|
DE 02 Memorandum from the International Society for Human Rights, (British Working Group)
Background 1 Since the finding in the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Defence v R and HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire and Equality and Human Rights Commission, that serving military personnel have the protection by the Human Rights Act. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) must take reasonable steps to ensure that the soldiers it deploys are prepared and that they are kitted out correctly. And that though the MoD presently enjoys immunity for claims brought against it, for incidents that occur in the heat of battle, this may not be found to extend to knowingly putting personnel at risk by the procurement and issuing of substandard or inherently inferior body armour, that is substandard and inferior to that which is readily available.
2 Though it is recognised the MoD seeks to provide the Armed Forces personal with the best levels of protection available, there is a growing consensus of opinion that the Osprey system, regardless of version, is not that.
3 As a direct consequence of this, there are reports of not only a number of deaths due to troops either removing kit or wearing inappropriate gear, but also as a direct consequence of the limitations of the coverage and projectile stoppage afforded by Osprey system issued.
4 There are body armour systems available that already offer lower life cycle costs, are lighter, with greater mobility and more diverse and greater range of potential projectile and multiple impact stoppage, as well as groin and neck protection. Namely Pinnacle Armours Dragon Skin(r).
The Alternative.
5 The advantages of the Dragon Skin(r) (Flexible Body Armour) system are; It weighs less (having the lightest weight for the ballistic and fragmentation protection capabilities provided); That it can sustain greater amounts of impacts than current monolithic ceramic plate technology (MCPT) such as is used in the Osprey and Interceptor systems - which affords increased soldier survivability and operational efficiency; Has demonstrated 45-52% reduction in average back face deformation/reduced trauma to the body compared to MCPT. (Meaning the wearer can take multiple hits on the vest and keep fighting effectively.); The flexible configuration of the discs allows the wearer to move with greater ease decreasing the level of energy expended on patrol; Greater durability compared to the monolithic ceramic plate technology. (Subject to damage sustained, a lower life cycle cost compared to Osprey's bi-annual replacement of its 4 plates.); Demonstrated reduced edge affected zone means increased effective area of coverage; Dragon Skin is also the first body armour system that can be tailored to be mission specific, offering greater amounts of coverage options, and can be tailored to the 97th percentile, of the population, for both genders. In either tactical or concealed configurations; The system also eliminates ricochets' from obliquity/angled shots up to 60°. (The rigid MCPT's as used in Osprey have ricochet shots starting at approximately 35°.)
Conclusion.
6 The safety and well being of all service personnel is paramount. As is their, and their families' perception of their well being and safety. And although it is unfortunately impossible to protect them from every eventuality, providing the Armed Forces personnel with the best levels of protection available - is required.
Action required.
7 Osprey is viewed some personnel and families as not being the best available solution, and needs to be independently thoroughly tested and reviewed against competing systems. Namely Pinnacle Armours Dragon Skin(r). If for nothing less than to reassure personnel and their families, that it is the best system available.
15 November 2009 |