Is this a viable alternative to Airborne?

SFC Ralph E Kelley, joint forcible entries are conducted essentially by flooding as much combat power on the X as possible. That is why we use non steerable chutes, to put as many people in the air/ on the ground as possible as safely as possible given the scenario. We are talking Battalion or Brigade size elements. Any where from 500-5000 people hitting the ground in a 72 hour period. The room for error using the jet packs would be absolutely zero for elements this large. Sustaining the training for those would be a horrible ordeal. Keeping people jump current is hard enough, now they need flight hours. The jetpack may have application in small team insertions, say 6-12 people, that can be highly trained on it. The other issue is supporting the teams insert that far in logistically, and retrieving the jetpacks upon mission complement. While the jetpacks are cool as hell they have a very limited military application.

MSG (Join to see) - Thank you for a concise capabilities and logistical assessment.
Were these issues previously discussed and discard/accepted prior to the implementation of paratroop units prior to WWII, by the Italians in the 1930s? It has always been my impression that British, Soviets and US generated Airborne units in response to German successes prior to the Crete Invasion.

SFC Ralph E Kelley sustainment is always an issue when conducting airborne operations. You can only kick a guy out with so much weight on them. The 82 loves to say "logistics dont drive an operation." While technically, no they dont, your operational reach and operation endurance will be severally crippled if you do not have a sustainment plan.
Airborne operations have always been, and will always be the most dangerous operation to conduct. Which is why air land is still the preferred way to seize an airfield. To mitigate risks pre assault fires will be planned to mitigate anti air assets. Even how long the birds will be susceptible to anti air measures, or "exposure time," is calculated into the drop plan. Strapping a jet engine to everyone's back will definitely increase that risk and I dont see many commanders blessing off on that.

Wow the key issue I see is that a big group of these would also show up on radar. dumb teenagers would never be able to stay in formation and on target! This is a great idea for replacing HAHO jumps for ops but not division size insertions.

How about Special Ops?

A HAHO operation can sail in for something like 10-20 miles, has no risk of engine failure, and a much smaller radar signature than a set of wings made from hard materials.
Plus, where are they starting from? If they were dropped from a plane 30 miles away, that would work. But, starting from a friendly location on the ground, that jet lacks the fuel reserves to fly for long distances.
I think the advantages don't outweigh the drawbacks

SFC (Join to see) - Thanks - I was looking for that type of reasoned answer. Remember that the D-Day casualties for the US airborne divisions as 1,240 for the 101st Airborne Division and 1,259 for the 82nd Airborne. Of those, the 101st suffered 182 killed, 557 wounded, and 501 missing. For the 82nd, the total was 156 killed, 347 wounded, and 756 missing.
Virtually all the missing were in downed planes. So roughly 40% for the 101st and 60% for the 82nd of their total casualties didn’t make it out of the aircraft.
In early parachute training the jumps regularly had 10-15% injuries

So... He still makes a landing with a parachute, AND he's sorely lacking in combat gear and support once behind the lines. So nah; pretty cool high tech, but not ready for a combat insertion. Still cool tho… Potential maybe someday, just not today. Just MHO. Cool as hell though. I'll give it that. Strap a couple 240G's on it and I might give it a test ride. But yea, the additional weight. And my K-Bar. Got to have my K-Bar. And hydration, some in-flight snacks, some Comm... You get my point. Properly set up for an insertion, you'd zero in like a lawn dart. But most def not knocking a potential force multiplier (someday).

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth and Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Thank you sirs and I agree that our current 'Airborne System' is not broken. I also remember when everyone thought President Carter was a peanut farmer - but he signed the papers that got us Chobham Armor for the M1 Tanks, the M1 Abrams, it’s 120mm, the Bradley, A-10 Warthog upgrades, AT-4s, Improved TOW missiles, laser guided bombs, improved avionics, the MLRS, Frequency-hopping radios and much more.
Not too shabby for someone who was considered a “Lame Duck" President

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Currently i see that is true.

I remember SEAD as Suppression Enemy Air Defense. But yea airborne operations are important and essential for quick reaction but I’m not sure Jetman is the answer. Watching the video got me thinking about Disney’s The Rocketeer and Marvel’s Falcon. So yeah if we can develop technology that allows covert air insertion in contested air space I’m for it.

I have two combat jumps and the C-130 is just fine for the job. No matter what the ill informed believe you have max speeds to consider. The C-130 can fly in Nap of the earth and climb up to 600 feet off load the troops in short order while some can stay low and drop special equipment ie tanks and canons.