Skydex Blast Protection

[HItorMiss]

If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?

BULLSEYE!

 

[Fusaki]

If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?

I doubt it.

But that does not necessarily mean that skydex provides better protection. It could mean that skydex provides almost as good protection in a much, much, more comfortable package.

At least for me, personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice some protection if the comfort gains were drastic enough. While physical protection is good, uncomfortable gear will wear you out mentally - especially given the amount of time we spend wearing helmets.

 

[McG]

You yourself have retracted many statements about the protective values of the TV.

You are mistaken.  For one thing, the TV is load carriage & not PPE.  That aside, I have only ever made one claim on the protective value of the TV & I to stand by it:  The TV has been shown to have a characteristic which improves the blast protection of the amour when the two are worn together.

As I already stated, I don't accept manufacturers glossy brochures at face value hense the reason I destroy products I carry to see what they will take. 

Sounds like the Troy Hurtubise approach.  DND has done extensive blast & ballistic protection of in-service & commercial PPE employing scientific method and statistically relevant sample sizes.  You've taken a couple things out back and "destroyed" them. 

Yes I do find it frustrating, and to have yourself say we have to believe you, when you yourself do not provide supporting facts, makes it even harder. 

The cynic might point out that only one of us financially benefits from profits relating to selling goods through promising soldiers they will be better protected.  Others might also point out that I've at least demonstrated evidence that DND has done extensive testing of a broad spectrum of products in large sample sizes.  You have "destroyed" a handful of products out back (maybe enough for an anecdotal argument ... but have you covered all the threats?  ballistics?  blast?), and you have not tested CF equipment.  Your promise of better protection is based on a manufacturer's glossies combined with your own biases & assumptions.

.... are you refering to bump/blunt (tertiary) blast protection, or primary blast protection, which are two different animals. 

Shape only effects secondary, i.e. shrapnel unless the two different shapes provide additional coverage.  Primary (overpressure) protection isnt going to be effected for the most part by internal structure, but by the coverage of the outside, i.e. if it covers the ears, it will protect from overpressure, if not, you're eardrums will rupture

Yes.  There is a lot that happens in a blast event and that places different requirements on the helmet.  Shape (internal & external) is always a factor of how the helmet protects and that will affect the requirements placed on the suspension of padding.  You are correct that it is ballistic impacts in which helmet shape will place the most specific demands on the pads.  At the same time, you also know the official statement: there is no known pad system which provides equivalent or close ballistic protection compared to the issued suspension system. 

MCG, can you tell us whether anything suggests that the Skydex kits are a liability in the event of a blast? Given that they've become tacitly accepted most places I've seen, I'd like to know if I'm doing myself a disfavour by using it.

I do not have the specific information by brand name (and I don't need it) but if it were available to me, it would be protected information that I could not release.  Read what I have above in this post & take it for what it is worth.

If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?

It offers superior protection in the helmet for which it is issued.  Those units with different helmets would have to determine if (based on the characteristics of their helmets) the suspension is a better option in those helmets.

At least for me, personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice some protection if the comfort gains were drastic enough. While physical protection is good, uncomfortable gear will wear you out mentally - especially given the amount of time we spend wearing helmets.

Not just some protection. For ballistic (bullets & frag) the loss of protection is leaves you with something that is not close to the issued suspension.

 

[KevinB]

MCG - I know full where the tests are done, and for whom,I visited Valcatraz once myself 
  My point is that while I dont doubt the Lethality Lab and other elements at DREV  testing, I have an inside source that leads me to beleive some of the testing may not be as realistic as they should be, that source has also worked for the Aussies, and the US Gov.

Any vest system that keeps the PPE tight to the body and does not allow it to be ripped off in an event will increase its protective qualities -- saying that the TV does it - is like saying that rain is wet.  That is one of the design flaws of the CF PPE system - as opposed to the IOTV etc the US Army issues - or the Paraclete systems issued to DHTC.

One point on the OA etc system in the CF helmet - they really need to installed using the proper holes - and for that they need either the PVS-14 mounting plate hole or the NORTOS plate holes water drilled into the helmet prior to curing.
  There are a number of MSA etc folks over at Ligthfighter and the discussion on plate mouting and drilling have been very interesting.  Installing the suspension system without the fourth anchor point may give a comfortable ride - but it does not really off suitable stability in the event of an impact from SAF or blast effects.  IF the CF helemt was secured properly with the suspension system and pads - I suspect  that the results from the LL testing would be utterly different.

Just my 0.02 from the peanut gallery

 

[Mortar guy]

I hate to do this but I have to chime in here.

McG - I have access to many of the sources you are talking about and I have found no evidence whatsoever of trials or tests that show that the in-service suspension system provides better blast and blunt force protection than any alternative. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I just can't find anything anywhere in ADM S&T files, LFTEU, DLR, or anything like it.

I also find it extremely hard to believe that the leather and styrofoam system in our helmet, which was not designed to deal with blast1, is in some way superior to Skydex's closed-cell padding. The US Army has done a lot of studies regarding blast and head injuries and they seem to have no problem with Skydex pads.

Also, can everyone please drop the BS about "the shape of the helmet" being a major factor in blast protection. True, if our helmets were square and everyone else's were rounded, it may be a factor. But the difference in shape between our CG 634 and the MICH, for example, are not relevant when discussing blast protection.

MG

1. Our CG 634 was purchased based on its ability to protect the soldier from fragments/bullets and blunt force.

 

[Ecco]

McG - I have access to many of the sources you are talking about and I have found no evidence whatsoever of trials or tests that show that the in-service suspension system provides better blast and blunt force protection than any alternative. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I just can't find anything anywhere in ADM S&T files, LFTEU, DLR, or anything like it.

(Unfortunately), CASPEAN routinely has to post-analyze the performance of all personal protective equipment after ballistic/blunt/blast injuries. 
Unclass results are briefed at OPCIEWG and many other relevant venues, if you have any interest, it's very easy to get invited. 
You (seem to) claim having access to DLR shared drive...  Search for OPCIEWG under DLR 5 and take the time to read.  Or come have a chat with the ballistic guys at DLR/DSSPM/DREV, etc.
There are a huge numbers of high-ranking generals who spend a lot of time making sure we deliver the best "force protection".  If there was a better solution out there, they would force its quick procurement, as they have done for now countless items in the last years.

 

[KevinB]

MG -- a number of troops have installed the OA suspension without a 4th (front) mounting point - as such the helmet and suspension are not anchored around the head like on a MICH/ACH.
  I have seen a few use a small 'zap' strap to secure it to itself -- that in my non science guy viewpoint will cause problems if and when the helmet is tested on someones pumpkin.

Ecco - thoughts?

 

[Mortar guy]

Ecco,

Yup, checked OPCIEWG. Haven't yet seen anything that says Skydex pads don't offer the same or better protection. I'm not saying that OPCIEWG is saying our current leather/styrofoam solution isn't working, I'm just saying that I can't find any evidence of anyone saying formally that the Skydex pads don't cut the mustard. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

MG

 

[McG]

Surfing the DWAN you will not find anything that states brand names.

 

[Mortar guy]

Who said anything about surfing the DWAN? Try "surfing the K: drive"...

 

[BKells]

Thank you for the informative discussion. I haven't installed it yet... but debating now whether or not to do so. I'll follow this with close attention..

 

[Soldier1stTradesman2nd]

Interesting and relevant article found in the Aug edition of Popular Science - "Shock to the System

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-%2526-space/article/2008-08/shock-system

According to the author, blast waves may cause microscopic damage to the brain via blast waves moving through the body and blood. If true, anyone caught in a blast wave from IEDs or whatever may have more things to worry about than what padding system is in their helmet.

Also in the same PopSci - an interesting article about the US Army looking into helmet padding systems, some developed by football helmet manufacturers. Foam and air pads were mentioned.