Better Armor Tech Looks Scarce

Better Armor Tech Looks Scarce

If you were hoping that shear thickening fluids, carbon nanotubes and lightweight flexible armor was just around the corner, you’ll need to put those hopes on hold and keep reading your sci-​​fi books.

Despite the US and allied militaries’ best efforts to lighten one of the biggest culprits of a trooper’s heavy load, armor manufacturers are having a hard time making quantum leaps in increased protection and weight savings.

I spoke with reps from First Choice armor on the floor of SHOT Show in Vegas last week and they described how they’d cracked the nut of shaving some ounces while keeping bullet-​​stopping ballistic performance by tweaking materials and weaves and developing some hybrids.

First Choice’s new Level IIIA vest comes in just under the one pound per square foot gold standard for protection — at .93 pounds per ft2. They also showed me a pretty sweet 10“x12” Level III+ plate that weighs just 3.8 lbs using what they termed a “unidirectional-​​ceramic hybrid” — which basically means a boron carbide/​spectra-​​dyneema sandwich.

Basically the rep told me the industry is still struggling with requirements for continuously more resistant armor with no weight penalty. The reality of today’s material science means companies like First Choice get requests from the military that say “I want armor that can stop this exotic round and weigh less than current vests…” a near impossible feat.

I asked the ballistics expert about the fetish with “flexible” armor solutions and he said his company spent some money and about a year looking into it, but they found no easy way around the weight problems and coverage gaps that scaled systems present.

“We gave up on the effort for now,” he said.

Perhaps that’s why only one company, Pinnacle, played in the Army’s F-​​SAPI search last year. No one else could make a solution that didn’t weigh a ton (or cost a fortune, as Alan Bain admitted to us).

Sor for now, it looks like the military is going to have to shave armor weight at the margins — that is until science can find ways to manufacture nanostructures in quantities and costs that enable a Level IV vest at t-​​shirt weights.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Armor Holdings prior to their purchase by BAE was working on liquid armor (STF). Now there is no mention of it by BAE. I understand that BAE may not have shown up at the SHOT show, but could you, Christian do some more homework on this area that is critical to our troops?

Are we going to get the lockheed armour with built in batteries?

Right now you can walk in it, but I bet you cannot run or climb in it. The spec forces will probably get the first truly combat capable suits but the FBI HRT teams would be logical place to field test the armored versions. Give them armor vs a .308 or 7mm magnum rifle and a riot shield for protecting hostages. They would only need a few minutes endurance and limited mobility would not be too big a deal. Just send 2–4 of them through the door first to clear the room and let normal HRTs do all the agile stuff. Hook them up with a command van with a telemetry setup like the Colonial Marines in Aliens. 360 video cameras and continuous readings on all the working parts.

Thank you, I needed that laugh!

If and when they do make the “Iron Man” armor, I suggest they call it:

The “Joint Assault Capable Kinetic Attack Survival Suit.” Great acronym!

You’re welcome. :P

Why does everything have to be high tech? In WWI the french actually used kitchenware on their heads for helmets for protection against shrapnel, which was the original purpose of the helmet. In Nam, we had the “steel pot” at a cost of about $10. Now we have a Kevlar helmet which costs hundreds. As part of a bullet proof armor system, that may be acceptable but it still doesn’t protect against face shots. You still have to “face the enemy”. You can buy several Ak rifles for the price of only one M16. Why does it have to be so expensive. Why did we use expensive smart bombs to knock out cheap SCUDs in Iraq? Why not use cheap NAPALM? Give them their damn gasoline back.

I’d lay odds that those “cheap” SCUDs cost well over a million a piece for purchase from the Soviets. A good JDAM probably less than $100,000 by now. Plus, it’s first round first kill, no waste. The Iraqi SCUDs totally missed many of their targets. That gets expensive for your enemy.

Thankfully technology is on our side for now; someday that may be lost if we don’t improve our education system here in America.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement