# Synthetic materials  clothing now banned outside the wire in A'Stan



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

It seems that certain types of popular athletic wear are no longer allowed outside the wire in Iraq. Could this have repercussions amongst the Canadians in Afghanistan?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060412_4800.html


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2006)

Actually this is old news:



> When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.



It is a 'trade off' that we have known about for years.  Even our old combats were bad for this.


----------



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

I see. Do _our_ soldiers currently wear these or similar products while outside of the camp patrolling in vehicles?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2006)

I'm not sure what the 'blend' is now in most of our underclothes, but it was at one time a 60/40 blend of polyester/cotton.  Now there is Nomex, issued.

We still have horror stories of soldiers having 'accidents' when they are careless in burning the threads on their combats prior to an inspection.


----------



## GAP (13 Apr 2006)

It was bad enough "in the old days" with the cotton and burns. Just visualizing the problems polyester would bring makes me shudder. What is made of Nomex??


----------



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> It was bad enough "in the old days" with the cotton and burns. Just visualizing the problems polyester would bring makes me shudder. What is made of Nomex??




A heat/flame resistant material

http://www.dupont.com/nomex/


----------



## GAP (13 Apr 2006)

I realize that  What I meant was, what clothing is made of Nomex that troops would use everyday


----------



## Jantor (13 Apr 2006)

D'oh..........

I don't know the answer. Polartec(tm) makes some clothing for the Americans though

http://www.polartec.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/220

Edited to add link


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2006)

Crewsuits, Flightsuits, gloves and various undergarments.  There are still undergarments that are made of blends though.  

Cotton was not as much a problem as nylon or polyester.  Cotton would burn, of course, but it would not melt into the skin.

On the question of Polartec(tm), it is recycled plastics.  I don't think that they would be that great in a fire or extreme heat situation either.  In fact cigarettes tend to ruin any Polartec(tm) outer garment, as do bonfires.   ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Apr 2006)

There is a plan for Nomex crew suits for the LAV's and we all know that the chopper pilots use them (I believe).


----------



## DG-41 (13 Apr 2006)

Race car drivers have worn Nomex suits - with Nomex underwear - for 20 years. It's manditory.

DG


----------



## Big Red (13 Apr 2006)

When on the road I wear a nomex flight suit, nomex gloves, CarbonX hood, underwear and socks.

Anybody riding in a vehicle in Iraq/Afghan should consider wearing fire resistant clothing. At the very least try to stick with cotton instead of mixes. 

CarbonX is vastly superior to Nomex. It can withstand 2000 degrees of direct flame for 2 minutes before igniting.

Just for fun a buddy lit a set of 5.11s poly/cotton mix, they burned like a plastic garbage bag.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2006)

Could the airforce share some of the wealth and give out LAV and HL drivers flightsuits to wear or is that right out to lunch?

Are the Canadians in Afghanistan currently allowed to wear underarmor outside of the camp?


----------



## ROTP Applicant (17 Apr 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Could the airforce share some of the wealth and give out LAV and HL drivers flightsuits to wear or is that right out to lunch?



A CADPAT flightsuit is currently in development for use by aircrews and armour guys. There are, apparently, some difficulties in transferring the distributive pattern onto NOMEX, so I'm not too sure if or when the kit will be released.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Apr 2006)

Roger what Civi U(ntrained).  Heard it from the CTS guys direct.  Another effort to save money by having the airforce and army share some stuff.


----------



## Scott (18 Apr 2006)

The nature of firefighting that I did in the oilfield dictated that we could not wear the traditional flame retardant suit that you see most firefighters dressed in. We wore Nomex IIIA, which is about the best as far as Nomex goes as well as PBI and PBI Black Gold Kevlar with Ripstop. The differences are quite impressive.

6 oz. Nomex III costs around 250 bucks to get a guy of coveralls (No doubt a flight suit would be more)

PBI Black Gold with ripstop has those same covies at 700 bucks.

Differences? Having worn both I can't say much for either. If I were spending my own money I'd go with Nomex. But the PBI was nice because you couldn't tear it. The only drawback to anything that is truly "ripstop" is that it wears heavier.

Big drawback to Nomex is that anyone working in an oxygen enriched area may find that their flame retardant suit is not so flame retardant when hit with +35% Oxygen.

FWIW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Under Armour and its competition are now banned outside the wire in A' Stan.  Fleece will most likely be included in this.  I recieved this by my OC via army email.  Unfortunately our combats would most likely melt as well.  Oh well.
I wonder if that includes the rain suit whether it be Gortex or something else.  Yes I know the article is about Iraq but it appears to be applied to our situation now.

"These items are now banned for wear outside the wire in TFA (Afghanistan).  This should may also apply to fleece as it made of the same material.

89
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060412_4800.html "

When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.

Synthetic Clothes Off Limits to Marines Outside Bases in Iraq
By Lance Cpl. Stephen Holt, USMC
Special to American Forces Press Service


CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq, April 12, 2006 - Marines conducting operations outside forward operating bases and camps in Iraq can no longer wear synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon, Marine Corps commanders have ordered.

The ban on popular clothing from companies like Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials, officials said. 

When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon. Whether on foot patrol or conducting a supply convoy while riding in an armored truck, everyone is at risk to such injuries while outside the wire. "Burns can kill you and they're horribly disfiguring. If you're throwing (a melted synthetic material) on top of a burn, basically you have a bad burn with a bunch of plastic melting into your skin, and that's not how you want to go home to your family," said Welling.

According to Tension Technology International, a company that specializes in synthetic fibers, most man-made fabrics such as nylon, acrylic or polyester will melt when ignited and produce a hot, sticky, melted substance. This can cause extremely severe burns. For these reasons, Marines have been limited to wearing clothing made with these materials only while on the relatively safe forward operating bases and camps where encounters with fires and explosions are relatively low, officials said.These products have risen in popularity in the past few years and are now sold at military clothing stores. Some companies have come out with product line  specifically catering to military needs. This makes polyester clothing readily available to servicemembers, said Welling. 

The Under Armour company, a favorite among many servicemembers here, advertises that the fabric used to make their garments will pull perspiration from the skin to the outer layer of the clothing. This, the ads say, allows the person wearing it to remain cool and dry in any condition or climate. While these qualities have been a main reason for Marines to stock up on these items, the melting side effect can be a fatal drawback, said Welling. 

This point was driven home recently at a military medical facility at Camp Ramadi, a U.S. military base on the outskirts of the city of Ramadi, arguably one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq. "We had a Marine with significant burn injuries covering around 70 percent of his body," said Navy Cmdr. Joseph F. Rappold, the officer in charge of the medical unit at the base. The Marine was injured when the armored vehicle he was riding in struck an improvised explosive device, causing his polyester shirt to melt to his skin. Even though he was wearing his protective vest, Navy doctors still had to cut the melted undergarment from his torso. His injuries would not have been as severe had he not been wearing a polyester shirt, said Rappold. 

Burns have become a common injury in Iraq as the enemy continues to employ IEDs and roadside bombs. Currently, these hidden explosives are the No. 1 killer of servicemembers in Iraq, said Welling. For years, servicemembers with jobs that put then at a high risk of flame exposure, such as pilots and explosive ordnance disposal personnel, were kept from wearing polyester materials because of the extra burn threat. Now, with so many encounters with IED explosions, the Marines are extending this ban to everyone going outside the wire, officials said. With the approach of summer, temperatures during some days are expected to hover around 130 degrees Fahrenheit. These blistering temperatures spur many to wear the the moisture-wicking, quick-drying clothing in an attempt to beat the heat and stay cool.

"I understand it gets to be 150 degrees in a turret during the summer time," said Welling. "My goal is not to make it more uncomfortable or harder on the servicemembers. My job is to make sure that when they hit an IED and are engulfed in flames, they have the best protection possible and the least risk of something (going wrong) that could have been prevented."

The directive is straightforward and simple, Welling said. "The goal is not to bubble wrap the warrior going outside the gate. The idea is to minimize the (hazards) we have control over," said Welling. Commanders have expressed concern that troops will downplay the problem of wearing wicking materials in combat settings because they think their body armor or uniforms will protect them. The camouflage utility uniforms are designed to turn to ash and blow away after the material is burned, but the burn hazard remains, said Welling. She recommends wearing 100 percent cotton clothing while on missions.

So far, Marines have been responding well to the new regulations. "The policy is good because it's designed for safety and is about keeping Marines in the fight," said Cpl. Jason Lichtefeld, a military policeman with the 1st Marine Logistics Group, who plans to ensure his Marines comply with the new rules.
Even Marines who never venture off base should be aware of the risks associated with wearing the wicking fabrics, officials said. For example, a Marine's high-performance undershirt recently started smoking when an electrical current shocked him. Fortunately, it didn't catch on fire or melt, but the potential was there, said Welling.

Officials acknowledged that high-performance apparel may be the best way to stay cool when working in a low-risk environment with a minimal chance of exposure to flames or intense heat. "We've got a great piece of gear, but when you put it in the wrong environment, it could cause more problems than it's worth," said Welling.


(Lance Cpl. Stephen Holt serves with the 1st Marine Logistics Group.)


----------



## Inch (24 Apr 2006)

Ghost,

Our flight suits won't do you any good unless you're wearing double layers like we're required to do under 1CAD Flying Orders. Yes the Nomex is fire retardant, but the fire doesn't cause the burns, the heat does and unless you've got a double layer which provides a pocket of air between your long underwear and Nomex flight suit, you're going to get burned. If it's just the outer garment melting that's the concern, then yes, a flight suit will solve that problem.

Most guys don't wear proper fitting flight suits anyway, they're supposed to be baggy and loose fitting to create that airspace I mentioned above. However, the large majority of aircrew wear a flight suit that's a little closer fit so that it doesn't look as sloppy, sure it looks better, but who gives a damn when you've got 3rd degree burns wherever your flight suit was tight to your body?

Currently we're wearing an intermediate flight suit. The green ones we wear are temporary until the new suits come out. Word on the street is that the new ones are going to run in the $1200 per suit price range. We're currently issued 4 suits so you're looking at nearly $5000 per aircrew to outfit the AF.


----------



## Thorvald (24 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Oh well.  I wonder if that includes the rain suit whether it be Gortex or something else.



Actually I have yet to see a proper GORE-TEX trademark on any of the CF garments that I'm come across (which admittedly is not many).  Even the new Army/Airforce converged rain jacket samples have no markings inside.  The US Marine Marpat combo is covered inside with GORE-TEX labels/seams, watermarks.  As any rep. from that company will say, "if it does specifically say "GORE-TEX", it's not".

What exactly is the CF stuff made from (Micro-fibre? Trademark/tag is just tiny?) or did they find some way to use GORE-TEX and avoid the legal branding/trademark issue?  

Just curious.


----------



## ICE Tactical (24 Apr 2006)

Most Canadian waterproof/breathable gear is made from fabric from Stedfast, because of canadien content rules. They use either a ptfe film from BHA or their own urethane membrane. Almost all big US military contracts use BHA film as well.

Hobey


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Apr 2006)

A possible solution is Massive Mountain Gear Company not cheap, but neither is UnderArmor... they make fire-resistant clothing, including underwear, fleece and waterproof-breathable items.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Thanks


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Apr 2006)

Civi U(ntrained) said:
			
		

> Quote from: Ghost778 on April 17, 2006, 19:56:36
> 
> 
> > Could the airforce share some of the wealth and give out LAV and HL drivers flightsuits to wear or is that right out to lunch?
> ...



I was the 10 TAG Aircrew Life Support Equipment (ALSE) officer in the mid-nineties working with (then) saner heads in DLR and we actually had a converged design flightsuit/crewsuit in OG107 (pre-CADPAT days) Nomex PBI.  As the Tac Hel rep for the Air Force, I okayed the operational configuration, which included an extraction strap built into the shoulders for use in extracting crewmen from an AFV if required.  The plan was sailing smoothly (i.e. DSSPM was almost going to buy it for tac hel aircrew and Army crewmen) when an Air Force general was briefed by a "head up his ..." staff officer who pointed out that if the suit gained wider distribution in the air force, that some of the fighter pilots might be made fun of in the mess if they travelled to the States...  The converged design was killed dead in its track right there by the (higher) Air Force...sorry land bunds, you guys were scr*wed!

Good to hear that something is happening now on converged suit using CADPAT...I personally think the slightly reduced effectiveness of the camouflage pattern on NOMEW vice the cotton/poly material (especially the IR aspects) has minimal operational impact.  Up until recently, the Air Force was still marching to a previous CAS' order that Air Force CADPAT flight suits would happen "over his dead body" -- my dear Army brethren, sure you don't want to come work in the CF "employer of choice"?  :

My "pragmatic realist" viewpoint (i.e. cynic  :brickwall: ) is that we'll see a fully implemented fleet of CH148 Cyclones on ships before we ever see the air force allow any of its aircrew to wear CADPAT (whether it's operationally more suitable or not)...fighter blood unfortunately runs incredibly (i.e. TOO) deeply through the veins of the keepers of the light blue flame... :-\

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Apr 2006)

Duey did the fighter pilots not just recently go from a blue jump suit to olove drab for tactical reasons, Ie they had to punch out.  Would it not make sense to have even better concelment or are they do worried about the LCF?  How many fighter pilots can there be anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Duey did the fighter pilots not just recently go from a blue jump suit to olove drab for tactical reasons, Ie they had to punch out.  Would it not make sense to have even better concelment or are they do worried about the LCF?  How many fighter pilots can there be anyway.



Yup...I fully agree with you, CFL!  I'd prefer to have flying gear that is either TW at home or AR in AFG...maybe some day... :-\  I think there are something like a hundred or so Hornet pilots and 250+ Tac Hel aviators...we should win the CADPAT flying gear vote on numbers alone, but our vote only counts for a fraction of the fighter guys... >

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Apr 2006)

Well perhaps the CDS will play rock/paper/rank.  
Any chance of you reaching the lofty goals where you can effect real change?


----------



## Loachman (27 Apr 2006)

DUEY!! Fancy meeting you in this place. It's Mark H here. I finally decided to join in.

This is a favourite topic for me.

I began my fire-awareness and research into Nomex while in Moose Jaw in 81/82. Back then, and until recently, our flying clothing was a wool/poly blend generally in the colour of the dress uniform of the period. It was, in fact, the exact same fabric. We were constantly lectured/reminded of the need to wear two layers, with the inner being 100% cotton, and that always struck me as bizarre when the outer layer contained significant quantities of one of the nastiest fabrics imaginable. On the plus side, wool will not support combustion on its own and is a very good insulator. Worn over the cotton, it did give fairly good protection as a result. On the negative side, as it's a good insulator, these suits were not pleasant to wear on a warm day (the dark green ones really soaked up the sun as well) and one smelled like wet dog on rainy days in the field (it hardly stopped at all during my first Fallex). Nomex, if I remember correctly, will not burn at all but chars to an ash about 700F. Unfortunately, it transmits heat quite well, therefore one still needs the cotton layer underneath as Inch, I think, said. Without that, one has the choice of roasting or baking like a foil-wrapped potato depending upon the fabric. Our old flying suits gave about 0.3 seconds less (0.9 vice 1.2 seconds) flame protection than the US ones (both worn over cotton), but that can still make a huge difference especially in an ejection-seat-equipped aircraft. The current Nomex ones, being a heavier weight, should give more but I don't have the info.

Most guys will only wear the long underwear and turtleneck in cooler weather, and switch to T-shirt and gotch of choice in summer, but I've always worn the full lot when flying. Nomex is much cooler and breathes better at least.

We had a lengthy fight to get our two-piece olive green Tac Hel suits. It finally came down to a US Army exchange Major who developed the suit and some senior Army officers tired of seeing Kiowa guys leap out of our hels in almost white tan summer suits to liaise with their heavily-cammed troops on ex. We got our first ones at the beginning of my last year at 444 Sqn - but our CO, the last CDS, refused to let us wear them even in the field for all sorts of dumb reasons: we didn't have all of the badges for them, then we did but one was smaller than the coloured version, then something else. He was all for the stupid blue ones though.

The Herc guys started scrounging our two-pieces when they were flying into Sarajevo - they weren't supposed to leave the aircraft while on the ground but if they absolutely had to they didn't want to be the only idiots wearing bright blue shoot-me suits. The F18 guys got over a hundred US suits for Gulf War I and more for later operations over the former Yugoslavia when they finally wised up to the fact that there was only one colour that really mattered and it wasn't the airshow one.

I wouldn't care less what the air force does if it wasn't for the sad fact that Tac Hel (which originated in the Canadian Army) got sucked into it in 1975. There are still plenty at the top who have no clue what Tac Hel's about or why we exist and what we need - I could rant for hours about that, too - so I am not terribly optimistic about seeing even our two-piece in CADPAT.

A battlefield helicopter is simply a vehicle with a different means of mobility - rotary wing rather than wheels or tracks - and its employment and crew requirements are pretty much the same. Common clothing just makes too much sense, except amongst the decision-makers.

Our current suits (one- or two-piece) would not be suitable for vehicle crews as-is. You'd most likely want to change most, if not all, of the pockets, eliminate the lower leg zippers and go to  a more traditional bloused leg, and remove the pen pockets from the shins, and the F18 leg-restraint tunnels as they snag.

"F18 leg-restraint tunnels"?

There is a strap that goes around the mid-calf area of F18 pilots which attaches to an explosive-driven reel that hauls their legs back against the seat  a split-second before ejection occurs so that their legs do not catch on the instrument panel or flail. The large lower-leg patch pockets are generally stuffed with maps and flying publications. There was concern that these restraints would not stay in place properly with pockets filled, so there is a flat fabric tunnel between the pocket and underlying leg fabric that these restraints can be passed through. The dumb thing is, aside from adding a few bucks more to the cost of construction and something for us to catch twigs with in the field, F18 guys are not allowed to fly without G-suits over top of their flying suits so these tunnels are covered up and, as far as I know, have never been used since they appeared in the early eighties. No F18 guy that I know of has ever flown in a Tac Hel two-piece suit either, with or without G-suit, yet these tunnels are included in the two-piece suit as well. Such is the mentality that we labour under.

And then there was the aircrew NBC ensemble that they attempted to force us into in the mid-eighties, but that's another two hours of typing - diapers, condoms with hoses, dental adhesive...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Apr 2006)

Mark, I saw you pop up a few days ago...ah yes, one of your and my favourite topics, life support equipment.  Remember us chatting years back when I was in 10 TAG HQ trying to swing a deal with the Army on the crew suit/flight suit converged design?  Well, we almost had it (it wouldn't have had lower pen clips, ejection leg-straps, but would have had the "handle" on the back to aid extraction)  Alas, nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Rumours are (I haven't been able to confirm with guys in DSSPM/DLR/DAR) that folks are looking at a fire-retardant suit again, perhaps based on CADPAT in a 1-piece format.  I suppose we'll see in the future what happends to this issue.  Although expensive, I would actually make the case for light-weight nomex/FR fabric for all pers who regularly operate in a vehicle (helo or LAV, it matters not to me) where they are susceptible to fire exposure.  Some folks might say it would be too warm, but I tend to disagree.  I would print AR CADPAT on a light-weight (4.5-5 oz/sq.yd) tan nomex, like the flight suits that deployed tac aviators like me were issued.  When I was down in Khandahar flying with some US CH47 buds, I was wearing my US-procured, light-weight tan 2-piece nomex flying suit (much to RSM Bartlett's chagrin - he thought it was inappropriate of me to be wearing a clothing system that he had "not approved"  : -- not that I felt I had to, but I took the time to point out to him that a CF pilot flying with coalition forces was absolutely authorized to wear CF-approved and procured flight clothing when engaged in flying operations.  He told me he doubted I was involved in flying ops as to his knowledge (a critical point to the discusion) the CF had no aircrew in theatre engaged in flight ops.  I politely noted to him that both I and the next CO 427 SOAS would beg to differ with him as we had just landed from a 3-hour flight in a TF Storm CH-47D as part of an area recce)  <- there you go, Loachman...you got me going again!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Bograt (28 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> A CADPAT flightsuit is currently in development for use by aircrews and armour guys. There are, apparently, some difficulties in transferring the distributive pattern onto NOMEX, so I'm not too sure if or when the kit will be released.
> " staff officer who pointed out that if the suit gained wider distribution in the air force, that some of the fighter pilots might be made fun of in the mess if they travelled to the States...  The converged design was killed dead in its track right there by the (higher) Air Force...sorry land bunds, you guys were scr*wed!



Sir,

I would like to add that my father was the Lt.Col with DAR 6 during the CADPAT development for the Airforce. He has relayed similar accounts while he was in NDHQ. He did say however that at the time CADAPT pattern on Nomex flight suits was possible, but expensive (IIRC 1200 a piece). My understanding was that the decision was an economic, and not aesthetic. From what I understand, the price has dropped and it is now being reconsidered.

As an aside, there were initial talks about a distinctive CADPAT pattern for Air force ground crew. Some kind of urban "blue" theme.  Again it was judged to be too expensive and impractical.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Apr 2006)

Bograt, the gang in DAR during your dad's tenure were a good bunch!  I do think, however, some guys were getting hung up on trying to fully replicate to 100% the IR-reduction measures of CADPAT within the proposed flying gear specs, and that lead to exorbitant unit costs.  I think that was perhaps a bit unrealistic for a number of reasons.  Firstly is the truism that when it comes to "systems" of any kind, you often have to spend 90% of the costs to get that last 10% of performance -- inject any high/low ratio here, 95/5, 80/20, etc... but you get the idea.  To try and match characteristics with the 100% brand-new, CADPAT direct from the manufacturer, was a target that really wouldn't match up in real life anyway since, I'd be willing to bet, the IR-reduced signature of either combat or flying clothing would be significantly reduced after only a few washing cycles anyway.  At the end of the day, I'm happier to have one and two-piece flying gear in nomex today than the polyester/wool stuff we used to have (dark green/tan in the 80's leading to blue (and tac hel OG107) in the 90's).  Camouflage to make the gear look the same as my Army brethren I fly would be an added bonus, but it is not a "hill I'm going to die on" yet when there's a whole lot more kit that would be nice to have first (personal locater beacons, etc...)  That we have fire retardant flying clothing now is a big win from days past.  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2006)

We wore a nomex floater/flight suit on the hovercraft in the CCG


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Apr 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We wore a nomex floater/flight suit on the hovercraft in the CCG



IIRC (Inch or SeaKingTacco can correct me if I'm off   ) the aircrew immersion suit has a nomex outer shell -- makes sense since the Sea King guys are most likely wearing a poopie-suit most of the time.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (28 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> IIRC (Inch or SeaKingTacco can correct me if I'm off   ) the aircrew immersion suit has a nomex outer shell -- makes sense since the Sea King guys are most likely wearing a poopie-suit most of the time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey




A little off topic since I don't think the crunchies will need an immersion suit, but.....

http://www.mustangsurvival.com/products/product.php?id=314

Here's our suit. I had no idea that it was flame "resistant" as they put it. I have my doubts though that the latex seals will stand up to any amount of heat.


----------



## Big Red (28 Apr 2006)

Why not just buy 1 or 2 piece US issued Nomex tan flight suits?  I don't see any need for testing, the design works. The only improvement I could suggest is pockets on both arms.


----------



## KevinB (28 Apr 2006)

Damn that solution is only $180 USD / set (the SOCOM ones are bit more since they have velcro and arm pockets...)

But I guess not enough made in Canada boondoggle... :


----------



## ICE Tactical (28 Apr 2006)

The last nomex flight suit contract for DND was won at about $130.00/unit. That was in AirForce green. That was down from previous contracts from Peerless and others around $180.00. Printed Universal Camo Nomex for US CVC and flight suits costs about $5-10 more per yard than solid colors. $1200.00 for a CADPAT flight suit is insane. The Canadian textile industry is milking CADPAT for everything they can.

Hobey


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

And for those looking for undergarments that are FR:

Kermel makes them as does Helly Hansen, pretty wide selection, IIRC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2006)

> Here's our suit. I had no idea that it was flame "resistant" as they put it. I have my doubts though that the latex seals will stand up to any amount of heat.



It won't.  If you are ever in a fire with your "goon-bag" on, you will have a permanently installed latex seal on your wrist and neck...good luck picking up chicks downtown Halifax with that look    We are supposed to get a new suit "anyday" now that will get rid of the neck and wrist seals and also change the liner (we are still using the same material as the liners from the OG107 combat coats were made from.  They don't keep you warm when it's cold or breath when it's warm), but I guess "anyday" won't actually occur until some fighter pilot, who wears his immersion suit once per year, decides he doesn't like it.  Until then, there is no point in listening to the 150+ MH guys who wear it daily...

As for the saga of the flight suits-  The blue flight suit was a disaster.  I remember wearing that thing in the Gulf in 2000.  Imagine a wool/polyester flight suit over cotton long underwear in a helo (cabin temp 45C, relative humidity 85%) for a 2.5 hr mission.  After 30 minutes, you were soaked with sweat.  The suits would get stiff and hard when wet and would rub you raw on the neck and wrists.  Post flight, you stunk like a wet dog.  Of course, trying to get anyone in the Air Force interested in our plight was near folly- everyone was too busy trying to find a flight suit that would look good at air shows or in the office.  By the end of our tour, we got sent some "experimental" nomex suits that were like a gift from the heavens- breathable and did not soak up moisture.
Before that tour, I tried the same end run around our supply system that our CF-18 brethren did when they bought US flight suits and abandonned blue flight suits.  I was told categorically "NO".  Apparently, there are two completely different standards that apply to ALSE in the Air Force- 1. whatever the fighter guys want; and 2. the rest of us.  Thankfully, now we are all in Nomex, but you still run into the odd wierdo who laments the passing of the blue flight suit- mostly on the grounds of "air force tradition"...

If the Army and Air force are converging on a common crew/flight suit design- I have no problem with that.  Just make sure it is reasonably breathable and fire proof...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2006)

"but I guess "anyday" won't actually occur until some fighter pilot, who wears his immersion suit once per year, decides he doesn't like it."

"Apparently, there are two completely different standards that apply to ALSE in the Air Force- 1. whatever the fighter guys want; and 2. the rest of us"

Ah you've got to love inter office politics.

SKT do they not do some kind of trials which would have pointed out the problems of the blue suit?


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2006)

Don't recall seeing this link in the thread: http://govsupplyco.com/


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Apr 2006)

Big Red said:
			
		

> Why not just buy 1 or 2 piece US issued Nomex tan flight suits?  I don't see any need for testing, the design works. The only improvement I could suggest is pockets on both arms.



1 Wing did, in 1999 and then again in 2002, more than 500 sets of it.  1 CAD (at the time, not the Air Div of today  ) authorized it (guys on the DIN can check the Operational Airworthiness clearance on the 1 Cdn Air Div site) but the HQ wouldn't pay for it.  I was the 1 Wing ALSE guy who then procured it from the US Army supply system (with SOCOM's permission).  At the time, the suit was only being issued to 160th SOAR(A) but I spoke nicely to the item manager on behalf of our guys going in to Kosovo and hooked up with a guy I knew from years past who gave it a Nightstalker thumb's up.  This is the same rig I was wearing while flopping around the Red Desert in a CH47 south of Khandahar a  few months ago.  It is very light-weight (only 4.5 oz/sq.yd) and very breathable.  It was designed after Somalia and came in to US aviation SOA service in mid-90's and general aviation service in early 2000's.  Newer versions now have upper arm pockets much like the ACUs for the ground guys.  I like the two piece a bit better than the one piece when you're packing a thigh holster, I'm not as big a fan of the cop/shoulder-style holsters.

It really is "too" easy to do.  I personally don't see where the substantive issues are...

Re: the blue suit...it was purely the Comd AIRCOM of the day directing that blue would happen as he thought is was a good way of celebrating Air Force pride and looking good.  Quite frankly, I didn't think there was anything wrong with my 1-piece tan and dark green suits and was happy to see the 2-piece OG107 tac hel suits come along in the late 80's as well...blue was just plain stupid, IMO -- don't forget, "fashion before function", afterall!  :
Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2006)

Duey aren't you in a postion of change or influence?


----------



## Big Red (29 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> I like the two piece a bit better than the one piece when you're packing a thigh holster, I'm not as big a fan of the cop/shoulder-style holsters.



I like the 1 piece because of it's loose fit, and its easier than putting on pants AND a shirt    We just wear duty belts with our drop legs and don't have any problems.


----------



## Loachman (29 Apr 2006)

We can probably all argue endlessly which of the three services is more hidebound and rigid in its thinking, but I'd vote for the a** f**ce.

There is some deep psychological identity-crisis problem that refuses to die, along with a lack of historical knowledge - not to mention logic.

The real RCAF did not paint, dye, upholster, or carpet everything blue as has become slavishly mandatory these days.

Flying clothing was grey, which at least gave a downed crewmember a better chance of escaping and evading than the pretty-boy-blue garbage did. They even had the gall to print "Coverall, Flyer's, COMBAT" on the user label on the blue junk.

And now that we finally have green flying clothing and CADPAT, somebody has to ruin it with blue T-shirts, rank insignia, and name tags (that can't be read more than six inches away except under direct sunlight)...

As a 400 Squadron tech said in the canteen right after the briefing on that several years ago, to the cynical amusement of all, "why don't they just go back to dickies"?

Style over substance anyday.

I'm still waiting for them to issue the pills that make our bodily wastes conform to the obsession with blue.

The RCAF didn't call its bases "wings", either - they were "Stations". Wings are the equivalent of a brigade. A former Commander Air Command decided that we had to have wings again, but got it all wrong.

As for the heat/sweat/eau-de-wet-dog issues, that was not confined to the blue clothing; it was characteristic of the wool/poly fabric that flying suits had been made of for several decades up until now.

In my Kiowa days in 427 Sqn we drank with the recce and arty officers (and nurses when available) in the messes in Pet rather than with the slug (Huey) drivers as we worked very closely with them. When the blue stuff came out (service dress uniform and flying clothing) we became "you a** f**ce guys".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2006)

And all these years they told me the grass was greener on the bluer side.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2006)

Having come from the green side (artillery) to the blue side (maritime helicopter), I would have to say that everything Loachman says is true.  The "Air Force" as an institution, reminds me of that insecure kid who always tries to hard to fit in or be cool- and never does.  The "Air Force" does not appear to tolerate dissent or welome change- even when that change is required for it's fleets to operate in a manner necessary to support the customer- either the Army or the Navy.

Even though MH and Tac hel makes up 50% of the cockpits in the CF, everything in the system seems geared toward producing and sustaining 48 fighter pilots.  I'm not arguing against fighters- a grown up country like Canada needs fighters.  I'm just saying that, it is not 1960 anymore.  We don't have 23 fighter squadrons- we have 2 plus an OTU.  A slight rebalancing of who gets the staff attention is LONG overdue.  In my humble, 14 year Captain, two occupation opinion... 

I've dragged this thread way off topic- Mods, I apologize.  Nomex-good, polyester/nylon/rayon- bad.


----------



## redleafjumper (30 Apr 2006)

In reading this thread through the thing that makes the most sense to me is that wool should get another look.
It insulates well even when wet or dirty, is relatively fire-resistant and abrasive resistant. Wearing appropriate clothing loose and in layers is always the way to go.  An additional clue is to consider how the locals dress, just like LCol Lawrence did.  On a trip I took in the Western Sahara in 2001, I was astonished at the layers of heavy loose wool and cotton clothing that the locals wore.  I was even more surprised to see them roll up in heavy camel blankets (wool) to sleep in on the sand.  Apparently the heavy blankets are not only warm, but they also help keep the snakes out.  As a northerner, I didn't see the need for a blanket until I saw the snake marks on the sand in the morning.  (I guess I was too big to snack on, and the snoring must've scared it off!)  The clothing choices that they wore kept them insulated from the sun as well as insulated from the cool nights.  

Wool and wool blends really deserve some consideration.


----------



## COBRA-6 (30 Apr 2006)

+1 redleaf,

modern Merino Wool and blends of could replace polypro and fleece in temperate and cool climates, and manufacturers are cluing in to the needs for fire-resistant tactical clothing. In addition to the gear company I linked to in a previous post, I stumbled across this link today for DriFire clothing.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Apr 2006)

Redleaf, wool is not a bad thing, but it is not fire retardant, it charrs and turns into an ash that falls away (at least it doesn't stick to skin like melted synthetics).  When used with dual layer clothing (cotton undergamrnets) as SeaKingTacco and Inch mentioned earlier, the combination of outer and under layers gives a reasonable flash flame protection.  One has to remember that these burn tests with CF wool/poly flight gear were biased a bit to the "make it out of the fireball" crowd in fighter operations, vice the "stay with the burning piece of crap all the way to the ground" helicopter or transport crowds.

Quagmire, I had more influence in an ealier life (one of several staff job), now I'll just be one of those mangey, cranky, plaintive operators complaining about why stuff hasn't been done 10-12 years after many of us equipment/clothing staffers pumped numerous UCRs on the crap stuff (including multiple proposed solutions  -- never complain without a proposed solution, after all) up the equipment chain.

Loachman, you mean you don't proudly sing the RCAF marchpast in the morning and thank your "lucky" starts you work for the CF's self-stated "employer of choice"... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## redleafjumper (1 May 2006)

Duey, I agree with your assessment of wool; I didn't claim that it is fire-retardant, merely fire resistant.  It seems to me that it is one old natural fibre that still has a lot to give.  It has served armies well for centuries in all sorts of difficult climes, including Persia.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 May 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Duey, I agree with your assessment of wool; I didn't claim that it is fire-retardant, merely fire resistant.  It seems to me that it is one old natural fibre that still has a lot to give.  It has served armies well for centuries in all sorts of difficult climes, including Persia.



RLJ, indeed you did!  Mea culpa!   My melon must have read retardant vice resistent (hmmm...maybe my brain is made with nomex fibres instead of wool...  )  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Loachman (2 May 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Loachman, you mean you don't proudly sing the RCAF marchpast in the morning and thank your "lucky" starts you work for the CF's self-stated "employer of choice"...


Is hell still above zero?

I have to find my old "Provisional Headquarters Canadian Army Aviation Corps" sign and mount it in my corner of the cubicle. It's in a box somewhere.


----------



## KevinB (8 May 2006)

Re-reading this I still feel ILL when thinking of this order (albiet given in the spirit of a good idea) when you think about the material that the CADPAT TW and CADPAT AR uniforms are made of...


----------



## Good2Golf (8 May 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Re-reading this I still feel ILL when thinking of this order (albiet given in the spirit of a good idea) when you think about the material that the CADPAT TW and CADPAT AR uniforms are made of...



Yeah, Kev...less the lycra, not much difference...the burned on "second skin" would just be a little less form fitting...  :  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Loachman (9 May 2006)

Just like when they were pushing the flame protection qualities of our old flying clothing it included highly flammable velcro, nylon liners on the summer and winter jackets and bunny pants, and ACRYLIC collars and cuffs on the summer jackets.


----------



## sgtdixon (19 May 2006)

Hey Im an Armoured Crewman...theres gonna be nifty new stuff for me?
yea, and SgtMaj Howie will shit me tiffany cufflinks and tell me he loves me.......  :threat:


----------



## Laps (26 Jul 2006)

Saw some 2 piece NOMEX (well... whatever the brand of fire retardant fabric it was) CADPAT Flight suit the other day.  Boys at 403 Sqn are getting them.  Too bad it has to be ruined by blue/red/rainbow patches.  Also, you got to like the fact that they issued them to the only not field deployable unit for testing and evaluation.  God forbid they would have used 408 as we spend about 11.5 months out of the year on exercise...  Kind of like getting cooks, clerks and MatTechs the responsability to eval new body armour / Tac vest...

I agree with a bunch of people here, the CADPAT nomex would be nice, but there are so many things that we more urgently need that this is probably not a big priority.

I would really like to get better Fire Resistant / retardant under garment...


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2006)

Laps, it's a slight step up from stuff being all tested in Comox, becasue as somebody from DAR once told me, "Comox has the greatest cross-section of AF MOC's in a single location."  Whatever....  In the end, on this one DAR pushed where the suit was tested, boys at 403 had nothing to do with the choice.

Besides, you guys are getting a *bigger* present... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Laps (26 Jul 2006)

Oh Duey, now I fell like a kid on Christmas eve...  What is that present?????!!!!????   

Probably be posted (to 403???) before I get to see it.  Oh well.

I am not blaming the 403 boys, but rather that the choice was not necessarily well made.  As I said previously though, every little bit helps.  I would however like to see a different pattern if we are going to go with a new 2 pc flight suit.  I really like the American model where you can take you shirt off and put it back on without the hassle of re-tucking it every time.  I would also like to be able to roll up the sleeves a la combat shirt.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Jul 2006)

Laps, stay where you are....403 will live on without you!  ;D  The present is *BIG*

FWIW, I fully agree with you about the pattern...at the very least, more of a cadet-style/mandarin collar and not tucked in...like the US tan hot-wx two-piece for Kosovo.  That stuff is nice and light yet fully protective.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2006)

Are you talking about the Chinook?


----------



## Loachman (28 Jul 2006)

My guess would be that the 403 Sqn guys with it belong to LATEF.


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2006)

What fire protection to we get from the combat uniform?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jul 2006)

I nice carmalization of CADPAT.


----------



## DropZone (29 Jul 2006)

Gentlemen,

Thanks to the marvels of modern textile science, many manufacturers, including ourselves are racing to get underwear into production that performs like the popular athletic styles and is FR rated.

FR rated underwear is not new, but FR underwear that is "wicking" certainly is.

The best of both worlds!

Kind Regards
Brian Kroon


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jul 2006)

Keep us posted DZ.


----------

