View Single Post
Old 06-29-2004, 06:44 AM   #49 (permalink)
cosmoknight
Tilted
 
New armor is just around the corner as we have less soldiers they will nedd to be better protected. I no longer have the link but I saved the article about a spray on polymer that upgrades everything from normal clothing to Hummers.

Services test spray-on vehicle armor
Polymer-coated steel cheaper, lighter than ‘up-armoring’ with plates

By William Matthews
Special to the Times

While the Army urges Humvee makers to speed up production lines and turn out more up-armored versions, to send to Iraq, the Navy has discovered that it might be possible to protect existing vehicles with a spray-on polymer armor that’s lighter, cheaper, and — maybe — as tough as steel.

The Office of Naval Research has achieved promising results with spray-on armor applied to Marine Corps Humvees, Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, the chief of naval research, told a House subcommittee in March.

Using photos of Humvees hit by mine blasts, and a section of polymer-coated steel, Cohen demonstrated how the armor, sprayed on the bottom of the vehicles, could protect troops riding inside against explosions and shrapnel.

The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is testing the polymer armor to determine whether to start spraying it on Humvees headed for Iraq and possibly on Humvees already there.

If a spray-on, plasticlike coating seems an unlikely substance to protect troops against mines, roadside bombs and small-arms fire, it struck Navy engineers that way too, at first. “We don’t understand 100 percent how it works,” admitted said Roshdy Barsoum, a program officer in the ship, hull, mechanical and electrical systems science and technology division of the Office of Naval Research

“We have a panel trying to understand how it works.”

Traditional steel armor and newer ceramic armor “both have very high strength and toughness,” he said, so it is easy to understand how they repel bullets, shrapnel and the shock of explosions.

But with the polymer, “we’re talking about something more like rubber,” Barsoum said. Under ordinary circumstances, “people would have ignored it because it did not seem likely that it would be any good.”

The concept was actually born in the aftermath of the 1996 truck bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That’s when the Air Force began searching for novel ways to harden buildings against bomb blasts.

In late 1999 the Air Force began experimenting with “an elastomeric polymer” that is commonly used in the commercial world as a spray-on truck bed liner. Air Force Research Lab scientists reported that the truck bed polymer is “flexible, ductile and has modest strength.” But when sprayed on an unreinforced concrete block wall, the lowly liner proved to be remarkably effective at keeping the blocks from shattering when exposed to a bomb blast.

The Air Force’s goal was to find a way to keep chunks of concrete, brick and other construction material from fragmenting and killing people inside buildings. The spray-on coating is being applied to walls in the Pentagon, a defense official said.

The Air Force’s success with spray-on polymers caught the Navy’s attention in 2000 after a bomb on a small boat in the Yemeni port of Aden blew a 40-foot hole in the hull of the destroyer Cole, killing 17 sailors.

Cohen said he received an e-mail message from “a young man named Jake,” who suggested coating the interior of hulls with the blast-mitigating polymer to prevent bombs from rupturing steel hulls.

Navy researchers tried it and discovered that when the steel plating of a ship is protected by the coating, a hull struck by a bomb blast “might have gross deformation, but no penetration — and the kids on board, the sailors, would remain alive,” Cohen said.

The explosive-resistant coating came to mind again last fall when the Marine Corps was searching for a way to protect Humvees and trucks from the roadside explosives widely used in Iraq.

Tests at the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland showed that the spray-on armor is effective, Cohen said. But the Marine Corps has not yet decided whether to use the armor on vehicles bound for Iraq, Barsoum said.

The polymer is made up of long chains of cross-linked molecules, he said. Although judged by the Air Force to be of “modest strength,” it works as armor because it makes steel behave very differently, Barsoum explained.

“Most materials break under very high loading rates.” That’s what happens to steel when exposed to the blast of an explosion. But the polymer coating “makes it not do that.” Essentially, the polymer armor spreads out the shock of the explosion and limits the damage, Barsoum said.

The polymer armor is made of polyurethane, polyurea or a mixture of the two, according to Air Force researchers. It can be sprayed on, brushed on, poured on, or fashioned into sheets and attached like steel armor, Barsoum said.

It can be applied to the inside or outside of Humvees and other vehicles to limit damage from bombs and prevent metal fragments from being blasted free and wounding or killing vehicle occupants, he said.

Compared with steel armor, the polymer armor is lightweight and cheap. It weighs about 5 pounds per square foot, Barsoum said — about an eighth the weight of steel. At a cost of about $20 to $30 a square foot, a Humvee could be armored for less than $10,000, he said. Current steel armor kits for Humvees cost much more, he said.

If sprayed or painted on, the polymer armor easily can be applied to existing vehicles. Troops in the field could do it with relative ease.

“These are not dangerous chemicals,” although a face mask and protective clothing would be required during spraying, Barsoum said.

The armor’s light weight fits the military’s requirement to remain light and agile, he said.

One potential drawback, however, is that spraying armor on Humvees and trucks could increase the temperature in the passenger compartment.

“We have to worry about the folks inside — if they can still operate,” a spokeswoman for the Office of Naval Research said.

William Matthews is a staff writer for Defense News.

:

2 unarmoured Range Rovers had identical charges detonated under the left front wheel. One Range Rover was unmodified while the other had the spray on armour applied.

The unmodified vehicle had a blast hole through the floor AND the roof with the front seat vapourised. The protected vehicle did not have penetration even of the floor with only minimal deformation.
cosmoknight is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360