Prev: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2] Next: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2]

Re: (SG2] Orbital Insertion (an alternative approach to calculat

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:30:30 -0500
Subject: Re: (SG2] Orbital Insertion (an alternative approach to calculat

Los spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Well square rig chutes are inherently more manueveralble than their
> round cousins. But there is a reason why most conutntries still us
> MC1d1 or T10. encountering an entaglement on a square rigger is much
> more dangerous than a round chute. And since you are looking to drop
> mass troops by chute you are not looking for the troops to be able to
> steer that much in the air you want the initial spot to be on the
> so they don't haveto steer. Entanglements are too dangerous. Of course
> things could chang in the future but you still have an ingherently
> dangerous design in the square rig for mass drops.

I'm thinking a smaller chute area because you have a mini-grav pack 
(which has a short lifespan, but means you get better control vs. 
wind and need less silk area to slow you down. It also may lessen 
ground impacts especially if you get a streamer and auger in).
> I have some doubts as to the accuracy of orbital drop vs atmospheric
> drop given the speed, compactness of formation required,  and time in
> the air exposure these guys have to work under Especially given mass
> drop on the company/bn level) but I'll shelve those for a moment and
> under Tom's scenario:

It is a fair set of worries - it could be that the need to keep your 
dropship moving determines the accuracy of your drop (a quick 
deployment from a fast moving dropship or a slower deployment from 
one that feels less threatened).  

Anyway, each guy
> is in a coffin sized drop capsule with stubby wings. All the capsule
> a given unit are ejected at once and down they go together. The
> ahve stubby wings and hopefully anticollision control. I imagibne this
> is similar to what Tom's talking about. Once they land the thing pops
> open and there's the guy!

Mind you the 'squad egg carton dropship' makes perhaps almost more 
> I still think parachute assault is a viable alternative. Except that
> the future guys drop from very low height or from medium height by
> movers but have a VERY low opening and stabalizing system. (Chute pops
> at 150 meters or less). We have something similar in operation today
> called LALO (Low Altitude Low opening) and limits exposure of the
> plus ensures that they  are all on target. Of course with with a drop
> that low the system HAS to be very reliable becuas ethere is no
> time for malfunctions. In that case it would be LANO (Low altitude No
> Opening).

Well, with a grav-pack decelerator/control, you'd be able to do LAELO 
(Low Altitude Extremely Low Opening) drops. Maybe open at 100m, let 
the grav pack decelerate you like a bungee as the chute took up some 
of the force too. But the deceleration would be more gradual. 

> Well I think the suit would work as long as it could absorb the shock.

Another thought - drop troops covered in spray-foam ablat material 
that routes heat away from the soldier and absorbs impact. Removable 
by running an electrical charge through the armour once landed. This 
gives you extra cushioning on landing. 

> The body armor helping when you fall helps but really it helps becuase
> if you get jabbed by something when you fall it absorbs that shock or
> damage. If you can fall in your PA and it right's itself on hands and
> knees like a cat and absorbs the fall, then that would be good.

Maybe only FAST PA? Maybe Slow PA suffers the disadvantages of slow 

Contrary OI method: 

Drop caps to 500 feet, then small expandable combat glider wings. 
More manoevreable than a chute, less chance of entanglement, good 
control of landing. Or full grav decelerator - instead of a chute 
that streams out on multiple lines above you, you have one line with 
a grav-decelerator, and that line is bungee like. Deceleration is 
graduated and gentle, and very little chance of entanglement allowing 
teams to jump in very close together. 

But again, maybe we should be keeping in mind the quality level of 
the gear. Maybe that should factor in. 

For chutes, this might be

Primitive - Chutes like state of the art today. No grav backup. You 
hit hard when you land. Succeptible to entanglements. Not all that 
manoevrable. Must open at least 400m. 
Basic - Standard chutes (only somewhat manoevreable, 
but no grav backup). Must open at least at 250m.  
Enhanced - Standard chutes with grav assist. More manoevreable, 
slightly less jarring. Must still open at 200m. 
Superior - Small Chute with Enhanced Grav assist. Very Manoevreable, 
reduced chance of entanglement, easier landing, can open as low as 
Advanced - No Chute, Full Grav Declerator. Ultra Manoevreable, 
minimal chance of entanglement, very easy landing (might even come in 
standing without discomfort), can open as low as 75m. Very robust 
(failure incidence on the order of 1 in 3000). 

I have to think about quality levels for drop caps. 

As an aside, even if we assume that there are equipment failures, 
etc. Should you lose (on average) 8-10% of your para force on a plain 
jane drop? That's what the current system would cause. Just from 
injuries in flat plain terrain....

Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup

Prev: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2] Next: Re: Some GMS Thoughts [SG2]