Some changes to Airborne School

[Johca]

The whole MFF topic you're discussing would be best served with its own thread. It is interesting.

A MFF topic thread would get boring quickly as there is only so much that can be discussed in an open forum. However, I am considering starting a Origins of and Development of US Airborne and MFF topic in the military history topic forum. There is a lot of interesting origins and development history that isn't easily found on the various generic US Airborne and USSOCOM history pages from the 1949s forward. Hijacking to emphasize service and unit unique history would even be encouraged and welcomed as being a former/retired PJ I would be more knowledgeable of PJ history and less knowledgeable of other unit and service history.

 

[racing_kitty]

A MFF topic thread would get boring quickly as there is only so much that can be discussed in an open forum. *snip* Hijacking *snip* would even be encouraged and welcomed *snip*

I doubt it would get boring. We've got some of the geekiest shooters around on here, and (thanks to my selective editing) since hijacking is okay, that's like giving the green flag at a NASCAR short track.

 

[Johca]

Well I started the topic at http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/origins-of-and-development-of-us-airborne-and-mff.19299/ tangents, hijacking about U.S Armed forces airborne and MFF history, training, operations, utilization is welcomed and in fact encouraged as otherwise the thread would just be me eventually out of boredom making posts about PJ jump missions. All the airborne and MFF jump units have some interesting history and historically significant to put out, so the topic thread has significant being interesting potential. Hopefully there are some other history buffs on these forums besides me that can contribute.

 

[reed11b]

Hopefully there are some other history buffs NERDS on these forums besides me that can contribute.

Fixed it for ya.
Reed

 

[Johca]

Fixed it for ya.
Reed

Well I do have a scar or two and have you ever dated a cosplay gal, or a gamer gal, or geek gal. Unfortunately I didn't and now I feel like I missed out on an exciting date night or two.

http://thechive.com/2013/04/19/bless-the-god-of-geeks-for-beautiful-cosplay-girls-42-photos/ However maybe one or two will knock on my door this Halloween.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.

PJM w/ my AJM.


Pic was taken by a DA photographer. Didn't even know it existed until some years later when a buddy of mine saw it in a museum.....

Thanks for the flash back.....pmask in the worse possible location...:wall:


I am new here, but it sounds like the Army messed up, went to a shitty parachutte and then decided to change decade old tactics to cover their mistake.

Was it really that bad to fall 6 ft per sec faster...or was it 3.......

 

[pardus]

Thanks for the flash back.....pmask in the worse possible location...:wall:


I am new here, but it sounds like the Army messed up, went to a shitty parachutte and then decided to change decade old tactics to cover their mistake.

Was it really that bad to fall 6 ft per sec faster...or was it 3.......

Are you para qual'd? I'm not, im just curios about your position on this topic.

 

[racing_kitty]

Was it really that bad to fall 6 ft per sec faster...or was it 3.......

Been watching The Salton Sea again, haven't you? Or are you channeling your inner Harry Callahan?

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Been watching The Salton Sea again, haven't you? Or are you channeling your inner Harry Callahan?

Army Times article:

The T-11 has seen a rate of 1.2 injuries every 1,000 jumps, while the T-10 averages three, according to Army data. The new design also results in 49 percent less landing force when soldiers hit the ground.

The T-11's three-phase deployment uses aids and a drogue parachute attached to a bridle line. There is no lift until jumpers are 275 feet from the aircraft, so two seconds must be added to the T-10's traditional four-second count. The larger canopy also provides a smoother rate of descent while accommodating more weight.

The T-10, which has been in service for more than 50 years, has a rate of descent of 22 to 24 feet per second and a maximum load of 360 pounds. The T-11's rate of descent is 18 feet per second, and it can hold up to 400 pounds.

The T-11's larger canopy catches more drift. Pulling a slip to avoid other jumpers is futile, and bagging the canopy on windy days can be challenging, jumpers told Army Times. But statistics show the T-11 is far safer than the T-10 if jumpers become entangled in the air.

24 fps - 18 fps = 6 fps

Fayetnam Observer article:

The T-11 was the first major modification to the Army parachute since the 1950s. It was designed to replace the T-10, which has a circular design.
Army officials say the new parachute is safer because it can handle more weight and allows paratroopers to descend slower.
When the T-10 was designed in 1955, the paratrooper and the equipment he carried during a jump weighed less than 300 pounds, Army records show. In 2001, that weight was nearing 400 pounds.
The T-11 is designed to handle more than 400 pounds.
Soldiers at Fort Bragg started using the T-11 parachutes in 2009. Army officials conducted extensive tests in 2008 that determined soldiers suffered 70 percent fewer injuries with the new parachutes.
Soldiers jumping with a T-10 had a rate of descent of about 22 feet per second, which means a landing similar to a jump off a 7.5-foot platform, Army records show. The T-11 gives paratroopers a rate of descent of about 19 feet per second for a landing similar to a leap from a 5-foot platform.

22 fps - 19 fps = 3 fps



The math is strong in this one.....

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Are you para qual'd? I'm not, im just curios about your position on this topic.

yes......the juice is not worth the squeeze!

 

[AWP]

The fact remains that a better chute was needed. Was the T-11 the "right" answer? I don't know.

 

[Johca]

The rate of descent being used for the T-10 canopy types is for sea level. The Technical Order Specifications (it's actually a chart from sea level to 20,000 feet with 150 pounds, 250 pounds, 300 pounds. It's 12 to 2o feet per second rate of descent for the weight range for a DZ at from sea level to 2000 feet in elevation. For a DZ at 8,000 feet of elevation the rate of descent is 15 to 23 feet per second for the weight range. For DZs at 14,ooo feet of elevation the rate of descent is 17 to 25 feet per second for the weight range. The chart goes up to 20,000 feet and the published policy from 1947-1996 imposed operational limitation for static line jumps on PJs to DZs no higher than 12,000 feet.

What is the typical elevations of high deserts and plateaus in regions like Afghanistan and most potential asymmetric battlefield tactical combat drop zones these days?

 

[x SF med]

Yours truly in them. Full battle rattle.

PJM w/ my AJM.



Pic was taken by a DA photographer. Didn't even know it existed until some years later when a buddy of mine saw it in a museum.....

all I can think of is.................... Run, Forrest... Run!!!

 

[SpongeBob*24]

What is the typical elevations of high deserts and plateaus in regions like Afghanistan and most potential asymmetric battlefield tactical combat drop zones these days?

Earth's average elevation is 840 m above sea level (2750 ft).....this is only taking into account the 29% of the Earth's surface that is dry land.....
In fact almost 20% is between 0-800 m, give or take.

So....the math says we have a greater chance to drop into a Low Altitude DZ (0-2500 ft) then we do a High Altitude DZ....
But it is just math....:blkeye:

 

[goon175]

But all air drop operations are based on AGL - Above Ground Level, not on what sea level is.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

But all air drop operations are based on AGL - Above Ground Level, not on what sea level is.

NEG...Pathfinder 101..... jumps can be given in MSL (mean sea level)
MSL = Elevation (in my example above 2750 ft)(rounded up to 50 ft) + Drop Altitude (500 ft)(this is the AGL)



Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that Elevation plays a role into how the chutte performs.

 

[Johca]

The math certainly supports your conclusion, but the 82nd Airborne's potential to do a combat airborne assault is not equal globally. Thus its specific most likely O-plan scenarios in most likely countries that must be considered. Unfortunately this global map is lacking in elevation detail for each color, but it is sufficient enough as you can zoom into areas of interest.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Yepp, I think it is safe to say TURDs live in all elevations....

Sick map by the way.....thanks for the linkage!