This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
worse tomorrow, so we always have to design for future protection, often against weapons that are not widely available or known about. Some work is being carried out


into protection against blast wave displacement, but in reality, we are still some ways off from really providing a solution, mainly because of the unpredictable nature of the blast and costs involved in carrying out significant testing. We may be able (with some very clever innovative thinking) to actually use the blast wave in some way to stop displacement (or such extreme displacement) occurring & my thoughts would be going to the aerodynamicists and stress engineers who design and manufacture various leading edge aircraft and cars which utilise these forces to stabilise their vehicles. There may be collapsible systems which could reduce the transmission of these forces back to the vehicle itself and thus improve the survivability of the vehicle (aluminium foams, honeycomb structures, multi skin spaced laminates, Newtonian Fluid and air and water filled systems etc) that are available today which could be implemented to improve the vehicle performance in this area. However, in order to drive forward


protection for our troops and vehicles and to realise the full potential of these materials and systems, we first need to alter our thinking about what we are using at present.


Many pieces of equipment and materials are being used, simply because they have always been used, or have a high profile associated with them (why buy a non-branded item if you can have a tried and tested piece from the big names that you have always used and believe to be a reliable supplier? Even though it may not be as good or innovative as something from the non-branded company? Piece of mind?) Is that a good enough reason?


Smaller companies exhibiting high levels of technology and good understanding of the requirement often don’t get a chance to supply many military programmes because they are not an established supplier and even if selected, the costs involved in ramping up to the levels required would often preclude them from entering as funding, in this current climate, is ever harder to find. Getting to meet the right people is not an easy job, and unless you have the ears of the right person, many people won’t even get a look in to showcase the systems currently available. Testing of these systems requires a considerable amount of money, running into many thousands of pounds, again, something which less established companies often cannot afford to do as often as they would like. Programmes do exist that encourage new technologies to be showcased, but these are few and far between and often don’t coincide with military programmes requiring this


type of technology. Integrators often leave the RFQ until the last minute before going to industry. Unless you are capable of stocking thousands or millions of pounds of materials on the off chance they will be required one day, many companies don’t have the capability of getting the materials to supply the tender (usually samples are required before down-selection occurs) as the lead times for these materials put the manufacture date outside of the available window. The MoD could affect some of these scenarios – a test range could be made available to all armour companies wishing to carry out testing. More programmes run by the likes of the CDE could be put into place, with a rolling entry date (say the 1st of each month) so that if and when new systems become available, they could be brought on-line ASAP, enabling the troops to have the best equipment for the job at the earliest date. Large programmes often don’t improve the soldiers lot as during the time the programme is running, new materials and systems will have been introduced that could increase protection without adding either cost or weight. If you were in the field, would you rather have the same as your comrade or something that has recently been introduced that offers you better protection?


Russell Ardagh, Optimal Armour Ltd


Handover of last Viking MK2 to UK Ministry of Defence pre bar armour. Photo credit BAE Systems


40


G3 DEFENCE


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com