Many are interested in the innovative Derma Armor Carrier designed by Jon Zum and introduced earlier this year by Ares Armor with its custom low profile cummerbund featuring buckles created in conjunction with AustriAlpin. But, the reality is that most must use an issue armor carrier. Ares has heard your pleas and is offering the Derma Universal Cummerbund Kit retrofit that will work with most front opening armor carriers.
Donning and doffing is accomplished with their custom made attachment from AustriAlpine, meaning no more noise from hook and pile tape. It also adds a release to the system so that a non-releasable carrier is now releasable via pull cord attached into the system. Finally, the DUCK offers a triple bungee design not found anywhere else.
Tags: Ares Armor
Finally, a gear company that realizes that a majority of tactical gear users are not operators that can do what they like and wear what they want, but are told they must use what they’re given.
A couple of questions/observations.
1. The USMC doesn’t issue the “Afghan Plate Carrier” [sic: SPC] any more. The USMC Plate Carrier has replaced this and only requires about 10″ of throw to release the cummerbund.
2. The “FSBE” [sic: MARCIRAS] has been replaced by the RBAV which uses a center chest pull of also about 10″
3. How does this cummerbund provide for integration of the side SAPI plates or ancillary items placed on the cummerbund?
4. Why would you want to quickly reassemble your system?
5. If the system is snagged and under tension, can you release it? The AustriAlpine “Cobra” type buckles (originally designed for climbing applications) will not release when under tension. It is not standard practice to doff your equipment inside the aircraft during egress as it creats more debris to contend with. Remember the correct proceedure for helo egress after impact is as follows:
1. Grab the seat between your legs, plant your feet and push down.
2. Pull your HABD/HEED regulator out, purge, place in mouth, breath.
3. Maintaining hold of your seat, release your seat restraint with free hand.
4. Egress to nearest exit maintaining contact until you are clear of the aircraft.
With this in mind, the only time you are going to doff your gear inside the helo is if it is snagged. inasmuch, if this system is snagged and under tension, will it release?
6. Has the system been subjected to enviromental testing to determine it’s performance after prolonged exposure to dust, silt, salt water etc?
7. Has the system been tested and approved by any DoD function or NAVAIR as an acceptible addtion to PPE or use in egress proceedures?
“If the system is snagged and under tension, can you release it? The AustriAlpine “Cobra” type buckles (originally designed for climbing applications) will not release when under tension.”
It appears the the design does not release the cobra buckle. Instead, it releases the interface between the buckle and the vest. If you look carefully in the video after release the cobra buckle is still closed.
-AlexC
ahhhhh… noted.
However, now that I looked at the system on the webpage, I can see what you’re referring to and that there are pouches available for side SAPI plates, However, because the cummerbund is essentially just shock cords, it may sag if you put any appreciable load on it. This will also be exacerbated by the fact that it attaches at a single point which when placed under load will pivot and sag like the new Army IOTV with the releasable SR buckles. Nonetheless, everything has its merits though. For instance, the First Spear “Tubes” are longer and don’t provide a “pivot” point.
I’m really perplexed with the sudden affinity toward these buckle type release interfaces. The RBAV and SOFBAV are actually pretty easy to assemble and there’s no need to mess with either one when you have it adjusted. In all reality, they are just applications of the HSPR. Inasmuch, I see the value in securing your cummerbund in a manner that eliminates having to mess with the cummerbund flap on most systems. Anyone who has worn “full battle rattle” daily in combat knows that the Velcro on the flap usually wears out or gets dirty and then just flops around.
I guess that I just view the ability of a vest to release as a lifesaving function and when you need it, you want it to work and when you start to implement mechanical items you introduce a failure point. To me, a cable and loop assembly is simple, repairable with common items and generally works all the time. The question one should ask before integrating a mechanical type release is: “Would I want this on my reserve canopy?”
Angry,
If you’re that concerned – buy one and and test yourself. And yes Austrialpin buckles are tested for all you mentioned.
And as for quick reassembly – why would you not want this?
Chris K.,
No thanks, I am content with what I’ve been issued and have had the riggers modify the cummerbunds to incorporate alternate securing methods. As far as a “rapid reassembly capability”, I just don’t see the need. If I’m doffing the vest, it will be in the instance where the situation will preclude me from retrieving it (i.e. deep water, burning aircraft/vehicle). And in the case of medical access, I don’t need to release the system on the victim. Access is as easy as removing the victim’s helmet, opening the vest, flipping it over the victim’s head and going to work. And in cases where you need to get REAL invasive in the thoracic region, i.e. needle decompress, IO Catheter or chest tubes, I’m not putting the armor back on the victim.
As I said, everything has its merits and anything that negates the need to mess with a cummerbund flap secured by Velcro is a good thing. In my experience, no “one thing” is the end all solution but may later evolve to an amalgam of ideas with a successful result
And Chris, my question was if the “system” had been tested to the standards I mentioned, not the buckles. The buckles are only a “component” not the “system”. So, to clarify, has the “system” underwent any official testing by a DoD component to deem it appropriate for integration into the systems you have mentioned and has NAVSEA approved its use as an acceptable alternate to the current issued configurations when employed as an emergency egress system?
Just asking because it would be a shame if an impressionable service member were to purchase the item, install it, slide past the PCC/PCI, be involved in an incident where the needed to get it off them and it failed. It would also be unfortunate if the same individuals armor came off them in a gunfight.
I’m in no way downgrading the merits of the item. But I can tell you that if Joe Snuffy showed up with it during my PCC/PCI, I would congratulate them on the purchase of a 100lb paperweight.
The hard fact is that, good or bad, armor is a lifesaving component and it has been tested to operate in the configuration it is issued in. Now, do SOF guys “modify” gear? Sure, guilty as charged. But the difference is that the approach is a bit more pragmatic and involves “proofing the theory”. The danger is in “Joe” doing it. Joe is often the victim of “whiz bang”. Inasmuch, Joe’s leaders just tell him “NO” without an explanation and this just reinforces his belief that he’s purposely issued substandard gear. I would be remiss to claim that Joe has not been shafted with some blatantly subpar systems that have left me scratching my head pondering the logic or lack of behind it and thanking my lucky stars to be where I am. However, responsibility dictates that when dealing with lifesaving equipment, one does not address Joe in a manner that imparts he do something that is in all reality not authorized. Is it a good idea? Sure. However, Joe’s ability to navigate the web and purchase an item does not circumvent policy or authorize modification of issued gear
Very well put. You should start a blog… (not kidding, I’d read it)
Andrew,
Thanks, however, I believe Eric does a fine Job and I am content with providing comments when my experience or familiarity with the subject at hand affords me to do so from a position of authority. I know it may come across as “abrasive” and I assure you that that is often not my intent. I’m not a “Brand Specific” guy. Sure, we get issued some pretty good stuff via SPEAR, however, as any person who has been in this gun club will admit, sometimes there is a better mouse trap, many times it’s as simple as a different admin pouch, or the incorporation of a component used by another organization into a like one issued.
But as with the integration of anything, we always either ask to review the data by the organization who is using it or conduct our own. Sure a pack my say it’s “Jumpable” but unless it’s been signed off by the Airborne and/or HALO committee, into the PDB it goes. The last thing you want is to have something fail at the most inopportune moment. And if it does fail, you want to know that you can either rapidly fix, “field rig” or employ a secondary (two is one, one is none). Are the new buckle systems we’re seeing easier to assemble? Sure. But can you honestly tell me that one needs to rapidly assemble a vest? And with that in mind, can anyone with a straight face tell me that small unit leaders are so inundated that they cannot take ten minutes to TEACH their charges how to properly assemble, fit and employ their armor and kit? In addition, have these systems been subjected to EXTENSIVE testing to include accelerated durability/aging testing to see how they will function 14 months after issue? Trust me, I am not faulting this item for not doing that, but it is something to think about. I subscribe to Murphy and his influence on Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF).
Case in point, sure it’s easy to put together, but what’s the MTBF on the new releasable SR buckles on the GEN III IOTV? How will it function after months of being exposed to the elements? How do you inspect it? What are the signs that it may be ready to fail? What’s happening inside the cable tubes? (I’ve seen the crude that gets in the break lines on my mountain bike) Can the end user replace it? How will the stability of the load attached to the cummerbund flap be effected due to the reduction of Velcro surface area and introduction of the buckles under it? How do you mitigate the sagging of the cummerbund when mounting a fighting load etc., etc., etc.
So, as you can see, industry isn’t always the guilty party.
Now I will admit that I am not part of the “average bear” club and I do crazy things like inspect my kit before and after use so I am not “surprised”. Inasmuch when we are discussing vests like the RBAV, Original IOTV, SOFBAV etc., it’s pretty easy to look at the release system and determine if you need to replace one of the loops. Now, while this can be done easily with some 550 in the RBAV and SOFBAV, you need to get a little creative with the original IOTV fixing it with 550 but it’ll do in a pinch.
And with this system and the First Spear Tubes (Though I wish there was a field repairable one), it’s not that hard to see if something is getting ready to go sideways before you’re neck deep in bad guys.
Regardless, any and all changes to lifesaving equipment should undergo evaluation by competent personnel before implementation.
I could go on citing all sorts of examples like DI operating systems reverting to outdated gas piston operating systems etc. But we all get it.
Then again, “If it ain’t broke, fix it until it is”