Streamlight ProTac 2.0 Flashlight

Revision Awarded US Army Next-Generation ACH Contract

Essex Junction, Vermont (March 21, 2017) – Revision Military, the world leader in integrated head systems, has been awarded the U.S. Army’s Advanced Combat Helmet Generation II (ACH GEN II) helmet contract. This five-year indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) helmet contract (W91CRB-17-D-0008), awarded on a full and open competition basis to Revision, has a maximum value of $98,111,803 and estimated completion date of March 6, 2022. Revision’s ACH helmet solution is up to 24 percent lighter than the legacy ACH helmet system and this contract represents the first large-scale, significant advancement in ACH technology in 15 years.

Since last contracted by the U.S. Army in 2012—when Revision delivered a total of 180,000 ACH helmets—Revision has invested millions of dollars in new manufacturing equipment and processes, research into the characterization and optimization of advanced ballistic materials, and in the building of a world-class team of scientists and engineers in order to evolve the Company’s capabilities. Additionally, since 2013, Revision’s Newport, Vermont facility—where helmets for this contract will be manufactured—has expanded by 16,000 sq. ft., and the number of employees that work at this facility has more than doubled. As a result of these ongoing investments, and the development of composite materials technological expertise, Revision was able to exceed the weight reduction requirements stipulated in the Army’s solicitation by a sizable margin: The ACH Gen II solicitation required a minimum 15 percent weight reduction compared to the current ACH helmet; Revision’s solution offers up to 24 percent weight reduction over the legacy ACH design, pushing the envelope of attainable weight reduction while maintaining superior ballistic protection.

Revision is dedicated to re-envisioning military head systems with integrated technologies that feature new, cutting edge materials, in a variety of designs and configurations, to exceed all customer requirements. With extensive knowledge of ballistics, electronics, optics, power, and other innovative technologies, Revision is a creative solutions provider, capable of designing and developing custom head protection solutions to meet the changing needs of global militaries.

“With this solicitation, PEO Soldier challenged the helmet industry, raising the technology bar substantially. Revision answered in a big way, dedicating significant resources to set a new standard for lightweight helmet design and performance,” said Jonathan Blanshay, CEO. “Revision has been a proud U.S. Army supplier since 2005, and our investment in this program epitomizes Revision’s unwavering dedication to forward-thinking head systems technology and manufacturing. In the years since Revision was last contracted by the U.S. Army, we’ve become a much stronger company and head systems technology innovator, securing helmet contracts around the world—including for the British Army’s VIRTUS program—and emerging as the vanguard of the U.S. helmet industry. We’re excited to provide this cutting-edge technology to troops in the field who will benefit greatly from the improved performance and significantly lower weight of this next-generation head system. In short, Revision has fully modernized the traditional ACH helmet, bringing this crucial equipment up to speed with the fast pace of modern warfare.”

“This was an intense competition that draws on the reliability and skill of Revision Military’s workforce in Vermont,” said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “The quality of these helmets will protect soldiers from ballistic impacts, while also making them more comfortable with their up to 24% lighter build. Like all Vermonters, I am incredibly proud of the men and women at Revision Military Newport for their hard work and dedication, both of which greatly contributed to Revision being selected for this contract. In past visits to the facility, I have seen firsthand the commitment these employees have to their trade, a commitment depended on by the men and women of our Armed Forces.”
Over Revision’s history, the Company has delivered 1.1 million helmets to the U.S. military, with an additional 300,000 helmets internationally. Across all of these program deliveries, Revision has never received a single warranty claim for product malfunction or defect, has never had to recall a single faulty product, and has never failed a single Lot Acceptance or First Article test. Revision is also the most experienced and most knowledgeable Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) manufacturer in the industry. With robust design and development expertise, significant investment in efficient, high-volume manufacturing, and vertical integration, Revision stands ready to meet this U.S. Army’s demand, and will use the revenue generated through this program to continue to build capabilities and advanced innovations to benefit the U.S. military for years to come.


21 Responses to “Revision Awarded US Army Next-Generation ACH Contract”

  1. Lcon says:

    I wonder if the ACH II is based on there Battleskin helmet system

  2. Jack says:

    SSD, can you shed some light on whether the weight reduction is only due to technogical breakthrough or is it also driven by reduced ballistic protection requirements? I was told recently that some headborn systems programs had seen modifications in their legacy testing procedure as it was considered too extreme or unrealistic.

    • SSD says:

      They leveraged the work done on ECH. The weight reduction is due to the use of PE in addition to the Aramid rather than a helmet made completely of Aramid. Otherwise, ACH II offers the same ballistic protection as the original ACH.

      • Regg says:

        This is not entirely true, as there is no longer a requirement for Ballistic Transient Deformation (BTD). It seems BTD is still tested, but only recorded as “Government Reference” (per the spec Erik links to below – there is no BTD limit).

        So we can’t really know if the original ACH BTD is being provided without seeing that data.

        • SSD says:

          I didn’t know that this was public knowledge. However, as it is no longer a requirement, and the Army doesn’t get rid of PPE performance parameters unless they are completely inane, I stand by my statement. The Soldier gets the same ballistic protection he did with the ACH.

          • Regg says:

            Yes, in that sense the ACH was intended to stop a certain threat, and this new helmet stops that threat. Just the method to determine that has changed, with what was listed in the public fbo posting.

    • Erik says:


      You can find the ballistic requirements on page 74 in the document below
      (amendment 1, 4200fps for 2 grain RCC, 2200fps for 17 grain FSP)

      You can find all the other relevant documents in the link below

      • Jack says:

        Thanks for the input guys, very informative!

        Just to be a bit more precise, the discussion I mentionned above (with one of the big names in the helmet industry) had to do with the shots angle for the most part. But from what I see here, there’s a good chance it was linked to another program than ACH II.

  3. Erik says:


    Did they use Spectra or Dyneema? I wonder if there is a carbon fiber base shell (like Ops Core). Do you have any information about that?

  4. Fudman says:

    I am very gratified to hear that the factory in Newport, VT is still running and producing the improved successor to the MICH/ACH. That factory played a major role in the original fielding of the MICH/ACH but if not for a gutsy decision by a PEO, it could have all been different.
    For those interested in the backstory, that factory was established in 2000 by a French company, CGF, who was selected to build USSOCOM’s Modular Integrated Communications Helmet (MICH). Note: Newport, VT abuts the Canadian border and is part of the USA that desperately needs good manufacturing jobs (sound familiar?). The MICH helmet was the brainchild of two CAG members who redesigned the old PASGT to reduce weight, eliminate interference, improve stability, comfort and protection while using the latest materials. However, by the summer of 2001, no helmet delivery orders had been placed because SOCOM acquisition deemed the integrated communications portion of the MICH system was not ready for prime time even though the helmet portion met its requirements. This was not about a lack of funding but rather your typical bean counter rationale. CGF told me that if a delivery order was not placed soon, they would have to close the facility. I visited the near-empty facility where we saw rows of helmets neatly lined up but only a single worker was pressing helmet shells and a single sewer sewing retention systems. This was truly depressing seeing improved operational capability sitting on a shelf and manufacturing capacity being unused. I begged the PEO to allow us to drop a delivery order to begin production but to withhold fielding of the helmet until the comms package was completed. For reasons known only to him, he bent the rules and agreed.
    Three months later, the towers fell and the rest is history. We were lucky to have helmets in stock for immediate fielding (it’s funny that noone thought the incomplete comms package should hold up fielding). In 2003, my Army counterpart (also former CAG) asked if the Army could piggyback on our MICH contract. I agreed and that was the birth of the ACH, which has sat on a lot of heads. It could easily have turned out very differently if certain decisions had not been made earlier. Hence, to see this factory still in operation 17 years later and making an improved successor to the MICH/ACH is very gratifying.

  5. Ed says:

    That PEO did something that I wish a lot of other leaders and managers would do more often. I’m sure there was good chance things of gone differently if 9/11 didn’t happen but for some to exercise their discretion and lead at the same time seems to be a dying concept. Good for CGF and their advances. I’m glad that’s one more win for good product and good use of Govt contracts.


  6. Adam says:

    Nice to see they went with the Ops-Core chin strap. The old OEM model was terrible.

  7. CAVStrong says:

    SSD how does the ACH GEN II relate to the SPS IHPS?

  8. El Guapo says:

    I thought we were going to the ECH? Or is the ACH II for support troops only?

  9. Nixon says:

    So does the ACH II deliver ECH level protection with the 24% reduction in weight over an SCH or does it deliver ACH protection at 24% reduction over ACH weight?

    • SSD says:

      ACH, hence the name.

      • Nixon says:

        Any idea as to why the ECH was seemingly abandoned? Simply because they’d rather have the lower weight? I thought the services were aiming for/going for a higher level of ballistic head protection (ie ECH) and it seemed like it was pretty successful with at least the Ceradyne ECH?