The Russians did try to send in timely reinforcements. In war, sometimes things just don't go as expected.
I think the lesson here is the strengths and limitations of using airborne assault to take objectives behind enemy lines. The strengths are speed and surprise, especially done simultaneously against a large number of targets. Everyone was surprised by the speed of Russian advance in the first day. The limitation is that you need to back them up with reinforcements, and this can be tricky if the small force you sent in was not able to secure their objective. This is where close air support and drones would shine.
The other lesson is that when trying to capture airports, don't expect to be able to send in reinforcements using that airport. The Russians had to divert their initial reinforcements sent in on IL-76s because the runway was damaged (according to reports). They might have had more success it they just kept ferrying in more men via helicopter.
I wouldn't be surprised if the PLA started putting more focus on airborne assaults from now on.
Well looks like my last post glitched for some reason.
Just wanted to further expand a bit on what was lost that kinda addresses some of the points here.
I think there are two levels that need to be considered separately when evaluating the VDV airport assault and not conflict them and draw the wrong conclusions.
Strategically, the op was essentially a suicide mission, and while I understood the necessity, I still lament the sacrifice.
Tactically, it was beautifully executed and will no doubt become a textbook model for air assault forces the world over and frankly is a bit of a watershed moment as it demonstrates beyond doubt the ability for air Calvary to break through modern integrated air defences and thick MANPAD coverage through speed, audacity and surprise.
Where I think/hope Chinese air calv tactics will diverge from the ones employed by the VDV is how they plan to support air assault forces after they have achieved breakthrough and secured their objectives.
The Russians basically left their airborne to fend for themselves after they landed because they didn’t have the air assets needed to adequately support their troops and make the most of the advantageous terrain the airport offered.
The Chinese, OTOH, have already invested heavily in the core technologies and systems needed to turn such toeholds into deathchokes. These are precision air power modelled after US and NATO forces, and massive use of drones, especially transport drones and swarm attack drones more so than your traditional UCAVs.
The biggest problem and limitation faced by air assault forces is logistics and firepower.
Trying to fly large conventional transports into airports secured by air calv is plainly never going to work. Sending in transport drones would. These can be fixed wing Cessna class cheap and cheerful logistic drones and quadcopter STOVL drones like what China already uses.
If you can keep your air assault troopers provisioned with munitions and food, and support them with precision air power, they can be nearly impossible to shift from airports and there won’t be an airport left even if you do managed to take them out eventually. Which will be the least of the price paid to be frank.
So I think there is a very good chance we will see a massive increase in PLA investments in military helicopters as a result of this, maybe even big orders for Ka52s and the like; while correspondingly, I see the PLA potentially scaling back its paratroopers and converting to them to helicopter assault and general rapid reaction forces instead of conventional air assault roles. Especially if rumours of Il76s full of VSV getting shot down turns out to be true. Large transports are just too vulnerable to be used in D-Day style paratroopers drop ops these days.
