Patent Grant
11421963
The present invention generally relates to lightweight ballistic armor systems which can be integrally formed within, or secured to, a structure, such as a trailer, shipping containers, and the like, for protecting individuals, structures, missile canisters, vehicles and the like against low, medium and high velocity and low, medium and high caliber projectiles, as well as systems and structures, such as trailers, shipping containers, vehicles, body armor, aircraft, missile canisters and the like being integrally formed of such a lightweight ballistic armor system. More particularly, the present invention relates to an enhanced ballistic armor system which is integrally formed within a structure or vehicle, or secured directly thereto, for protection of individuals, structures, vehicles, cargo and the like against low, medium and high velocity and low, medium and high caliber projectiles. These projectiles can include low-caliber to high-caliber bullets, rockets, exploding grenades, exploding mortar shells, exploding mines and the like.
Ceramic-based armors and armor systems are well known in the art. However, many conventional armors and armor systems tend to be too heavy and/or bulky to be easily employed as a protection system against high caliber artillery and projectiles, or even lower caliber threats. Moreover, many conventional armors and armor systems can also tend to be too expensive for practical use or manufacture. Furthermore, ballistic armor and armor systems are subjected to a variety of projectiles or fragments over a wide range of velocities and calibers designed to defeat the armor or armor systems by penetrating the armor or armor systems, or by causing an impact against the armor or armor system that can cause spalling (i.e., flaking off of material from on object due to impact from another object), in particular spalling through mechanical stress which in turn eventually defeats the armor.
Many and various types of armor and armor systems are known for protecting personnel, vehicles, equipment and the like from damage or destruction caused by high caliber artillery and projectiles. Many such armor and armor systems are employed in military applications to protect individuals (such as via body armor), aircraft, tanks, ships and vehicles from damage or destruction caused by high caliber artillery and projectiles. In yet other applications, many such armor and armor systems are employed in military applications to protect missiles during their storage or transport, such as for example in the form of canisters in which the missiles are stored, held or transported.
The use of such armor and armor systems for protecting missiles maintained in protective canisters during storage or transport of the missiles is also well known. However, munitions must comply with the MIL-STD-2105 bullet impact and fragment impact requirements as defined in STANAG 4241 and STANAG 4496. Meeting these requirements by protecting the munitions with conventional ceramic armor systems is difficult due to the limited multi-hit performance of ceramic systems. In some known applications, the armor or armor systems is incorporated into the structure that is to be protected. Such applications can include military vehicles, armored vehicles or missile storage canisters. In such applications, it is typically not possible for the armor or armor systems to be temporarily applied but rather thus tend to be permanent aspects of the structure. In this regard, the armor systems can be difficult or even impossible to replace in the event of damage or failure.
In order to address the issue of weight in armor or armor systems, some conventional systems employ ceramic materials that can protect against a range of projectiles or fragments of projectiles. Ceramic tiles can often be used to break up and dissipate the energy of high caliber projectiles, and can be applied in specific thicknesses or patterns of the arrangement of tiles to maximize effectiveness. However, a disadvantage of conventional ceramic tiles is that ceramic is brittle and is more susceptible to cracking after impact, thus reducing the effectiveness against subsequent impacts. Cracking of the conventional ceramics can also leave the underlying structure to be protected vulnerable to exposure to outside elements, such as water, air, heat, cold, wind, chemicals, biological agents, etc., thereby further weakening the structure to be protected.
One known disadvantage in certain conventional armored applications is the allowable road weight that limits the numbers of encased missiles from being transported together. Due to the strict road weight limits, the excessive load created by the combined weight of the missiles, truck, etc. allows for only a few (e.g., 1-4) missiles to be transported together. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has established that the total road weight of a truck, including the weight of the load, cannot exceed 80,000 pounds per vehicle. It should of course be understood that different trucks have different weights, while the specific weight of the particular load, such as missiles to be transported and the respective container or canister, can vary depending on the nature of the type of missile at issue. Typically, the combined weight of a single missile and the respective canister may be about 7,500 pounds. Nevertheless, the combined weight of the truck and the missiles being transported which comprise the respective load cannot exceed 80,000 pounds. Consequently, the missiles are oftentimes unprotected (i.e., lack a protective structure) in order to maximize the number of missiles that are transported together while also meeting the strict road weight limits or only have the standard protective canisters without additional protective means. Oftentimes, the excessive load caused by the combined weight of the missiles and storage protective canister allows for just one, or at most two, missiles to be transported together. In the event more missiles are transported, such as 3-4, the transport might be done in a manner without any additional protection in which case the missiles are vulnerable to attack. To achieve the requirement of not exceeding the 80,000 pound load limit, the protective system of the present invention in an embodiment may be provided at a weight in the range of about 18-30 lb./square foot (psf). However, it should be appreciated that the specific weight per ft2 in accordance with the present invention depends on the specific nature of the application type with which the present invention is employed.
Another disadvantage with conventional armor systems in the case of armor systems employed as protection for vehicles is that the excessive weight of the armor systems can tend to render the vehicles relatively immobile, or at least significantly slower. This in turn can tend to cause the vehicles to be more vulnerable to attacks by high velocity and high caliber projectiles, and more significantly more vulnerable to attack, and even more significantly more vulnerable to repeated attacks by projectiles or fragments of projectiles.
In some known applications, the armor or armor systems is incorporated into the structure that is to be protected. Such applications can include military vehicles, armored vehicles or missile storage canisters. In such applications, it is typically not possible for the armor or armor systems to be temporarily applied but rather are aspects of the structure. In this regard, the armor systems could be difficult to replace in the event of damage or failure.
Projectiles, such as armor piercing ammunition, are designed to specifically penetrate conventional armor and armor systems. Conventional ceramic-faced armor systems were consequently developed to defeat armor piercing ammunition. For example, at impact, the projectile can be blunted or otherwise damaged by the conventional ceramic-faced armor system. At the same time, cracking or other damage to the conventional ceramic-faced armor system is inevitable which leads to a weakening of the integrity of the conventional ceramic-faced armor system and thus more vulnerable to future attacks.
Some specific examples of conventional prior art armor and armor systems are now set forth below.
U.S. Publication No. 2009/0320676 (Cronin, et al.) is directed to the use of an armor for protection against projectiles having a ceramic layer with a confinement layer on the front thereof. The ceramic layer is backed by a first metallic layer and the first metallic layer in turn is backed by a composite layer. The composite layer is backed by a second metallic layer, which in turn is backed by an anti-trauma layer.
WO 91/00490 (Prevorsek, et al.) discusses a composite ballistic article comprising at least one hard rigid layer, at least one fibrous layer and a void layer between the rigid layer and the at least one fibrous layer. The relative weight percents of the hard rigid layer and the fibrous layer(s), and the relative positions of the layers are such that the article is said to exhibit a mass efficiency equal to or greater than about 2.5.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,061,815 (Poole, Jr.) discusses a laminated sheet material having high impact resistance for use in with armor plates. One or more layers of cellular or non-cellular polyurethane is sandwiched between a rigid, high impact resistant sheet of material, such as aluminum armor plate and fiberglass, in the one face and a thin retaining skin on the other. A filler, such as ceramic, particulate refractory or strip metal, can be embedded in the polyurethane layer(s).
U.S. Publication No. 2010/0212486 (Kurtz, et al.) discusses a strike plate including a base armor plate having an outwardly facing surface and a hard layer deposited on the base armor plate to substantially overlay the outwardly facing surface. A ballistic attenuation assembly is allegedly provided having multiple sheets of a first fibrous material and a sheet of a second fibrous material laminated together by a modified epoxy resin with the first sheet of a second fibrous material being exposed along an outward facing surface. An alternative ballistic attenuation assembly is also discussed having a first panel having opposed inward and outward facing surfaces, a second panel having opposed inward and outward facing surfaces, and a spacer interposed between the first and second panels forming a gap between the inward facing surfaces of the first and second panels.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,200,256 (Dunbar) discusses an armor lining for protecting objects from high velocity projectiles having an extended sheet-like body having a weight of less than eight pounds per square foot and having an inner strike surface being positioned away from the object to be protected. A first layer of woven fabric material is carried at a position adjacent the outer strike surface layer and a second layer of material is carried internally of the woven layer between the outer strike surface and an inner attachment surface. A third layer of energy absorbent material is positioned adjacent the inner attachment surface and interfaces with the second fabric layer.
U.S. Publication No. 2009/0293709 (Joynt, et al.) discusses an armor system for protecting a vehicle from high energy projectiles having a leading layer, relative to the projectile trajectory, positioned exterior to the hull, a first plurality of sheet-like layers of a low density material positioned between the leading layer and the hull; and a second plurality of sheet-like high strength metal layers positioned between the leading layer and the hull. The individual ones of the first plurality of high strength metal layers are positioned alternating with and to the rear of individual ones of the second plurality of low density material layers. The leading layer can be one of a sheet-like metallic layer, a metalicized grid layer, and the outer-most layer of the first plurality of low materials layers. The materials of the high strength metal layers can be steel and high strength aluminum, and the materials of the low density material may be low density polypropylene composites and R-Glass composites.
U.S. Publication No. 2010/0294123 (Joynt, et al.) discusses a modular armor system having a leading layer with a metal and an intermediate sheet-like layer of a low density material lesser than that of metal, abutting a rear surface of the leading layer. The armor system also has an intermediate sheet-like layer having glass fiber material and abutting a rear surface of the intermediate low density material layer, and an intermediate sheet-like layer having metal and abutting a rear surface of the intermediate glass fiber layer.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,084 (Vogelesang, et al.) discusses an armor plate composite having four main components, namely, a ceramic impact layer, a sub-layer laminate, a supporting element and a backing layer. The ceramic layer serves for allegedly blunting the tip of a projectile. The sub-layer laminate of metal sheets alternate with fabrics impregnated with a viscoelastic synthetic material for absorbing the kinetic energy of the projectile by plastic deformation. The backing layer away from the side of impact consists of a pack of impregnated fabrics.
U.S. Publication No. 2006/0065111 (Henry) discusses an armor system having an outer case of woven or unidirectional fibers filled with one or more protective materials. The outer case includes a pressure sensitive adhesive bonded to one side for allegedly quick and easy application to a body to be protected. The protective materials may include ceramic material which may be in the form of ceramic tile sheets, loose ceramic balls or perforated tiles, multiple layers of woven or unidirectional cloth and steel mesh.
With reference to
There is a need for an improved armor system for protecting individuals, structures, missile canisters, vehicles and the like against low, medium and high velocity and low, medium and high caliber projectiles, as well as a need for manufacturing a missile transport canister that can defeat a range of projectiles and fragments over a wide velocity range from anti-armor devices while reducing overall armor thickness, and which is capable of defeating multiple close proximity strikes from these projectiles. Moreover, there is a need for such an armor system that is relatively inexpensive to manufacture, relatively easy to manufacture and relatively easy to employ in a variety of applications, including but not limited to body armor, vehicle armor and missile canister protective armor.
Also known in the art are body armor, armored trucks, vehicles, armored trailers for semi-trailer trucks and the like. Typical armored vehicles and body armor known in the art can be disadvantageous in that they fail to meet the requirements for protecting against, even low-caliber ammunition and/or are too heavy for normal use on streets in a city environment. On the other hand, armored vehicles known in the art that may sufficiently protect against even low-caliber threats tend to be too heavy or cumbersome for use on roads and highways and can be too expensive to manufacture. Therefore, there is a need for an armored vehicle in which a lightweight ballistic armor system is integrally built into the armored trailer, which is relatively inexpensive and easy to manufacture and can be employed in a wide range of applications for a wide range of purposes, including protecting cargo such as missiles, munitions, explosives and high value cargo, as well as for use with body armor, or vehicles such as police cars.
In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the present invention is a lightweight armor system comprising a laminate composite material backing alone or in combination with at least one perforated metal or expanded metal strike face plate (also known as a tipping plate or an appliqué armor). The metal strike face plate or plates may be, for example, steel or steel alloys, cast irons, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and the like, or any combination thereof. A thin composite skin or metal skin may cover the front face of the strike plate for protection from outside elements. An example of a perforated metal strike face plate is that found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,007,326 (Gooch, et al.), the details of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The laminate composite backing may comprise a cross-sectional composition of a backing material of fibers, such as KEVLAR® fibers, E-glass, S-Glass, polypropylene, Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE), including fibrous UHMWPE such as a pressed Spectra Shield II® SR-3130 ballistic composite material from Honeywell Advanced Fibers and Composites, Colonial Heights, Va., with polymer resin binders such as, but not limited to, silicones, epoxies, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, and polyureas, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,638,572 and 7,098,275 (both to Inglefield), the details of which are incorporated herein by reference. The laminate composite backing may optionally be enclosed or encased within a surrounding support layer of a silicone, epoxy, polyurethane, and/or polyurea, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,638,572 and 7,098,275 (both to Inglefield) to encase the cross-sectional composition during application.
In an alternative embodiment of the present invention, an optional environmentally insensitive protective layer, wrapping, or encasement may be employed such as comprising an appropriate polymer or metal material, as discussed further below. It should be understood that the environmentally insensitive protective layer may also advantageously provide an additional layer for improving the ballistic characteristics of the present invention. Still further, a single-layered or multi-layered perforated metal sheet may be employed in accordance with the present invention, or even alone without an associated composite layer, for use with, for example, low or medium level insensitive munitions applications including on a missile canister.
An air space may be present between the strike face plate or plates, when employed, and the laminate composite backing. The air space may be provided in the range from about 0 to at least 12 inches depending on the specific type of application with which the present invention armor system is employed, in particular in the range from about 0-8 inches, and more particularly in the range from about 0.25 to 4 inches or even 0.5-3 inches. The air space in accordance with the present invention may be optionally filled with an energy absorbing foam material or other comparable energy absorbing material, such as but not limited to a low density foam, and in particular, but not limited to, a polyurethane-based foam or a polypropylene-based foam. It should be appreciated that air space having zero inches in depth would be having essentially no air space employed in accordance with the present invention.
The armor system according to an embodiment the present invention is designed to defeat lead, copper, steel or high density cored projectiles of tungsten carbide or tungsten alloy by fracture, erosion and enhanced rotation via the strike face plate. In accordance with the armor system of an embodiment of the present invention, the remaining energy and projectile fragments are then absorbed in the laminate composite backing.
The lightweight armor system according to an embodiment of the present invention is designed to defeat, or at least slow down, small arms to heavy machine gun threats and/or low, medium and high caliber projectiles, (5.45 mm to 14.5 mm) including, but not limited to 0.30-Cal APM2, 0.50-Cal APM2, or 5.56X45 M193, 5.45X45 M855/M855A1, and/or meet the requirements defined in VPAM 2009 (German Association of Test Laboratories for Bullet Resistant Materials and Constructions)—Edition: 2009-05-14; Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor NU Standard-0101.06; Department of State SD-STD-01.01, Forced Entry And Ballistic Resistance of Structural Systems, Revision G, Apr. 30, 1993; Underwriters laboratories UL752, Standard UL Protection Levels; STANAG AEP Edition 1 1955, STANAG 4569, STANAG 4241, STANAG 4496, STANAG 4439, or MIL-STD-2105 (the details and specifics of which are incorporated herein by reference), as well as steel or high density cored projectiles, fragments or Fragment Simulating Projectiles of steel, tungsten carbide or tungsten alloy by fracture, erosion and enhanced rotation via the strike face plate when employed. In accordance with the armor system of the present invention, the remaining energy and projectile fragments are then absorbed in the laminate composite backing.
The lightweight system can also advantageously be employed to disrupt, deflect and dissipate the energy of a small arms impact. In the case of munitions protection, the allowed munitions response to STANAG 4241 bullet impact or STANAG 4496 fragment impacts as defined in STANAG 4439 may not require a defeat of the threat but only a reduction of the threat. This lightweight system of an embodiment of the present invention is provided at a weight of about 4.0 psf to 15.0 psf, and is designed to disrupt STANAG 4241 and STANAG 4496 impacts enabling the munitions to meet minimum requirements as defined in STANAG 4439.
The lightweight armor system according to the present invention can be used for various applications such as tanks, trucks, vehicles, individual protective systems (i.e., body armor), aircraft, helicopters, barriers, protective structures and missile storage containers or canisters.
It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved armor system or lightweight armor system for protection against high velocity projectiles, including steel or high density cored projectiles of tungsten carbide or tungsten alloy.
It is another object of the present invention to provide an improved armor system that is relatively lightweight relative to conventional lightweight armor systems.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide an improved armor system or an improved lightweight armor system having reduced or comparable production costs relative to conventional lightweight armor systems.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a lightweight armor or armor system and a method of construction thereof, that is lightweight and relatively thin relative to conventional lightweight armor systems, yet provides protection against projectiles and fragments.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide an improved armor/armor system, or a lightweight armor or armor system and a method of construction thereof where the lightweight armor can be used as protective armor for individuals, vehicles or missile transport canisters, and the like, with reduced deformation and destruction when impacted by projectiles and fragments.
Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a lightweight armor system that meets all relevant and required military standards and requirements for weight and size for the specific type of application with which the system of the present invention is employed, and for defeating the necessary projectiles and fragments.
Yet another object of the present invention is to provide an armor system that meets all relevant and required military standards and requirements for weight and size for the specific type of application with which the system of the present invention is employed, and for defeating projectiles and fragments.
Still yet another object of the present invention is to provide an armor system that provides an improved multi-hit capacity.
An object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide an armored structure or vehicle, such as an armored trailer, an armored shipping container or an armored canister, and the like having a ballistic armor system integrally built within the walls, roof/ceiling and/or floor of the structure, trailer, shipping container or canister, or secure directly thereto.
Another object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide an armored structure or vehicle, such as an armored trailer or armored shipping container, and the like that employs conventional end loading/unloading of cargo or alternative methods for loading/unloading of cargo.
Yet another object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide an armored structure, such as an armored trailer or armored shipping container, and the like that sufficiently protects cargo held and carried therein from a range of ballistics, including from small arms to heavy machine gun threats, and larger scale threats, including improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
Still yet another object of the present invention is to provide a lightweight armor system for incorporating directly into the body of body armor or canisters, as well as vehicles, including police vehicles, aircraft, and military vehicles and having improved multi-hit capability, increased durability, lower cost and increased structural properties, or secure directly thereto.
Still yet another object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide a lightweight armor system for protecting the body of an individual having improved multi-hit capability, increased durability and increased structural properties.
An additional object of the present invention is to provide an armor system or a lightweight armor system that, regardless of the specific application with which it is employed, meets the necessary requirements of any potential natural environment, including extreme temperatures such as between −46° C. to +71° C., various levels of humidity, thermal shock, contaminating fluids, radiation including solar radiation, rain, fungus, and salt fog.
An additional object of the present invention is to provide an armor system or a lightweight armor system that, regardless of the specific application with which it is employed, meets the necessary requirements of any potential induced environment, including shock, functional shock, handling drop shock, transient drop shock, truck and trailer vibrations, aircraft, jet, helicopter and other vehicle cargo vibrations.
It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are intended to provide a further explanation of the present invention, as claimed.
Other objects of the present invention will become apparent from the description to follow and from the appended claims.
The present invention is now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details.
Turning now to
Perforated metal or expanded metal strike face plate 110, 210 may be a material that is for example, but not limited to, steel or steel alloys, hardened steel, cast irons, aluminum, magnesium, titanium and the like, or a combination thereof. In an embodiment, strike face plate 110, 210 may comprise a cast iron material such as a cast steel material, i.e., ductile cast iron. As noted above, an example of a perforated metal strike face plate is that found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,007,326 (Gooch, et al.), and which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. It should be appreciated, however, that strike face plate 110, 210 can be any buffer plate of a high strength material that receives impact or impact-induced stress waves prior to a shock-absorbing element. In this regard, strike face plate 110, 210 can alternatively be a flat sheet of a high strength metal, or polymer-based composite such as a fiber-reinforced polymer composite. It should be appreciated that any wrought iron plate or casting in accordance with MIL-PRF-32269 would be in accordance with the present invention. In particular, it should be appreciated that MIL-PRF-32269 provides that 4130 steel alloy and 4330 steel alloy are acceptable alloys for cast perforated plate (Class 2 armor), that MIL-A-12560 rolled homogenous steel (Class 1a armor) and MIL-A-46100 high hard rolled homogenous steel armor (Class 1b armor) is acceptable for imparting a hole pattern into to make perforated plate. These are examples of perforated material types which are qualified to date and are by no means comprehensive. It should be appreciated by the skilled artisan that other candidate alloys for making cast perforated plates (or alternatives, e.g., expanded metal) may exist.
In an alternative embodiment of the present invention, a composite layer or metal skin layer 211 may optionally cover the perforated metal or expanded metal strike face plate 210 as shown in
In accordance with the present invention, composite layer or metal skin layer 211 may be a material that is the same as or different from the material of strike face plate 210. As understood from
As shown in
As shown in
The sizes of the openings of the slots which may be advantageously used in embodiments of the present invention range from about 0.15 inch to about 2 inches in length, or even about 0.50 inch to about 2.0 inches in length for an embodiment (i.e., the vertical orientation of the openings of the slots), by about 0.15 inches to about 2 inches, or even about 0.25 inch to about 1.0 inch in width for an embodiment in width (i.e., the horizontal orientation of the openings of the slots). The web 132, defined as the solid material between the plurality of slots or holes 130, 230 can vary in thickness from about 0.10 inches to 1 inch (i.e., the spacing between adjacent slots or holes). It should be understood that the spacing between each hole or slot of the plurality of holes or slots may advantageously be consistent there-between, but need not be consistent there-between. The number of slots, for example, per square foot, may be within the range of about 15 to 680 slots/square foot. This number, however, may be left for the skilled artisan to determine depending on the nature of the particular application with which the present invention is employed. Slots or holes 130, 230 are preferably arranged in a uniformed fashion and are equally spaced apart from each other. Moreover, the slots of the present invention are set in obliquity of up to about 60 degrees, such as from 0 degrees to 50 degrees measured from a vertical orientation or axis. For example, plurality of holes that are designed for use with protecting against 30 caliber bullets would be approximately half the size of the plurality of holes that are designed for use with protecting against 50 caliber bullets. In a particular embodiment in accordance with the present invention in which holes comprise a substantially oval-shaped configuration defined by two opposing arced ends, the distance between the respective focal points (shown by opposing “F's”) of the opposing arced ends is about ½ inch and the angle of each opposing arced end is about 0.17-0.19°, in particular about 0.1875° (
The armor of an embodiment of the present invention may be produced and represented by the following: Styrofoam master sheets having a thickness of about 0.50 inches and dimensions of about 14 inches by about 30 inches are used. The styrofoam sheets have slots in a regular pattern produced from a die and the slots have the dimensions of 0.625 inches by 1.625 inches on 0.625 inch vertical centers and 1.625 inch horizontal centers. These slots are set at an obliquity of 30 degrees relative to a vertical orientation or axis. The web, defined as the solid material between the slots, is about 0.150 inches in thickness.
As shown in
With specific reference to
With reference to
In accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, laminate composite backing 120, 220 can comprise a layered configuration of cross-sectional composition of fibers such as, but not limited to, at least one of synthetic aramid fibers or para-aramid fibers known as KEVLAR® fibers, E-glass, S-Glass, polypropylene, Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE), such as a plurality of layers of standard ballistic cloth based on a UHMWPE known under the trademark DYNEEMA®, and integrally combined with polymer resin-based binders such as, but not limited to, at least one of silicones, epoxies, urethanes, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, and polyureas, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,638,572 and 7,098,275 (both to Inglefield and commented on earlier), incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. In accordance with the present invention, polymer resin-based binders such as silicones, epoxies, urethanes, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, and polyureas may be those sold under the trademark HOTBLOX® which may be readily obtained from American Technical Coatings, Inc. located in Cleveland, Ohio as discussed above. A bottom layer, side layers and a top layer of a polymer resin-based binder material such as a silicone, epoxy, polyurethane, urethane and/or polyurea, such as those sold under the trademark HOTBLOX® readily obtained from American Technical Coatings, Inc. located in Cleveland, Ohio, are provided for encasing the layered configuration comprising the laminate composite backing 120, 220. The layered configuration comprising the laminate composite backing 120, 220 is treated under pressure, such as in the range of about 2,000 psi-3,500 psi for a period of time as needed, such as in the range of between ½ hour-10 hours, and preferably in the range between 1-5 hours, to arrive at an appropriate laminate composite backing for use with the protective system of the present invention.
Alternatively, the optional encasing or encapsulation in accordance with the present invention discussed above may be replaced by employing an environmentally insensitive layer or wrap, such as a polymer layer, sheet, or encasing (e.g., polypropylene) or a metal layer, sheet, or encasing (e.g., aluminum, titanium, and the like). One such alternative embodiment armor system is shown generally at numeral 700 in
Turning now to
It should be appreciated that a process for encapsulating the laminate composite backing layer in accordance with the present invention can be as follows. It should also be appreciated that the process for forming the laminate composite backing layer in accordance with the present invention would envision any alternative or modifications that would be apparent to one skilled in the art. In particular, a material in a liquid form is encapsulated around a fibrous bundle core in a manner conventional in the art. The liquid is solidified to form an encapsulating skin. The transformation from liquid may occur, for example, via solvent evaporation, chemical reaction, or cooling from a molten state or by any alternative comparable manner conventional in the art. For example, a two-component system which is liquid under normal ambient conditions without the addition of a solvent can be poured over the fibrous bundle core and the components solidify by a chemical reaction. Alternatively, a thermoplastic material can be melted and molded around the fibrous bundle core, i.e., by insert injection molding.
Regardless of the actual chemistry of the resin material, the preferred material properties of the resultant solidified optional encapsulating skin for the laminate composite backing in accordance with the present invention can be the following. In particular, thermoset elastomeric resins may be employed in accordance with the present invention as follows.
An example of the formulation in accordance with the present invention can be as follows. It should be appreciated that the formation of the present invention is not limited to this example, but would envisions any alternatives or modifications that would be understood by one skilled in the art. A polyurethane that is made by the reaction of a multifunctional amine and a multifunctional isocyanate without the addition of a solvent is provided. More specifically, an oligomeric ether or ester with diamine functionality reacted with a diisocyanate is provided.
As discussed above, alternatively the bundle or layered composite configuration may be environmentally protected by pressing or wrapping protective layers of polypropylene or other comparable materials, such as metal, Kevlar, S-glass, and the like, around the bundle or layered composite configuration. Edges may be reinforced with glass epoxy composites or other comparable protective and/or reinforcement materials as shown in
In an alternative embodiment, as discussed in greater detail below, a layer, sheet or board of a high tensile strength material, such as a high tensile strength polymer board, may be employed adjacent to laminate composite backing 200 at a thickness in the range of about 1/32 inch-4 inches, or about ⅛ inch to about 4 inches, or about ¼ inch to about 4 inches, or even about 1/16 inch-4 inches and more particularly at a thickness in the range of about 1/32 inch-2 inches. It should be appreciated that the thickness of the high tensile strength polymer board would depend on the specific requirements of the particular application with which the present invention is employed. High tensile strength polymer board may supplement the laminate composite backing 200, or replace at least a portion of the cross-sectional composition of the laminate composite backing 200.
As shown in an embodiment of the present invention in
As shown in an embodiment of the present invention of
Turning now to
In accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, the armor system of the present invention meets the appropriate military weight specifications and requirements for defeating high velocity and high caliber projectiles, or alternatively for disrupting/deflecting/dissipating the energy of small arms impact (i.e., a reduction of the energy of the small arms threat). In particular, the armor system of the present invention meets the appropriate military weight specifications and requirements as defined by NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) Bullet Impact, Munitions Test Procedures promulgated on Apr. 15, 2003 and NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) Fragment Impact, Munitions Test Procedures promulgated on Dec. 13, 2006, both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. For example, the present invention meets the appropriate test of stopping, or alternatively slowing down (i.e., deflecting, disrupting, dissipating the energy of) three (3) 50-caliber bullets shot within a 2-inch diameter area and shot in a time interval of 1/10 second apart.
In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the armor system of the present invention comprises a weight in the range of about 18-35 psf for use with missile canister protection systems. More particularly, in accordance with the present invention, the armor system comprises a weight of no greater than about 29 psf in the embodiment in which the present invention is employed for use with a missile canister armor system. Even more particularly, in accordance with the present invention, the armor system comprises a weight of about 23 psf in the embodiment in which the present invention is employed for use with a missile canister armor system. In accordance with the present invention, the respective weights meet those that are needed by the particular application of use with which the present invention is employed.
In an alternative embodiment, the lightweight armor system of the present invention comprises a weight of about 3-15 psf, including about 6-11 psf. More particularly, the lightweight armor system of the present invention comprises a weight in the range of about 7-11 psf, or even 7.1-10.8 psf, when employed with a metal strike plate, such as steel or titanium, for defeating, for example, 30 caliber armor piercing threats. In accordance with the present invention, the respective weights meet those that are needed by the particular application of use with which the present invention is employed.
In another alternative embodiment, the lightweight armor system of the present invention comprises a weight in the range of about 4-8 psf, or even about 5-6 psf, or more particularly about 5.6 psf, when employed with a hardened steel plate for defeating threats such as 5.56 X 45 M193 and SS 109 (M855 equivalent). In this instance, the embodiment of the present invention may be employed for use with vehicles, such as a material for forming at least a portion of the vehicle body, such as a police vehicle or military vehicle. In this embodiment of the present invention, Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) may be advantageously employed as the component of the composite backing.
In another alternative embodiment, the lightweight armor system of the present invention comprises a weight in the range of about 4-9 psf, or even about 4-7.7 psf, or more particularly about 4.0-6.7 psf, or even more particularly in the range of about 4.3-6.3 psf or still even more particularly about 4.0-5.5 psf, when employed for use as a missile canister for encasing and protecting missiles during transport. In this embodiment of the present invention, S-Glass may be advantageously employed as the component of the composite backing, such as for lowering flammability properties. As also discussed above, the fibers or composite material may be advantageously used to wrap the perforated metal plate directly. For use on a missile canister, it should be appreciated that, for example, the wrapped perforated strike plate can be used as a singular item for improving ballistic and/or environmental properties.
As shown in
Turning now to
As shown in
Referring to
The Ballistic Barrier Test was conducted in order to test ballistic armored panels in accordance with the present invention.
STANAG 4241-50 Caliber Bullet Impact Test
The objective of the test was to impact each candidate plate in a specified quadrant with a volley of three 50-caliber armor-piercing (AP) projectiles, fired at 100+/−8 msec intervals from 50 caliber Mann barrel devices. The projectiles were required to have velocities of 2788+/−66 ft./sec. These projectiles were to impact the specified plate quadrant within a 2-in circle, without key-holing or overlapping.
Test Item Configuration
The overall general test configuration is shown in
The instrumentation setup was as shown in
Projectile velocities were measured using Oehler infrared screens and high-speed video. The Oehler screen and Phantom high-speed camera setup was as shown in
Test Execution
Once the equipment was verified to be fully functional, and the projectile grouping was within a 2-inch circle, the target plate was secured to the test stand. The target plate consisted of a ⅝-inch perforated grate up-range and a 2.5-inch thick piece of composite downrange. The target panels were bolted to the test stand as shown in
Three laser bore-sights were used to give an approximate visual reference as to where the Mann barrels were aimed. The point of impact was on the face of the perforated metal grate at the center of the lower-left quadrant as demonstrated in
Once the instrumentation was reset and shown to be ready, a volley of three 50 caliber armor-piercing projectiles was fired at the target. The projectiles impacted the plate within a 2-inch circle as shown in
As shown in
Velocity data for this volley is shown in Table 2 below.
Additional Test Plate
Another target test plate in accordance with the present invention was secured in a similar fashion as the first test plate. In this additional test, the difference between the respective plates was that the former had a composite plate thickness of 1.75 inches. This required the use of a ¾-inch standoff directly behind and downrange of the composite plate in order to maintain a plate separation of 5⅛-inches as shown in
A volley of three 50 caliber AP projectiles was fired at the target. Upon post-test inspection it was observed that projectile grouping and impact locations were similar to the initial test results as shown in
As shown in
The velocity and firing interval data for the additional test plate armor system in accordance with the present invention is presented in Table 3.
STANAG (NATO Standardization Agreement) 4496—Fragment Impact Test
The objective of the test was to impact each candidate plate in a specified quadrant with a single North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) standardized fragment with a nominal mass of 18.6 grams, traveling at a velocity of 8300+/−300 ft/s.
The fragment was fired from a 40 mm High-Performance Powder Gun, which is an electrically-actuated, mechanically-fired cannon. A schematic depiction of the test site is shown in
The instrumentation setup was as set forth as shown in
Multiple cameras were used and their types and settings are described in the following Table 4. Cameras C and D were redundant units for each other.
Test Execution
The same target fixture was utilized for both the bullet impact and fragment impact portions of the test. Mounting arrangements were identical, and a clean quadrant diagonally opposite of the previously targeted quadrant was used as illustrated in
Test Plate
The test plate was secured to the target test stand as shown in
A post-test inspection revealed that the fragment impacted at the intended aim point as shown in
The test plate reactions during the fragment impact are shown in Table 5 (
As shown in
The fragment velocity was measured using one primary and one redundant Phantom camera. The fragment velocity data is presented in the following Table 5.
Additional Test Plate
The additional test plate in accordance with the present invention was installed with the same standoff used for the bullet impact portion of the test. A distance of 5⅛-inches was measured from the back side of the grate to the face of the composite plate as shown in
The post-test inspection revealed a large amount of damage to the front of the composite plate and no damage to the witness plate, as shown in
The reactions during the fragment impact are shown in Table 6 (
The velocity was measured using one primary and one redundant Phantom camera. The fragment velocity data is presented in the following Table 7.
The tests were conducted in accordance with the approved test parameters. The projectile velocities and firing intervals for the bullet impact test were in accordance with STANAG 4241. The projectile velocity for the fragment impact test was in accordance with STANAG 4496.
It should be appreciated that the armor system in accordance with the present invention may be employed in any type of appropriate application for protection against high velocity and high caliber projectiles. Such applications for employment may include, but is not limited to, individual protective systems, i.e., body armor, armor for tanks, armor for ships or boats, armor for trucks, armor for vehicles, armor for aircraft including airplanes, jets and helicopters, armor for barriers, armor for protective structures, i.e., blast panels and armor for missile containers for storage or transport.
Turning now to
As shown in
As shown in
It should be understood that the armored trailer system 600 need not be limited to the particular application described herein of carrying cargo in the nature of missiles, but rather can be modified for protection of alternative types of cargo that might be less sensitive or less vulnerable. For example, the threats against an armored trailer for transport can be defined by the particular classes of weapons that are mobile, can be fired by an individual or individuals can engage a moving type target at a given range, including small arms to heavy machine gun threats, and fragments from roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs). It should be further understood that kinetic energy threats, for example, can include but are not limited to threats ranging in caliber from about 5 mm-15 mm, more particularly from about 5.45 mm to about 14.5 mm, in both steel and tungsten carbide cores. Still further, these threats can be fired from single and multiple shot assault weapons, sniper rifles and machine guns at near or extended ranges. Even further, it should be understood that the presently claimed armored trailer system 600 can protect against a second class of threats including but not limited to IED type weapons that can be simulated in testing by fragment simulating projectiles (FSP) in calibers up to 20 mm in diameter.
In accordance with the present alternative embodiment of the present invention, the armored trailer system 600 of the present invention comprises a weight in the range of about 18-35 psf for use with missile canister protection systems for munitions, and comprises a weight in the range of about 1-35 psf for use in carrying other types of cargo. More particularly, in accordance with the present invention, the armor system comprises a weight of no greater than about 29 psf in the embodiment in which the present invention is employed for use with a missile canister armor system for munitions. Even more particularly, in accordance with the present invention, the armor system comprises a weight of about 23 psf in the embodiment in which the present invention is employed for use with a missile canister armor system for munitions. Still further, the armored trailer system 600 in accordance with the present alternative embodiment of the present invention can have a total thickness of about 8.0 inches as set forth above, and can be further modified by elimination of certain components and/or materials. For example, metal strike face plate may be an optional metal strike face plate in accordance with the armored trailer system 600 of the alternative embodiment of the present invention and may comprise a material including but not limited to carbon steels, alloyed steels, stainless steels or titanium. In other words, metal strike face plate may be omitted in armored trailer system 600 depending on the required level of protection desired for the particular cargo being protected. The airspace according to armored trailer system 600 may be in the range of about 0 inches (i.e., negligible or no airspace) to about 10 inches. The rear composite layer of armored trailer system 600 may comprise any material as described above, including but not limited to polyethylene, aramid- or glass-based composite materials. In accordance with the present invention, the respective weights meet those that are needed by the particular application of use with which the present invention is employed. It should be further appreciated that each of two opposing walls 612a, 612b, ceiling or roof 614, rear end 616, front end 618 and floor 620 which are integrally formed with the armor system of the present invention may be joined to each other or otherwise interconnected by mechanisms known in the art, such as but not limited to welding, conventional threaded bolt and nut securing mechanisms and the like, or any other comparable mechanisms that are conventional in the art.
Table 8A below sets forth and describes testing results regarding armor systems comprising perforated titanium/polymer composite backing for 30 caliber armor-piercing (APM2) threats. “Total weight” in Table 8A is shown as “pounds per square feet” and “velocity” is shown as “feet per second.”
Table 8B below sets forth and describes additional testing results regarding light weight armor systems for defeating 30 caliber M2AP projectiles. Weights of 7.1 to 10.4 psf are shown. All systems tested comprise at least one perforated metal strike plate, a 2″ space, and a corresponding composite backing.
Testing of Tables 8A and 8B demonstrates that the perforated metal and composite backing configuration in accordance with the present invention is effective at stopping 30 cal APM2 threats at weights as low as 7.1 psf. This system could be employed as an armor system for aircraft, vehicles, shields, shelters, body armor, and the like.
Table 9 below sets forth and describes testing results regarding light weight armor systems having a weight of 5.6 psf employing a perforated hardened steel plate/polymer composite having UHMWPE for use with armored vehicles with both threats shot at the same panel.
Tables 10-18 below set forth and describe background information and testing results regarding light weight armor systems employing a perforated hardened steel plate/polymer composite having S-Glass for use with structures such as missile canisters for insensitive munitions requirements compliance.
Tables 10-18 below set forth and describe background information and testing results regarding light weight armor systems for insensitive munitions (IM) bullet impact/fragment impact (BI/FI) testing. In particular, a design for Type V non-propulsive burning reaction were done to limit canister penetrations to “below threshold” impacts, as well as to maximize breakup damage to the impactor and to spread debris and rotate the penetrator to increase the surface area of impact. Weights of 6.2 psf and 5.6 psf are shown in Tables 10-15. Insensitive munitions (IM) are defined as munitions which reliably fulfill (specified) performance, readiness and operational requirements on demand but which minimize the probability of inadvertent initiation and severity of subsequent collateral damage to the weapon platforms, logistic systems and personnel when subjected to unplanned stimuli. IM test methodologies and compliance requirements defined by MIL-STD-2105(D) and supporting Standard NATO Agreements (STANAGs) include testing for fast cook off, slow cook off, bullet impact, fragment impact, sympathetic reaction and shaped charged jet impact. IM assessments includes Type I-Type VI, as summarized below, with each IM test having a maximum allowable reaction requirement. For example, shaped charged jet requires reaction of Type III or better and bullet and fragment impact require reaction of Type V or better.
Tables 16-17 below set forth and describe background information and testing results regarding light weight armor systems for insensitive munitions (IM) bullet impact/fragment impact (BI/FI) testing. Weights of 4.7 to 7.7 psf are shown.
Testing of Table 17 reflects copper jacket and lead stripped from the tested bullet/projectile (weighing about 45 g) while only a core of approximately 25.9 g would pass through the respective canister. 44% mass reduction after exit of the test panel is shown which reflects substantial energy reduction.
In view of testing results set forth in Tables 14-17, it is shown that in accordance with the present invention a test projectile is significantly disrupted at an areal density of about 4.7 psf to about 7.7 psf. Specifically, it is shown that the jacket/lead is stripped thereby reducing mass reduction by about 44%, a velocity reduction of about 7-10%, a significant amount of the penetrator tipping energy is spread over a wider impact zone, penetrator fracturing can occur and about a 50% penetrator energy reduction due to armor interaction, i.e., energy reduction primarily due to mass reduction. The testing indicates that the armor systems have a high probability of enabling munitions to meet the insensitive munitions requirements for bullet impact.
Table 18 below sets forth and describes testing results regarding light weight armor systems for 14.3 mm fragment impact testing for insensitive munitions compliance. Weights of 4.2 to 6.7 psf are shown.
Testing of Table 18 demonstrates that the armor system can significant disrupt and deflect the 14.3 mm FSP and provides an increased likelihood that munitions will be able to meet the insensitive munitions requirements for fragment impact.
A schematic rendering of a TPS (transportation protection system) in accordance with any embodiment of the present invention is shown at
What has been described above are preferred aspects of the present invention. It is of course not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing the present invention, but one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that many further combinations and permutations of the present invention are possible. Accordingly, the present invention is intended to embrace all such alterations, combinations, modifications, and variations that fall within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 61/954,985 filed on Mar. 18, 2014 and 62/090,492 filed on Dec. 11, 2014, under Title 35, United States Code, Section 119(e). This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/006,065, filed on Sep. 18, 2013, which is a U.S. national phase application of and claims the benefit of International Application No. PCT/US2012/041642 filed Jun. 8, 2012, under Title 35, United States Code, Section 371, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/520,320, filed Jun. 8, 2011, under Title 35, United States Code, Section 119(e), and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/587,894, filed Jan. 18, 2012, under Title 35, United States Code, Section 119(e), the entire disclosures of all the foregoing are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
The framework structure for a possible use of the invention was made with government support under N00024-07-C-5361 and/or N00024-03-D-6606 awarded by the Department of the Navy. This invention was also made with government support under HQ0276-15-D-0001 awarded by the Missile Defense Agency. The government has certain rights in the framework structure for a possible use of an embodiment of the invention, but does not have rights in the embodiments of the invention per se.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4061815 | Poole, Jr. | Dec 1977 | A |
| 4716810 | DeGuvera | Jan 1988 | A |
| 4835033 | Auyer | May 1989 | A |
| 4836084 | Vogelesang et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4857119 | Karst | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4965138 | Gonzalez | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4981067 | Kingery | Jan 1991 | A |
| 5007326 | Gooch, Jr. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5014593 | Auyer | May 1991 | A |
| 5200256 | Dunbar | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5221807 | Vives | Jun 1993 | A |
| 5330820 | Li et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5601895 | Cunningham | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5723807 | Kuhn, II | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5970843 | Strasser et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 6135006 | Strasser et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6314858 | Strasser et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6638572 | Inglefield | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6698331 | Yu et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 7077048 | Anderson, Jr | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7098275 | Inglefield | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7191694 | Gonzalez | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7300893 | Barsoum et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7513186 | Ravid | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7546796 | Hunn | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7562612 | Lucuta et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7608322 | Thurau et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7790252 | Nematollahi | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7827898 | Park et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7866248 | Moore, III et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7926407 | Hallissy | Apr 2011 | B1 |
| 7938053 | Dudt et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
| 8096223 | Andrews | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8225704 | Ogrin | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8234965 | Ravid | Aug 2012 | B2 |
| 8375841 | Bocini | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8459167 | Gonzalez | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8468926 | Treadway | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8505432 | Kidd | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8667879 | Kidd | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 9038332 | Littlestone | May 2015 | B1 |
| 9097495 | Kesterson | Aug 2015 | B1 |
| 9470481 | Livesey | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 20040216595 | Dickson | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20050257677 | Ravid et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060030226 | Park | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060065111 | Henry | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060162537 | Anderson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060213360 | Ravid | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20070240621 | Qiao | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070293107 | Folio | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080171166 | Nematollahi | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080264244 | Ravid | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090095147 | Tunis et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090214812 | Bartus et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090293709 | Joynt et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090320676 | Cronin et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100212486 | Kurtz et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100282062 | Sane et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100294123 | Joynt et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20110036234 | Fisher | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110167998 | Lyons | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110192274 | Fingerhut | Aug 2011 | A1 |
| 20110239851 | Mason | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296979 | Howland | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120024137 | Chiou | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120060676 | Kidd | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120060678 | Peters | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120090454 | Treadway | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120174747 | Hummel | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120186433 | Braiewa | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120216669 | Bovenschen | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120234164 | Kucherov | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120266744 | Lyons | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120325076 | Monette, Jr. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130061739 | Cheong | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130180393 | Kienzle | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130284003 | Dodworth | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130284004 | Hanks | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130284007 | de Haas | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140000802 | Kidd | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140013934 | Inglefield | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140041517 | Leeming et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140076140 | Ravid | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140109756 | Aghjanian | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140305293 | Kucherov | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20150345913 | Inglefield | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1335240 | Apr 1995 | CA |
| 1574810 | Sep 2005 | EP |
| 9100490 | Jan 1991 | WO |
| WO9100490 | Jan 1991 | WO |
| 2009096956 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009096956 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009096956 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO 2011094740 | Aug 2011 | WO |
| 2012010829 | Jan 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012010829 | Jan 2012 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| EPO Search Report issued in a related EP Application, dated May 22, 2015. |
| Office action issued in related EPO App. No. 12796778.4 dated Jun. 24, 2016. |
| International Search report and Written Opinion dated Nov. 27, 2015 issued in related PCT/US15/21303. |
| Office Action from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office dated Jul. 11, 2017 for corresponding CA Application No. 2,864,692. |
| Communication and Supplementary European Search Report from the European Patent Office dated Oct. 9, 2017 for corresponding EP Application No. 15795701.0. |
| Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority dated Aug. 10, 2012 for corresponding International Application No. PCT/US2012/041642. |
| International Search Report of the international Searching Authority dated Aug. 10, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/041642. |
| Examination Report No. 1 from IP Australia dated Apr. 28, 2016 for corresponding AU Application No. 2012267563. |
| Examination Report No. 2 from IP Australia dated Apr. 24, 2017 for corresponding AU Application No. 2012267563. |
| Office Action from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office dated Jan. 24, 2018 for corresponding CA Application No. 2,864,692. |
| William A. Gooch, Jr., An Overview of Protection Technology for Ground and Space Applications, NATO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel, Aalborg, Denmark, Sep. 23-26, 2002. |
| MIL-PRF-32269 (MR), Oct. 18, 2007, Performance Specification, Perforated Homogeneous Steel Armor, U.S. Dept, of Defense, AMSC NA, FSC 9515. |
| EPO Supplementary Partial European Search Report dated Jan. 16, 2015. |
| Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) from the European Patent Office dated Aug. 29, 2018 for corresponding European Patent Application No. 15795701.0. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150345913 A1 | Dec 2015 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62090492 | Dec 2014 | US | |
| 61954985 | Mar 2014 | US | |
| 61587894 | Jan 2012 | US | |
| 61520320 | Jun 2011 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 14006065 | US | |
| Child | 14661860 | US |
