Industry benchmarks

The standards most frequently referenced by manufacturers are as follows:

• US MIL-STD 810G (formerly 'F') standards
  - a series of US defence department tests designed to assess likely suitability of a product for a range of handling conditions
  - an internal system developed to assess durability and product suitability, (eg) for general office use, general field deployment, ocassional or frequent vehicle transport, battlefield deployment, aircraft deployment
  - tests assess characteristics such as resistance to vibration, impacts/decceleration, corrosive atmospheres, temperature and altitude changes/extremes, etc
  - not a national standard enforceable by a national standards group
  - does not result in a ranking system, eg SEMI-RUGGED suitable for vehicle only, or MIL RUGGED suitable for battlefield deployment
  
  
• US MIL-STD 461E standards 
  - a series of US defence department tests that define EMC characteristics
  - intended to provide a guide as suitability for a range of field applications, ranging from general use, through to ultra-low EMC 'Electronic Warfare' environments
  - include rankings from 'Ground Navy' for applications where eaves-dropping not likely, through to 'Ground Army' for 'electronic warfare' (EW) applications
  
  
• IEC 60529 Ingress Protection (IP) standards
  - a test series that requires compliance to claim a particular level of protection
  - dual digit numbering, where first number relates to dust/particulate ingress resistance, and second relates to moisture/humidity resistance, and higher number equates to greater resistance characteristics, (eg) IP67 (fully water and dust proofed) offers superior resistance to IP54 (resistant to moderate levels of water and dust)

Passing one or more tests defined in the standard does not mean that a product is 'rugged', just that it passed that test for that characteristic. It most definitely DOES NOT mean a product is suited for Military use!

However, in general, the more tests applied by a vendor, and the higher the level of the test applied (eg, a MIL-STD 810F 42" drop test versus a 36" drop test), the more likely a product is to be more durable in the field.

This is the intent of these standards: to assess a product's performance characteristics in order to rate its suitability for specific applications. In the absence of any international (ISO) standards, the MIL-STD 810F and IP rating series are used.

Similarly, some vendors cite the U.S. MIL-STD 461E standard to infer their products exceed standard CE EMC (emissions and immunity) requirements, making them suitable for a range of applications, including battlefield deployment and Electronic Warfare (EW) applications, where 'electronic stealthiness' is required. As with the 810F tests, there are varying 'levels' that can be tested to, and again, these provide a guide to buyers, but do not qualify the product for ranking as an EW-rated product.

So, does meeting a higher IP (Ingress Protection) rating help determine whether a product is more 'rugged'? Is an IP67 product 'more rugged' than an IP54 rated product? Consider, a product rated as IP67 (fully water and dust proof) might sound highly ruggedised, but if it failed to meet even the lowest levet of vibration testing, it might be suitable for use outdoors in the rain, but you wouldn't mount it in an off-road vehicle and expect to get years of trouble-free operation out of it.