewhere on Ardennes Ave. a CSM just developed an angry facial tic although he is not sure why

). The chaos and disorganization of an airborne op are just not conducive to successful combat operations. There are few, if any, places where you can execute an airborne operation that you could not land rotary wing aircraft or Ospreys. Given that, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to conduct airborne operations.

SFC W

**gute** · 07-11-2009

I see your point, but what about an operation that would require moving a large number of infantry (IBCT) over a long distance, greater then the combat range of the Osprey (450 miles)? I'm talking about a distance that would require C-130 transport of paratroopers and follow-up by a platform such as the Osprey, which has a ferry range of 2,000 miles, to enable the paratroopers to air assault further objectives - am I reinventing the wheel? I've read that the 101st is more like a heavy division when it deploys with all its helicopters.

Example - moving 173rd BCT to Iraq in C-130s, jump in, empty MV-22 with air refueling capabilty follow-up drop enable to air assault toward Baghdad. Practical? Smart? feasible?

**Uboat509** · 07-11-2009

Originally Posted by gute

I see your point, but what about an operation that would require moving a large number of infantry (IBCT) over a long distance, greater then the combat range of the Osprey (450 miles)? I'm talking about a distance that would require C-130 transport of paratroopers and follow-up by a platform such as the Osprey, which has a ferry range of 2,000 miles, to enable the paratroopers to air assault further objectives - am I reinventing the wheel? I've read that the 101st is more like a heavy division when it deploys with all its helicopters.

Example - moving 173rd BCT to Iraq in C-130s, jump in, empty MV-22 with air refueling capabilty follow-up drop enable to air assault toward Baghdad. Practical? Smart? feasible?

In my opinion, on the modern battlefield, dropping light infantry that far from support is probably not a good idea. In WWII the nature of the communications that were available to the defenders slowed and desynchronized the defender's response to the airborne operations. Furthermore, with the weapons that were available in WWII, light infantry was quite a bit more survivable on the battlefield than today. I am thinking that advances in modern communications and weaponry greatly reduce the chances of a successful airborne operation. That said, your example, a limited drop for an airfield seizure followed by the air landing of heavier weapons and equipment is certainly feasible and practical. Smart depends on the METT-TC, of course.

Keep in mind, I am referring to the worst case scenario, major combat operations against a peer-competitor nation here. If we are talking about a conventional fight against a much less capable nation then all bets are off.

SFC W

**Rifleman** · 07-12-2009

Originally Posted by Uboat509

I am thinking that advances in modern communications and weaponry greatly reduce the chances of a successful airborne operation.

It seems to me that you have a point.....up to a point. But given the advances in modern communications and weaponry is not the likelyhood of a successful helicopter assault reduced by just as much?

What's more dangerous: SAMs being fired at fixed wing while dropping or RPGs being fired at rotor wing while off-loading?

**William F. Owen** · 07-12-2009

I'm not a fan of CV-22.

Why is laid out quite well here.

The carrier based SV-22 sub-hunter-killer may have had merit, but I just cannot make sense of the machine as it exists today.

**Ken White** · 07-11-2009

Originally Posted by Uboat509

...a CSM just developed an angry facial tic although he is not sure why

).

and knows he will hear it many more before someone solves the range problem for your alternatives.

The chaos and disorganization of an airborne op are just not conducive to successful combat operations.

Disagree -- degree of training is important. We don't do that nearly as well as we could or should; the training system you've been under for 18 plus year is an impediment, not an aid, to training. That we're as good as we are is a tribute to many like you who overcame a bad process. Good training can slice through the disorganization bit easily.

The real issue is what you want done. Airborne operations are not suitable for many things (linkups over 24 hours being one) and an airmobile op is better if range and conditions permit, no question. However, there are some things they can do as well or better than most other methods -- including really noisy hoptiflopters. Chaos is part of all war, disorganization leads to LGOP tooling about doing their thing. Airborne Ops are just like SF Ops -- do it right and good things can happen; do it wrong and it can make things worse. Come to think of it, that sort of describes combat in general...