Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Air Borne Systems

 


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 2, 2014, 1:55 AM
Post #1 of 18 (2889 views)
Shortcut
Air Borne Systems Can't Post

This make them just about the biggest player going.

Sparkiy

http://www.airborne-sys.com/...mffaraps_9-18-11.pdf


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 2, 2014, 6:34 AM
Post #2 of 18 (2741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

I see that news is already a couple years old, although new to me.

So Airborne Systems, now part of a larger non-aviation equipment company (HDT Globial), won a contract a couple years ago for 3,600 Intruder freefall rigs from the US military. It will replace the MC-4 for HAHO and HALO operations, which was an old Para Flite product I'm pretty sure.

Para Flite disappeared as a name when some parachute companies supplying the military were amalgamated into Airborne Systems. Para Flite was once such a popular supplier of gear for civilian skydivers, later sucked as it fell out of touch with the market, ended up with weird gear nobody wanted, and then abandoned the civvy market.

The press release says "The Intruder system has been exclusively designed for the military jumper and is not an adaptation."

Hmm, what's that mean? 'Screw you CPS? We're still in the game guys!'

Anyone know more about the Intruder rigs?

Hard to find decent photos of them. The specs for them show them to be of tandem size more or less when it comes to canopies and weights, as one would expect these days for the military. But they don't have drogue systems, and aren't thus "adapted" tandem rigs as one sees from all the civilian companies chasing the military market.


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Mar 2, 2014, 7:01 AM
Post #3 of 18 (2704 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

Michael,

Can you help me connect the dots between points 1-4. There "seems" to be a disparity in the verbiage or I'm not reading something right.

"The RAIDER 2 has met TSO C23d standards to an 1. All Up Weight of 555 lb (252 kg) when used with the Intruder 360 reserve canopy."

Intruder« 300 Main Parachute Specifications
2. Suspended Weight: 360 lbs (163 Kg)

360 Reserve Parachute Specifications
3. Suspended Weight: 450 lbs (204 kg) (Tested to TSO C23d with Raider Harness)

Raider-2 Harness Specifications
4. Maximum Suspended Weight: 450 lb. (205 kg)


demoknite  (D License)

Mar 2, 2014, 7:48 AM
Post #4 of 18 (2659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

I know a small bit about them. Not necessarily specs and engineering but from a user level. I do believe the "adapted" comment was a dig at the Special Operations Vector and Military Javelin which are the most popular "non standard" military freefall rigs in the US military and are beefed up versions of their sport container and/or tandem adaptations.

Units that actually have a robust jump mission fell out of favor with the MC4/MC5 in the early 2000s as parachute technology progressed rapidly, and DoD bureaucracy was slow to match that pace. SOVs and MJs were used to fill that gap usually purchased at command or unit level as opposed to service or DoD level.

Basically, you have a hybrid canopy (akin to a PD Silohuette) with spectra 725 lines, the deluxe back pad, "bio-yoke", harness that is adjustable to the 97th percentile of military member (MC4/MC5 was very uncomfortable on big guys and dangerous on small wiry guys and females). The all-up/suspended weights posted above are true. Bigger guys with bigger loads can be safely accommodated. Didnt get much experience with the reserve but the (assumed) smaller size does give it the "teardrop" shape we have become accustomed to in the sport market.

It is more modular wherein units can order them with BOC (though spring loaded is still the standard), double bag static line, different color harness/container etc. There is no hand deploy drogue or static line deployed drogue as far as I know.

Looks like the contract was awarded in 2011. I played with it 2012 and here we are in 2014. I dont think any unit is using it operationally. Military freefall schools are teaching MC4/MC5 and Im not sure when Raider intruder is meant to come online. Once it does I think it will actually be called MC7/MC8.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 2, 2014, 6:19 PM
Post #5 of 18 (2405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

The Intruder-2 harness/container was designed by Sandy Reid, so it sort of looks like a Telesis 3 student rig with extra hardware to hang ruck-sacks, etc.


dpreguy  (D 835)

Mar 2, 2014, 7:36 PM
Post #6 of 18 (2346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

Doesn't Airborne Systems also make the "Muffin" square troop parachute for static line and with slider? Harness and container too.

(Much credit to this parachute design, whoever makes it.)


demoknite  (D License)

Mar 2, 2014, 11:06 PM
Post #7 of 18 (2261 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dpreguy] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

If you are referring to the T11 then yes. Airborne systems is basically the Lockheed of parachute systems to the DoD.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 3, 2014, 4:39 AM
Post #8 of 18 (2157 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dpreguy] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

dpreguy wrote:
Doesn't Airborne Systems also make the "Muffin" square troop parachute for static line and with slider? Harness and container too.

(Much credit to this parachute design, whoever makes it.)

Yes it does. There was a design competition between ParaFlite and Irvin for the ATPS to replace the T-10. During the program Airborne Systems bought both companies for something like $10,000,000 but it guaranteed them a contract for about $40,000,000.

This is the Irvin design during a test jump on the proposal cover sheet and a couple of drop tests. (Bad quality) I made most of the live jumps on the Irvin canopy and worked with Mike Murphy some on the T-11.

http://s397.photobucket.com/...sting/Movie.mp4.html

http://i397.photobucket.com/...esting/Irvintest.jpg

Sparky


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 3, 2014, 4:40 AM
Post #9 of 18 (2154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

riggerrob wrote:
The Intruder-2 harness/container was designed by Sandy Reid, so it sort of looks like a Telesis 3 student rig with extra hardware to hang ruck-sacks, etc.

Is this the one?

Sparky


(This post was edited by mjosparky on Mar 3, 2014, 4:43 AM)
Attachments: asg_raider_2.pdf (351 KB)


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 3, 2014, 5:28 PM
Post #10 of 18 (1974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

mjosparky wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
The Intruder-2 harness/container was designed by Sandy Reid, so it sort of looks like a Telesis 3 student rig with extra hardware to hang ruck-sacks, etc.

Is this the one?

Sparky

...................................................................................

Yes Sparky.

Bu tI'll bet that it has twice the parts-count of a Telesis #!
Hee!
Hee!


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Mar 3, 2014, 6:19 PM
Post #11 of 18 (1925 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Rob,

Quote:
The Intruder-2 harness/container was designed by Sandy Reid

Just two weeks ago I was at RI and discussing this with Sandy.

How timely,

JerryBaumchen


Rigger226  (A 63571)

Mar 8, 2014, 6:00 PM
Post #12 of 18 (1684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [demoknite] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

demoknite wrote:
Looks like the contract was awarded in 2011. I played with it 2012 and here we are in 2014. I dont think any unit is using it operationally. Military freefall schools are teaching MC4/MC5 and Im not sure when Raider intruder is meant to come online. Once it does I think it will actually be called MC7/MC8.

The Military Free Fall school will start receiving theirs in the next two months, and should start using them in the courses by November. The nomenclature for the rig is the RA-1. Just waiting to get ours here in NC in the next few months and try them out.


dpreguy  (D 835)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:33 AM
Post #13 of 18 (1536 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

No. Not those round ones.

The square static line non-steerable ones with a slider. Nicknamed "the Muffin" or maybe another nickname by now. Saw the video demos at PIA Reno. Think it was Airborne Systems. Have pictures at the loft of them. Having jumped T 10's with their hard landings, the Muffin looked like a big improvement. Significantly lower descent rate and because of the slider, no more line overs or anti inversion nets.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:30 PM
Post #14 of 18 (1429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [demoknite] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

demoknite wrote:
I know a small bit about them. Not necessarily specs and engineering but from a user level. I do believe the "adapted" comment was a dig at the Special Operations Vector and Military Javelin which are the most popular "non standard" military freefall rigs in the US military and are beefed up versions of their sport container and/or tandem adaptations.

Units that actually have a robust jump mission fell out of favor with the MC4/MC5 in the early 2000s as parachute technology progressed rapidly, and DoD bureaucracy was slow to match that pace. SOVs and MJs were used to fill that gap usually purchased at command or unit level as opposed to service or DoD level.

..."

...................................................................................

How many different levels of procurement are there within the U.S. military?

I understand that the US Marine Corps have their own procurement process, but how many different levels are there within the US Army?
... or is it a difference between different levels of "robustness" ... er ... specialization: airborne, pathfinders, rangers, Green Berets, Delta, Joint Special Forces and "the guys who are not mentioned in polite conversation?"

... or is it a question of how many dozen ... hundred items are purchased?


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 10, 2014, 3:10 AM
Post #15 of 18 (1394 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dpreguy] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

dpreguy wrote:
No. Not those round ones.

The square static line non-steerable ones with a slider. Nicknamed "the Muffin" or maybe another nickname by now. Saw the video demos at PIA Reno. Think it was Airborne Systems. Have pictures at the loft of them. Having jumped T 10's with their hard landings, the Muffin looked like a big improvement. Significantly lower descent rate and because of the slider, no more line overs or anti inversion nets.

Yes I am aware of which one you were referring to. It is called T-11 and is a modified crossform design. It was designed by ParaFlight before they were bought by Airborne. They are also producing another steerable round for use by Spec Ops. people. The SF-10N canopy and the MC-6 system using the SF-10A and the T-11R reserve.

Sparky
Attachments: T-11.pdf (363 KB)
  MC-6.pdf (870 KB)


dpreguy  (D 835)

Mar 10, 2014, 8:31 AM
Post #16 of 18 (1352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

Yup. That's the ticket.
Wish I had had one of those when jumping heavy shit at night w the T 10. Hard landings.

The "backupable" round has been in use for a time now for the smokejumpers.

Old days: Early 60's there was a "Russian Pinwheel" idea. Just "cut" (melt edges) the two opposing panels out on the left side and right side of a 28 foot surplus round. One problem was that, the controls would be a mindfuck. Kind of like crossing your arms when riding a bicycle. I never jumped one but we talked about it and saw a picture of a Russian guy using one. We were going to make one, as we did all of our mods, by using a wood burning kit iron (like a soldering iron). Never got around to it. Then a complete Air Force B 12 w/28 foot orange and white canopy, harness, container and canopy was about $35 from a surplus store near Offutt Air Base in Omaha. We just talked and never got beyond that. Even talked about crossing the controls so to turn right you could pull the right toggle, etc etc. , instead of the control lines going up straight, where right pull would make you go left.... Just talk, but the idea was intriguing, as you could have gone backwards as fast as forward, and still face the target; and if you pulled the opposing controls you would turn really fast w/o any oscillation. Hence: pinwheel. We just talked and talked. All hat and no cowboy on that idea. Looks like (was it Bill Gargano?) actually has made that Russian Pinwheel idea work.


dpreguy  (D 835)

Mar 10, 2014, 8:38 AM
Post #17 of 18 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dpreguy] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

Forgot to mention, there would have been 4 toggles. One
for each riser. Pull back toggles to go forward, front toggles to go backward, Pull right rear and you would turn left.....left rear would have you turning right, holy shit...every control would have make you go OPPOSITE of what you pulled. Maybe it was better we didn't get it going. Or, maybe we could have just cross connected everything.......??


demoknite  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:16 PM
Post #18 of 18 (1197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Air Borne Systems [In reply to] Can't Post

riggerrob wrote:
demoknite wrote:
I know a small bit about them. Not necessarily specs and engineering but from a user level. I do believe the "adapted" comment was a dig at the Special Operations Vector and Military Javelin which are the most popular "non standard" military freefall rigs in the US military and are beefed up versions of their sport container and/or tandem adaptations.

Units that actually have a robust jump mission fell out of favor with the MC4/MC5 in the early 2000s as parachute technology progressed rapidly, and DoD bureaucracy was slow to match that pace. SOVs and MJs were used to fill that gap usually purchased at command or unit level as opposed to service or DoD level.

..."

...................................................................................

How many different levels of procurement are there within the U.S. military?

I understand that the US Marine Corps have their own procurement process, but how many different levels are there within the US Army?
... or is it a difference between different levels of "robustness" ... er ... specialization: airborne, pathfinders, rangers, Green Berets, Delta, Joint Special Forces and "the guys who are not mentioned in polite conversation?"

... or is it a question of how many dozen ... hundred items are purchased?



Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)