Interceptor multi-threat body armor system

IBA was designed in the late 1990s as a replacement for the PASGT vest and the essentially-improvised ISAPO supplemental armor plate carrier, a combination widely criticized by US troops for its immense weight.

[3] The U.S. Marine Corps has replaced the OTV with the Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) and Scalable Plate Carrier (SPC), although IBA is still used by the U.S. Navy for sailors aboard its warships as of 2017 and by the U.S. Army Reserve as of 2018.

The IBA system consists of an Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) and two Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) ballistic plates.

These two parts of the vest are both bullet and heat resistant and offer protection similar to the earlier PASGT flak jacket.

Due to the increased dangers of improvised explosive devices, newer versions of the vital plates and components have been developed.

The Interceptor cannot, however, be called a Level III-A vest, since military standards do not require protection against heavy .44 Magnum ammunition.

The vest will stop lower velocity fragments and has removable neck, throat, shoulder, extended back and groin protection.

SAPI and ESAPI are the most technically advanced body armor fielded by the U.S. military, and are constructed of boron carbide ceramic with a Spectra shield backing that breaks down projectiles and halts their momentum.

Materials for the Interceptor vest were developed by DARPA in the 1990s, and a contract for production was awarded to DHB Industries' Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., by the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center.

[15] In 2007, news reports were being issued on the lack of protection from hard and soft plated body armor from lethal rounds.

As part of U.S. President George W. Bush's $87 billion package for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, $300 million was earmarked for body armor.

[28] The MTV provides greater coverage, superior weight distribution, and additional features including as a quick-release system.

[30] Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and with it speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved.

Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IEDs and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal as inadequate armor.

[17] On 4 May 2005 the U.S. Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor OTVs made by DHB's Point Blank unit after news reports about the vests' inability to stop 9 mm bullets.

In November 2005, the Marine Corps ordered 10,342 Interceptor outer tactical vests pulled from the operating forces after media reports indicated some samples tested by the manufacturer and by the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland failed to fully comply with ballistics standards.

A U.S. Marine Corps forensic study obtained by DefenseWatch criticizes the Interceptor OTV body armor system.

[19] In 2005, the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress after the recalls, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian body armor and other gear.

Mannequin of a U.S. Marine wearing a coyote-brown OTV and an additional corporal full protection called "Quadgard IV". This kind of protection was used by turret gunners during the Iraq War, to protect them against small arms fire and fragmentation.
Marines from the U.S. 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit marching while wearing IBA and MOLLE components in November 2001, during the War in Afghanistan .
U.S. Navy sailors in June 2017 wearing OTVs aboard USS Green Bay in the "M81" woodland pattern.
An Interceptor vest with additional side SAPI plates and neck protector in 2005, with a set of full-body armor in the background.
U.S. soldiers in 2003 wearing woodland-patterned IBA vests atop DCUs. Prior to the introduction of the Army Combat Uniform in mid-to-late 2005 most U.S. soldiers wore the woodland-patterned IBA; although DCU-patterned vests existed they were relatively rare.