If they return better interest rates than some of the pitiful savings rates, then it’s worth looking at.
4 Likes
Does Parachute insertion have a future, or is it obsolete?
Other than SF and the below demonstration, have we (the UK) needed this capability since Suez?
Parachuting can simply become part of the Parachute Regiment’s heritage: like fusiliers, rifle regiments, cavalry regiments outside of the Household Division, etc.
2 Likes
This was effectively the star of things during Herrick and Telic, the lack of strategic airlift meant that 2 and 3 PARA weren’t getting their jumps.
1 Like
Plane filled with troops meets a / multiple drones launched within minutes… I think just for that alone it’s looking that way. Considering drones are getting cheaper conventional warfare means I think paras are as good as gone (with the exception of shock and awe like Hamas did with Israel)
Load of Paras crying in Social Media about this, saw a great response from a Gunner.
“In other news the RHA has also been cut to one troop, a shocking decision what if we need to refight the Battle of Waterloo”.
Interestingly the MP who asked the question interpreted it as 2 or 3 PARA losing out, whereas my reading of 1 Battalion Group and Special Forces is that 1 PARA will retain as the SFSG and the other 2 will both lose out.
5 Likes
Last time I checked, the dam busters don’t have bouncing bombs anymore either.
2 Likes
Parachute insertion was obsolete during WW2.
Glider borne troops were far more effective and used more.
4 Likes
Aww, but I wanted to see a Lightening II drop an UPKEEP!
1 Like
The 101st airborne no longer parashoots, they are an Air Mobile division using helicopters.
3 Likes
What’s it military advantage? Primarily it was about getting infantry to a location without having to fight to that location.
Old style WW2 mass drops are probably a thing of the past similar to glider assaults.
However the next question is what’s the tech moved too?
The Paras are meant to be shock troops - land into combat, move fast, fight aggressively.
it could be more like jet pack troopers than parachutists - something that could potentially allow for higher insertion altitude / faster response but it’s probably a while off yet.
2 Likes
So you’re saying they should transfer to the RAF Regt and get in the Chinooks? 
1 Like
Not that far off… trials were being carried out 4 years ago. And that’s just the public ones!
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2021/may/05/050521-boarding-trials
1 Like
this is a critical question
either parachuting in the combat zone, or gliding they were required to secure some ground, building or river crossing as part of an invasion/liberation force.
Are we still expected to fight in that capacity nowadays?
Deploying to the front line/behind enemy lines and extraction is much more commonly achieved by helicopter as they have advanced from the heydays of parachuting
while i accept Vietnam didn’t lend itself to parachuting in (the jungle doesn’t have sufficient DZ options where you want them) it showed the world/USA the benefit of helicopter deployment
there is also the advances in ground attack aircraft. nowadays, bombs are “smart” laser guided or even GPS - there is an option to destroy a target outside of visual range, where back in the day when parachuting in was effective it was because precision bombing wasn’t an option, using dumb bombs
The only clear benefit therefore of having “troops on the ground” is when the target doesn’t need destroying such as hostage recovery
or have i made that too black and white?
Rocket.
Launch them really high then wing suit glide.
How far do you reckon they’d get?
1 Like
Think we’re getting into the realms of renaming them ODST…
4 Likes
No but the US don’t maintain the 82nd as an entire aiborne division.
Do II Squadron maintain a parachute capability?
Or when if needs to be held, High Ground to cut off a retreat or an objective that needs to be captured, bridges, airfields etc
Very true, it’s one of the interesting things from Market Garden, if 1st Airborne had read 6th Airbornes lessons learned from Normandy the whoke approach would’ve been different
Redbull guy now uses a “hard” wing foil too!
Sure, but fusiliers and rifle regiments still have firearms that evolved from their namesakes and cavalry regiments still have steeds, albeit metal ones. What will the Parachute Regiment have? I just don’t see the point in keeping them. Modern warfare is drones and drone/missile defence.
They’ll just be another infantry regiment: in the same way that there’s no discernible difference between lancers, hussars, dragoons, etc.