Dude jumps without a parachute...? And lands in a net?

Originally Posted by August

Mere technical details that can and will all be solved now that it's been proved possible. With any new idea there are always a bunch of negative nancy's ready to proclaim it impossible or once someone actually does happen and proves them wrong they then claim that it's useless.

After all the Wright Brothers invention was considered a dangerous and unreliable contraption that killed it's first passenger, the telephone was a useless curiosity that would never become popular let along replace the telegraph, any train reaching more than 30 mph would kill everyone aboard by sucking the air out of their lungs, submarines are expensive boondoggles that tend to kill their crews far more often than they kill the enemy and so forth.

A man has proven a new way to get to the ground safely besides using a parachute. I am confident that somebody will build upon this.

The Wright brothers discovered a new era, the very idea of lift and drag and how to use/overcome it.
In 2016, we have a broad knowledge about aviation, gravity and other forces in question. It doesn't make any sense, there is no "maybe we just don't know" magic pony around the next corner that would make this a good idea, in any scenario.

Besides that, let's look at it from a military and logistical perspective.
So you want to drop paratroopers, regulars, by throwing them out of a plane so they can 'safely' land in a net on the ground. (The guy who did this stunt nearly missed, by the way...)

I mean...
Who will build the nets, the enemy?
And how many per soldier?
Does every soldier need his own net?
Will one net suffice for a chalk or two?
Will they jump all at once or with delays so they won't pile up in the net(s)?
Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?
What about the heavy equipment a soldier carries?
What about support equipment for hundreds of soldiers?
Throw them into the net too, or make them glide in from 75km out?
Have you thought about this at all?
I don't even!?

How intensive and expensive must the training be for these soldiers?
Military equipment and procedures are meant to be "idiot safe" whenever possible - for obvious reasons. You can drop any imbecile with a gun out of a plane by use of static line, not much he can screw up and still enough injuries happen.
Now yeah, let's train everyone to become some super military free fall expert who's gonna free fall into nets that... someone hopefully will build up(wat!?) because...uhm...it's totally useful and so much better than any other method in use? On top of all that, since when does the military (besides SOF operations) still perform *real* combat jumps, especially on a regimental level or something?
Meaning, your "ground fire" example is pretty much irrelevant anyways, since you can simply bring in paratroopers the actually safe and efficient way, by landing them, or dropping them via static line.

Anyways:

 

Frankly, this is crazy on every level.

[Oberon]

Out of idle curiosity, what's the RCS of the average parachute?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Out of idle curiosity, what's the RCS of the average parachute?

Out of general ignorance, what's an RCS?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Out of general ignorance, what's an RCS?

Out of an effort to explain myself, in the context I meant it, RCS means Radar Cross Section.

[Sailor Steve]

Thank you, and I don't know (the answer to your original question).

Me neither, but I know military as well as civilian radars can indeed pick parachutes up.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Me neither, but I know military as well as civilian radars can indeed pick parachutes up.

Then there would be some advantage to using the net approach rather than a HALO jump since it would reduce the risk of radar detection of the parachutes.
That being said, there is still the problem of getting the nets there, particularly since the nets need to be at a set height above the ground in order to arrest the fall of the paratrooper quickly enough before he becomes 'Blood upon the risers'. Drones might help, a series of them might be able to take a net to the correct height, although whether they'd have the power to be able to keep the net taut enough as the trooper hits it in order to arrest the fall, alternatively they could catch the trooper at a higher altitude and then slow the rate of descent before impact. Of course, the problem with all that is radar and whether it'll pick up the drones and the net and thus negate the whole point of not using a chute.

Ultimately the better option would be some form of shock absorbing material that the trooper could deploy themselves, or a form of momentum reduction via miniature engines or something similar.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

It doesn't make any sense, there is no "maybe we just don't know" magic pony around the next corner that would make this a good idea, in any scenario.

Says you. What qualifications do you have in this field?

Who will build the nets, the enemy?

No, they're called Pathfinders, look them up. Preparing Drop Zones is what they do.

And how many per soldier?

Which generation of net are you talking about? How many years after the Wright brothers did it take to make a reliable aircraft like the one in that picture? Ask me again in 50 years when people far smarter than you have had a chance to improve on what exists today.

Does every soldier need his own net?

Will one net suffice for a chalk or two?
Will they jump all at once or with delays so they won't pile up in the net(s)?

Again that depends on technology that is still in the developmental stage.

Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?

I don't claim to be an expert but for two years I was paid by the US Army to jump out of airplanes and I have kept an interest over the past 30 years. I'll bet I've thought about Airborne Operations and it's potential future capabilities more than you have.

What about the heavy equipment a soldier carries?
What about support equipment for hundreds of soldiers?
Throw them into the net too, or make them glide in from 75km out?

Details. You think the systems they have now are no better than what they had when parachuting was in it's infancy? No it improved nearly constantly and continues to improve.Imagine that. Technology constantly improved upon for over 100 years and there is still room for more improvement but according to you that's impossible because all the questions weren't answered at the start.

Have you thought about this at all?

Look, don't be a jerk. That's twice in one post you're resorted to a personal insult. Stop it now.

Originally Posted by August

Look, don't be a jerk. That's twice in one post you're resorted to a personal insult. Stop it now.

Then don't insult anyone's intelligence by making up magic pony stories that don't make the slightest sense.
You jumping out of a plane 30 years ago doesn't qualify you for anything except jumping out of a plane 30 years ago - big deal!
I'm an ex-soldier and trained paramedic, won't help me on the subject of open-heart surgery, nor will it prevent me from studying the field for myself, meaning: Save yourself the "I jumped out of a plane, so you have no clue!" nonsense just because you have no actual argument, like so often.

I also never claimed technology didn't advance, otherwise I probably wouldn't have mentioned MFF operations, but of course you gotta make something up when there's literally nothing else.
So 30 years of thinking about airborne operations led to this?
Then I wouldn't exactly try to use it as an argument, to be honest.

And I do chose to be persistent about this, yes.
I can't stand it when people throw in complete nonsense and when challenged all they do is "muh they'll make it happen somehow, I jumped out of a plane, your argument is irrelevant!"

Stop the nonsense, I'll stop calling you out for it.

Edit: Also, nice try to claim I insulted you so a mod saves you. I did not.
I asked you if you actually thought about this, which - considering how silly the whole idea is - is surely justified since it appears you have not for reasons stated earlier (those you weren't able to answer).
If your pride took a beating because someone calls you out for what you spill out, go offline and create your personal safe space where no one questions your texts.

[August]

Insulting your intelligence? Nobody is forcing you to read it. Besides there is the ignore button pal, use it if my posts offend you.

I claim that this is possible and potentially useful, you claim that it is not. I don't claim to be an expert but you're going to have to deal with the fact that your opinion is no more valuable than mine. Time will prove who is right.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

This is dumb at a whole new level. What's the point?

Fair question, I think. I agree with your point on that strange, very unexpected progress (?) from the USA - usually praised to the skies for everything they do first in a lot of areas. Yet that one is pretty weird still... Maybe no more than an attempt to distract attention of citizen of the USA from everyday problems ?

Can't see another reason for the hype around that weird event myself.

Originally Posted by August

Insulting your intelligence? Nobody is forcing you to read it. Besides there is the ignore button pal, use it if my posts offend you.

I claim that this is possible and potentially useful, you claim that it is not. I don't claim to be an expert but you're going to have to deal with the fact that your opinion is no more valuable than mine. Time will prove who is right.

The one who makes the initial claim has to provide the proof, not the other way around. Just saying.

And ignoring you wouldn't be fun.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

The one who makes the initial claim has to provide the proof, not the other way around. Just saying.

So if I say I believe man will land on Mars some day i'm expected to prove it, to the likes of you? Please. I just said think of the military applications, you're the one who took offense so own it.

And ignoring you wouldn't be fun.

Like I care either way.

Originally Posted by August

So if I say I believe man will land on Mars some day i'm expected to prove it, to the likes of you? Please. I just said think of the military applications, you're the one who took offense so own it.

As if this is even remotely the same...
It isn't a question of "is it possible". Of course it would be 'possible' to throw soldiers out of a plane and let them jump into friggin nets if you turn them into super free-fallers and suicidal maniacs while also providing the ridiculous logistics behind it, the point is how incredible nonsensical it is.
Going to Mars on the other hand...

Apples.
Oranges.

Good night.