U.S. Army Pushing for an R&D Budget to Improve Body ArmorOctober 09, 2009
 The number of troops in Afghanistan is rising steadily, and so is concern that their existing body armor is too heavy and cumbersome to allow stealth and nimble movement across the rugged Afghan territory. It takes 31 pounds of armor to fully protect a soldier, according to an article in National Defense magazine. Commanders can allow soldiers to wear less protection, but even with a minimum configuration, the weight adds up to 21 pounds. In Afghanistan, where soldiers travel for days on foot, the additional weight can lead to dangerous situations because of reduced mobility, stress fractures and fatigue. The Army is looking into ways to reduce that burden, but the blunt reality is that the service has not spent enough on research and development of body armor. "No new technology is sitting around the corner ... we are just tweaking current technology," Brig. General Peter N. Fuller told National Defense. "We need to invest ... the Army needs dedicated R&D and procurement budget lines" for body armor. The Defense Department (DoD) has for years tapped funds from the emergency war budgets to buy urgently needed body armor. After buying two million body armor plates, the DoD has shifted its priority to other items like armored trucks. If the Army had a dedicated R&D and procurement budget for body armor, the DoD would lose the flexibility of using the emergency budget, National Defense notes. Congress, meanwhile, is pushing for a separate budget for body armor. The holdup has been in the Pentagon, according an industry consultant who thinks the top officers have been focused on the cancellations of the Future Combat Systems and less concerned about developing lighter body armor. But the industry is eager to develop new materials that weigh 10% to 20% less than what is used today. The problem: It is not ready to spend its own money for the R&D, and fears that the Army may not buy the new designs. "Until the Army comes with requirements," one analyst told National Defense, "industry is not willing to take that risk." (Photo Courtesy: U.S. Army) |
|
