Tests of the new Sturm Parachute-Free Parachute System Reported

The Russian special forces and airborne units will soon receive the new parachute system "Assault" of the non-frontier type, which allows landing from a height of 70-80 meters.

About this in an interview RIA News said Advisor to the General Director of the holding "Technodynamics" (part of Rostec) Sergei Khursevich.

According to Khursevich, the new parachute system is currently at the factory test stage and is preparing for the state. Now the specialists of the enterprise are jumping with a new parachute, the military has not yet jumped, since the system has not yet been put into service, although tests from the military side have already been carried out.

We will do our best so that the deadlines for completing all tests before deliveries to the troops are as short as possible. The fact is that during the tests some kind of refinement may be required, which can be done in an hour, or in a month, so I can’t say more specifically

- he added.

Khursevich explained that the idea of ​​a new parachute system is that the domes with free ends themselves are in the aircraft, and not behind the paratrooper’s shoulders. Those. a soldier is loaded into an aircraft only in his own equipment, without a parachute, in a special safety system.

(...) if it is necessary to parachute with a parachute, then they are fastened to these systems inside the side, and if tactical landing is possible by landing method, then the military personnel do not need to tinker with parachutes, they simply do not fasten to the system and land in a landing way or on a rope

- said the adviser to the general director.

According to him, this is the only system that allows you to enter the unit immediately into the battle, and not land in the distance from the front edge for training. It allows you to drop soldiers from a height of 70-80 meters.

For our part, we note that the first tests of the new Storm assault-free landing system were announced at the end of 2016. Then it was reported that the state tests of the new parachute were planned to begin in 2018.

Comments

[knn54]

The landing of the future, however.

[Civil]

Khursevich explained that the idea of ​​a new parachute system is that the domes with free ends themselves are in the aircraft, and not behind the paratrooper’s shoulders.

It’s scary how scary ... especially if you did the installation it is not clear who ...

[Shurik70]

"Bandless" called because the dome is in a separate bag, the bag itself remains on the plane. On man, only the mount to the dome. During the jump, a man pulls the dome out of the bag with his weight.
Who are interested in the video - follow the link
https://vk.com/video-60662589_456239062

[Evil543]

Pay attention to how they exit through the ramp, as if jumping with a wing. Conscripts with dshki jump differently, they can grip the fence.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Civil

Khursevich explained that the idea of ​​a new parachute system is that the domes with free ends themselves are in the aircraft, and not behind the paratrooper’s shoulders.

It’s scary how scary ... especially if you did the installation it is not clear who ...

Pilots, for example, catapult, without even straining themselves with such a question.
Well, and then - what's the difference who, if the jump is "on a rope", like jumping from D-1

[bk0010]

Pilots are not an indicator at all: when ejecting, their alternatives are painfully dubious, and without ejection, they are extremely cool to "rag aviation" and do not like to jump.

[Doliva63]

Quote: bk0010

Pilots are not an indicator at all: when ejecting, their alternatives are painfully dubious, and without ejection, they are extremely cool to "rag aviation" and do not like to jump.

Clearly, God forbid, what a trauma - hi raid! But jump where to go But there are also fans of parachuting, few, however, for this reason And so, if this parachute is the accessory of the side, then the PDS stackers will be laying, and not just anyone, so you should not worry about laying - it’s up to you to worry about your actions with this or that canopy failure

[Terenin]

this is the only system that allows you to enter the unit immediately into battle

That's right, the main weapon is surprise.

[AUL]

the domes with free ends themselves are in the aircraft, and not behind the paratrooper’s shoulders.

Not understood. And how are these domes placed there? In open form, if the system is borderless? And therefore, can you stick with 80 m? Specialists, clarify to me the dark in this matter!
And will they not get mixed up when throwing out if there are several of them in the aircraft?

[Terenin]

Quote from AUL

And how are these domes placed there?

Consistently, on the handrail. The parachute itself is already on board the aircraft and is hanging in a combat position. Special power elements are sewn into the equipment, to which the parachute system is attached to special locks.

[Corsair71 (Anatoly)]

a parachute at a military unit and a parachute in an airplane to which an airborne suspension system is mounted. That’s the whole difference. I correctly expressed the idea?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: knn54

The landing of the future, however.

And here ,, figs to you ,,! An article, "Back to the Future," Have You Read? In 1941, the fascist enaral reported to Hitler that the Russians were using a parachute-free method of landing troops near Moscow! Like, thanks to the snowy winter ... abundant snow drifts, the Russians, the barbarians, were able to, throw off, the infantry right into the deep snowdrifts from aircraft on low-flying flight !! They even say that it’s based on real events! And you ... ,, future ... future ... ,,! New is well forgotten old!

[Threaded screw]

Fascist generals reported to Hitler

The Germans themselves had a normal emission level of 100-120 m.

Natural base jumping)

[ccsr]

Quote: Threaded screw

The Germans themselves had a normal emission level of 100-120 m.

Indeed, this is a more acceptable option for throwing, although they tried to experience landing at an altitude of 60-80 meters. All this ended with great injuries and the death of the paratroopers, which is why the ceiling of the ejection was raised. But this height, in my opinion, is not suitable for mass throwing, because athletes and well-trained paratroopers can jump from such heights, and most make only a few jumps for service. I do not see any reason to jump from such heights, at least from the point of view of the safety of the paratroopers themselves, and the best option is considered to be a height of 200-400 meters. Well, the most interesting point is how it will be the part of the air force that will be responsible for preparing the parachute system, and will the paratroopers die in case of their mistakes? Who will bear the responsibility for the death of military personnel, if in our army no one has canceled one-man management.
I am not a connoisseur of these systems, but something tells me that the Airborne Forces command will be the first to oppose its adoption, because they will be held responsible for the mistakes of others.

[Threaded screw]

I don’t see any reason to jump from such heights.

The smaller the paratrooper is in the air, the safer it is for him, the dispersion decreases, and preparedness for battle requires less time. For these reasons, even the Great Patriotic War, the Germans tried to minimize the height of the ejection.

[Doliva63]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Threaded screw

The Germans themselves had a normal emission level of 100-120 m.

Indeed, this is a more acceptable option for throwing, although they tried to experience landing at an altitude of 60-80 meters. All this ended with great injuries and the death of the paratroopers, which is why the ceiling of the ejection was raised. But this height, in my opinion, is not suitable for mass throwing, because athletes and well-trained paratroopers can jump from such heights, and most make only a few jumps for service. I do not see any reason to jump from such heights, at least from the point of view of the safety of the paratroopers themselves, and the best option is considered to be a height of 200-400 meters. Well, the most interesting point is how it will be the part of the air force that will be responsible for preparing the parachute system, and will the paratroopers die in case of their mistakes? Who will bear the responsibility for the death of military personnel, if in our army no one has canceled one-man management.
I am not a connoisseur of these systems, but something tells me that the Airborne Forces command will be the first to oppose its adoption, because they will be held responsible for the mistakes of others.

Who cares who stacks? What is in the Airborne Forces, what is in the Special Forces, what is the Air Force, parachute laying, roughly speaking, is the same. And in all cases there is, as you probably know, a parachute passport and an insert to it - who put it when, who checked it, so it’s not difficult to find the extreme ones. And then, the stackers of the Air Force PDS are laid as professionally as possible, because they do this all the time, unlike the Airborne Forces and Special Forces, where they do it very, very rarely - almost 2 months. in a year. Once I myself was a stacker in the PDS - they laid down airborne, sports, rescue and braking - I do not remember a single failure due to the laying. There were oddities, but no failures

[sg7s]

I know, I agree! Air Force PDS are bison laying! (in comparison with the airborne forces) Well, about the current divers, jumpers in general I will not say anything ...

[Evil543]

So the papers were fastened, he stacked himself and the signature

[Doliva63]

Quote: Evil543

So the papers were fastened, he stacked himself and the signature

This is so in the Airborne Forces, in the Air Force a little differently. But the essence is the same - with the refusal to lay the guilty person to find, there is no problem.

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

Who cares who stacks? That in the Airborne Forces, that in the Special Forces, that in the Air Force parachute laying, roughly speaking, is the same.

On the whole, yes, only the number of parachutes in the Air Force is very different from their number in the units of the airborne forces and Special Forces. And the storage location will be required for such an amount too much, and this, if you remember, warehouses with strictly limited parameters for temperature and humidity. I don’t think that the videoconferencing team would have been very happy with the idea of ​​hanging responsibility for thousands of parachute systems on some part of it. But even if they were forced to, who would load these systems in warehouses, and then transport them and load them on airplanes.
In general, there are more organizational questions than answers for the advantage of these systems.

[Doliva63]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Doliva63

Who cares who stacks? That in the Airborne Forces, that in the Special Forces, that in the Air Force parachute laying, roughly speaking, is the same.

On the whole, yes, only the number of parachutes in the Air Force is very different from their number in the units of the airborne forces and Special Forces. And the storage location will be required for such an amount too much, and this, if you remember, warehouses with strictly limited parameters for temperature and humidity. I don’t think that the videoconferencing team would have been very happy with the idea of ​​hanging responsibility for thousands of parachute systems on some part of it. But even if they were forced to, who would load these systems in warehouses, and then transport them and load them on airplanes.
In general, there are more organizational questions than answers for the advantage of these systems.

How many domes are placed on a jump in the airborne forces and spn? From 12 to 24 for 2 people a year. That is, from 6 to 12 per person. In the Air Force PDS, 43 domes (for a catapult) are reassigned to jump every half year, 4 stackers - this is 21 domes per person. Add sports styling - 10-15 styling per year. Total - more than 30 per person per year against 12. How can you compare? And further. What does the paratrooper do in his spare time from styling? True - charters, drill, tactics, fire. And PDS nicknames? Stacking, styling and styling. I laid and hopped both there and there. My choice in favor of PDS Another question is that the parachute has long outlived itself. In the GSVG there was even a set for fees on the use of motor hang gliders - I understand that, you scratch a clearing through the forest to your area, and no air defense is an obstacle for you, but Humpback hacked a lot of good things. Remember the UAV units in each army? What about laser weapons in every infantry regiment? There is nothing. So they are fading now.

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

And further. What does the paratrooper do in his spare time from styling? True - charters, drill, tactics, fire. And PDS nicknames? Stacking, styling and styling. I laid and hopped both there and there.

In no case do I try to challenge your experience, but I must admit that in a regular aviation fighter regiment there are 18 aircraft and 36 pilots, plus brake parachutes. With the richest imagination, all this will require less than a hundred parachutes, well, let 150-200 if there is a pilot and navigator in the cockpit. And in an ordinary brigade SPN at least under 2500 thousand parachutes, taking into account the spare. And here come

[Doliva63]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Doliva63

And further. What does the paratrooper do in his spare time from styling? True - charters, drill, tactics, fire. And PDS nicknames? Stacking, styling and styling. I laid and hopped both there and there.

In no case do I try to challenge your experience, but I must admit that in a regular aviation fighter regiment there are 18 aircraft and 36 pilots, plus brake parachutes. With the richest imagination, all this will require less than a hundred parachutes, well, let 150-200 if there is a pilot and navigator in the cockpit. And in an ordinary brigade SPN at least under 2500 thousand parachutes, taking into account the spare. And here come

There are usually 3 AEs in a regiment, 12 cars each + 2-3 "twin" = 39 cars + Regiment control: commander, his deputy, deputy for flight, NachPo (if the regiment is separate), chief reconnaissance and chief PDS = 45 aircraft ... And exactly the same number of pilots. And the same number of rescue parachutes + some for replacement (I don't remember already). So it is with the PTC (brake). But I'm not talking about the number of parachutes, but about the number of packs per soldier, haven't you noticed? Let the brigade have 2500 domes, l / s - from 1500 to 2000, this is one and a half domes per person, that is, 17,142 practical styling per year per person. Compare with PDS - more than 30. What is the dispute about? Plus, PDSniks laid D1 of all series, PTL, T-4, UT-15 and PO-9. They themselves jumped on everything except the software. Only one fighter jumped with him, he was a master of sports. In reconnaissance, I have never met such generalists for laying. And mind you - ordinary regular handlers of the "line" air regiment.

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

They themselves jumped on everything except the software. Only one fighter jumped with him, he was a master of sports. In reconnaissance, I have never met such generalists for laying. And mind you - ordinary regular handlers of the "line" air regiment.

I will touch on more mundane problems.
1. The transfer of parachute systems from parts of the Special Forces and Airborne Forces will require new full-time positions in the Air Forces (aviation regiments) due to the number of parachutes themselves. At whose expense will there be an increase in staff, because this is a painful issue with a constant number of troops in the Armed Forces.
2. Who will build the capital structures for such a huge number of parachute systems.
3. What if the commandos can be airborne both by army aircraft and the airborne forces - what do they need to have two sets of airborne systems in different places?
4. There is a psychological factor when the plane falls apart or the engine breaks down. The fallen paratrooper has at least some chance to escape with his parachute in this case, but with aircraft systems it will be impossible.
There are still a number of uncomfortable questions for developers, but I think that specialists understand better than me that not everything is as rosy as the designers of this system describe based on the realities of the service. By the way, I may have taken an unsuccessful example from fighter aircraft, but as far as I remember, in the GSVG such regiments consisted of two squadrons of 9 aircraft, and there were two pilots for each aircraft. Probably now a lot has changed - I will not argue.

[Doliva63]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Doliva63

They themselves jumped on everything except the software. Only one fighter jumped with him, he was a master of sports. In reconnaissance, I have never met such generalists for laying. And mind you - ordinary regular handlers of the "line" air regiment.

I will touch on more mundane problems.
1. The transfer of parachute systems from parts of the Special Forces and Airborne Forces will require new full-time positions in the Air Forces (aviation regiments) due to the number of parachutes themselves. At whose expense will there be an increase in staff, because this is a painful issue with a constant number of troops in the Armed Forces.
2. Who will build the capital structures for such a huge number of parachute systems.
3. What if the commandos can be airborne both by army aircraft and the airborne forces - what do they need to have two sets of airborne systems in different places?
4. There is a psychological factor when the plane falls apart or the engine breaks down. The fallen paratrooper has at least some chance to escape with his parachute in this case, but with aircraft systems it will be impossible.
There are still a number of uncomfortable questions for developers, but I think that specialists understand better than me that not everything is as rosy as the designers of this system describe based on the realities of the service. By the way, I may have taken an unsuccessful example from fighter aircraft, but as far as I remember, in the GSVG such regiments consisted of two squadrons of 9 aircraft, and there were two pilots for each aircraft. Probably now a lot has changed - I will not argue.

1. Do you think that parachutes in service can be used in the "brimless" version? Where will you check the lines if there are no gasses?
2. There are enough aluminum sheds for laying - cheap and cheerful. For storage - there are plenty of places after the "update" of the aircraft.
3. For special forces, this option is not applicable - it implies that the landing method is determined "on the move", according to the situation. I can't imagine that. There is an Operational Case, everything is spelled out in advance.
4. The fact is that this is not about airplanes, but about helicopters - from an airplane you will not ensure the stated jump height of 70 m. And even a serious failure at the helicopter is not so fatal.
At the present stage of the state of the army and the economy, this idea in general seems crazy to me.
I gave an example of an air regiment of the late 70s - early 80s from the Air Force of the Leningrad Military District - the regiment was IBA, but we also had fighters (Air Force, not Air Defense) in our neighbors - the difference was small. But in the GSVG of the mid-80s, fighter regiments had only about 35 aircraft, but all in the same 3 squadrons. Maybe where there were 2 AEs each, but I have not seen such information. And I have never heard of the shortage of pilots - usually on the contrary, because the cars went to the schedule, someone was in the TEC, someone in the squadron was repaired, but everyone wants to fly, other cars flew twice as much as the "norm" because of this - it did not concern only the planes of the squadron commander and higher - they flew only owners. And so a specific "crew" was assigned to each aircraft - a pilot, an aircraft chief technician and mechanics. "I won't tell you about all of Odessa ...", of course, but I haven't seen anything else. Maybe out of luck

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

At the present stage of the state of the army and the economy, this idea in general seems crazy to me.

So it seems to me that the developers smelled money, and are trying to impose a parachute system, which is very doubtful from the point of view of combat use, in the hope that the military will grab it if all this is well publicized and greased.

[Doliva63]

I think so.

[Nikolaevich I]

Pancake ! And these "especially gifted" "minus players" at least understood what I mean? It seems to me that ,, no fig ,,!

[Hunter 2]

70 - 80 meters, almost the maximum permissible height for a jump, even for athletes!
Well, if the Ministry of Defense gets such a system! Good luck to developers and successful completion of State Tests.

[Threaded screw]

70 - 80 meters, almost the maximum permissible height for a jump, even for athletes!

With a parachute for a base 40 meters of norms.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Threaded Screw

70 - 80 meters, almost the maximum permissible height for a jump, even for athletes!

With a parachute for a base 40 meters of norms.

And what is the buzz 40 meters?

[Evil543]

Has time to open up or already do not care

[Doliva63]

Here I am about the same.

[Rusfaner]

Excellent! Especially - the method of application to / from the aircraft. I jumped a lot and if the task changes and it is necessary to "change clothes", then these are "dances with a tambourine" in the cramped cockpit.
True, never below 100 m. From a hundred - on C4-U (demo) and D6 with An-26.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Rusfaner

Excellent! Especially - the method of application to / from the aircraft. I jumped a lot and if the task changes and it is necessary to "change clothes", then these are "dances with a tambourine" in the cramped cockpit.
True, never below 100 m. From a hundred - on C4-U (demo) and D6 with An-26.

On the D-6 from 100 m.? Well, how should I put it?

[Evil543]

Z- 5 the lower limit of a hundred meters seems

[Doliva63]

Quote: Evil543

Z- 5 the lower limit of a hundred meters seems

Yes, according to the passport - 100 m.

[aszzz888]

(...) if it is necessary to parachute with a parachute, then they are fastened to these systems inside the side, and if tactical landing is possible by landing method, then the military personnel do not need to tinker with parachutes, they simply do not fasten to the system and land in a landing way or on a rope

I believe the landing / specialists this method will more quickly get out of the fly. apparatus.

[Slavs]

So the landing will soon completely forget the installation))

[Doliva63]

Quote: Slavs

So the landing will soon completely forget the installation))

Nobody has yet canceled the airborne training, they will not forget

[Slavs]

Yes, I joked on my own head ...)) They threw minuses, to see the most severe of the paratroopers got on the site))

[Malyuta]

Quote: Doliva63

Nobody has yet canceled the airborne training, they will not forget

The VDP still rules, the money is paid, so they jump on the "wood" as much as they can, salary + bonus. And new systems are dreams

[Doliva63]

Quote: Malyuta

Quote: Doliva63

Nobody has yet canceled the airborne training, they will not forget

The VDP still rules, the money is paid, so they jump on the "wood" as much as they can, salary + bonus. And new systems are dreams

It is unlikely that they will pay more on new systems - so what's the difference?

[Malyuta]

Quote: Doliva63

It is unlikely that they will pay more on new systems - so what's the difference? laughing drinks

If they were still everywhere these new systems, and on the other hand, say retrain and money for it, so they will retrain and start to jump Now as, fizo passed-the prize, jumping-prize, "fields" -the prize, the shooting range-again a prize, financial stimulation, however

[Doliva63]

Quote: Malyuta

Quote: Doliva63

It is unlikely that they will pay more on new systems - so what's the difference? laughing drinks

If they were still everywhere these new systems, and on the other hand, say retrain and money for it, so they will retrain and start to jump Now as, fizo passed-the prize, jumping-prize, "fields" -the prize, the shooting range-again a prize, financial stimulation, however

Oh, damn it! And why am I not in the army now? On all counts, I would claim a double bonus: they didn’t get out of the fields and shooting ranges, they jumped twice, at the check a physicist asked if you weren’t tired yet? But then we weren’t for money, we wanted to be the best, real masters. I hope financial stimulation does not kill this spirit of continuous self-improvement, without which a normal officer is simply unthinkable

[Malyuta]

Quote: Doliva63

But then we weren’t for money, we wanted to be the best, real masters.

Another life was, Comrade! I don’t want to talk about a lot .., but now others have measured everything and everything, money has become a measure of self-improvement, and if earlier we played company rugby in a company, now every tooth costs money ...
Zero we will not lose heart!

[Doliva63]

Quote: Malyuta

Quote: Doliva63

But then we weren’t for money, we wanted to be the best, real masters.

Another life was, Comrade! I don’t want to talk about a lot .., but now others have measured everything and everything, money has become a measure of self-improvement, and if earlier we played company rugby in a company, now every tooth costs money ...
Zero we will not lose heart!

No, we won't, that's for sure! "Nothing in life can knock us out of the saddle!" (C)

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

But then we weren’t for money, we wanted to be the best, real masters. I hope financial stimulation does not kill this spirit of continuous self-improvement, without which a normal officer is simply unthinkable

The trouble is that money separates officers, and this, unfortunately, is a demoralizing factor - there will no longer be the unity of the officer corps that was in Soviet times. You can imagine the current situation in military camps, and what happened before, when each officer was equal, and if there were any differences in salaries, then they were insignificant and understandable to everyone. And now there is too much scope for some commanders to financially spread rot of objectionable subordinates, and this will not improve the army.

[Doliva63]

For some time it seems to me that the army in the Russian Federation is for the sake of sight. Hence the attitude to the officer corps.

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

For some time it seems to me that the army in the Russian Federation is for the sake of sight. Hence the attitude to the officer corps.

Those who conceived all this knew very well how to throw ideological out of the army, and gradually replace them with those who would be ready to serve without thinking much about the people and their needs. This is how caste is formed in many armies of the world, and we only repeat the experience of others. We still meet with our classmates, whom we met fifty years ago for the first time in the same barracks - this is until the end of our lives, although not all of us remained what we were in our youth. I don’t know if those who will replace us will have this, but something tells me that this will not be achieved, although they will have meetings.

[Doliva63]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Doliva63

For some time it seems to me that the army in the Russian Federation is for the sake of sight. Hence the attitude to the officer corps.

Those who conceived all this knew very well how to throw ideological out of the army, and gradually replace them with those who would be ready to serve without thinking much about the people and their needs. This is how caste is formed in many armies of the world, and we only repeat the experience of others. We still meet with our classmates, whom we met fifty years ago for the first time in the same barracks - this is until the end of our lives, although not all of us remained what we were in our youth. I don’t know if those who will replace us will have this, but something tells me that this will not be achieved, although they will have meetings.

They have everything, as we had. Just something else. They get together, remember how the cadets "covered" the prostitutes, how the whole cadet battery fucked some drunk woman who wandered into the barracks, discuss the fate of the "fagots" of whom they had a lot - these were the lieutenants from EVAKU told me, graduates of the 90s, when after Chechnya they left the army and worked in my unit. I would not dream of such a thing in a nightmare. Almost all of my graduates left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some, however, fluttered for another 15 years We had two Tatar twins from Moscow - identical, you can tell hell! But - one fan of CSKA, and the other - Spartak. It is clear that they always watched football in the company. So, before the CSKA-Spartak match, these guys were bred in different corners of the "auditorium" so as not to fight One became a "bum" in the Minsk Ministry of Defense, the other - in the General Staff in the same place. And one more lived to be the brigade commander of the Marinogorsk brigade, that is, in the same place, in Belarus, the guys were lucky.

[ccsr]

Quote: Doliva63

I wouldn’t dream of such a terrible dream.

You yourself see that we were completely different, and you understand why I am worried about the future of our army. What worries me is that after such an upbringing there is a wild case when they send him to serve in Syria for a bribe, i.e. to where our people are being killed. This is what a nit you need to be in order for such a soldier, risking his life, to demand money for a business trip - that’s what we have come to. I do not idealize the Soviet Army, but then for such deeds they could immediately be put on trial. It remains only to regret those who are now serving in the army - they are unlikely to understand what a real army friend is.

[Hypatius]

But how, now, are we doing with the high-altitude parachute system?

[bk0010]

Something is somehow scary: the dome lies on the plane (who laid it?), The minimum height, there is no emergency parachute ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: bk0010

Something is somehow scary: the dome lies on the plane (who laid it?), The minimum height, there is no emergency parachute ...

In the insert you can read who laid it, will this help you?

[bk0010]

Quote: Doliva63

In the insert you can read who laid it, will this help you?

I will know to whom to come at night ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: bk0010

Quote: Doliva63

In the insert you can read who laid it, will this help you?

I will know to whom to come at night ...

If a poor stacker, and they are obliged to jump on their installation 2 times a year, in my opinion, then there will be no one to

[ficus2003]

"How to fold the parachute correctly". Benefit. Second edition. Corrected.

[unhappy]

Aircraft to the forefront without reservation, less than 100 meters

[ficus2003]

... this is the only system that allows you to enter the unit immediately into the battle, and not land in a distance from the front edge to prepare

It also means that the enemy does not have any air defense even the most primitive. Who is this against?

[Lopatov]

Quote: ficus2003

It also means that the enemy does not have any air defense even the most primitive.

Or is she crushed.

[Speedy]

On steaming, maybe even the radioactive positions of the enemy landing. In principle, to stake out a destroyed or abandoned line is normal. Again, low-altitude landing is a quick gathering; you can create bridgeheads for example faster. Or a tactical environment.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Spade

Quote: ficus2003

It also means that the enemy does not have any air defense even the most primitive.

Or is she crushed.

And the air force too. What for then the landing? Solemn march to the capital of the adversary without any risk regimental columns, not?

[tralflot1832]

I am shocked by the work of parachute testers. Why are they insured from such a height?

[iouris]

"Rosgosstrakh" - profitable insurance at any height!

[Threaded screw]

Than they are insured from such a height.

MHI agreement))

[iouris]

The next step: a borderless non-parasitic system.

[Lopatov]

Quote: iouris

The next step: a borderless non-parasitic system.

For a long time already.

[Knell wardenheart]

I’m not fumbling much about this topic, but if I’m not mistaken for airborne equipment, a question of a similar plan was solved by some kind of pyro-gas checkers inside the parachute dome itself, which worked at the right time. At least in the video it looked like this. Wouldn’t this be a solution for landing people at extremely low altitudes?

[tikhonov66]

for airborne equipment a question of a similar plan was solved by some kind of pyro-gas checkers

These are not "checkers". These are solid fuel jet engines (braking).

- with equipment - SO - it is possible. She is SOLID.
And the paratrooper - he is much "softer" ...
8-))

[Alexfly]

Bullshit for science fiction - sawing a weight, because it is golden.

[kytx]

In the film "the edges of the future" such a system is shown
It seems like a fantasy
But tin of course and technically real

[lvov_aleksey]

there’s some kind of mistake, the author at least understands what 70-80 meters is in the city (ps at least in the field: IL-76 at an altitude of 80 meters, don’t tell my slippers)?)))))))))

[gorenina91]

this is the only system that allows you to enter the unit immediately into battle, and not land in a distance from the front edge for training. It allows you to drop soldiers from a height of 70-80 meters.

- From 70-80 meters ...

“But at such an altitude ...- an airplane, a helicopter, and any other flying vehicle (LA) with paratroopers who didn’t even have time to leave it ...- can simply be shot down from a machine gun, machine gun, simply from any small arms, etc. .. -Yes, just shelling this aircraft with large losses of paratroopers who have not had time to leave this aircraft ...