Home › View ›

Army Refuses To Confirm or Deny It Has Cancelled the Interceptor Body Armor Program

Submitted by Guest on Fri, 11/18/2005 - 06:00.
in
Source: DefenseWatch/SFTT.org
By Nathaniel Helms

DefenseWatch has learned that the Interceptor OTV body armor development program has been very quietly cancelled and that the Department of Defense will cease buying its home-grown body armor at the end of its current production run. A Department of the Army (DA) spokesman Wednesday declined to confirm the report.



The Interceptor OTV body armor system (L.) was developed during the Nineties in a joint U.S. Army – United States Marine Corps development program by scientists and engineers working for the Department of the Army's U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick, Mass. Interceptor body armor was initially fielded about four years ago and is intended to protect its wearers against Level III threats presented by some small arms projectiles and shrapnel. As good as Interceptor armor is, numerous experts concluded, it is far less capable than another product sold on the open market.



A source close to the situation told DefenseWatch the decision to cancel the program after spending almost half-billion dollars buying the body armor carries with it heavy penalties for American war fighters and their Coalition partners as well as the American taxpayer. The same source said the order to terminate the program goes into effect when the current contracts are filled. As usual war fighters will ultimately bear the heaviest burden because the DOD currently does not have a body armor prototype or even a concept that is better than the Interceptor body armor already fielded, several sources confirmed.



An expert in contact with scientists at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick told DefenseWatch they are currently dealing with breakage problems with the Interceptor's ceramic armor (SAPI) plates including unconfirmed reports that up to 60 percent of its hard armor sent to the field has broken when its gets slammed around.



Spokeswoman Jo-Ann DeLuca, from the Public Affairs Office at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick said October 17 that, "PEO Soldier now manages the Interceptor Body Armor program for the Army and we have been directed to refer all calls to them. They determine who can answer questions on this item."



Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier was created by the Army "with one primary purpose: to develop the best equipment and field it as quickly as possible so that our Soldiers remain second to none in missions that span the full spectrum of military operations," according to the Army. Deb Dawson, the designated PEO Soldier spokesperson headquartered at Fort Belvoir, VA did not return telephone calls or acknowledge e-mails sent there over a two week period by DW regarding the Interceptor program.



Left: BG Vincent K. Brooks, Chief, US Army Public Affairs. Photo: DOD



A DA spokesman who did respond to the DefenseWatch inquiry Wednesday labeled the e-mail sent directly to BG Vincent K. Brooks earlier the same day as a "DefenseWatch Magazine Ultimatum" and declined to comment on six allegations presented in it. Brooks currently serves as the Chief of Public Affairs for the United States Army and is responsible for all communications issues involving the United States Army.



The allegations presented to Brooks for response were:



• The DOD has quietly and privately cancelled the Interceptor OTV body armor program at the end of its current production cycle.



• The so-called SAPI (Small Arms Protective Inserts) used in the Interceptor system are too fragile and incur about a 60% loss/replacement rate in the field because the design is inherently brittle and fractures when dropped or slammed into solid objects such as the ground. Further the Interceptor system does not offer the wearer complete (wrap around) upper torso protection from Level III & Level IV threats when such protection is available in other body armor systems already in production.



• The Interceptor OTV armor system was sold with a 10-year warranty which cannot be enforced because the armor is inherently defective and ill-conceived and has not lasted four years much less the ten [years] anticipated.



• The design folks at Natick, MA labs knew of these deficiencies - or should have known of them - when Interceptor body armor was deemed capable of production for the war fighters as well as knowing that there were better products available on the market and immediately available. The better products were superior to the Interceptor design in every field test done at Natick and the ARL at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland prior to ordering Interceptor armor into production. The alternative product is 30 to 40 years ahead of the Interceptor product in design and is already known to surpass the stopping requirement of Category IV and in some instances Category V capabilities.



• So-called STF "liquid" body armor under development between the ARL/Natick and the U. (University) of Del. (Delaware) is not a viable alternative and will not be fielded any earlier than 5 years at a minimum and ten years as a matter of practicality - if ever.



• The DOD is exploring the potential of multi-layer hexagonal mosaic body armor as an alternative but this alternative previously failed to meet specifications when considered as a vehicle armor alternative. The benefit is that the patents have expired and it is available for exploitation using a product under development in Greece.



DW went directly to Brooks in a last-ditch attempt to obtain answers to dozens of unanswered questions raised by serving Soldiers and Marines fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who wear Interceptor armor.



DA spokesman John P. Boyce, a representative of the Army Public Affairs, Media Relations Division in Washington, D.C. instead replied,



"We will certainly continue to address news queries about tactical equipment and efforts to protect our Soldiers. I am equally confident we likely won't influence your below 10 a.m. CST deadline Thursday to release your allegations. We've addressed these issues before, and certainly with more notice than a 3:54 p.m. E-mail the day before your deadline would be happy to help you."



Left: Interceptor body armor even with attached SAPI plates does not provide all-around torso protection for the wearer. Recently war fighters in Iraq were warned by official sources that insurgent snipers are now being trained to aim for unprotected areas of the body. Photo: Randy Bartlett



Apparently the Army's happiness does not extend to answering questions or responding to allegations made by Soldiers and Marines bearing the brunt of the war. DefenseWatch began making inquiries to the Office of Public Affairs in early October before the series "Is America's Best Getting America's Best" was published beginning October 19, 2005.



On October 28 DW was referred to to Mr. David Foster, another Pentagon spokesperson by Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, still another PAO assigned to OPCA at the Pentagon. At the time DefenseWatch had asked the DA to comment on the apparently superior qualitites of a Pinnacle Armor product called "Dragon Skin" over the military-issue Interceptor system. Foster subsequently told DW he needed to confer with his program managers before responding to the magazine's inquiries.



"Sir, I have received your request (email and voice message) regarding Dragon Skin Body Armor and I have forwarded the request to SMEs," Foster replied the same day. "Please advise what publication your article will appear in and the approximate date. Will provide status to you on Monday [October 31, 2005].



DW replied almost immediately. At the time of this report Foster is apparently still conferring with the SMEs. After being shunted around and around the Army's public affairs merry-go-round the issue ultimately landed in Brook's already full lap.

Despite the reported cancellation of the Interceptor program it does not mean the two primary contractors earning millions of dollars making the vest-like armor and its associated "systems" are out of luck, several experts said. The equipment carries a ten-year warranty that will keep Armor Holding, Inc. and Point Blank, Inc. in the black for a long time replacing equipment that already fails in the field about 60 percent of the time, according to Pentagon sources.

Armor Holdings, the current darling of the Pentagon's body armor acquisition process, has been awarded $443.4 million since March 15, 2005 to produce Interceptor OTV body armor and ballistic helmets for the Armed Forces. On July 13, 2005 Armor Holdings, Inc. was selected as the exclusive provider to replace up to 156,000 new vests to replace a like number of defective armored vests Michigan-based Second Chance (Inc.) made for the Army and Marine Corps between 2001 and 2004. At the time of this report Armor Holdings has not responded to the DefenseWatch inquiry.



The Second Chance vests are being replaced because they do not meet the military's own manufacturing standards. But because of huge shortages in body armor those same vests are still being worn by service members serving in the Global War on Terror, court records showed. Second Chance Body Armor declared bankruptcy last year following fraud allegations. Before Second Chance failed it earned millions of taxpayer dollars making defective body army for DOD.



On May 4, 2005, the U.S. Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor vests manufactured by Point Blank Body Armor. On July 20 Point Blank received an additional $10.1 million contract from the U.S. government for even more Interceptor vests. At the time of this report Point Blank has not responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.



Adding insult to injury is the dismal quality of the so-called SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) plates warriors are issued to attach over the basic Interceptor vest. The plates are so fragile that the thin slab-like ceramic plates are delivered to the war fighters in boxes labeled "Fragile – Do Not Drop," according to Soldiers and Marines who have received them. Despite the SAPI plate's shortcomings on Aug 08, 2005 Armor Holdings received a $14.4 million order for Ceramic Body Armor Inserts after receiving a $45.2 million order for U.S. Army Ceramic Body Armor Inserts on July 5, 2005, according to DOD records.



The Interceptor body armor program has been bedeviled with problems since its inception that numerous public inquires, scandals, and legal battles attest to. Although Interceptor body armor is remarkably good armor compared to what war fighters were issued thirty years ago, it is generations behind body armor conceived and produced by a civilian company that is already available on the open market, the DefenseWatch inquiry revealed.



As this article was going to post Thursday morning, November 17, Boyce sent the following e-mail in response to DW's request that the DA deny or confirm that the Interceptor body armor program has been canceled. The reader can decide what it means:



"Mr. Helms, the U.S. Army fielded more than 873,270 Outer Tactical Vests, so you may definitely say we are still using Outer Tactical Vests as well as personal body-armor technologies to protect our Soldiers," Boyce said. "Soldier protection is the highest priority for the Army. As new technologies emerge, the Army aggressively works with industry to develop, test, produce and rapidly field the best possible equipment, and get it into the hands of our Soldiers."



"... and the Soldiers and Marines getting shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan are left holding the bag,'" added one source who sells body armor to the armed forces. "That is always how the safety and security of our troops is taken care of at the Pentagon."



DefenseWatch Editor Nathaniel R. "Nat" Helms is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, long-time journalist and war correspondent living in Missouri. He is the author of two books, Numba One – Numba Ten and Journey Into Madness: A Hitchhiker's Account of the Bosnian Civil War, both available at www.ebooks-online.com. He can be reached at natshouse1@charter.net. Send Feedback responses to­ dwfeedback@yahoo.com

Page: | 1 |

This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.