US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



lha7-keel.jpg


Sea Waves said:
Pascagoula June 20, 2014 - Lynne Mabus, wife of Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and sponsor of the amphibious assault ship Tripoli (LHA 7), signs her initials onto the ship’s keel plate this morning at HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding division in Pascagoula, Miss. She then certified that the keel had been “truly and fairly laid.”

Huntington Ingalls Industries authenticated the keel for the future multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA 7). The warship is under construction at the company's Ingalls Shipbuilding division. Steve Senk, an HII employee who was awarded the Silver Star for his actions to save the second USS Tripoli (LPH 10) after the ship struck a mine during Operation Desert Storm, was also involved in the ceremony.

Secretary Mabus paid tribute to the Ingalls shipbuilders during his remarks. "Today, we have 100 ships forward-deployed around the world," he said. "They're out there standing the watch, protecting this country. They're a long way from home. They're there because of the great work of the shipbuilders here at Huntington Ingalls. They're there because you are building the most technologically advanced platforms in the world, and you are building them for the defense of this country. We couldn't put the fleet to sea—we wouldn't have a fleet—without the dedicated men and women who work here."

Gov. Phil Bryant also attended the ceremony and had similar praise for the Ingalls workforce. "You are building the most technologically advanced warships on the planet right here in Pascagoula, Mississippi," he said. "Those of you who stand here today with the hardhats on are making sure that our warfighters now and for generations to come will have the ships they need to defend liberty around the world. There is no better work. God has blessed you with the talent and the ability to do this. Let us not take it for granted. Let us always remember that what you do here today will save lives and defend liberty."

The future USS Tripoli and the future USS America (LHA 6) are the first two ships in a new class of amphibious assault ships for the U.S. Navy. The ship will be 844 feet long and 106 feet wide and will displace 44,971 long tons.

"We have been building large-deck amphibious assault ships here at Ingalls for more than 48 years," said Ingalls Shipbuilding President Brian Cuccias. "Our facility is uniquely structured and our shipbuilders are uniquely qualified to continue building these great ships. LHAs are the most complex conventionally powered Navy warships that are built, and we are excited about delivering Tripoli for our customer and our nation."

The fuel-efficient gas turbine propulsion system will drive the ship in excess of 20 knots. The warship will accommodate a crew of 1,204 (with 102 officers) and 1,871 troops. Tripoli will be capable of carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit, including Marine helicopters, MV‐22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft and F‐35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) STOVL aircraft.

At the culmination of the ceremony, Mrs. Mabus signified that the keel of Tripoli had been "truly and fairly laid." Ingalls welder George Powe then welded her initials, along with HII employee Steve Senk's, onto a ceremonial keel plate that will remain with the ship. Senk, who works at the company's Continental Maritime subsidiary in San Diego, served as a lieutenant commander on the USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship also built at Ingalls.

"It was in this shipyard where my grandparents worked, and my grandmother was even a real-life 'Rosie the Riveter,'" Mrs. Mabus said. "We have a family photo of her standing in a pair of trousers with a bandana on her head just like in the poster. The money from these jobs enabled my mother to grow up. And as a child growing up in Jackson, Mississippi, I spent many summers here in Pascagoula, near the water, the shrimp boats and the skyline of the shipyard. They are still such a vivid part of my memory."

Like the lead ship in the class, America, Tripoli is designed for survivability with increased aviation capacity, including an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment, and increased aviation fuel capacity. Similar to its predecessors, the ship will be able to operate as the flagship for an expeditionary strike group. Ingalls has built five Tarawa-class (LHA 1) ships and eight Wasp-class (LHD 1) ships. The first of the America class was recently delivered and will be commissioned on Oct. 11 in San Francisco.

Tripoli will be the third ship to bear the name commemorating the capture of Derna, Libya, in 1805 by a small force of U.S. Marines and approximately 370 soldiers from 11 other nationalities. The battle, later memorialized in the Marines' Hymn with the line "to the shores of Tripoli" brought about a successful conclusion to the combined operations of the First Barbary War.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
US House approves defence spending bill, blocks A-10 retirement
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLEWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 20:49 20 Jun 2014
The US House of Representatives voted on 19 June to block a US Air Force proposal to retire the Fairchild Republic A-10 attack fighter next year.

By approving the A-10 amendment filed by Representative Candice Miller by a 300-114 vote, the full membership of the House also thwarted a previous vote by the defence appropriations committee to retire the close air support specialist.

Miller added the amendment to the House version of a $491 billion Fiscal 2015 defence appropriations bill, which members approved on 20 June by a 340-73 vote.

Miller, who represents a district that includes an A-10 base, defended the A-10 as ideally suited to the close air support mission.

“The air force wants to save money, but they don’t have an adequate follow-on at this time, and, with what’s happening in Iraq and the Middle East, eliminating the A-10 is the absolute wrong move,” Miller said as she introduced the amendment.

It was not clear if the House added funds to cover the roughly $900 million cost of operating the A-10 fleet each year. The overall House bill adds only $200 million to the funding level requested by the Obama Administration, which had omitted funding for the A-10.

The House also passed an amendment that blocks the air force from retiring the Boeing KC-10 tanker fleet in Fiscal 2015.

As the debate over defence appropriations heads to the Senate, the House version of the bill shows that strong support remains for new acquisition of military aircraft despite an trend of overall declining spending.

In February, the Obama Administration submitted a budget proposing to retire the A-10, the Bell Helicopter OH-58D and the Lockheed Martin U-2 fleets. The House version of the bill would rescue the A-10 and U-2 fleets from the boneyard next year, but allow the army’s armed scout helicopter to retire.

The Obama Administration also proposed trimming next year’s lot of F-35s from 42 aircraft to 34, but the House version of the bill would split the difference and buy 38 aircraft.

The House version also would buy 12 Boeing EA-18Gs next year, overturning the Pentagon’s decision to mothball the production line.

Manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft fleets also won support in the House version. The bill would double the number of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9 unmanned air vehicles to 24 and raise the number of acquired Northrop Grumman E-2Ds by one to five.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Iran's top leader opposes U.S. intervention in Iraq
Jun. 22, 2014 - 11:03AM |
Comments
A
A

BY Nasser Karimi
The Associated Press
FILED UNDER
News
Related Links
U.S., Iran, longtime enemies, now potential partners
TEHRAN, IRAN — Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday he is against U.S. intervention in neighboring Iraq, where Islamic extremists and Sunni militants opposed to Tehran have seized a number of towns and cities, the official IRNA news agency reported.

“We strongly oppose the intervention of the U.S. and others in the domestic affairs of Iraq,” Khamenei was quoted as saying, in his first reaction to the crisis.

“The main dispute in Iraq is between those who want Iraq to join the U.S. camp and those who seek an independent Iraq,” said Khamenei, who has the final say over government policies. “The U.S. aims to bring its own blind followers to power since the U.S. is not happy about the current government in Iraq.”

Khamenei said Iraq’s government and its people, with help of top clerics, would be able to end the “sedition” there, saying extremists are hostile to both Shiites and Sunnis who seek an independent Iraq.

Earlier on Sunday Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said some countries “feed terrorists by their petrodollars,” in a veiled reference to the Arab Gulf states, and warned that such support would come back to haunt them.

“Rest assured, tomorrow will be your turn. The barbarous terrorists will go after supporters of terrorism in the future,” said Rouhani.

Shiite Iran supports the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and has said it would consider any request for military aid.

The commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, was reportedly in Iraq last week to consult with the government there on how to stave off insurgents’ gains. Soleimani’s forces are a secretive branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that in the past has allegedly organized Shiite militias to target U.S. troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria’s President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.

The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein fought an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s that left more than a million dead on both sides. Many current Iraqi leaders spent years in exile in Iran.

Special Forces conducts Naval training as Army emphasizes amphibious
A mobile Army could encroach on Marine turf - with sailors in the middle
Jun. 22, 2014 - 10:30AM |


By Lance M. Bacon
Staff writer Military times
FILED UNDER
News
ABOARD THE DOCK LANDING SHIP OAK HILL — Army Special Forces teamed up with the Gator Navy in April for training and managed to pull off a seemingly unprecedented feat: Simultaneously launching six helicopters from a two-spot dock landing ship.

The Oak Hill, while in the Atlantic, served as the landing pad for the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), better known as the “Night Stalkers,” who also practiced fast-roping to the ship from helicopters.

That’s the sort of tactic used to board noncompliant ships — a mission traditionally run by Navy SEALs and Marine Corps’ Maritime Raid Forces, in the latest sign the Army is boosting its amphibious operations as it emerges from a decade of land warfare.

Landing on a ship is not common for these pilots — nor was it a cakewalk for the ship’s crew. Multiple flight deck waivers were required due to having “way more birds than we would normally spot,” said Chief Warrant Officer 3 William East, the ship’s boatswain who oversaw the flight operations.

Many Oak Hill sailors were at sea for the first time, having earned their flight deck qualification only a few months before.

“We went from freshman level to pro overnight, but it was good,” East said in a mid-May interview on the ship. “We were doing some wild stuff that even I hadn’t seen. That was pretty cool.”

The Night Stalker operations, detailed here for the first time, are pushing the Navy’s envelope of the possible — but some are concerned that the Army is encroaching on the Marine Corps’ turf.

“They are spending money right now re-creating a Marine Corps because the Army thinks that they’re missing out on the current game of counterterrorism,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a former major in the Marine Corps Reserve. “I think everybody needs to relax and keep the Army as is.”

'Starting from scratch'
Leadership from both sides laid out the operations, beginning with what was theoretically possible and boiling it down into a game plan to get it done, said Cmdr. Bryan Carmichael, Oak Hill’s skipper.

The puzzle went beyond operating more than two helos on Oak Hill’s aft helicopter pads. The flight deck crew had to determine approach angles for the Army’s MH-6 Little Bird, MH-60M Black Hawk and MH-47 Chinook.

Different gradients and turning radii had to be taken into account. The ship drivers also had to maneuver the ship to provide acceptable wind envelopes for different helicopters during a simultaneous launch. In fact, the crew had no wind envelope data for the Chinook and used a template from a similar bird as the baseline, East said.

“A lot of the stuff we came to, there was no written procedure,” East said. “We were starting from scratch. So you had to break out the old Mark 1, Mod-0 common sense and go, ‘Does that make sense to me?’ And you had to apply that. If you are scared to apply that, you’re not going to be able to make that next step, which is to transition over.”

With waivers approved, the flight ops started with a steady pace under clear skies, low wind and calm seas. By the time it was over, they were catching multiple birds of different varieties at night — and eventually nailed the simultaneous launch of four Little Birds and two Black Hawks tightly packed on the ship’s two helicopter decks.

In the end, the biggest challenge was not in the physics of flight but the basics of communication.

“It’s almost like speaking a different language,” East said. “When we said to an Army bird coming in, ‘You’ve got a green deck,’ he was like ‘Uh, does that mean I’ve got permission to land?’ Yeah, that was a big learning process, but that was handled at the [E-7] level and above. For my guys, it was just chalk and chain it, and shut it down.”

While the combat pilots were able to land their birds, reading the bull’s-eye was a different matter, Carmichael joked. But in the end, he counted the event a success.

Amphibious Army
The Night Stalkers conducted similar training with the amphibious assault ship Peleliu in late April. The big-deck amphib hosted Army CH-47 Chinook troop carriers as part of exercises for the ship’s upcoming deployment.

While these training events have focused on special operations, there is no question that big Army wants more team-ups with the Navy.

The Pentagon says it can no longer afford to train, modernize and maintain an Army geared toward large, prolonged stability operations, with the new defense strategy shifting toward small-scale contingencies.

The Air-Sea Battle Doctrine, a centerpiece of the new defense strategy that relies mostly upon warships and bombers, has drawn opposition from the ground-pounders.

The Strategic Landpower Task Force — a joint endeavor with the Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command — argues that future conflicts demand expeditionary ground forces. The rapid deployment model used by Army brigades now looks remarkably similar to that of a Marine expeditionary unit.

Army leaders say these changes are an adaptation to emerging threats. But some analysts and lawmakers are critical of the moves, arguing the Army is neither trained nor equipped for the expeditionary operations — missions better left to the Marines.

“The Army is very much needed,” said Hunter, the California Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “The last thing you want to have to do is make everybody a Marine Corps. Then you have a big land-based war and do not have heavy artillery, tanks and the ability for prolonged, protracted engagements against a conventional force. That is what the Army is for.”

On the other hand, the Army has plenty of expeditionary experience, dating to World War II. Soldiers participated in the Normandy landings and the Pacific island-hopping campaign, among many other landings.

Furthermore, others see a benefit to greater expeditionary capabilities by the Army and want to see the tactics evolve. One of them is Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., who favors a quicker, lighter and more adaptable Army.

“I understand where [Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno] is coming from,” said Wittman, who chairs the HASC Readiness Subcommittee.“The Army is going to need to be flexible and able to move in and out of theater quickly, but it’s not going to do that like the Marines.”

So how does the Marine Corps feel about the Army doing this?

“I’ve never been on a crowded battlefield,” Lt. Gen. John Wissler, commander of III Marine Expeditionary Force and US Marine Corps Forces Japan, told the Defense Writers Group on April 11. “I’ve never been anywhere where I said ... ‘There’s too many guys here.’

While the Army is “making strides in learning how to operate” at sea, Wissler said there is an “unknown, hidden cost” associated with operating aircraft in saltwater environments.

“[Marine Corps] helicopters are different than [Army] helicopters,” he said. “The maritimization of an aviation platform is a very extensive, technical thing. If you don’t do it, you suffer significant challenges.”

Marcus Weisgerber and Paul McLeary contributed to this report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Opinion: Has The U.S. Army Thought Through Future Vertical Lift?
The coming rotorcraft non-revolution
Jun 19, 2014 Richard Aboulafia | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Army Tries Another Too-Big-to-Fail Project
(A version of this article appears in the June 16 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology)

Whether it’s a bank, a defense program or a rescue effort for a nation’s economy, we have become used to hearing the phrase “too big to fail.” After using that phrase, people shrug, feeling powerless to stop a fait accompli. Yet few lament the creation of something that’s too big to fail; they seem only to use the term after it’s too late to do anything about it.

With the Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program, we have a chance to witness this dynamic in action. While heavily hyped, the program’s aims are immodest, to say the least:

•First, reinvent the very idea of rotorcraft, with a new propulsion concept.

•Second, reinvent Army aviation, with 2,000-4,000 production aircraft to replace the AH-64, UH-60, CH-47 and other helicopters. The new models probably would help reinvent Navy, Marine, and Air Force rotary-wing aviation, too.

•Finally, FVL would precipitate restructuring of the vertical-lift industrial base, as selecting one or two contractors would not leave much room in the market for the losers.


Studies identify the FVL compound and tiltrotor concepts as the most promising.



Yet there are solid reasons to think FVL will go the way of Future Combat Systems, another overambitious too-big-to-fail Army concept. First, there are serious doubts about the Army’s willingness to pay a large premium for speed. For a half-century, helicopters have traveled at a maximum of about 150 kt. FVL, through its Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) precursor competition, aims to create a new rotorcraft architecture to achieve speeds of about 230 kt.


Unfortunately, the acquisition and operating costs associated with these new technologies are likely to be 40-70% greater than for current helicopters. Looking at the V-22 tiltrotor, the only fast new rotorcraft to be procured and fielded, the cost premium has been about 100% greater than for a traditional helicopter. The Marines and Special Operations Command consider this a worthwhile expense because amphibious and special operations benefit greatly from range and speed.

But most Army missions emphasize payload over other features. And that’s a problem. Assume a fixed procurement budget. If the Army buys a faster system with a 50% cost premium (half that for the V-22), it will get only two-thirds as much lift as with traditional rotorcraft. The requirements process involves accountants and engineers. With FVL, as with many aerospace programs, these two groups may not communicate.

Even if the Army considers the cost premium worthwhile, will export customers agree? Will the U.S. lose its rotorcraft export edge if it creates only high-end systems?

Second, the time allowed for the reinvention of vertical flight is highly unrealistic. JMR-TD is considering divergent design approaches, such as new tiltrotor or coaxial rotor concepts. In 2013, the Army awarded JMR technology development contracts to Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky Aircraft, AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft. In the next few months, two companies, and two different approaches, will be selected for prototype contracts, with flight tests starting in fiscal 2017. The acquisition program is expected to start in 2019.

Yet during the past four decades, there have been many false starts on the road to faster rotorcraft. The V-22 has been a limited success, but there have been many failures, too. It is quite unlikely that the correct way forward for a new rotorcraft concept can be determined in the next five years.

Third, the gap between the current generation and FVL will have profound consequences for Army Aviation and the industrial base. The current generation of rotorcraft programs peaked a few years ago, with procurement of the AH-64E, CH-47F/G, UH-60M, MH-60R/S and V-22 decreasing by about half between 2011 and 2018. Most of these programs will be dead by the next decade, so what will the Army, and the industry, do until FVL deliveries start?

FVL echoes the past few decades, when the Army spent billions on the doomed RAH-66 scout/attack helicopter. In the aftermath of its cancellation, derivatives of every legacy platform represented the only ways forward. Then, as now, subsystem improvements offered strong gains in performance and efficiency. That dynamic explains why the military is enthusiastically procuring platforms from the 1960s and 1970s.

Thus, by 2020, we will have better turboshafts, cockpit displays, and sensors and self-protection systems. Inserting these components onto existing platforms will offer much better performance with minimal cost penalty, creating a better way forward than FVL.

Advancing rotorcraft technology with JMR-TD represents a good use of several hundred million dollars. But FVL will require billions more. And, like most other too-big-to-fail ideas, FVL has no fallback plan. If the technology, economics or time frame don’t work, the U.S. will wind up procuring derivatives of existing platforms. The billions spent on FVL will be lost.

Contributing columnist Richard Aboulafia is vice president of analysis at Teal Group. He is based in Washington.
Now as Some of Our Readers know I Am Following FVL like a Carnivore does a Steak dinner.

This piece is a Opinion based article and It does have some meat on it's bones. But it fails In my opinion to consider the Emerging and Maturing Technologies and Concepts of FVL. The Conflicts of Iraq and particularly Afghanistan has shown the Shortcomings of existing platforms. Speed, lift and Altitude. Compound helicopters have been in the works for decades.

And now they are really In my opinion really cost Practical. And if they are Cost practical they why in the world should they not be used?

Now I do believe the Army is suffering some degree of Tunnel vision in terms of wanting one or two options. and I think they are lacking some deal of reality in not requiring a true attack variant. and the Time line of the Ultra class is bizarre.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Army to field new long-range parachute
Jun. 23, 2014 - 07:50AM |

By Joe Gould
Staff report
FILED UNDER
News
Military Technology
The Army will field a new long-range infiltration parachute to special-mission units, also known as Special Forces troops, allowing them to jump from as high as 35,000 feet, wear armor and steer to an objective with “pinpoint accuracy,” said Maj. Ernesto Perez, the Army’s assistant product manager for airdrop systems.

From 24,000 feet up, for instance, a soldier using the new chute could fly to an objective roughly 47 kilometers from his transport aircraft, making him and the transport harder to detect, said Doug Graham, a spokesman for the program office for soldier equipment.

At $10,000 each, Military Free Fall Advanced Ram-Air Parachute System, or RA-1, will replace the Army’s maneuverable canopy parachute, the MC-4, said Perez.

“The main users are going to be small units,” said Dan Shedd, a mechanical engineer at the Army’s Natick labs in Massachusetts. “You don’t want a lot of these parachutes in the air, with all that maneuverability and with a lot less experience, flying into each other. ”

The semi-elliptical shape of the RA-1’s canopy resembles the wing of a civilian paraglider, which uses thermal air currents for lift. The RA-1’s wing surface is the key to its glide performance. The MC-4 has fewer, larger cells and more drag.

It has the reliability of a conventional parachute, Shedd said. The RA-1’s reserve chute allows the maneuverability to fly to a target.

Parachute harnesses can cut circulation in the legs, making them go numb — which can make for tricky landings. RA-1’s has a seat that puts the weight on a soldier’s posterior so his legs won’t fall asleep.

“Jumper comfort was the biggest factor,” Perez said. “We wanted to make sure that when they hit the ground, they’re ready to fight.”

The parachute can carry up to 450 pounds, which means soldiers can bring more gear to the fight. A soldier inserted far from a resupply can take more along.

“You’re able to jump with body armor, so everything a soldier wasn’t able to jump with, especially in a freefall situation, you’re able to do now,” Perez said.

Program officials say they considered the jumper’s exit from the aircraft, the rate of decent, the glide ratio, the impact on the ground and the impact of the parachute opening.

“This one was substantially better to the older MC-4 parachute,” Perez said, and better than others tested.

Army officials said the parachute is due to be fielded in the third quarter of this year to special mission units but would not say whether conventional troops would get it. The Army still needs to develop equipment to allow troops to better endure the jump: more sophisticated navigation systems, longer-lasting oxygen systems and insulated clothing, said Shedd.

“This will be our Ferrari,” Perez said. “They already have the ability to do these operations, but we want to give them a complete kit.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pentagon: Destroyer intercepts warhead in Pacific Ocean BMD test
Jun. 23, 2014 - 09:26AM |

The Associated Press
FILED UNDER
News
Military Technology
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA — The military intercepted a target over the Pacific Ocean on Sunday in a test of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.

A long-range interceptor blasted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast, minutes after an intermediate-range ballistic missile was launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement.

Sailors aboard the destroyer Hopper destroyer detected and tracked the missile, and the interceptor struck the target warhead. Officials said it appears all components of the test performed as designed.

“This is a very important step in our continuing efforts to improve and increase the reliability of our homeland ballistic missile defense system,” said Navy Vice Adm. James D. Syring, Missile Defense Agency director.

Program officials will spend the next several months assessing the data obtained during the test.

It was the 65th successful intercept since 2001 for the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

A crew of soldiers from the 100th Missile Defense Brigade based in Colorado’s Schriever Air Force Base remotely launched the interceptor.

Kwajalein is a small atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands where the U.S. maintains a ballistic missile defense site. It’s halfway between Hawaii and Australia.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"From 24,000 feet up, for instance, a soldier using the new chute could fly to an objective roughly 47 kilometers from his transport aircraft, making him and the transport harder to detect, said Doug Graham, a spokesman for the program office for soldier equipment."
Pretty impressive. That's about 30 miles. Wonder what the range is at 35K feet...in optimum conditions I am sure.

If it is just straight math (which it will not be...but its good enough for a guestimate), 24 is to 47 km what 35 is to 68 kmn...so it would be about 43 miles.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Another option is a Wing pack like the Gryphon.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Advantage of the Gryphon is the Hard wings can serve to carry gear streamlining the jumper the disadvantage is what do you do with the wings after landing. It was all the rage back in 2008 then seems to have dropped off the Proverbial Radar
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Gryphon works like a glider
. The idea is to translate vertical drop into horizontal velocity. Basicly the Jumper would still be in a fall but the surface area of the wing would generate enough lift to slow the vertical decline. Then using a set of controls built in they could make adjustments to there course.
the same concept is at work for Wing suits Aka Flying squirrel suits only where a wing suit has to be streamlined preventing carry of equipment a wing pack offers the ability to store equipment for the jumper.
 
Top