PDA

View Full Version : I want my MTV!



thedrifter
09-05-06, 01:20 PM
September 11, 2006
I want my MTV!
Corps set to award vest contract this month; Army touts new system

By Christian Lowe and Matthew Cox
Staff writers

It’s gotten to the breaking point.

One more ceramic plate slapped on, another couple sheets of Kevlar, armbands, neck guards, thigh protectors — for many, the constant stream of body armor add-ons is beginning to reach the point of diminishing returns. The backbreaking discomfort and heavy load are becoming more distracting than the danger of being shot.

“You can only put so much on a Marine before you render him ineffective,” said Chief Warrant Officer 5 Terry Walker, 2nd Marine Division gunner, in an Aug. 23 interview. “It’s just getting too much. One more thing on my back is going to break me to the ground.”


So in a sweeping revamp of the Corps’ body armor ensemble, officials with Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., are set to award a contract this month for 60,000 new vests that could make the current Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest look like antiques.

Think attachment loops, Velcro, emergency releases, gear pouches, load suspension and customizable comfort — all with more protective coverage, minus the added weight.

The first of these new vests should roll off the assembly lines as early as October, SysCom said.

Developed in the late 1990s, the current Interceptor vest incorporates a 9mm bullet and shrapnel-resistant outer shell of Kevlar with two rigid ceramic plates in the front and back that can stop high-powered rifle rounds. The Interceptor was not designed to carry heavy loads such as ammo pouches, radios, water carriers and accessories, so many troops either attached cumbersome pockets to the vest or wore an additional load-carrying layer.

As the situation in Iraq dictated more protection, more armor attachments and heavier plates were added.

The Interceptor started becoming a problem.

Now, SysCom is developing the new Modular Tactical Vest, which is intended to alleviate the Interceptor’s shortcomings and act as a near-term interim solution before a “next-generation” body armor solution is found, Marine officials said.

“The MTV program was initiated as a response to an immediate need,” SysCom said in a written statement. “The MTV would optimize ballistic protection and provide modular/scalable load-carrying capabilities to better enable the Marine to configure [vest] components to best meet specific missions.”

Joint development

And the Marine Corps isn’t working alone on this one, either.

Recognizing the same bone-cracking problems with the Interceptor, Army scientists are testing a new system of body armor that can be custom-fitted to each individual. But it’s coming a lot later than the Corps’ MTV, perhaps not until 2010.

The Army vest is built on a sleek, armored chassis designed to make heavy combat loads easier to carry while providing soldiers with more ballistic protection in a lighter package. It has special channels on the inside to allow air to circulate and heat to escape, and it will cover 18 percent more of a soldier’s body.

The system is designed to be radically more functional than the current Interceptor body armor, said Philip Brandler, director of the Army’s Soldier Systems Center at Natick, Mass.

“The days when we had a simple ballistic component that a soldier put on are probably past,” he said. “We are going to be moving into situations where ... the body armor system basically performs multiple functions.”

The Marine Corps tested four prototypes for the MTV in July, including the version the Army is working on, which was manufactured by Crye Precision, a small tactical design company based in New York City.

One of the company’s chief engineers, Gregg Thompson, said the company designed an armor system for the Marine Corps that was different from the Army one but with many of the same load-carrying and adjustable characteristics.

Since it is intended as an interim solution, the Corps’ MTV uses the same removable Kevlar components as the Interceptor but may include newly designed ceramic plates, industry sources said.

Good, better, best

Both the Army and Marine Corps have made great strides in body armor technology since the Vietnam War, when soldiers wore “flak vests” weighing 25 pounds.

The current Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest and its ballistic armor plates offer far greater protection and weigh about 16 pounds. But the constantly changing tactics of insurgent forces in Iraq have forced the services to make improvements, increasing the Interceptor’s weight.

Soft armor shoulder and side protection, known as the Deltoid Axillary Protector, and enhanced front, rear and side ballistic plates for improved protection against rifle rounds have brought Marines’ and soldiers’ protective load up to 31 pounds.

Add that to combat gear and ammunition, and combat troops are having a harder time hopping over walls, searching house after house and moving under enemy fire, according to Army and Marine Corps officials.

“The Interceptor OTV was never designed to carry the weight that’s being carried today,” Dan Fitzgerald, SysCom’s program manager for infantry combat equipment, said at a May 24 armor conference in Washington, D.C.

Brandler agreed, adding that soldiers often go into combat with too much gear on their backs.

“The problem is, 120 pounds of lightweight equipment still weighs 120 pounds,” he said.

Army officials hope to use nanotechnology to reduce the weight in the new armor chassis. The goal is to develop a prototype — which includes an armored chassis vest, two plates and a waist belt — that weighs about 20 pounds.

High-performance polymers and advanced ceramics and metals under study will increase the toughness of the material without a significant increase in weight, Brandler said.

“What we are looking for is to have the material that can produce lightweight ceramics” that can be formed into complex shapes to cover more body area, he said.

Cooler and stronger

The plates in the Army’s vest will be designed to provide 18 percent more coverage area, front and back, than current plates. The padded waist belt, separate from the vest, should provide additional ballistic coverage.

The new Army vest would also fit better than the current one. A series of 11 pads will allow both male and female soldiers to customize the rigid vest to their particular body shape.

The pads come in different sizes and can be attached to various places inside the walls of the vest to ensure that it fits snugly.

This helps reduce “back-face deformation” injuries from the impact of a projectile, Brandler said, because the pads, not the body, will absorb the projectile’s force.

Inside the vest, special channels allow air to circulate, unlike the Interceptor, which is worn tight against the body. This “passive cooling” design should keep soldiers about 25 percent cooler, Brandler said.

The Marine Corps tested the Army’s vest, another version from Crye and at least two others in July, SysCom officials said, declining to name the other manufacturers who submitted prototypes.

“Over 100 Marine subject matter experts participated in a rigorous three-week evaluation of three MTV prototypes and the U.S. Army’s Land Warrior Ensemble,” SysCom said in a written statement. “The rigorous three-week evaluation included realistic environmental and situational scenarios to include infiltration courses, rifle ranges [and] training.”

Nineteen soldiers in the Special Forces Qualification Course participated in an October 2004 test of the Army’s ensemble. They wore the prototypes while performing such tasks as running, climbing and shooting.

And the Corps is watching.

“The Marine Corps is closely coordinating these [development] efforts with representatives from the Army’s Infantry Combat Center, located in Fort Benning, Ga., and the [Program Executive Office] Soldier at Fort Belvoir, Va.,” SysCom officials said.

Despite the new Army vest’s more rigid design, soldiers wearing the vests were pleased with their ease of movement on the obstacle course, Brandler said.

“It’s not a done deal, but ... we don’t expect the final production [version] will look radically different.”

Marines in Iraq will be the first to receive the new MTV, but SysCom declined to say specifically when it plans to decide which vest would be fielded, other than to say it is “on track” to make the call in September.

Matthew Cox covers the Army.


Ellie

thedrifter
09-05-06, 01:22 PM
September 11, 2006
Army, Dragon Skin still at odds over vest test

By Christian Lowe
Staff writer

In a promotional video on its Web site, Pinnacle Armor shows someone emptying 21 AK47 rounds into one of its body armor vests from 20 feet away. The shooter then picks up an MP5 submachine gun and empties another 120 rounds of 9mm ammo into the same vest.

Peeling back the armor for the camera, it looks like not a single one of the nearly 150 bullets fired at the vest — front and back — got through. An amazing feat for any kind of body armor and an impossible one for the military’s current system.

But was it for real?

Although some in the special operations community and private security world swear by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle’s innovative “Dragon Skin” armor system — which employs a “chain mail” network of interlocking discs made out of the same ceramic material as the Army and Marine Corps’ enhanced small-arms protective insert plates — many in the military are skeptical of its capabilities.


To quash the rumors of Pinnacle’s pre-eminence in armor technology and to prohibit its use, the Army issued a message in late March banning all nonissued body armor from soldiers’ backs, singling out Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin and calling it unable to “meet Army requirements” for ballistic protection.

Pinnacle President Murray Neal immediately fired back, saying tests in 2005 “exceeded the capabilities” of the current armor and daring the Army to do a side-by-side test of the Point Blank Body Armor-manufactured Interceptor and his Dragon Skin vest.

Although the Marine Corps declined to issue a similar ban on Dragon Skin, Corps officials encouraged Marines to use the armor they had been issued, claiming it offered the best protection of any armor made. The Corps also had access to the Army’s 2005 test data and found that Dragon Skin wasn’t up to snuff.

In May — and after some resistance — Pinnacle sent 30 vests for Army testers to fill with lead at H.P. White labs — a private ballistic test firm in Street, Md. The Army has been hush-hush about the tests, issuing a written statement to Marine Corps Times saying: “Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin has never been certified by the Army for protection against several of the small-arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today.”

But one of the Army’s top ballistics experts, Karl Masters, spilled the beans on the Internet message board www.professionalsoldiers.com, saying the May tests showed flaws in the Dragon Skin, and joking, “I highly recommend this system for use by the insurgents.”

Outraged, Neal fired off a reply, saying Masters and another Army tester were dumbfounded with Pinnacle’s technology, unsure how to effectively test it because of its radical design.

“After the first round was fired on [May] 17th, the test director Karl Masters and technical liaison James Zheng argued openly and loudly about the placement of the shot and what constituted an edge for the flexible body armor system,” a June 30 Pinnacle release said. “At this point, Karl Masters threw down his paperwork and stormed off. …”

The Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier was unable to make Masters available for comment.

One section of Dragon Skin failed, Neal admitted in a late June interview, but that was due to an anomaly in the adhesive used to keep the ceramic discs in place. Nevertheless, the Army stopped testing May 19 after firing on only a few of the 30 vests ordered for the test, Neal said.

Neal said testing was halted after one of his vests absorbed 12 shots of armor-piercing rifle rounds without a single penetration and a back-face indentation below the Army’s specifications. Neither Neal nor the Army would provide test data from H.P. White to prove their claims.

As the debate continues to rage between the Army and Pinnacle, each side is digging in its heels, with Neal insisting his armor is “far superior to the current Army system,” and the service claiming “now after the recent testing, the Army’s Safety of Use Message on Pinnacle and other commercial body armor has not changed.”

Ellie

thedrifter
09-05-06, 01:23 PM
September 11, 2006
The best of the vests

Marine Corps vest

Design specifications for the Corps’ Modular Tactical Vest, which is expected to begin production as early as October, include:

• Increased area of protection — side torso, lower back, shoulder.

• Improved vest design for closure.

• Improved vest design for load distribution.

• Quick-release capability.


• Integrated side small-arms protective insert plate pockets.

• Enhanced SAPI plate adjustability.

• Integrated routing for communication wiring.

Army vest

The body armor vest that the Army is planning as part of its Future Force Warrior Program, expected to be fielded in 2010, includes:

• Rigid design to keep ballistic protection away from the body, eliminating injuries when incoming projectiles strike the vest.

• Special channels molded to the vest’s interior to help air circulate and keep the soldier cooler.

• Ability to be a true “load carrier” to more effectively distribute heavy combat loads.

• 11 sizing pads that attach to the inside of the vest to ensure that both male and female soldiers can custom-fit the armored chassis to their individual body type.

• CamelBak-style hydration system.

Ellie