In any event, the PASGT helmet was adopted, and was received quite favorably overall. There was some grumbling about its shape, with a brim which caused significant reductions of field of view when compared with brimless helmets, and there were numerous complaints about its webbing harness system, which was both uncomfortable and exhibited extremely poor blunt impact performance.
The Modular Integrated Communication Helmet (MICH) was a PASGT-derivative project spearheaded by USSOCOM that sought to correct those deficiencies. It kept the aramid shell, but removed the brim, made slight changes to the overall geometry of the shell to better enable the use of communications gear, and replaced the webbing with foam padding. The MICH was also slightly lighter than the PASGT &#; in part on account of changes to its geometry, and in part due to slight advances in aramid technology and composite processing methods that allowed for a lower volume fraction of resin. [7] The MICH was received extremely favorably, and, with some minor modifications, was adopted by Army as the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) shortly after its introduction. The ACH became the Army&#;s primary combat helmet in the mid s.
The MICH and ACH, unlike the PASGT, were rated to stop handgun threats. The ACH specification demands, as a condition of lot acceptance, that helmets stop the 124gr. 9mm FMJ at +50 fps. Backface deformation limits were set at 16mm for the sides and crown, and 25.4mm for the front and rear of the helmet. The ACH&#;s performance against fragments is improved by 10% over the PASGT, with a minimum 17gr. FSP V50 at feet per second. [8]
The ACH, MICH, and PASGT are all &#; like the steel helmets of old &#; generally incapable of reliably stopping rifle rounds. The Army&#;s Inspector General, in a report to Congress on the performance and capabilities of the ACH, noted: &#;The ACH is not designed to provide ballistic protection from threats more lethal (for example, higher velocity, or larger mass) than a 9mm FMJ RN. Field data indicate that the ACH performs well against its intended threats, but is penetrable from rifle threats that are most commonly seen in theater. A new product called the Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) is currently under design and development to defeat threats more lethal than a 9mm FMJ RN.&#; [9]
The ECH program began in , with a mandate to produce a helmet with a 35 percent increase in fragmentation protection and protection from certain rifle threats common in Iraq and Afghanistan &#; at the same weight as the ACH. [10] This was deemed possible with the utilization of UHMWPE fiber composite materials, which were at that time enabling very light armor plates, and had been in use in very lightweight French military helmets &#; such as the CGF Gallet &#;SPECTRA&#; helmet &#; for nearly two decades.
By late and through , many ECH helmet prototypes had been produced and submitted to the Army. Overall, performance against fragments was 53% better than the ACH, performance against the 9mm FMJ was roughly 10% better, and performance against a certain rifle round was 153% better. [10] It must, however, be noted that these numbers are not perfectly unambiguous. Against the 9mm FMJ threat, the ECH had to comply with helmet backface deformation requirements &#; that is, it had to stop the round with less than 16mm/24.5mm backface signature onto a clay headform. Against the rifle threat, those backface deformation requirements were deemed &#;too restrictive.&#; So there was no requirement at all, and testing was performed on a pass/fail basis where, even should the helmet utterly cave in, it would still &#;pass&#; if the projectile were stopped.
The ECH, at $840/unit, was also exactly three times more expensive than the ACH, which cost the US military $280/unit.
In light of these facts, the Operational Test & Evaluation Office of the Secretary of Defense (DOT&E) recommended that the Army not buy or field the ECH. They held that the unit cost is too high and that Soldiers wearing the ECH would have an unacceptably high risk of death or severe injury from excessive backface deformation from rifle threat bullets. The Army Office of the Surgeon General &#; which, decades before, had spearheaded the Hayes-Stewart and PASGT helmets &#; concurred with DOT&E&#;s assessment and recommendations.
In a subsequent report on the state of the ECH program, the US Navy noted that &#;while the ECH protects against perforation by the specified small arms threat, it does not provide a significant overall improvement in operational capability over currently-fielded helmets against the specified small arms threat. The deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat impact exceeds accepted deformation standards across most of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH is therefore unlikely to provide meaningful protection over a significant portion of the threat&#;s effective range. The ECH provides improved fragmentation protection compared to the fielded Advanced Combat Helmet and the Light Weight Helmet (LWH).
&#;[..] It is unknown, definitively, whether the ECH provides protection against injury when the deforming helmet impacts the head. There is, however, reason to be concerned because the deformation induced by the impact of a non-perforating small arms threat exceeds accepted deformation standards (established for a 9 mm round) across most of the threat&#;s effective range.&#; [11]
The ECH was nevertheless fielded in limited numbers, and has been quite favorably received by troops and command. Insofar as the single most common small-arms threat in theater was the 7.62x39mm MSC ball round, and insofar as the ECH is capable of stopping that round, the introduction of the UHMWPE helmet was a success. That the ECH has extremely good resistance to high-velocity fragments must also be noted as a strong point in its favor.
The new IHPS appears to be to the ECH as the ACH was to the MICH. It is a helmet system currently in development that appears to be intended for general issue &#; as a total replacement for the ACH &#; that incorporates most of the features of the ECH. As of this writing (Nov ) it is being fielded in limited numbers. Like the ECH, it is made of UHMWPE, and its ballistic capabilities are seemingly identical to those of the ECH. The IHPS specification, like the ECH specification, expressly notes that backface deformation is to be measured when the helmet is tested against 9mm FMJ projectiles, but not measured when tested against rifle rounds. [12]
longkui contains other products and information you need, so please check it out.
Want more information on Bullet-Proof Helmet? Feel free to contact us.
The time in history decided what materials were used, and the army&#;s strategies affected how heavy and easy to move a soldier&#;s gear was. A soldier&#;s importance, no matter when or where, depended on their gear, especially the helmet, which was very important and expensive. The helmet protected the head and changed along with the weapons it was designed to defend against, showing how defense tools evolved over time.
For more UHMWPE Fiberinformation, please contact us. We will provide professional answers.