How can we spend billions weapons technology research but not a few dollars on body armor for soldiers?

Question

If you have ever watched "future weapons" or any other documentary on new military technology, or looked at the defense budget you will know the billions we spend on fancy new technology research and its all based on giving the soldiers more information supposedly to make there job safer. Why can't we start by giving them all body armor.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/international/middleeast/14armor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Answer 1

You waaaaay out of touch. All Troops deploying to Iraq & Afghanistan have had excellent Body Armor since 2004 at least.

I wore Interceptor Body Armor(IBA) with a desert cover & SAPI plate inserts back in Nov. 2004. With DAPS & Side SAPI, new ESAPI its heavy, but the best body Armor out there.

Dragonskin sucks, IBA saved My life on June 10th, 2005, & July 4th, 2005.

Getting your info from a TV program geared to ratings doesnt neccessarily mean its demonstrations arent staged for effect, instead of truth.

Answer 2

We do get issued body armor. If what you mean is why dont we get more or better body armor, then the question is a little more complex. For one thing, like anti -IED countermeasures we are always constantly one step behind the weapon. I dont think anyone could have predicted that in this war we would have found a weapon that could penetrate M1A2 Ahbrams tank armor like the shaped charges there now. Second, armor technology hasn't changed much in years, its the same basic idea with different materials. This makes it heavy, cumbersome, and sometimes (depending on the level of body armor you wear) can interfere with mobility.

We await more flexible, lighter, and in the end more productive body armor from the likes of DARPA and MIT (also from a future weapons episode)

Answer 3

Ok, here's an intelligent answer:

Those billions spent for technology research actually help save soldier's lives. What do you think UAV's are doing? They can observe enemy territory without using soldiers to do so. New fighters and bombers help weaken the enemy before sending our ground troops in. Improved sight technology used in night goggles, on weapons and whatnot helps soldiers carry out their missions with less casualties.

If you can send an unmanned, armed drone in to attack the enemy and destroy them, wouldn't that be better than buying body armor? No amount of armor is going to save a soldier from getting blown up or even shot to death anyway.

Answer 4

We all do have body armor. The body armor we have is already too restrictive most soldiers want to wear less alot of times. We need to spend money on vehicles capable of withstanding EFPs (explosively formed projectiles). If the fragments get through the vehicle the body armor usually doesnt help at all.

Answer 5

In simple terms, here's how I see it:

Actually, the funding for body armor is sizable and has produced some very high-tech stuff which should soon be adopted by our military forces.

But, to answer you question, it's a matter of priority: Navel and Aviation weapons platform operations are the main forces for deterrent and initial military operations employed to quickly neutralize the enemy's ability control the air war, communicate, and supply their forces,and successfully deploy their forces. This strategy utilizes, with a few exceptions (special ops missions) fast and devastating action by air platforms against specific targets, such as those aforelisted. The success of any large scale hostile ops depends on swift initial action.

In other words, the first concern is to attack and destroy the enemy's ability to control the air, their ground facilities which permit enemy communication, and their supply depots, transportation options, and supply lines, and this is best accomplished by combination of initial air platforms combined with certain special ground ops including recon and special or unconventional ops missions. This initial strategy demands priority and is heavily funded and for just cause.

After initial ops have establish some degree of advantage, conventional and special ground ops are deployed to engage,disrupt, and defeat enemy ground forces, to destroy well fortified enemy forces in sensitive ops emplacements, and to occupy and control strategic land locations which are either strategic of have not been completely neutralized by the airborne ops and those either weakened or dispersed by air ops, and mopping up ops.

Thanks to congressional in-fighting to gain political advantage (a selfserving interest of most politicians), our military funding and budget appropriations suffer as a consequences.

Answer 6

Ever heard of Interceptor body armor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor

Hmmm...guess you've never heard of Ceradyne, Armor Holdings, and ArmorWorks Enterprises, either. They produce SAPI and ESAPI body armor plates.

http://www.ceradyne.com/news/newsreleasedetails.aspx?id=162
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071219/ceradyne_contract_armor.html?.v=1

Answer 7

They get body armor.

I saw the future weapons episode where they tested the body armor.. and it was pretty impressive.

But they didn't show you the parts where it failed, it's supposedly very prone to failure at high temperatures.. such as experienced in Iraq.

Answer 8

the big shot money men dont give a rats *** about the grunts, they think that new tech will solve the problems, sometimes you just have get the job done the old fashion way, "if you want to hammer two boards together just hit the fing nail"

Answer 9

I have body armor that I was issued in Iraq. We all got issued body armor. That stuff's annoying.

Answer 10

not everyone needs body armor. there is no need for an aircraft carrier cook to have body armor. all combat positions ARE issued body armor though.