New Suspension for CG634 Helmet Not So Good for Jumping

[The Bread Guy]

Executive summary of the latest out of Defence Research and Development Canada-Toronto (.zip of entire 9 page .pdf report attached):

The CG634 Combat Helmet with modified suspension and fitting was tested to determine acceptability of impact properties for both the dismounted soldier and paratrooper roles, with different impact scenarios and peak acceleration criteria. A series of 162 uni−axial tests were conducted at 5 impact sites on 17 helmets that had been exposed to either normal room conditions, heat or water immersion.  Results showed that the modified helmet is acceptable for the dismounted soldier but not for the paratrooper specifically in a front or rear impact after heat exposure.

 

[PuckChaser]

Does anyone know if it was a COTS system used in this test as the modified suspension system, or something DRDC designed?

 

[Farmboy]

  From the sounds of the rear crank adjustment it sounds like a COTS product.  I know there is one on the market that does that, but can't remember the name of it.

  What's interesting though is that this is "unclassified". I was told the Oregon Aero BLSS kit and possibly the Skydex kit was tested a while back, but that the results of these test are "classified".

 

[PuckChaser]

What's interesting though is that this is "unclassified". I was told the Oregon Aero BLSS kit and possibly the Skydex kit was tested a while back, but that the results of these test are "classified".

[conspiracy theory]Its because those are the kits the troops buy, and "higher" doesn't want anyone to know their BS about the issued suspension system being safer is actually BS[/conspiracy theory]

 

[McG]

Actually, COTS products seem to be protected by the privacy act.  Just like your CF doctor cannot warn all the girls at the bar about your syphilis, the CF trials & testing pers cannot tell the troops which commercial PPE might be prone to catastrophic failure or which mine detector is most likely to fail in combat.  It is the reason that everything out of LFTEU is as a minimum PROTECTED (and as soon as you start getting into levels of protections then the documents start becoming CONFIDENTIAL or higher).

When we have COTS product performance information, it can be used internally for decision makers, but we cannot make the information public or pass it to individuals for their personal purchasing decisions.

 

[Farmboy]

Actually, COTS products seem to be protected by the privacy act.

So that would mean the helmet system in the first post is a DND development?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

If you look at the padding in the pictures enclosed with the report, it certainly looks like wheel has been once again redesigned.

At least they have acknowledged that a better (?) suspension system exists.  I can't wait to get it issued in 10 years!!

 

[McG]

So that would mean the helmet system in the first post is a DND development?

That is one possibility, but I don't know enough about this report to say.