FEATURE ARTICLE

February 2005

Truck Armor Kits Could Be Improved, Says Army Tester

By Sandra I. Erwin

The dramatic surge in the number and intensity of attacks against U.S. military vehicles in Iraq has prompted a rethinking of the Army’s approach to armoring trucks, officials said.

While the Army continues to apply steel armor to thousands of trucks, it also intends to seek new protective technologies that, if successful, could be adapted against future threats.

Commanders in Iraq have indicated in recent months that the bombs employed by enemy insurgents against U.S. forces vary constantly in their makeup and composition, making it virtually impossible for Army engineers and contractors to come up with a single armor kit that can protect from every attack, noted Col. John Rooney, chief of staff of the Army Test Developmental Command, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Rooney oversees the testing of armor kits before they get approved for use in Iraq. He has received literally hundreds of proposals from contractors vying for a share of the military truck armor market, which this year will exceed $4 billion. Only a handful of companies, however, have products that meet the Army’s requirements, Rooney said in an interview.

During the past year, Rooney has seen at least 207 armor proposals from more than 40 vendors, and more are on their way.

The Army by the end of 2004 had fielded 22,500 armored vehicles—a combination of Humvees with built-in armor, plus appliqué kits for light, medium and heavy trucks. That number will grow to 35,000 by June.

But once the urgent needs are met, Rooney suggested, the Army should continue to improve armor kits. The experience in Iraq during the past two years should help Army developers and engineers come up with novel ideas, he said. Insurgents, for example, have managed to build larger IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in response to the growing presence of armored vehicles. Rooney said these bombs range in size from a relative small amount of explosive to 500 pounds. In some cases, artillery rounds are sheathed in plastics explosives.

Improvements also could be made to the design of armored vehicles, he said. Windows are a case in point. “Some of the early windows in our armored cabs are inside,” Rooney said. “It takes space away from the occupants. If it’s outside, when a blast happens from an IED, the kit itself folds the window out. As kits have evolved, we make changes.”

Although many contractors profess to have the latest and greatest solution to the IED problem, most can’t deliver on their promises on the testing range, Rooney said. “Vendors claim they have great armor,” but in many instances the armor only protects against bullets, not IEDs. “A lot of fledgling companies don’t have a great deal of institutional knowledge on ballistic research. They come in with a product, but when we put it against the threats, they don’t perform very well.”

Although the preponderance of the armor kits in Iraq are old-fashioned steel, some vehicles have ceramic composite armor. Ceramic armor—touted by industry experts as the leading edge in the armor market—is far lighter than steel, but also much more expensive, and not always sturdy enough, Rooney said.

“Currently most of the composite solutions have not outperformed the steel. When you get hit on some composite solutions, the ceramic breaks up. If there is an ambush behind the IED, the bullets would go through that composite.” Steel, conversely, retains its protective qualities after the IED explodes. “That’s what we look at,” said Rooney. “Not just what happens with a single event, but what happens over time.”

Some ceramic armor has been applied to Humvees and heavy trucks, he noted. The Army’s Stryker armored personnel carrier also has ceramic armor. “The advantage is weight. The disadvantage is cost and durability,” he explained.

Ceramic composites generally are not produced in large quantities as metals can be, he said, but the weight advantage can be huge, especially with Humvees. “Metal solutions are good, but in some cases, they are too heavy and break the Humvee.”

At Aberdeen, armored Humvees are tested to assess the impact of the weight on vehicle performance.

“After 3,000 miles, we determine what parts are going to break and we request additional parts,” Rooney said. Most recently, he started conducting a 12,000-mile test. “We want to quantify what happens over the longer haul. Vehicles with kits are going to be over there for a long time.”

The weight of the steel is not a problem for larger trucks, whose hauling capacity is not substantially affected by armor, Rooney said. “We are not reducing payload in any of the medium or heavy trucks, because the trucks have the capacity to carry that extra weight.”

Armored cabs specially designed for medium and heavy trucks, however, have caused some trouble for engineers. “The biggest issue has been cab mounts,” Rooney said. In many instances, the mounting spots where all the weight is applied became “points of failure.” The Army fixed the problem by building sturdier cab mounts, but they have to be replaced regularly as they wear out.

Rooney said he is confident that innovative technologies will emerge as an adequate substitute for steel armor.

An upcoming test at Aberdeen, for example, will be for a protective coating that wraps around metal. “The Army’s position is that we will accept all ideas and test them.”

Back To Top