Controversial article about parachute operations

[jcustis]

The problem in defending an airhead such that an air force would dare to send lots of transport aircraft to land on that airfield is the artillery threat.

I don't know why exactly you trained that, but certainly not for conventional warfare with medium to high force densities.
Aircraft are extremely vulnerable on ground and the mere possibility that an enemy shoots a rocet salvo over 50km distance that scatters ICM on the whole airfield would let the air force generals veto such a plan.

It's possible against lesser enemies, btu even then you need to assume that this enemy is incapable to hold the airfield or at least an area nearby. You basically assume that the enemy fails to do his job. That's overly optimistic against competent enemies.

Well, you could of course just attack practically defenseless countries and end up with COIN warfare.

By the way, artillery range was much lower in the 70's, effective artillery range of mainstay guns has almost doubled in the meantime and longer-range tactical missiles are no longer exotic equipment.

There's no way how shoot & scoot missile artillery can be suppressed - even in fancy RMA scenarios in desert areas you end up with the capability to destroy them AFTER they shot their salvo, compromising their identity as MRL and not standard logistical or civilian trucks.

I'm waiting for an air force guy to describe what AF officers would think about sending C-130 or C-17 onto an airfield that's periodically hit by ICM.
They could for example say that dud removal from the runway alone would require minutes after each single incoming rocket - if several several specialist mineclearing vehicles were flown in early and not lost to air defense or artillery.

LD, you seem to be in a debating mood, so entertain me these questions:

-I'm curious what "competent" adversaries there are out there that can achieve the appropriate degree of accuracy to sling a rocket (or salvo) 50km with the required accuracy to influence (I'll not go so far as to say stop expeditionary airfield operations. I mean, c'mon, we put thousands of troops under the possible umbrella of SCUD-delivered WMDs just over four years ago. Can we agree it is a stretch to say we wouldn't risk a few aircraft (that won't be sitting on any runway for long).

-Do you really think MRL can be effectively disguised as simple logistical or civilian trucks, and then exercise the required command and control to set into a fire position, receive fire missions, and shoot? They can hide for a while, but if we are going to protect a airhead (or beachead for that matter) we are going to employ a wider range of shooter/sensors than an airborne force would bring in on its own. Expand your mind a bit to consider that.

-Have you ever seen dud ICM neutralized? It's remarkably easy using the appropriate personnel. It doesn't take a mineclearer, believe me.