ARMY AL&T
LCADS Low-Velocity parachutes descend to the ground in Afghanistan after being airdropped by a C-17. (USAF photo by SSgt Angelita Lawrence.)
Although airdrop was not widespread in Vietnam, innovations such as the Low- Altitude Parachute Extraction System and other ad hoc creative systems came into existence there. These systems were developed in response to the threat of anti-aircraft fire, parachute supply avail- ability, and the ability to meet airdrop accuracy requirements in a challenging mountainous jungle environment.
Airdrop Challenges In the wake of the 1990–1991 Gulf War, U.S. forces found themselves in a succession of humanitarian relief efforts. Not only did these humani- tarian missions nearly wipe out the entire Army inventory of parachutes, the majority of the high-cost, dura- ble equipment was never recovered. Most significant was Operation Provide Promise where 28,748 Container Delivery System (CDS) resupply bundles were dropped into Bosnia.
Conservatively, that represents $80 million in current-year dollars of unrecovered equipment. Despite this experience, the Army still did not pursue a low-cost alternative until the worst-case scenario was realized.
Less than a decade later, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) represented the perfect storm. Aside from the sheer volume, the logistical challenges weighed heavy on the Soldiers trying to execute the mission. A year into OEF, the rigging facilities available in theater were meager at best. It was not feasible to conduct any parachute packing or repair work of any scale. Nearly all of the parachutes had to be contingency packed in CONUS and air-shipped to Afghanistan at considerable cost.
The return of the airdrop equipment from the forward operating bases (FOBs) being supplied by airdrop
LCADS, when compared to legacy systems, has achieved a 50-percent cost reduction by using a simplified design that decreases manufacturing expense.
54 JULY –SEPTEMBER 2010
became another quandary. Referred to as retrograde, the theater hired local contractors to “truck” used parachutes back to the main operating base. This policy seemed the right thing to do. Unfortunately, more than 90 percent of the retrograded parachutes were damaged beyond economical repair and needed to be inspected, demili- tarized, and turned into the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office for accountability. Seeing the magni- tude of this multifaceted problem, the Army established a formal requirement for a low-cost airdrop capability and looked to the acquisition community for a solution.
Family of Low-Cost Air Items The Army’s Product Manager Force Sustainment Systems (PM FSS) Cargo Aerial Delivery Team, part of Project Manager Force Projection under the leadership of Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support, responded to the requirement with a proposal for a family of low- cost air items. Using in-house designs, PM FSS tested and incrementally fielded the Low-Cost Container (LCC), Low-Cost High-Velocity (LCHV) para- chute, and the Low-Cost Low-Velocity
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
