BAE Awarded IOTV Contract

BAE Systems has been awarded a four-year Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) contract to produce Improved Outer Tactical Vests (IOTV) and accessories used by the US Army. That DLA awarded the contract lets you know that this is a sustainment contract.

“This award reinforces our position as a valued partner in the body armor market” said Don Dutton, vice president and general manager of Protection Systems at BAE Systems Support Solutions. “DLA continues to see demand for sustaining these life-saving products, as well as the value and quality that all of our equipment affords.”

The company has received an initial $48 million in orders, which are expected to be completed by February 2013. The total value of the contract orders could reach approximately $267 million over the next four years.


13 Responses to “BAE Awarded IOTV Contract”

  1. Anti-Bureaucrat says:

    So… Does this mean that the Army has already made up it’s mind about the color/camo-pattern of our kit?

  2. PLiner says:

    Holy Fork, talk about trying to polish a turd.

  3. Adrian says:

    Oh great, we are buying more piece of sh*t IOTV’s to complement the garbage plate carriers we are issued. Hope all the kick backs those generals/politicians received just lined your pockets.

  4. Funny thing is BAE being a very large company has in the past purchased body armour from us at IA. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!

    All i can say is good luck USA!

  5. Al says:

    I’ve been wearing their RBAV-SF for a while now and the parts look very much the same. Especially the side plate carrier and the internal cummerbund and the QR cable.

    • FormerSFMedic says:

      I had an issued RBAV-SF that I evaluated among other vest including the IOTV. I can tell you that the RBAV in its various forms is substantially better than the IOTV. As a matter of fact, I hate that our soldiers have to go out with the IOTV and the “new” plate carrier. There are much better and much more advanced and user friendly designs COTS AND already in the “system” and yet the Army continues to issue this crap.

      I would be much happier if our soldiers got RBAV’s. It’s a much more user friendly system. The two may look similar in a sketch, but they are worlds apart when it comes to suitability and capability.

  6. Konrado says:

    What’s wrong with IOTV? It’s great and modern body armor, two cummerbunds (elastic, internal and external with PALS webbing) makes great weight distrubution), kevlar coverage is high, a lot of PALS webbing – wide posibilites of pouches customization etc. Of course it’s heavier compared to Plate Carries but well, this isn’t a plate carrier and never meant to be one.

  7. joe says:

    SWhats wrong with the iotv??? And its not designed to be a plate carrier??? Oh no of course not. NOTHINGS wrong with it just like nothings wrong with a refurbished and restored WW1 spad fighter biplane! Its also not designed to be a 21st century fighter jet! Pardon my sarcasm Konrado, but as an active duty Marine in the infantry with a deployent and a wide variety of experience wearing “modern day” issue gear i can tell you right now that the US militarys selection process for issued “top of the line” products is a freaking dinosaur!!! There is infinitly better solutions availible OTS gear out there and after 10 yrs of war our nation SHOULD be able to issue the most advanced B.P.W. ( balance of protection vs. Weight) gear to our front line warriors. Yes the IOTV, MTV, SPC, ITV all have MOLLE,distribute weight, and CAN get the job done, but at what cost? Significant lower back injuries and pain?, The inability to keep up in a running highly kinetic 100+ degree gunfight? I purchased at my own exspense a much better system when i deployed and used issued soft armor and e sapis. And didnt regret it. I would rather shed some pounds lose a little in protection and be better able to do my job as a Grunt! Whos with me on this? – one pissed off Lance Coolie

  8. Sgt. Moped says:

    Amen Joe! Did the same myself this last go around.

  9. Nick The Brit says:

    I did exactly the same until I finally destroyed my IOTV and was given my IBA back. The IOTV restricts movement, the plates slip down away from critical areas, they are hard to properly fit to soldiers, and caused numerous back injuries during my last deployment. It got so bad that they started issuing foam lumbar supports to hold the vest up while sitting in the trucks because of all the back damage it wa causing.

  10. mcantu says:

    so the IOTV Gen 2 didnt correct the problem of the side plates shifting?

    • Nick The Brit says:

      Naa, they still rub until eventually they just fall out of the bottom.