Resolving the Next-Gen Armor Muddle

[From our friends at Breach-Bang-Clear on the Woroner armor debate.]

All right boys and girls, there’s been a helluva lot of discussion here about Dave Woroner's armor design and whether it would work or not work or whatever. Honestly I think part of the problem is that first off it’s over most (not all) of our heads. Second off, Woroner doesn’t want to tell too much about the damned thing out of OPSEC or COMSEC concerns, which makes explanation difficult at best. Imagine trying to explain a lawnmower engine if you couldn't talk about internal combustion, or if pistons were classifed.

Lemme see what I can do to make it make a little sense.

Have you heard about the Boomerang System made by BBN Technologies in Boston? It’s an acoustical sensor system that uses "acoustical entrapment" to quickly and reliably identify the location of a sniper or other shooter that’s putting rounds downrange towards our grunts. It's been on Future Weapons and a couple other shows, has actually deployed to the AOR and apparently works.

Woroner’s system is kind of like that, but it uses light sensitivity to detect incoming projectiles. Sound won’t work, it’s too slow for a system to detect an EFP or whatever and mitigate the blast. You might be able to detect the blast, depending upon the strength of the device and the range, but you damn sure wouldn’t be able to detect it and then take steps to defeat it. Only light and electricity are fast enough to react to something moving at thousands of feet per second, which is why light and electricity are the basis of Woroner’s “barrier system”.

It’s in the high nanosecond, low microsecond range of response, putting a countermeasure out to intercept the incoming weapon and either destroy it or mitigate it by shearing the blast wave off with it’s own blast moving at a reciprocal speed. This is effectively a countermeasure system intended to be used in addition to next-gen armor to reduce or nullify the incoming blast and projectile(s). Let me put it to you the way I had to explain it to Slim, which I think you’ll find is a little simpler than Dave’s explanation.

Some delinquent little bastard in your neighborhood uses a potato gun to launch a spud at your car. You’ve got Woroner’s system mounted on the hood. It detects the incoming spud using light, not sound, and throws out some high tech shit you can’t pronounce let alone explain to intercept it. That stuff is moving at about the same speed as the spud. It hits the potato and slows it down, possibly deflecting it some so that while it still hits your fender, it only hits with the impact of a nerf dart.

Potato-gun launched spud to nerf dart. Makes sense to me. I’d rather get clocked in the head with an orange foam bullet than an Idaho baker any day.

Translate that to the Big Sandbox. Hajji detonates an IED next to a humvee with Woroner’s system mounted on it. Woroner’s system senses the wave of the incoming projectile and puts a radically different defensive measure into play. This measure deflects the oncoming shear waves and ameliorates the remaining overpressure and underpressure events by shear redirection and deflection. Whatever’s left of the incoming projectile and its blast hits the humvee. The crew inside are better off if its up-armored, and better off still if it’s armored in next-gen armor and best of all if they weren't in it to begin with (but that's not really practical now, is it?).

[EDITOR: Essentially Dave's idea is to deploy a sort of air bag around the vehicle to absorb the shock waves and also help deflect any projectiles by creating space between the vehicle and the offending spawl. Kind of like FRAG Kit 6, right...what's the big difference there? Gaps between the cold-rolled steel armor plating.]

So that’s the deal with his 'armoring' system. I can’t tell you any more about it ‘cuz me no speaka da geek and I only understand about half of what he says. If you want to know more, you need to ask Woroner himself, or maybe that fat bearded guy that does the TV advertisements and infomercials. I dunno. I don’t know if you flip a switch, click an icon or piss on the damned dilithium crystals to turn it on, and I couldn’t tell you whether it’s powered by lithium batteries, sparkplugs or a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. What I do know is that if there’s the slightest chance the thing works, and it’ll help our guys come home whole, then somebody somewhere with some mojo needs to check it out and get it some attention. It’s a sad truth that without the lobbyists and pitchmen and assorted high dollar schmoozers the big corporations have, it may not even matter whether it works or not because no one will hear about it.

That’s why I ran the damned article in the first place, and I honestly don’t much give a hoot if you agree with him or disagree with him, think he’s a genius or a complete assclown. If we get a debate started about it, generate some dialogue, then maybe something positive will come out of it.

Oh, and about the MRAPs and all that other business – those of you that are bitching about his statements regarding the MRAP are missing the point. He agrees, I agree, Slim agrees, everybody agrees they’re saving lives. That’s not the issue. The issue is we’re going to have to come up with something else to address other missions and other terrains, because it gets stuck and it rolls over and you can’t turn the damn thing around in a narrow street. Unless our next war is waged in the world’s biggest parking lot, then that’s going to cause some problems.

So, hope this clears things up a little bit. If not, then I hope it at least piqued your interest.

That’s it for now, more to follow.

-- Breach-Bang-Clear

MRAP and JLTV vs. Reality

[NOTE: Here's another contribution from our friends at Breach Bang Clear. The author is a friend of mine, David Woroner of Survival Consultants International. He's a ballistics expert, former PSD contractor and all-around mad scientist who's come up with a novel new armor for newly built vehicles. This is part one of a multi-part series on new solutions for ballistic defeat.]

If it has a new gen armor system attached to it, then I’m in favor of the JLTV over the MRAP. Why? Well, a number of reasons.

The MRAP has some things going for it, and it’s saved some lives, no question. But it’s not the end-all be-all, ultimate solution to what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan—and it’s not going to be the solution in future wars that may be fought differently…and certainly will be fought in different terrain.

Let’s face it, the MRAP is a bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. A million dollar bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. Consider some of its weaknesses, and the financial burden to fix or repair. We’re talking about a serious chunk of change just in the case of blowing the undercarriage out. My opinion on this shouldn’t be misconstrued as some reticence on my part to help out the troops. Anyone that knows me or has served with me knows I am STAUNCHLY behind the protection of our troops. It can be done with the technology at hand, and it can be done more efficiently.

Consider the cost, operational relevance and troop transportation capability of the MRAP (and the coming MRAPII) vs. something like the JLTV. We’re in a war, and in a war, particularly conducted with blitzkrieg type operations, it’s always going to be better to put fewer men and less equipment into less expensive vehicles. Put simply, I’d rather attack anything with a million ants than a pair of elephants. When it comes to those vehicles, protection doesn’t have to be expensive, the vehicles can be more efficient to operate in a disparate variety of terrains, and let’s don’t forget the cost of fuel.

Let me explain further.

The concepts of blitzkrieg were known in other countries, albeit poorly developed (the British army had partially implemented it), by the end of the First World War, but the Germans had worked out the complexities of breaking through a front with highly concentrated resources. This technique failed the Germans in their offensives of March 1918, largely because the breakthrough elements were on foot and could not sustain the impetus of the initial attack. The deployment of motorized infantry was the key to sustaining a breakthrough, but this would have to wait until the 1930s to be realized.

Superimpose the realities of modern war and we can see that the Humvee has proven itself to be a woefully inadequate method of safely transporting troops into battle, even with all the so-called ‘hillbilly armor’, up-armor packages, etc. We should have done it right the first time, or not done it at all. We should still be doing things right the first time or not doing it at all...

Let’s scroll back a hundred years to see the appearance of the first true British/American tanks worthy of the name. These hunks of steel, bristling with machine guns and small guns, were long enough to accomplish what they were originally designed for—to bridge the gaps of trenches. In those days, this was perhaps a good idea. Review the realities of today again. Everything has changed. Virtually every fundamental tenet of modern warfare is different than it was in WWI. So why do we persist in reverting to brawn over brains?

In those days, all we had were metals and a cubic mentality. Today we understand there are lightweight materials perfectly suitable for making lighter and more maneuverable vehicles of war without sacrificing the protection necessary to make them worthy of deployment. Yet our powers that be have built and fielded a 21ST century version of the WWI tank.

Why?

There are some laws and rules that must be applied to the discussion. Obviously we know that our modern vehicles must be lightened. We have a multitude of materials now that weren’t dreamed of then. Most vehicles in this discussion use some type of composite armor, meaning a hybrid of several materials much stronger as an admixture than by themselves. To fully understand my contention, however, one must understand some basic ‘Laws of Physics and Materials’.

First of all we have Spectra, Dyneema and other lightweight ‘soft’ material that can take up some of the weight.

But there are two laws that must be obeyed:

First, any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material. Imagine if you will a 22.250 cartridge. Its velocity is in the 4,000fps range. Now envision an M249 or Minimi type weapon putting out that sort of high velocity projectile at an incredible rate of fire and you begin to see some of the problem.

The second rule pertains to the shape of the armor. If it has a poor deflection angle, the round will penetrate rather than deflect. Take a lesson from our stealth aircraft. Its angles do the same thing, only with radar instead of hostile fire. The same principle applies to ballistic trajectory impact.

The reason boron carbide is so widely used is that it is a ceramic, which is essentially a glass. The majority of heavy duty anti-penetration materials in hard armor utilize this form of material. There are alternatives in play, such as pressing with an applied resin on top of soft armor until it hardens, then sandwiching it between some hard armor. One thing that has always taken me aback, though, is the lack of geometry used in armor design. Why was it such a surprise that we eventually put v-shaped boat hulls on armored vehicles? Did our modern designers just completely disregard the successful work of their Rhodesian forebears? V-shaped hulls were part of the way they tamed the landmines employed against them to such good effect by SWAPO, ZIPRA, ZANU and assorted other acronym-happy Communist-backed insurgents.

If you’ve ever seen the holes an 88 would punch into a Sherman tank in WWII, it is pretty apparent that they were cold-rolling (to the best of the contemporary technology) the armor. Then came Chobham, which basically utilizes a mixture of ceramics and different metallurgy. However, a balance of materials, placement, spaced methodology and geometry is the key to a true winning formula.

When discussing armor, one would be remiss not to bring up the subject of conventional Reactive Armor. These devices are nothing more than high speed reactive chemical bombs designed to detonate upon the impact of a hypervelocity shell. It is really meant to defeat copper jet penetrating charges, be they from an RPG or another tank’s main gun round.

Although not specifically part of the subject matter at hand, it’s worth pointing out that anyone who appreciates what may become future armor will appreciate Electro-Magnetic Armor. EMA uses electricity to defeat shaped charge warheads such as those from RPGs. Repetitive live fire testing has proven not only the theoretical properties of EMA but the actual, demonstrated ability to defeat shaped charges.

I won’t digress further by discussing other intelligent but somewhat whacky ideas such as Shear Thickening Fluids. From my understanding, development along these lines has been abjectly taken out with the garbage.

There are some good principles starting to come about that I believe originated with two or three different groups at once. These have to do with ‘spacing’, which in the light seem to make good ole’ fashioned sense.

Since we’ve all heard about how much Mine Resistant Vehicles weigh, its no wonder that scientists and material engineers continue to search for the elusive mixture of this and that necessary to reduce weight and retain the capacity to stop a hypervelocity round.

The offensive and defensive races for a defense-to-offense weapon is often elusive. This is NOT because the offensive weapon cannot be defeated. It is because nobody has grasped the necessary concepts or been given the green light to go ahead in reference to the consternating weapon.

Even if the JLTV is FCS compatible (which would be a big plus), the lightweight armor will still be of concern. The DoD is even now handing out massive contracts to the JLTV producers they feel best suited to construct them, but the armor problem has yet to really be solved.

There are a couple of things that must be brought into the overall picture:

1. The weight of the MRAP has already resulted in the “stranding with personnel inside” until reinforcements or flyboys arrive to bail them out. Still on the weight issue, you’d better have a nice paved road for the beast, otherwise you WILL be stuck in the mud or sand. These cost a MILLION USD apiece? It’s worth spending money to save troops, hell yes, but can we not do better? Could we design one that would crawl over rough terrain without tipping over?

2. Whatever the incarnation of the JLTV turns out to be, it will require the real and true next-gen armor. There are better answers than what is being considered now. They must eventually come into play because the majority of WIA and KIA suffered has been, horribly, due to a lack of thinking like good ole’ Heinz. Far better to put them into play now.

Look, military improvisation to deal with tactical problems isn't new to American war-making. Think about all they did when they hit the hedgerows in '44, or take a look at the pictures of sandbags held by chicken wire to the front glacis of Sherman tanks. My point here is that we should design our JLTVs, and whatever else we're going to go to besides the MRAPs, and make sure our troopers aren't having to improvise in some other faraway place to keep themselves whole.

Remember, do it right the first time...

To be continued...

-- Breach Bang Clear

Flipping an Abrams Tank With Your Pinkie

All right folks, so you're probably going to need to help set me straight on this, but there were a couple of interesting presentations at the armor conference regarding nano-fibers -- particularly the construction of carbon fiber nano-tubes in a lab environment.

The impact on the body armor industry if this technology could be produced on a large scale is huge. One of my body armor buds told me if fully realized, "a big football player could flip a tank over" that's made out of the stuff.

Whoa!

The long and the short of it is that several researchers (particularly university labs) have been able to construct microscopic tubular structures out of carbon fiber and extrude them into long weaves of nanites. The stuff is incredibly lightweight, but stronger than steel. According to experts, if this stuff is wrapped around strands of aramid fibers like Kevlar, Dyneema or Spectra Shield, the ballistic resistance yield would be huge -- as would the weight reduction.

For example: I used two Level III plates during my last trip to Iraq that weighed about four pounds and were made of aramid materials like Dyneema [thank you to my bros at Protective Products who hooked me with the totally sweet set of 11014 plates. They saved my back and would have definately saved my butt if I'd needed them to]. There was no boron carbide (ceramic) plating in them at all. They could withstand a standard AK round, but not an armor piercing one.

With the nano-fibers, my understanding is that you could realize Level IV or even Level V ballistic protection with the same or less weight. If/when this technology is fully realized, imagine the applications for not just body armor, but armor for vehicles as well.

The researchers also mentioned the increased conductive properties of carbon nano-fibers, which could lead to armor and clothing with embedded telemetry, heating and cooling capability and even innovative Predator-like camouflaging.

But there's a down-side my armor expert warns. When the material is impacted, it results in emissions of carbon monoxide gas and microscopic particulates that could prove toxic if inhaled. One of the researchers presenting her work at the conference admitted this was a concern, but that research into the environmental effects of such a breakdown was so-far minimal. The Washington Post had a story on this phenomenon on Wednesday, citing a study that showed much higher cancer risk in mice injected with nano fibers.

Now this doesn't seem like much when applied to a body armor plate impact. But my buddy countered that if these things were part of vehicle armor, imagine the potentially toxic effluent if its struck by a massive IED or anti-armor round...

It's an amazing development that could revolutionize how we think about ballistic protection. But there's clearly still a long way to go before we can built that featherweight tank.

-- Christian

And Now, Part II of the Armor Forecast

Earlier I gave you some notes I took on the forecasted expenditures of the services for armor products. The analyst from Vector Strategy also went into the forecasted expenditures of armored materials, including steel, ceramics and aramid fiber armors. But I thought that stuff was a bit speculative, so I won't pass it along unless any of you email me for it.

What she did talk about, however, were some "issues" that could affect her assumptions on materials and expenditures -- things that could raise or lower the amounts or contribute to the creation of a whole new category of material demands and dollars spent.

Some of those issues include:

• The Army's "grow the force" initiative: will the Army's expansion from 70 to 76 Brigade Combat Teams include Stryker-equipped ones or will they be infantry combat teams with less armor-intensive equipment? The service has not yet decided.

• Similar to the grow the force issues are the services efforts to transform its current forces into BCTs -- the so-called "modularization" initiative: Again, how many and how heavy vehicles will each of the BCTs and their support and coordinated units need?

• There are two ongoing studies being hammered out by the services on the future of their tactical wheeled vehicle plan -- one at the behest of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, the other at the insistence of DepSecDef Gordon England: What will these two studies say for future armored vehicle acquisition plans? How many JLTVs vs uparmored Humvees vs Strykers vs other new manned armored ground vehicles will the Army and Marine Corps buy?

• EFP-resistant upgrades: The services are still determining how many Humvees will require the Frag Kit #6 upgrades for greater EFP protection and how many of the Army's M113 ASVs will get the new Frag Kit #3 for the same resistance. Of course, the number and mix of MRAPs plays into this fudge factor.

• Marine Corps tactical vehicles: How many JLTVs, MRAPs and Humvee ECVs (expanded capacity vehicle) will the Corps buy? This will surely affect the quantity and types of armor needed from the market.

• The big question mark is the future of the Future Combat Systems: What mix of Bradley, Abrams other upgrades or new buys will the Army include in its overall manned ground vehicle future plans for FCS? There's a lot of question surrounding the future of the FCS plan and what will survive in this seemingly unwieldy program. We know NLOS is protected (thanks to Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma where Fort Sill is located) but what of the troubled FCS ground vehicles will make it through technical and budget chops?

• Lastly, the Army's plan to replace the M113 ASV: It's in the 2010-2015 POM, but it's anyone's guess what will be the final choice.

Up next: Carbon nanotubes and their influence on the armor market.

-- Christian

Armor Forecasted Expenditures

Another presenter here at the armor conference was a woman who runs a business consulting company called Vector Strategy Inc. She gave a lightening fast briefing on trends in the armor business, including vehicle armor orders, body armor procurement, vehicle upgrades, new vehicle orders, etc. through like 2015.

It was a fascinating presentation if not delivered at too blistering a pace to really keep up with it, but here are some numbers she came up with:

Up next: Key issues facing the future of armor procurement...

-- Christian

Marines Don't Want Their MTV

Something told me this would happen.

Saw a great report last night from Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin who's been traveling with Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway in Iraq.

She knew news when she saw it and reports that Marines are complaining mightily about their new body armor vest, the Modular Tactical Vest or MTV.

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.

-- Christian

Cage Armor Applied to New Vehicles

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.

-- Christian

Humvees Trying to Take MRAP Thunder

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.

-- Christian

Dragon Skin Gets the Shaft...

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.

The release follows:

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.

(Gouge: JD)

-- Christian

Pinnacle Faces Contract Ban

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.

Download Neal's letter

"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."

Download Geren's letters

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.

-- Christian Lowe

Dragon Skin Takes a Beating on Hill

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.

(See page 12 of the PEO Soldier brief)

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.

-- Christian

DS Multi-media Update

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 gets more and more curious.

-- Christian

McCain and Levin Step In

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.”

Download the Levin/McCain letter here.

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.

-- Christian

Army Called to Capitol Hill Carpet

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."

-- Christian

The Dragon Skin Show

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).

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE PEO SOLDIER BRIEF HERE.

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.

-- Christian

Dragon Skin Debate Heats Up

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.

Stay tuned, folks. There’s more on the way.

-- Christian

Strykers in the line of fire

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.

--Murdoc

Rat Claws to the rescue

Yesterday USA Today ran a story called Humvee doors can trap troops. In the piece, Tom Vanden Brook notes

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.

Meanwhile, of course, some continue to push for more Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and manufacturers continue to scramble to fill the requests. And the fact that tanks are still in very high demand cannot be ignored.

There's a discussion about this over on the Military.com boards.

--Murdoc

Body Armor on Track

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.

-- Christian

New Army Armor

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.

So, kudos to the Army for their pick…

-- Christian

New Eyes for Gators

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.

What we have, in fact, is a small APC/liason vehicle, in the vein of the Italian 4x4 Puma or the American ASV. Such a small APC seats about 5 soldiers, including the gunner. The small APC allows the squad to spread itself out on the distributed battlefield. The small APC allows the mech squad to fire and maneuver on the march, restoring the offensive capability to the mech squad. The small APC, by virtue of its size, automatically limits its weapon load to infantry support weapons (50 cal, rockets) instead of engaging in the AIFV arms race. As fire control/weapon system is a major component of the vehicle cost, the less sophisticated small APC acts as a natural limit against the cost growth of a program like Future Combat Systems.

To outfit an infantry squad with small APCs may be slightly more expensive than with a single AIFV. However, if you add in the up-armored Humvees with electronic countermeasures to the AIFV squad, the cost projection would be a wash. And we are not arguing against a full-sized APC such as the M-113 Gavin. The Gavin, or a Stryker, can be useful when we need to bring more dismounts. The modern mechanized company team should have a mix of small APCs, full-sized APCs, and tanks to carry out its new cavalry missions on the non-linear battlefield. And as we start looking for Humvee replacements, let's keep in mind a small APC, instead of a better jeep.

-- Jimmy Wu

Dragon Skin: Proven Tough?

The seemingly-endlessly soap opera behind the new-fangled Dragon Skin body armor has taken yet another plot twist.

In our last episode, Army program managers in charge of a competing body armor system were publicly dissing the Dragon -- while they were in the middle of supposedly impartial tests to gauge the armor's effectiveness. "To anyone considering purchasing an SOV 3000 Dragon Skin - don't," one program manager said on an online forum. "I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents."

But the National Institute of Justice, which has long rated bullet-proofing systems, has come up with a different opinion, according to Soldiers for the Truth. Within a few weeks, the NIJ will formally certify for Level III protection -- good enough to stop AK-47 fire. If I'm not mistaken, that would make the Dragon Skin the first soft armor, without plate inserts, to get that high of a rating. And it would certainly call into question the Army managers' disparaging remarks about the armor -- after Dragon Skin went from ballyhooed to banned to grudgingly accepted for testing, all in a matter of months. Stay tuned...

New Twist in Dragon Armor Tale

After a few soldiers started wearing Dragon Skin body armor, the much-hyped alternative to the standard Interceptor defenses, the Army banned the flexible armor -- and allegedly threatened to cut off the life insurance policies of anyone wearing it. Then, the Army took a different tack, saying it would start testing the Skin, to see if it was up to snuff.

Now, one of the officers in charge of those tests is publicly dissing the Dragon armor, Jane's Nathan Hodge reports.

In comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised tests of Dragon Skin, a vest made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV 3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote in a 6 June posting. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

"I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV 3000 Dragon Skin - don't."

Masters added that he would not recommend the vest, particularly given the threat from 7.62 x 54R armor-piercing rounds.

"I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents," he added...

Pinnacle officials have consistently maintained Dragon Skin passed the tests that were conducted in May, and said army officials agreed to continue tests at a later date. They say they are awaiting word from the army on the resumption of testing...

After repeated inquiries, an army public affairs official referred Jane's to Pinnacle for more information on the results of testing. Lieutenant Colonel William Wiggins, an army spokesman, said the safety of use memorandum regarding Dragon Skin is still in force.

"As our research community comes up with new products, we'll field them," Col Wiggins said. "You can be assured that we field the best body armour in the world."

The Army still needs tanks

The transformation of the Army continues. It's just that part of the transformation involves keeping the M-1 Abrams main battle tank production lines open for an extra eight years. Operations in Iraq have affirmed heavy armor's worth, according to Army Times. (subscription only)

Fort KNOX, Ky. — The armor community is alive and well and the 70-ton Abrams tank has a bright future on the urban battlefield, even in a force moving increasingly toward lighter, more mobile fighting platforms, Army leaders said.

“Without tanks, we don’t have combined arms,” said Gen. B.B. Bell, commanding general of Eighth U.S. Army Korea, who spoke to a packed auditorium May 18 during this year’s Armor Warfighting Symposium about tank successes on the Iraq battlefield.

Bell emphasized the tank’s important role in a complicated fight, pointing to its decades-old lethality, ability to adapt to open terrain and urban settings, the survivability factor for crews, and the fact that a heavy-armor task force can be deployed in as little as 96 hours.

Bell points out that urban operations are nothing new for the Army, and that tanks are major part of our ability to be successful in the cities. Tanks led the way during the initial invasion and have been prominent weapons in nearly every major operation as well as important in the day-to-day mission.

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Richard Cody pointed out that the Army was not really prepared for modern warfare before the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It was under-trained, under-equipped, and in a generally-poor state of maintenance. But war has changed that to a great extent, and the place of the tank in the new and improved US Army has been re-thought.

“The opportunity to invest came to fruition when we went to war,” [Col. Larry Hollingsworth, Heavy Brigade Combat Team project manager] said. “It became apparent to people that the risks you could assume with your force during a peacetime environment were very different from the risks you could assume during wartime.”

“If you’re not going to fight with tanks and Bradleys, you may not want to invest in them the same way as if you were going to have to roll them into Baghdad. I think that’s what our entire Army has seen,” Hollingsworth said.

Note the machine gun shield with ballistic glass in the pictured M1A1 (pic from DoD). This is a recent addition to the old warhorse which increases protection while maintaining vital sight lines for the man on the gun. Other improvements for the M1, collectively known as the TUSK program ("Tank Urban Survival Kit"), are in the pipeline to transform our tanks into even more lethal monsters on today's battlefields, also known quaintly as "cities". Many times "transformation" isn't revolutionary but instead incremental.

It's not been just tanks, either, that have had their worth re-evaluated lately. It's also been the B-52 bomber, the A-10 attack plane, the 7.62x51mm rifle round, the M79 "blooper" grenade launcher, and many other systems, most of which are considered "old school" and had been slated for retirement. Some had already been put out to pasture but rushed back into service when the need arose. Sometimes it is because new gee-whiz gadgets don't work as expected, and we could have worse problems than to learn that the systems we already have are the ones we need.

--cross-posted by Murdoc

More Body Armor. Ugh.

The seemingly endless drive to encase soldiers and marines in more and more armor continues -- whether the troops want it or not. The lastest, Inside Defense tells us, is "QuadGuard," a full body suit that's been shipped out to about 5,000 marines in Iraq. There's no mention of how many of 'em are actually using the things.

QuadGuard is made out of "Dyneema," supposedly "15 times stronger than steel." Worn with the standard Interceptor body armor, it comes in two models: QuadGuard IV is a one-piece. QuadGuard V is more modular, "allowing marines to remove some parts of the equipment if they are not necessary." Total weight: about nine and a half pounds. That's on top of the approximately 42 pounds taken up by fully-loaded Interceptor gear, and the 5-6 pounds for the newly-required, side and shoulder guards. (Let's not even get into that crazy facial armor or the moon suit.)

Designed by researchers at Oklahoma State University, with some Naval Research Lab cash, QuadGuard has the potential to "reduce fatalities by 10% and serious injuries by 30-40%," its backers claim. Of course, there's mention of how many of those benefits will be given back, with the additional heat, weight, and loss of mobility that comes with all that extra gear. Could this help some ultra-exposed troops? Sure. Let's just hope the higher-ups don't start forcing everyone on patrol to stop wearing 'em. Especially not when the Iraqi summer is starting to kick in, and temperatures start climbing into the high 130's. As Sgt. Eric Daniel noted a few months back:

Something folks don't take into consideration is the tradeoffs associated with wearing additional armor. Just before I rotated out, we were getting issued the DAPS (deltoid auxiliary something-or-other...) and the "space marine" shoulder pads. While these offered additional protection to the side of the chest and shoulders (from small arms fire and small fragments) they were so cumbersome to wear that you were effectively immobile while wearing them. In fact, it was so bulky that I could not put it on and then climb through the turrets on the LMTVs and HUMVEES; I had to put the armor on top of the vehicle, get in the turret, and then suit up. Furthermore, while my small arms protection may have gone up, I was a dead man when it came to vehicle roll overs or surviving an IED/VBIED blast. This is just with the DAPS/ shoulder armor, mind you. Now they're talking about equipping gunners with entire ensembles of kevlar armor (complete with portable AC systems). That's just insane.

UPDATE 7:42 AM: Inside Defense also passes along another interesting tidbit. Just six weeks ago, the Army said that any soldier caught wearing Dragon Skin body armor "would have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear." Now, service officials are going to put the ballyhooed protective equipment through a weeklong series of tests, "to help the Army determine if the body armor meets the Army’s standards."

UPDATE 9:36 AM: Murdoc has more on the moon suit.

So Much for "Force Fields"

A few weeks back, buzz was building, fast, for Trophy, an Israeli "active protection" system that stops rocket-propelled grenades in mid-air. At the Naval Surface Warfare Center, demonstrations of the vehicle-mounted defender a went well, with the Trophy's four radars picking out out RPG threats, and firing a kind of buckshot at the incoming shells. In Israel and here in the States, test vehicles were getting equipped. Fox News got so fired up, it declared Trophy to be a "top secret... futuristic force field." Which lead some commenters on the lunatic fringe to cheer for the new "barrier of invisible energy fragments (perhaps light particles charged by lasers)."

But all the heavy-breathing didn't help the system, in the end. "The Army is passing up [on Trophy] ... to pursue an alternative system that won’t be fielded until 2010 or later," Defense News ace Greg Grant reports.

The Army won't say why, exactly -- only that "the issue with any [active] armor protection system is the 60 percent solution is not acceptable," says Maj. Gen. Roger Nadeau. But here's a guess: What happens when Trophy confuses a kid with a rock and an RPG-carrying insurgent? How does that look on Al-Jazeera?

The free-thinkers at the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation -- the folks who sponsored the Trophy trials, and who are planting the system on their experimental Project Sheriff vehicles -- have an alternate theory, however. The Army, in their view, is worried that Project Sherriff and Trophy might compete with its massive vehicle modernization program, Future Combat Systems.

The Army knew about Trophy — some 60 officers and FCS officials visited Israel for briefings, but not a single one asked for more information on the system. The OFT stumbled onto the system last summer and immediately moved to negotiate a government-to-government technology agreement allowing American officers unprecedented access to all the top-secret data on the system...

In fact, Army acquisition officials are lobbying [higher-up Pentagon] officials to allow the service to remove the active protection system and the millimeter-wave “active denial” [pain ray] systems that are at the heart of the [Project Sherriff] vehicle.

"Instead, the Army wants to field a Sheriff that eschews the active armor system for slat armor," Grant notes. And that's a big problem. Because insurgents in Iraq have started using a new, powerful RPG that shreds the cage-like defense.

The RPG-29... packs two shaped-charge warheads: a small one to blow up the reactive armor or blow through the slats, clearing a path for a larger charge to strike the vehicle’s hull. [The weapon] poses such a threat to American armor that the U.S. military has refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy them, fearing they will fall into the wrong hands, the top Iraqi ground-forces general told The New York Times last August.

There is only one currently available active armor system designed to defeat RPGs: Israel’s Trophy system, according to OFT officials.

UPDATE 12:55 PM: Last week's Inside Defense had more on the Army's active protection reservations. "It is not just about giving [soldiers] an APS system. How do the soldiers work with it? How does it tie into the network? How do you know when to turn it on? When not to turn it on?" said Future Combat Systems program manager Brig. Gen. Charles Cartwright. "We could put something over there . . . overnight but have I got the logistics to be able to support," the technology.

In recent months, service officials -- not directly involved in the development of APS technologies -- have warned against waiting for a 100 percent solution. During a March 28 Institute for Defense and Government Advancement defense acquisition symposium, Edward Bair -- the Army’s program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors -- spoke in detail about how acquisition reform could better support the warfighter. Included in Bair’s presentation was the term "Good Enuf," at which time he explained that good enough today is better than optimum five years from now.

UPDATE 1:09 PM: Alabama National Guard LT and missile defense engineer Jimmy Wu says some of the Army's hesitancy is legit. But only some.

The cloud of projectiles from the active protection system is bound to hit people in addition to its target RPG. In addition, in an urban fight, the RPG gunners will try to get inside the minimum range of a Trophy system such that it does not have the time to shoot down the RPG.

On the other hand, there are situations where the Trophy is useful. For example, during the approach march [eg, highway convoys], where everyone is under armor, the Trophy will minimize losses from an RPG ambush.

Both sides have merit. However, if I was deciding, I would deploy the Trophy. By adding an off switch, the Trophy operator can turn off the system when there are many people outside the vehicle. Training is not a big factor because the small fleet deployed is too small to cause future training problems. Supply should not be an issue either because of the small fleet. We need to encourage experimentation on the battlefield instead of quashing initiatives like the Sheriff.

Army's About Face on Soldier-Bought Armor

AP: "Just six months after the Pentagon agreed to reimburse soldiers who bought their own protective gear, the Army has banned the use of any body armor that is not issued by the military."

In a new directive, effective immediately, the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear.

Army officials told The Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, which is usually mega-critical of the Pentagon's higher-ups, agrees with the Army this time. "The Army has to ensure some level of quality... They don't want soldiers relying on equipment that is weak or substandard," executive director Paul Rieckhoff tells the AP.

But Soldiers for the Truth contends that, "Despite all the evidence to the contrary, including [Army Program Executive Office] Soldier's own ballistic tests conducted at two Army research laboratories that irrefutably proved Dragon Skin was a superior product, the officers charged with providing America's warriors with the best protection possible continue to maintain that the Army's home-grown Interceptor OTV body armor is superior." The site also has the internal Army e-mail telling commanders to diss the Dragon Skin.

A. There may be Soldiers deployed in OIF/OEF who are wearing a commercial body armor called "Dragon Skin," made by Pinnacle Armor, in lieu of their issued Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). Media releases and related advertising imply that Dragon Skin is superior in performance to IBA. The Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims.

B. The Army has been involved in the development of Dragon Skin and the different technology it employs. In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements. In fact, Dragon Skin has not been certified by the Army for protection against several small arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

"Active Protection" Speeds Up

Armies around the world have been spending a ton of time and money trying to figure out how to keep their fighting vehicles, trucks, and personnel carriers safe. Better armor is one answer. Another is to stop attacks before they ever hit.

Several of these so-called "active protection" systems are making progress, both here and in Israel. Generally speaking, they all work in the same way, Defense News' Barbara Opall-Rome notes:

• A radar detects and identifies an approaching threat.
• Target information is transferred to a kill mechanism.
• The kill mechanism destroys the target at a safe distance from the vehicle.

A few weeks back, Trophy, an Israeli active protection set-up, went through its first tests on an American Stryker vehicle. It's already being used to protect Israeli tanks against rocket-propelled grenades.

[In a] Feb. 28 test... two inert RPGs were fired simultaneously; one would hit the Stryker while the other was intentionally aimed for a near miss… Trophy was able to track the trajectory, discriminate among the two parallel targets, and determine which one would actually hit the Stryker before selectively unleashing its lethal countermeasures. The actual method used to destroy the targets is classified.

The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation is planning on using Trophy on its Project Sheriff vehicles -- those experimental personnel carriers, armed with pain rays and sonic blasters.

Meanwhile, the Army is pursuing its own active protection plans. Its Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center has been test-firing a system which blasts incoming RPGs with foot-long fragmentation rounds. Raytheon has just been handed a $70 million contract to actively protect the Army's next-generation combat vehicles. Last month, the company successfully demonstrated its "Quick Kill" RPG-stopper, eDefense notes.

The precision-launched weapon employs a technique called "soft launch," whereby it launches vertically from the vehicle, pitches over, and is propelled by its rocket motor to the point of intercept with the RPG, at which point it fires its warhead. This method provides a combat vehicle with full hemispheric protection from a single system, rather than placing a number of them around the sides of the vehicle. It also avoids the concussion and stress that a more traditional launch method would put on the vehicle.

In addition, a vehicle equipped with the Quick Kill system would typically carry eight to 16 such rounds that could be launched in a salvo to counter multiple RPG attacks.

There are other, more exotic active protection approaches, too. Army-funded researchers recently filed a patent to stop attacks with parachutes. The Brits think they can stop RPGs with massive electrical charges. And a Navy-backed company, Aoptix Technologies, wants to "apply... high energy light based weapons" to keep RPGs from landing.

UPDATE 03/15/06 11:50 AM: "Lightly armored vehicles such as the Humvee are unlikely ever to get [Quick Kill-style] defenses," says Defense News' Greg Grant. "The blast pressures generated when the incoming warhead detonates would buckle lightly armored vehicles."

For lighter vehicles, an innovative air bag system is in development, Army sources said, called the Tactical Vehicle RPG Air-bag Protection System, or TRAPS. Made from the same material in automotive air bags, they detonate incoming RPGs at a distance from the vehicle and cushion the blast.

The air-bag defense is in its final test stages this week, and could begin production later this year.

Nadeau said it’s tough to develop an active-armor system that can be used around dismounted soldiers or innocent civilians. The hard-kill defensive warheads launched by the vehicle resemble huge shotgun blasts to shred incoming projectiles, and would prove highly lethal to anybody nearby.

“When you put it on a vehicle that is going to be around dismounted soldiers, you have to have the ability to turn quadrants on and off, to avoid the collateral damage,” Nadeau said.

Exoskeletons Make You Tough

Prototype exoskeletons are already making people stronger -- strap this Berkeley contraption on, and a backbreaking load suddenly feels about as heavy as a couple of copies of the Sunday paper.

But as anyone who's ever read Iron Man knows, exoskeletons are supposed to do more that make you strong. They're supposed to protect you from bad guys, too.

Fortunately, the folks from New Ipswich, NH's Warwick Mills haven't forgotten that key lesson. The company recently received a contract from the Navy to put together "Exoskeleton Blast Protection for IEDs."

Warwick has already provided the "protective crash bag material used to land NASA's Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers." Now it wants to use that expertise, to "create a lightweight, flexible, multi-layered system that will effectively mitigate the powerful forces of tension and compression that can cause traumatic limb separation caused by IED blast."

Most existing body armor systems use a hard plate to protect against ballistic threats to the torso, and some also contain a softer fabric system to provide protection from fragmentation, but there is nothing available to today's warfighters that addresses issues of limb separation. This lack of protection leaves the wearer's extremities vulnerable to severe, often fatal, injuries caused by blast overpressure.

Our research efforts will seek to achieve an optimal material combination that can absorb and dissipate energy from overpressure and can also withstand fragmentation of 0.100-1.2g.

Only after they've got the energy absorbtion thing worked out, Warwick promises, will they move on to installing stuff like repulsor rays and energy shields.

Facial Armor Rears Its Ugly Head

No matter how many times soldiers and marines say they're not interested, there's always someone trying to wrap them up in heavier, hotter, more uncomfortable armor.

Reader AS points to the latest culprit: MTek Weapon Systems, which is pushing Stormtrooper-esque "facial armor" for our troops.

The mask weighs 1.3 pounds, is compatible with ballistic eyewear, and will stop a bullet from a .44 magnum. So far, there seems to be one marine corporal using the thing in Iraq. We'll see if more emerge.

Army Sec'y: More Body Armor

Hunh. So lots of soldiers and marines have chimed in on the latest body armor debate here. And just about all of 'em think that adding extra plates to an already heavy armor load is a bad idea. It's already hard enough to maneuver, they say; squeezing into Humvees is a particular bitch.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey's message: suck it up. He told the AP yesterday that every GI ought to wear a couple of extra protective panels along the sides of the armor vest, adding another 5-6 pounds to his load.

"That's going to add weight, of course," Harvey told Pentagon reporters at a news conference. "You've read where certain Soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this."

Now, "Army officials stressed that Harvey was offering his opinion," the AP reports. "They said unit commanders in Iraq and elsewhere make the final decision on what armor their troops must wear." Which is absolutely the right idea. The guys on the ground know best how dangerous their areas are, and how much protection is needed. But given the political pressure on this issue, I wonder how long it's going to be until that suggestion becomes an order.

Dissing the Dragon?

When the latest body armor flap broke ten days ago, several commenters here talked up the Dragon Skin protective system as a better alternative. Now, Soldiers for the Truth -- the group which ignited the current armor debate -- is passing on reports from two deploying GIs that "their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies."

According to Defense Review -- which has been tracking Pinnacle's gear for a while -- the Skin is basically your standard body armor, laced with silver-dollar sized ceramic discs. These are configured over the vest like scales (hence the "Dragon" sobriquet).

Some folks say the Skin is at least as tough as standard-issue armor, and it's flexible, too -- which should make it more comfortable. But, if I'm reading right, the basic Dragon Skin vest weighs about 8 lbs. more than the Interceptor OTV armor that soldiers generally wear now. That extra weight, I'm guessing, is the reason why one commander tried to spook his men out of their Skin. And I have a feeling this is just one commander's words -- not some Pentagon-wide directive, as SFTT implies. We'll see.

Vietnam Flak Vests: Soooo Light

In an earlier post today on the recent body armor debate, I used the oft-quoted figure of "25 pounds" for the Vietnam-era flak vests. A commenter on the post points out that Vietnam-era flak vests did not weigh anywhere close to that.

Some quick Googling reveals that the body armor used in Vietnam weighed in at 9 or 10 pounds. According to Olive-Drab:

• The M-1952 Fragmentation Protective Body Armor, developed during the Korean War, was the most common body armor issued to US Army troops and weighed in at about 10 pounds.
• The M-1955 USMC Armored Vest, used by the Corps in Vietnam, also weighed about 10 pounds.
• The M-1969 Fragmentation Protective Body Armor, the Army's replacement for the M-1952, weighed about 8.5 pounds.

As you can see, none of these approach the 25 pound figure usually included in stories on body armor. Somehow this figure has become ingrained in the minds of many, and while researching this post I came across a 2003 Washington Post story on MSNBC.com that used it. The article, Body armor saves U.S. lives in Iraq, was about the great performance and the acute shortage of the Interceptor Body Vest and ceramic plate inserts during the first year of the campaign in Iraq.

To make the matter even more curious, it was made again today in a release by the American Forces Press Service, quoted here. The release quotes an Air Force Museum as the source of the figure.

Where did this number come from? Well, while looking around I noticed these figures:

• Ranger Body Armor (RBA) weighs about 8 pounds. With the ceramic upgrade plate, it weighs about 16 pounds.
• The Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops Vest (PASGT-V) weighs about 9 pounds, and when combined with the Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest (ISAPO), the weight is about 25 pounds.

Both of these systems were introduced in the 1990s. So it appears that it isn't the Vietnam-era armor but the 1990-era armor that the current "Interceptor" Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) and Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) (pictured above) are comparable to.

One last note about the Vietnam-era armor. It's nearly legendary how often the armor was left behind due to its weight. One has to wonder what, despite the greatly enhanced protection, those soldiers would have thought of the 25 pound armor of the 1990s and 2000s.

--cross-posted by Murdoc

New Plates for Army Armor

Well, well. Just a few days back, a Marine report came to light blaming some troops' deaths on the lack of plates in their body armor -- particularly side plates that protect the warfighters' flanks. Now, the New York Times reports, the Army has decided to send to start sending those side plates to its soldiers in Iraq.

The Marine Corps, which commissioned the study in December 2004, began buying side plates in September for its 26,000 troops in Iraq. Army procurement officials said they began studying a similar move last summer after receiving requests from troops in Iraq, but were hampered by the need to supply a much larger force of 160,000 individuals.

The Army had begun supplying small quantities of side plates to soldiers much earlier in the war through its Rapid Equipping Force. Armor Works of Tempe, Ariz., which is making the plates for the marines, said it shipped 250 sets in November 2003.

Another manufacturer, the Excera Materials Group of Columbus, Ohio, said that since late 2004 it had shipped 1,000 sets of side plates to Special Forces personnel, the Air Force and individual units that used their own procurement money to buy the armor.

According to the Armed Forces Press Service, the side panels "weigh 3 pounds [and] will be made of the same material as the small-arms protective inserts," or SAPI plates, which protect the front of soldiers' torsos.

Other shoulder and side protection adds 5 pounds. Wearing all pieces of the Interceptor armor could add about 27 pounds to soldiers' burden.

By comparison, the "flak vest" of Vietnam came in at about 25 pounds, and the original flak vest worn by airmen during World War II weighed around 40 pounds, Air Force Museum officials said.

Soldiers and marines differ sharply on whether this extra armor is a good idea or not in today's war. Check out the debate raging in the comments section here.

UPDATE 3:02 PM: Sgt. Eric Daniel, who has written extensively for Military.com and returned from Iraq in October, writes:

Something folks don't take into consideration is the tradeoffs associated with wearing additional armor. Just before I rotated out, we were getting issued the DAPS (deltoid auxillary something-or-other...) and the "space marine" shoulder pads. While these offered additional protection to the side of the chest and shoulders (from small arms fire and small fragments) they were so cumbersome to wear that you were effectively imobile while wearing them. In fact, it was so bulky that I could not put it on and then climb through the turrets on the LMTVs and HUMVEES; I had to put the armor on top of the vehicle, get in the turret, and then suit up. Furthermore, while my small arms protection may have gone up, I was a dead man when it came to vehicle roll overs or surviving an IED/VBIED blast. This is just with the DAPS/ shoulder armor, mind you. Now they're talking about equipping gunners with entire ensembles of kevlar armor (complete with portable AC systems). That's just insane.

The bottom line is, in my opinion, we are going overboard with armor; just like you can't armor a tank every where (there's 2.5 feet of armor on the front of a tank, but only 1 inch on top) you can't armor a person everywhere. Everything has trade offs. Yes the SAPI plates could be bigger, but it really isn't cost effective to make 40 different sizes and it's impossible to tailor them, so we run with what we have.

We have gotten to the point that we're wearing so much of it now that we are combat ineffective (we're too heavy and too slow to chase the bad guys so really all the armor does is allow them to shoot at us with impunity. If the military wants to make our lives safer, rather than give us more armor to wear they ought to untie our hands and let us take the fight to the bad guys, by getting rid of the restrictive rules of engagement.

USMC: Armor Gaps Prove Fatal

One of the reasons I never got too tweaked in Iraq was my confidence in my Interceptor body armor. Now, according to the New York Times, I should have panicked more.

Piggybacking on a Soldiers for the Truth expose, the paper reports on a "Pentagon study [which] found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor."

That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study.

Trouble with the Interceptor armor has surfaced before. The Marines ordered the recall of more than 5,000 of the Interceptor Outer Tactical Vests (OTVs) back in May. Another 18,000 were recalled in December, says Soldiers for the Truth.

"For more than two years [Soldiers for the Truth's] DefenseWatch has received reports and complaints from Grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Interceptor gear is lousy," the group notes. "In late October DW began receiving reports for war fighters in Iraq that the American Armed Forces Network was warning its radio listeners there that the Coalition had received intelligence about insurgents snipers that were being trained to aim at areas of vulnerability between Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI plates) – hard composite armor plate - where Coalition war fighters wearing Interceptor armor are particularly vulnerable."

Still, 80% of casualties? That number seems awfully high. Maybe the sample was off, somehow. Or maybe I'm in denial.

UPDATE 01/08/05 10:05 AM PST: Over on the National Security Round Table list, Phil Carter -- who's currently in Iraq -- echoes what guys like Nicholas Weaver and Joe Katzman have been saying in the comments.

What troubles me about this story (and the larger debate) is this: It assumes that we can and should put an infinite amount of armor on our troops, and that the trade-offs between armor and effectiveness/weight/speed/maneuverability are illegitimate. This goes to the "force protection uber alles" mentality that we talked about a few months ago. And I also think it reflects a larger ignorance about combat that's prevalent among many critics and decisionmakers. Risk is inherent in combat. We try to minimize and mitigate the risks to the extent practicable, but ultimately, we have to take risks to win.

Phil Fraering also points out this AP story:

U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectivenes...

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade ``Rakkasans'' are required to wear an array of protective clothing they refer to as their ``happy gear,'' ranging from Kevlar drapes over their shoulders and sides, to knee pads and fire-resistant uniforms.

But many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do. They frequently joke as they strap on their equipment before a patrol, and express relief when they return and peel it off.

UPDATE 01/11/06 9:51 AM: This rules. In the comments, a former Marine sergeant writes, "During the invasion phase of the war, only non-rates were issued SAPI plates. All NCO's and above wore only the vest into combat. Following orders, I collected all 'unauthorized reading material' from my Marines and then redistributed it to my NCO's to wear in their vests as extra protection. So, we marched into war with porn instead of SAPI plates as added protection."

Darpa Armors Up

It worked for robot driving. So maybe a little competition will scare up some new ideas on how to armor up Humvees, too.

That seems to be the thinking over at Pentagon fringe science arm Darpa. Its Grand Challenge -- the $25 million, all-robot race across the Mojave -- inspired some very smart people to come up with some very smart new ways for machines to manuever on their own. Along the way, the race inspired reporters to give the agency the best press its had in years.

So, not surprisingly, Darpa is rolling out a second competition: the "Armor Challenge." The agency is hoping that a series of "shoot-outs" will prompt someone to figure out how to create a defensive system that's twice as light as rolled homogeneous armor steel, but still just as good at stopping 7.62mm and .50 cal rounds.

Proposers should expect to deliver three (3) eighteen inch (18 in.) by eighteen inch (18 in.) panels for each threat to be addressed. It is acceptable to propose a different panel configuration or weight to address each threat, but armor systems that can provide protection against the range of threats using a single configuration will be evaluated more favorably...

Armor Challenge “shoot-outs” will take place periodically (approximately quarterly) throughout the program... After the shoot-out, the team's performance will be evaluated in two areas: 1) potential for reducing armor weight as determined by appropriate metrics, and 2) the expected cost of the armor in production quantities.

Maybe one day, the government hopes, the software and engineering behind the Grand Challenge can be used to create robotic trucks, so flesh-and-blood convoy drivers can be kept out of harm's way. The Armor Challenge, on the other hand, is meant for more pressing needs. Insurgents are getting increasingly wise about tearing through American armor. That problem could be compunded in the coming years, as the Army moves to vehicles that are much, much lighter than the current crop. The replacement for the 70-ton Abrams tank, for example, is supposed to weigh in at only 24 tons. And a big chunk of that weight reduction is supposed to come with lighter, tougher armor.

Parachutes vs. RPGs

All kinds of inventors and gagdeteers have come up with all kinds of ways to try to stop rocket-propelled grenades before they slam into a Humvee. The U.S. Army wants to blast the thing with a foot-long mini-rocket. The Brits think they can do with with a massive electrical charge. And a company called Aoptix Technologies wants to "apply... high energy light based weapons" to stop the things.

Reader NB has dug up a patent for a different type of RPG-stopper: one that uses a parachute.

When an incoming munition such as an RPG is detected by the tracking apparatus 12, the firing solution computer 14 determines the time of launch and the particular launch tube 16 and sends a firing signal to the igniter 24 of the appropriate launch tube 16. The igniter 24 initiates the propelling charge 22. As the propelling charge 22 burns, expanding gases 40 (FIG. 2B) that are sealed behind the obturator 26 push the mass 20 up the tube 16. The mass 20 continually accelerates in the direction of the arrow V until the obturator 26 exits the end of the tube 16. Soon after the mass 20 exits the tube 16, the cable 32 will be pulled taut. As the force acting on the cable 32 increases, the parachute 30 will be pulled from its storage container 18.

Simultaneously, the resultant force acting on the connecting ring 28 will cause the mass 20 to rapidly rotate as shown by the arrow w in FIG. 2D until the connecting ring 28 is facing rearward. As the mass 20 continues to fly forward, the parachute lines 34 and canopy 36 will be pulled from the storage container 18. Within a short period of time the parachute 30 will be fully inflated and flying directly towards the incoming RPG 38. The parachute 30 will remain inflated for a long time relative to the incoming projectile's 38 remaining flight time to impact, thereby alleviating the need for precise timing and fuzing systems. There are several mechanisms by which the collision between the parachute 30 and RPG 38 will render the RPG 38 less effective.

A significant amount of the momentum of the parachute 30 and mass 20 (which is similar to the momentum of the incoming RPG 38) will be transferred to the RPG 38, thereby slowing it and possibly causing it to miss the intended target. Secondly, the collision will cause damage to the RPG 38 such as breaking fins or crushing the nose cone. Damage to the fins and disturbance upon impact will cause the RPG angle of attack to grow, thereby greatly reducing its terminal effectiveness. Crushing the nose cone can short the RPG fuzing system, rendering the warhead inoperable. The collision between the parachute 30 and RPG 38 will take place well away from the protected vehicle 10. If the collision causes the warhead to detonate prematurely it is much less likely to hit or damage the protected vehicle 10.

Stryker Sighting

The Army's new Stryker wheeled medium vehicle has been in a lot of crossfires -- literal and figurative -- since its introduction a couple of years ago. Critics say it's too heavy, too big, too cramped inside, thin-skinned and expensive. Supporters tout its quietness, ease of maintenance and flashy new electronics.

Now that Ft. Lewis, Wash.-based Stryker brigades from the 2nd and 25th Infantry Divisions have finished tours in Iraq, there's some real-life experience to help sort the truth from the vitriol, and the consensus is pretty good. National Defense Magazine quoted an observer in October:

The vehicle, designed to carry a nine-man squad and two-man crew, has shown that its survivability, agility, mobility and technology is effective in an urban combat zone where the enemy strikes at any time in numerous ways, said [Ft. Lewis general staffer Col. Michael] Peppers.

Having accompanied the 25th ID's Strykers on several combat missions in the town of Qayyarah, I'd like to add "adaptibility" to Peppers' praise. Soldiers are learning to use the Stryker to do things it was never designed for.

Take for example the TOW-missile variant of the Stryker, which was meant to take out tanks but finds itself in Iraq with no tanks to fight. So soldiers have been using its TOW sights as a surveillance device, parking the Stryker on hilltops at night. The TOW Strykers can spot insurgent trucks from miles away.

As for the Stryker's other amenities ... riding in the back of a rattling, cramped M-2 Bradley always makes me sick to my stomach. But on one quiet night mission in a Stryker, I fell fast asleep.

There is some talk in Marine Corps circles about buying the Stryker to fill the gap between the new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and trucks. (Marine Maj. Craig Wonson advocates the Stryker in an excellent piece in this month's Proceedings, which is not yet on-line.) The Air Force and the Canadian Army have already gotten into the Stryker game with small purchases in recent years.

-- David Axe

Bomb-Busting Buffalo

"A few months ago, spray-painted graffiti began appearing on Baghdad walls," reports Defense News' Greg Grant. "'Kill the Claw,'" it read in Arabic.

The message was aimed at a new vehicle called the Buffalo, a thickly armored mine disposal truck that seeks out and disposes of deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Its 30-foot retractable arm has a camera, to help the operator inside see what he’s doing, and a claw-like rake for finding and detonating the roadside bombs.

The insurgents’ graffiti was not quite the advertising campaign expected by Buffalo manufacturer Force Protection, but it is a testament to how effective the 24-ton vehicle has proven in neutralizing the biggest killer of American troops in Iraq. Since its introduction in late 2003, the Buffalo has become the favorite of U.S. Army combat engineer teams.

Grant's right. I spent a fair amount of time with engineer teams in Baghdad this summer, and they all raved about the vehicle. Not just because they were well-protected. But also because the thing had a kick-ass air conditioning system, too. And comfortable seats -- which is important on a 12-hour route clearance shift.

However, Grant gets it wrong when he says that "so far, nobody has been injured while riding in one of the vehicles, which have taken repeated IED hits with only minimal damage to exterior components."

I talked to several soldiers who had Buffalo-riding buddies injured by the handmade bombs -- and by their own thick skulls. These guys would dig up an explosive with the Buffalo's spindly claw. And then, they'd be so proud of what they found, they'd want to snap a quick picture of their prize. So they'd use the claw to bring the bomb right up to the Buffalo's cab. And then, the IED would go off.

More on the Road of Death's Bad-Ass Bus

Last week Defense Tech noted the RhinoRunner armored bus, and the post gathered a ton of great comments in the discussion section. Definitely worth a look.

One question asked was "What makes a RhinoRunner "better" than an APC?", and this email response came in to Defense Tech from sources "in the know":

What makes a RhinoRunner "better" than an APC?

The RhinoRunner is not "Better" than an APC...it is a different vehicle used for an entirely different mission. It is comparing apples and oranges from the tactical standpoint.

The difference between a "RhinoRunner" and an APC:

The armored personnel carrier transports fully loaded combat troops in a hostile "front-lines" environment. The APC in virtually all cases possesses organic armaments / weapons and must be all terrain capable. Normally, the all terrain requirement is satisfied via a tracked vehicle. Ideally, the APC is designed to withstand heavy caliber "direct fire" from a determined enemy. Price ranges for APCs are $500,000 minimum and can easily exceed $2,000,000.

The RhinoRunner is designed for "protected transport" of personnel on roadways, both improved and secondary. Never designed to be equipped with organic weaponry, the RhinoRunner does provide personnel being transported the capability to return fire from within the Runner. As opposed to the average commercially available "passenger-bus" or the "unarmored" standard military troop transport, the Level IV (NIJ) protection afforded by the RhinoRunner at the price of the RhinoRunner is quite remarkable. The engineering of the RhinoRunner has proven to be quite capable of withstanding the 360 degree "unconventional" aspects of the current insurgency as opposed to the more traditional one dimensional war where a front line can be identified. Unfortunately, due to the asymmetric characteristics of the current campaign in Iraq ...the RhinoRunner is fulfilling a unique and vital role in safely transporting military and civilian personnel throughout the Iraqi theater.

From a purely, and far less important, purely economic standpoint. The RhinoRunner safely transports 23 passengers at a Unit cost of $275,000. And since no RhinoRunner has been knocked out of service, it is proving to be quite resilient. Dissimilarly, it takes at least (6) $80-100,000 lesser armored HMMWVs to accomplish the same transport and 2-3 $100,000 lesser armored military trucks that are better suited for cargo transport missions. Payload constraints restrict most military combat transports from being armored to Level IV(NIJ) standards until such time as new "non-steel" materials become more available.

It must be noted that many of the comments indicate a propensity for VIP transport on the RhinoRunner. Statistics indicate that this is the exception rather than the rule in that military personnel and DoD contractors utilize the RhinoRunner at a rate far exceeding any usage by visiting VIPs, observers, etc.

Journalists and critics often make the mistake of confusing the many types of missions and environments that armored vehicles are designed for. M1 tanks have pretty much proven themselves to be the toughest and strongest armored vehicles out there today. But they make lousy busses. Just as you'd never use a tank or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle as a bus, you'd never send a RhinoRunner into a full-scale battle.

The RhinoRunner's larger carrying capacity makes it far more efficient when called to transport large numbers of personnel over great distances, and its armor is strong enough to protect its cargo in the environment its expected to operate in. Like all other armored vehicles, the RhinoRunner has a particular role to fill. The current environment in Iraq makes that role one that's required on a daily basis.

--posted by Murdoc

Road of Death's Bad-Ass Bus

"The only safe way to move troops and diplomats" along the deadliest stretch of road in Iraq "is in convoys of custom-made $275,000 armored buses," Defense News says.

The buses, called "Rhinos," look like something out of The Road Warrior... They roll in the dead of night, escorted by armored Humvees, with the road sealed to all other traffic and AH-64 Apache gunships loitering overhead.

The Rhino is all flat slabs of gray or off-white steel (there are two models in service) with passenger windows angled in streamlined fashion, like an old-time Greyhound bus, as the only concession to aesthetics.

The beauty of these buses is not in their graceful lines — they are as graceful as a refrigerator. Rather, their attractiveness lies in the armor, which covers the sides, tops and bottoms of the five buses in service in Baghdad. Twenty-six passengers ride in relative comfort on functional — if not stylish — vinyl seats.

The buses, each weighing about 13 tons and featuring bullet-resistant glass and 12 gun ports along with all that armor, are manufactured by Weston, Fla.-based Labock Technologies at the company’s plant in Ashdod, Israel.

Until three months ago, the only safe ways to move diplomats, contractors and others working for the government between the airport and the Green Zone [along "Route Irish" aka "the Road of Death" -- ed.] was by Rhino or helicopter. Now, the helicopters are being used elsewhere, and the only remaining safe ride is on the Rhino...

About three months ago, a Rhino took a direct hit from a rocket-propelled grenade. "Nobody was hurt except for some minor bumps and bruises," said Army Maj. Sharon Smith, of the Joint Area Support Group, who books the Rhino convoys.

Rhino maker Labock also claims that "it was the vehicle of choice employed by the military to provide safe ground transportation for the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, and General Dick Myers and his staff while they were visiting Baghdad in may 2004. It is also the vehicle of choice to drive Saddam Hussein and other V.I.P. prisoners between their confinements and the Iraqi Tribunal."

THERE'S MORE: For first-hand accounts of folks who've ridden the bus on the Route of Death, check out the comments section.

MARINES' BODY ARMOR RECALL

"The Marine Corps issued to nearly 10,000 troops body armor that Army ballistic experts urged the Marines to reject after tests revealed life-threatening flaws in the vests, an eight-month investigation by Marine Corps Times has found."

In all, the Marines bought about 19,000 Interceptor outer tactical vests from Point Blank Body Armor that failed government tests due to "multiple complete penetrations" of 9 mm pistol rounds and other ballistic or quality-assurance tests.

After being questioned about the safety flaws for this story, the Marines ordered the recall of 5,277 Interceptor vests on Wednesday.

ARMY'S ARMOR SNAFUS

There's an old military saw, that amateurs study tactics, and the pros study logistics. (Where exactly that puts defense technology bloggers, well, I'll leave that up to you.)

Today's remarkable New York Times story on the fumbles and fouled-up decisions the Army made while trying to get armor for its troops and vehicles shows the substance behind the cliché.

At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.

In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General Cody placed the order [for them on May 15, 2003]. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting.

By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days.

But new armor wasn't the only life-saving item Pentagon bureacrats failed to secure during in the early days of the Iraq war, the Times notes.

Long before the war, the Pentagon was excited about new ways to subvert these [Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs].

A California military contractor developed a countermeasure during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Known as the Shortstop Electronic Protection System, it evolved into a portable device that was heralded for its ability to jam the radio frequencies used by insurgents to detonate their bombs.

Col. Bruce D. Jette... was heading up a new unit called the Rapid Equipping Force, which was given license to ignore the lumbering ways the Army traditionally fills orders from the field.

Colonel Jette, who has a Ph.D. in electronic materials from M.I.T., dodged the Army's research-and-development agencies and phoned his scientist friends to find a commercial robot that could search for explosives. He embedded his staff in combat units. He took manufacturers to Iraq so they could quickly modify designs for body and vehicle armor...

Some Pentagon officials say they first realized soldiers were being killed by I.E.D.'s as early as June 2003, and late that summer the Army's 101st Airborne Division issued a report that cited "numerous" injuries from I.E.D.'s in its plea for more vehicle armor and training to evade the bombs.

The Defense Department had been producing various I.E.D. countermeasures. But the Pentagon did not start ordering large quantities of one of the most promising ones, known as the Warlock, until December 2003, nine months after the war began...

Colonel Jette was frustrated, and in October he resigned. In interviews, he said as the rush of war wore off, the Army's traditional supply corps began reasserting lengthy contracting and testing regimens, leaving him increasingly discouraged.

"That perfection in testing becomes the enemy of what is operationally good enough," he said. "And the soldiers in the field are looking for good enough."

THERE'S MORE: Back in January, we took a look at the Maj. Gen. William Webster's year-long fight to get his personnel carriers armored up.

ARMOR BOAST HAS SOFT UNDERBELLY

When Army Secretary Francis Harvey bragged last week that every American vehicle in Iraq was about to be armored up, Defense Tech readers smelled a rat.

Maybe what Harvey was saying was technically true, readers figured. But a whole lot of those supposedly toughed-up vehicles would be protected with jury-rigged, "hillbilly armor" -- the kind that's cobbled together from scrap heaps and landfills.

Now, the L.A. Times has confirmed what the folks here had already guessed. "About a quarter of the 25,300 military vehicles venturing outside bases will have only the makeshift steel plates known to soldiers as 'Mad Max' or 'hillbilly' armor."

There are three levels of vehicle armor in Iraq. About 6,000 Humvees have "level 1" armor, meaning they were manufactured as armored vehicles, with beefed-up engines, air conditioners and equipment to handle the added weight. They weigh 2,000 pounds more than the standard Humvee, with steel-plated doors, steel plating under the cab and several layers of ballistic-resistant glass in the windows. They were designed to protect against rocket-propelled grenades, small-arms fire, shrapnel and some land mines.

Next are 12,000 vehicles that have factory-made, "level 2" armor bolted on in the war zone.

Then there are the 7,300 vehicles with Mad Max armor, slated to be phased out this summer.

The remaining unarmed vehicles won't travel outside protected bases, except on cargo trucks, military officials said.

When Chief Warrant Officer Randall Menough's crew began fashioning armor at Camp Buehring last year in Kuwait, there was no Army directive to Mad Max vehicles. But they did it anyway.

ARMY CHIEF: ALL IRAQ VEHICLES ARMORED

It took long enough. But "in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday [here's the prepared version], the Army’s civilian chief pledged that by next week, no soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan would drive outside the base perimeter in an unprotected vehicle," Defense Daily reports.

Francis Harvey, the new secretary of the Army, told committee members: “After Feb. 15, no vehicle carrying an American soldier will leave a protected base without armor.”

For months, the Army’s top officials have been under fire over a failure to send enough armored vehicles into the theater of operations... Harvey, in his first appearance before the committee, said the Army had tackled the problem, increasing the number of armored vehicles in theater by a factor of more than 100 since August 2003.

“In the fall of 2003, when the insurgency in Iraq began to intensify, there were approximately 250 armored tactical wheeled vehicles in theater,” Harvey said... By month’s end, Harvey continued, “at least 32,500 tactical wheeled vehicles will be in the Iraq and Afghan theaters, and they will be protected.”

Those figures include more than just up-armored Humvees, which come in a number of variants, including factory-modified vehicles and those equipped with “bolt-on” armor kits.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who also testified, noted that the full range of Army vehicles--including the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Heavy Equipment Tactical Transporter, Palletized Load System truck and fuel tankers--are now being equipped with some form of up-armoring.

“The public focus has generally been on the Humvee -- we’ve made real progress on the Humvee,” he said. “The real boost has been in the fact that we are now armoring every wheeled vehicle -- trucks, HEMMTs, HETTs, PLS trucks, tankers, all of this.”

I'll take Harvey and Schoomaker at their word. But their accounts seem to run head-first into a December report by the AP that "of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection." Harvey and Schoomaker's testimony would also appear to contradict what the New York Times had to say about Army National Guard's trucks, back in November.

There are plans to produce armor kits for at least 2,806 medium-weight trucks, but as of Sept. 17, only 385 of the kits had been produced and sent to Iraq. Armor kits were also planned for at least 1,600 heavyweight trucks, but as of mid-September just 446 of these kits were in Iraq.

Anyone wanna guess who's telling the truth and who's spinning here?

ARMY PICKING UP TAB FOR G.I. GEAR

"To keep troops from spending what the Army found was an average of $300 per year on [their own] equipment, the service is now issuing troops everything from improved helmets to seasonal boots," Stars & Stripes reports.

The service plans to issue the gear to every soldier headed to Afghanistan, and to as many troops as possible serving in Iraq...

All troops would get better helmets and boots. Troops with brigade combat teams would get [an] extra kit, such as grappling hooks, door rams, battle axes and fiber-optic viewers.

“None of this is rocket science, but I’ve had soldiers say to me, ‘If my feet are cold, I’m not combat effective,’” said Chuck Fick, spokesman for the Army Materiel Command Field Support Brigade-Europe.

Another Kaiserslautern soldier, Spc. Gabriel George, had already purchased a fleece jacket and gloves similar to those he picked up Monday. He was nonetheless relieved the Army decided to hand it out, too.

“It’s better to have too much than not enough,” George said. “There’s always some sucker that didn’t bring his. I’m glad about it. It’s good stuff.”

GENERAL'S UP-ARMOR PLEA IGNORED

For more than a year, Maj. Gen. William Webster, the head of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had been asking his bosses for the money to toughen up his armored personnel carriers. And for more than a year, his requests went nowhere.

Then, in December, Tennessee National Guard Spc. Thomas Wilson scorched Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for not armoring up American vehicles. Within days, Inside the Pentagon notes, Gen. Webster's long-ignored plea was finally answered.

Webster’s request for additional armor for his M113 [personnel carriers] had languished at Army headquarters since October 2003, a month after he took command of the “3rd ID,” as it is called... The requirement for up-armored M113s was just one of more than 50 “operational needs statements” Webster submitted at the time...

Initially, the 3rd ID flagged other requirements as more critical than the M113 up-armor effort, sources said. The division was requesting hundreds more radios, machine guns and trucks with the first priority being “to shoot, move and communicate” when they returned to Iraq, said one Army insider.

But field commanders became increasingly uneasy last summer as casualties mounted in Iraq from ever more sophisticated insurgent tactics. M113s in Iraq were becoming vulnerable to roadside bombs and mines, Army officials say. Its light armor can stop pistol and rifle fire and shrapnel, “but that’s it,” said one.

The 3rd ID commander began pushing in earnest last August to up-armor his personnel carriers, according to sources and documents. His quest met considerable opposition at Army headquarters and at the service’s Forces Command, where senior deputies argued the M113’s existing light armor allowed it agility in urban terrain, and said it should be sufficient against an insurgency that lacks traditional armor of its own, sources said.

The three-quarter-ton armor that gets plated onto the humvees, for example, limits its carrying ability and puts additional strain on the transmission, according to service officials...

In mid-October, Webster officially requested that Army headquarters in Washington approve a $20 million armor upgrade for about 450 M113 troop carriers... In view of the estimated $1 billion being spent for Iraq operations each month, proponents of the up-armoring view it as a relative bargain. The M113 -- essentially a box on top of its tracked chassis -- is easier to armor-plate than the humvee and can be done at one-fifth the cost...

“At this time, the division does not have a viable mix of active and passive add-on armor systems for its combat and combat support vehicles that will help prevent casualties and losses,” [Webster] wrote, citing “an increasing sniper, roadside bomb, improvised explosive device, mortar, rocket propelled grenade, anti-tank missile, machine gun and small arms threat in theater...”

Webster sought “delivery of all add-on armor systems [no later than] 15 January 2005,” [a] letter states, [when the 3rd ID would be returning to Iraq]...

It was not until a late-December meeting at the Pentagon that the 3rd ID was assured Army support for getting up-armored M113s, sources said. The “can do” attitude of a new head of force development at the Army’s “G-8” programs office, Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, may have played a role in the shift, according to some officials.

“This crazy nonsense is because there was an unwillingness to admit three things: the Iraqi insurgency is a rebellion against the U.S. military occupation, it was steadily worsening, and U.S. soldiers were at serious risk in wheeled vehicles,” says retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a former armored cavalry officer who led troops in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

THERE'S MORE: The number of troops on the ground matters more than what kind of vehicle they ride around in, argues this Knight-Ridder story (via Steve Gilliard). Take the Iraqi city of Mosul, for example, where 5,000 Stryker Brigade troops replaced 20,000 from the 101st Airborne.

The men of the 101st moved around Mosul in Humvees but sustained few casualties, even though some of their Humvees lacked armor.

Conditions in Mosul, however, have gotten worse since the [more heavily-armored] Strykers arrived.

Visiting the town of Hammam al Alil, south of the city, Lt. Col. Todd McCaffrey said the area had become a "planning, bedroom community for terrorist cells "that coordinate attacks in Mosul..."

"We spend a lot of time trying to separate the populace from the insurgency," said McCaffrey, who's with a unit of the 25th Infantry Division that deployed to Iraq in late September. "Obviously, when you go from the 20,000 that the 101st had to 5,000, there's a clear change."

A steady stream of Army units has been sent to reinforce the troops in Mosul during the past two months, increasing the American presence to some 12,000 soldiers, according to Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the Stryker brigade.

"You win this thing with boots on the ground, not by throwing more vehicles at the place," said 1st Lt. Ed Mikkelsen of the Stryker Brigade.

EXPLOSIVE, STICKY, AD-HOC ARMOR

In 2004, there was no military technology issue as important as armor. How the Pentagon protected American troops and American vehicles became, for many, the litmus test for Defense Department leadership -- or lack thereof.

Here are some of the year's wildest schemes, biggest steps, and most intense political battles over armor.

PEEL-AND-STICK ARMOR IN IRAQ
Usually, adding to an armor to a Humvee means welding on giant steel plates. Now, U.S. forces in Iraq are starting to stick their armor on, like bumper stickers.

ARMY SAYS NO TO AD-HOC ARMOR
U.S. soldiers have been adding jury-rigged armor to their Humvees, to toughen the vehicles up against RPGs and roadside explosives. The Army is telling its troops to cut it out.

ARMORED POOCHES ON IRAQ PATROL
G.I.s in Iraq may not be able to get armor for their Humvees. Their dogs, on the other hand, are well protected.

ARMY REBOOTS G.I.S' TIRED FATIGUES
Ever since they tangled with the Red Coats, American generals have been giving their grunts more and more and more gear to lug -- from rations to radios, body armor to batteries. Now, for the first time, the Army has decided to junk the old uniforms and start from scratch.

G.I.S GET ARMOR ADD-ONS
A G.I.'s body armor is designed, mostly, to stop head-on attacks, or to keep a soldier from getting shot in the back. But in Iraq, insurgents aren't coming straight at the soldiers. That's why the Army and Sandia National Laboratories are rolling out new body armor add-ons, designed to shield troops' flanks and arms.

SOLDIER ARMOR: STEP INTO LIQUID
Army researchers are working on liquid body armor, to add to soldiers' bulletproof vests.

PAYBACK, FINALLY, FOR ARMOR BUYS
It's become a disgustingly familiar scene: American troops, cornered into to paying for their own protection. Now – thank God – they'll finally start to get reimbursed for what they've spent.

U.S. GETS EXPLOSIVE ARMOR FROM ISRAEL
The U.S. Army wants to protect its Bradley fighting vehicles -- by strapping dozens of Israeli explosives to their skins.

SHOOT TO PROTECT
For many soldiers in Humvees, the best defense against an RPG is to shoot the guy holding the RPG before he can let one off. But another layer of defense may be coming -- a way to blast the RPG in midair.

ARMORED HUMMERS UNDERCUT
Without some extra armor, American Humvees can't stand up to the Iraqi insurgents' onslaught of rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. "So how is the White House proposing to deal with this?" asks Slate's Eric Umanky. "By underfunding the program to armor Humvees."

ARMOR LACK LEADS TO HEAVY ATTACKS
Raining hell on Falluja is a tactic bursting with political danger. So why do it? The answer, according to Newhouse's David Wood, is because thin-skinned American Humvees can't handle an up-close fight.

RUMMY'S SLICK SUPPLEMENTAL MOVE
You'd think it'd be a top priority for the Army, outfitting troops with new body armor, helmets, and communications gear. But the Pentagon can't seem to find the cash in its $420 billion budget to pay for the equipment.

ARMOR LACK: WHO'S TO BLAME?
So who's responsible for American troops still operating in Iraq without proper protection?

TRUCKS STILL THIN-SKINNED
The Hummers are protected, mostly. It's the trucks that are in trouble.

G.I.S' PAYCHECKS FUND TRUCK ARMOR
So the Pentagon leadership has finally recognized that they need to armor up their trucks. But they've settled on a damn peculiar way of paying for the work. They're dipping into soldiers' paychecks to do it.

REAL-LIFE EXOSKELETONS EMERGE

I've got an itty-bitty article in tomorrow's New York Times Magazine, on real-life exoskeletons. You can read it here. But, to give you guys a window into how the editing process works, I thought I'd show you my first draft. It's a bit more florid, and less clear, than what finally appeared in print.

It was just a few steps, clunky and deliberate, like a toddler's waddle. But to a far-flung group of engineers, soldiers, and science fiction fans, these strides, on a treadmill inside a University of California, Berkeley laboratory, couldn't have been more profound. Here was a man, walking naturally, more or less, with the help of a set of mechanical muscles wrapped around his legs – a real-life exoskeleton.

The ur-geek author Robert Heinlein first dreamed up the idea of soldiers stepping into suits of powered armor, to make them stronger and faster, in his 1959 classic Starship Troopers. Sigourney Weaver cemented the exoskeleton in the collective consciousness in 1986, when she donned a metallic over-suit in Aliens, and kicked some slimy, interstellar ass.

In the real world, though, researchers struggled to replicate Sigourney's heroics. The exoskeletons they built were too stiff, too unnatural in their gait. Engineers would try to have them move as much like a human as possible. It never seemed to work.

The problem was that researchers were trying too hard, Berkeley engineering professor Homayoon Kazerooni finally realized. When people walk, they make an endless series of unconscious calculations and corrections to keep their stride. It's way too complicated a task for machines to handle. So instead of pre-programming the exoskeleton's every step, Kazerooni decided to let go. He set his exoskeleton up with a set of 40 sensors, and let it follow wherever the person inside wanted to wander.

The result, called BLEEX (short for "Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton") is a set of modified combat boots, attached to what look like metal braces that snake up the sides of the legs. Those connect with a tough plastic vest and backpack, where the exoskeleton's brain – a Pentium-5 equivalent processor -- sits.

About 70 pounds of stuff can be crammed into the pack. But that load only feels like five pounds or so, once the exoskeleton is turned on; the mechanical legs pick up the rest. (BLEEX 2, slated for June, should be able to carry 150 pounds, and amble at a four mile-per-hour clip.) The Pentagon – which has been funding much of Kazerooni's research – wants the machine to ease the burden on G.I.s, who routinely haul more that a hundred pounds of gear into battle.

But Kazerooni sees his exoskeleton as more than just a "war machine." The mechanical legs might someday help the elderly get around, he hopes. Replacing grandma's walker is a long way from Aliens. But at least it's real.

HUMVEE PRODUCTION BOOSTED

"The Army moved Friday to boost production of armored Humvees for American troops in Iraq by 100 a month," the L.A. Times reports, "despite recent assertions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that soldiers could not be supplied with safer vehicles because Pentagon officials could not procure them any faster."

G.I.S' PAYCHECKS FUND TRUCK ARMOR

So the Pentagon leadership has finally recognized that they need to armor up their trucks. But they've settled on a damn peculiar way of paying for the work. They're dipping into soldiers' paychecks to do it.

Let me explain. For this fiscal year, 2005, Rummy & Co. asked for $25.7 million to secure its fleet of trucks. And Congress granted the request, when it passed the Pentagon's budget in July.

But by November 19th, the Pentagon brass realized they had screwed up, Defense Department documents show. There was no way $25.7 million could pay for armoring the M915 trucks, Medium Tactical Vehicles, and other vehicles hauling supplies through Iraq; to do the job right, more like $580 million would be needed. The chiefs had under budgeted, more than twenty-fold.

The problem was, the Defense Department's budget for the year was already passed. And it was too early, yet, for a second, "supplemental" funding bill. So, instead, the Pentagon's eyeshades decided to "reprogram" money, from one military project into another.

Now, the accountants could have taken money from hulking, multi-billion dollar items, like the F-22 fighter or the creaky missile defense program. But no. Instead, the cash – along with about a billion dollars in other funds -- was taken from the Army's payroll. From the accounts to pay soldiers in the field.

With that money gone, there's now only enough cash left in the register to keep paying soldiers until May or so. If a "supplemental" budget bill – rumored to be $75 billion or more -- isn't passed by then, there will be no paychecks for G.I.s.

Congress will never let that happen, of course. No politician in his right mind is going to keep soldiers from getting paid. So, in the end, G.I.s will get the money they've been promised.

But, still, wouldn't it have been better to get this armor money together in the first place? The war has been going on since last March. Planning for it started in 2002. And only on November 19th did the Pentagon realize it needed more money to armor up its trucks?

TRUCKS STILL THIN-SKINNED

The Hummers are protected, mostly. It's the trucks that are in trouble.

The AP is reporting that "of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection... By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region."

But getting those additional Hummers could take a long, long time, if current production plans hold. According to this Bloomberg article (via Sullivan), "Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by "a matter of physics, not a matter of money.'' A Pentagon spokeswoman declined comment.

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group, said in an interview today.

"We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the telephone interview. "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.

Why the hold-up? My guess -- and I'm checkng up on this now -- is that money for armor (especially truck armor) wasn't even in the Pentagon's budget in the first place. Rather, Rummy & Co. decided to put off funding for such projects into a second, "supplemental" bill for Congress to pass.

Manehwile, the Times gangs up on the armor issue, and gives us some great color from Kuwait:

At the transit camps in Kuwait, Army and Marine Corps drivers weld antishrapnel collars onto the hoods of their trucks, to deflect exploding debris while maintaining visibility. Sandbags are laid on the floors of Humvees, trimming the skimpy legroom from economy class to steerage. On the battlefield, there is an air of resigned acquiescence about the lack of armor, rather than bitter complaints. Among units that lack armored Humvees, the mood 20 months into the war tends more to black jokes than to recrimination.

"If they i.e.d. you in this thing, there won't be enough of you left to package up and send home," a Marine sergeant said earlier this week, as he showed embedded reporters to one of three open-backed Humvees assigned to a raid on a suspected rebel stronghold raid south of Baghdad. Among troops in Iraq, i.e.d., for improvised explosive device, is shorthand for the roadside bombs that have killed about two-thirds of Americans who have died in combat.

At briefings, commanders resort often to an old Marine adage, "Improvise, adjust, overcome," and are dismissive of complaints.

SHOOT TO PROTECT

In Iraq, American troops face no deadlier threat than rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs. Some tanks now come equipped with protective measures against the weapons. But for most soldiers, the only defense is to shoot the guy holding the RPG before he can let one off. Even so-called up-armored Humvees will shred if hit by a well-placed RPG shot. In late November, 22-year-old Army National Guard Spc. David L. Roustum was killed when an RPG slammed into his Humvee.

The Army's Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is one of several Defense Department groups looking for a way to give those troops in Hummers another layer of defense. TARDEC's solution: blast the RPG in midair, before it gets a chance to hit.

In another few years, Hummers' roofs could be covered with a dozen tubes, each filled with a foot-long mini-rocket called the FCLAS -- short for Full Spectrum Active Protection Close-In Shield.

Every FCLAS would have a pair of radio-frequency sensors inside. One in the nose would detect incoming RPGs and fire off a counterstrike. A second sensor, in the rocket's side, would go off when the RPG comes within range. The FCLAS would then detonate, letting loose a hail of explosive fragments, destroying the grenade in the process. The whole attack and response would take no more than a few seconds.

The FCLAS has been tested, most recently at Camp Williams in Utah. Another trial, with multiple rockets launching at once, is scheduled for January. But it will be a while before soldiers in the field get FCLAS protection. The weapon's safety software hasn't been worked out, FCLAS project manager Steve Caito told me at the Army Science Conference. "And we have to make sure that if someone throws a rock, or a bird flies by, that it doesn't go off."

More fun and games from the conference are here, in my report for Wired News.

THERE'S MORE: Transparent, ceramic, and electro-magnetic armor are just a few of the new-jack shields reviewed in this month's National Defense magazine.

STRYKER FIGHT RAGES

With Fallujah largely under U.S. control, the epicenter of the fighting in Iraq has shifted to Mosul, in the north. And returning to action there is one of the most controversial cards in the American military's deck -- the Stryker light armored vehicle.

When the Strykers were first being introduced to the Army, in 2002, they were damned for a variety of sins -- it's armor wasn't thick enough; it couldn't hit targets on the run; it's wheels went flat too easily; and, boy, could it get hot inside.

Now that they've been in use for a while, Stars & Stripes declares that "the naysayers have been converted... The vehicles are almost too good to be true, say those who ride them, fix them or command them."

But doubters still remain. USAR Lt. Mike Sparks has long been one of the Stryker's most vocal critics. And he's still convinced that the vehicle's "air-filled rubber tires" are trouble. Previous personnel carriers, like the Gavin 113s, had tracks, which were a whole lot more durable. Wheels, on the other hand, are awfully succeptible to roadside bombs. "Would you go into combat with your family car?" he asks.

But Staff Sgt. Lee Hodges, with the Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron of the 14th Cavalry, says not to worry. "I’ve seen Strykers be hit by an [improvised explosive device] and drive home on eight flats," he tells Stars & Stripes.

The controversy continues. Over the weekend, the Defense Department indentified two soldiers, attached to the Stryker brigade, who were killed by a mortar strike in Mosul.

THERE'S MORE: Defense Tech pal CA doesn't see how the Stryker "controversy" and the recent mortar strike in Mosul are lnked.

The individual was killed in his living area, not in a Stryker. Just because he was killed while attached to a Stryker brigade doesn't make their deaths a Stryker controversy.

Not that his death should mean any less, but I think it is irrelevant to the subject of the blog item. Had he been killed by a mortar while in a Stryker then it would be overly appropriate.

CA's right, of course. My bad.

PAYBACK, FINALLY, FOR ARMOR BUYS

It's become a disgustingly familiar scene: American troops, cornered into to paying for their own protection. When supply chains bunch up, soldiers and marines – or their families – have been forced to dig into their own pockets, for things like body armor.

Now – thank God – they'll finally start to get reimbursed for what they've spent, Strategy Page notes. But only for equipment bought between 9/11 and July 31st of this year. And "despite objections from the Pentagon," according to the New York Times, whose leaders worry that it might "undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment used in combat."

"The basic problem is that new technology is coming into use much faster than the traditional military procurement system can deal with," Strategy Page contends.

There’s more useful, often life-saving, gear the troops can use for sale. And the troops don’t wait for the military to get around to stocking the new stuff, and they are not shy about telling each other, or the media, how great the unofficial gear is...

Several years ago, the army thought it had this under control with the “Rapid Fielding Initiative,” which gave combat units millions of dollars to spend as the commanders saw fit. But it was never fast enough. [Especially when its funding keeps getting pushed back into "supplemental budgets.] So the latest attempt to cope with this situation is the annual $1,100 reimbursement.

GUARD'S ARMOR STILL SHORTCHANGED

It's been nearly two years since the build-up to the Iraq war began. And still, the U.S. national guardsmen and reservists serving in Iraq don't have the armor they need to protect their trucks, the Times reports.

When the 1544th Transportation Company of the Illinois National Guard was preparing to leave for Iraq in February, relatives of the soldiers offered to pay to weld steel plates on the unit's trucks to protect against roadside bombs. The Army told them not to, because it would provide better protection in Iraq, relatives said.

Seven months later, many of the company's trucks still have no armor, soldiers and relatives said, despite running some of the most dangerous missions in Iraq...

There are plans to produce armor kits for at least 2,806 medium-weight trucks, but as of Sept. 17, only 385 of the kits had been produced and sent to Iraq. Armor kits were also planned for at least 1,600 heavyweight trucks, but as of mid-September just 446 of these kits were in Iraq. The Army is also looking into developing ways to armor truck cabs quickly, and has ordered 700 armored Humvees with special weapons platforms to protect convoys.

Right here, these are the costs of Don Rumsfeld's shenanigans with the defense budget. By putting off funding for the basics our soldiers need to stay alive into a "supplemental" budget request, Rumsfeld is indirectly contributing to the deaths of American troops. It's wrong. And, what's more, it's the type of fiscal sleight-of-hand that Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, promised Congress wouldn't be done.

“This year’s budget seeks to apply the principle of honest assessments of what it will take to do the job, or what we call realistic costing. One of the unfortunate consequences of asking the military to do more than they really have the funds for is not only things like deferring real property maintenance, but underestimating the cost of flying hours in the hope that you will get a supplemental”

“We have tried in this budget, though, to get honest estimates of costs, and a significant part of that $18 billion increase is simply to get us to honest budgeting and a budget that does not require a supplemental in the year 2002. Indeed, we hope with this 2001 supplemental, which I hope is on the verge of being passed, that we will put behind us the kind of supplemental budgeting that became a process that was not based on true anticipated needs.”

THERE'S MORE: "It will be a year or more, before new plants producing Kevlar, Twaron, Spectra, Boron Carbide, Silicon Carbide and other body and vehicle armor materials can meet the vital need for protection under fire. Men are dying waiting for supply to catch up with demand," Russell Seitz notes in a Tech Central Station article. So let's get our friends in Europe and Asia to pick up the slack.

Few of our erstwhile allies have sent troops to Iraq, but all of them have inventories of bulletproof vests, helmets, and armor panels. Some of it will be ugly, and some ill fitting, but it is not wanted for its looks. Turning tough raw materials into armor takes a long time. But if the armor that sits unused by their forces were sent to Iraq today, it could be protecting the lives of tens of thousands of Americans -- and Iraqi's serving in harm's way tomorrow.

Much of the production of these advanced materials by non-combatant nations is presently going into sporting goods-from biker's helmets to surfboards and skis. NATO and former SEATO nations represent most of this production, and offering to provide it on a priority basis to producers of military protective gear would be more than a welcome gesture, it would be a literal lifesaver. The abundance of less critical modern materials would assure that civilian goods manufacture would continue.

ARMOR LACK: WHO'S TO BLAME?

So who's responsible for American troops still operating in Iraq without proper protection? Congress deserves some of the blame, according to this 60 Minutes report, spotted by Steve Gilliard:

Winslow Wheeler, a long time Capitol Hill staffer who spent years writing and reviewing defense appropriations bills, thinks he knows one reason why those shortages exist, after looking at the current Defense budget. Army accounts that pay for training, maintenance and repairs are being raided by Congress to pay for pork-barrel spending.

And buried in the back of this one, Wheeler found a biathlon jogging track in Alaska, a brown tree snake eradication program in Hawaii, a parade ground maintenance contract for a military base that closed years ago, and money for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration...

According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Armed Services Committee who speaks out against pork-barrel spending, there is a total of $8.9 billion of pork in this year's defense bill, which would go a long way toward upgrading all the equipment used by the National Guard.

"I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says... "The least sexy items are the mundane - food, repair items, maintenance – there's no big contract there," says McCain. "And so there's a tendency that those mundane but vital aspects of war fighting are cut and routinely underfunded."

True. But if the Pentagon's top brass made these "mundane" items priority A1, Congress would fall in line, quick. Instead, these basics for the troops have been pushed back -- into "supplemental" funding, while the Defense Department's main budget gets filled with pork and leviathan projects meant to "transform" the military for the next century.

In fact, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker admitted in a recent interview with Army Times that he sees the Pentagon's wartime budget increases as a "window of opportunity" to pour cash into programs like the $117 billion Future Combat Systems initiative.

"The level of operational tempo that we have is being paid for with the supplemental. The increased consumption of repair parts and ammunition are all being funded by the supplemental. But the issue is that, from a strategic perspective, we have a war to fight and we're receiving increased dollars. I call that the window of opportunity — these dollars that we're receiving. And we have an Army to transform. So what is important to understand and I think what really is the extraordinary window that we have here is that we can combine these two. Combine this momentum - the momentum from the focus that war gives us, the funding that we're getting from the war, and our transformational effort...

We don’t know how long this will go long or how long supplemental funding will continue to support our wartime effort. But it makes sense to us to leverage the momentum and the additional funding we have so that where we go forward to a transformed force for the 21st Century. (thanks to Defense Tech reader BH for the catch).

THERE'S MORE: Look, it's not like Future Combat Systems is a bad idea. The Army should be investing in fighting tomorrow's wars. But there are good soldiers dying in Iraq now. Today. And picking FCS over armored trucks is like buying life insurance when the rent is three monts overdue.

RUMMY'S SLICK SUPPLEMENTAL MOVE

You'd think it'd be a top priority for the Army, outfitting troops with new body armor, helmets, and communications gear. But the Pentagon can't seem to find the cash in its $420 billion budget to pay for the equipment.

Instead, the Army is relying on a supplemental spending bill -- one that's meant to fund the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq -- to cover the costs.

"I always tell people, thank God for the supplemental. We would not be able to do anything … without them," Defense News quotes Lt. Gen. Joseph Yakovac, the Army’s top uniformed acquisition official, as telling an Association of the United States Army conference. "If those don’t happen, we’re in a world of hurt."

Now, last year, the Pentagon used an $87 billion emergency spending measure to buy body armor, among other things. At the time, that made some sense – the war had dragged on longer, and was of a different type, than Rumsfeld & Co. had predicted.

But this year is something different. When the Pentagon was drafting its latest budget, it knew damn well there was going to be a need to get body armor into the field. So what's going on here?

This is another case of Rumsfeld refusing to make a choice between the military's current needs and its future, of trying to have it both ways. He needs to get gear to the troops in Iraq. But he doesn't want to sacrifice any of the military's big ticket items in order to do it. So he pulls a little trick on Congress. First, Rumsfeld sends lawmakers his main Pentagon budget, which has lots of line items for projects like the hulking, $117 billion Future Combat Systems. And then, crying poverty, Rumsfeld asks for body armor money – which there's no chance in hell that Congress will deny.

It's a very, very slick Washington maneuver – one you'd be tempted to call a form of blackmail. Because G.I.s is the field are now counting on that supplemental to keep them safe, Defense News says.

The supplemental will fund much of the work being done by the Army’s two-year-old Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI), whose goal is to equip all deploying units — and, by 2007, all active and reserve units — with 76 items, including the Advanced Combat Helmet, body armor, desert boots and moisture-wicking T-shirts. Yakovac said the program could cost $5 billion.

“We’re hoping on supplementals to do that,” he added.

Roughly 150,000 soldiers will receive the RFI kits by the end of this year, with another 250,000 troops equipped in 2005, said Brig. Gen. James Moran, the Army’s soldier program executive officer.

SMOKE SCREEN FOR TANKS?

One of the coolest gagdets James Bond ever had was the smoke screen that gushed out of the back of his Aston Martin, leaving Goldfinger's minions behind, choking and confused.

Now, a South African defense firm is teaming up with Saab to provide the same kind of protection to tanks and armored vehicles. A set of sensors, the companies claim, will pick up the signature of a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher. In less than a second, the Land Electronic Defence System 100 "will dispatch four smoke canisters covering the tank or vehicle and making it impossible for the attacker's missile to trace the vehicle," SABC news notes.

"The screen will obscure the attackers’ line of sight and give the vehicle and occupants a chance to get behind cover," says a Grintek Defence press release. Because the smoke obscures more than just the visibile spectrum, it "cannot be penetrated by thermal imaging equipment used to aim weapons or guide missiles."

But you can expect to see George Lazenby return as 007 before this gizmo is deployed on American armor. Picking up the signature of an RPG is beyond tough. And even if the smoke can be shot out in a second -- a big if -- these big vehicles don't exactly accelerate like an Aston Martin. The Abrams battle tank, for example, takes seven seconds to go from zero to twenty miles per hour.

THERE'S MORE: The smoke screen might "have some utility in defeating an ATGM [anti-tank guided missile], but against an RPG it would only prevent the crew from seeing what was about to hit it," says Defense Tech reader JA. An RPG is a "fire and forget" weapon, he notes. "Once launched they travel to point of aim, or somewhat near it, without any further input from an operator. An ATGM, on the other hand, does, in general, require course guidance input from an operator and smoke systems are of some utility against them.

"This assumes that the crew recognizes that something is inbound and moves the vehicle," however. "If they sit still, then they blow up in complete privacy."

NEW HELMET: HEALTH HAZZARD?

The Army's new, Advanced Combat Helmet might be more than a little damaging to G.I.s' health, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Made of a new type of Kevlar, the helmet is stronger and lighter than its predecessor. But the new helmet has a critical flaw, Col. Poffenbarger contends: It is about 8% smaller than the old helmet, offering less protection on the back and side of the head.

In past wars, this might not have been a big problem. In infantry-style combat, soldiers typically are struck in the front of the head as they charge toward the enemy. But in Iraq, where the deadliest threat is remote-detonated roadside bombs, many soldiers are getting blasted on the sides and back of the head, says Col. Poffenbarger. In other words, they are getting hit in areas where the new helmet offers less coverage.

"I've become convinced that for this type of guerrilla fight, we are giving away coverage that we need to save lives," says Col. Poffenbarger, a 42-year-old former Green Beret.

His research is based on about 160 head-trauma patients who have passed through the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, where he works. Because the hospital houses the only American neurosurgeons in Iraq, virtually every serious head-trauma patient is treated by him or his partner... Extrapolating from this, Col. Poffenbarger estimates the new helmet might result in a 30% increase in serious head traumas if distributed throughout the entire force in Iraq...

For now, the Army is committed to issuing the helmet to all 840,000 soldiers in the force by 2007, says Col. John Norwood, the Army's project manager for soldier equipment. (via Phil Carter)

G.I.S FINALLY GET BODY ARMOR

"All American troops in Iraq are now equipped with bullet-resistant vests, after a shortage that led many soldiers to pay for costly body armor themselves," the Associated Press reports.

As late as March, some soldiers headed for Iraq were still buying their own body armor, despite assurances from the military that the equipment would be available before they were in harm's way.

Gen. Paul Kern, commander of the Army Material Command, said the shortage eased after manufacturers stepped up production of the lifesaving vests.

"DRAGON SKIN": DAMN TOUGH

It may not be as sexy as liquid armor or soldier-sized scarab shells, but the "Dragon Skin" bulletproof vests sound damn tough.

According to Defense Review, the Skin is basically your standard body armor, laced with silver-dollar sized ceramic discs. These are configured lover the vest ike scales (hence the "Dragon" sobriquet). And they make the outfits super light -- but strong enough to stop armor-penetrating bullets.

U.S. GETS EXPLOSIVE ARMOR FROM ISRAEL

The U.S. Army wants to protect its Bradley fighting vehicles -- by strapping dozens of Israeli explosives to their skins.

The idea behind "reactive armor" is to blow up a roadside bomb or rocket propelled grenade just before it reaches the vehicle. The Israeli military pioneered the concept in the 1970's. American tanks have had been outfitted with it for years. And now, Bradleys in Iraq are being rushed the armor, too, Defense News reports.

The add-on armor... consists of 105 tiles that attach to the sides, the turret and the front of each Bradley. Each tile has a small explosive charge that can destroy the warhead of an attacking missile or rocket.

“The idea is to apply chemical energy against chemical energy,” an official within [Israeli firm] Rafael’s armored systems directorate. “These tiles contain a very special, insensitive explosive that is detonated only when hit by a missile or a rocket. For safety reasons, our armor does not react to other heat sources such as small arms or other fragments. When it detonates, the action of the elements inside the tiles interact with the incoming jet of the warhead, and defeats it...”

The armored systems directorate official noted that Rafael provided add-on armor for the U.S. Marine Corps’ AAV7 amphibious assault vehicles used during major combat operations in Iraq earlier last year.

THERE'S MORE: "I'd be leery of taking these into situations where large numbers of noncombatants might find themselves near [reactive armored] vehicles," says Defense Tech reader JA. "An RPG hit that triggered one of these panels might not penetrate the vehicle but I suspect the potential for exacerbating collateral casualties might give one pause. Or it will after Al-Jazeera trumpets it from the minarets."

Meanwhile, reader MS points us to this online primer on reactive armor.

AND MORE: "The story here," says reader DP, "is that the cheapskate Army under [chief of staff Eric] Shinseki squandered billions on handfuls of Stryker truck deathtraps and didn't even come close to buying enough [reactive armor."

NEWSWEEK: 1/4 OF G.I. DEATHS FROM ARMOR LACK

Almost a quarter of the coalition combat deaths in Iraq could have been prevented -- if the Pentagon had bothered to invest in fully armoring its vehicles. That's the damning conclusion of a story in Monday's Newsweek.

As Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat — and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels — many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer...

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq. Despite desperate attempts to supply bolt-on armor, many soldiers still ride around in light-skinned Humvees. This is a latter-day jeep that, as Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division, conceded in an interview, "was never designed to do this ... It was never anticipated that we would have things like roadside bombs in the vast number that we've had here." One newly arrived officer, Lt. Col. Timothy Meredith, says his battalion had just undergone months of training to rid itself of "tank habits" and get used to the Humvees. "We arrived here expecting to do a lot of civil works," says Meredith.

According to internal Pentagon e-mails, the Humvee situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen. Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley. According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the Arabs would light them up," he said.

THERE'S MORE: Phil Carter has a dynamite story in Slate on how impossibly far the American military is being stretched. Key point:

Even if the order [to send an extra 30,000 soldiers to Iraq] were cut right now, fresh divisions of troops would take months to get to overseas, meaning today's stretched force will have to put down the Iraqi revolt, restore security, and conduct the June 30 power handover without reinforcements. The U.S. military remains the most lethal fighting force ever fielded, but one year in Iraq has chewed it up, creating global shortages of manpower, equipment, and spare parts that are not easily relieved. (all emphases mine)

AND MORE: Gen. Ellis' memo, asking for more Strykers to be hurried into Iraq and Afghanistan is here. "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the Up-Armored [Humvee] is not providing the solution the Army hoped to achieve," he says.

SOLDIER ARMOR: STEP INTO LIQUID

Calling a G.I. mushy in the middle may not be such an insult, soon. Because Army researchers are working on liquid body armor, to add to soldiers' bulletproof vests.

The key component of liquid armor is a shear thickening fluid. STF is composed of hard particles suspended in a liquid. The liquid, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic, and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. Hard, nano-particles of silica are the other components of STF. This combination of flowable and hard components results in a material with unusual properties.

"During normal handling, the STF is very deformable and flows like a liquid. However, once a bullet or frag hits the vest, it transitions to a rigid material, which prevents the projectile from penetrating the soldier's body," said Dr. Eric Wetzel, a mechanical engineer from the [Army Research Lab's] Weapons and Materials Research Directorate who heads the project team.

It all sounds pretty unlikely. But there's a simple demonstration of how this works, a Slashdot contributor says.

"Make a wet paste of cornstarch. You'll notice if you take a stick or even your finger and stir it around very slowly... it will act like a viscous liquid. It flows around your stick and the path left in the paste slowly fills back in. Now try moving the stick quickly through the paste and it suddenly becomes solid, the wet gloss of it's surface disappears, and the paste cracks and breaks like a hard material. Literally the force applied to the paste shifts it from liquid to solid state and upon release of stress it becomes liquid again. "

A scientific paper on liquid armor, from Wetzel & Co., is here. And here's an article I wrote a while back on related research, from MIT's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies.

THERE'S MORE: The new-fangled armor is like silly putty -- or the inverse of ketchup. DefenseWatch explains.