Body Armor and how we could do better

Increasing Body armor Capabilities






On the Aspect of Cost
The United States's military spent roughly $300 million dollars on interceptor body armor in 2004; an Interceptor system costs roughly $1,585.Theoretically, that equates to roughly 189,274 units or around 190,000 interceptor units; to my knowledge more armor has been purchased since then but I'm not entirely aware how many have been obtained or how much each vest costs.

60,000 MTV and IMTV (improved, modular tactical vest) vests have been purchased by the marines, and another 28,364 vests have been purchased by the navy. Assuming roughly the same price as the Interceptor, around 140 million extra dollars wpi;d have been spent on body armor since august 2008. Both of these have predominately been for the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts.

The soft body armor is at roughly NIJ IIIA rating, or capable of stopping 9mm rounds, .44 Magnums or anything below, but not rifle rounds.

This means that, annually, over the past 10 years, on average, the military has spent roughly 45 million dollars (to my knowledge) on body armor, most of which was for, presumably, the Iraq and Afghanistan effort. Even if it was 70 million dollars on average, annually, That would still be 1/10,000th of the nearly 700 billion dollar budget the military receives. The armor, worn by our primary troops, and individual units, human beings, people, is less than 1/10,000th of our total spending; and that assumes I've underestimated the guess by 35 million dollars a year. This equals roughly 3.5 Apache helicopters, half an F35, or roughly 1/10th of the cost of a single B-2 bomber. The armor worn by medics, tank crews, soldiers on foot, repair crew, practically everyone that can benefit from personal defense, is only given 1/10,000th of the total budget, practically nothing in comparison to our other purchases.

I actually like how much we spend on these expensive vehicles however, and I believe it wholly necessary given their capabilities; I'm not suggesting we getting rid of a B-2 bomber or half an F-35 in order to procure more body armor, but I think the relative costs put the issue of cost into perspective. The military could afford better body armor for it's primary troop scape (about 200,000 people deployed "over seas") for the equivalent of pennies of it's annual costs. The cost of body armor at the moment is nearly negligible, meaning we could theoretically spend gratuitous amounts on body armor, and yet the armor has trouble stopping rifle rounds. Cost is not a significant factor in my opinion, and if there was a more effective option available, say 10 times more expensive, or roughly 15,000 dollars per vest, it's over-all costs would be nothing compared to it's potential impacts (such as actually making our soldiers rifle resistant, opening up a whole new line of capabilities, and protection), or even the medical bills we currently pay, as horrific and awful as that is.

Another option I'm not exactly suggesting, but that will also hopefully give a sense of scale, is nanocomp armor CNT (carbon nano tube) armor. An example of Nano-comp CNT, that currently exists, is a 2mm piece of material, roughly the thickness of a few business cards, that is capable of stopping a 9mm round without significant penetration or destruction of the material. The company says it's targeting growth and maturation akin to carbon fiber, with a target material cost of $350/kg to $400/kg. I'm not sure if it's capable of stopping more rounds, what level of 9mm rounds (fired at higher velocities), or capable of withstanding repeated impacts, but this puts the armor at roughly II armor capabilities assuming minimum capabilities. Comparable Kevlar armor vests of this armor rating are generally around 6mm in thickness.

This makes the nano comp armor roughly 3 times stronger than Kevlar on a thickness to thickness ratio, assuming minimum capabilities. It's possible to assume it has roughly the same mass as Kevlar at this thickness, although it is possible it's slightly less, since carbon nanotubes are around 1.3-1.4 grams per cubic centimeter while Kevlar is around 1.4 The target cost is around 350-400 dollars per kilogram, so each pound is likely 160-180 dollars. Let's just assume it's going to be 500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, since this is only a predicted mass produced price, and it could be more. A standard 16 lb interceptor vest (made out of this material) would be around 3600 dollars or 2.3 times it's current price. This would have equated in a 690 million dollar cost for 192,000 vests, instead of 300 million, a negligible cost considering the billions spent annually. Perhaps almost equal to a B2 bomber (not that I don't support B2 bombers, I believe their existence and use is necessary). And this is assuming that the armor is 3 times as powerful, which it is likely 4, this is assuming the cost is 500 dollars per kilogram, which it is likely 350-400 (390-560 million dollars), and that there aren't potentially better nanocomp type materials already available. This would mean tripling the effectiveness of modern body armor assuming minimum capacities, for a practically negligible cost.

Although it's easy to see how such an armor system might not appear available. These products are only almost within mass production and their effectiveness has yet to face the rigor of the military or military testing, so perhaps unknown or untested complications will arise.

Something I do believe in supporting immediately is M5 fiber. M5 fiber is about as strong as Kevlar, at around half the thickness and weight, that is elastic, much more heat tolerant, and a very chemically stable material, meaning it's likelihood to break down due to UV, chemicals or heat is relatively low. It's heat tolerance is supposedly above that of nomex, making it potentially better than what current firefighters wear and also potentially useful against warm environments as general armor. Being an Aramid, it carries roughly the same properties as Kevlar, although the elasticity may make it over-all more durable and even potentially more capable for repeated impacts given it's ability to yield when stretch, rather than being permanently stretched and therefore weakened.

Liquid body armor, or nano silica particles suspended in ethylene glycol after being baked in an oven, is known to increase Kevlar's Strength by roughly 3.5 times it's current amount. The material is a non-newtonian fluid, meaning that it behaves like a solid under stress or impact, like corn starch. Four layers of STF-treated Kevlar can dissipate the same amount of energy as 14 layers of neat Kevlar (or 3.5 times, although it has worse performance against knives and low velocity impacts). In addition, STF-treated fibers don't stretch as far on impact as ordinary fibers, meaning that bullets don't penetrate as deeply into the armor or transfer as much blunt force trauma to the target; the researchers theorize that this is because it takes more energy for the bullet to stretch the STF-treated fibers. This means that, potentially, M5 fiber could be flat out 7 times stronger than kevlar on a mass to mass basis, and roughly on a thickness basis; this means that a typical interceptor vest could be 7-8 times more powerful, or powerful enough to warrant fully body armor or more body armor that's lighter but still retains more or equal strength. Combined with increased multiple shot protection due to increased stretch resistant and stretching capability, the armor may provide legitimate multiple round protection against extremely powerful rounds, and particularly against higher velocity rounds, potentially rifle rounds. Both liquid body armor and M5 fiber have higher protection against higher velocity rounds, potentially allowing for greater stopping power in a variety of generally high velocity rounds, such as rifle rounds or certain armor piercing rounds. I am not entirely aware of the costs, of either system, but even if it was 10 times the cost of current body armor it's cost would still be negligible. At 15,000 dollars per vest/suit, or 10 times current body armor costs, the entire military could obtain these, for 3 million individuals, for roughly 45 billion dollars, and those required would be for currently deployed troops and individuals in training; that would mean 4.50 billion dollars for 300,000, or for slow procurement over 10 years for the entire military or just for the active troops in combat zones/training scenarios. With a relatively high shelf life it shouldn't wear out over time, as well. At 150,000 dollars each it would be 1/20th the budget for those procured for just general combat troops and training, or 1/10th to 1/20th the cost over 5-10 years for the entire military (being fielded to combat troops first).

There are all kinds of options available that could be implemented relatively quickly with relatively minor expenses to the over-all budget. Even so, medical bills and logistical costs make up the bulk of our cost of deployment, in terms of money. Even less soldiers were required, due to their increased effectiveness, in the long term hundreds of billions of dollars could be shaved off, along with the cost of medical bills and veteran rehabilitation costs, which if the armor could protect against the basic threats faced today, from IED's to Ak-47's, would be relatively low.


Do I blame the military for the weaker body armor? No.

But I do somewhat blame people in Congress for most likely suggesting "that sounds expensive" when likely the cost would be nearly negligible and super expensive body armor would still be negligible costs and it's obviously fiscally and generally stupid to not get it. I wouldn't care if it was 10% of our budget, if it could or could have prevented 90% of our current causalities I would be happy, and it still would amount to nearly nothing considering all it would do.