Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.

MrCrazyBoyRavi said:

Are these collar foldable ? I personally don’t feel comfortable with tight collar in the neck.

Click to expand...

to answer your question. Yes.

by78 said:

Woodland camouflage for sailors and naval special forces. The smurfs are dying.

Click to expand...

Check the images Woodland Starry with collars down.
The “Mandarin” style collar was adopted to modern combat uniforms to keep debris out of the tunic. Though historically Western military uniforms have had some style of standing collar for centuries. They mostly fell out of favor post world war 1 in favor of a notch style. It was around then that Military uniforms started to shift with dedicated combat/Work uniforms vs “Walking out” Service uniform vs Parade dress uniforms.
The latter tended to keep the standing style well the former became more like a lounge suit but with modified military tunic.
In the case here it seems like the PLA adopted the BDU style type 07 then gradually made tweaks some images even look like they were starting to change from a notch to a Mao collar like with the flaps shrinking and the closure going higher. Then we see these. The collar and fly of the tunic both have flaps that close over the closure but the flaps are detached from each other. It looks to me as if the closing device on the collar is a Velcro strip on the outside of the collar on the right and inside on the left.
you can see some kind of device on the left side of the folded collars in the images above. Likely an additional flap of Velcro to protect the closure.

Type-19 cold-weather (outer and inner) coats and thermos/canteen for border patrol troops.

halflife3 said:

I am liking what i see. However I am noticing some infantry wearing FAST style helmets, are they higher ranked soldiers? Why do regular infantry need such a helmet, especially if you are not going to wear comtacs with it, which is the main reason for the portion covering the ears being cut. I generally see special forces utilize such a helmet.

Click to expand...

If they are commanders they will eventually be using a radio even if it’s a hand held type it’s easier to use with the high cut.
If not could simply be that it’s a bump helmet. FAST came as either ballistic rated or a bump type.
Or it could simply be a question of not enough to go around.

Could this be some kind of comm device similar to civilian's "Bluetooth Headset"? They are now emphasizing on high-tech individual gears for each soldier.

by78 said:

Note the earplugs for hearing protection.

Click to expand...

NeutralWarrior said:

Could this be some kind of comm device similar to civilian's "Bluetooth Headset"? They are now emphasizing on high-tech individual gears for each soldier.

Click to expand...

It's possible, but in-ear monitors tend to block too much outside noise – not desirable as soldiers need to be aware of their surroundings – unless these specific ones in the photos allow environmental noises to pass through either passively or electronically like Apple's AirPods Pro. My feelings are that they are simple earplugs to protect hearing during training.

by78 said:

It's possible, but in-ear monitors tend to block too much outside noise – not desirable as soldiers need to be aware of their surroundings – unless these specific ones in the photos allow environmental noises to pass through either passively or electronically like Apple's AirPods Pro. My feelings are that they are simple earplugs to protect hearing during training.

Click to expand...

Most high end earbuds have pass through mode, same with even medium to low level over ear hearing protection.

I agree that these are most likely just simple earplugs, but the main reason I don’t think the military would adopt electronic earbuds for earpro and comms is battery life.

Even the best earbuds currently tap out at the 8-12h mark, granted that is for active use like calls or streaming music, but I don’t think there will be much battery saving if you have them on pass through mode all the time, as you would need to in combat conditions.

For earbuds to work in combat environments, you need to issue every soldier with at least two sets, so they can have one set charging in the carrying case while using the others.

Doable, but very troublesome and costly. Especially when you consider how easy it would be to loose one of them.

The only benefit to earbuds compared to ear cups is user comfort in hot climates, and I just don’t see the PLA (or any military tbh) carrying that much to bother.

plawolf said:

Most high end earbuds have pass through mode, same with even medium to low level over ear hearing protection.

I agree that these are most likely just simple earplugs, but the main reason I don’t think the military would adopt electronic earbuds for earpro and comms is battery life.

Even the best earbuds currently tap out at the 8-12h mark, granted that is for active use like calls or streaming music, but I don’t think there will be much battery saving if you have them on pass through mode all the time, as you would need to in combat conditions.

For earbuds to work in combat environments, you need to issue every soldier with at least two sets, so they can have one set charging in the carrying case while using the others.

Doable, but very troublesome and costly. Especially when you consider how easy it would be to loose one of them.

The only benefit to earbuds compared to ear cups is user comfort in hot climates, and I just don’t see the PLA (or any military tbh) carrying that much to bother.

Click to expand...

The US military has already distributed tens of thousands of TCAPS earbuds. The price was $2000 per set back in 2016, could be a lot cheaper now due to amortization. With China's electronics industry, something similar to TCAPS could be more than an order of magnitude cheaper even early in the amortization process.

by78 said:

The US military has already distributed tens of thousands of TCAPS earbuds. The price was $2000 per set back in 2016, could be a lot cheaper now due to amortization. With China's electronics industry, something similar to TCAPS could be more than an order of magnitude cheaper even early in the amortization process.

Click to expand...

I am annoyed that I forgot to add the caveat that only the US might be silly enough to consider issuing such Gucci gear, although I suspect there might have been an element of, ‘we need to spend this budget or they will cut next year’s budget’ to this particular purchase decision.

There is the China price, but not even China can make $2000 earbuds for $20 or even $200, which is pretty much the top end of what I think the PLA would consider spending on comm-linked earpro for troops when they could just issue everyone with $2 earplugs like what we have seen.

Then there is still the issue of battery life, as you have massive size and weight limits with earbuds you do not have with ear cups, and there is only so much power you can squeeze into such a small battery.

With ear cups, you have much more space to play with, and also have the option of plug in power or using common AA or AAA backup batteries so that troops in the field can quickly and easily swap out dead batteries for fresh new ones instead of having to wait for earbuds to recharge.

plawolf said:

I am annoyed that I forgot to add the caveat that only the US might be silly enough to consider issuing such Gucci gear, although I suspect there might have been an element of, ‘we need to spend this budget or they will cut next year’s budget’ to this particular purchase decision.

There is the China price, but not even China can make $2000 earbuds for $20 or even $200, which is pretty much the top end of what I think the PLA would consider spending on comm-linked earpro for troops when they could just issue everyone with $2 earplugs like what we have seen.

Then there is still the issue of battery life, as you have massive size and weight limits with earbuds you do not have with ear cups, and there is only so much power you can squeeze into such a small battery.

With ear cups, you have much more space to play with, and also have the option of plug in power or using common AA or AAA backup batteries so that troops in the field can quickly and easily swap out dead batteries for fresh new ones instead of having to wait for earbuds to recharge.

Click to expand...

The earbuds don't necessarily need to have internal batteries like the AirPods. TCAPS buds are wired, with the power being delivered by a small battery tucked away somewhere on the soldier. Besides, most IEMs by design have low impedance and high sensitivity, so they consume very little power (sub-10 mW to drive), and even the active noise cancellation and pass-through are power-sipping, so I don't think battery life is going to be an issue. Also, TCAPS buds are basically glorified noise-cancelling IEMs with a built-in mics for pass-through purposes. I'm sure China could easily come up with something similar or better for a lot less, because it's mostly commercial OTS tech. TCAPS buds are expensive because the component supply chains had to be created from scratch (i.e. buy American). Remember, the U.S. doesn't do consumer electronics, so there is no existing ecosystem here and little economy of scale.

by78 said:

The earbuds don't necessarily need to have internal batteries like the AirPods. TCAPS buds are wired, with the power being delivered by a small battery tucked away somewhere on the soldier. Besides, most IEMs by design have low impedance and high sensitivity, so they consume very little power (sub-10 mW to drive), so I don't think battery life is going to be an issue. Also, TCAPS buds are basically glorified noise-cancelling IEMs with a built-in mics for passthrough purposes. I'm sure China could easily come up with something similar for a lot cheaper, because it's mostly commercial OTS tech. TCAPS buds are expensive because the component supply chains had to be created from scratch. Remember, the U.S. doesn't do consumer electronics, so there is no ecosystem here and no economy of scale.

Click to expand...

Being wired showed how silly of a decision it was to have them, as the benefits over far cheaper ear cup designs are significantly reduced with a wired design. Furthermore, you add a lot of potential issues like having the wires getting snagged and the ear buds getting pull out of your ear at a bad moment.

As for making it cheaper using off the shelf tech, well that’s not as clear cut as you seem to think. Commercial grade electronics are not made to military specs, so it’s highly questionable if a earbud made with off the shelf components would be suitable/effective and or even survive shooting range convictions, never mind military specifications.

For example, it would not be a great idea to take your AirPods as earpro when going to a gun range, because they were not designed for that level of noise. The onboard mic might be degraded and damaged from prolonged exposure to such high noice levels, and the active noise cancellation is unlikely to be anything like effective enough at cancelling out weapons fire.

But the most fundamental issue isn’t whether China could make these or make it for significantly cheaper (China can on both accounts), but rather on why you would want to spend all that money to design and field something that will still be 10s to 100s of times as expensive as ear cup designs or just moulded plastic earplugs like what the PLA is fielding.

This feels like a classics case of a solution looking for a problem, or maybe someone with political connections wanted to turn a failed commercial venture into a cash cow by hopping on a government grave train.