The Pentagon and Marine Corps authorized the purchase of 84,000 bulletproof vests in 2006 that not only are too heavy but are so impractical that some U.S. Marines are asking for their old vests back so they can remain agile enough to fight.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the costly purchase of the nearly 30-pound flak jackets and has ordered the Marine procurement officers at the Quantico base in Virginia to halt the rest of an unfilled order, FOX News has learned.
Now, the MTV is the replacement for the Point Blank-manufactured Interceptor and was billed as a more comfortable, better fitting, more protective vest than the Interceptor. The Marine Corps was looking at two other designs during evaluations in 2006. I know one of them was a variation of the Crye Precision-built "Armor Chassis" and I still don't know what the third one was, though I suspect it was a Point Blank design.
I have a source who was at one of the trials at Quantico and he said people were raving about one, and thought the other two were dogs. When I saw the design the Marine Corps picked, I was pretty sure which one the leathernecks in the field were NOTraving about: the MTV.
Too many bells and whistles. Too complicated to put on and adjust. Heavier than the Interceptor. Ugh...
But...and this is a big but...The company that makes the MTV, Protective Products, has two former Marine Corps body armor program officials at its top ranks. The body armor community is a small one, so that's not surprising at all. But it sure doesn't look good on the surface...especially since Conway told Griffin: "I’m not quite sure how we got to where we are, but what I do know is it is not a winner.
I think it is foolish to buy more."
Man, there's no worse endorsement than that.
-- Christian
Feds Nab Point Blank Armor Officials
Ripped from the front page of Military.com this morning is a story I did on the arrest of former Point Blank top officials David H. Brooks and Sandra Hatfield. Just a quick note - I write this with some sense of satisfaction since I actually met Sandra Hatfield at the Point Blank HQ in Florida back in '05. When I broke the story of vest failures in Marine Corps ordered lots, I went down there to interview her about it. She was scary, and answered my questions with statements like: "well, you tell me, you seem to have all the answers here..." Very combative and pissed off. Well, turns out she might be a crook who could spend 75 years in jail. She was pissed I'd found out about the vest failures and had documents that proved she knew about them and did nothing to correct the problems.
Oh well, I guess Karma's a bitch...
David H. Brooks, the founder of Point Blank Body Armor and former head of its parent company, DHB Industries, was indicted on a variety of financial impropriety charges Thursday after months of investigations by federal prosecutors.
Brooks, who led DHB Industries until July 2006, was indicted for insider trading, fraud, obstruction of justice and tax evasion, the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York said in a release obtained by Military.com.
The former chief operating officer of Point Blank, Sandra Hatfield, was charged along with Brooks in the indictment. She had been served with a previous indictment for securities fraud in August 2006.
Point Blank is one of the largest suppliers of body armor to the U.S. military, including more than 1 million Interceptor outer tactical vests fielded for Soldiers and Marines in combat. The Army inked a new armor contract with Point Blank in May to supply 75,000 of its updated "Improved Outer Tactical Vest" - a more modern armor system that's lighter and provides more coverage to Soldiers.
The Army was unable provide comment on the indictment or the status of the service's relationship with Point Blank by press time.
The Marine Corps broke from Point Blank this year and went with the newly designed "Modular Tactical Vest," which is designed and manufactured by Protective Products International, based in Sunrise, Fla.
The indictment alleges that Brooks and Hatfield inflated stock prices by manipulating DHB financial records to increase earnings, including fraudulent claims of armor inventory. Additionally, the duo was charged with cutting company checks for personal gain.
"They also conspired to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of DHB by causing the company to pay personal expenses and millions of dollars above the defendants' authorized compensation," the Oct. 25 release said.
A copy of the indictment obtained by Military.com alleges a series of lavish purchases by Brooks from company coffers, including $101,500 to buy an armored vehicle for his family's personal use, $16,000 to hire a photographer for his son's Bar Mitzvah and $101,190 for a "belt buckle studded with diamonds, rubies and sapphires."
Point Blank came under sharp scrutiny from the Pentagon and other government agencies after reports emerged of test failures with its Interceptor body armor in 2005. Documents show that government testers warned Point Blank officials, including Hatfield, about the vest problems and urged an immediate fix in late 2004.
The Oct. 25 indictment alleges Hatfield and Brooks cashed in tens of millions of dollars in stock during the period testers were warning the company about vest failures. It also alleges that Brooks called a Point Blank employee who brought erroneous body armor inventory data to his attention a "[expletive] snake," and threatened to scuttle any further employment opportunities after the whistleblower resigned.
Justice officials were clearly not amused by Brooks' behavior.
"This case is fundamentally about greed and excess and deceit," said Mark Mershon, the FBI's assistant director-in-charge of the New York field office. "The defendants pillaged the assets of a publicly-traded company for personal luxuries, and they repeatedly lied - to the public, to shareholders, to the SEC and to company auditors."
"If they were thinking they could get away with it, they even lied to themselves," Mershon added in a statement.
If convicted of all charges, Brooks and Hatfield each face up to 75 years in prison and a combined $190 million in fines.
Look for the bar-like fencing helping to defend Army Buffalos from rocket-propelled grenade attacks to find their way onto RG31 and Couger vehicles beginning in January.
And BAE, the company behind the L-ROD rails, is already developing the system for its RG33s and Caimans, which also are mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs.
The L-ROD kit is basically an easy to install or remove "cage" that is an extra layer of protection around a vehicle. It can't stop an RPG but as the weapon penetrates the cage the bars begin stripping away at the explosive's casing -- and much of its lethality -- even before impact.
William Kellner, director of special programs and sensor systems for BAE Systems of Reston, Va., said the simple design and standard sizes of the L-ROD system make for efficiencies in commonality that translates into making it easier to keep forward locations supplied with them.
The L-RODS have been used on the Buffalo vehicles since about 2005, Kellner said.
The bars are made of the same material as aircraft wings, so that they're flexible -- you can even climb up and down them -- but they don't bend, he said.
-- Bryant Jordan
Editor's Note:Military.com and Defense Tech contributor Bryant Jordan will be trolling the halls of this year's Association of the U.S. Army trade show in Washington this week. He'll be posting updates on gear and issues of interest to DT readers throughout each of the three day conference. Check back frequently for new info.
Frag Kit 6 to go on MRAPs
OK folks, don’t say I hadn’t told you so.
Remember that vehicle that we were supposed to frantically throw billions of dollars into, throw all previous tactical vehicle programs into a tailspin, hurriedly ship them to Iraq, buy them from anyone and everyone and, oh yeah, they were supposed to defeat the most lethal roadside bombs...?
Remember that one? The “mine resistant, ambush protected vehicle?”
Well, it seems that vehicle isn’t all its proponents claim.
USA Today reports this morning that the general in charge of fielding the MRAP to Iraq has decided to add on armor that can protect the vehicle against Iranian-made explosively formed penetrator bombs. Wait, I thought the MRAP could already do that?
Nope.
The Marine general in charge of the program to send new armored vehicles to Iraq says the Pentagon has developed "a solution" to protect the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected trucks from the deadliest type of armor-piercing roadside bomb, called explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs.
The Pentagon's method for combating EFPs involves adding armor to the sides of MRAPs, Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan said in an interview with USA TODAY. The armor is a modified version of what the military calls Frag Kit 6, Brogan said. "I have a solution for EFPs, and I'm going to put it on the trucks I've already bought," Brogan said.
The Frag Kit 6. Really? Didn’t we already learn that the Frag Kit 6 is so cumbersome, you need a mechanical device to close the door and a driver can’t even tell how wide the vehicle is? That’ll be fun for the troops. Getting the Frag Kit 6 equipped MRAP wedged into an alley during a raid in Dorah.
The MRAP's V-shaped hull and raised chassis help protect troops inside the vehicle from the force of makeshift bombs known as improvised explosive devices.
Brogan dismissed concerns from some military contractors - raised in an online discussion - that the added armor would make the vehicles too wide to operate on U.S. highways.
"They're going into a combat zone," Brogan said. "So, yeah, they're going to be wider than would be permitted if you were going to drive up Interstate 95."
This week, contractors will have an opportunity to submit other solutions to the EFP threat for testing. But their armor will have to rival the current solution to merit consideration. "I've got great trucks," Brogan said. "And I can put additional armor on those great trucks. ... You've either got the solution or you don't."
How are you going to get them out of that crunch, Sen. Biden?
And, oh, Inside Defense reported last week the Joint Requirements Oversight Council had decided to basically shelve plans for the development of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle – the Humvee’s replacement.
At [acting Pentagon acquisition executive John]Young’s direction, the Army and Marine Corps are preparing a revised JLTV acquisition strategy that includes a “robust technology demonstration” phase to be presented to the Office of the Secretary of Defense as soon as “practical,” according to the acquisition executive’s Sept. 10 guidance to the services, a copy of which InsideDefense.com reviewed.
Young’s guidance effectively jettisoned the JLTV acquisition strategy the Army and Marine Corps proposed on Aug. 22 to OSD, seeking permission to issue requests for proposal to industry this fall and decide on a trio of vehicle makers for the first batch of humvee replacements in April 2008.
As I predicted, it looks like frantic MRAP procurement is squeezing out the Humvee replacement the services really need. Iraq involvement will wane, MRAPs will be sitting unused in motor pools and the troops will be riding around in 1980s-era Humvees for another decade at least.
OK, OK, I know I’m going to get several mortar barrages about how heartless I am. But let’s look at the numbers. Only 400 of the 1,500 MRAPs that are supposed to be shipped to Iraq this year have arrived. Other than Marines who’d already had some in-theater, I have yet to hear of a commander that has the number he’d requested. So, how is it that IED attacks are way down and that U.S. casualties have dropped like a rock over the last month?
U.S. military deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest point in more than a year in September, figures show, a continuation of a four-month decline in combat casualties that has analysts debating why...
The decline parallels a drop in casualties caused by roadside bombs, the No. 1 cause of deaths for Americans in Iraq.
According to icasualties, only 27 American troops died from improvised explosive devices, or IEDS, in September, down from the year's peak of 88 in May. The last month when IED casualties were that low was February, when IEDs claimed 27 American lives; 81 U.S. troops died in Iraq that month.
Those statistics include EFPs, explosively formed penetrators, which can pierce armor. Top military commanders in Iraq have said those devices are coming from Iran.
Maybe there’s more to protecting troops against IEDs than adding more and more armor.
On a recent trip to AM General's main research plant in Livonia, Mich., I found out that the manufacturer of the military's primary utility vehicle has begun research on an armor kit intended to protect troops against the most deadly roadside bomb threat in Iraq.
AM General, which makes the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle - more popularly known as the "Humvee" - is helping the Army develop a new "Frag Kit 6" armor package for some of its Iraq-bound vehicles to defeat specialized explosively formed projectile munitions that can pierce current Humvee armor.
The Frag Kit 6 is stronger than the recently-fielded Frag Kit 5, which was primarily designed to protect Humvee crews from roadside bombs that detonate under the vehicle or ones with force enough to split an armored troop carrier in two.
The move comes as the Army and Marine Corps work feverishly to field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, manufacturers say are designed to withstand EFP bombs. The curved hulls, massive wheels and thick armor of MRAPs help deflect the molten metal projectile of an EFP that current Humvees can't withstand.
The Frag Kit 6 armor uses various metal combinations and spacing to absorb the ballistic impact of an EFP without penetrating the crew cabin. It will be placed over the armor plating of an M1151 Humvee, the most protective Humvee design fielded in combat.
But company officials admit the Army Research Lab-designed package isn't a perfect solution.
"It's a significant weight increase on the truck - about 1,000 pounds - and it adds about 12 inches each side of the truck of the entire width," said Larry Day, program executive with AM General Defense.
The doors are so heavy, troops may need a mechanical assist device to open and close them and drivers will likely require built-in visual references so they'll know if they can fit the vehicle in narrow spaces.
Though Day said there is no current order for a Frag Kit 6-configured Humvee, his company is hedging its bets in case the call comes for the newer armor.
"We have not been given the go-ahead to put them into production or even finalize the design," Day said. "But it's our responsibility integrate them onto our doors, so it would be better for us to do it."
AM General is planning to outfit about 3,000 M1151 Humvees with the Frag Kit 6 doors if the Army decides that's the way to go.
Despite continued armor upgrades to the venerable Humvee - which traces its developmental lineage to the early 1980s - company officials are scrambling to meet the evolving improvised explosive device threat in Iraq that always seems to be one step ahead of Humvee designs.
With the current popularity of the MRAP - which supporters claim boasts a record of no U.S. troops killed inside its heavily-armored cabin - AM General is holding to the idea that the Humvee will still play a major role in a post-Iraq U.S. military force.
The company is cranking out standard-armored Humvees in its South Bend, Ind., plant at a rate of about 80 per day, but has the capacity to ramp up that number significantly.
And AM General engineers are fine tuning a new Humvee design to bridge the gap between the current vehicle and any future Humvee replacement, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
The so-called "Evolutionary Concept Vehicle II" looks similar to the Humvee, but features a hydraulic suspension that can raise and lower the truck, pulling it further away from an IED blast and allowing the 83-inch high vehicle to fit in the same spaces as the 76-inch tall Humvee.
The ECV II's increased height helps provide a roomier crew cabin - without making the vehicle any wider - and it will sport a more powerful engine and configurable armor for specific missions.
"We've got a truck that subjectively, when you've got it loaded, feels faster than the current Humvee loaded, but it's 33 percent heavier," said John Smreker, AM General's executive director for engineering.
"This was sort of the result of a whole bunch of different little programs we had over the last five or six years and we kind of [brought] together all the things that we learned," he added.
AM General plans to deliver ECV II test vehicles to the Army in November, with a target date for a full-scale production contract in 2009.
We're working on our UAV entries, folks, but I wanted to pass this along to those who follow the body armor debate like I do.
An alert DT reader passed along this release from the Department of Justice stating categorically that Murray Neal over sold his Dragon Skin SOV 2000 Level III armor as NIJ certified.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.
NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.
It looks as if the Air Force has successfully debarred Dragon Skin-maker Pinnacle Armor from participation in government contracts with the service.
During congressional hearings on the issue in early June, Air Force director of the office of special investigations, Douglas Thomas, revealed the service was investigating Pinnacle for falsely marking its SOV 2000 vests as being NIJ certified Level III armor. Without getting into the minute details, Pinnacle owner Murray Neal has basically said he obtained a verbal certification from NIJ pending the official written one.
It’s unclear whether the Air Force investigation will result in any criminal charges, but suffice it to say the General Services Administration has included Pinnacle on its list of Excluded Parties that may do business with the Air Force, at least temporarily.
-- Christian
Army Seeks Body Armor for New Threat
The Army has issued an industry-wide request for a new kind of body armor that can defeat even more powerful rounds than the current ceramic plate and has opened the door for the new armor construction that includes flexible systems many say are more comfortable than today's vests.
The new armor insert, dubbed "XSAPI," is intended stop armor-piercing rounds more deadly than the ones the current "enhanced small arms protective insert" can defeat, will weigh less than a pound more than today's ESAPI and could have more coverage than the rigid ceramic plates currently fielded to U.S. troops in combat.
The Army's latest solicitation - dated June 20 - marks yet another chapter in the ongoing debate over allegations that the Army has ignored armor technology that could yield more protection and comfort than its current "Interceptor" vest. In May, an NBC investigative report raised questions over whether a certain type of body armor called "Dragon Skin" was stronger than the Interceptor - which is worn by most American troops in the field.
The NBC report - and the Army counter-attack that followed - gained the attention of the top lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee, which held a hearing on the subject June 6 and demanded a new set of tests to prove once and for all whether Dragon Skin - or other armor using similar technology - was better than Interceptor.
Dragon Skin employs a flexible system of interlocking ceramic disks that the manufacturer, Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor, says is more comfortable and can endure more rifle shots than Interceptor. The ESAPI employs a series of rigid ceramic plates inserted into the front, back and sides of the Interceptor "outer tactical vest."
After the congressional hearing, the Army revised its earlier May 27 request for new armor to test, adding the XSAPI specs and opening the offer to flexible, or "scalar," systems. The Army also extended the period for manufacturers to submit their proposals by 30 days - until the end of August - a move congressional staffers say will give Pinnacle plenty of time to submit the vests needed for testing.
"The Army seems to be accommodating Pinnacle as far as it can," a top House Armed Services Committee aide told Defense Tech.
The Army declined to comment on the new XSAPI requirement or on upcoming tests until after the service has determined a contract winner.
Pinnacle president Murray Neal faced sharp questions from skeptical Armed Services Committee members during the June 6 hearing, many of whom wondered how earlier Army tests that showed massive failures of Dragon Skin could jibe with the NBC report and Neal's own contention that the government tests were inaccurate or rigged.
Neal demanded another "independent" test of his armor with outside government observers who could verify the truthfulness of the Army evaluation.
"I would like to recommend that the Army Test Center facility located in Aberdeen, Md., be used. It is independent of all parties [and] is the only [Pentagon] oversight ballistic laboratory capable of doing such testing left in the U.S.," Neal said in a recent letter sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"My company stands ready to cooperate in any reasonable manner with your staff and designated agents when they begin the process that will result in the requested comprehensive technical assessment."
The Army acquiesced, writing in a June 22 letter to top Armed Services lawmakers in the House and Senate that both flexible and rigid ESAPI and XSAPI armor would be tested at Aberdeen and would include officials from the Operational Test and Evaluation office of the Pentagon.
In an effort Army officials have said was designed to deflect criticism that armor tests at Aberdeen could be rigged in their favor, the service has conducted most of its ballistic body armor evaluations at H.P. White labs, a civilian-run ballistic test facility in Street, Md.
"All potential body armor suppliers, including Pinnacle Armor, are welcome to compete," acting Army Secretary Pete Geren wrote lawmakers. "Pinnacle Armor has never submitted a proposal for a U.S. Army body armor solicitation. However, the U.S. Army stands ready to fairly evaluate their product and all products in response to the current solicitation."
The House committee aide added that representatives of the Government Accountability Office - the investigative arm of Congress - would also be present at the tests, satisfying lawmakers' desire for oversight.
The new armor solicitation also makes good on the Army claim that the service is always looking for new ways to protect its troops from enemy threats that continue to grow in sophistication and lethality. In late 2005, Army and Marine officials were shocked to find earlier versions of their rifle-defeating plates penetrated by a type of armor-piercing round previously unseen in Iraq.
Both the Army and Marine Corps moved quickly to strengthen their plates, fielding hundreds of thousands of ESAPIs within months.
The call for XSAPI technology raises the bar on armor protection offered to Army troops by providing a vest that can resist both 7.62mm and 5.56mm rounds with velocities much higher than the ESAPI and bullets with construction that might penetrate current plates, the Army says.
The technical expert solicited by a major news network to certify its tests of Dragon Skin body armor admitted Wednesday that the controversial vests weren't "ready for prime time."
In an investigative report broadcast by NBC May 20, the network used the expert opinion of Dr. Phillip Coyle - the former director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration - to certify results of side-by-side tests conducted at NBC's expense in Germany.
In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better ... against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.
But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.
"You're saying today ... that you cannot say that it's ready for prime time. That's your testimony?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) asked Coyle.
Coyle agreed that the NBC tests fell short of proving Dragon Skin was ready for fielding.
Sitting beside Coyle at the hearing, Pinnacle president Murray Neal put forward a vigorous, if disjointed, defense of his product, telling lawmakers in written testimony the Army was manipulating test results, conducted unfair shots on his armor and released contradictory data to lawmakers and the media.
"Nothing jives, nothing makes sense," Neal told committee members. "The information coming from the Army is fraught with inconsistencies."
While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, Neal denied Army claims that a dozen more rounds penetrated his Dragon Skin vests.
He argued x-ray photos of one vest the Army claims failed showed the Dragon Skin disks had stopped the round.
"The bullet did not go through the armor," Neal said flatly.
Army officials responded by showing lawmakers a video clip of Neal inspecting the same vest after a test shot, watching engineers dig the penetrating round out of ballistic clay backing.
"Are you telling me if you were wearing this vest ... and that round hit you in the chest, would that have killed you or not?" a skeptical Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) asked Neal.
"No," he replied.
See written testimony of:
Lieutenant General N. Ross Thompson III (pdf)
Military deputy/director, Army Acquisition Corps
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)
Brigadier General Mark Brown (pdf)
Program Executive Officer (PEO)
U.S. Army
Mr. Roger Smith (pdf)
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Littoral and Mine Warfare
Department of the Navy
Colonel Ed Smith (pdf)
Product Group Director, Combat Equipment and Support Systems
U.S. Marine Corps
Mr. Douglas D. Thomas (pdf)
Executive Director for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations
U.S. Air Force
Colonel Kevin Noonan (pdf)
Program Executive Office – Special Operations Forces (SOF) – Warrior
U.S. Special Operations Command
Mr. William ‘Bill’ M. Solis (pdf)
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
The Armed Services Committee hearing is the latest round in the long-simmering debate over Pinnacle's claims that its armor system - which uses a series of linked ceramic disks wrapped around a Soldier's body to stop armor-piercing rifle rounds - is better than the Army-issued Interceptor vest that uses four rigid ceramic plates.
At the request of Hunter and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the Army conducted a so-called "first article test" for Dragon Skin armor at a private ballistics lab in Maryland last year to see if the Dragon Skin technology met Army specifications.
Those tests resulted in 13 penetrations in 48 shots, the Army claims, including a full penetration on the second shot of the first test vest.
Investigators with NBC conducted their own series of tests at a German lab this spring, firing dozens of armor-piercing rounds at both Dragon Skin and a vest they said contained Army-issued plates, though Coyle cast some doubt on whether they were the same plates used by Soldiers in the field.
The NBC tests showed Dragon Skin absorbing many more rifle rounds than the Army vest, prompting Coyle's assertion that Dragon Skin was better than Interceptor armor.
Coyle, Neal and NBC are calling for another series of independent, side-by-side tests to prove once and for all which armor system is better.
"The best way to resolve this matter would be for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command to conduct comparable side-by-side tests of both Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor," Coyle said.
While Hunter subjected both Neal and Coyle to harsh questioning over their claims, the California lawmaker agreed that another round of tests is the only thing that will put the issue to rest.
"We need to straight away, in an expeditious way, to find out if there's value to this system," Hunter said. "And if there is value, we need to extract it as soon as possible and get it to the troops in the field."
-- Christian
The Dragon Skin Circus Begins
Hope you folks aren’t sick of the body armor/Dragon Skin debate yet because it’s about to heat up again.
The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow morning at 10am EDT on the recent Dragon Skin tests and the Army’s firm defense. Two panels of experts will be questioned, with none other than Pinnacle Armor’s Murray Neal himself sitting in the congressional hot seat on Panel 1.
At his side will be the inveterate Pentagon critic Phillip Coyle, the director of DoD operational test and evaluation during the Clinton Administration. Coyle, you’ll remember, was present during the NBC “side-by-side” tests of Interceptor and Dragon Skin at a German ballistic test lab a few months ago.
Defense Tech got its hands on an advanced copy of Coyle’s written testimony late today, and we want to make sure our readers have a chance to read it before the Dragon Skin circus kicks off tomorrow morning.
I did a quick run-through and I’ve got a couple problems with it. But first, I love his jab at the Army on page three concerning the NBC story on the Trophy active protection system. NBC lobbed a grenade in the Army’s lap on that one and the service had a hard time defusing it…
The IDA study showed that the Trophy Active Protection System was the farthest along, as NBC had reported, and ranked the system which the Army and this Committee favored, the Raytheon “Quick Kill” system, ninth in terms of technical readiness. In short, the IDA report confirmed that NBC got it right.
Anyway, on page 11, Coyle misrepresents PEO Soldier’s BGen. Brown's statement on the “single disk coverage area.”
As Gen. Brown stated in his May 21 press conference,
“So what you see, the laws or probability and statistics will take hold in the live-fire test. There's probably a 50 percent probability of impact in a single-disk coverage area.” Gen. Brown went on to suggest that a single disc could not stop armor piercing ammunition.
Brown was not making a characterization of the effectiveness of single disk coverage at all. Instead, in the context of that specific comment, Brown was comparing test results that showed penetrations of single disk coverage areas. And besides, the disks are convex. Center-disk thickness is roughly equal to overlapping thickness – or at least that’s the rough theory behind scalar armor systems.
On page 10, Coyle takes issue with the number of shots the Army claimed it fired against Dragon Skin.
…the briefing talks about 48 shots having been fired, but Lt. Col. Masters first told me 96 shots were fired at Dragon Skin vests in those tests, then later said it was 80 shots. In his May 21 press conference, Gen. Brown said that two shots each had been fired at the front back and sides, which would mean 64 shots fired at 8 vests. I believe the correct number is something like 88. In any case I believe it is not 48 shots as reported to this Committee and in the May 21st press conference.
That’s unfair. The Army fired three shots at each plate on each vest. But only two of the shots counted toward the tests. The third – an oblique shot against which scalar armor is at a significant disadvantage – was not brought up at the briefings, didn’t count toward the tests and was therefore not part of the Army’s argument and therefore may account for the high shot count discrepancy.
Again on page 11, Coyle raises the weight issue, saying:
…the Dragon Skin panels were about a pound per side heavier, but nothing like the 19.5 pound difference shown by the Army. A fair weight comparison would be of vests of the same size, designed to defeat the same threats, allowing the manufacturer to trade off the weight of the outer tactical vest with weight in the ceramic armor to achieve the best overall protection for the US military.
Forgive me, but all you need to do is pick up a Dragon Skin vest and see for yourself how crushingly heavy it is. And I don’t buy the “equal size” argument either. A large Interceptor is more equivalent to an extra large DS vest. If you want to squeeze a large DS vest on a Soldier who wears a large Interceptor, go ahead, but be ready to deal with less ballistic coverage.
And I don’t get this hang up with side by side testing. What does that mean, exactly? There’s a standard to meet. There’s a standard way to test whether something meets that standard. You shoot it. It fails. The end…
And when Coyle further states:
Side-by-side testing means testing both types of body armor under the same conditions, according to the same scoring rules, in short, a level playing field.
How is that not what the Army did with Dragon Skin? Neal was there. Look here to watch Neal peer through the hole made by shot two of the oil test vest back panel. Is he jumping up and down saying the test wasn’t fair?
And, it would be hard for Coyle to argue that the German Dragon Skin test he observed were conducted under the same conditions as the Army’s DS test, wouldn’t it? The NBC tests didn’t include extreme temperature tests. The Army standard mandates it and Coyle pays lip service to the demonstrable failures of the DS with the environmental testing in his testimony.
Stay tuned DT fans. This war’s going to get a lot uglier before it gets any better.
Defense Tech received a video clip released by the Army showing part of its May 2006 test shoot on Dragon Skin. The video is purported to be from the vest “M-01-Front” shot (if you’re following along in the Army briefing document, it’s on page 12 and shows an x-ray of the back panel penetration with the front, back and side shot profiles) in which the second shot had a complete penetration.
You’ll see the HP White staffers mounting the vest on the bracket, then Pinnacle President Murray Neal inspecting the mounting. Two shots are fired, and then the vest is removed to inspect the shot in the clay backing.
After the vest is removed, the curved clay backing representing the exact area of ESAPI coverage can be seen, and photos are taken by another ballistics expert hired by the Army for the test, Jim Zheng. This belies Neal’s contention that the Dragon Skin was tested on “non-rifle defeating areas.”
Notice the first shot is on the edge, as the ESAPI FAT test protocols call for, and shows a deep indentation – though it is unclear whether that back face deformation is within ESAPI specs. The second shot, just up and to the right of the first, is the complete penetration. You can see Neal come in and inspect the hole and the HP White engineers dig the round out.
This is not on the high-heat tested vest Neal claims had an “adhesive anomaly.”
The debate over Dragon Skin went political with the late-in-the-day release of a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates from top Senate Armed Services Committee lawmakers.
The letter asks Gates to take the Dragon Skin testing up a notch, requesting that his research and engineering guru, John Young, hold his own tests to determine the “facts regarding the protective qualities of the body armor we are currently providing our troops and that of any other commercially available comparable and competing system.”
This is an interesting turn of events because the letter also calls into question the Army’s testing methodology for body armor effectiveness.
Recent press reports raise questions about the fairness and reliability of Army tests of a commercially available body armor and whether it fails, meets, or exceeds the military's ballistic protection requirements.
The Pentagon and the individual services began a total overhaul of their test methodology in late 2005 after stories emerged that failed lots of Point Blank-made Interceptor body armor were shipped to troops despite failed quality assurance tests.
Whether or not McCain and Levin’s letter prompts a more favorable view of Dragon Skin in the DoD is perhaps a more minor point to the chances their efforts might put to rest once and for all the debate over exactly how to test and evaluate body armor.
For years, the Army tested it armor at HP White and US Labs – two civilian owned and run ballistics test facilities. Their motive was to banish any idea that they somehow swayed the results. I don’t know a whole lot about US Labs, but I’ve spoken with the owner of HP White and he calls the tests as he sees them.
On the other hand, the Marine Corps for years tested its armor at Aberdeen Proving Ground - an Army facility. When lots of vests were failed at Aberdeen, the Corps took those vests to HP White and they passed. Then the service shipped them to troops despite the original adverse results. So, which test facility is better?
And, oh, who tested the purported CIA Dragon Skin vests? What model were they? It’s my understanding the SOV3000 (Level IV) is a relatively new design. The National Institute of Justice do not test to the level the Army does on armor-piercing resistant plates. So, there’s a third variance in the whole equation.
Hopefully this controversy can force the services to come up with a universal testing regimen with credibility that can also be used by other government agencies so at least some of the doubt over who’s got the best armor can be erased.
The Army plans to brief Congress about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports touting the vest's capabilities prompted calls from lawmakers for an official explanation.
The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said he plans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast an investigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series of interlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armor currently issued by the Army.
"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning on going over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."
Brown declined to specify which lawmakers contacted his office, explaining he's still working out the final details on this week's congressional visit.
The Monday briefing was the first public accounting after a year of silence on the Dragon Skin issue. Army officials are fighting back with an aggressive campaign to undercut NBC's claims, which based much of its report on ballistic tests the network conducted in Germany and on the claims of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor.
The Army laid out its case with x-ray photos showing complete penetrations of the armor during a standardized test in mid-May of last year. Brown appeared at the Pentagon briefing with the actual test articles that had failed to stop armor-piercing rounds, which Army officials claim its current enhanced small arms protective insert plate can withstand.
"'Zero failures' is the correct answer," Brown said. "One failure is sudden death, and you lose the game."
The Dragon Skin vests tested by the Army in May suffered 13 penetrations in 48 shots, service officials said.
The Army initially held off countering Pinnacle president Murray Neal's claims that his armor was superior, despite the adverse test results, in hopes of keeping the dispute from going nuclear. But after nearly a week of NBC News reports claiming Dragon Skin is stronger, the Army decided to lay out its case.
"The intent was not to blow bridges between the Army and some very credible contractor," said Brig. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the Army's top spokesman. "It's just that with this most recent news report and its potential impact on Mr. and Mrs. America ... that's why we went with this" detailed defense.
Army officials say they want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramic disks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility than currently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest, Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.
"We're very interested in this type of armor - in this concept," Brown explained. "It has great promise. But it is not meeting our requirements as we speak today."
Brown hopes his public case against Dragon Skin will keep Soldiers and their families from doubting the strength of their Army-issued vests.
"This is not just some number on a wall, this is personal to us," Brown said. "It's very near and dear to us which is why we take it deadly seriously."
All right, so the NBC piece on Dragon Skin aired last night. Based on the contentious discussion on this board, I figured most DT readers have seen it.
So what do you think?
I caught a few things that concerned me. First of all, the Dragon Skin was clearly tested on a flat clay backing rather than a curved one – while the ESAPI was tested on a curved backing. PEO Soldier officials were adamant that the Dragon Skin be tested on a curved backing, and noted that Murray Neal objected.
The reason, they said, is that when flat, DS provides maximum overlap of the disks. When the armor is placed over a curved surface – like a soldier’s chest – the disks separate more. That creates some gaps (see page 10, “before testing” shot just below neck line).
Second of all, I covered Phil Coyle when he was Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation office at the Pentagon back in the late 1990s. He has been very critical of programs in the past for any hint of lapses in “operational effectiveness” or “operational suitability.” The DS, at this point, clearly fails in the “suitability” category because of its weight. There seems to have been no mention whatsoever of the Dragon Skin’s crushing weight in the NBC piece.
I picked up one of the SOV3000 vests in XL at PEO Soldier and another one at MarCorpsSysCom a couple weeks ago (it clearly appeared that would be the size that fit me best, though I wear a Large Interceptor) and it was staggering how heavy it was. I was blown away.
Why did NBC – and even more important, Phil Coyle, not pick up on this obvious problem? During the show, all we see are technicians handling pieces of the armor, not the whole vest. If they had been, viewers would see that most people can’t pick the vest up by the haul loop with one hand.
Lastly in my “major critique” category is that NBC producers totally ignored the data from the thorough brief they were given by PEO Soldier. They relied on a sit-down interview with BGEN. Mark Brown and one “gotcha” moment when Brown admitted he didn’t know the basis for the SOUM banning DS back in April 2006.
Fact is – and I saw the results only a few weeks after the SOUM was released (ironically, my source was a Marine) – a DS panel was tested in May 2004, before the ESAPI requirement, and failed because earlier iterations used wire to secure the disks rather than adhesive. After the first shot the wire failed and the disks slipped.
So why did NBC ignore the x-ray data from the PEO soldier brief? What would the public’s reaction have been if they’d seen the interviews and tests – then the x-ray photos showing the disks bunched together like a roll of nickels? A few scratched heads, I’m sure.
This story is not going away. We’ll keep on top of it as it develops, so please stay engaged.
Another really good write up on the issue can be found HERE.
Many of you may have heard or seen the recent stories coming out of NBC’s investigative unit on Dragon Skin body armor.
Soldiers for the Truth and other Dragon Skin advocates have already begun dancing in the end-zone on this. But as many DT readers already know, the field of ballistic protection is not a simple one. There’s a lot more to this story than meets the eye.
Fortunately, we’ve got it. But under ground rules, we have been “embargoed” from publishing information that would – and in some cases already has – force Dragon Skin’s vocal backers to scratch their heads and wonder whether the miracle armor is all it’s cracked up to be.
We’re working hard to lift the embargo so DT can get the facts from all sides of this debate in front of our informed readers. As soon as we can, you’ll see it.
Here's a hot topic: Stryker Losses Raise Questions. The press seems to be catching up to the fact that one of the central battles in this summer of "the surge" is shaping up in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. As noted two months ago, Stryker infantry units are leading the "surge" into the region, in pursuit of insurgents, terrorists, and militiamen who fled Baghdad when the "surge" was first announced. Though the increased mobility afforded by the 8-wheeled light armored vehicles is a great advantage when fighting in a fluid and shifting environment, all isn't perfect:
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to Soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
In one of the biggest hits, six American Soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.
"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."
The problem certainly seems to be IEDs, and even critics are quick to point out that many of larger bombs being encountered lately, including the much-feared and much-hyped explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), threaten not only Strykers but Bradleys and Abrams tanks, as well. But as the concept of the Stryker is based around the idea of more mobility at the expense of armor protection, the concerns are justified and warrant a close look.
The Stryker is basically an armored truck, designed to wheel troops into the fight and bring some extra firepower and advanced communications and navigation equipment along for the ride. It was never intended to take the punishment that a Bradley fighting vehicle can take, but it's speed and relatively quiet operation give it benefits that the tracked mechanized infantry just don't have. Lesser protection and weaker firepower, however, can obviously be a problem in the wrong situation.
The question is, are fights like the combat in Diyala the "wrong situation" for the Stryker to be in?
"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."
There's no doubt the Stryker would be safer in a less-lethal environment, but isn't that true of any vehicle? In Balkan-type peacekeeping, wouldn't armored Humvees usually be plenty? And check out the picture I posted of Strykers from 5-20 Infantry arriving in Baqubah back in March for some junk by the side of the road. I wrote:
Cement block and a couple of empty boxes? Bombs?
Who knows?
There's no doubt the roadside bomb is one of the greatest threats we face today, and there's no doubt that it will continue to be whether the Stryker is on the road or not.
Critics are usually pretty quick to jump on the Stryker, though sometimes folks get a little carried away. For instance, this AP article notes that the Stryker may be out of its element because
powerful bombs - not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire - are the main threat.
However, anyone who has been following the Stryker will know that before the first deployment to Iraq in late 2003, the principle criticism was that the vehicle was vulnerable specifically to rocket-propelled grenades. When the Army attached a skirt of cage-like slat armor to the Strykers to protect against the RPG threat, critics just laughed. Then the slat armor proved itself to be quite effective.
Also, the article notes that
Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala. U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles - armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon - would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.
The problem with this is that the first Strykers with the 105mm cannons, the Mobile Gun System (MGS) variants, didn't arrive in Iraq until a couple of weeks ago. The 4th Brigade, 2nd Division is the first Stryker Brigade to get the MGS. When "the Strykers arrived in Baqouba", the 4-2 was still picking its way through protesters on the way to load up in Tacoma, Washington.
None of this means, of course, that the Stryker isn't vulnerable to large roadside bombs. I don't think anyone is disputing that it is. But it doesn't do anything to add to the credibility of non-stop criticism of the Stryker.
On a final note, it might be worth looking at the Canadian Army for a minute. They just announced that they will be leasing 20 mine-resistant Leopard 2 A6M tanks from Germany and will send them to Afghanistan before the end of the summer. Last fall, Canada already sent a few tanks to beef up its forces in Afghanistan. Prior to that move, Canada's primary armored vehicle in the country had been the LAV-3, which is what the US Stryker is based upon. One of the reasons for sending the tanks (which is a very controversial issue in Canada, by the way) was because of the LAV-3's vulnerability to mines and roadside bombs.
In addition to the leased German tanks, Canada is planning to purchase 100 Dutch Leopard 2s as well. Remember, armies still need tanks.
The Army is fixing the doors of every armored Humvee in combat in Iraq because they can jam shut during an attack and trap soldiers inside, Pentagon records and interviews show.
The door trouble, the latest in a series of problems with the Humvees since the Iraq war began, is an unintended consequence of the Pentagon's effort to add armor to protect troops from makeshift bombs.
During all the (very well-deserved) outcry over the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq during the early days of the initial post-invasion occupation, we heard a lot of complaints that the non-uparmored Humvees were suffering because they were never designed to carry the weight of extra armor. Suspension systems were unable to cope, gas mileage went down the tubes, and roll-overs were much more likely in a vehicle where the center of gravity was shifted up as more and more was bolted onto what was originally designed as a light multi-purpose utility vehicle.
Blocked or jammed doors, which weigh up to 600 pounds to begin with, can be a major problem after a Humvee has been hit by an IED or rolled over during an accident. Often the troops inside survive the initial blast but are unable to escape and medics have trouble getting in to aid wounded passengers.
A number of modifications have been made, including the use of quick-release windshields and a device known as the Rat Claw, a simple D-shaped hook that allows jammed doors to be pulled open by another vehicle in an emergency. Additionally, a specialized simulator to train troops to escape rolled Humvees has just entered service at Fort Carson and more are on the way. Discussions are underway for more significant changes to the Humvee, as well.
The investigative arm of Congress released an updated report Friday on the status of the U.S. military’s body armor acquisition efforts and the effectiveness of the armor the services’ are fielding.
The reports were conducted at the behest of the U.S. Comptroller General - the head of the Government Accountability Office – after news reports brought to light shortfalls in armor fielding and flaws in testing that resulted in tens of thousands of vest sent to the war zone that had not passed spec during quality assurance testing.
The latest GAO report found the Army and Marine Corps had effectively revamped their testing regimen and raised their specifications to meet emerging threats in the combat zone. It also marked one of the first times that a government entity has stated formally that the new Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert plates, or ESAPI, were developed to address the threat of armor piercing 7.62 rounds.
During my reporting on this issue, the services threatened me with everything short of a shank in a dark alley if I revealed the reasons behind the ESPAI buy. Specifically, the Marine Corps had a plate in its hands (that I knew about) with a hole in it from an armor-piercing round around the first of the year in 2005. They shared the plate with Army ballistics experts, who were concerned by the penetration as well.
The plate was examined at ballistics labs, including HP White in Street, Md., where the Army prefers to do its ballistic tests. Tungsten-carbide residue was found in the impact zone, leading experts to conclude the armor-piercing round penetration.
Thus the rush for ESAPI began…
The services seem to have gotten their act together when it comes to specifications and testing, the GAO report shows. Congressional auditors did mention, however, an initiative by the Pentagon’s office for operational test and evaluation to standardize the Army/Marine Corps testing regime - which is slightly different and conducted at separate NIJ-certified testing sites – that will be put into place in 2007.
I just wanted to call everyone’s attention to the story we’re running today on the Army’s new body armor design. As some of you may know, body armor is a subject about which I have spent a considerable amount of coverage over the years (no pun intended, I swear).
What I found in my reporting put the Army and Marine Corps in a defensive crouch for years, prompting major recalls of body armor production lots that had not passed quality assurance testing.
While the ground services haven’t changed the fundamental components of their body armor, both the Army and Marine Corps have redesigned their vests to make them more comfortable and safer than the Point Blank-manufactured Interceptor. The latest design from the Army is a positive step in this regard. Having spent a lot of time in body armor in war zones, I have never been a fan of the Interceptor design for comfort and coverage reasons, and it’s good to see that the services have made changes.
DT obtained photos of the new Army vest from PEO Soldier, so let’s take an inside look at what changes have been made.
You’ll notice in the first photo (front view) that the vest wraps around the body more efficiently and has integrated side-plate carriers that can adjust up and down. There’s also a pull-tab just below the chin that allows the wearer to doff the vest in a hurry. Also, check out all the MOLLE webbing – attachment points for mag pouches and accessory pockets.
In the second photo (back view), you’ll see a large outer pouch for the ESAPI plate. The larger ESAPI was always harder to fit in the Interceptor pocket and was exposed to the elements from the upper flap. There’s also a larger haul loop on the back to drag your wounded buddy out of harm’s way. You can also see the inner mesh lining of the vest that helps wick moisture away from the body.
The last photo (open front view) shows a more detailed look at the inner components of the new IOTV, its wrap around fit and the neck and chin guard integrated into the collar. Also notice the side access point on the left shoulder. That’s so medics can get to wounds easier and also allows a soldier to vent the vest in stifling heat.
At first blush, I’d say the Army has done a good job picking its new design. Soldiers will be a lot more comfortable in the thing and it seems as if the vest will offer more protection from blast scenarios than the Interceptor. What isn’t shown in these pictures is the inner cummerbund – which helps distribute the weight onto the waist – and a new lower-back protector to protect the kidneys and other vital organs where the vest tends to ride up.
The next step in body armor design will likely be a fundamental shift in ballistic resistant components. As far as I know, the new Army vest is made of the same materials as the prior one: Kevlar panels with boron carbide ceramic and Dyneema-backed plates. Both components are heavy and ceramic is hard to manufacture and is a delicate material. I understand from some sources that Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin armor was not one of the 17 designs submitted to the Army last year. I’m not sure why, but leaps in protective technology and design are sure to be incorporated into the next armor sets fielded by the Army and Marines.
As someone who’s spent a lot of time in the hull of an amtrac, I absolutely love this one.
Defense Industry Daily reports the Corps has signed a contract with L3 Communications to install thermal sights on their amtrac fleet. The article touts the thermal sight’s capability over the current light intensification scope.
And if you’ve ever looked through an amtrac sight, you’d agree it’s about as first-gen as it gets.
The Marine Corps has taken some serious hits in its pursuit of a replacement for the old-school AAV7 Amphibious Assault Vehicle fleet. All you need to see is a row of these medieval behemoths lumbering through the desert – hundreds of miles from the sea – and you can’t help but agree that the Corps needs to find an alternative.
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is close, but its cost and complexity have hampered development and put its future in doubt. So the Marines have resorted to continuously upgrading today's amtrac, slapping on new suspensions and applique armor.
The funny thing about this development is that the thermal sight will probably do little good for the amtrackers other than help them see better at night. Though the EFV admittedly has a high-tech thermal sight, the vehicle also has a 30 mm Bushmaster cannon tethered to a computerized weapons system. On the flip side, the amtrac sports a .50 cal machine gun and a Mark 19 grenade launcher. Great weapons, but a little outclassed by such a sophisticated thermal capability.
I don’t know too many gator drivers who speak very highly of its weapon systems, and putting an expensive - and potentially glitch-prone - thermal sight on it seems a little over the top.
-- Christian
Track the Trucks
…Props to my boy Mike Goldfarb over at the “Worldwide Standard” blog who hoodwinked management into loosening the purse strings for a trip to the AUSA symposium in Ft. Lauderdale.
He’s got some great coverage of the various offerings from top military vehicle manufacturers like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Force Protection for the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected tactical vehicle program. The MRAP has become a top priority for commanders and their patrons on Capitol Hill, who finally recognize that the Humvee was never built to be a tactical vehicle and is ill-suited for explosive resistance upgrades.
After years of adding more and more armor to the Humvee, which was originally built as a logistics vehicle, the camel’s back snapped; just ask a mechanic down at the motor pool who’s been working all night on Humvees gone Tango Uniform from the last patrol. So the services – particularly the Army and Marine Corps – began to slip in requests to Congress for more MRAPs. Previously, the MRAP was used mostly for explosive ordnance disposal teams and other specialized units.
Now it looks as if the services want to build on the fiscal and rhetorical momentum by grabbing as many MRAPs as they can before they go into full-scale development of the next-generation Humvee: the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, which could take years to test and field.
Manufacturers from around the country are scrambling to fill the Army and Marine Corps MRAP orders, and the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground is set to begin evaluating vehicle prototypes this month for rapid fielding to Iraq.
-- Christian
Mech Infantry's Next Step
Jimmy Wu is an MIT grad in mechanical engineering, and a missile defense systems engineer at Boeing -- and a 1st Lieutenant in the Alabama National Guard, currently deployed in Iraq.
Back in the day, armored personnel carriers had a carefully-defined mission: As the battalion task force would roll forward, the APCs and other mechanized infantry would dismount and clear out an enemy position, allowing the tanks to exploit the breakthrough. To handle the job, APCs needed enough armor to survive that approach march -- and a whole lot of guns, to survive that dismounted attack. By the end of the Cold War, APCs had bulked up so big that they had evolved into Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicles (AIFVs) like the Bradley: carrying almost an entire squad, with enough weapons to take on tanks, and the armor to back it up.
But Iraq has shown that all that muscle doesn't necessarily work on the modern, non-linear battlefield. While everyone appreciates the Bradley's armor and its the chaingun in the firefight, the thing is expensive to operate. (Witness the broken Bradleys in the depots that the Army does not have the money to fix.) Moreover, the Bradley usually are not carrying its full complement of dismounts these days; infantrymen are driving the Humvees to add more guns on the convoys, instead. When the APC is no longer carrying its infantry, it loses its raison d'etre. We might as well get a cavalry vehicle that can do the job better.
In fact, as OIF shows, on the modern non-linear battlefield, the mech infantry does not work as mech infantry anymore. The legs are more akin to the light cavalry of old, patrolling the lines of communication, establishing presence, and looking for the enemy. In this context, the infantry does not operate in the battalion attack, it works in a section/squad attack perspective. The shift in the mech infantry paradigm requires a new APC: One that works well as a light cavalry vehicle and can carry a good load of infantry.
The American experience with Humvees and other armored vehicles are indicative: When they roll out the gate, the infantry squad normally splits itself into two vehicle or more. This is because 1) more vehicles means more gunners on top to fight the crucial first few minutes of an ambush, 2) an IED or RPG would not take out the whole squad, and 3) the squad will have space for passengers or survivors. A rough civilian analogy would be a police squad car: A squad car normally does not have officers in the back seat.
Here's a hot topic: 
10th ID testing the 'Rat Claw'
But Iraq has shown that all that muscle doesn't necessarily work on the