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 would ave been spent on body armor since august 2008. Both of
these have predominately been for the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts. I also know that in 2013 the pentagon awarded two contracts worth a total of 158 million dollars to two companies.
The
soft body armor used by the military has roughly a IIIA NIJ rating, or is 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 per year, most of which was for, the Iraq and Afghanistan effort. With the new armor in 2013, this might be an additional 16 million per year, or around 60 million dollars, with a number of potential 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 overestimated the guess by 10 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. To purchase 700 million dollars worth of body armor a year would be 2.3 times more than the 200,000 interceptor vests we bought back in 2004, the largest single expenditure on body armor in the last 10 years.
I actually support the B-2 bombers, F-35 planes, and other high grade military equipment we have, despite it's price; 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 of these items, of which we are planning on buying thousands of F-35's, 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 just a small fraction of it's total cost. The cost of body armor at the
moment is nearly negligible, meaning we could theoretically spend gratuitous amounts on body armor without much issue, and yet the armor has trouble stopping rifle rounds and threats currently faced by troops every day. 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. At 50,000 dollars per unit, which would likely be more expensive than we would really need, we would spend 10 billion dollars for 200,000 units, to provide armor for our entire deployed troopscape, which we could easily afford every year, let alone when replacements are desired.
Carbon Nano-tubes
An option I'm not necessarily suggesting, but theoretically could work, and that will also hopefully give a
sense of scale, is nanocomp armor CNT (carbon nano tube) armor. Carbon nano-tubes. An
example of Nano-comp armor, or CNT armor, 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 level II NIJ armor capabilities assuming minimum capabilities. Comparable Kevlar
armor vests of this armor rating are generally around 6-8mm in thickness.
Assuming minimum capabilities, this
makes the nano comp armor roughly 3 times stronger than Kevlar on a
thickness to thickness ratio. Since carbon
nanotubes are around 1.3-1.4 grams per cubic centimeter while Kevlar is
around 1.4, the mass is comparable, making carbon nanotubes approximately 3 times stronger in terms of weight. The target cost is around 350-400 dollars per kilogram, so
each pound is likely 160-180 dollars. But, let's just assume it's going to be
500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, taking into account certain variables, shipping costs, or some other cost not accounted for. 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.
Put in another perspective, Kevlar EOD suits can be around 50-80 pounds. They generally protect from large projectiles, fragmentation, and general explosives, although they are heavy, bulky, and trap in enough body heat to the point where they can cause heat stress, and aren't expected to be worn for more than 1 hour without some form of internal cooling. A suit that was 3 times lighter weight, at the same strength, would only be approximately 26 pounds; since the carbon nanotubes are more heat resistant than Kevlar, and potentially have other admirable properties, the armor could be a lot thinner, ignoring the rubber and foam, and potentially eliminate heat issues. However, such a suit, if at 500 dollars per kilogram, or 230 dollars per pound, would cost about 6000 dollars, or roughly four times that we spent on interceptor body armor. Despite this, the costs to our over-all military would be negligible, or for our deployed troopscape, 1.2 billion dollars. If the material was 4 times stronger than Kevlar, and used potentially dyneema over plastic for fragmentation disentegration, it could easily be around 20 pounds.
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. Still, assuming they did function correctly, and were relatively strong
M5 Fiber
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.