albanlusitanae - You have expressed, in my view, good and valid concerns relative whether MIL-C-5040(H) is even requisitioned by the military any more. I now share that concern. However, as recently as March-2012, a solicitation by the NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support cautions prospective suppliers that “Mil-C-5040” is “Inactive for New Design”. Seems that the Navy’s statement that Mil-C-5040 is “Inactive for New Design” contemplates that it’s still active for old designs. Otherwise the Navy’s solicitation would be silent as to the very existence of Mil-C-5040 specs. Does this make sense?

Not to belabor a point, but upon reading the 01 OCT 1997 NOTICE 1 I immediately noticed that the notice further states that Mil-C-5040(H) will still be used in regard to “replacement purposes”.

Certainly in the last 60 years, there have been many design specific, technologically superior advancements in regard to suspension parachute cord - vectran, spectra/microline and kevlar come to mind. But each alternative to nylon paracord that I’ve looked into has negatives (particularly in regard to land based survival), such as, by way of example, fraying, wear limitations, brittleness, a more limited useful life or even UV degradation. And I still would like to know with certainty the degree to which the PIA-C-5040 series of specs have superceded the Mil-C-5040H specs in military procurement; I gathered that the PIA specs had during my conversation with the owner of one of the largest suppliers of paracord to the military — and that the PIA specs were evolving rapidly.

And then consider that the P-9 parachutes in “pretty much all current U.S. jet fighters” use “Suspension line material- PIA-C-5040 Type III”. Could elasticity be the key paracord element in regard to jet parachutes?