Tactical Tailor

Ambitec – USAF High-Value Plate Carrier

Constructed of 500D Cordura, this vest was designed specifically for use by USAF Security Forces. The manufacturer commented that it is a lightweight platform stable enough to increase load carriage performance, reduce wearer fatigue, also to stabilize and enhance soft armor inserts.

• Pockets for applicable sized SAPI, ESAPI, XSAPI plates
• PALS webbing for MOLLE Attachments
• Hydration/Communication Tabs for Routing
• Removable MOLLE Kangaroo Front Flap, holds three 5.56 30rd magazines
• Shoulder pads that cover the entire strap connecting the front and back panels
• Reinforced personnel drag handle on the back panel
• Plate carriers have hook and loop fasteners for name tapes/ranks on the front panel
• Front and Back panels should incorporate padding so plates will not rest directly on individuals in the absence of soft armor.
• Available in ABU pattern (Air Force tiger stripe), Coyote Tan, and Multicam



19 Responses to “Ambitec – USAF High-Value Plate Carrier”

  1. GANDIS says:

    Once again, the AF will NOT let the ABU pattern die…… who up there is still pushing this as a viable camo pattern?

    • Eddie says:

      “Don’t we need to blend in with our Airfields?”

      • Ton E says:

        Screw the ABU that pattern needs to go to the dark chapter of the USAFs history where it belongs!

        • GANDIS says:

          Agree’d! Let it die naturally, stop making the crap and let a phase-out happen. The reason the AF hasn’t ditched ABU yet is because we have like $14 mil in backstock of this print. Backstock ain’t gonna ever go away if you keep making the crap.

          • SSD says:

            The problem is that DLA keeps buying uniforms and will do so until the AF buys out what is in stock.

    • TexasLaw says:

      Hey Civil Air Patrol is just now getting ABUs. Let them catch up before changing it again.

  2. OldSchool says:

    Love when something that was designed back in 2003 (Diamondback) all of a sudden becomes new again? Most copied plates carrier in the industry.

    • sjl777 says:

      The DBT version was neat until you put plates and gear in it. It was heavy without armor inside the carrier. Once all was combined, you would see how long it would take to develop pain between your shoulder blades as you had it on and carried out your work.

      I learned from Jim at SOTech that the key to any plate carrier was how the shoulder straps were designed and attached to the carrier. Simply putting two adjustable straps with padding to connect the front and rear is not enough.

      • John says:

        so what is the key to good shoulder straps when looking for a comfortable carrier?
        Am in the market.

  3. EODFish says:

    Good job SecFo in bringing yesterday’s technology to your Airmen today. I get that our career field wide body armor (KDH ATPC) choice was also a borderline dumpster fire of a decision but if you are going to let someone say it was designed just for you, give it at least one actual feature. What does this thing do for you that literally any off the shelf solution wouldn’t? You already have cats walking around in First Spear rigs with tubes and laser cut MOLLE interface, how is this not a massive step backwards?

    • Ton E says:

      You lost me when you said SecFo……

    • EODFish says:

      Explain to me why this is insulting? You guys are usually pretty good with acknowledging that SF is questionable vernacular in a joint environment and I fail to see how a different abbreviation of your job title could be construed as a slight.

  4. bloke_from_ohio says:

    Unless they changed 36-2903 since I last looked, you can’t wear coyote packs and the like with the ABU. It has to be green, black, or ABU. Problem is, lots of gear makers focus on OCP and coyote (for obvious reasons).

    If the USAF would authorize web gear and packs in coyote or other more common “tactical colors” with the ABU then units could just buy what they wanted. As it stands, they are very limited by the fact very few outfits make gear in ABU.

    Or… we could just adopt OCP and fix a lot of issues. There is no shame in riding Army coat tails when the USAF has proven so unequivocally that it can’t be trusted to do this stuff on its own.

    • Kyle says:

      There is no restrictions or AFI for SF on what color carrier they have to field. The decision falls solely on the Commander (DFC) of that particular unit to approve/disapprove that carrier and its color. This was the answer I was given directly from the SF Center themselves when we pursued coyote.

    • EODFish says:

      Or you just do it? Looking at 36-2903 for operational guidance is a loosing battle no matter how you cut it.

  5. Will says:

    Fear not, this carrier isn’t on any radar anywhere. I spoke with the AFSFC Chief of Equipment Requirements Monday after I seen this and it isn’t in the evaluation chain anywhere. From NGB perspective, having just sat on the WEPTAC committee where I personally head the equipment modernization effort, this wasn’t on our radar either. Not saying this is a bad carrier, but I am saying that any company running around saying its a “Security Forces” carrier is simply trying to sell. The efforts being done at AFSFC are under strict NDA, and as I stated ANG wasn’t even aware that this was a thing.