0
sralston

U.S. Army's New Square

Recommended Posts

rjblake

... there have been fatalities due to packing...



"fatalities" as in more than one? If you know for sure, please tell us what you know. I have heard of only one fatality, and it is nearly impossible to get any information about these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's two that I know of, Gary.

One at Ft. Bragg in 2011 and one at Ft. Benning in 2013 during the third week (jump week)

And, a possible third, but I'm still unclear if the blue light special was wearing a T-11.


ETA:


1. I wondered how hard this thing was going to be to pack much less control to get in the kit bag after landing.

2. My understanding is it takes 275 feet to open vs. the 165 feet of a -B/C. Even accounting for forward throw that's quite a bit of decision time vs. altitude on an 800' jump.

3. If the reasoning was slower descent and higher payload... why mot just make the -C larger. There's only a 40 pound payload difference between the two... one more panel on the -C might satisfy that.

Just my ramblings, but round seems to work better than square when it comes to deploying a weapons carrier system.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 years of Airborne operations in the '80s and I did not see a line over... saw many tangled jumpers and my understanding on this T-11 is that its even more difficult to slip away from another jumper? any insight?
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

Not exactly new. 6 or 8 years, or more, in some form of testing and use. Descent rate is much better and the old lineover mals are pretty much eliminated because of the slider.
Packing error on the one incident I heard of.



Looks like a classic case of fixing what ain't broke.
I'm sure it's less expensive to manufacture, too - right? :ph34r:
Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kuai43

***Not exactly new. 6 or 8 years, or more, in some form of testing and use. Descent rate is much better and the old lineover mals are pretty much eliminated because of the slider.
Packing error on the one incident I heard of.



Looks like a classic case of fixing what ain't broke.
I'm sure it's less expensive to manufacture, too - right? :ph34r:

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

It was more like too many broken legs with the old T-10.

Modern soldiers are "more muscular" than previous generations. When you over-load them with rucksacks - containing 150 pounds of light-weight, go- fast gear - plus body armour, plus weapons, plus extra ammo, plus lots of water, plus extra batteries then drop them in an Afghan mountain valley 6,000 feet above sea level you are guaranteed to break more legs.
The only solution is more square feet of fabric over-head.

Then we get into a rousing debate about whether those extra square feet should be round (T-10) or cross-shaped (AT-11) ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGUN

There's two that I know of, Gary. One at Ft. Bragg in 2011 and one at Ft. Benning in 2013 during the third week (jump week)



Do you know what the malfunction types were? Having a slider should prevent certain deployment issues, but packing, being slightly more complicated, could provide more opportunities for mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
personally, there is nothing more reliable than a canopy packed in a DIRECT bag.this thingy has a direct bag BUT once the canopy is out , it is still in a deployment sleeve, which then must be pulled off the canopy Via pilotchute.Until that happens, the canopy will not open(high speed malfunction).I assume the reason for the sleeve (and the slider) is to cut down the opening shock. but when you are dealing with 800 to 1200 ft it also eats up altitude, which in turn gives you less time (and altitude) to get an open reserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peek

***... there have been fatalities due to packing...



"fatalities" as in more than one? If you know for sure, please tell us what you know. I have heard of only one fatality, and it is nearly impossible to get any information about these things.

All military mishaps that involve a death are investigated and the report is filed. If you want to know, please file a Freedom of Information Act request to the installation where the military member is stationed and you will get the report in a week or so. There is the perception here on dorkzone dot com that military keeps everything secret. Not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
demoknite

All military mishaps that involve a death are investigated and the report is filed. If you want to know, please file a Freedom of Information Act request to the installation where the military member is stationed and you will get the report in a week or so.



I stand corrected. Getting information is not "almost impossible". I should have said that it is not easy or quick.

I must admit that I am used to the speed and ease at which we get much information on dropzone.com forums.

I have filed numerous FOIA requests and received information. (However the last one I filed with the NTSB is going on 10 months now. It depends on the organization.) A "week or so" sounds optimistic from any organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

******Not exactly new. 6 or 8 years, or more, in some form of testing and use. Descent rate is much better and the old lineover mals are pretty much eliminated because of the slider.
Packing error on the one incident I heard of.



Looks like a classic case of fixing what ain't broke.
I'm sure it's less expensive to manufacture, too - right? :ph34r:

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

It was more like too many broken legs with the old T-10.

Modern soldiers are "more muscular" than previous generations. When you over-load them with rucksacks - containing 150 pounds of light-weight, go- fast gear - plus body armour, plus weapons, plus extra ammo, plus lots of water, plus extra batteries then drop them in an Afghan mountain valley 6,000 feet above sea level you are guaranteed to break more legs.
The only solution is more square feet of fabric over-head.

Then we get into a rousing debate about whether those extra square feet should be round (T-10) or cross-shaped (AT-11) ........

I can fix that for you.
1) Ascertain the 'muscularity' of your soldiers and address that on its own merits.

2) Don't overload an individual with an excessive load. Drop that separately. First priority is to insert a capable force with an initial load, then add more capacity. Either intersperse your first drop with ammo/rations/etc., or drop a resupply after you establish your area of operations.

3) Utilize larger, proven, rounds to accomplish the above.
Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

******Just sharing the army's new square or somewhat round parachute.



Love the effective camouflage - can't even see it! B|

Winter or Arctic jumps only.. we must be goin to Russia

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

Or assisting Ukrainian allies?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

Not exactly new. 6 or 8 years, or more, in some form of testing and use. Descent rate is much better and the old lineover mals are pretty much eliminated because of the slider.
Packing error on the one incident I heard of.



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

I asked a manufacturers' representative (at a recent PIA Symposium) and he blamed the packing problem on grumpy old master sarge ants who stubbornly insisted on packing the new AT-11 the same way they packed the old T-10s.
Sorry sarg, but new equipment requires new techniques. Got to change with the times
Harrumph
Old chap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When these things came out I got a wild hair up my ass and built one. I built it. I jumped it. And I have to say I didn't like it.

It is way easy to build and seam. No bias seams or panels or apex. Good usage of fabric. Easy sewing.

Very low decent rate. Oscillates like a bitch. Notice those mesh vents that they added? They didn't have those at first but they added them for a reason. I even tried to make it steerable. Venting like that would normally totally stop the oscillation of a canopy and I had a lot of venting. That kind of asymmetry is usually enough keep any significant swing from ever starting. Not with this. And I could never get it to turn. The venting was a complete failure. It has too much shape to allow you to collapse a standard vent. a round you can pull on an existing line and the excess gore will just roll around and close the vent. With this thing you couldn't riser turn or nothing.

Packing a normal round is super easy. All the lines come taunt when you tension it. With this only eight do. It's like packing a cruciform drag chute, which I've done a lot of. It's totally different and I can see an army riggers little head just exploding. If you try to think of it as a round it will just drive you insane.

My conclusion was that it was super easy to build but a fundamentally unstable design. It has a low decent rate but few other redeeming qualities.

I chopped the thing and it's been in the closet ever since.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who haven't been in combat - a slow descent rate is not what is I would want. There is a reason for low drops; and some operational drops have been and are done (maybe not in the US) without a reserve. The purpose for putting airborne/para troops on the ground is a rapid reaction force and they are not meant to dig in and hold out for weeks. All I know is that we had a very low injury rate during my time. PLFs were drummed into you day and night and the kit was heavy. Saviac Mk4's did just fine in my day, the T-10 Charlie's I still jump on occasion have all been good to me. They open quick, put you down well even with a huge step through blown out panel. Focus efforts on bringing the weight down of the 4% that are above the recommended 300lbs max. Just my thoughts.
Video of a T-11 mal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlfXUlsZwh4&
Collissions:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rjblake

For those who haven't been in combat - a slow descent rate is not what is I would want. There is a reason for low drops; and some operational drops have been and are done (maybe not in the US) without a reserve. The purpose for putting airborne/para troops on the ground is a rapid reaction force and they are not meant to dig in and hold out for weeks. All I know is that we had a very low injury rate during my time. PLFs were drummed into you day and night and the kit was heavy. Saviac Mk4's did just fine in my day, the T-10 Charlie's I still jump on occasion have all been good to me. They open quick, put you down well even with a huge step through blown out panel. Focus efforts on bringing the weight down of the 4% that are above the recommended 300lbs max. Just my thoughts.
Video of a T-11 mal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlfXUlsZwh4&
Collissions:



In addition, paratroopers do not enjoy the same protections under the Geneva Convention as aircrew abandoning a stricken aircraft.
Quote

Article 42 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
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.



In other words, as a paratrooper, you can expect to fired upon from the moment you leave the aircaft. Anything that makes you a target for longer than is absolutely necessary is to be avoided at all costs.
Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... Focus efforts on bringing the weight down of the 4% that are above the recommended 300lbs max. ...

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

Does that 300 pounds mean: exit weight, fighting weight, etc. ?

For example, I weight 195 pounds out of the shower. When I add the 70 pounds (armour, weapons, water, ammo, spare batteries, etc.) carried by a typical Canadian soldier doing a foot patrol in Afghanistan, and I am quickly close to 300 pounds. That does not leave any room for the 100 pound rucksack needed for winter missions, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rifleman

In other words, as a paratrooper, you can expect to fired upon from the moment you leave the aircaft. Anything that makes you a target for longer than is absolutely necessary is to be avoided at all costs.


You're going to be a target with broken ankles too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0