allright its great that the soldiers are comfy and all but decending 49% slower gives them a 49% higher chance to be sniped or just taken out by just about any ground forces that have anyting stronger than a bb gun.

Somehow I think the people who are designing the parachute knwo what they want to design, and why, so the 49% thing is not exactly a negative

I think the 49% is a max . this thing is not a traditionl round parachute , more like a modern more square one - so you can make it decend faster , change directions , and slow down descent as you reach ground level . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hh_vj4XvRU&NR=1

Dexter, I hope so, otherwise these guys are siting ducks. Or maybe falling ducks.

they dont parachute down in the middle of a fire fight... *rolls eyes*

usually they will land in a pre-determined safe zone, or "green zone", or the done with the cover of night.

Thank you Murc! At least one person on here has been in the real world and NOT gotten all of their military know-not from TV and video games.

Seriously. This isn't Battlefield 1942, it's modern military technology.

Soldiers don't parachute into enemy fire; that's not the point of parachute drops.

Unless you'd prefer that soldiers ended up hobbled by broken legs and twisted ankles from falling too quickly with their heavy gear?

I don't agree with the comments saying it would be more dangerous because they are going 49% slower. Ok to some degree it will be but what you need to consider is that it is probably a measure with respect to the same load. With the modern fighter, the load is actually too much for the T-10, so they are descending too fast, which is dangerous during landing. Thus they will now approach the descent speed that they should have for a safe landing. What I forsee happening is that they now realise they can take even more with them during a jump, thus further burdening the soldier.

To everyone saying that they dont parachute into the middle of a firefight...maybe so, but I do recall a certain day in history where they drove up to a beach in boats, dropped the wall and made a mad dash thru the most intense gunfire in history.

So...it can and probably will happen.

That was over 60 years ago since Normanday. In this day and age, they would obliterate the area with long range tactical warheads and very precise cannon fire before even storming a beach like that now. The ability now with IR and SATS makes Normandy a mute issue, I agree with Murc.

As a parachutist, and also ex-mil, I am glad for this....

I was in Europe doing a lot of stuff when parachutes took on the 'wing' configuration, and our domes were yesterday's stuff. When one is jumping with ahaevy pack, one drops it below in the last minute of fall, and the pack then hits first. This 'supposedly' gave the chute time to adapt to the lessened load, and you landed a bit more softly, but in reality did nothing to decrease speed.

If you want to know what 49% means to your knees and ankles, it is the difference in jumping from an 8 foot wall (most parachuting is this amount of impact, save horizontal wing landings, done at a run) or a 12 foot wall, more consistent with the old 'chutes (and a lot harder on knees, and likely to start breaking legs).

Wings and oversize chutes have been in the civilian market for over 40 years, popular for over 35, so about time the Mil world caught up. - kh

@LB...Never underestimate the stupidity in the Military.

While, yes, I agree that it most likely would not happen, you cant say never.

I dont know if you have been in the military, but I have and they STILL do some dumb-@ss things.
And depending on the outcome, they will consider people expendable.

If they ever do another operation like Normandy then you don't need to worry about the parachutes dropping at a slower rate, we'd be dicked anyway. Military techonolgy has advanced to fast for a drop to even occur in a hot zone at this point, and even if it did happen theres no way they would drop troops, just equipment. Asside from drills the only reason they really drop soldiers at this point is just to make sure nothing breaks on the way down.
If it was an emergency situation that could occur in a hot zone (such as a plane getting shot down) they would use the t10 chutes or something faster (since it's pretty easy to hit things going in a straight path at a fairly constant speed). Just because there is a new parachute doesn't mean all of them are going to be replaced, right tool for the right job and all that crap.

They have a pre-landing group secure the dropzone (DZ). They could be rangers, special forces, or pathfinders. The equipment that they are now carrying is getting heavy - remotes, sensors, etc. From the DZ, they assemble and move towards an object in an organized manner, not scattered all over the horizon.

I'm no expert on skydiving. I'm not even a novice... In fact calling me a skydiving noob would be a compliment... but anyway, I would imagine a chute like this would have some advantages in the form of a HALO jump (better slowing) but could have some serious drawbacks during regular jumps (more subject to cross-winds, detection, updrafts, etc).

Again, not an expert, but It's good to see that old technology (which still works well) can be adapted and updated to fit more needs.

82nd AB/Civilian Jumper here-Murc is right. We land at a predetermined DZ secured hopefully by another ground force.

RE: HALO jumps-High Altitude Low Open-If the T-10/T-11 were used on a HALO jump and the chute deployed at 15-25,000 feet-it would explode-it would "possibly fail" with the equipment weight and jumper weight. Think air density here folks..or lack thereof!The T-10/T11 chutes are made for altitudes below 10,000 feet. HALO jumps usually use a RAM air canopy-7or 9 cell. The idea is that you leave the C-5 at 25,000 feet and freefall to an altitude where you can deploy and parasail into the DZ without being seen.

Really people. It's shocking how many of you still think we are fighting wars as we did in World War II. We probably have not parachuted into the middle of a battle since Korea. WW II for certain. Vietnam was mostly Air Cavalry deployments. The chute is designed for modern warfare period. More weight and more control.

Just thought I'd throw out there because of the inanity of some of the comments that the Geneva Convention explicitly forbids the firing upon of paratroopers before they hit the ground. Not to say that any given country we'd be fighting would follow the Geneva Convention, but if they weren't, I'm sure we'd have a lot less of a problem carpet bombing them before sending in our boys.

I was going to leave this one alone until someone got the Geneva Convention out of context.

It's against the GC to fire on downed air-crew/pilots, etc. as they leave a burning airplane, etc. They're no longer combatants as their main weapon (the fighter/bomber, etc.) is about to crash.

Paratroopers are combatants, essentially "on their way to work" and may be fired upon.

I agree w/ everyone who says U.S. Soldiers are unlikely to jump into a hot zone.

The face of "modern warfare" is changing. There's more "street fighting" (urban ops) than WWII-style campaigns.

Sure, there will still be times/places to drop-in paratroopers (maybe even into unsecured areas), but we'll have UAV and satellite images, etc., to put them someplace where they won't be expecting a "welcoming committee."

Being retired military and having spent time with Special Ops Mick13000 makes the most sense of the bunch. Now days most products are created with input from the boots on the ground since they are the ones that will be using it and know what they need. (And no, I don't jump. No reason to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.)

This is a great development for soldiers. Normally United States airborne soldiers don't die for their country they let the enemy die for theirs and they surely don't jump into a firefight or a minefield.

I was a member of the 1st Bn 75th Rgr back in the mid 90's. Unless things have changed, Rangers jump behind enemy lines so there is never such a thing as a secure drop zone. That is until the Rangers are done securing it. I humped a radio and with a full combat load I carried well over 100 lbs. of equipment. Assuming that there is some way to control the rate of decent and direction, a 49% reduction in landing speed would be a godsend. Rangers are tough, but a broken leg or twisted ankle make for a long day on the battlefield.

last drop into a hot zone was grenada. right onto the airport runway. out in the open. yes the right equipment for the job.but the problem is, war dictates change because when the shooting starts not all goes according to plan. also intelligence isnt always up to par. dont forget murphy's law!

I understand peoples concern with the 49% slower decent but the article never said you couldn't "slip" with these chutes which significantly speeds the decent. The 49% slowdown probably comes into play when your preparing to land and pull the opposite risers of the direction of your decent to slow you down for the PLF(Parachute Landing "Fall") not Parachute Land and "Stick It". Even though, with the 49% slower rate of decent you probably could "stick it".

with a square chute like that it probably has toggles not risers to control direction and rate of decent. The round T-10 chute was designed with no toggles to limit control so they could drop the load either troops or equipment in a general area to reduce spreading everyone or everything out all over the place. As for my opinion on the Geneva Convention, it was constructed so that we don't look like the bad guys and to give the general public peace of mind that their troops are not over there killing everything that moves.

Unfortunately, the rules regarding the Geneva Convention sometimes get waylaid during the heat of battle. It's only after the war is over, and the victors prosecuting the losers, do they come into play.

Why does it always take so long for our bloated inefficient government entities (civilian, military) to make improvements?
Take the FAA. Every single passenger jet should have an on board radar system on board as a failsafe for traffic problems.
Why does it always take a tragedy to effect change?
New parachute from the 50's? There's should have been several upgrades by now. As a matter of fact, there should be varied types. People with more weight get a bigger chute. People that need to deploy and reach the ground sooner should have more maneuverable chutes. The military, with its one size fits all, philosophy is wasteful and archaic.