Personal Protective Equipment: Army and Marine Corps Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce the Weight of Items Worn or Carried in Combat
Published: 2017-05-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Army and Marine Corps ground combat personnel have long worn a variety of PPE such as vests, armor, and helmets to help protect them from operational risks. The two services have documented the advanced protection capabilities of current PPE systems, but identified that the armor contributes to the total load burden—or cumulative weight of items typically worn or carried. In addition to PPE, personnel typically carry food, water, ammunition, communications equipment, and other items.
House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for GAO to review Army and Marine Corps efforts to reduce the weight of PPE and other equipment worn or carried in combat.
This report describes (1) the current operational requirements associated with PPE, and how those requirements contribute to the total load burden on Soldiers and Marines in combat environments; and (2) the coordination between the Army and the Marine Corps regarding efforts to reduce the weight of PPE and the total load burden on personnel.
GAO reviewed Army and Marine Corps documentation related to PPE, total load burden on combat personnel, and weight reduction initiatives; and interviewed service researchers and program officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps have developed requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) to address operational threats in ground combat environments, but this PPE has increased in weight over time and has added to the total load burden on personnel. PPE primarily consists of hard armor plates, soft armor plate carrier vests, and combat helmets. Army and Marine Corps officials stated that the PPE provides significant additional protection when compared with equipment used prior to operations in Iraq in the 2000s. However, they also noted that providing this level of protection adds significant bulk and weight to the total load on Soldiers and Marines, which could impede mobility and hinder combat effectiveness. According to service-provided data, the typical total load in 2016 for Army and Marine Corps ground combat personnel averaged about 119 and 117 pounds, respectively, of which the primary PPE represented about 27 pounds based on equipment sizes (see figure). Officials stated that these totals have increased over time based on the incorporation of new PPE and other equipment.
Recognizing that the weight of PPE and other equipment could have negative effects on personnel performance, the Army and the Marine Corps have coordinated and developed goals for PPE-related weight reductions and are pursuing some efforts to reduce overall load burdens on personnel. The two services coordinate through formal working groups and informal methods to develop and improve PPE. Army and Marine Corps officials stated that while they prioritize protection and operational capabilities when developing PPE, they have overarching goals of reducing weight, in addition to improving the form, fit, and function of equipment. These goals have led to reductions in the weight of some PPE. The Army is also developing a goal and plan to reduce the weight of hard armor plates by 20 percent by identifying and eliminating excess ballistic protection. In addition, the Army and Marine Corps are pursuing other efforts to reduce the weight of PPE, such as by giving commanders the option to employ varying levels of PPE at their discretion and studying the effects of integrating PPE with overall combat loads. Finally, the Army and Marine Corps are exploring research initiatives that may reduce the total load on ground combat personnel, such as improvements to logistics and aerial delivery capabilities, load transferring systems, and other enhancements to equipment.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOD provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For decades, Army and Marine Corps ground personnel have worn  various forms of personal protective equipment (PPE), including early  versions of vests, steel armor, and helmets to reduce operational risks.  Today, ground personnel operating in combat environments use a PPE  system consisting of hard and soft armor designed to address  contemporary threats. The Army and Marine Corps have documented  the advanced protection capabilities of current PPE systems but note that  the armor is bulky and contributes to the total load burden—that is, the  cumulative weight of items typically worn or carried. In addition to PPE,  these items can include ammunition, food, water, communications  equipment, and items related to a weapon system, among other things. In  2009 we reported on procedures for evaluating performance  requirements during the preliminary design testing of hard armor plates  and found that the Army did not always follow established testing  protocols or maintain internal controls over the integrity and reliability of  testing data. We recommended that the Army document all key  decisions to clarify or change testing protocols and provide for an  independent peer review of testing protocols. The Army generally  concurred with and implemented these recommendations.
House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for us to  review Army and Marine Corps efforts to reduce the weight of PPE and  other equipment worn or carried by ground combat personnel. This  report describes (1) the current operational requirements associated with  PPE, and how those requirements contribute to the total load burden on  Soldiers and Marines in combat environments; and (2) the coordination  between the Army and Marine Corps regarding their efforts to reduce the  weight of PPE and the total load burden.
To describe the current PPE operational requirements for personnel  operating in combat environments, we reviewed relevant documentation,  including guidance and requirements provided by the Army’s Program  Executive Office-Soldier and the Marine Corps Systems Command. We  also met with program managers from these offices to discuss the PPE  requirements and procurement processes. Additionally, we met with  relevant program managers from the Army and Marine Corps to discuss  the primary equipment expectations for ground personnel, key load  factors, and PPE weight changes since 2003. To describe the weight and  how PPE contributes to the load burden on personnel we collected  available weight data for the PPE and other equipment worn or carried by  personnel in 2016—the most current data available at the time of our  review. We also collected available data and documents from the early  2000s—prior to operations in Iraq that resulted in PPE changes—for the  purposes of reviewing changes in weight over time. To assess the  reliability of the data used to describe the weight of PPE and other  equipment in this report, we discussed with relevant program managers  topics related to how the data were collected, managed, and checked for  accuracy and completeness. We also compared the weight data from the  Army and Marine Corps for similar PPE and other equipment to identify  any outliers in the weight data provided. We did not find any outliers in the  weight data or identify any obvious errors. Therefore, we found the data  to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the weight  characteristics of PPE and examples of expected load totals on Soldiers  and Marines.
To describe coordination efforts between the Army and Marine Corps  related to weight reduction and equipment improvements, we obtained  and analyzed working group charters and discussed with program  managers how the Army and Marine Corps formally and informally share  research and development information for PPE and other equipment. We  also met with relevant officials to discuss their communication  mechanisms, goals, plans, and research efforts that could potentially  reduce, offset, or better manage the weight of PPE or other equipment.  For those weight reduction initiatives identified by the Army and Marine  Corps, we obtained and analyzed research related documentation and  interviewed project managers to understand the potential for weight  reduction, development phases, and any available budget-related data.  We also discussed efforts to reduce total load burden with research  officials currently assessing the effects of weight on personnel  performance. The weight reduction initiatives described in this report  represent examples and not the totality of options or efforts being  considered or researched. A complete list of offices and agencies we met  with during this review is available in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Personnel from each of the services utilize a variety of PPE based on  factors such as the operational environment, job description or  occupation, and commander discretion. For example, Army and Marine  Corps ground combat personnel utilize soft and hard body armor  designed to protect against specific small arms, fragmentation, and other  unconventional threats, such as improvised explosive devices. Likewise,  personnel with aviation based occupations or explosive ordinance  disposal responsibilities, and those operating in extreme climates or  maritime environments have specific PPE options for their specific  assignments. During ground combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in  the 2000s, Soldiers and Marines typically wore tactical vests or plate  carriers with hard armor ballistic inserts, a combat helmet, and other  miscellaneous items such as eye protection and gloves. This PPE, added  to the other items that personnel typically carry or wear in operational  environments (weapon systems, food and water, communications  equipment, and other items), cumulatively represent the total load burden  on personnel.
The total load varies to some degree between the Army and the Marine  Corps, and the services use specific load categories for mission-planning  purposes. For example, the Army uses three combat loads, fighting  (lightest), approach march (mid), and emergency approach march  (heaviest), based on a number of factors, including mission duration and  purpose, the likelihood of resupply, climate, and other characteristics that  affect equipment and supply decisions. Similarly, the Marine Corps uses  the following categories for mission and load-planning purposes: fighting  (lightest), assault (mid), and sustainment (heaviest). According to Army  guidance and Marine Corps documentation, the two services generally  use these load parameters as a guide for determining the most  appropriate equipment and supply levels required to meet mission  objectives.
The services each have program offices that develop, acquire, and field  PPE and other equipment based on generated and approved operational  requirements for Soldiers and Marines. For example, Program Executive  Office Soldier develops specifications, and acquires equipment, including  PPE, based on capability requirements produced by the Army’s Training  and Doctrine Command. Similarly, the Marine Corps Systems Command  develops, acquires, and fields PPE and other equipment to address  operational requirements developed by the Capability Development  Directorate of the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and  Integration. The service program offices typically collaborate with each  other and partner with industry providers to research, design, and develop  PPE and other equipment.
section_title: Current PPE Requirements Are Designed to Address Operational Risks but Also Contribute to the Total Load Burden on Ground Combat Personnel
subsections: section_title: Performance Parameters and Protection Standards Guide the Development of Primary PPE
paragraphs: The Army and the Marine Corps have developed requirements for PPE to  address operational threats but these requirements contribute to the total  load burden on ground combat personnel. The services expect ground  combat personnel to wear a combination of equipment developed to meet  these requirements, including hard armor plates, soft armor plate carrier  vests, and combat helmets, as shown in figure 1. According to Army and  Marine Corps program managers, these items individually provide  specific functions that together form a protective system for personnel.
According to Army and Marine Corps documentation, the current system  was initially developed and fielded to address specific threats facing  personnel operating in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) in 2003. Officials  stated that the two services conducted capability and threat assessments  in this theater to determine how best to mitigate threats without hindering  mobility or combat effectiveness. The services have documented these  assessments and protection requirements in PPE guidance, technical  documentation, and acquisition specifications, which include the size,  weight, coverage area, protective standards, and other key parameters  for each primary PPE component. These documents standardize PPE  expectations and operational requirements for Soldiers and Marines.  Officials noted that they are able to change PPE requirements or  standards to meet evolving needs, incorporate technological  advancements, or modify goals. Additionally, they provide industry  partners with specifications needed to develop equipment. While the  services have produced individual PPE guidance and technical  documentation, officials noted that they jointly develop protection  requirements and acquire some of the primary PPE components. For  example, the Army and Marine Corps jointly acquired modern hard armor  plates and have coordinated on the development and acquisition of the  enhanced combat helmet. The two services also have similar standards  for the soft armor plate carrier vests, but Marine Corps officials noted that  because each service has some unique operational requirements, they  developed and acquired this item separately.
section_title: PPE Systems Increase the Total Load Burden on Ground Combat Personnel, Which Could Hinder Combat Effectiveness
paragraphs: Army and Marine Corps officials we met with stated that the body armor  that was fielded to meet current threats provides significant additional  protection when compared with previously available equipment. However,  they also noted that providing this level of protection adds significant bulk  and weight to the total load on Soldiers and Marines, which could impede  mobility and have other adverse effects. Both Marine Corps guidance and  Army capability requirements indicate that PPE should provide adequate  protection levels without hindering mobility or combat effectiveness. The  primary PPE (hard armor plates, soft armor vest, and combat helmet)  currently used by both Army and Marine Corps personnel averages  approximately 27 pounds (for size medium equipment), and adds to the  weight of other uniform items and equipment worn or carried by  personnel. The cumulative weight of all uniform items and other  equipment expected to be carried or worn by personnel in operational  environments represents the total load and can vary according to  individual position (e.g., squad leader, rifleman, grenadier) and mission  characteristics (see figure 2).
According to program managers we met with, the typical total load on  personnel has increased since about 2003 based on the incorporation of  new PPE systems and other equipment that is designed to enhance  personnel performance or protection capabilities. According to 2016  Marine Corps data, a typical load is expected to be approximately 90 to  159 pounds, or an average of 117 pounds, depending on the individual  function within the squad. Similarly, Army ground personnel are expected  to wear and carry approximately 96 to140 pounds, or an average of 119  pounds, depending on individual roles. These can vary based on  individual PPE sizes and other equipment variations. However, the  expected totals for Army ground combat personnel generally align with  actual load totals ranging from 96 to 151 pounds, reported by personnel  recently operating in Afghanistan.
However, program officials also explained that excessive loads can have  negative effects on personnel mobility, lead to earlier fatigue onset, and  exacerbate the risk associated with high temperature operational  environments. Army Field Manual 21-18, published in 1990, recommends  that the fighting load not exceed 48 pounds and that the approach/march  load not exceed 72 pounds. According to program managers, the  Marine Corps does not have specific load thresholds or maximums, but  documentation identifies that loads in excess of 30 percent of body weight  for ground combat personnel increase the likelihood of detrimental  performance effects. Medical researchers from the services whom we  met with agreed that these are some of the risks associated with  substantial combat loads, and stated that they have attempted to  correlate load burdens with detrimental performance and increased injury  risks. For example, the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego, CA,  collected injury data from personnel operating in Afghanistan and Iraq  between 2011 and 2013 and concluded that excessive loads may have  exacerbated the reported injuries. Service officials said that they are  studying these potential effects on personnel performance, but also  stated that the available load guidelines could be outdated and not  reflective of current PPE systems and other capability enhancing  equipment. Additionally, they note that these thresholds may not be  appropriate for all personnel and that load thresholds or limits could  restrict commander flexibility in the field by potentially impairing their  ability to properly outfit personnel to meet mission requirements.  Nonetheless, officials from both services stated that they continually seek  ways to reduce the weight of PPE and reduce or offset the overall loads  on personnel while maintaining operational capabilities and protection  standards.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Have Coordinated on PPE- Related Weight Reductions and Are Pursuing Efforts to Reduce Overall Load Burdens on Personnel
subsections: section_title: Army and Marine Corps Coordinate to Develop and Improve PPE
paragraphs: Army and Marine Corps officials coordinate through formal and informal  working groups that seek to develop and improve PPE. For example, two  to four times annually the services hold a Cross-Service Warfighter  Equipment Board, which allows Army and Marine Corps representatives,  along with members of the other military services, to share developments  and advancements made to PPE and other individual equipment. The  Army and Marine Corps also participate in the Personal Protective  Equipment Capabilities Development Integrated Product Team, an  interagency forum that shares information, such as injury data, research  and development findings, material developments, technologies, and test  methodologies, among key stakeholders involved in PPE development. In  addition, the Army and Marine Corps work together on the development  and procurement of PPE, such as the hard armor plates and the  enhanced combat helmet that meet both services’ needs.
Informally, the Army and Marine Corps regularly communicate on a  variety of PPE-related research, technology advancements, and planning  efforts. Officials from both Army and Marine Corps program offices  explained that coordination is mutually beneficial based on similar  equipment needs for ground combat personnel. Officials noted that they  have collaborated on the development, management, and procurement of  current hard armor plates since their inception in the early 2000s.  Additionally, in August 2016 we observed a Marine Corps-sponsored  industry event focused on the next iteration of the enhanced combat  helmet, where an Army engineer participated and shared with vendors  the Army’s perspective on weight reduction priorities for the helmet. Army  and Marine Corps officials stated that they collaborate with vendors to  gather input for the development of PPE.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Prioritize Protection Capabilities but Have Reduced the Weight of Some PPE and Have Plans for Additional Reductions
paragraphs: Army and Marine Corps program managers said that when developing or  improving PPE and other equipment, they prioritize protection and  operational capabilities, and that they have overarching goals of reducing  weight, and improving form, fit, and function of equipment. These  overarching goals have led to some improvements and reductions in the  weight of some PPE. For example, the Army and Marine Corps have  made updates and redesigned aspects of their respective soft armor  vests, which according to program managers have resulted or will result  in weight savings of up to approximately 40 to 50 percent, or about 6 to 7  pounds when compared with previous versions. In addition, according to  Marine Corps documentation, the service is incentivizing industry partners  to produce lighter equipment and systems by incorporating weight  reduction as a part of the source selection process for the enhanced  combat helmet.
Further, in 2016 the Army began developing a goal and subsequent plan  to reduce the weight of hard armor plates by 20 percent, or about 2  pounds, by identifying and eliminating excess ballistic protection  parameters and potentially updating testing methodologies. Officials  said that protection standards have largely prevented significant  reductions to date; however, they believe that the plates may be over- designed and heavier than necessary, based on actual operational  threats and PPE performance data collected in Iraq and Afghanistan.  According to research officials, updates would allow for weight reductions  without increasing the ballistic risk to personnel. According to Army  officials, the plan is currently pending approval by senior Army officials. If  approved, researchers expect to develop new hard armor plates, with  reduced weight, in fiscal year 2019.
The Army and Marine Corps are also pursuing other efforts to reduce the  weight of PPE. For example, the Army and Marine Corps are promoting  PPE scalability as an approach to realize near-term weight reductions.  PPE scalability allows Soldiers and Marines to vary the levels of PPE  worn, from minimal protection or no PPE to a maximum level whereby  Soldiers and Marines utilize all available PPE. The Army and Marine  Corps have categorized these protection levels based on configurations  of all available PPE, and officials said that potential weight reductions  could be realized if commanders were to adjust protection levels (amount  of PPE utilized) based on an evaluation of environment, threat, and  mission characteristics. However, Marine Corps officials noted that  commanders may be reluctant to increase operational risk by reducing  PPE protection levels.
Finally, Army and Marine Corps researchers are exploring ways to better  integrate individual equipment to provide improved functionality and  potentially save weight. The Army’s Warrior Integration Site and the  Marine Corps’ Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad research the integration  potential of all individual equipment worn by Soldiers and Marines.  According to officials with whom we met, the two services see their  analyses potentially resulting in improvements to the weight, form, and  function of Soldier and Marine equipment. One analytical method used by  both the Army and the Marine Corps entails load effect assessment  programs that use instrumented obstacle courses to gather data and  evaluate mobility and functions based on various combat loads that  personnel experience (see figure 3 and associated video). Officials  explained that these data and analyses help them identify specific  equipment that could or should be improved. While these efforts may  have implications for reducing the load burden of Soldiers and Marines,  the main goal for both organizations is to improve personnel performance  by providing better integration and function for equipment commonly  utilized by Soldiers and Marines.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Are Exploring Other Research Initiatives to Reduce the Total Load Burden on Ground Combat Personnel
paragraphs: Army and Marine Corps researchers are exploring initiatives—such as  improvements to logistics and resupply capabilities, load transfer  technologies, lighter ammunition, and reduced battery usage—that may  decrease the total load burden on ground combat personnel.
Improved Logistics and Resupply Capabilities. Researchers at the  Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center said  that they are exploring new technologies and systems that could  provide improved logistics support for squads in the form of precise  and on-demand resupply. Army officials noted that personnel loads  are affected by confidence levels in resupply and logistics support.  For example, squads that are more confident in resupply may be  more willing to carry less ammunition, water, food, and other supplies,  thus reducing the total weight carried by personnel. Therefore,  developing new aerial delivery systems capable of providing small-  and medium-sized payloads with precision could enable Soldiers and  Marines to carry not more than the necessary equipment and  supplies. The Marine Corps has implemented one of these systems,  the Joint Precision Airdrop System, which was developed by the  Army’s Aerial Delivery Directorate at the Natick Soldier Research  Development & Engineering Center. This system is designed to  accurately deliver (within 150 meters) up to 700 pounds of supplies to  personnel operating in inaccessible environments. A Marine Corps  program official stated that the system would likely alter planning and  allow personnel to forgo packing excess food, water, ammunition, and  other supplies. They also stated that the procurement and  sustainment costs for all units of this system totaled approximately  $850,000 for fiscal years 2013 through 2016.
Load Transfer Technologies: The Army and Marine Corps are  evaluating both manned and unmanned load transfer technologies  capable of travelling with units or squads (see figure 4). These  technologies may allow Soldiers and Marines to offload some items  such as food, water, or ammunition. For example, the Marine Corps is  currently employing 144 MRZR all-terrain vehicles capable of traveling  with squads and transporting up to 1500 pounds of personnel,  equipment, and supplies. Marine Corps officials stated that the total  acquisition and sustainment costs for all the vehicles are projected to  be approximately $15 million between fiscal years 2016 and 2018.  Similarly, the Army is in the process of developing an unmanned or  optionally-manned squad support vehicle capable of traveling with  dismounted personnel and carrying up to 1000 pounds of equipment.  The prototypes include both tracked and wheeled variants. Army  officials stated that they plan to pursue this as an official program and  field the vehicles in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. In addition, the  Defense Advanced Research Project Agency supported similar  research and development efforts by designing and testing the  Legged Squad Support System, which researchers stated had the  intended capability to carry up to 1,000 pounds of equipment and  travel semi-autonomously with squads and fire teams. While the Army  and Marine Corps are not currently pursuing this specific system, they  plan to test additional unmanned ground systems with similar load  transferring and mobility capabilities.
Lighter Ammunition: Army and Marine Corps program managers  are developing lightweight technologies and monitoring third-party  research related to the development of polymer-case ammunition for  commonly used .50 caliber, 7.62 mm, and 5.56 mm rounds. According  to program managers, transitioning to polymer based ammunition  casing could reduce ammunition weight by as much as 20 to 35  percent based on the weight difference between lighter polymer  casing and traditional brass casing. The Marine Corps began testing a  polymer-case .50 caliber round in March 2017, which could replace  legacy ammunition without modifying the .50 caliber weapon systems  currently in use. However, significant weight savings for personnel  would require implementing this technology for smaller-caliber rounds  with lightweight polymer-case compatible weapon systems, and  officials noted that these investments would likely hinder near-term  implementation.
Reduced Battery Usage: The Army and Marine Corps are  researching potential hardware and software changes that could  reduce the energy demand for some commonly carried electronics  and thus reduce energy usage and weight associated with batteries.  For example, Army researchers stated that they are evaluating  systems that harvest energy from Soldiers’ movements and solar  technology that could be used to power communications systems and  other battery-driven equipment. Additionally, officials noted that they  are monitoring private-sector technology developments that could  reduce the weight of batteries by 20 percent while providing the same  amount of energy as those batteries currently used. Marine Corps  program officials explained that they are also developing a single  radio with the same capability as is provided by two separate radios  currently used by Marines. Officials stated that this new radio may  reduce the need to carry excess batteries. However, Army and Marine  Corps officials noted that battery demand and its associated weight  continue to pose a significant challenge. For example, Army program  managers said that squad leaders currently carry approximately 8  pounds of batteries to power a variety of optics, communications  systems, and other equipment.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: DOD provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army  and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Agencies and Offices with Whom We Met During This Review
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Alissa Czyz (Assistant Director),  Larry Junek (Assistant Director), Alexandra Gonzalez, Amie Lesser, Sean  Manzano, Michael Shaughnessy, Michael Silver, Grant Sutton, and  Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to the report.