Research shelf / Defence & security / Police equipment

Defence & security

Two law-enforcement equipment studies, costed over ten years

Police equipment procurement turns on two numbers nobody enjoys putting next to each other: what it costs, and what it does to the officer wearing it for ten years. These two studies put both in the same table — mass, injury score, service life and ten-year total cost of ownership across a 500-officer force.

Design document AGPL-3.0+ / commercial
Evidence level

Specified in detail; implementation partial or absent.

FolderWeapons-Police
FieldDefence & security
StatusDesign prospectuses, simulation-verified. No manufacture, no field trial, no procurement.
What it is

Body armour at a third the mass of the incumbent and a reduced-energy service pistol, both run through the same shared physics engine as the defence portfolio and both costed as procurement cases.

APES-L Mark I is a full-body armour system specified at 6.5 kg against a 20.25 kg incumbent, with 23 spec simulations behind it and a V50 cross-check against the shared portfolio physics. The lifecycle model gives panel service at ten years, ceramic tile replacement at four and soft-panel refresh at six — which is what makes the ten-year cost comparison meaningful rather than a sticker-price argument.

MP-4.6P Guardian LE is a service pistol chambered in a reduced-energy 4.6 × 22 mm loading at 396 m/s and 259 J, against 501 m/s and 326 J for the military 4.6 × 30 mm on the same bolt geometry. The seven-phase lifecycle simulation covers recoil, structural safety factor, Archard bore life, parts life and a Monte Carlo mean-rounds-between-failure estimate.

Both platforms inherit the defence portfolio’s discipline: the same simulator, the same results file, the same parts-commonality matrix — the 4.6 × 22 mm appears in the shared cartridge table, and APES-L shares materials with the military APES system. Each folder ships a platform_simulation.py that re-runs the physics and prints pass/fail against the spec.

Ten-year cost is where equipment arguments are actually won. A 6.5 kg armour system against a 20.25 kg one is a comfort claim until you attach service life and replacement intervals to it. Putting panel life, tile replacement and soft-panel refresh in the same model as the ballistic performance is what turns a spec sheet into a procurement case — and it is also what makes the assumptions visible enough to argue with.
Claims ledger

Every number, and what stands behind it

A claim is only worth the evidence attached to it. Each row below carries its basis: measured on the author’s own hardware, derived from the construction, measured on synthetic data, projected from literature, or simply cited.

Breakdown of this page’s claims by what stands behind each one
scroll to see the whole chart →
Every claim, weighted by its evidence. The table below is the same data row by row.
ClaimFigureBasisContext
APES-L mass6.5 kg vs 20.25 kg incumbentSyntheticSimulation-derived, 23 spec simulations
APES-L panel service life10 yearsProjectedLifecycle model
APES-L ceramic tile replacement4 yearsProjectedLifecycle model
APES-L soft panel refresh6 yearsProjectedLifecycle model
Injury-score improvement66.2%SyntheticModelled, against the incumbent system
Ten-year TCO saving+$1.85 M per 500 officersProjectedProcurement case, not an audited figure
Guardian LE cartridge4.6 × 22 mm DPAP, 396 m/s, 259 JSyntheticAgainst 501 m/s / 326 J for the military 4.6 × 30 mm
Guardian LE chamber pressure246 MPaSyntheticSimulator output
Guardian LE free recoil1.2 JSyntheticMomentum-conservation model

Measured — author-run experiment on the stated setup. Synthetic — measured, but on synthetic rather than real data. Derived — follows from the stated construction or proof. Projected — paper-stated projection, not an author-run benchmark. Cited — taken from external literature.

Methods

How it works

  • Shared portfolio physics. Both platforms verified through the same simulator and results file as the defence portfolio — no separate number source.
  • Seven-phase lifecycle model. Recoil, structural safety factor, Archard bore wear, parts life and Monte Carlo reliability, per platform.
  • V50 cross-check. Armour ballistic limit checked against the portfolio’s NIJ-calibrated model rather than asserted.
  • Ten-year TCO framing. Procurement argued on lifecycle cost across a 500-officer force, not unit price.
Stated limitations

What it does not do

Taken from the folder’s own README. Nothing here has been softened.

  • Genre note from the folder: defence-research register, with no real procurement office or fielded materiel implied.
  • Nothing has been manufactured or tested. All figures are simulation output.
  • The 66.2% injury-score improvement is a modelled metric, not a clinical or field outcome.
  • The $1.85 M ten-year saving depends on procurement, maintenance and replacement assumptions that no real force has validated.
  • Two platforms is a narrow portfolio; the shared-physics discipline is inherited from the parent folder rather than established here.
Use it

Free under AGPL-3.0+ for almost everyone

Personal use, charities, education and organisations under AUD 50,000 a year pay nothing. A tiered commercial licence covers everyone else.