SIG SAUER - Never Settle

USMC Seeking Modular Armor System

The Marine Corps posted a Sources Sought Notice late last week for a new “Modular Armor System” to replace both Plate Carrier and Improved Modular Tactical Vest which hasn’t even been fielded yet.

Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) is conducting market research, and identifying potential sources and best practice information towards designing, developing, and procuring a Modular Armor System. The system will allow the individual Marine to configure and tailor the armor level based on mission requirements.

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) envisions at this time a single system that will be capable of providing the area of coverage of the current USMC Plate Carrier and expanding to a soft armor area of coverage equal to the USMC Improved Modular Tactical Vest (IMTV) with the Pelvic Protective System Protective Overgarment (POG). The system will be able to provide supplemental armor protection to the extremities.

The envisioned system will either integrate with current hard armor ballistic plates or a new hard armor plate design. There are no constraints on symmetry or materiel for soft and hard armor. Hard Armor threat defeat capability equal to that of the XSAPI is required with a desired maximum allowable areal density of 7.0 pounds per square foot. The soft armor performance within the torso and extremity regions is required to possess performance equal to the OTV CO-PD-00-2G with a desired maximum allowable areal density of .85 pounds per square foot. The carrier will possess the Pouch Attachment Ladder System (PALS) webbing for the mounting of modular pouches, have a single pull emergency release located on the center of the vest below the neckline and integrate with the USMC Chest Rig without impeding the quick release of the carrier.

The desired system will not exceed the cumulative weight of the IMTV with torso and flank plates. This suite will enable the individual Marine to configure components to best meet specific mission requirements by optimizing/balancing human factors engineering (e.g. comfort and usability), integration with fielded Load Carriage Equipment (LCE) and cost (production and maintenance).

It is important to note that the RFI states that “Modular Armor System’s attributes have not yet been finalized” so this is your chance to help influence the writing of the final requirement.

Potential sources of supply have until 30 December, 2011 to notify the Marines of their concept. Additionally, the Program Management Office (PMO) will have representatives attending the January 2012 Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show in Las Veagas. Look for a separate posting on FedBizOpps with details on how to arrange a visit.


10 Responses to “USMC Seeking Modular Armor System”

  1. Doc says:

    So I’m a lil confused I just watched an episode of Curiousity on Discovery “What’s America Worth” and it showed some company in Florida named Ibiley that was making what looked like some sort of new plate carrier and it didn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen before and supposedly they already have a contract with the USMC. Does anybody got any kind of info this?

  2. john says:

    Doc that contract was from 2009 if I remember right for scalable plate carriers.

    I really hope they put guys in the aav, tank, and lav communitys in their thoughts when they develop this thing

  3. Matt says:

    As an infantryman I def have some word and input on this one
    the MTV/IMTV is sheer crap too bulky and wasteful
    In 5 mins just sketched out a replacement that basically takes the mtv cumberbund adds(removable) soft panel armor to it cuts two inches of the sides of front and back of the torso and takes soft panel out of the area behind the plates with soft panel inserts that can be added dependent on mission

    • stephen mccomb says:

      Matt, If you have a sketch of what you would like to see the new design being I would be more than willing to talk to you. FYI we created the new groin protector that is being fielded to troops.

  4. Doc says:

    John are you sure cause the carriers they had on there didn’t look like the Scalable Plate Carrier plus I thought those were made by Eagle Industries.

  5. john says:

    Well from what I’ve been able to find yes The plate carrier marfor syscom had coming out in 2009 was spc’s which can always be sources out, not unheard of

  6. john says:

    Woops, as I was after.rereading that it does meantion the imtv as well in that article

  7. Sgt A says:

    Can this please just be the Eagle QRPC – sounds like it was written with that system in mind (single pull quick release, compatible with all the existing SPC armor suites), but this might drag on too far, and get drug through a crap-nylon magnet like the original IMTV.

    The addition of an improved ballistic belt would be the other change – take an existing one (Crye, BFG, a few others) with adequate MOLLE capability and you’d have a complete capability set with only COTS parts that remains backwards compatible with the entire ESAPI/XSAPI and current MOLLE load bearing equipment.

    The only changes worth making to the above would be integration of lightweight materials in a few areas to trim overall weight.

  8. Riceball says:

    I’m rather surprised that the Corps is already looking for another body armor system, didn’t they just adopt a new set of body armor not that long ago? How many different sets of body armor has the Corps, and the Army for that matter, gone through since moving away from the old PAGST vests? I suppose that it’s a good thing but it seems that we’ve been changing helmets and flaks awful fast as of late.

  9. Patrick Henry says:

    Prior to syscom Putting their changes on it the scaleable plate carrier was awesome. It is windy subjective opinions get involved in the office that things get screwed up. I have watched everything from single point sling to the rat boot get screwed up. So if anyone has any ideas hit me up on my gmail, I will have you sign a non disclosure form my company Will back you on this. We can a legitamize it at least for submission. But be careful the office has been known to take ideas. Make sure you have someone in the no backing you on your submission. You will be tits up if not.