Military packaging requires suitable protection against dust and water. The use case determines whether IP65, IP67 or IP68 is required. This ensures the IP rating matches the risks and testing requirements.
Summary of this article
There is no universal minimum IP rating for military packaging. The required IP rating depends on the equipment, the operating environment, and the conditions during transport and storage. Contractual requirements or technical specifications may also prescribe a specific IP class.
IP65 may be sufficient for protection against dust, rain, and water jets. If temporary immersion is a realistic risk, IP67 may be required. For continuous immersion under specified conditions, IP68 may be relevant. IEC 60529 defines these degrees of protection and the corresponding test methods.
At Faes, we therefore do not start with the highest IP rating. We start by asking what the equipment actually needs to be protected against. A higher rating only makes sense if the application requires it.
No. There is no general rule stating that every military package must have at least an IP65 rating. IEC 60529 describes the protection provided by an enclosure against, among other things, dust and water, but it does not prescribe a minimum IP class for military packaging.
Military packaging standards also focus on the specific application. MIL-STD-2073 describes processes for defining and documenting military packaging requirements, taking into account protection during storage, handling, and transport.
An IP rating is therefore only one part of a broader protection strategy. Shock, vibration, temperature, humidity, corrosion, handling, and storage duration can be just as important to the final packaging design.
| Rating | Protection | When is it relevant? |
|---|---|---|
| IP65 | Dust-tight and protected against water jets | Outdoor use, rain, dust, and cleaning |
| IP67 | Dust-tight and protected against temporary immersion | When a package may temporarily end up in water |
| IP68 | Dust-tight and protected against continuous immersion under specified conditions | When prolonged or more severe water exposure is part of the application |
According to IEC 60529, the first digit is 6 for all three classifications. This means the enclosure is dust-tight. The difference lies in the second digit. A 5 relates to protection against water jets, a 7 to temporary immersion, and an 8 to continuous immersion under specified conditions.
IP68 is therefore not automatically a better choice than IP67 or IP65. The right classification is the one whose test conditions match the actual use of the packaging.
The decision tree below can be used to make an initial assessment. Contractual requirements and final test conditions should always remain leading.
1. Does the packaging need to be fully protected against the ingress of dust?
Yes: use a first digit of 6 as the starting point and continue to question 2.
No: determine whether a lower dust protection rating is sufficient for the application.
2. Will the packaging only be exposed to rain, splashing water, or water jets, with no realistic risk of immersion?
Yes: IP65 may be suitable.
No: continue to question 3.
3. Could the packaging temporarily end up in water during transport, storage, or deployment?
Yes: assess whether IP67 is required and define the desired test conditions.
No: IP65 may be sufficient, provided this matches the other requirements.
4. Does the packaging need to remain submerged for a longer period?
Yes: determine whether IP68 is required and specify in advance the conditions under which the packaging must be tested.
No: IP67 may be sufficient for the immersion risk.
5. Are there additional requirements for factors such as shock, vibration, temperature, or humidity?
Yes: an IP rating alone is not sufficient. Determine which additional test methods and standards apply.
No: still define the configuration and conditions under which the IP rating must be demonstrated.
At Faes, we use these types of questions during the technical intake. This allows us to translate the operating environment and logistics route into specific requirements for construction, sealing, interior design, and validation.
A good example of this assessment is our collaboration with the Dutch Ministry of Defence on the TITAAN project. Faes has been supplying enclosures for TITAAN since 2004. TITAAN is a tactical communications network used by, among others, the Royal Netherlands Army and Air Force. The equipment must be transported and deployed worldwide under demanding conditions.
For the further development of TITAAN, Faes developed special half 19-inch aluminium enclosures. Inside, a rack with shock absorbers protects the equipment against heavy transport loads. During transport, the enclosures are closed with covers and provide IP67 protection. This keeps the equipment dust-tight and also addresses the risk of temporary immersion.
What makes this application particularly interesting is that the protection requirement changes when the equipment is used operationally. For deployment, the transport covers are removed. Faes then uses a special seal to close the gap between the connection panels and the enclosure in a dust-tight manner.
This illustrates exactly why we never assess an IP rating separately from the use case. The relevant configuration during transport may differ from the configuration during operational use. The question is therefore not only: what IP rating does the case have? Just as important is: in which configuration, during which phase, and against which risk must that protection apply?
For us, that is the essence of good packaging engineering. We first translate operational requirements into specific risks and then determine which technical solution and verification method are appropriate.
IEC 60529 and MIL-STD-810 serve different purposes. IEC 60529 focuses specifically on the protection an enclosure provides against the ingress of solid objects and water. MIL-STD-810 covers a much broader range of environmental stresses throughout the equipment life cycle.
MIL-STD-810 is not a general certification that can simply be applied to a package. The current MIL-STD-810H Change 1 describes an environmental tailoring process. Relevant environmental conditions and test methods are selected based on the equipment and the intended application. The standard explicitly states that it does not itself impose fixed design or test specifications.
That is why the statement “MIL-STD-810 tested” is not very specific on its own. For a technically substantiated claim, we also want to know which method, procedure, configuration, test conditions, and acceptance criteria were applied.
A package can, for example, be rated IP67 and also be assessed for relevant shock, vibration, or climatic loads. One classification does not replace the other.
A higher classification may be appropriate for applications involving maritime deployment, deck transport, temporary immersion, prolonged exposure to precipitation, or transport in extremely dusty environments.
However, over-specification is also a technical risk. A higher classification can affect construction, seals, weight, usability, and cost. Protection that is not required by the operating profile or specification does not automatically result in a better solution.
That is why our engineers also assess closures, seals, pressure relief valves, connectors, and cable entries. The overall protection performance is ultimately determined by the complete configuration.
An IP classification must be linked to the relevant test procedure in IEC 60529. Depending on the required classification, the package is tested under controlled conditions for dust ingress and exposure to water.
At Faes, we prefer to include the test strategy during the design phase. We support IP test programmes together with specialised test partners and agree in advance on the relevant classification, configuration, and acceptance criteria. After testing, the results are evaluated and, where necessary, design or material choices can be adjusted.
This prevents a common problem: designing a package first and only discovering afterwards that it was not developed around the way its protection level needs to be demonstrated.
The question of whether military packaging requires IP65, IP67, or IP68 therefore does not start with the highest number. Start with the equipment and identify the risks during transport, storage, and operational deployment. Then determine which degree of protection and additional tests follow from those risks and from the contractual requirements.
That is also how we approach military packaging at Faes. We connect requirements, engineering, production, and verification so that the chosen level of protection is not only logical on paper, but also matches the way the equipment is actually transported and used.
Not sure which IP rating you need? We would rather assess the application with you first than immediately prescribe IP65, IP67, or IP68. This helps prevent both insufficient protection and unnecessary over-specification.
Robert Verboven is Sales Manager at Faes and advises customers on smart packaging solutions within the industry. He translates complex packaging needs into practical solutions that contribute to a more efficient supply chain.
More articles by Robert VerbovenGood packaging doesn’t happen by chance. Using a proven process, our specialists guide you step by step from the initial idea to the final product.
