An Exclusive First Look At The Navy’s New Fire-Retardant Coveralls

Mark D. Faram, Navy Times, January 19

 

 

 

The Navy has approved a new underway uniform that may be issued by afloat commands later this year and would end a four-year effort to put shipboard sailors in high-quality fire-retardant clothing.

The announcement of the new coveralls – officially known as the Improved Fire Retardant Variant, or IFRV, came in an AllFleet message released Jan. 19.

The IFRV coveralls will be worn by all sailors once their ship leaves the pier and is underway. It looks nearly identical in color and design to the Navy’s current poly/cotton-issue coverall, known as the FRV.

“It weighs significantly less than the current FRV fabrics, breaths more efficiently, giving sailors better moisture management and comfort,” Rear Adm. Pete Stamatopoulos, the director of fleet ordnance and supply at Fleet Forces Command, told Navy Times in a Jan. 13 interview. “It also lasts twice as long as the original FRV.”

For now, the new coveralls won’t cost sailors a dime out of pocket. Officials say the fire-retardant gear will remain what’s called “organizational clothing,” which, much like flight suits, are issued when sailors need them and aren’t a part of the seabag.

The new uniform is expected to become a part of every sailor’s seabag once the it is in the fleet. But for now, officials say there are no plans right to replace the existing poly/cotton coveralls in a sailor’s seabag. The current coveralls are not an official uniform anymore; the Navy downgraded them only for “dirty work” that would damage sailors’ other working uniforms.

It’s been more than 20 years since the Navy required sailors to wear fire-retardant uniforms at sea. The Navy’s decision to resurrect the requirement began four years ago amid revelations that the Navy Working Uniform – while never developed to be a fire-retardant uniform – actually put sailors at risk.

Navy officials learned of the dangers after an October 2012 test showed that the Navy Working Uniform Type I’s melted when exposed to open flames. In fact, the uniform – made of a 50/50 nylon-cotton blend – “will burn robustly until completely consumed,” according to the report from the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility (NCTRF) in Natick, Massachusetts.

In search of a safer uniform, the Navy in 2014 first purchased off-the-shelf coveralls for shipboard issue while also developing a long-term solution with an original design. But this first Fire Retardant Variant, called the FRV in the fleet, fell short in both comfort and durability in the eyes of the rank and file wearing them.

“There were complaints from sailors that the FRV material was too heavy and hot for many environments … so hot that, in talks with sailors, many said they would go through two or more changes during the day.” Stamatopoulos said.

“And it didn’t stand up well over time and especially laundering,” he said.

Back to the drawing board went the textile researchers at NCTRF and by last summer two new prototypes were issued to 700 sailors on the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge, the destroyer Carney and the fast attack submarine Kearsarge.

The biggest change over the original FRV was the material – both test versions were made from a flame resistant “tri-fiber” blend material.”

“The IFRV was designed not only with the safety of our sailors in mind but also comfort and durability,” said Adm. Phil Davidson, who commands the Norfolk, Virginia-based Fleet Forces Command. “Shipboard wearability and functionality was of extreme importance with the development of the IFRV,” Davidson said.

The new coverall was designed to last nearly twice as long as the original FRV. An added benefit that the new coveralls’ material offers is arc-flash protection, a significant upgrade from the current uniform’s material.

In the past, the Navy issued special coveralls to sailors working near equipment that posed a risk of an arc flash, which is a fast-moving, high-intensity electrical fire that is potentially deadly. Typically only electricians got those special protective uniforms, yet with the ships’ exposed wiring and plumbing, technically everyone is at risk.

The new material also meets the lint-free requirements of the submarine community, meaning that the fleet now has one coverall that meets the needs of both surface and submarine crews.

The IFRV’s requirement is that flame-resistant fabric “must self-extinguish within 2 seconds after exposure to a standard flame ignition source for 12 seconds,” according to Amy Bradshaw, a supervisory textile technologist, on the research and development team at NCTRF.

“The IFRV fabric, tested after 1 and 50 shipboard launderings met this requirement,” she said.

Bradshaw said that it is difficult to quantify a specific amount of time that a flame resistant material can be exposed to flame without igniting. But in general, when exposed to flame, they should resist ignition and self-extinguish almost immediately upon removal from the ignition source.

It will take much of this fiscal year, Stamatopoulos said, to get the existing FRV contracts reworked and the production of the new IFRV underway. But he expected the uniform to start showing up in fleet inventories possibly sometime in the first quarter of fiscal 2018, though that’s subject to change.

“It won’t be an immediate replacement, but it will really happen as older FRV inventories are depleted, the IFRV will take their place,” Stamatopoulos said. “This will happen naturally on a size-by-size basis.”

Exact details on when the coveralls will become available will be announced once production begins.

More Uniform Considerations

During the new coverall’s testing, the Navy also looked at a new flight suit design as well. But that didn’t get much love from the sailors, despite the initial cool factor.

“The zippered pocket locations were not optimal for most sailors and they felt the same zippers were uncomfortable if you had to lie down on them while working,” said Capt. Mark Runstrom, the director of Fleet Supply Operations and Services at FFC. “Sailors chose functionality over looks.”

Overall, 91 percent of sailors involved in the test thought the IFRV traditional coverall was an improvement over the FRV version, but only 68 percent thought the same for the flight suit version, Navy officials said.

In the focus groups and in feedback from online surveys, sailors’ feedback was overwhelmingly positive in favor of the IFRV material and favorable toward the traditional coverall design. Of those surveyed, 89 percent thought the IFRV coverall looked better than the original FRV; 86 percent felt it was more durable; 91 percent said it was more comfortable; and 85 percent thought it was cooler in hot climates.

Sailors also expressed interest in the idea of a two-piece underway uniform – and the positive feedback was enough to prompt Navy leadership to take a look.

Development is underway for what’s being called a “maritime two-piece fire retardant variant.” The NCTRF is now working on prototypes and fleet focus groups are again expected to be used to review the designs in the near future.

Sources told Navy Times last fall that this uniform could resemble a hybrid of the solid blue working uniform the Coast Guard currently wears and the Navy’s NWU Type III’s.

This, officials say, will give CO’s more options for sailor comfort in hot environments with the possible removal of the blouse. Making this possible will be a layering concept that will bring into play replacing T-shirts as undergarments with under layers made of flame resistant, drifire-style moisture wicking jerseys, the NAVADMIN said.

Should the Navy go the two-piece route down the line, it will most likely impact the seabag. Officials told Navy Times that the final seabag requirement for the NWU Type III’s won’t be set until the FR two-piece idea is approved or nixed.

The survey feedback and test data central to FFC commander Davidson’s decision to designate the IFRV coverall as the underway uniform for the Navy. “In the end, the data drove the decision,” Stamatopoulos said. “This truly was a deckplate-driven wear test and the decision is what the sailors thought best.”

First Time In 20 Years

The move will also bring the Navy full circle to May 13, 1996, when the decision was made by then-Chief of Naval Operations Jay Johnson to eliminate the seabag requirement of four pairs of fire retardant dungarees – which was then the working uniform for E-6 and below.

It was a calculated risk, but one that at the time the data supported.

The decision was based partially on cost as the Navy touted the move would save $12 million. But two other factors came into play as well.

Att the time, all new uniforms underwent flame tests. But actual shipboard, fires were rare and most sailors weren’t at risk, the studies conclude.

On top of that, FR uniforms of the day were problematic at best, costing 60 percent more than non FR standard uniforms. Besides, multiple tests in the 1990’s showed the Navy was struggling with the fact that the uniforms would lose their fire retardant ratings after very few shipboard washings.

So in 1996, after a 14-year effort to bring consistent fire retardant uniforms to the fleet, the Navy cut ties with their blanket shipboard FR requirement. At the time, issuing fire retardant coveralls to engineers and other sailors in jobs that put them at risk was already common practice, so officials noted – those at greater risk were covered.

The move created some initial pushback in Congress, but in the end, lawmakers went along with the Navy’s decision, too.

But with the 2012 revelations of just how flammable the NWU’s and with them, the poly/cotton issue coveralls – all the same issues came up.

This time, Gortney decided it was time the Navy revisited the 20-year old arguments of FR necessity and especially light of modern fabric technological advances.

“Although the likelihood of a major conflagration is low – 1-2 per year – when it does happen, the consequences could be severe to fatal,” Gortney wrote on May 29, 2013 in a message that officially brought back the shipboard FR requirement.

In defining what that conflagration meant, he described it as “a fire or explosion of such size as to be beyond the control of the repair parties and may be a threat to the survival of the ship.”

In announcing his plan to field FR clothing to the fleet and begin more research and development in the field going forward he made the decision to err on the benefit of all sailors – not just a few.

“The maximum protection to cover all possible contingencies and scenarios would include the issuance of flame resistant clothing for all sailors assigned to shipboard environments.”