Which leads to a protection criteria of 18 AP including speed class. Thus we'll say that the new armor is 2.5 points better than a base 1 gm/cm 3 thickness of armor.

log 2(1.71) = +2.72 points better than the base 1 gm/cm 3.

The new criteria of 3.5 lbs / square foot translates to 3.5 lb/ft 2 The situation changes greatly when the new protection criteria of 3.5 pounds per square foot to stop the same round is used.

This table excludes materials of an overtly 'future-fictional' nature.Įssentially all the materials, flexible or rigid, current and future, listed in this table meet the current protection criteria. This level of defense minus the 5.5 points for mass beyond the 1 gm/cm 3 base is 20.5 - 5.5 = 15 APĬonsulting our armor materials page we find a few modern-day armors with the required 15 AP (for 1 gm/cm 3) or better level of defense needed: Material Since the military would probably use enough armor to stop this round 100% of the time we should add 3.5 points for a total of 20.5 points of defense.

Which translates to an attack value of 17 for 50% defense. We'll say that this armor is 5.5 points better than a base 1 gm/cm 3 thickness of armor.Ĭonsulting the ammunition page for the effects of 7.62 mm NATO AP we find the following: damage = 2D6+1, piercing = +9, and speed class = 2 Let us pump some numbers to see how close our system is to reality.Ħ lbs / square foot translates to 6 lb/ft 2 Several promising avenues are being explored in a second phase of this program, including an active armor approach.įrom this example we know how much weight of armor is needed to defend against 7.62 NATO AP (armor piercing) rounds. The performance goal is to stop a 7.62-mm armor piercing round with 3.5 pounds per square foot of armor.

To spur a breakthrough in body armor performance, DARPA began a program that employs rigorous models and simulations to develop innovative materials/systems designs. Unfortunately, significant gains can no longer be made through simple changes in processing techniques or in materials substitution. Nevertheless, a soldier using state-of-the-art body armor would need to wear more than six pounds per square foot of the material in order to stop such a bullet, a load too heavy for effective movement in the field. Technology Thrusts Materials and Devices for New Military Capabilities Structural Materials and Components: Personnel Protection The performance of body armor systems against 7.62 mm (30 caliber) armor piercing weapons has steadily improved due to the use of new ceramic materials and fibers and advances in the synthesis and processing of new armor materials. DARPA Structural Materials Example DARPA Armor Exampleįrom the DARPA Defense Sciences Office web page located at:

Carbon fiber suit of armor