Supplier Denies That The New US Military Helmet Is Based On

[frigidmagi]

businessinsider

The U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center is testing out what could be the next generation of protective headgear.

Developed by Revision Military, a company known for ballistic eyewear, this new modular helmet system was designed for the Helmet Electronics and Display System-Upgradeable Protection (HEaDS-UP) program.
Although the helmet bears a striking resemblance to the kind worn in popular combat warfare game, Halo, suppliers say this is a coincidence.

“I think military industrial designers and the entertainment industry look to each other for inspiration but this product was not modelled after HALO,” Revision marketing communications manager Jennifer Zimmerman said.
The HEaDS-UP system closely compares to Revision Military’s readily available Batlskin Head Protection System, which costs between $US1,600 — $US2,000. The U.S. Army had some specifications, however, after receiving high head trauma and injury reports from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It was specifically designed to help reduce the number and degree of facial injuries coming out of current conflict zones. System weight, human factors, and integration with other equipment were among the primary design concerns in developing this system,” Zimmerman said.

Revision’s helmet provides the following features (as specified in the Army contract):

Increase protection: A standard Army helmet can withstand a pistol round but now these helmets can take a rifle round. The helmet now covers the lower jaw and neck which are unprotected by current helmets and easy, exposed targets for enemy fire.

Reduce brain injury: An adjustable air liner inside the helmet can be pumped up like a Nike sneaker to provide an ‘air bag like’ cushion around a soldier’s head.

Integrate electronics: A ‘HEaDS-UP display (similar to Google glass) can be flipped down in front of a soldier’s eyeball to give mission status updates, battlefield maps, GPS locations of squadron leader, Medevac, etc … Basically, updating, integrating and enhancing the already developed ‘Land Warrior System‘.

Approximately 266,000 military members experienced a traumatic brain injury in the last 12 years according to military research organisation, BrainLine Military. Noted as the ‘signature wound’ of the Iraq War, traumatic brain injuries are caused by bullets or shrapnel striking the head or neck; blast from improvised explosive device (IED); blast from mortar attacks; and closed head wounds.

Director of Soldier Systems at Revision, Richard Coomber, explains the nature of modern warfare in the Middle East and why this updated gear is in high demand:

“You don’t really know whether the job you’re gonna be doing is going to be high intensity warfare, whether its going to be crowd control or whether its going to be humanitarian work … A solider never does one thing. A soldier has to be flexible enough in his training mentally and physically and with his equipment, to be able to rapidly move between these various scenarios.”

Revision’s head system starts with a standard Army helmet that can be modified for each mission.
“A soldier might not always need or want to wear full facial protection, components can be added and removed when needed,” Zimmerman said.

This design is essentially a ’2-in-1′ since a mounted soldier wears a Combat Vehicle Crewmen (CVC) helmet and a dismounted soldier wears a Army Combat helmet.

“We take the standards of today’s helmet and make them lighter, integrate electronics and upgrade the protection. There is no need to waste time switching helmets,” Brian Dowling, Revision Soldier Systems Program Manager said.

Click the link to see the actual helmet. I do have some questions. Like how are troopers breathing through that mouth piece? What happens if there's an NBC attack while wearing those things? How badly does the visor impede aiming?

[Lys]

I believe them, the thing looks like a militarized motorcycle helmet more than anything.

[rhoenix]

I didn't see any attachments that look like they give a full seal for the head in the article, so from the looks of it, airflow comes from beneath the helmet when the facial attachment is on.

The fact that it can take a rifle round now instead of just a pistol round is something, at least.

[frigidmagi]

Look I like the bullet proofness but let me be blunt.

It doesn't fucking matter if I can't breath while running in this helmet. Then I'm a good looking but slow bulletproof target for people who like to carry RPGs and I don't mean DnD books.

So again my questions: How the fuck do I breath with the mouth piece and what do I when there's an NBC attack?

[rhoenix]

Man, I got nothing. I didn't see a single thing about NBC or proper breathing airflow. The only real benefit I see is better head protection, but that's not really the main selling point of the helmet, according to the article.

[Lys]

I'm now picturing these actually being issued to the troops:

"Uh, I can't breathe in this thing, Sir."
"These are standard issue, soldier. You will suffocate and you will like it!"
"Sir, yes..." *gasps for air, dies*

[Karrick]

I'm a little concerned about the dehumanizing aspect of a full-face helmet, from both sides of it. People will do things while masked that they wouldn't do unmasked because of the sense of anonymity it provides them. On the other hand, it also makes it a lot easier to ignore that the person wearing such a helmet is in fact a person. Given our current areas of operation, that seems like a serious liability. You don't want to make our troops into inhuman looking monsters (any more than current combat getup does); it's bad PR on a personal level for people who have to interact with them.

[Lys]

Don't worry! We'll carve faces on the outside of the helmet so that people know our soldiers are still human and not creepy unfeeling killbots!

[Josh]

On the one hand I'd like to say that this is the sort of shit that'll get weeded out during actual testing.

Then I look at the early development cycle on the M-16 and say 'fuuuuuuuuuuck'.

[Norseman]

On the one hand I'd like to say that this is the sort of shit that'll get weeded out during actual testing.

Then I look at the early development cycle on the M-16 and say 'fuuuuuuuuuuck'.

IIRC the early M-16 had trouble because they used a cheaper type of smokeless powder and secondly because they didn't predict that people would use the barrel to pry open crates. Basically they turned out a piece of kit that worked fine as long as you used it as you were supposed to, without putting it to any unautorised improvised use.

[Josh]

There was also the fact that it wasn't in the caliber the army wanted and was not originally conceived of as a primary combat arm. It was a fancy space carbine for the Air Force security guys to carry around until McNamara whiz-kidded it along.

[Batman]

Nobody but the US Army wanted the calibre the US Army wanted by that time. The ability to kill a human being with a single bullet at a range in excess of 2000 metres is moderately useless when the only individual target you can seriously hope to hit at that range is Godzilla.
If memory serves part of the problem with the early M-16s was they were advertized as 'self-cleaning' so you didn't have to. Um-yeah, no, I don't think that's going to work out.
And as the the M-16 does seem to have evolved into a moderately reliable field weapon by now I'd say its teething problems did get weeded out. Eventually.

[Lys]

The Army did need something smaller and lighter than the M-14, which was basically a Garand with a detachable magazine and automatic fire, and a huge case of planning to fight the last war. McNamara figured he could save money by forcing them to use the rifle the Air Force was already adopting, one that was great for patrolling air bases but maybe not so great for jungle fighting. Then to lower costs further they changed the design of the rifle by removing anti-corrosive chrome lining from the bore and chamber, a move that would have fucked the rifle alone but was compounded by the also changing the cartridge powder. Neither change was run by the designer or tested adequately, and then to further the stupidity the Army declared the rifle was self-cleaning and failed to issue maintenance kit and instructions.

Those problems killed and injured a lot of our men. It sucked, and it gave the gun a bad reputation, but they were addressed and it's worked ever since. Sure a lot of American troops still thought the AKM was better, but you also had Vietnamese troops thinking the M16 was better too. You get a much better view of the enemy's bullets killing your buddies than you do of yours killing the enemy, which introduces considerable bias in the analysis. Note that the Soviets dropped the AKM and adopted a rifle with an even punier cartridge than 5.56 NATO in the 70s, and I've yet to hear any complaints about it. (They no doubt exist, because soldiers will complain about everything.)

McNamara made a fuckton of stupid decisions, to the point that I once heard an analyst say something like, "A major problem with the US military that is not McNamara's fault is purely theoretical." But the M16 wasn't that bad, he did save the Army all the time and expenses of having to develop and procure an entire new rifle, and the thing has served America well in the decades since.

[Lys]

Here's a quote from a February 1968 Department of Defense report: "The effectiveness of the M-16 rifle has been validated in combat operations in Vietnam under the most varied conditions of terrain, weather, and tactical situation. ... The M-16 has achieved wide acceptance throughout Vietnam. Only thirty-eight individuals of all those surveyed (2100) would like to exchange their M-16 for another weapon. Of this group thirty-five wanted the shorter, lighter version of the M-16 - the CAR-15. The greatest factor of its acceptability is its capability to deliver a high volume of lethal firepower at the critical juncture of a combat engagement."

That's a mere 2% dissatisfaction rate, which drops down to 0.1% if you discount those who want the shorter CAR-15. Sounds pretty successful to me.

[Josh]

Given the amount of ass-covering and fucked-upedness of the DoD during the Vietnam era, I'm pretty dubious of a '68 report on a controversial item.

It's worked out in the end, but the early go was cocked up. Which was my point.

[LadyTevar]

Back to the OP, people!!


In the article, there's a video which demonstrates the "B3" it protects against: Blunt, Blast, and Ballistic.
In the blunt, we see a dummy head/neck dropped on a hard object. The helmet and mandible do fine, but I think a broken nose at least, possible cheek fractures, as well as a LOT of damage to the spine from that neck snap.

Blast: Uhh... someone get the Mythbusters to rate that one. I see the helmets ripple from the overpressure.

Ballistic. The shot to the side of the mandible would break a jaw. The small projectile to the eye piece? ok, that did as promised.

In the pics, there seems to be about 1/2in between the nose and the mandible. Not sure if that is enough for breathing.