Controversial article about parachute operations

[RTK]

An airfield secured by a battalion or brigade is no logistical hub in conventional war as it's easily in range of artillery. There's no way how paratroopers could control a 80+ km diameter circle around the airfield.
If otherwise the threat isn't that bad, it doesn't need a whole division at all, a couple of companies could seize an airfield until air-deployable reinforcements arrive. The lack of a need for large airborne unit deployment was part of the topic here.

It's called a foothold. It's a basic principle of warfare. And why would they have to secure 80km? We don't need runways that long. Fundamentals of reconnaissance and security in addition to engagement area development would never necessitate something like that. Again, if this is one of the large sticking points, revist the two or three posts about maintaining a readily deployable Brigade sized element 24/7/365 over a period of years. This argument is pointless. It's much the same as saying the Marines don't need a capability for beachhead operations anymore.

It's a quite simple job of a couple of weeks to adapt the system to another 6x6 truck.

With the politics involved in aquisitions I'm fully confident the Army could drag that process out at least a year or two.

Well, there are still mortars. A larger quantity of incomparably lighter 120mm mortars is less prone to be the victim of Murphy's law in airborne operations than few heavy guns that don't outrange enemy artillery anyway, are as unable to shoot & scoot as the mortars and generally less responsive to battalion's needs than organic mortars (especially in disorderly operations such as airborne operations were in history).

A 120mm mortar system is exactly easy to breakdown in the dismounted mode. Remember that the artillery pieces in the Airborne aren't dragged around the battlefield by 15 soldiers hooked up to it like pack mules. And you're restricted by the amount of round you carry around. I'm not going to build my indirect fire plan around that for a prolonged period.

I've seen the M777. It's a stupid design for a division that would in case of an airborne operation need 360° coverage. Even old D-30's and gun models of the mid to late 40's are better in that regard.

I'd agree, if we were dumb enough to point them all the same direction. Have you ever seen a well trained light artillery battery shoot gunnery?

It's interesting to see this repeating pattern everywhere. Uniformed personnel of armies that hadn't to fight first-grade enemies for decades tend to be really confident in their army's capabilities and proficiency (even when it's failing in the meantime and despite in a clash between two first-grade armies there can only be one superior).

No different than the pattern of armchair quarterbacks with no operational experience. Plus I've seen how we do at Bright Star, Fowl Eagle, and any number of multi-national exercises against a bunch of armies that still fight with white light in the dark. If the insinuation is that we lost our ability to fight the high intensity conflict, I'd invite you to NTC any given week. Or see one of our many tank ranges here at Fort Knox.