You all might remember we reported a new kind of flexible body armor being developed by pre-Dragon Skin designer Allan Bain back in October.
At the time, Bain had tested his armor against some pretty mean armor-piercing rounds (a Swiss-made armor piercing round that is more powerful than the one specified by the Army) shattering the tiles but slowing down the round enough to keep it from penetrating the Dyneema backing.
Bain told me the other day he had just subjected a redesigned version of the discs to shots from a "surrogate" M993 AP round with 160 grains each at 3,014 and 3,061 feet per second and the discs held up. That's about 20 percent more kinetic energy than the threat the Army is building the X-SAPI to defeat, Bain told me.
He's been invited to test the new "Skaalar Exoskin Gen 4+" at H.P. White labs by the Army's top body armor guru in July, in which "the Army will see the first flexible system that has no weight penalty as compared to the XSAPI plate that is in production now."
As you might remember, the Army has walked back its urgent request for for plates that are stronger than the current E-SAPI and has said it would stockpile a limited run of plates in Kuwait in case the more deadly threat emerges in greater numbers.
But clearly, if you've worn body armor at all, a flexible system is the way to go, and Army officials have admitted it to me on several occasions. It's just that weight and durability have been a constant problem.
We'll keep you updated on how the tests go, but DT wishes Bain luck on his upcoming tests.
-- Christian
Corps Moves to Reduce Armor Burden
Note to insurgents: hit the treadmill. The Marines are about to get a few steps quicker.
Reacting to injuries caused by over weighted body armor and security improvements in some combat zones, the Marine Corps is adjusting the way it equips Leathernecks in the field with personal protective equipment.
The service is shifting the decision making down the chain of command and instituting a graduated armor scale in the coming weeks for the promise of a lighter load to reduce injuries and hopefully quicken the feet of Marines in the field.
The first move, effective immediately, will push control to lieutenant colonels in deciding what amount of personal protective equipment Marines will wear for a given mission.
"Recognizing that body armor is modular and scalable, [we'll] try and leverage that by empowering our commanders … to make the appropriate decision with regards to what composition of body armor their Marines will wear," said Maj. Tom Wood, infantry advocate for the plans, policies and operations branch of Marine Corps headquarters in Washington.
Previously, the decision for the body armor composition Marines wore into the field rested in the hands of colonels. The Corps hopes devolved decision making to the equivalent of battalion commanders will translate to a more flexible policy.
"Our battalion and squadron commanders are really the right individuals to make the decision with regards to balancing weight versus protection in a given operating environment," Wood told Military.com in an exclusive interview.
Wood trumpeted "increased tactical mobility" as a key justification for the new move.
"What you are going to see, undoubtedly, is the ability of the average Marine to move quicker and enhance his tactical mobility and thereby the unit can move from point to point quicker," Wood said.
Combatant commanders will still have the authority to issue theater- or region-wide guidance on the level of personal protective equipment, but Wood hopes that "the reduced level of violence of this new authority may help stir some discussion between Marine force commanders in Iraq and their joint force commander supervisors."
In January of last year, Corps commanders in Iraq were pushing to shed the body armor load of their grunts by making neck guards, groin protectors, side plates and even helmets optional in some areas of Iraq. But they were shut down by higher-level Army commanders who were unconvinced the threat had diminished enough to justify the new armor edict.
As more Leathernecks deployed to Afghanistan, with its high altitude battlefields and rural geography, the Corps quietly began letting grunts wear light-weight plate carriers instead of the bulky Modular Tactical Vest, exchanging protection for pounds as the strategic environment dictated.
Potentially an even more drastic change is a forthcoming move by the Corps to create a graduated system of personal protective equipment that will allow Marines in the field to quickly move between different body armor configurations.
Wood explained the so-called "armor protection levels" are being modeled after the MOPP -- mission orientated protective posture -- gear levels that Marines are familiar with in relation to nuclear, biological and chemical attack protective gear. Currently, the Corps is drafting a proposal to create four APLs.
We want to "standardize that across the Marine Corps ... so that a commander can rapidly disseminate what his chosen body armor protection level or posture is for his forces," Wood said.
It's not new gear, just a new mindset. The four levels will incorporate the small-arms protective insert plate carrier and the modular tactical vest already in use.
Wood acknowledged that complaints from Marines in the field, bolstered by a growing litany of injuries related to gear, played a significant role in prompting these changes.
"We needed to get away from the one size fits all mentality of 'you are going to go out with all your kit,' " Wood said. "Marines have become very, very comfortable operating with all their gear, but there are some body injuries that have occurred that we are just now starting to get our arms around in terms of long-term damage to the human body."
He said neck, shoulder and back injuries are the most common, but did not provide figures as to the seriousness or frequency of the injuries.
Wood said heat considerations -- unavoidable in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where temperatures routinely climb above 100 degrees in the summer months -- also factored into the decision.
And besides, walking around like some bulked-up Storm Trooper in head-to-toe armor makes it tough to win hearts and minds in a war that hinges on separating the population from the insurgents.
"There are times and places where a Marine who is less kitted up poses less of a civil, informational or psychological threat to the people that he is attempting to engage with," Wood said.
As a result of their own success, Marines are spending a lot more time in places like that. The tough part is figuring how to dress for it.
-- Bryan Mitchell
Crye Gets into a 'CAGE' Fight
Crye Precision has evidently revamped its "armor chassis" concept with the new CAGE (Crye Assault GEar) armor vest.
I've been a big fan of Crye's innovation over the years (though I was a bit put off by their lack of public relations savvy at the SHOT Show) and always believed their original armor chassis was spot on in terms of how armor should be designed, but lacked a realistic ergonomics to make it appealing to the mainstream of operators.
Now they've clearly taken the best of the original chassis and made it a bit more user friendly with the new CAGE.
CAGE (Crye Assault GEar) Armor Chassis™: Unlike any other armor vest, the CAGE Armor Chassis™ is the result of years of design and engineering. Made by an entirely new production process, the articulated Chassis provides the most comfortable and stable armor/load-carriage platform to date. The design provides passive cooling via large air channels that run under the armor. Designed for use with our armored BLAST Belt™, the CAGE Armor Chassis™ is fully modular and highly adjustable. Designed to be worn snug to the body like sports equipment. Features include: dual emergency doff, accepts 6X6 side plates and shoulder strap plates, front opening access, uninterrupted side coverage (no side seam), meets or exceeds IBA & USASOC frag and handgun requirements.
It's my pet peeve that conventional armor makers design these lumbering boxes of Kevlar and ceramic that feel like you're wearing a barrel over your chest. Crye's got it right with the "designed to be worn snug to the body like sports equipment" idea. Take a good look at the photo presentation on the armor. I'm sure we'll see them entering new armor competitions pretty soon.
We posted a story this morning about a team of engineering students at my alma mater who are designing new body armor inserts.
According to the story in the Richmond (VA) Times Dispatch, the three students -- one of whom is an Army National Guardsman -- are testing new plates that can absorb up to 32 shots from armor piercing rounds. The University of Virginia students' contention is that the new design will contain spall and reduce backface deformation.
But the students aren't being specific...
For proprietary reasons, the students don't want to get into the specifics of how the armor works, though the invention in part is a new configuration of ceramic plates. The students also don't want photographs taken of the armor.
O'Dell said the problem with current armor worn by Soldiers is that one shot from an armor-piercing bullet will create cracks in the ceramic material that makes up the vest. That leaves the Soldier vulnerable to the next shot.
The UVA.-designed vest should withstand possibly as many as 32 rounds of armor-piercing bullets per plate, said O'Dell, who at 29 is much older than his teammates. Armor vests usually have four plates -- one each for the front, back and sides.
"We're trying to contain those cracks," O'Dell said.
The new armor also will "deflect" less when struck by the steel-core bullets used to penetrate armor. That's important because too much deflection -- where the ceramic material is actually deformed inward by the force of the bullet -- can also kill a Soldier.
From what I can tell this isn't much of a breakthrough. Seems the students are still using ceramic in their armor material. They claim they're building a lighter plate that contains spall and reduces backface deformation. Sounds to me like a thinner ceramic core wrapped around a ton of Spectra or Dyneema. This is far from Earth shattering and there are armor manufacturers out there that are doing the same thing. Dyneema and Spectra have a hard time stopping the AP rounds, though, so maybe they have a new "configuration" that reduces the weight of the ceramic (which means they cut down on the amount) but preserves the kind of strength needed to stop AP rounds.
Until inventors start being able to forge armor from new materials, I don't see much promise in increased ballistic resistance with reduced weight. Carbon nano-tubes anyone?
-- Christian
Army Questioned Another 8,000 Armor Plates (UPDATED)
Here is a preview of a story we will be running tomorrow morning at Military.com:
Army Pulled 8,000 Armor Plates from Field
By Christian Lowe
The Army recalled more than 8,000 bullet-resistant plates late last year for fear that they might not be able to stop the rifle rounds they were designed to defeat.
According to the top enlisted advisor for the Army's Program Executive Office Soldier - the service's top gear-buying office - officials were worried that a production lot of 8,018 enhanced small arms protective plate inserts, or ESAPIs, might have manufacturing flaws that were not up to specifications.
So in December, the service pulled the plates from the front lines and sent them to ballistics labs for testing to see if they were up to snuff.
"We opted to pull those 8,000 plates just to see -- just as, again, part of our surveillance program" to monitor quality, said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, PEO Soldier sergeant major, in a Feb. 6 interview with military bloggers.
Army officials had failed production lots of plates that were manufactured before and after the recalled plates, so engineers decided to pull the 8,018 to make doubly sure they should have been fielded.
"When the Army looked at the lot acceptance test back then for the big string of plates that were shot, they saw that there were a couple failed lot tests out there. Those plates were never accepted. They were scrapped," Coleman told Military.com. "In between them there were a couple lots that passed, but we said, hey, you know what? Let's pull those plates anyways."
News of further armor recalls comes on the heels of a Pentagon Inspector General report that recommended the Army pull more than 16,000 ESAPI plates made by ArmorWorks from the field due to flawed test procedures on the initial designs.
Though the Army disagreed with the IG's finding, the service's top civilian, Pete Geren, ordered the plates recalled anyway "out of an abundance of caution" and to allay fears among Joes in the war zone that their gear might be sub-par.
The IG report mentioned the 8,018 plate recall deep within its findings, but the Army never made the news public.
"Those lots passed," Coleman said of the 8,000 plates. "Everything was good with them. Some lots in front of and behind them had failed and were not accepted."
Though results were not available, Coleman said the recalled plates are still being tested at ballistics labs, but so far none have shown signs of failure.
Coleman reiterated the Army's position that all ESAPI plates sent to combat had passed quality assurance tests and so-called "first article" tests to confirm the design's ability to withstand armor-piercing rounds and claimed no plates have ever failed.
"We have no reports of deaths from the body armor failing to stop the threat it was designed to stop, none," Coleman said.
The Army is still trying to track down the 16,000 plates tabbed by the IG's office and Coleman said the service has been able to collect some of the plates, but there's still a long way to go.
The Army emphatically claims its testing methodology was sound and that, despite the IG's determination that engineers substituted plates during tests, fudged numbers and failed to set standards in evaluating new designs, no plate was ever accepted in error.
"The plates met the standard to stop the threat round that they're designed to stop," Coleman said. "The issue in question is some of the scoring that is involved, in the way that they score the plates that are shot."
The service claims its ESAPI can stop the most deadly rounds on the battlefield, but after nearly two years the service has developed the "XSAPI" -- a plate that can stop an even more powerful round. Military.com knows the threat round the Army has been working to thwart but will not reveal it for security concerns.
Army officials indicated Feb. 5 they would not field the XSAPI due to its excessive weight, but would warehouse the eventual 120,000 plates in Kuwait in case commanders feel they need the added protection.
Coleman said he hasn't gotten any feedback from the field that the current plates don't stop what they're intended to, but he's ready to take the protection up a notch if needed.
"We haven't seen where the plates that we're using right now are being defeated by anything," Coleman said. "But we do know that there are emerging technologies that in the future could. And that's where XSAPI is going."
-- Christian
The Army Responds to the Armor Slap
THIS JUST IN:
To the Editor:
The recent story on a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) report implies that the Army has issued faulty armor plates to Soldiers-armor plates that may not provide troops ade-quate protection.
This is not so.
The government's preeminent, independent authority on testing and evaluation is the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). DOT&E examined the Army's testing of the armor plates referred to in the IG report and determined that the plates passed the tests. In clear, unequivocal language, DOT&E declared that: "the three designs meet the performance specifica-tion in place at the time of each test."
I want to emphasize: This is not the conclusion of the Army, but of DOT&E, the government's impartial experts in the field.
Since 2002, the Army has produced and fielded nearly 2 million armor plates, saving the lives of thousands of Soldiers.
The Army has conducted over 2300 tests of the armor plates. The IG report questions three of these tests. But the DOT&E concluded that those three tests were successful.
Even though the Army considers the armor plates in question to be safe, based on DOT&E's evaluation of the testing, they nonetheless are being collected to ensure continued confidence in the Army's commitment to the safety of our Soldiers.
Cordially,
Peter N. Fuller
Brig. Gen., US Army
PEO Soldier
-- Christian
PEO Soldier Takes a Hit on Body Armor Testing
So here's the official Pentagon Inspector General report on the first article tests for a recent Army contract of ESAPI plates.
From what I can see, the IG is disputing a few technical practices used by H.P. White labs to determine acceptability for FAT tests of new plate designs. For those of you with some time and some body armor expertise, you'll be very interested in the findings.
One thing I've learned through all my years of covering the body armor industry is that ballistic testing is as much art as it is science. If a first shot is over velocity, penetrates the plate and the second shot is the right velocity and the plate absorbs the shot without penetration, is that a passing plate? How much over velocity is too much to use that criteria? Should that design be retested?
Also, it's funny to see PEO Soldier defending penetrated plates after it so aggressively pursued Pinnacle's Dragon Skin failures.
PS: I did a search in the Pentagon web site and found that the contract (W91CRB-04-D-0040) does correlate to one awarded to Armor Works.
-- Christian
Body Armor Recalled by Army
Army Secretary Pete Geren has ordered the recall of more than 16,000 sets of body armor following an audit that concluded the bullet-blocking plates in the vests failed testing and may not provide Soldiers with adequate protection.
The audit by the office of the Defense Department inspector general, not yet made public but obtained by The Associated Press, faults the Army for flawed testing procedures before awarding a contract for the armor.
In a letter dated Jan. 27 to Acting Inspector General Gordon Heddell, Geren said he did not agree that the plates failed the testing or that Soldiers were issued deficient gear. He said his opinion was backed by the Pentagon's top testing director.
Despite his insistence that the armor was not deficient, Geren said he was recalling the sets as a precaution.
Geren also said he's asked for a senior Pentagon official to resolve the disagreement between the Army and the inspector general's office.
"To ensure there can be no question regarding the effectiveness of every Soldier's body armor, I have today ordered that the plates at issue be identified and collected until such a time as the matter has been adjudicated by the deputy secretary of defense," he wrote.
Hundreds of thousands of body armor sets have been manufactured by nearly a dozen different companies over the past seven years. The vests are now standard gear for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The audit by the inspector general's office was the second requested by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. She first asked the watchdog agency to look into the acquisition of the ballistic vests in 2006 after she read newspaper reports saying inadequate body armor was causing U.S. casualties.
[Editor's Note: The story goes on to say that three of eight plate designs in the latest Army buy failed FAT testing. The AP sleuthed around and found that the contract # for the plate order in question correlates to a purchase from Armor Works. I seem to remember that the Corps had some problems with substandard Armor Works plates back in '04-'05 timeframe, but I'm going to have to check back at my records to confirm that.]
-- Christian
Navy Gets New Aircrew Armor
The Navy is in the process of purchasing a new armored vest for aircrews that modernizes the older, more restrictive PRU-60 aircrew armor.
According to Naval Air Systems Command officials, the service is scheduled to purchase 1400 of the new PRU-70 armored survival vests designed in house by Navair's Human Systems Division starting in January. The vests will be manufactured by Peckham Vocational Industries in Michigan and will be fielded to Navy and Marine aircrew (not pilots) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The PRU-70 is an entirely new concept in this product line that merges both the aircrew survival vest and the latest in body armor," said Dick O’Rourke, the Fleet Support Team Lead for Aircrew Survival Vests and Body Armor. "The new system was developed to fit the entire range of body types represented by the men and women in today’s aircrew population. The PRU-70 is also designed to reduce the bulk, weight and heat stressors commonly encountered by helicopter aircrews flying six or more hours on combat missions. As an example, the extra large sized vest, with full soft and hard armor, weights about 22 pounds, which is less than the current vests."
"...the PRU-70 is also constructed from a cutting edge material called Halo-Tech. Halo-Tech is as fire retardant as the Nomex material used for flight suits and yet is far more durable," added O’Rourke. "The PRU-70 will also be the first of the survival clothing items produced in the new Coyote Brown camouflage color. The Coyote Brown color was developed to blend into the environment of 70 percent of the world’s land masses."
A Navair spokesman said the vest is designed to be compatible with all the survival gear needed by an aircrew in combat and will be fielded to deployed units for use in theater and will not be general issue to squadrons outside the AOR.
-- Christian
New Player Enters Flexible Armor Battle
A top designer of flexible body armor similar to the much-vaunted Dragon Skin says he has just tested a new type of ballistic material that is far harder than current plates and can defeat one of the most deadly armor piercing rounds in the world.
And it can do all this at the same weight as a standard Enhanced Small Arms Protective Plate, but in a more flexible and comfortable package, developer Allan Bain claims.
Bain, who body armor experts agree was a founding father -- with Dragon Skin maker Murray Neal -- of the so-called "scalar" armor concept, has developed a new way to forge the ceramic that goes into the bullet-blocking plates, giving it greater density and the ability to be bent into odd shapes.
"This is probably about as cutting edge as it gets," Bain told Military.com during an October 15 phone interview about the new armor, "Skaalar Exoskin Gen 4+". "An E-SAPI plate is an inch thick. Then you've got the vest … This [SEG4+] is an inch thick with everything included."
With the help of experts at Georgia Tech University, Bain produces his armored disks in an oven that reaches nearly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit - nearly half the surface temperature of the sun - to make the ceramic stronger, smaller and without sacrificing weight.
SEG4+ body armor wraps around the wearer like Dragon Skin, weighs about 7.5 pounds per square foot of coverage -- about the same as a standard-issue E-SAPI plate -- but delivers far more protection with "gapless, seamless" coverage for high-powered armor piercing rounds.
The military's current body armor system, with two rigid front and back pates and two side plates, leaves open areas with no defense against rifle rounds.
But don't get your hopes up that SEG4+ will be on order anytime soon for troops.
Manufacturing costs is one reason. Army caution is another.
Bain said the armor is currently so expensive to make that only the most elite units would likely be able to afford it. Special Forces may order and use armor the regular Army doesn't get, and is currently testing this to see of it's something they want.
And officials with the Army's Program Executive Office Soldier confirmed to Military.com that the service was putting its search for flexible armor on hold because it deemed the scalar technology too immature.
But don't tell Bain his armor isn't ready.
"At this point in time, if someone wanted 100 of these we could deliver them," he said.
The best known scalar system, Dragon Skin, is manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. However Dragon Skin has a shaky reputation within the Army - which does the majority of armor testing, design and procurement for the services - after Pinnacle's feisty president, Murray Neal, launched a full-scale public relations war touting his vest's superiority after ballistics tests conducted by the Army in May 2006 showed Dragon Skin failing basic ballistics and durability tests.
Neal's public campaign got Congress got involved, with hearings on Capitol Hill to get to the bottom of the controversy. Lawmakers ordered the Army to do further tests and the service asked industry to submit samples of flexible systems and armor that could withstand rounds more powerful than the current E-SAPI plate.
The Army planned to test the armor concepts later that year but had to postpone the evaluation after manufacturers asked for more time to acquire the exotic materials and do more testing of their own.
PEO Soldier officials at Fort Belvoir, Va., said the service will begin testing in November on new E-SAPI and X-SAPI designs - more than a year after the Army had originally intended to shoot the experimental plates.
Officials also said the flexible-system test will not go ahead as planned because "an F-SAPI capability has not reached the level [of] technical maturity to protect Soldiers in combat," PEO Soldier said in an email response to Military.com.
Bain was cagey about the specific design and shape of his armor components but said it makes heavy use of lightweight polymers such as Dyneema and Kevlar fabric to achieve its ballistic resistance capability. The super-hardened ceramic retains 100 percent of its density after manufacture, as compared to a standard plate with 93 percent density, he added.
"It's still some type of a disk," Bain said. "But we've made interlocks. We've eliminated weak spots. We've made it very difficult for a bullet to hit a flat surface."
"Everything's geared toward getting that bullet to hit a severe angle," he added.
In September, Bain subjected his armor to ballistic tests with shots from a Swiss-made armor piercing round that is more powerful than the one specified by the Army for its X-SAPI capability (for security reasons Military.com has declined to name the specific round the Army wants to beat).
The round shattered the tile, penetrated nine layers of Kevlar but was largely stopped by the Dyneema backing.
"That's a really good stop," Bain said. "And that's a phase-one tile. We've already redesigned it."
With more support from industry, Bain thinks he can cut down on the cost of the vest - currently, each tile costs about $50 to make - and with continued design improvements, he might be able to shave off some weight.
But for now, the Exoskin Gen 4+ is reserved for special operations troops and other high-risk forces, though Bain feels he's demonstrated that the technology is there for flexible armor that defeats the meanest threats.
"This is the kind of process that can lend itself to making the 'Star Wars' style armor … with lots of different segmented shapes," Bain said. "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what you can do with that."
-- Christian
DEVELOPING: Army Abandons Flexible Armor Search -- For Now
The Army has postponed its attempt to find a flexible body armor system similar to Dragon Skin after determining that the technology hasn't matured enough to be fielded to troops.
While working on a story that will be the lead headline on tomorrow morning's Military.com homepage, I queried PEO Soldier about the progress of ballistic tests on X-SAPI and F-SAPI armor submitted by manufacturers after the June 2007 solicitation asking for new armor concepts. As you all might remember, the Army postponed tests after I spoke with BGN Brown because manufacturers were short on materials (probably Dyneema/Spectra and B4C) and needed to do more testing of their own.
I then spoke with Murray Neal at an industry event several months later and he wondered where the testing stood as well, saying he'd submitted samples but heard nothing in reply. Brown had told me tests were supposed to start in March 2008.
Remember, the Army solicitation (which has been removed from their server but was described in a June 2007 posting) called for X-SAPI to defeat "future" AP threats -- namely the M993 -- and also asked for submission of "flexible" systems to be designated "F-SAPI?" This, in part, answered the mail after hearings in the House regarding the Dragon Skin tests by Army officials and the NBC program that broke it all wide open. These were supposed to be the "head-to-head" tests -- or something loosely approximating that -- Neal was asking for and lawmakers acquiesced to.
Well, the Army has deemed the technology too immature, telling me only E-SAPI and X-SAPI vendors qualified, including Ceradyne, BAE, Protective Group and Armacel, for the tests.
"An F-SAPI capability has not reached the level [of] technical maturity to protect Soldiers in combat," PEO Soldier said.
Ooooh, really!? Wonder if Mr. Neal has anything to say about that? (And we'll show you someone else who'd like to debate that point in our story tomorrow AM)...
-- Christian
Corps Issues Smaller, Lighter Body Armor
The Marine Corps has issued thousands of new body armor vests that are lighter, more comfortable and allow more freedom of movement than the current vest, but offer less ballistic protection than the Corps' standard-issued armor.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" uses the same enhanced small arms protective plates and Kevlar ballistic inserts as the Corps' Interceptor body armor and modular tactical vest, but in a more streamlined, less bulky package than vests issued to most Marines.
So far the Corps has fielded about 5,500 of the plate carriers, made by Eagle Industries of Fenton, Mo., throughout the three Marine Expeditionary Forces, but the vest is primarily intended for Leathernecks deployed to the western Pacific region and parts of Afghanistan, officials with Marine Corps Systems Command said.
In February, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway fired a shot across SysCom's bow in an interview with Fox News during his trip to Iraq and other Middle East war zones. Then, he wondered why the office responsible for equipping Marines chose the current MTV -- which Leathernecks have nicknamed the "Hesco" after the sand-filled wire-and-burlap barriers that protect remote bases from enemy fire.
He then ordered SysCom to come up with a new design, even though the Corps had already shipped 84,000 MTVs to the war zone.
"We put the last 25,000 [MTVs] on hold, and I asked, 'How is it that we got to this point? What was our pre-selection survey like and wear test like to the extent that we've got this thing now in large volume,' " Conway said during an Aug. 18 interview. "Frankly, we're hard pressed to understand."
Despite the plate carrier order, nearly six months after the commandant's request SysCom still hasn't followed through with a replacement for the MTV.
"We are currently gathering data and information from Marines returning from OIF and OEF," said SysCom spokeswoman, Capt. Geraldine Carey, in an Aug. 7 email statement to Military.com. "Once all the data is collected and analyzed, we will approach industry for possible new designs and or changes to the current body armor."
The new plate carriers are essentially a slimmed-down version of the MTV, with larger arm holes, thinner shoulder straps and a shorter chest profile. The reduction in weight and lower silhouette of the plate carriers "would allow greater mobility with reduced thermal stress in high elevations, thick vegetation and tropical environments," SysCom said.
In 2004, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit purchased plate carriers for its Marines during a deployment to the scorching deserts of southern Afghanistan. Since then, many troops have favored the uncomplicated plate carriers over their more weighty counterparts, which incorporate ballistic yokes, chin guards, groin protectors and various ballistic add-ons, depending on the mission.
"Now the Marines who are wearing [the MTV] repetitively don't like it so much," Conway explained. "It is heavier. It gives a little more protection -- that is one of the net positives with it. We still need a lighter vest that gives us the same amount of protection."
In March 2007, the Corps received an "urgent needs statement" from field commanders requesting the plate carriers for forces in Afghanistan and units deployed to Asia -- where hot, jungle environments make wearing the 30-pound MTV impractical. Since then, the Corps made plans to buy nearly 10,000 plate carriers and has made them available to vehicle crewmen as well.
"For the most part, we think the vest has particular application in Afghanistan because, once again, if you're climbing up and down mountains you want to be protected, but you don't want to be weighed down so much that you're just going to be sapped," Conway said of the SPC vest.
The issue of body armor and the balance between ballistic protection and mobility has been a controversial one, particularly since casualties mounted in Iraq from powerful roadside bombs and armor-piercing sniper rounds. As the blast injuries increased, the services added on new ballistic protection to their vests.
But the boost in protection came at the cost of comfort and weight; some vests topped 35 pounds with various accessories and stronger plates. That prompted some commanders to ask for leeway in how they outfit their troops, given the security environment and the type of terrain units operated in.
"I like the idea of modularization as long as you had some pieces that you could add or subtract" from the carrier, said David Woroner, a body armor expert and president of Survival Consultants International. "Personal protection should be just that, it's a personal choice at some point."
In January, the deputy commander for Marines in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Allen, told Military.com he was on the verge of allowing his troops in Anbar province -- which had seen a steep reduction in violence and roadside bomb casualties -- to strip down their armor, leaving their chin guards, groin protectors and side plates at the base while on patrol.
That prompted a sharp rebuke from superiors in Baghdad who still believed the risk from IEDs was enough to keep Marines buttoned up behind the MTV's full ensemble.
But now it seems the restrictions have softened.
"A lot has to be left to the commander. Threats will vary in different locations," explained Conway, who wore the SPC during a recent trip to the Middle East. "You may have a sniper threat in one place and a shrapnel threat in another. You may have a commander whose force mainly rides to the fight and another one that has to climb up the side of mountains."
"That we've got these various [types of armor vest] is marvelous," Conway said.
-- Christian (with help from contributor Kimberly Johnson)
Armor News Preview
I just wanted to give everyone a head's up that I'll have a story running tomorrow AM about a new kind of body armor the Marine Corps is fielding to some of its troops in Afghanistan, the Western Pacific and to some vehicle crewmen.
The so-called "scalable plate carrier" was purchased after a March 2007 urgent needs statement from the field requested armor with less weight and coverage for troops in hot, high altitude or jungle environments.
I'm sure this will spark some debate about the pros and cons of ballistic protection vs. mobility. The SPC looks pretty cool (it's not exactly the one pictured above -- I'll reveal the actual one tomorrow) but I'm not sure I would wear it where IEDs are in play.
And, no, Systems Command still hasn't come up with a new design for an MTV replacement after the CMC requested they do so back in February.
Stay tuned to tomorrow morning's headlines on Military.com.
-- Christian
Point Blank Wins Again
Its top company officials are arrested, it made shoddy vests that had to be recalled and there's the constant fog of controversy hovering around them, but when the business sector is so small for body armor, it's tough to take your solicitation elsewhere.
That's why the Pentagon announced July 3rd that once again Point Blank Body Armor has been awarded an $86 million contract for Army "improved outer tactical vests." This comes about a year after the Army awarded the first series of contracts to Point Blank and Specialty Defense Systems at the initial launch of its IOTV.
Let's hope there's no more recalls or crass profiteering from that infamous (to some) company.
-- Christian
Pinnacle Claims Forgery in Fight
There's a behind the scenes battle going on between Pinnacle Armor, the Air Force, the National Institutes for Justice and the Army.
You'll remember that a year ago the Air Force debarred Pinnacle after it found that the company had pumped up the ballistic capabilities of its SOV 2000 armor claiming it was Level III compliant when it wasn't. This ban of Pinnacle products came on the heels of the Army's very public outing of Dragon Skin test results conducted by Army ballistics experts and witnessed by Pinnacle president Murray Neal himself.
But after the dust cleared, the tenacious Neal waged his own battle against the debarment, filing suit and compiling evidence that he claims shows Army testers forging test result documents and intentionally painting Dragon Skin in a bad light to the Air Force.
I spoke with Neal about this at length, and while I'm skeptical that the Army is resorting to lying and forging documents, there are some things that definitely look fishy about this case.
Neal provided me with an example of a document that purportedly shows forged test results and failures of the armor that didn't happen during tests conducted for the Air Force by H.P. White Labs. A lot of Pinnacle proponents point to a recent article by the hysterical bloggers at Soldiers for the Truth as explanation for the suspected forgeries and other skull duggery and I'll let DT readers make their own judgment on that.
But Neal claims that when the actual shooters at HP White were cross examined during depositions, they claimed that over two days of testing they did NOT see the failures tabulated on the result summary table. I asked Neal to forward me some copies of the deposition transcripts to prove that. What he sent me didn't seem to correlate with what he was claiming (they are too large to upload so email me if you want to see them)...prompting still more questions about what is actually going on here.
Seems to me Neal at least has some cause here for fighting the debarment. Rumor has it the Air Force/NIJ is willing to settle and reverse the ban. I've had difficulty with Pinnacle's claims and chafed it the company's absolutist claims and hyperbolic publicity stunts, but there's a limited number of armor makers in the world and there's no sense in keeping anyone out of the fold unless their product is totally bogus -- which Dragon Skin is not.
-- Christian
Armored Chaps, Hearing Pro and Slimmer Vests
Greetings folks. Just an FYI -- I've been at a military armor protection conference today getting the latest insight on body and vehicle armor, active protection systems, advanced materials and other protective equipment.
First bit of news comes from an official with the Army's combat developments directorate at Fort Benning who described some upcoming "soldier protection demonstrations" that will take a look at various new technology solutions to common problems on the battlefield. This is the same way the Army came up with its vastly-improved body armor, or IOTV.
The first initiative is a combat vehicle crewman armor suite that recognizes the tight confines of a vehicle and its various entry ports and takes advantage of the vehicles inherent armor protection. But the official, John Yancey, recognized that Humvee gunners and other vehicle gunners might need more armor for blast mitigation in an IED scenario.
It all needs to fit into a new philosophy the Army wants vendors to adhere to in armor design that calls for modularization in armor components. In other words, Yancey wants to give commanders the leeway to add or subtract armor components based on mission and threat. A door kicker only needs a plate carrier, a vehicle gunner needs arm, shoulder, face and neck protection, he said.
Another SPD going on right now at Benning is looking into hearing protection and enhancement. Kinda like "hunters ear" already on the market.
Yancey also talked about an upcoming SPD on lower extremity protection, including six vendors who've submitted products such as ballistic shorts, pants and chaps. Yancey admitted no Soldier was going to have to wear Kevlar pants on patrol, but a vehicle gunner might really appreciate them. He also mentioned that the Army was taking another look at whether the current padding system in the advanced combat helmet is making the grade.
Stay tuned for more from the Military Armor Protection conference taking place in Alexandria, Va., today and tomorrow.
-- Christian
More Army Armor Woes
I'm sure you all have already seen this, but here's a story we ran as our lead item at Military.com this morning:
DoD Audit Finds Body Armor Buys Flawed
The Army can't be sure some of its body armor met safety standards, partly because it didn't do proper paperwork on initial testing of the protective vests, a Defense Department audit said.
Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York, who requested the department inspector general's report, on April 3 demanded the firing of officials responsible. But the Army said the gear is safe and the issue is a disagreement over when and what type of testing is required - principally so-called "first article testing" typically done on a product before a contract is awarded.
The inspector general reviewed $5.2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps contracts for body armor from 2004 through 2006.
"Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed, and contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made," the report concluded.
"As a result, DoD has no assurance that first articles produced under 13 of the 28 contracts and orders reviewed met the required standards," or that 11 of the 28 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions, it said.
I also pinged PEO Soldier for their reaction to the report. Here's what they told me:
Soldier protection is the Army's top priority. Since its initial fielding in 1999, the Army's Interceptor Body Armor has demonstrated superior combat performance in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many Soldiers are alive today because of it. Prior to issuing body armor to Soldiers, the U.S. Army conducts rigorous and extensive testing to ensure it meets Army standards and is safe for use by Soldiers in combat.
The Army is in full and complete compliance with the FAR, DFAR, source law and current policy in every case concerning body armor procurement.
The fact that the Defense Department Inspector General was not completely able to verify testing and approval of first-article testing or aspects of contracting files does not mean the body armor did not meet specifications.
The Army requires two levels of performance verification prior to acceptance of body armor issued to Soldiers: First Article Test (FAT) and Lot Acceptance Test (LAT). These two test requirements verify that body armor meets U.S. Army standards before being issued to Soldiers and ensure production processes remain in check. The Army's response to the draft report states that first-article testing is a regular and consistent current business practice for purchasing body armor.
The current body armor is doing what it is designed to do: stop or slow bullets and fragments, and reduce the severity of wounds.
Prevention of injuries to our men and women is a top priority for the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense.
IG Report Points:
The IG reviewed Army and Marine Corps contracts and orders awarded between January 2004 and December 2006.
The scope of the review was limited to reviewing pre-solicitation and the solicitation and evaluation phases of the acquisition process, as well as contracting files related to first-article testing.
DoD IG found:
Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders.
Contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made.
DoD has no assurance first articles produced under 13 contracts met required standards or 11 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions.
First-article testing is performed before or in the initial stage of production to determine whether the proposed product conforms with contract requirements.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows first-article testing to be waived if the contractor is already producing the item under contract.
Now, I don't like the idea that the Army took shortcuts in testing. But I can understand that the service wouldn't pay for a series of FAT tests if they're contracting for another large buy of the same vest.
When I looked into the Marine Corps armor flaws -- where waivers were issued on specific production lots of armor that government testers believed were flawed -- the rejections did not require a FAT test to verify. In fact, the engineers looked at earlier FAT test data as a benchmark for performance of the new, flawed lots.
Technically, it seems correct that if the Army -- or any service -- is buying a new type of armor, or new components or either with new manufacturing techniques, a FAT test must be conducted. It seems to me on the surface that the Army issued a new contract to the same company -- Point Blank -- for the same vest with the same components and manufacturing technology as previous ones. That shouldn't technically require another FAT test. But, I guess you could argue that it's better to be safe than sorry.
"Yeah, it's too bad they cut through all the red tape to rush this equipment out to the troops instead of the usual procedure that keeps new gear in the prototype phase until years after the need has passed and the technology has become obsolete."
You can kind of see the guy's point.
-- Christian
Now, the Entire Armor Test Delay Story
The Army has opted to delay testing of new body armor designs that can stop powerful armor piercing bullets and vests that contain flexible plating much like the controversial Dragon Skin armor.
Citing industry requests, the Army's top gear buyer told Military.com the test firing on so-called "XSAPI" and "FSAPI" armor would be held off until March 2008.
"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier.
Brown said the new armor designs would likely be tested at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., beginning in March and finished up by June. Testing on the new designs was previously set to begin last fall.
The Army was pressured into launching a new solicitation for body armor designs after lawmakers held hearings on Capitol Hill to delve into the debate surrounding Dragon Skin, which is made by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. An NBC News investigative report in May claimed that the flexible Dragon Skin armor was far more protective than the current Interceptor system, which uses two rigid ceramic plates to stop armor-piercing bullets.
The Army came out swinging before the NBC report aired, claiming Dragon Skin had catastrophically failed several make-or-break tests it had conducted -- the same kinds of tests used to certify all body armor systems submitted to the Army for fielding.
But that didn't stop some Dragon Skin advocates from claiming the fix was in, prompting a House Armed Services Committee hearing June 6 that pitted Pinnacle chief Murray Neal against the anti-Dragon Skin Army brass.
Nevertheless, the committee's ranking member, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), called for a side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Interceptor run by government engineers and overseen by both congressional and Pentagon auditors. That led to the Army's June 20 request to industry for both flexible armor designs like Dragon Skin -- which incorporates a series of interlocking ceramic disks rather than a single rigid plate -- and for a so-called "XSAPI" plate which could stop armor piercing rounds the current ESAPI can't.
Brown said part of the delay in testing comes from industry's inability to create an XSAPI plate that comes in under the weight limit of about seven pounds for a size "large" plate, about a pound more than the current ESAPI.
"One thing troops in the field have told us is they don't want any more weight with a new armor system," Brown said, adding that preliminary submissions for XSAPI have been too heavy.
For his part, Pinnacle's Neal says he plans to submit Dragon Skin samples for the upcoming test and is glad the Army is finally taking his technology seriously.
"The extensions, as we have been told by several Army personnel, are primarily for the current manufacturers to fix the plates that have been run through preliminary testing and that are not passing with enough percentage to guarantee passing the [final] testing," Neal said in a email to Military.com, adding he's only too eager to pit his flexible -- otherwise known as "scalar" -- system up against any comers.
Another top body armor designer who has a scalar system of his own said he doubts many companies other than Pinnacle will submit a flexible vest. Allan Bain, president of Evolution Armor, said the Army is right to delay the process to make sure any new submissions have realistic chance of success, though his company has declined to participate.
"The Army is looking for a state of the art system, and there is a lot of pressure by Congress to make every effort on a major purchase like this to ensure that the armor purchased is truly the best performed by unbiased testers and evaluators," Bain said via email. "So they are not rushing it."
