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

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

And again, combat jumps aren't conducted anymore.

Wrong Mr. Expert. The 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into Northern Iraq on 26 march 2003 - 969 Jumpers. Every single one of them got a combat star for their jump wings, but of course you know better...

No air superiority -> no airborne operations.

That has always been the case, even during WW2.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I would imagine a lot of calculations were done to make the jump as safe as possible. Calculations based on data we already know.

Very true but so are the calculations for putting a man on Mars. Still have to prove it by actually doing it.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I would imagine a lot of calculations were done to make the jump as safe as possible. Calculations based on data we already know.

Since Newton.
But practical data is always good to compare.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Because a paratrooper is a large clay pigeon under an even bigger piece of cloth that has a tendency to fail if perfurated by bullets.
The longer the soldier manages not to open the chute, the longer he is a veeeeeeeery hard target to hit and track.

Even with HALO jumps, the trooper still has to open the chute at a high enough altitude to arrest his fall before he hits the dirt, and that means that radar will detect it. Which means there are two (at least) potential solutions, find some method to make the parachute RCS as small or non-existent as possible, or create a different way to arrest the fall of the trooper before he hits the deck.

[August]

Interesting graphic related to the discussion:



http://www.combatreform.org/llparachute.htm

Originally Posted by August

Wrong Mr. Expert. The 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into Northern Iraq on 26 march 2003 - 969 Jumpers. Every single one of them got a combat star for their jump wings, but of course you know better...



That has always been the case, even during WW2.

That jump was LATER classified as a "combat jump" although(!) it was conducted onto an airfield that was HELD BY COALITION FORCES!

Classic August!

[Oberon]

It doesn't mean that combat jumps are never going to be conducted though, just because their rate has reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbor...Recent_history

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

Very true but so are the calculations for putting a man on Mars. Still have to prove it by actually doing it.

Going to Mars is a very different thing because much of it relies on calculations without past experience.

Past experience from both sky diving and safety nets (+other experiments like G-forces) have provided us with a lot of data.

I really am a bit confused as to what new data this jump was supposed to bring us?

Originally Posted by Oberon

It doesn't mean that combat jumps are never going to be conducted though, just because their rate has reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbor...Recent_history

I think the problem here is the definition.
A combat jump is basically just a jump into a real combat operation - but it doesn't mean you jump into ground fire, which is my point.
You don't drop paras into fire, it just doesn't happen (anymore).

So the whole point of being under fire while under a canopy is moot.

[Platapus]

I have fond memories of the T-10B. Very fond memories since it saved my sorry butt despite my doing practically everything wrong on my first jump.

I think this skydiver, should start with a full sized parachute. Every subsequent jump, he should use a parachute slightly smaller. Each jump smaller and smaller parachute to get his body used to the impact. Soon he will be able to land completely without a parachute or net.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

By the way, this is the net used. Look at the size. The dimensions.
Man, I can't wait until the military will use this to drop airborne brigades - but after all, I don't know what is possible or not -> only August does!

A second net...! Cheater...!!!

Serious, point landings are nothign too special for trained jumpers. Huge formation forming in shows is an old hat and shows that you can influence your direction and course and speed within certain parameters even wiothout an open parachute. Grabbing another jumper in free fall with your legs and maybe then even sharing one parachute with him, also is nothing new, has been done for movies many times. Seen that way, that stunt with the net now maybe was far less an "incalculatable risk" than at first hear one might think. I could even imagine now that the greatest challenge maybe was not the jump and its aiming, but the construction and material of the net.

But consider the grim irony if luck would have not been with himand he would have landed right on the tip0 of one of those cranes, getting punctuated like an olive by a toothpick. A whole lot of emtpy land - and then that...

Personally, I can't imagine any circumstances where the military would find it useful to be able to drop no-parachutists into a net. Maybe that's a problem with my imagination though. I doubt I would have given much credence to the 'skyhook' (the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton...ecovery_system) if I'd not seen the evidence. Which makes me wonder - has anyone considered the military potential of going over Niagara Falls in a barrel?

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

That jump was LATER classified as a "combat jump" although(!) it was conducted onto an airfield that was HELD BY COALITION FORCES!

Classic August!

Go ahead keep showing your ignorance.

Only a Leg like you would not understand that drop zones are supposed to be in friendly hands! One only has to ask the Poles at Arnhem what happens when the enemy holds the DZ. Really read up on Airborne Pathfinders before you start ridiculing others because you're not the expert you think you are.

And BTW here is a complete list of US Combat Jumps.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...orne-jumps.htm

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, I think that's enough.