M
MikeL
Guest
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_carrier_plates_122109w/
Army defends choice of unproven plate carrier
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 22, 2009 12:35:12 EST
The Army is trying to quell criticism of its decision to buy an unproven plate carrier for soldiers in Afghanistan rather than the combat-tested model special operations forces wear today.
Soldiers have been questioning why equipment officials chose KDH Defense Systems to make the Army’s new plate carrier.
Launched in May, the plate carrier effort came as the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group and other Army commands searched to find ways to reduce the 130-pound loads soldiers shoulder in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The most vocal critic so far has been Sgt. 1st Class Jonathan Miller, who asked Sgt. Maj. of the Army Kenneth Preston to look into the issue, Miller wrote in a Nov. 5 Internet forum post on www.lightfighter.net.
Miller questioned why the source selection board in charge of choosing a new plate carrier tapped KDH after soldiers who participated in a “soldier protection demonstration” at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., told Army officials they preferred the Eagle Industries’ Modular Body Armor Vest, “a proven system” that is issued to the 75th Ranger Regiment.
“This decision points to a lack of common sense,” Miller wrote. “During a raging conflict in Afghanistan, the SSB chose a new and inferior system … over a proven, superior and currently fielded system — the MBAV.”
Program Executive Office Soldier officials, however, said KDH’s proposal won the $18.6 million contract in early October because it finished first in terms of performance, delivery schedule and cost.
During the soldier protection demo, “the highest rated was the Eagle MBAV — 92 percent of the guys said they would be willing to wear it on a dismounted mission in Afghanistan,” Col. Bill Cole, project manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, told Army Times Dec. 16.
“The next two were very close” at 88 percent, Cole said. “That was the KDH and the other was the [Tactical Assault Gear] Rampage.” But the soldier ratings in the SPD could only be used to develop requirements, not in the competitive source selection, equipment officials said.
“KDH submitted an iron-clad proposal — all their i’s were dotted, all their t’s were crossed,” Cole said.
KDH beat out three other firms to supply soldiers with an alternative to the current-issue Improved Outer Tactical Vest, which weighs about 33 pounds. The KDH in size medium weighs just less than 23 pounds when equipped with front, rear and side plates.
PEO Soldier officials say they have 1,200 KDH carriers so far and will begin fielding in early January. They expect to have all 57,000 carriers before the Feb. 28 delivery deadline, Cole said.
One of the biggest concerns soldiers have voiced is over the differences in soft armor protection between the KDH and the MBAV.
Miller wrote in his post that “the KDH system has two-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. The MBAV has a wrap-around cummerbund with integrated soft armor that creates over-lapping … protection from fragmentation.”
PEO Soldier officials downplayed Miller’s comments, arguing that the KDH carrier in size medium has 418 square inches of soft armor coverage compared with the MBAV’s 348 square inches of soft armor in size small-medium.
“If you want to talk soft armor coverage, the KDH has a lot more,” Cole said. “If you are worried about soft armor protection, you shouldn’t be wearing a plate carrier.”
In a written response to Miller, PEO Soldier officials said his concerns were “based on erroneous information.”
Miller said he doesn’t own an MBAV or a KDH carrier but wrote that his concern over the gap in armor in the KDH was based on conversations with an “individual with intimate familiarity with the program.” Army armor experts that have used the MBAV in Afghanistan told Army Times they agree with Miller that the gap in KDH’s soft armor is a serious concern.
Both the KDH and the MBAV can be worn with or without side plate and side soft armor protection. At its lightest configuration the KDH carrier, in size medium, weighs 4.69 pounds. The size small-medium MBAV-Army in a comparable configuration weighs 3.99 pounds.
The same KDH weighs 5.78 pounds when equipped with side soft armor and side plate carriers. The MBAV-Army weighs 6.02 pounds when equipped with the unarmored cummerbund and side plate carriers with soft armor.
Another concern among soldiers is that the KDH is unproven compared with the combat-tested MBAV, which elite units have worn since 2003.
PEO Soldier considered buying the MBAV, but Army officials said it would have to go through a competitive process because “there are a lot of manufacturers out there that can make comparable vests,” said Lt. Col. John Rickey, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment.
Fred Coppola, deputy project manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, said he is confident that the Army selected the right plate carrier.
”We can’t just go with MBAV because it’s out there and battle-proven,” he said.
