France enlists the Green Goblin?

Old tech.
We've also had wingmen and body-mounted turbines based on the Iron Man concepts. Water-flight-boards have also been around for years, using a floating pump to power the lift-generating hydro-jets.

The problem is simple.
Physics.
Until a far superior form of energy storage is created/discovered, the physical limitations of personal flight units will mitigate against everything except the shortest-range missions and once the fuel drops below the level that allows flight, the entire unit becomes a massive deadweight.
It might be useful for recon and rescue, but having an entire attack force using flight tech?
Absent a huge tech-change, it ain't gonna happen.

Plus, there is a very appropriate word to describe flying infantry.
Skeet.

Michael Everett wrote:
The problem is simple.
Physics.
Until a far superior form of energy storage is created/discovered, the physical limitations of personal flight units will mitigate against everything except the shortest-range missions and once the fuel drops below the level that allows flight, the entire unit becomes a massive deadweight.

And so what? Even in short-range configuration, a practical flying platform would allow attacking "jumping" troops to quickly traverse minefields, impassable terrain features, secure high vantage points and tactical heights. Advantages for tactical use are clear.

Dilandu wrote:And so what? Even in short-range configuration, a practical flying platform would allow attacking "jumping" troops to quickly traverse minefields, impassable terrain features, secure high vantage points and tactical heights. Advantages for tactical use are clear.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to trudge several miles carrying fifty kilos of expensive and user-dangerous tech that can only be used briefly before having to be brought back since the armed forces would frown on simply dropping it (and possibly losing it) in order to regain actual mobility.
For the one task you suggest, yes, it'd probably be great.
For everything else, it would be far, far, far more trouble than it's worth (how the hell can you fit a platoon in a lorry when they're wearing powered wingsuits, for example?)

It is a brilliant example of a solution searching for a problem to solve.

And I'll point it out again.
Skeet.
Flying soldiers are basically targets.
One hit when they're flying and they're not only mission-killed, the resulting pain-fuelled loss of control means they're probably pancakes.
Hell, a well-timed flash-bang as they're coming in to land would net you an entire group of soldiers with broken legs and weapons to loot.

Michael Everett wrote:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to trudge several miles carrying fifty kilos of expensive and user-dangerous tech that can only be used briefly before having to be brought back since the armed forces would frown on simply dropping it (and possibly losing it) in order to regain actual mobility.

I wonder, how infantry managed to still have Javelin and Stinger missiles? They are exactly what are you talking about: heavy, bulky, specialized equipment, useful only in some situations. By using your logic, they should not ve issued.

The airboards are the mobility equivalent of Javelin missile. It is the specialized equipment, which is distributed to soldiers when needed for the planned operation.

And considering how many equipment was developed as essentially single-use for special forces, I fail to see how flying platforms for special forces may be much worse.

One hit when they're flying and they're not only mission-killed, the resulting pain-fuelled loss of control means they're probably pancakes.
Hell, a well-timed flash-bang as they're coming in to land would net you an entire group of soldiers with broken legs and weapons to loot.

And walking infantry are invulnerable to hits, I take it?

Seriously, re-read the potential uses that I mentioned. Tgey are about tactical mobility, the ability to took vantage points. NOT about flying assault on hoverboards, as you seems to imagine.

IMHO, given the basic physics of how needed reaction mass ratio rises exponentially with the Delta Vee divided by the specific impulse of the fuel, rocket packs are dead. Even bypass ratio jet turbines seem impractical given limitations on disc loading, engine power density and fuel energy density.

The only system that might be practical would be a backpack helicopter, but that has huge issues.

The sarcastic comments about skeet shooting are extremely insightful as well as inciteful. Modern helicopters emphasise speed and agility to minimize vulnerability to weapons. The much vaunted Apache attack helicoper was neutralized during the Iraq invasion by troops with elementary night vision googles armed with heavy machine. The US is now having to develop new technologies for future vertical lift. My guess is that the Sikorsky coaxial rotor system will be the winner. A flying soldier would have niether speed or agility.

A troop transport helicopter that the soldier rides rather than wears would seem more practical.

The most obvious practical use for some type of personalized flying device would be a mini reconizance drone.