Faulty gear puts troops at risk

The Australian ^ | February 11, 2006 | Cameron Stewart and Michael McKinnon

[Dundee]

Faulty gear puts troops at risk

THE safety of Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the elite SAS force, has been compromised by defective body armour, combat jackets and helmets, according to damning Defence Department documents.

The faults include combat jackets that glow in the dark, giving enemies an easy target, and body armour that cracks easily.

The helmets issued to soldiers have harnesses that are "worn, rusted and damaged" and are shaped in a way that makes it "impossible to sight a live claymore (landmine) in the prone position" while wearing them.

The documents reveal that the safety of SAS members -- on deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has been compromised by body armour that does not match the grey colour of their wetsuits for underwater operations.

In one case, a protective vest called Ultima issued to soldiers was so faulty its use was "suspended immediately" for troops at home. But those in the field were forced to wear the vest until a replacement became available.

"The operational use of the armour is to be suspended as soon as practicable," the reports say.

The Defence documents were obtained by The Weekend Australian under Freedom of Information laws following a successful challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

They contain a comprehensive log of defects, reported by troops at home and overseas, in combat armour, combat jackets, helmets, combat packs and boots.

The reports reveal that faulty equipment is a more serious and widespread problem than has been admitted by the Government, at times jeopardising the operations and safety of troops.

A Defence spokesman yesterday defended the performance of the Defence Materiel Organisation, the agency that buys combat gear, saying it had followed "strict government procurement guidelines".

"Army is committed to continual development and improvement of combat clothing and personal equipment," he said.

The documents warn that the new combat jackets issued to troops not only failed to offer camouflage protection but were "highly visible". "It appears as a bright glowing beacon when observed through night-fighting equipment," the reports say.

They reveal that no combat jackets fit women. "Females are forced to wear a jacket several sizes too big to accommodate hips. This leads to sleeves completely covering hands."

The jackets were highly flammable and collected such an amount of "dirt, sticks and prickles" in the field that they would be "unsuitable for operations overseas, due to the likelihood of AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) requiring complete removal of all plant matter".

The documents say the combat body armour used by troops in Iraq was faulty, with the plastic clips used to fasten the vest to the torso "continually fracturing and breaking". And the ballistic body plates designed to stop small arms fire were subject to cracking at the front and the back.

The reports warn that the helmets used by the SAS were poorly designed because, during night assaults with aerial fire, soldiers were forced to use tape to attach strobe lights to the helmets to aid target identification.

"This affects operational performance and safety," they say.

Soldiers on home duties complained that the older army helmets were "severely dented" and trapped the heat, potentially causing overheating.

There were serious problems with field combat packs, blamed for "causing multiple back injuries" and for being too small for operations in East Timor.

Soldiers reported that poorly designed combat boots led to large blisters, with one soldier saying: "It takes a good deal of my blood to soak into the leather to make them more comfortable."

Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland said last night the Government must explain why troops were so ill-equipped.

"The Howard Government's defence spending priorities have become outrageously skewed when they are willing to have a billion-dollar open chequebook for Iraq while our dedicated serving men and women are equipped with badly designed clothing and faulty gear."

[Dundee]

Both side of politics say they fully support our defence forces but they sure as hell don't fully fund them. Every time we tell the politicians what it will cost to defend the country, both sides run screaming. $17 billion is nowhere near enough to properly defend Australia but to spend more would mean either cutting back on social services (which the left won't do) or spending more of the budget surplus (which the right won't do either).

[Owl558]

"A Defence spokesman yesterday defended the performance of the Defence Materiel Organisation...saying it had followed "strict government procurement guidelines"

I guess the procurement guidelines didn't specify that the jackets SHOULDN'T burst into flames.

[Chode]

The documents reveal that the safety of SAS members -- on deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has been compromised by body armour that does not match the grey colour of their wetsuits for underwater operations.

i doubt they will see toooo much water in Afghanistan

In one case, a protective vest called Ultima issued to soldiers was so faulty its use was "suspended immediately" for troops at home. But those in the field were forced to wear the vest until a replacement became available.

this one is stooopid beyond belief... the other option is NO VEST AT ALL...??? i'll wear it till the new ones come, you won't have to FORCE me.

The documents warn that the new combat jackets issued to troops not only failed to offer camouflage protection but were "highly visible". "It appears as a bright glowing beacon when observed through night-fighting equipment," the reports say.

ANY TAN uniform will look like a ghost at night thru NVG!!!

They reveal that no combat jackets fit women. "Females are forced to wear a jacket several sizes too big to accommodate hips. This leads to sleeves completely covering hands."
wonderful... ROLL UP THE SLEEVES!!!

The jackets were highly flammable and collected such an amount of "dirt, sticks and prickles" in the field that they would be "unsuitable for operations overseas, due to the likelihood of AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) requiring complete removal of all plant matter".

QUARANTINE??? this is pathetic.

Soldiers on home duties complained that the older army helmets were "severely dented" and trapped the heat, potentially causing overheating.

HOME DUTY??? these wankers are whining about dented helmets at HOME??? you've GOT to be kidding me...

There were serious problems with field combat packs, blamed for "causing multiple back injuries" and for being too small for operations in East Timor.

all right... now i'm gonna be sick!!! the packs are TOOOO SMALL and are causing back injuries???

the packs are toooo small cause of the girls who can't carry a regular one and are STILL getting injured with the SMALL ONES!!!

(/RANT)

[drachenfels]

As for jackets "glowing" when viewed w/ night optic gear... if you wash your clothes (any uniforms) in soap with 'brightner' in it, ANYTHING will glow when viewed with Nods. Seems that something in the soap actually attaches itself to the fabric, and is highly visible to night optics.

It's not the equipment, it's the info on how to care for it, or what to NOT use on it. See http://www.army.mil/leaders/leaders/sma/booknotes/2005december.html and scroll to the bottom where it discusses what laundry detergents contain brightners, and which ones don't.

cheers

[Chode]

yup, enzymes positively glow under black-light too...

[JRandomFreeper]

I have an entire set of uniforms in my go-bag that have never been washed with anything but the correct soap, and have never seen starch.

I look nice in garrison with my shiny boots and sharp creases, but those uniforms will NEVER see use in the desert. In the field, I expect to look like a slob, or be invisible. Both are acceptable.

/john

[YOUGOTIT]

I think yours and ours are in greater danger because of the media in the United States and some members of the US Senate, when the terrorist think they are winning due to the media lies and the US Senators support they will try harder, just like the North did in Vietnam.

[El Gato]

This report sounds like one from whatever operational test and/or combat performance evaluation activity that Austrailia might have.

Each US service has an operational test organization, which is supposed to test equipment under as close to combat/war conditions as possible, before the stuff becomes general issue. By law that command is to be independent of the organization which purchases, or contracts for development of, all equipment. The Army's unit is the Operational Test Command, at Ft. Hood, which is a component of the Army Test and Evaluation Command, the other major componet of which conducts developmental tests. The Air Force has the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center which is a direct reporting unit (DRU) under Air Force Headquarters and is situated at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque NM.

The Navy and the Marines have similar organizations. There job is to help see that stuff that, while it meets it's formal specifications, is not yet ready for prime time, doesn't get to the field with such glaring problems. The problem is that many times the stuff is already ordered by the time the early examples are tested, and there is often not enough budget to conduct proper testing. A second mission is often to go to the field to investigate the performance of newly fielded systems. "The field" in this case meaning Iraq, Afghanistan, and various other places in the region.

This report sounds more like a report of one of those expeditions. If you don't know what's wrong, you can't fix it. The people who do this sort of thing are often quite frustrated with the appauling (to them) lack of suitability of the stuff that comes out of the developemental pipeline.

The Soviets used to be quite good about having real soldiers (airmen, sailors as appropriate) test the stuff during and after developement, before it went to the production organizations, and then again testing the production models, just to be sure that "producability" changes didn't mess up the functionality.

OF course the Soviet military didn't have the same sort of budget problems, until the very end at least. Their weakness was lack of quality control in the factories. So that even stuff that was well designed, came out as cr@p, after the drunken factory workers got done with it.

[Chode]

absolutely. workers world motto: they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work...