the MACH 1 jump soldiers

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

I read an article about a british woman going for the world record height and speed of a parachute jump in the times (london), if someone wants to look it out. She had a suit that looked really similar to a speed skier.

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

The Amish Programmers Coalition is crunching the data for this idea as we speak....

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

Originally posted by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE
without too much problems the usaf would have a team of "HAWKS"
(you can't call the jumpers "seals" you know since it it obvious they go by air )

SEAL. SEa, Air, Land. SEAL. See SEAL swim, See SEAL parachute, See SEAL crawl through the jungle/desert/urban sprawl and accomplish his mission. There, I feel better now. Wait no... there�s another one coming on... HAWKS. How, Are, We, Keeping, Sane? HAWKS. We're not. The assertion that a C-141 could be modified to fly at two and a half times its rated service ceiling (41,000 ft) is ludicrous. The technical problems of egress still haven't been addressed, but if you can't get there (100,000 ft) why worry about getting out.

also thers plenty of easier methods of getting troops into areas =HALO,HAHO
also what happens if the parachute fails screw "mabye" suriving the impact ull just exsplode in a pile of body parts and blood
seriosly as much as u might "feel the need the need for speed" you might want to rethink your idea

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

Originally posted by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE

C-141 alike craft = pick te best from davis monthan and convert till it fits for the project.

100.000 feet = it can be done much lower too ! more speed is gained by jumping with feed straight pointed to the ground.

risk = if you go to the military service and take the option for a special duty you know the risk !

Converting any aircraft to exceed it's flight envelope by a factor of 2.5 would cost more than developing a new aircraft. Also in checking Davis-Monthan AFB inventory there are no C-141 listed, some may be there but not in the mothball inventory.

Less than 100,00 feet? There goes your velocity, greater atmospheric density, more drag, less speed. Congratulations you just invented HALO/HAHO.

Risk? Risk is something calculated, the more dangerous, the more important the mission, the more carefully risk is assessed. You don't plan a mission that will be compromised by your own methods (getting yourself killed before it even starts), unless you're making a movie. The concept of a caution to the wind attitude in the military mindset is pure fantasy, the military mind is that of control, success, and survivability.

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

Originally posted by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE
the smaller the "aircushion" you create the faster the jumpers will go !

as with civilian parachute championships it is obvious that while free falling they can control almost anything with simple equipment succesfull.

Without an aircushion you'll have no "glide" during freefall, the principal reason to jump from a high altitude. So I once again say, why? There's absolutely no benefit. Strike one (actually it's a lot more than that but I'm trying to make a point).

In a previous post you mention "peeling off" upon landing the jumpsuit that would be required for survival during the descent. This would mean peeling off your packs, harnesses, etc. A cumbersome and dangerous task in a hostile environment. Strike two.

Civilians do not jump with a couple of hundred pounds of gear, nor do they make their jumps into a hostile environment. Strike three, you�re out.

DELETED

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]

Please study this. It sums up the difficulty of converting a cargo plane from high bypass engine configuration to a turbojet that would be required for high altitude flight. Of the conversions you mentioned only the JATO assisted C-130 actually has its flight envelope modified (from a large scale performance perspective) this "conversion" however only affects only 10-15 seconds of flight. Anecdotally the very conversion process you tout was responsible for the crash of one of the JATO assisted C-130's when a pilot braked while airborne. That's "risk" getting in the way again. It may seem simple in your mind, but aeronautical engineering is science, not fantasy. Add a military requirement to design, and you have a task that has bankrupted companies and governments.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by Mirthful Me]

MM,
Did you get my U2U? You're doing an excellent job not getting dragged down! But remember, he's got a lot of experience!
CS

MM, Just got your reply! Don't get brainwashed!

[Edited on 5/25/2004 by CommonSense]

Thanks CS, always good to hear a little critique on content. As to my usual haunts at ATS, "Tide" is my middle name.

Company policy NGITU:

dude can u exsplain this thing to me why you would do this ?
i want to know what advantage this has over other methods of insertion

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE
the smaller the "aircushion" you create the faster the jumpers will go !

as with civilian parachute championships it is obvious that while free falling they can control almost anything with simple equipment succesfull.

Without an aircushion you'll have no "glide" during freefall, the principal reason to jump from a high altitude. So I once again say, why? There's absolutely no benefit. Strike one (actually it's a lot more than that but I'm trying to make a point).

In a previous post you mention "peeling off" upon landing the jumpsuit that would be required for survival during the descent. This would mean peeling off your packs, harnesses, etc. A cumbersome and dangerous task in a hostile environment. Strike two.

Civilians do not jump with a couple of hundred pounds of gear, nor do they make their jumps into a hostile environment. Strike three, you�re out.

I feel your pain, man. Check out the mirror-cell plane thread this chap put up...

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by devilwasp]

This is why I love ATS !

Some of the ideas suggested are way out there, and members have the patience of a priest ! MM, you are to be honoured for this !

NGITU. I think the simple question you are failing to answer is WHY ? All Military research is grounded in a requirement or need for that technology or technique. Why would we want our SF guys to be doing above Mach 1 ? what possible benefit could it have for the mission or the men. ? Or is it just because it sounds cool ?

HA! I have to admit that i was laughing pretty loud when Nerdling told you that your english was horrible.....but are you going to take that? Fight back! *sits back in chair with popcorn*