Fire and groove
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2021
- Messages
- 599
- Likes
- 1,427
Airborne has never been "needed" en mass in a strategic sense, with very few exceptions where the obvious counters weren't in play like in Mali for the french. We have no such disposition, with our only proper airborne utility being against conventional militaries. They can only augment the main axis of advance and the risk/reward simply makes it not feasable anymore, their utility is extremely niche in that sense. We should instead prioritise air assaults/air mobility and air cavalry options. i.e Heli-centric capabilities which offer far greater redundancy and flexibility with their combined arms integratibility and are far more suitable for mountainous operations, while also freeing up transport aircraft for logistical tasks in the rear. Strategic or even tactical lift aircraft are too vulnerable and important to waste on grand airborne operations that can go very wrong, in this day and age they're sitting ducks in a forward deployment and should instead be used for moving up the rear echelon.Kill me in my sleep.
Seriously, I was very hopeful of this being a rumor.
Start the RR boys. (Not Rashtriya Rifles. The other RR.)
Still, there's a HUGE difference in having the option and not using it and not having the capability when it may be needed.
Not to mention that we haven't seen a true all-out, peer to peer, modern, non-nuclear (or nuclear for that matter but let's ignore that for the time being) conflict just yet so we can't say conclusively how essential or redundant that capability is.