Why does the Army use non steerable parachutes for airborne drops?
Why not use skydiving chutes?
>>30454835
because muh gender equality
>>30454835
Makes for good videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmpL2XJ6qM
>>30454835
They're engineered to go down, not around.
>>30454835
What benefits would a steerable parachute give over what's currently used?
>>30454958
1. Steering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=104tQfcK1sI
>>30454835
you just want to fly a tank, admit it
>>30454951
You should try it its pretty fun. Just take a scarf or something to diffuse the air you inhale that makes it much more enjoyable.
>>30454958
More control and safer landing.
Soldiers blow out their knees all the time on airborne operations because all they teach you is:
Keep your legs together and try to drop you pack before hitting ground
>>30454835
Cheaper? Easier to fold up without screwing up the opening? Won't glide too far when you don't want that?
>>30454835
Soldiers are retarded can't handle not running into each other.
Also chutes that automatically deploy are better for low altitude drops (ie what paratroopers do)
>>30456205
You could rig steerable chutes to open on exit.
>>30454835
Fuck my shit hole. If we had steerable parachutes, the dumb fuck Privates would be colliding into each other like retards on a short bus. Thank GOD we only used the very limited canopies with toggles.
If you have as steerable parachute- you have to train the soldier to use the steerable parachute. This means more drops before certification. Then you have to buy a simulator when you realize your old fleet of C-130's can't handle the additional number of hops each day.
After you spent all that money Pvt. Smartass reminds everyone that 99% of their airborne drops would be during the hours of darkness. So now you have to decide- "do we buy night vision for all the now-steerable-parachute-operators AND convert our steerable-parachute-simulators to be night-vision-compatable...OR do we just say fuck it and go back to the only slightly-steerable T-10 parachute?"
It was Friday afternoon before a three-day-weekend at the Pentagon that summer.
The guys in the suite said "Fuck it- back to the old parachutes"
>>30454835
Because parachute drops are literally just for parades in modern times other than that one time 13 years ago when 173rd used it
>>30456328
Yeah, but then they'll try to steer.
>>30458695
Look before you turn
Turn right to avoid collisions
Lower jumper has the right of way
>>30458759
And please don't go somewhere other than the drop zone.
>>30458759
If it's more than one step, a soldier WILL fuck it up. Steerable chutes would cause the number of mid-air collisions to increase by an order of magnitude at least.
Jump out of the plane and wait to hit the dirt is already pushing it for complexity.
Also, how much weight could one of those steerable chutes support? Can it carry the average troop with a combat load?
>>30454835
>>30456328
>>30458688
>>30458807
We do have semi steerable shoots haven't you guys ever jumped an mc6
>>30454835
>Why does the Army use non steerable parachutes for airborne drops?
1. weight
2. Durability
3. Reliability
4. Ease of use
Also, you can steer, but its done by shifting weights to one side and moving legs forward or back.
>>30454835
Skydiver here. Ram air canopies and round canopies provide two totally different methods of insertion (wink wink). Those round canopies get your ass to the ground MUCH quicker than ram air (unless you're swooping in the ram air). However, I believe the primary reason is that there is more training to have to go through with ram air. Then again I don't know for certain as I've never gotten to use a round canopy (plus I just enlisted in the Marine Corps so probably won't ever), but in my opinion I do believe the ram airs are better because of maneuverability, but then you get some dumbass private turning into a meat missile and totally fucking up the mission. I heard they were starting to turn to the ram air ones though.
because you want to get them down on the ground, near where they jumped out.
give them an airfoil chute and half the chucklefucks will glide half way back to base.
>>30458807
Depends entirely on the square footage of the canopy. They use a 300 square foot ram air canopy for tandem skydives, so that's two people generally around 185 pounds each so definitely possible. Special operations use the ram airs so I don't see what kind of problem there is with weight support of a combat load.
>>30460108
This. Also my former BC died while jumping one of those, sad day
Slipping is good enough
>>30454835
>Hey lets drop 100 fucking guys out of a C17 with steerable chutes at ~500 feet!
Are you goddamn stupid or what?
>>30454933
of course it's RT showing it
>>30456156
>turn around
Problem solved
When was the last time we even dropped paratroopers? Seems useless since we have helicopters and Ospreys
>>30460375
but planes make drops in the wrong location all the time. steering would allow soldiers to correct for this. also, you could drop soldiers further away for stealth purposes, since they could just fly in silently on their chutes
>>30461076
i could see the benefits for tactical operators like SEALS or equivalent. but im sure they already use these because those types of units get to use just about anything
>>30458615
>>30458678
>>30458807
These.
A SEAL team on a HALO? Sure, use airfoil chutes.
A hundred paratroopers dropping from one C-130 out of 6 flying over the LZ at the same time, with cargo and vehicle pallets coming down, too? Heck no, that's just asking for a mass casualty event.
>>30458776
Fuck you, I'm going to that titty bar over there.
Because having a bunch of retarded 18 year olds jumping out the back of a plane with steerable parachutes is a worse idea than a land war in Southeast Asia.
>>30464311
I swear to god that is the truth. I enjoy their motivation and kill everything attitude but when it come to sense, they lack it.
>be insurgent
>see this in the sky
What do?
>>30465242
If I was an insurgent, I wouldn't hesitate to stop the color diamond.
>>30465242
>army privates swoop into the drop zone in a dick shaped pattern
Yes
>>30463473
>A SEAL team on a HALO? Sure, use airfoil chutes.
Isn't that mostly what we do though? Maybe not SEALS, but you know what I mean. When was the last time we even sent normal airborne on a combat drop?
>>30460427
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgsdexkv18
F
>>30463374
It's better to have a full stick in the wrong place, than a stick split into multiple parts with a fraction of them on site.
>>30463330
Helicopters have less range and can carry less equipment, they also fly lower all the way to the target area.
Helicopters are great of you have a base nearby, but generally paratroopers aren't operating close to your base.
>>30454951
Just like your mom
>>30454835
Do we have automated weapon systems like the Phalanx that we could use to gun down paratroopers?
>>30465388
Could probably use a regular Phalanx desu. The guidance program would just think they were very slow missiles.
>>30465284
The highspeed guys get MFF qualified, meaning they jump with steerable chutes, not static line.
>>30455853
>a sky full of MC-6s on a mass tactical jump
We killed enough people when we switched to the T-11, no need to give them more ways to get entangled in midair.
>>30465388
I always thought it was illegal to do that, or am I thinking of ejected pilots
>>30465844
It's against the geneva convention to shoot people in a parachute who are not attacking anybody, even if they're about to land and attack.
It's not against it to put heavy fire on where they're inevitably going to land, however.
>>30465989
I just checked. You CAN fire on paratroopers. You can't fire on crew that are bailing from a plane.
>
>Article 42 – Occupants of aircraft
>1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
>2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
>3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.
>>30466500
Hm
What if they are forced to bail after the plane's been hit, rather than before their intended drop site?
>>30466500
Does anyone actually give a damn about Geneva convention?
So who invented this dumb idea that steerable parachutes are more dangerous than non-steerable
>>30465284
2003 or 2005-ish.
>>30466564
Not sure. Sounds like they're still shootable because of the third rule
>>30455070
That's barely a tank, it's a M8 AGS
>>30454835
For one, those can't be used in low-altitude mass drops.
For two, there's already an excellent steerable static line chute system in service, the MC-6.
Video taken by one of my NCOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df-gqV9TMk
>>30467928
Because they can be. One of the guys in my section accidentally went with the wind and got yanked off the DZ into a cactus patch at Carson.
>>30467005
People who arent assholes, and people who THINK they know what they are about, but dont.
What it all boils down to is basically: don't be a dick to noncombattants.
And most of those rules don't even apply in wars with non-state entities.
>>30465242
that would depend on what I got a hold of after the Ruskies ditched 30 years ago or what we captured from "New" Iraq.
