DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Gadgets and Gear » Floating Down on Bed Sheets

Floating Down on Bed Sheets

From missile defenses to parachutes…you never know where Defense Tech will take you.

It sort of jibes with Noonan’s last video post — which I’m still wiping the tears off my face from laughing so hard — but the Army has begun fielding — for the first time in 50 years — a new parachute for its general purpose airborne forces. By that I mean, it’s a replacement for the 1950s-era T-10 “mass tactical, non-maneuverable parachute system.”

The new parachute — developed by Natick — takes up a bunch more surface area than the T-10 and slows the decent of a Soldier by nearly 50 percent, PEO Soldier says. One Soldier was quoted as saying it looks like you’re floating down on a fitted bed sheet, since instead of the old-school rounded canopy, the T-11 sports a more squared off one.

Now, officials say this new chute is designed for today’s heaver Soldier with more gear and helps increase the Soldier’s effectiveness in the field by giving him a much less jarring ride to the ground.

The T-11 Parachute : Soldiers Speak from PEO Soldier on Vimeo.

Check out the PEO Soldier video — I don’t know about you, but I might feel a bit like a sitting duck floating down into enemy territory so slowly like that. But then again, I’ve never jumped out of a perfectly good airplane.

– Christian

Share |

August 25th, 2009 | Gadgets and Gear | 470128 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/08/25/floating-down-on-bed-sheets/Floating+Down+on+Bed+Sheets2009-08-25+19%3A16%3A12jnoonan You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Land-Based SM-3 Seen as Frontrunner | Up Periscope! — BAM You’re Dead » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. flying fart proudly joyned says:
    August 25, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    my grandpa said “dont fix whats not broken”.
    aside that todays airborne is heavier than 30 years ago. mostly.

    Reply
  2. Pete says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Wouldn’t it have made more sense to have banned McDonalds from military bases?

    Reply
  3. The Cenobyte says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    About time honestly. There have been better chutes than the T-10 around for a long long time. Hell even cargo has gotten new chutes while the grunts still use that knee killer.

    Reply
  4. John Moore says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    How many air borne/ parachute opperation are launched in todays battles?

    Reply
  5. Ben says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    I’m an inch shorter than I was before my 50+ jumps with that T-10. Glad to see they’re making improvements.

    Reply
  6. flying fart proudly joyned says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    There have been better chutes than the T-10 around for a long long time.–
    well.. it is still the one of the bests. simple, cheap and efective for the massive airborne lading.
    –Wouldn’t it have made more sense to have banned McDonalds from military bases?—
    lol. nice idea but it will never work unless you start to teach your soldiers how to feed themselfes. because todays parents are bunch of idiots who give a shit about good and selfmade food its only matter of hours until some other weaboo MCdonald will start to push into free place in the base.
    –How many air borne/ parachute opperation are launched in todays battles?–
    parachute ops? many
    airborne ops? not many.

    Reply
  7. ReconTeam says:
    August 25, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    It has nothing to do with McDonald’s on base or soldiers being fatter. The fact is that our soldiers including our airborne forces are carrying more stuff than they used to. Even your regular rifleman has up to 35 pounds of body armor, and several new items he wouldn’t have had 15 years ago. And when it comes to weapon crews like Javelin teams, they have always been carrying plenty of weight.

    Reply
  8. stephen russell says:
    August 25, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Love to try both the WW2-Cold War era T10 & the new T11 chute.,
    Sound radical.
    The T11 is ideal for Skydiving market alone.
    or Xtreme sports.
    Can PR via 007 or GI Joe 2 movie.
    Radical.
    Must use for Night Ops due to slow decent speed

    Reply
  9. Thomas L. Nielsen says:
    August 26, 2009 at 1:08 am

    Leading up to my (so far) one and only parachute jump back in the early 90’ies, with a civilian “Jump Club”, our instructor gave us a safety briefing. Amongst other things he told us that they [the club] had completely stopped using the old, round T-10 type chute, even as back-up.
    The reason, in the instructors words, was that “All you can control with a round chute is whether you want to land hard or REALLY hard”.
    It’s a different situation in military jump, of course. If there are bad people on the ground trying to kill you, you don’t want to dangle under a piece of canvas any longer than necessary. On the other hand, you don’t want to reach the ground too fast either.
    Regards & all,
    Thomas L. Nielsen
    Denmark

    Reply
  10. demophilus says:
    August 26, 2009 at 1:51 am

    Maybe it’s well past time Big Green replaced the T-10, but let’s not forget that we’ve also been using the MC series (particularly, the MC1-1B) for decades, and SOF has been jumping with squares for about as long. It’s not like the T-10’s been all we’ve had.

    Reply
  11. MattMusson says:
    August 26, 2009 at 8:25 am

    Slower descent — handles heavier loads — smaller opening shock and less occillation.
    4 ft per second slower hitting the ground means fewer broken legs and spines.

    Reply
  12. Wes says:
    August 26, 2009 at 9:51 am

    Ah, so that is what ACU is for!
    “Sky cammo” as you descend by parachute!

    Reply
  13. Pete says:
    August 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    Well if the loads are getting heavier, and McDonalds are not to blame for ‘heavier soldiers’, then why did they have to decrease the decent speed of the chutes to only 50% of the T-10? Why is it that the T-11 could not be designed to give the same rate of descent (factoring in all the extra gear and the ‘slim’ soldiers) that the T-10 had when it was first introduced. Sounds like justification for the fact that soldiers are getting thier chutes designed by Col.Sanders and Mr Ronald McDonald to me. Whats next, larger turret hatches for M-1s due to all the ‘extra’ gear the troopers wear? Never see many pictures of fat Taliban.

    Reply
  14. Charles says:
    August 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    I suppose it’s back that line in Apocalypse Now where the US troops need the PX and three-square and the VC fight with “a bowl of rice and a piece of fish”.
    Someone needs to do a statistical test where they airdrop a plane-load of dummies with the old chutes, and then ones with the new chutes, and then shoot at them and compare how many are riddled with holes. Of course, the test is very limited in what it can say, but it still says something about whether or not reduced descent speed makes it that much easier to kill/incapacitate airborne troops.
    If this thing is steerable, could troops be conceivably dropped from lower altitudes and farther away, and then “steered” towards the DZ? or perhaps aid in dispersion instead of dropping in large drop zones?

    Reply
  15. jsallison says:
    August 26, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    Actually the commander’s hatch on an M1 is quite snug. Pretty much just big enough to allow you to squeeze your head and shoulders up into it to use the umbrella position. The size of the loader’s hatch was determined by the size of the 120mm M256’s breechring which has to be moved through it to be replaced without removing the turret. The driver’s hatch is sized to allow various sizable electronic components to be moved through it as well.

    Reply
  16. Mark says:
    August 27, 2009 at 8:06 am

    I had a chance to watch this hump and I was impressed. I am 76″, 240 lbs, add the body armor and a 80lbs pack and I was always the last one out and first one down. As for getting shot at while coming down slower it is the same theory as before, “Big sky, little bullet.“
    Oh by the way, I have 12 years on jump status and have never jumped from a “Perfectly good airplane.”

    Reply
  17. akhilleus514 says:
    August 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    When was the last time the US military dropped airborne troops into a contested, hot DZ fully expecting to have some of it’s personnel not make it to the ground? Operation Market Garden? This is not how we do business. This is what helicopters are for, the sticky stuff. Any airborne commander that would allow a mass daylight jump into fire would and should be relieved for cause.

    Reply
  18. Helmetfoot says:
    August 27, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    I’m not a jumper, just a Gyrene so I don’t know from parachutes. It seems to me that the slower you descend the more likely you can be hit from some guy already on the ground and waiting for you. That bedsheet looks like a big target to me.
    You jumpers are to be admired but what about that descent speed.

    Reply
  19. Helmetfoot says:
    August 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    I’m not a jumper, just a Gyrene so I don’t know from parachutes. It seems to me that the slower you descend the more likely you can be hit from some guy already on the ground and waiting for you. That bedsheet looks like a big target to me.
    You jumpers are to be admired but what about that descent speed.

    Reply
  20. Helmetfoot says:
    August 27, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    I’m not a jumper, just a Gyrene so I don’t know from parachutes. It seems to me that the slower you descend the more likely you can be hit by some guy already on the ground and waiting for you. That bedsheet looks like a big target to me.
    You jumpers are to be admired for courage but how about a little more common sense about that descent speed.

    Reply
  21. Dave K. says:
    August 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    Slows the decent of a soldier?
    I thought we wanted decent soldiers?

    Reply
  22. rich says:
    August 28, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    There is no such thing as a PERFECTLY good
    airplane-why do you think parachutes were
    invented? Also ejection seats-which have
    parachutes.…

    Reply
  23. Brandon says:
    August 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    They need to fly the planes lower to the ground other wise were going to be floating up there forever.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      of course it will be a...
      Roy M Brown
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Lets see what happens when the Russian T-50 or what ever...
      Pete
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The AF could put T-6s in service for A-stan in a...
      lcdr_kent
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      It is necessary to limit excess profits of military...
      Dmitry
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Oh my god, scrap the entire thing already!
      MPY
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
      The PT boats were specifically designed for littoral...
      PolicyWonk
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Blah, Blah, Blah They've been talking about this...
      Tim
    • Life Can Go On — JLTV Protest Denied
      are any of yall even in the army or marines...
      ARMY SPC
    • Russia’s Sneaky Missile: Details Here
      russia hydrofoil-carrier :...
      hydrofoil
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
      No problem if US with Obama...
      landouzy
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage