FN Herstal

USSOCOM Issues Pre-Solicitation for SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Coxswain Helmet

The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently issued a pre-solicitation notice to industry pursuant to their requirement for a multi-year contract to procure Special Operations Forces Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) Family of Tactical Headborne Systems (FTHS)-Coxswain Helmet System. The Coxswain Helmet system is the most interesting helmet system from a technical standpoint and more closely resembles the recent Next Generation Helmet work done for SOF by Ops-Core and Revision.  Although Ops-Core is keeping their’s under wraps, Revision recently released their candidate commercially, as the Batlskin Caiman Head System.


DoD Photo by MSG Timothy Lawn.

The coxswain helmet will consist of a non-ballistic helmet system with modular accessories which will consist of a visor, ballistic mandible, non-ballistic (i.e. impact) mandible, and two piece ballistic appliqué. Additionally, the helmets require a variety of VAS Shrouds, Helmet Covers, Accessory Rails, Pads, Exterior Velcro sets, and Peltor Adapters.

The helmets will be offered in five sizes in Tan, Neutral Grey, AOR 1, AOR 2 and MultiCam.

The government intends to award a five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) production contract for a fully developed item to the offeror with the best value to the Government. They are looking for Commercial-Off-The-Shelf items. The actual solicitation should be issued in June and the minimum contract value will be $150K and the maximum contract value will be $95M.

Because of the scalability of the Coxswain Helmet I wonder how long it will be before other SOF personnel want it instead of the standard SOCOM helmet already in solicitation.  

For full details, visit www.fbo.gov.

14 Responses to “USSOCOM Issues Pre-Solicitation for SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Coxswain Helmet”

  1. Ed says:

    Soooo, from the last article, last week, there will be a “ballistic” helemt as well? Not understanding why “boat-guys” wouldn’t want a ballistic helmet since they are susceptible to taking enemy fire and frag as well?? I get having a “safety” helmet for training but RW Op’s, only what protects!

    • kemp says:

      ballistic helmets tend not to be neutrally buoyant

      • Ed says:

        You don’t say??? Isn’t that why we’re issued water-wings and quick-release plate-carriers?? The goal is to not go into the “drink” if you can avoid it.

  2. Ed says:

    *boat-guys and boarding teams

  3. redbeard says:

    The future of command micro-management.

  4. BS says:

    What about Team Wendy X2 Scalable Helmet shown a while go? Does the MTEK has anything similar too?

  5. PTMcCain says:

    “Coxswain”

    Origin and Etymology of coxswain

    Middle English cokswayne, from cok cockboat (a small boat) + swain servant

    • Ed says:

      Yup! Gotta love the Royal Navy for bringing these terms to mainstream fruition. My favorite is “Petty Officer”, definition: A small and or insignificant officer. Makes one feel good about themselves in the modern Navy! Ha ha ha

  6. Bob says:

    Next year it’ll be another $90 million contract of taxpayer money so boat guys can be issued cool guy gear so they can feel and look more and more like frogs.

    Like the $7 million price tag (per) on the CCM/CCA that can’t even do VBSS. Good call there. Ya look cool doing it though.

    • Jon says:

      Both craft are capable of VBSS. Not sure where you get your info from. I don’t think they would spend that money otherwise.

      Unless you think the fleet should be handling those type of high risk evolutions? I wouldn’t if I was a frog…… Right tool for the right job Bob.
      The old mentality of “they just want to be like us” is fading away. I know some boat guys and they don’t want to be frogs, almost none failed out of BUDs like the old days. Let it go man.

    • heymanniceshot says:

      Bob! Thank god you’ve come out of hiding from behind that keyboard! I sure hope you are SoCal based, I’d love for you to swing by and explain to the west coast NSW community at large the mismanagement of combatant craft procurement, gear development/down selection and anything else you have learned in your many years in the NSW enterprise. What day works for you? If not i can arrange a VTC. Name your price, if money doesn’t motivate you I can even arrange for you 5 minutes alone with the helmet in the picture attached to this article, we need you Bob.

      Bob? Bob, are you there…?

      • CanoeHead says:

        I think what “Bob” was saying was, what’s wrong with the gear we get now?

        What was wrong with the 11m RIB? VBSS is so much more streamlined and user friendly with the 11m. Jets vs props. $$25,000 props (each). Not to mention the work room for a platoon, there really isn’t any at all on the CCA. The CCA/CCM could do VBSS, but the paint is so damn expensive. Instead, we send 11m’s to Stennis for operations on the Pearl? I don’t know. I’m not really sure why we do these things personally.

        And I have to agree with him with the cool guy stuff. It’s pretty obvious walking around NAB.

        Good thing the general public doesn’t know how much money is blown on equipment, when the stuff we have/had is just fine. It’s comparable to the F-35 program-what’s wrong with the fighter jets we have now?

        • heymanniceshot says:

          Craft that are replacing the 11M RIB are built to meet the requirements of today, and years, potentially even decades down the road. How we utilize combatant craft, who we use them against, and the capabilities geographic combatant commanders want to have in their AOR shape the craft we develop, not an abundance of money and drawings on the back of a subway napkin. Millions were spent on these craft and their programs out of need, not want.

          To suggest otherwise is calling a lot of dedicated, forward leaning people stupid, and I think that’s my issue with these comments. A lot of underinformed and uneducated people weighing in with shit opinions. The fact you had “user friendly” in the same sentence as “11M RIB”, gives me reason to believe you have not turned a wrench on or operated these craft in any significant capacity, nor do you understand that while new combatant craft have their growing pains, as any new piece of hardware will, they bring more to the table than NSW lost with mothballing the RIB. Deal with it naysayers, the RIB is dead for many good reasons, and no one is crying about it who lives it.

          If you think NSW is investing in PPE so we can impress the ACU “Surf Riders” command operating WW2 era landing craft on NAB, you have a perception and self confidence problem that no comment on the line can sway, and I hope to never share a beer with you.

          SSD mods, what say you? This site is mainly here to inform the public on industry news and advancements. Am I off base here or is this business as usual for the comments section? I only weigh in here when I feel I have something tangible to contribute and this article was up my swim lane.

          • CanoeHead says:

            Nah, I don’t drink beer with self absorbed assholes like you that are so much better than everyone else they run into in life and have wouldn’t have anything interesting to talk about over a beer anyways besides military themed talking points. That should be fun readjusting to life after the military. Good luck my friend.