In my latest blog post, I delved into the essential parameters for choosing the right ballistic helmet for your needs, covering mission profile, protection level, coverage surface, weight, liner and harness, ancillaries, and budget. I also briefly touched on some logistical elements under liner and harness.
In this post, I will focus on the pros and cons of the main materials used in ballistic helmets (e.g., Aramid and UHMWPE) and provide insights into maintenance and logistical considerations for ballistic helmets.
Aramid and UHMWPE
The U.S. Army introduced the PAGST Helmet In the early 1980’s, the first widely fielded helmet in synthetic material (e.g., Aramid, AO Kevlar). Since then, most modern armies have a been equipped with an Aramid helmet resulting in significant experience and technological advancements.
The French Army introduced the F2 "Spectra" Helmet in the early 1990’s, the first widely fielded helmet in UHMWPE (Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene). Various modern armies have been equipped with UHMWPE helmets.
Today, both materials (Aramid and UHMWPE) are lighter and more resistant than their predecessors.
The main advantage of UHMWPE helmets lies in their higher resistance to penetration (even against some rifle projectiles) in a lighter package. However, UHMWPE relies on deformation to absorb the bullet/shrapnel energy, leading to larger back face deformation (BFD). The question of acceptable deformation (depth and surface)/energy transfer is widely debated and it’s relatively safe to say: no one knows exactly…therefore the less the better! Another disadvantage of UHMWPE is the stability to temperature. It seems that UHMWPE will lose quite some performance over 70°C, a temperature easily reached under the sun in various locations or in the trunk of a car in the summer for example. To date, very little information on BFD is shared regarding UHMWPE helmets and rifle rounds. If manufacturers would disclose the BFD on their helmets through third-party testing, along with information on temperature conditioning (heat), this would provide a better understanding for those making the choice of which helmet meets their needs.
On the other hand, Aramid offers long term, structural and temperature stability resulting in lower back face deformation. It is also known for easier fulfillment of testing protocols (mainly VPAM). The main drawbacks include the inability to stop rifle projectiles and heavier weight compared to UHMWPE.
Maintenance and logistics
When Special Forces acquire a new helmet, performance and weight are paramount, with logistics and price taking the back seat. However, for a broader acquisition, maintenance, logistic and price considerations are equally crucial.
Supply chain
As we have seen during the COVID-19 era, the ability of the supply chain was seriously compromised. Having a supply chain within European borders makes sense. This has become evident again during the most recent conflict in Ukraine, where the ability to supply is compromised when the supplier of parts/materials is in distant lands. This leaves us reliant on partnerships that can be very easily influenced and changed.
In the following I will discuss some relevant parameters to consider choosing your ballistic helmet.
Size range
How many helmet sizes are needed to cover all the users - six, three, one…? The more sizes you have, the larger the logistical burden becomes! You’ll require additional codification numbers (e.g., SAP, NSN) not only for the helmets themselves, but also for all the spare parts, which may vary in size (e.g., straps, liners, pads, rails). Another challenge is the so-called "size-reserve" - the more sizes you offer, the more helmets you need to ensure you can equip all the users (as you don’t know their head size(s) in advance)!
Changing parts
Evaluate the time and skills required to change parts such as straps, liners, pads, rails, etc. Whether you need to unscrew/screw or simply unclip/clip a part makes a significance difference for logistics. Consider how many sub-systems are necessary and the cost of spare parts. If all you can do is change the complete helmet liner with straps, the workload will be short and easy, but the replacement part will likely be expensive. Additionally, identify which parts need replacement for hygiene purposes (e.g., give the helmet to another user).
Refurbishment
Examine refurbishment possibilities (changing rim, replace the protective layer, etc.), with Aramid helmets generally offering more options than UHMWPE. The impact on the environment as well as long term cost saving measures are aspect that need careful consideration.
Washing resistance
Confirm if industrial washing and reusing liner parts align with the specific helmet.
RFID/QR-Code
Ensure easy electronic verification of helmet production dates for protection level and OEM warranty.
In conclusion, selecting the right army helmet requires a thorough understanding of your mission and logistical requirements but, along with a prioritization of your needs. You should understand and analyse each parameter before writing the requirements and approaching the industry.
Both Aramid and UHMWPE have their merits. If you seek a rifle grade or super-light helmet, UHMWPE is the choice! For long term stability, temperature resistance, lower back face deformation, refurbishing capabilities, Aramid is the optimal selection! Write your requirements smartly, analyse each parameter, and choose wisely!
Comments