Why Transparent Armor Matters
My first official blog will attempt to make a compelling argument, not that transparent armor (TA from here on out) is necessary, but why it is necessary to look at TA separate from opaque armor. Of course opaque armor and TA have a number of similarities: both need to defeat the same threats, both are composites and, ultimately, both are protecting the warfighter. However, TA has not received the same attention as opaque and is viewed as part of a survivability package. This lack of scrutiny and assumption that the survivability guys are "working on it" has hindered the potential progress of TA over the years. Also, the single fact that TA needs to be transparent limits the materials and processes used to manufacture this armor. That 87% of kinetic attacks occur first and only at TA illustrates its importance. By nature, people shoot at what they can see. The see a head and shoot at it. They don't guess where the body is behind the opaque.
So let’s expound on a few points.
The survivability guys tend to be opaque armor manufacturers who have matured into survivability package designers, and good ones at that, to move their product. And while they try to understand TA, they are not expert. This is only a problem because the armor integrators work with the OEM vehicle manufactures who build trucks for DoD, putting us TA guys a few degrees of separation from the user. This can limit our interaction with the user who provided feedback and urgent needs. The type of information that allow us to drive focused improvements and identify R&D initiatives.
TA needs to be clear, duh! But what does that really mean for its development and manufacture? Well for one, the TA industry has a greatly reduced material list from which to choose then does the opaque. Because clear doesn't just mean clear, it means optical clarity, optical quality, light transmission and let’s not forget about UV light and night vision. This isn't the windshield of your Camry, or Bentley (if you got it like that). So TA engineers are fighting with one hand tied behind their back when trying to keep up with the opaque armor manufacturers.
Kinetic attacks, I don't care where or why, almost always start (and finish) at what the attacker can see. It's human nature. This could be an insurgent will a rifle, huge balls and burning desire to get to his 72 virgins (or is it 27?) attacking an Army convoy in Kandahar province, Afghanistan or carjacker who wants your Camry in Newark, NJ.
I'm not trying to say that TA has been wholly forgotten and I’m not crying in my beer. ARL has a great knowledge of TA and a number of serious programs to develop TA and the materials used in its composite, whether traditional or advanced. And the user community is becoming more interested in TA, its performance and life cycle. Weight savings at reasonable cost increases, or cost effective solutions as I like to call them, are maturing with user interest as well. All these topics will be addressed, or, at least, discussed in the future. All I'm saying is TA matters and is a highly technical industry that would benefit and mature better and faster with a little more direct attention and understanding. I ask for this attention knowing full well it can be a mind numbingly boring topic at times, but it sure beats getting shot in the face.
Transparent armour is, as you say,sometimes forgotten or backburnered
ReplyDeleteAn example from myprevious life
a certain vehicle was rated as protecting against 14.5 API soviet.
This is quite a hefty threat to hold out with glass!
sometime into thevehicles life the users support element asked the manufacturers rep, me, to approve a glass from a different vehicle as a replacement due to non availability. the problem was this other item was only proofed for 1/2" AP !
The trouble I had explaining the difference was unbelievable
Turned out the manufacturer had sold his small furnace used for tempering the glass, his new one had rollers too far apart to accept the small panels.
The solution of course was to switch suppliers to the guy owning the small furnace
but the customer rese3nted that he had been wrong more than he appreciated my finding his solution!
Testing TA is different from opaque in one crucail respect
Ta usually takes one hit( in such calibres) before being scrap. Opaque you can get the three in 4" usually before your buck is spent
There are a lot of small companies (start-ups) focusing on TA. I am not sure it is a forgotten piece of the puzzle. However, as noted it is hard to see out when it takes a hit. Unlike the good old fashion vision blocks it is easy for a enemy to shoot windows and reduce or eliminate outside vision. TA has its place, however as up-armor requirements increase it will be difficult to get the performance/cost/weight balance to work (ref JLTV). In up armored configuration high tech vision blocks can solve the problem. There is a company with vision block incorporating day and/or night vision which allows an operator to use it as a standard periscope or switch on the display and use it as a wide screen viewing device. Cheaper lighter more survivable than an up-armored TA. Maybe there is a point when TA is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteGary, I will rarely attack someone's opinion. I believe every option or idea can be valid. But I'm going to break my own rule. While I appreciate the fact that you took time to participate, I feel like you missed my point completely. Transparent Armor for a tactical wheeled vehicle and a vision block (usually reserved for tracked or tank like vehicles) are two completely different products that meet completely different requirements. A periscope is yet another product. TA for TWV's offer full range of vision, whereas vision blocks and periscopes are very limited in viewing area. So much so that most programs that utilize vision blocks and periscopes also require a 360 degree situational camera system, two completely different solutions with completely different survivability requirements. That there are start-ups is super, more power to them, but I would rely on experience if I was fielding any serious quantity of vehicles as does the DoD. Your JLTV reference is out of whack also. The reason JLTV may not fly has nothing to do with TA weight on its offerings. In fact the opposite, the reason JLTV may not fly, in my opinion, is because the M-ECV program will already meet most of the requirements, including MRAP survivability at an acceptable weight delta. Not sure what you mean by "an up-armored TA"? TA is stand alone armor whose composite is designed to defeat specific threats. I can only assume you rep (or are otherwise pushing) some start-up vision block company who, by your comments, are not doing anything new or innovative. I will certainly agree that TA is not always the answer, but the point of my posting was that for TA to be the best answer it can be, it needs to be viewed as a highly technical product whose progress would be increased with the participation of the user community. This is how opaque armor has progressed.
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify. JLTV reference is to the weight of TA in the higher level configuration not JLTV program as a whole. I agree with your comment on combat versus tactical vehicle applications for an old stye vision block. It worked when only combat vehicles were at the front of the spear. My reference is that when you up armor to higher threat levels the performance required from TA results in very heavy and thick. A vision block with a 180 degree camera (built in) and matched wide screen display (built in) provides far superior viewing than basic vision block (including zoom capability). So my point was in configurations requiring over matched threats a next generation vision block can save hundreds of pounds. I have talked with JLTV primes about an option of replacing TA with a next gen periscope for the highest armor level (replacing TA with opaque). Also assuming no good ideas can come from young companies or they lack insight leads to the same solution with no innovation. I appreciate your blog to support advancements in TA. However, do not ask the world for an opinion if you do not want one different from yours.
ReplyDeleteThere is no issue with the TA weight on the JLTV offerings. That’s not my opinion, that’s the programs requirement. Trading TA for a vision block is apples and oranges. I don't assume young companies can't innovate, but, by nature, they have little experience manufacturing. It's also wrong to assume an experienced company is not innovating. I never asked for an opinion, but do value opinions that are different from mine when educated. Your point that a vision block can save hundreds of pounds vs. transparent armor is understood. That's pretty easy considering by scale vision blocks are 10% the size of TA systems, they are not by area any lighter or thinner against the same threat, in fact, most times the opposite. And that still doesn't erase the visibility issue. Sure you can add cameras, but it's not the same as direct visibility. TWV's are built in an automotive style because direct visibility gives soldiers a natural understanding of their surroundings. Anyway, I'm glad to have some good natured debate stirred up here. If more than 6 people see this they may even be slightly interested.
ReplyDeleteChanging subjects a bit, I postulate that TA is playing catch up to OA because most militaries did not think much about vehicles needing protection in the rear areas (so to speak)until the last decade. Wheeled vehicles were either unarmored (rear area)or armored (combat area)with vision blocks.
ReplyDeleteNow the interest is in rear area wheeled vehicles with protection; this now requires much better fileds of view that provided by vision blocks. Hence, the militaries and suppliers are playing catch-up with TA development.