Warfighter Support
Information on Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads Gao ID: GAO-09-768R July 28, 2009Combat soldiers operate in diverse environments and face injury threats that place demands on the protective equipment systems they use to provide consistent protection throughout a range of temperatures and threat magnitudes. Protective helmets are one of those systems. In addition to protecting against ballistic threats, Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets are now designed to absorb energy in order to reduce head injury risk from blunt impacts; previous combat helmets, such as the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet in use until 2002, were not designed to provide any tested levels of blunt impact protection. The currently used Army Advanced Combat Helmet and Marine Corps Light Weight Helmet are outfitted with a pad suspension system to protect against these threats. These pad suspension systems have been found to offer superior blunt impact protection over the older sling suspension systems. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 directed GAO to review ground combat helmet pads. In response, this report focuses on two objectives: (1) Who currently provides the pads used in Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets, and how were they chosen? and (2) What efforts and research have been undertaken by the Army and Marine Corps to improve helmet pad performance and helmet technology? In addition, we have included information on servicemembers' use of helmet pads that are not approved.
Both the Army and the Marine Corps currently use pads that are manufactured by Team Wendy, a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, and are supplied through National Industries for the Blind, an organization that packages and supplies helmet pads to the Army and Marines through the AbilityOne program. These pads were selected based on the results of prior Army testing, as well as value. Helmet systems, including helmet pads, have undergone a variety of tests, including tests to judge their relative protection in comparison with the sling suspension system and tests to judge comfort and ease of use. The Army and Marine Corps are actively seeking new options to improve helmet technology. In 2007, in an effort to spur industry to design a more effective pad system, the Army issued a request for information seeking an off-the-shelf technology solution that could increase blunt impact protection over the current performance standard. The current testing standard for blunt impact protection requires that a helmet dropped at a speed of 10 feet per second be able to diminish the force to which the wearer's head accelerates to under 150 g.2 According to Army officials, the request for information called for the same degree of protection at a drop speed of 14.1 feet per second, with the ultimate objective of increasing this drop speed to 17.3 feet per second. To date, no manufacturer has submitted a pad system that passes the testing at 14.1 feet per second, but the Army believes that this call for an improved technological solution will motivate industry to develop better performing pads. Additionally, the services are looking for new alternatives for protecting against blunt impact injury. This effort includes outreach to other countries and sports organizations, and research into the causes of traumatic brain injury.
GAO-09-768R, Warfighter Support: Information on Army and Marine Corps Ground Combat Helmet Pads
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-768R
entitled 'Warfighter Support: Information on Army and Marine Corps
Ground Combat Helmet Pads' which was released on July 28, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-09-768R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 28, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Warfighter Support: Information on Army and Marine Corps
Ground Combat Helmet Pads:
Combat soldiers operate in diverse environments and face injury threats
that place demands on the protective equipment systems they use to
provide consistent protection throughout a range of temperatures and
threat magnitudes. Protective helmets are one of those systems. In
addition to protecting against ballistic threats, Army and Marine Corps
ground combat helmets are now designed to absorb energy in order to
reduce head injury risk from blunt impacts; previous combat helmets,
such as the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet in use
until 2002, were not designed to provide any tested levels of blunt
impact protection.[Footnote 1] The currently used Army Advanced Combat
Helmet and Marine Corps Light Weight Helmet are outfitted with a pad
suspension system to protect against these threats. These pad
suspension systems have been found to offer superior blunt impact
protection over the older sling suspension systems.
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 directed
GAO to review ground combat helmet pads. In response, this report
focuses on two objectives: (1) Who currently provides the pads used in
Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets, and how were they chosen?
and (2) What efforts and research have been undertaken by the Army and
Marine Corps to improve helmet pad performance and helmet technology?
In addition, we have included information on servicemembers' use of
helmet pads that are not approved. A timeline of events regarding
helmet technology is included in the attached enclosure.
In April 2009, we provided congressional staff with a preliminary
overview of our work, including our scope and methodology. This report
summarizes that briefing and includes additional information
subsequently obtained from Department of Defense officials. To conduct
our review, we interviewed officials from the Army, Marines, and
Defense Logistics Agency, as well as representatives from National
Industries for the Blind, which packages and supplies helmet pads to
the Army and Marines. We also met with representatives from two helmet
pad manufacturers at their request. Further, we reviewed and analyzed
test reports and other documentation related to helmet pad performance,
although we did not evaluate the reliability or validity of the testing
or test results. A detailed scope and methodology is included at the
end of this report. We conducted this review from December 2008 through
July 2009.
Results in Brief:
Both the Army and the Marine Corps currently use pads that are
manufactured by Team Wendy, a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, and are
supplied through National Industries for the Blind, an organization
that packages and supplies helmet pads to the Army and Marines through
the AbilityOne program. These pads were selected based on the results
of prior Army testing, as well as value. Helmet systems, including
helmet pads, have undergone a variety of tests, including tests to
judge their relative protection in comparison with the sling suspension
system and tests to judge comfort and ease of use.
The Army and Marine Corps are actively seeking new options to improve
helmet technology. In 2007, in an effort to spur industry to design a
more effective pad system, the Army issued a request for information
seeking an off-the-shelf technology solution that could increase blunt
impact protection over the current performance standard. The current
testing standard for blunt impact protection requires that a helmet
dropped at a speed of 10 feet per second be able to diminish the force
to which the wearer's head accelerates to under 150 g.[Footnote 2]
According to Army officials, the request for information called for the
same degree of protection at a drop speed of 14.1 feet per second, with
the ultimate objective of increasing this drop speed to 17.3 feet per
second. To date, no manufacturer has submitted a pad system that passes
the testing at 14.1 feet per second, but the Army believes that this
call for an improved technological solution will motivate industry to
develop better performing pads. Additionally, the services are looking
for new alternatives for protecting against blunt impact injury. This
effort includes outreach to other countries and sports organizations,
and research into the causes of traumatic brain injury.
Background:
Prior to 2002, both the Army and the Marine Corps used the Personnel
Armor System for Ground Troops helmet that was equipped with a sling
suspension system consisting of an adjustable leather band fastened
around the head, as well as other supporting straps. Starting in 2002,
however, the Army began evaluating new helmets and eventually fielded
the Advanced Combat Helmet. The Advanced Combat Helmet uses a seven-pad
suspension system affixed to the inside of the helmet using hook pile
tape and was modeled after a similar helmet, the Modular Integrated
Communications Helmet, then in use by Special Operations Command
soldiers. Figure 1 shows the differences between the sling suspension
and pad suspension systems.
Figure 1: Sling and Pad Suspension Systems:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Photographs of:
Sling suspension helmet;
Pad suspension helmet.
Source: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
[End of figure]
Concurrently, the Marine Corps also adopted a new helmet--called the
Light Weight Helmet--to replace its Personnel Armor System for Ground
Troops helmets. Although the Light Weight Helmet has a shell shape
similar to that of the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet
and provides the same coverage, it is constructed with lighter weight
ballistic material that provides equivalent ballistic protection. When
initially fielded, the Light Weight Helmet also used a sling suspension
system, albeit somewhat modified. In 2006, however, the Marine Corps
replaced this modified sling suspension system with the same pad
suspension system used in the Army's Advanced Combat Helmet.
The Army and the Marines Currently Use Team Wendy Pads Supplied by
National Industries for the Blind on the Basis of Army Testing,
Approval, and Value:
Both the Army and the Marine Corps currently use pads that are
manufactured by Team Wendy, a pad manufacturing company based in
Cleveland, Ohio, and are supplied to them through National Industries
for the Blind on the basis of Army testing, approval, and value. Helmet
systems, including helmet pads, underwent a variety of tests, including
tests to judge their relative protection in comparison with the sling
suspension system. In 2005, the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research
Laboratory reported on its evaluation of the blunt impact protection
offered by pad suspension systems versus sling suspension systems. In
that evaluation, the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory tested
the Advanced Combat Helmet with its standard pad configuration against
two types of Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet sling
suspension systems: that of the infantry and that of the paratrooper,
of which the latter includes some padding in addition to the sling. The
U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory found that the pad suspension
system offered superior blunt impact protection to either of the sling
suspension systems. Again in 2006, the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research
Laboratory tested pad suspension systems against sling suspension
systems, this time assessing six different pad systems from five
different manufacturers against the sling suspension system then used
in the Marine Corps Light Weight Helmet. The U.S. Army Aeromedical
Research Laboratory found that while all but one of the pad systems
passed the Army's blunt impact protection requirements, the Marine
Corps Light Weight Helmet sling suspension system did not pass.
Furthermore, while the test did not explicitly state which pad system
performed the best, the data presented in the report indicate that Team
Wendy pads were the all-around best performing pad system.
In addition to the blunt impact protection performance of helmet pads,
the services also consider the comfort and ease of use of helmets, and
they conducted user evaluations to assess the form, fit, and function
of helmets. In March 2009, the Department of Defense reported on the
most recent user evaluation of helmets. This limited user evaluation
tested four helmet pad sets from four different manufacturers in both
the Army Advanced Combat Helmet and the Marine Corps Light Weight
Helmet. The evaluation found there was no significant difference in the
form, fit, or function of the helmet pads tested.
To date, based on the results of the testing performed, the Army has
approved pad systems made by two manufacturers--Team Wendy and Mine
Safety Appliances--for use in its Advanced Combat Helmet, while the
Marine Corps has chosen to limit its approval to one pad, and has
approved only Team Wendy pads for use in its Light Weight Helmet. The
approved pads used by the Army and the Marine Corps are consistent with
the 2006 U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory testing results in
that they showed the best performance relative to the other pads
tested.
Administrators of the AbilityOne Program have identified helmet pads as
appropriate for production by blind or severely disabled individuals
and placed them on the Procurement List.[Footnote 3] Pursuant to the
Javits Wagner O'Day Act, ordering offices are required to purchase
supplies on the Procurement List from participating nonprofit agencies
if they are available within the period required.[Footnote 4] The
AbilityOne Program negotiated a contract for the National Industries of
the Blind to be the nonprofit agency to produce helmet pads. National
Industries of the Blind chose Team Wendy as its subcontractor, on the
basis of value and the potential added value that it could contribute,
to produce the pad components from among the Army-approved pad
manufacturers.
Once National Industries for the Blind employees receive the pad
components from Team Wendy, they cut and assemble pad sets, stamp
required identification information on the individual pads, and
assemble the pad systems in preparation for distribution. The completed
pads sets are then sent to one of three places: Defense Logistics
Agency depots, for Army and Marine sustainment stocks; the Army's
Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering center, for
further testing and evaluation; or the helmet shell manufacturers, for
insertion into helmets before distribution.
The Army and Marine Corps Are Actively Seeking More Effective Pad
Systems:
The Army and Marine Corps are actively working to improve helmet
technology. In an effort to spur industry to design a more effective
pad system, in November 2007 the Army issued a request for information
seeking an off-the-shelf technology solution that would increase blunt
impact protection over the current performance standard. The current
testing standard for blunt impact protection requires that a helmet
dropped at a speed of 10 feet per second be able to diminish the force
to which the wearer's head accelerates to under 150 g. The request for
information called for the same degree of protection at a drop speed of
14.1 feet per second, with the ultimate objective of increasing this
drop speed to 17.3 feet per second. To date, no manufacturer has
developed a pad system passing the 14.1 feet per second test, but the
Army believes that this call for an improved technological solution
will motivate industry to develop better performing pads.
In addition to improving helmet pads, the services are also looking
into new alternatives for protecting against blunt impact injury,
including a one-piece helmet liner currently used in some North
Atlantic Treaty Organization countries, as well as a fluidic helmet
liner. They have also reached out to sports and motor sports
organizations that use protective helmets, although with the
understanding that there are important differences between military
helmets and sports helmets.[Footnote 5] Moreover, the services' efforts
to develop new blunt impact protection mechanisms are performed in
conjunction with research to better understand the causes of traumatic
brain injury and how blast overpressure experienced during an explosion
affects servicemembers. To this end, both the Army and Marine Corps
recently deployed units to Iraq and Afghanistan with sensor-equipped
helmets in order to gather useful data toward developing better
protection against blunt impact. Additionally, the services are
presently engaged in efforts to improve the ballistic protection of
helmets, working to design helmets that can withstand impacts from
higher-caliber weapon rounds.
Army and Marine Corps Are Aware of Use of Unapproved Pads and Have
Taken Steps to Rectify This Practice:
During the course of our engagement we became aware of the use of
unapproved pads by soldiers and Marines, although the extent and impact
of unapproved pad use is unknown. According to our limited work, such
unapproved use occurs primarily in two ways. The first is through the
purchase of pads by military personnel from the General Services
Administration catalogue, which lists an assortment of pads intended
for use by a variety of federal agencies. The second is through the
procurement of pads by individuals or their family members or friends
from commercial sources. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are aware
of this problem and have issued directives specifically precluding the
use of unapproved pads or other personal protective equipment.[Footnote
6]
Scope and Methodology:
During this engagement, we gathered information on which pads were
currently used by the Army and the Marine Corps and how they were
tested and selected by reviewing documents and speaking with officials
from the U.S. Army, Program Executive Office--Soldier; the U.S. Army
Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center; the U.S.
Marine Corps, Program Manager Infantry Combat Equipment; the Defense
Logistics Agency; National Industries for the Blind; and two helmet pad
manufacturing companies, at their request. Additionally, we analyzed
documents related to the selection and testing of helmet pads in use by
the Army and the Marine Corps, including reports from the U.S. Army
Aeromedical Research Laboratory. We gained an understanding of the
testing and evaluation efforts by conducting extensive interviews with
agency officials who either conducted or had expertise on the tests and
evaluations. We did not, however, observe testing or evaluate test
results, given the considerable lapse in time since such tests had
occurred. We also did not evaluate the validity of the military
specifications.
To gain a greater understanding of blunt impact protection mechanisms
for future use in ground combat helmets, we spoke with the U.S. Army,
Program Executive Office--Soldier; U.S. Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command; and the U.S. Marine Corps Program Manager Infantry
Combat Equipment. We also analyzed documents related to future methods
for blunt impact protection, including materials supplied by helmet pad
manufacturers, as well as presentation slides prepared for GAO by the
services. We conducted our work from December 2008 through July 2009 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
Agency Comments:
DOD was given an opportunity to review and comment on a written draft
of this report, and it provided only technical comments. We
incorporated these into the body of the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. GAO staff who made
major contributions to this report include Cary Russell, Assistant
Director; Guy LoFaro; Emily Norman; Maria Storts; Karen Thornton;
Cheryl Weissman; and Gerald Winterlin.
Signed by:
William M. Solis:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure:
Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure: Timeline of Events Regarding Helmet Technology:
2001:
* U.S. Army Special Operations Command approves Modular Integrated
Communications Helmet; Army study reports that soldiers notice
benefits.
2002:
* Program Executive Office: Soldier surveys field and directs Advanced
Combat Helmet testing. (March)
* Program Executive Office: Soldier conducts a limited user test of the
Advanced Combat Helmet with Oregon Aero pads. (December)
2003:
* Advanced Combat Helmet tested and approved to meet Army standards.
(January)
2004:
* Neurosurgeon in theater estimates there could be more head wounds due
to limited coverage provided by Advanced Combat Helmet as compared with
Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops helmet. (January-September)
* The Vice Chief Staff of the Army orders holistic review of Advanced
Combat Helmet based on neurosurgeon's estimate. (October)
2005:
* Combat Helmet Study released demonstrating Advanced Combat Helmet
with pads to be superior to Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops
helmet with sling suspension. (May)
* Army adopts Team Wendy pads.
2006:
* House Armed Services Subcommittees write to Kenneth Krieg, Under
Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, about
helmets, citing that pads are being supplied by non-military sources
and request independent testing of helmets. (June)
* Advanced Combat Helmet non-ballistic impact requirement raised from
150g average and 300g maximum at 10 feet per second to 150g maximum.
(November)
* U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory technical memorandum issued
showing that pads provide better protection than suspension system.
(December)
2007:
* Undersecretary Krieg replies to House Armed Services subcommittees,
and includes results of non-ballistic impact testing. (February):
* Ballistic neck protection introduced for Advanced Combat Helmet.
(March)
* Testing of pads under new standard proposed in Army Request for
Information for non-ballistic impact protection for Advanced Combat
Helmet to maximum 150g at 17.3 feet per second (objective) and 14.1
feet per second (threshold). (November):
2008:
* Army conducts a multi-organizational Criteria Review Board and
subjects pad systems from five vendors to additional evaluation.
(April)
* Army conducts congressionally directed ACH pad assessment on several
manufacturers' pads, as well as a Limited Soldier Evaluation. (July-
August)
2009:
v Army continues to test for viability of a commercial pad system to
provide increased non-ballistic protection to 150g maximum at an impact
velocity of 17.3 feet per second (objective) or 14.1 feet per second
(threshold). (February)
* DOD's Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation compiles a
Limited Field User Evaluation to assess the relative form, fit, and
function of four helmet pad systems. (March)
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Examples of blunt impacts include trips and falls while maneuvering
by foot, airborne (parachutist) operations, and motor vehicle or
aircraft accidents where body flail and vehicle structural deformation
could produce a head impact.
[2] The notation of g or G denotes an acceleration equal to the
acceleration of gravity, 980 centimeter per second squared, or
approximately 32.2 feet per second per second at sea level. It is used
as a unit of stress measurement for bodies undergoing acceleration.
[3] The Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled administers the AbilityOne Program and selects for the
Procurement List goods that can be produced according to the customer's
quality and quantity standards, with at least 75 percent of direct
labor being performed by blind or severely disabled individuals.
[4] 41 U.S.C. 46-48c (2008). According to officials with the National
Industries for the Blind, within 30 days after a good is added to the
Procurement List, a contract is negotiated with a nonprofit agency to
manage production of the good.
[5] Two important differences are that unlike sports helmets, combat
helmets are designed to provide ballistic protection and may have to
accommodate peripheral equipment such as night vision and communication
devices.
[6] The Army and Marines have each issued directives that preclude the
use of unapproved pads or other personal protective equipment and/or
provide guidance on obtaining approved pads, including a 2004 Army
Maintenance Advisory, a 2005 Army Safety of Use Message, a 2007 Marine
MARADMIN notice, and a 2009 Army memo warning against the use of
unapproved protective equipment.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
