Army plate carrier debacle

Editors note-The following was provided by an Army Sergeant First Class. He has served as an airborne infantry squad leader in the 82nd Airborne Division and as a civil affairs team sergeant in the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion (Airborne), and has deployed twice each to Iraq and Afghanistan.



Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom have been asking for lighter equipment. The extreme up and down terrain of Afghanistan takes a toll on Soldiers weighed down by their individual weapons, fighting load, and bulky body armor. Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier has been researching lighter equipment alternatives, such as plate carriers, in order to lighten the Soldier’s load and enable them to perform better.

A plate carrier is a body armor system that is smaller and therefore lighter than full-size body armor such as the general-purpose Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) or Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV). Due to their lower profile, plate carriers provide less coverage than the IBA and IOTV, but enable greater range of movement and mobility, which is extremely valuable to Soldiers conducting foot patrols over rugged vertical terrain. All plate carriers have the same level/area of rifle protection covering the vital core (vital organs--heart, lungs major thoracic blood vessels), provided by hard plates (E-SAPI) in the front and back. The only thing that differs, depending on plate carrier design, is the amount in square-inches of soft armor fragmentation protection, which is insignificant against rifle caliber fire.

Special Operations Forces (SOF) have been using plate carriers in Afghanistan and Iraq for years. General-purpose forces finally caught up, and on 15 October 2009 the Army News Service announced that the Army will introduce a plate carrier vest to Soldiers deploying to Afghanistan. After nearly a year of development and testing, an $18.6 million contract for 57,000 plate carriers was awarded on 8 October to KDH Defense Systems for their plate carrier vest. BG Peter Fuller of PEO Soldier had many positive comments to say regarding the new plate-carrier, such as "We have listened to Soldiers, and we understand that in certain operational environments such as the mountains of Afghanistan, mobility is key to Soldiers' effectiveness against the enemy."

Unfortunately, BG Fuller’s comments do not accurately represent PEO Soldier’s decision to field the KDH plate carrier. Airborne Infantrymen from the 82nd Airborne Division and the 173rd Airborne Brigade tested several plate carriers through a variety of tactical exercises during Soldier Protection Demonstration (SPD) VII, conducted at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The Soldiers provided over 10,000 pages of comments on each vest that they tested during the SPD, and selected their preference of plate carriers in the following order:

1) Eagle Industries’ Modular Body Armor Vest (MBAV), a proven system that is general issue to SOF units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and Special Forces

2) Tactical Assault Gear’s Rampage Plate Carrier

3) MSA Paraclete’s Special Operations Hard Plate Carrier

4) KDH Defense Systems’ plate carrier vest

 
According to BG Fuller, "This is a major step forward in the field of body armor," "a plate-carrier vest designed to meet Soldiers' needs, with Soldiers' input into how it should work." Yet PEO Soldier selected KDH Defense System’s offering, which according to the results of SPD VII was the plate carrier that Soldiers wanted the least. In this case Soldier input was grossly disregarded.

Why did PEO Soldier ignore Soldier input by not selecting their first choice, the MBAV? According to a statement in May 2009 by LTC Robert Myles, product manager for Soldier Survivability, “The Army thinks its Soldiers need a bit more protection than the special operations’ MBAV provides.” However, the KDH system has 2 inch gaps in protection on either side of the cummerbund where it attaches to the front of the carrier, which means it provides less protective coverage than the MBAV. To be specific, the MBAV has a wrap around cummerbund with integrated soft armor that creates over lapping continuous coverage in the lower thoracic areas, increasing protection from fragmentation projectiles. There are no gaps in soft protection to the mid-body with the MBAV or Rampage. The total square-inches of soft armor area protection offered by the KDH are severely less than that of the MBAV – 330sq" (KDH) opposed to 405 sq" (MBAV). Additionally, the KDH plate carrier is approximately 1.5 pounds heavier than the MBAV. PEO Soldier chose a system that is least desired by the Soldiers that will be required to wear it, protects them less, and weighs them down more than the readily available system they wanted.

It is clear that the Source Selection Board (SSB) from PEO Soldier selected the KDH plate carrier based on a cost savings factor over weight and protection, and in total disregard of Soldier input. This decision points to a lack of common sense on the part of PEO Soldier. During a raging conflict in Afghanistan, the SSB chose a new and inferior system – the KDH plate carrier, over a proven superior and currently fielded system – the MBAV. PEO Soldier needs to take another look at the decision to select the KDH plate carrier vest. If cost is the issue, what is more costly – the dollar value of the equipment or the life of the Soldier? Is this how PEO Soldier instills an end user’s trust in their equipment? This issue needs to be brought to greater attention before putting our Soldier’s lives in danger due to poor decisions on the part of those who are trusted to provide the best equipment possible.