Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth [Archive]

The Reaper

05-20-2007, 18:21

My opinion on the Army testing of Dragon Skin http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf and the NBC "testing" of body armor http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18771902/

Hope you find it informative, feel free to share.

TR

Dragon Skin?

There may be something better called Dragon Skin, but better than what?

Bottom line up front. From 16-19 May 2006, in Department of Defense (DoD) test protocols at HP White Labs, Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests suffered 13 first or second shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI) threat baseline 7.62 x 63mm M2 Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition. The Project Manager (PM) Soldier Equipment Briefing report is on line and is easily available.

I say again, of eight Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin (DS) vests tested for V0 penetration, four of them failed, and 13 of 48 rounds fired for record were complete penetrations. Of these, significant first shot failures were noted when the DS vests were exposed to diesel fuel, a serious concern since almost all of our vehicles use this fuel and between spillage during refueling and the potential for saturation after an IED attack on US convoys, vests can easily be contaminated with fuels. A first shot complete penetration was also observed after a DS vest was drop tested. Anyone who has served understands that a 48 pound vest is going to get dropped, dragged, and abused a LOT in a combat zone, even during normal patrolling and movement. Finally, and most significantly, the vest cannot be exposed to heat. With solar loads regularly generating vehicle interior temperatures well in excess of 150 degrees, the DS vest disks delaminate themselves and fall to the bottom of the vest, effectively reducing the armor protection to nearly nothing. All panels shot after high temperature exposure failed in the first shot. This is unacceptable and is hardly a characteristic I would look for in a product to replace the current proven ESAPI in conjunction with the Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts (ESBI).

According to the X-Rays in the Army report, all hits were in protected areas with full disk coverage. Also easily seen in the X-Rays is the complete failure of the vests adhesive to retain the disks in place during extreme hot and cold weather testing.

NBC also neglected to mention the weight penalty of the Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests, which can weigh up to 47.5 pounds or 20 pounds more than the Interceptor vest with ESAPI and ESBI. They appear to have tested the armor, flat, which favors the flexible Pinnacle armor. And they tested it at room temperature only, which means, I suppose, that if you are a soldier who never leaves the office, say, at NBC headquarters, the Dragon Skin may work well for you. If you, however, actually have to go outside, well, you may not want to throw away the Interceptor with the ESAPI quite yet.

The Pinnacle SOV 3000 vests tested were purchased and manufactured the same month that the Army PM test was conducted. They were tested under the ESAPI Purchase Description for front and rear, and ESBI Purchase Description for left and right side. All tests were conducted with 7.62 x 63mm 166 grain M2 AP projectiles stripped from Government Issue complete rounds and hand loaded for each shot by HP White Lab personnel. These rounds were loaded to a specific velocity (+ or – 25 fps) known to replicate the most common threat AP ammunition. In scientific testing, 27%, or more than one in four of these rounds went completely through the armor and into the target. Are you sure you want to suit up a loved one in this stuff?

Strangely, in their investigative reporting seeking to prove the superiority of the Dragon Skin armor over Interceptor with ESAPI, NBC did not appear to use actual ESAPI and ESBI plates for the comparison. Instead, they seem to have shot some other armor that Jim Magee provided and that he stated ““This is what the soldiers and Marines are wearing.” In fact, it may not be. So much for journalistic integrity.

Did the Army really ban the armor last year and issue a Safety Of Use Message (SOUM) even before formally testing it?

Not exactly. Army personnel witnessed a May 2004 test of DS in SAPI plate configuration where the Dragon Skin vests failed catastrophically. Nevin Rupert, Murray Neal, and Chief Scientist Dr. James Zheng were all on the range watching that day. I believe that Mr. Neal stopped the test early due to catastrophic failures of the Dragon Skin. There were also Army, AF, and USMC observed and reported failures of the DS armor in ballistic testing prior to the release of the Army Safety of Use Message in March 2006. The Dragon Skin armor design has a history of failure. Look at the Army PM report.

Would NBC allow soldiers to wear prayer beads and paper party hats as armor until the Army formally tested it and issued a soldier safety release?

Some people may think that Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down, or that it is better than the Interceptor. Seemingly credible people also believe that they have seen UFOs, and that Elvis lives. That does not make it true.

The SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests are too heavy, prone to failure under threat fire, and unreliable in extreme temps. I am not sure what role James Magee, Colonel, USMC (Ret.), the former President of Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. has in this, but there may be motives here that are currently unknown. I would be hesitant taking people’s own word for their expertise, especially given his position at Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT). His claim that he is the “inventor” of Interceptor body armor seems like a bit of a stretch as well, since people who have been on the Army body armor program since the late '90s do not recognize his name.

More stopping power and more coverage? Not exactly. In the Army tests, which cost the taxpayers over $250,000 just last year, stopping power of the Dragon Skin was questionable, as was the ability of the armor to maintain ballistic integrity in high temperatures typical of the AOR. More rifle coverage and less ballistic integrity for 20 lbs. of extra weight? Hmm, not sure I like that trade-off. The GAO seemed satisfied with the Army and Marine ESAPI programs as well in their report as of 26 April 2007.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may, or may not have bought Dragon Skin for elite operatives in Iraq. I don’t have access to that information, but the CIA is not subject to US Army procurement policies or regulations. Ask them why they bought it, how it worked for them, and if they are still procuring it for their personnel.

Mr. Nevin Rupert now calls himself a whistleblower. He says the Army’s timing wasn’t coincidental. He claims that their loyalty is to their organization and maintaining funds. Rupert believes he was recently fired by the Army, he says, for supporting Dragon Skin.

There are plenty of disgruntled employees in every organization. I suspect that Mr. Rupert was relieved for cause. As a Federal employee, he cannot be terminated without good reason. I am sure that he would prefer that the details not be discussed, but I believe that his termination may have had to do with other matters than some dark conspiracy. He can open his employee files to the media if he really wants to.

Rupert also says he was ordered not to attend the May 2006 tests of Dragon Skin. If he was not able to be an impartial tester and finder of facts, as his job required, then what role was he to have played at the test? It would appear that the performance of the armor would speak for itself. And it did. It failed miserably, especially at temperature extremes, when most of the armor disks delaminated themselves and fell into a nice belt at the bottom of the vest. Not much protection down there, but I am sure they made a nice jingling sound as they were moved around.

As far as the officers and scientists involved in the testing, what interest would Army officers from combat arms have in supporting a lesser technology armor? Because it wasn’t invented by the Army? They don’t hold stock or care what the source of the armor is, just that it works. Do you really think that would put their brothers' lives at risk over some sort of parochial turf war? And their own as well, when they get issued the gear on their next deployment? I am sure that they would much rather be back in a unit rather than stuck in an office job pushing papers. I know I would.

(continued)

The Reaper

05-20-2007, 18:22

I am not sure how things work in the news industry, but does Lisa Myers know everything her staff does or brings with them to shoots? Is she responsible for endorsing everything they do? Do they occasionally deviate from her guidance? Should we follow them with a camera and see?

Does she review and approve their expense accounts for company equipment? Can she provide a list of every item her crew carries, and the source of those items? Does her driver have clean underwear? Is she responsible for knowing that level of detail? Why should the general be?

NBC News claims to have commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor vest. According to them, Dragon Skin outperformed the Army’s body armor in stopping the most lethal threats.

There are only two labs that are National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified to run NIJ body armor tests. They are the HP White Laboratory in Street, MD and US Test Labs in Wichita, KS. A third lab, Chesapeake Testing in Chase, MD, is under NIJ review for certification. Additional military facilities certify body armor performance for DoD. NBC does not own one of them, nor does NBC appear to be pursuing a scientific approach at a licensed facility. A proper test would require over two dozen SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests to be placed on a human torso model and shot by specific threat rounds at a standard range and impact velocity, from specific angles and impact points, and under a variety of contamination and environmental conditions that soldiers might face in combat. Fresh off the manufacturing line ESAPI would be shot for comparison, if further certification or validation (already awarded to the ESAPI) was needed.

Was the “Interceptor” ESAPI armor NBC tested government issued or procured independently? The markings on the armor seen in the video are unfamiliar and they appear to be independently procured non-issue plates from non-standard or non-qualified vendors. Wouldn’t a fair test use the fresh issue ESAPI plates, like the Pinnacle armor provided? Are the alleged ESAPIs NBC tested fresh and certified current production? Did they come from Pinnacle or a surplus store dumpster? There are six qualified vendors that have passed ESAPI first article protocol. The vendors deny providing plates to NBC. And none of them are Canadian.

NBC has not yet mentioned what model Dragon Skin was shot. Apples have to be compared to apples. You can wear armor that will stop .50 BMG, but you will not be mobile in it. I can test a stock appearing Ford Mustang that has twice the rated horsepower too, but it doesn’t mean the one you buy will perform like it does.

What was their sample size? Did they shoot up 30 SOV 3000s or ESAPIs?

Where did they shoot it? From the video, it appears to be on a flat surface. Do you see a lot of soldiers shaped like doors? Is there a problem with testing it on a torso shaped platform, replicating the soldier that NBC is so concerned about? Did they test single and multiple round impacts on all four impact faces of the vests?

What weapon, projectile, and impact velocity did NBC use? There is only one Army performance standard for ESAPI body armor testing. Was it the prescribed threat level for testing that is required in the acquisition documents? Are we counting on the enemy firing only a single round at the Pinnacle SOV 3000 level IV Dragon Skin vest? What happens if he has plenty of ammo that day and shoots twice?

The Army conducted tests of both types of armor at the HP White test lab, the NIJ certified facility for testing body armor, in accordance with the required protocol for scientific testing. Where was the NBC test conducted? What were the protocols? What threats did the DS stop that the ESAPI did not? The Army used multiple environmental protocols designed to duplicate the different climates our soldiers serve under. Again, what protocols did NBC employ? If the user is sitting at a desk, clean and dry in a Forward Operating Base (FOB), as tested by NBC, the DS probably works fine. If the wearer has to go outside and deal with the weather, sweat, contamination, etc., according to the May 2006 test, it isn't going to stop Jack, half of the time (four out of eight vests failed in certified testing). Furthermore, a size extra large Dragon Skin weighs 47.5 pounds (vs. 28 pounds for the equivalent fitting OTV with ESAPI and ESBI side plates) for 743 sq. in. (vs. 720 for the Interceptor with ESAPI) of total coverage. With Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), rifle protection is the sum of the areas of the front and rear plates and the 2 side plates. The Pinnacle Dragon Skin armor does provide more rifle coverage, as long as it is climate controlled and not shot much, but at a significant weight penalty. I am sure that if I wanted to carry additional plates to equalize the weights, the ESAPI could have done even better.

Gary K. Roberts, DDS, Commander, US Naval Reserve is also cited as conducting a test of the DS armor. While he is a Navy dentist, and an alleged ammo expert, I am unsure how he has become a scientific tester of body armor, or what his official role is. He seems to be interested in environmental testing of body armor, but does not appear to be familiar enough with Military Standard (MIL STD) 810E/810F to understand the ESAPI test protocol. The Armored Mobility Inc. (AMI) armor used as a control in his test is not a military issued plate. He is also quoted on the Pinnacle web site. What was his involvement? Was his a sanctioned Navy test? If so, it failed to follow DoD or NIJ protocols. Was he testing on behalf of Pinnacle? Was he compensated for his testing? Who sponsored it? Unless Dr. Roberts, DDS is able to substantiate his testing as meeting the HP White and NIJ standards for body armor testing, I would have to discount the validity of this test as a basis for comparison with military or NIJ certification of the armor.

The alleged NIJ test that Pinnacle refers to on their web site did not follow the DoD armor test protocol either. NIJ certification tests do not include high temperature, low temperature, or temperature shock conditioning tests. NIJ test conditioning is limited to water spray, all done at ambient conditions. NIJ is looking at adopting temperature cycling and accelerated aging in the new revision, NIJ Standard 0101.05, to be published, but this test was not conducted to the Army standard, so for Army procurement, it is irrelevant. I have heard that law enforcement units who have the Pinnacle armor use one set for training, and keep another locked away in climate control for actual call-outs. Maybe they are aware of this problem as well.

Incidentally, it would appear that Pinnacle continues to have additional legal problems with the government, as the investigators continue probing them for their fraudulent NIJ certification claim problem.

There is a one-time failure policy in the test business for Resistance to Penetration (RTP) tests. Because an actual failure during use may be a death sentence. First shot complete penetrations are NOT allowed in the ESAPI RTP tests. These are considered catastrophic failures, resulting in automatic failure of the First Article Test (FAT). Ballistic limit (V50) tests are looking for 3 partials and 3 completes at the worst case shot location-a single disc area of coverage. The SOV 3000 failed RTP tests 50% of the time, as opposed to the issue ESAPI failing 0% of the time, at twenty pounds less weight. Not sure what kind of odds you like, but if it is my torso inside the vest, I would rather be lighter, faster and better protected over the cool guy factor, especially when it hits over 150 degrees in the back of the vehicle.

General Downing’s comments after observing the tests, even as an employee of NBC, were still non-committal. Perhaps he is aware of the protocol for testing body armor, and NBC’s compliance with that protocol, or lack thereof. Or perhaps not. He was a Ranger and a commander, after all, not a procurement officer.

(continued)

The Reaper

05-20-2007, 18:22

So these independent, limited tests by NBC raise questions about the Army’s claims?

It would appear that Pinnacle already has some serious credibility issues, including claims posted on their web site. For example, despite Pinnacle's claim, US Army Special Forces Command, which equips all US Special Forces, has never heard of Pinnacle, much less purchased armor from them.

Why does NBC not speak with the purported father of flexible armor, Mr. Allan D. Bain, whose web site http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm states:

“The fact is most of Pinnacle Armor's systems were invented by Allan D. Bain formally of Armor Technology Corp. Pinnacle Armor started manufacturing after we educated Mr. Neal how to make armor by contract executed in October of 2000 that was fair and honestly fulfilled. Pinnacle Armor and Mr. Neal never manufactured any body armor prior to this date. So if you hear about Pinnacle Armor or the "Dragon Skin" armor being manufactured since 1995 your talking about armor that Pinnacle Armor never made or developed. In fact Murray Neal was a sales representative for Armor Technology from 1997 - October of 2000 a company owned entirely by Allan D. Bain, the true inventor of Dragon Skin."

"There are quite a few reasons, and if you have read the Pinnacle Armor propaganda you will hear about tales of fraud, sabotage, and protection of the good old boy network as it relates to The "Interceptor Vest". I can tell you as someone who works with the military on this kind of endeavor there are a lot of reasons why this armor hasn't been universally adopted and the reasons above are basically false. The truth is Pinnacle Armor received clearance to forward samples to the Army and was paid 170,000 dollars, and that was after they were paid almost a 1,000,000.00 dollars to develop the armor from where we left off after we sold patent rights to Pinnacle Armor in October of 2000."

"The major flaw was not observing the Article One testing environmental conditioning protocol, which calls for the armor to withstand 165 degrees F for 6 hours. After five years of development and having the protocol in hand you would figure that the adhesive used to affix the tiles to the high strength fabric would be of the high temperature variety, it wasn't, and because of that these vests failed. OOPS!"

Essentially, the inventor of Dragon Skin freely admits that the current manufacturers of the armor are aware that it cannot handle temperature extremes without falling apart, and pretty much ripped the government off last time. Did NBC look into that?

Critics told NBC they’d like to see the Army re-test and re-evaluate Dragon Skin, so why not retest the DS vest now? Because it is too heavy, and not reliably bullet resistant. Warfighters want lighter and flexible, not heavier and flexible. What if Pinnacle has changed the adhesive? Will Pinnacle be recalling Dragon Skin armor with substandard adhesive manufactured before the Army discovered this shortfall? Well, I would hope so, after a free FAT test at taxpayer expense. All other vendors pay for the FAT if they fail, Army pays if they pass. Would Murray Neal like to donate another 30 vests for destructive testing? Even so, the Army may retest, at a cost of many more tax dollars since the Pinnacle vests are several thousand dollars each. At the end of it, will there be an expose by NBC on how the Army wastes our tax dollars retesting failed body armor? Why is NBC promoting this failed technology? What is their agenda?

For any vendor that wants to compete for Army body armor work, the system is evaluated against the ESAPI standard/requirements as stated in the performance specification-not evaluated against the IBA itself. If you meet the standard, you are eligible for an award if pricing is in the competitive range during Full and Open competitions. To my knowledge, Pinnacle has never responded to a Full and Open competition. Why doesn’t Pinnacle Armor compete for Army business like every other body armor vendor? Why should they get special treatment? It appears to me that Pinnacle is attempting to restrict competition. I wonder how other manufacturers of body armor that have passed the ESAPI FAT protocol feel about this?

What about it, Mr. Neal? Are you willing to ante up this time for a round of government testing, or do you just want to sell the Army another load of defective armor?

And for NBC, would this have been an even juicier story if the Army bought and issued the Dragon Skin, after knowing that it was inadequate and defective, and dozens of soldiers died? Again, this armor failed the Army tests, not slightly, not on a technicality, but miserably and utterly. The designer of the Dragon Skin armor himself admits its inadequacy. Yet some would like it fielded more widely. Look at the Army test results. They speak for themselves. As an American soldier, I am glad that the Army tested it and discovered the real truth, rather than listening to armchair quarterbacks, snake oil salesmen, and charlatans. This refusal to yield to the SFTT, Dr. Roberts, and NBC has saved soldiers' lives. And that is the real bottom line here.

Team Sergeant

05-20-2007, 21:13

Hope you find it informative, feel free to share.

TR

Ladies and Gents,

We (ProfessionalSoldiers.com) are not bound to advertisers or sponsors.

We have no profit motive.

We also want the best protection for our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel.

We believe what the Reaper has written to be the truth. Please share what the Reaper has written with everyone, the truth needs to be revealed.

Team Sergeant

Gypsy

05-20-2007, 21:14

TR, that was outstanding and succinct. I hope you intend to send this to NBC and others...

TS, will do.

Smokin Joe

05-20-2007, 21:21

Word spreads fast on the internet as I now see that there are quite a few "guests" viewing this thread. :munchin

I really hope some certain individuals register and respond to The Reaper's post.

TR,

Very well done sir, Kudo's to you for taking the time to post that.

VMI_Marine

05-21-2007, 10:25

Sir, one question. I am working on a blog post to do my part in spreading the word. When did DA make the test results releasable? I'd like to reference that as well.

The Reaper

05-21-2007, 10:33

Sir, one question. I am working on a blog post to do my part in spreading the word. When did DA make the test results releasable? I'd like to reference that as well.

The Army PM PPT presentation was supposed to be released early today, but a member of the media leaked it prematurely Friday or Saturday.

TR

VMI_Marine

05-21-2007, 10:45

Copy sir, thanks. I received a copy from LTC Masters prior to release, just wanted to know when it was made publicly releasable.

Lightfighter has already hotlinked to this thread.

For my part - shot out. (http://op-for.com/2007/05/dragon_skin_redux.html)

The Reaper

05-21-2007, 10:58

Nice web site.

Good work!

TR

VMI_Marine

05-21-2007, 11:09

The Reaper

05-21-2007, 11:19

The blog is a joint effort by VMI grads representing all four services, although the Marine Corps has two reps to the other services' one each. Like I told LTC Masters, Pinnacle, SFTT et al set off warning bells in my head months ago, and I finally decided to start fighting the hype.

Interestingly, Dr Roberts is an active member of Lightfighter (DocGKR), so he is aware of the discussion on this board but has yet to respond.

Good to see such an alumni organization get together.

Frankly, I am amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who have bought into this Dragon Skin BS. The armor may eventually be a great product, but given its weight, expense, lack of integrity under typical environmental conditions, and inability to stop threat rounds in formal testing, I would put it in the "not yet ready for prime time" category. This is not to mention the scurrilous conduct by the vendor and delivery of fraudently marked, marketed and defective product to military organizations. I hope that Allan Bain quickly comes up with a great new product that saves lives.

GKR is a member of this board as well, but thus far, appears to prefer to let his minions and sycophants do his arguing for him.

Thanks for your feedback.

TR

kgoerz

05-21-2007, 12:57

Good to see such an alumni organization get together.

Frankly, I am amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who have bought into this Dragon Skin BS. The armor may eventually be a great product, but given its weight, expense, lack of integrity under typical environmental conditions, and inability to stop threat rounds in formal testing, I would put it in the "not yet ready for prime time" category. This is not to mention the scurrilous conduct by the vendor and delivery of fraudently marked, marketed and defective product to military organizations. I hope that Allan Bain quickly comes up with a great new product that saves lives.

GKR is a member of this board as well, but thus far, appears to prefer to let his minions and sycophants do his arguing for him.

Thanks for your feedback.

TR

The Dentist test results have apeared in a couple of Forums. I just posted this link. Your right, people believe what they see on TV. Thankfully very few use Body Armor for a living.

Kyobanim

05-21-2007, 13:08

Your right, people believe what they see on TV. Thankfully very few use Body Armor for a living.

It's a shame they don't. the Darwin list needs some spicing up.

The Reaper

05-21-2007, 13:47

If you would, anyone posting to this link, please mention that the Army's test results are posted here as well (link in the first paragraph) and it would help them be an better informed reader if they read the test results along with this article.

Thanks again for helping to light a candle, rather than curse the darkness.

TR

KevinB

05-21-2007, 16:09

hmm... times like this I wonder about my armor.

I'm currently running DS in a CIRAS carrier -- the rationale for me was in a BMW, I could exit the vehicle. With a conventional plate it was near impossible.

I'd like ESAPI protection with Poly plate weight, and DS flexibility. I have no dog in the fight - but want the best for myself and the troops. It is some very interesting info that TR posted.

As for DocGKR and TR - wow this is like the haydays of LeMas
:munchin

But what do I know I came from an Army that still uses Zylon...

The Reaper

05-21-2007, 16:15

Kevin:

Given that the DS has failed the NIJ testing at least three times and Army testing once, I hope that I am on better ground than someone who has just shot a couple of them.

Understood your point though.

Hope that the one you have works and keeps you safe.

TR

KevinB

05-21-2007, 16:22

You and me both...

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 08:46

Did anyone else see the CNN coverage of the press conference? They showed the 47.5 pound SOV 3000 Level 4 Dragon Skin vest, with the bullet holes in it, and the disks delaminated.

When they asked Murray Neal why the vests tested by the Army failed, his reply "They lied."

Nice factual refutation. Judging for the comments over in the NBC pages, this sort of Jedi mind trick actually works on quite a few people.

I cannot believe that people will spend the time typing in a response without looking at any of the data first.

The majority who comment on the armor, rather than the war, seem to think that there is only one body armor manufacturer selling the Interceptor vest to the Army and that they are getting rich while hiring every Army retiree affiliated with the body armor program. In fact, there are six manufacturers of the ESAPI plates, versus only one (Pinnacle) for the Dragon Skin, and the 47.5 pound DS armor costs about twice as much as the Interceptor, with the company having a proven history of failing certification tests, lying about it, and providing defective products. Incidentally, retired Acquisition officers are highly restricted in their employment after retirement.

A lot of the posters seem to be wearing tinfoil hats and watching Oliver Stone conspiracy theory movies as well.

Incredible.

TR

Team Sergeant

05-22-2007, 09:44

When they asked Murray Neal why the vests tested by the Army failed, his reply "They lied."

Nice factual refutation. Judging for the comments over in the NBC pages, this sort of Jedi mind trick actually works on quite a few people.
TR

LOLOLOL

"Murray Neal" Quote, "THEY LIED"

An extremely intelligent response. Keep digging Murray Neal, you and your cronies are doing a fine job.:rolleyes:

Where the hell is SFTT.org, defensereview.com and Mr David Crane now? :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101297.html

Army Says Dragon Skin Armor Falls Short

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Monday, May 21, 2007; 7:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army, in a rare move Monday, released a barrage of test results showing that a privately-sold flexible body armor that some families have sought for their soldiers failed extensive military testing.

Pieces of the hefty Dragon Skin armor, with ragged holes torn through its yellow inner skin, were propped up on the floor in the Pentagon, as Army officials systematically detailed the battery of ammunition and temperature testing the armor failed.

Although the tests were done nearly a year ago, the Army declined to release details until Monday, after recent NBC News reports suggested that the Dragon Skin may be better than the Army-issued Interceptor armor.

As a result of the reports, some members of Congress have asked for an investigation into the matter, and others have asked the Army for more information.

"We take this personally," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, executive officer for the Army's armor testing program. "One third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or daughter either in theater (at war) today or (who) has been to theater."

Holding up an armor-piercing bullet, Brown showed video of the tests, including footage of officials peering into the bullet hole in the Dragon Skin armor. "At the end of the day, this one disc has to stop this round. It didn't. Thirteen times," he said.

In response, Murray Neal, president of Pinnacle Armor which produces Dragon Skin, suggested that the Army lied about some of the testing, and he questioned why the Army was counting shots that "were fired into the non-rifle defeating areas."

The body armor debate has raged almost since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began, as the Army struggled at times to get all of the needed equipment to its soldiers _ both active and reserve. At times, family members around the country were raising money, having bake sales, and spending thousands of dollars of their own cash to buy armor and equipment for their loved ones going to war.

In some of those cases, families were considering buying Dragon Skin armor because they believed it would provide better protection. The Army Monday said it was releasing the test details to help prevent families from spending money on body armor that is not as good as the protection already issued to the soldiers.

Brown described "catastrophic failures" by the Dragon Skin armor, and said that in 13 of 48 shots, lethal armor-piercing rounds either shattered the discs that make up the armor, or completely penetrated the vest.

"Zero failures is the correct answer," he said. "One failure is sudden death and you lose the game."

Brown added that the armor failed to endure required temperatures shifts _ from minus 20 degrees to 120 above zero _ which weakened the adhesive holding the discs together. And he said that the Dragon Skin's heavy weight was also a problem for soldiers who need to carry a lot of gear.

The Dragon Skin, he said, weighs 47.5 pounds, compared to the Army-issued Interceptor armor, which weighs 28 pounds.

After seeing the latest television reports, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., sent a letter to Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey asking for more information and saying he's concerned that the Army may not be providing better body armor to the soldiers as quickly as possible.

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a government watchdog agency, seeking an investigation to assess the body armor being used by the military.

Army officials said they would be going to Capitol Hill this week to talk to lawmakers about the armor issue.

KevinB

05-22-2007, 09:46

Uhm Sir I just re-read this -- and "failed NIJ three times"?

So I'm a bit thick from landing on my head -- but is it now certified?
I'm getting this feeling that I'm like one of those Rwandan kids given "Dawa" to protect them by a witchdoctor...

TF Kilo

05-22-2007, 09:52

don't buy it!

don't wear it!

it don't work yet!

pure and simple.

BMT (RIP)

05-22-2007, 10:37

Army Defends Body Armor Quality
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2007 – U.S. troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have the best body armor in the world, and the Army is constantly looking for ways to improve force protection, the general in charge of the program told reporters here today.
“Force protection is the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army. We value our soldiers very highly, and we do everything we can do to ensure that they have the finest in force protection as they go into the battle,” Army Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier, said at a Pentagon news conference.

In response to a May 17 NBC News report challenging the Army’s use of Interceptor body armor vs. the newer “Dragon Skin” armor developed by Pinnacle Armor Inc., Brown today released information about the testing that ruled out Dragon Skin a year ago.

The tests were conducted May 16 to 19, 2006, at H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. The Pinnacle armor was subjected to the same tests Interceptor body armor goes through, first being X-rayed and analyzed and then undergoing a series of live-fire tests, Brown said. The live-fire tests included room-temperature tests, harsh environment tests, and durability and drop tests.

Of the eight Pinnacle vests tested, four of them failed the tests, with 13 rounds penetrating completely on the first or second shot, Brown said. After the first complete penetration, the vests technically failed the test, but the Army continued the testing to be fair, he said.

The Pinnacle vests also were subjected to extreme temperature variations, from minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which would be a realistic cycle if the equipment was loaded onto a plane and flown to the Middle East, Brown said. These temperature tests caused the adhesive holding the Dragon Skin’s protective discs together to fail, and the discs gathered at the bottom of the vest, leaving gaps in protection, he said.

Brown also noted that the Dragon Skin vests are significantly heavier and thicker than the Interceptor vests. Dragon Skin vests in size extra large are 47.5 pounds and 1.7 to 1.9 inches thick; the Interceptor vests in size large, which offer an equivalent coverage area, weigh 28 pounds and are 1.3 inches thick.

“Bottom line is, it does not meet Army standards,” Brown said of the Pinnacle body armor.

Brown showed reporters videos of the tests, which were supervised by the chief executive officer of Pinnacle. He also displayed the actual vests that were tested, with markers showing the penetration sites.

The Army did not initially release the information about the tests because of possible security concerns, Brown said. “We are facing a very media-savvy enemy,” he said. “They’re not only media-savvy, they are Internet savvy. … Everything that we put out into the public domain, we pretty much assume that they get. We don’t like to discuss our vulnerabilities and our counters to the vulnerabilities in the open public.”

However, after the NBC report, Army leaders felt they needed to counter any doubts in the minds of servicemembers and their families, Brown said. “Our soldiers and, more importantly, the families – the wives, the children, the parents – have to have confidence that our soldiers have the best equipment in the world,” he said.

Right now, the Army’s safety-of-use message mandates that all soldiers use Interceptor body armor, which has passed the same tests the Pinnacle armor failed, Brown said. The Army is interested in a more flexible armor, like the Pinnacle design, and if the company improves its product, it could be reconsidered, he said.

Brown stressed that the Army has more than one set of body armor for every soldier in the combat theater, and that he has all the money and support he needs to make improvements to force protection. Also, the Army is constantly working to develop new technologies that will deliver better protection.

“This is not just a matter of debate for us; this is personal,” he said, noting that many of his staff members have relatives or friends who have served or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

smp52

05-22-2007, 10:49

In response, Murray Neal, president of Pinnacle Armor which produces Dragon Skin, suggested that the Army lied about some of the testing, and he questioned why the Army was counting shots that "were fired into the non-rifle defeating areas."

If that is what the REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE TEST asked for, then the test FAILED.

Plain and simple. First Article Acceptance Testing requirements are stringent for a reason. Development testing is stringent for a reason. If the manufacturer cannot provide a sample size of product that perfectly meets requirements, then how will they provide hundreds of thousands of vests that come even close to perfection (or whatever the technical data package requirements for production items are).

When a contractor fails testing, the only reason they can come up with is always the government was unfair. Boo hoo.

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 10:53

I saw one or two rounds of the 48 fired that were anywhere near an edge in all of the X-rayed impacts, and they were both solidly on disks. They were on the M-01 vest which was motor oil contaminated and XL-02 vest which was contaminated with diesel as depicted in the briefing slides and the last attached pic in my opening post.

I am with you. If I can't get 30 good vests out to compete for a multi-billion dollar contract, what happens when I have to make 10,000 per month? The Army cannot destructively test all of the vests issued, or even a large number at that cost. A lot of soldiers, IMHO, will get defective gear.

Anyone here who has actually worn armor want to comment on how welcome an extra 20 pounds would be?

Kevin, what model of DS do you have and what threat level? PM me if you prefer. First NIJ certification of DS was 20 Dec 06 for the SOV2000. Anything prior to that is uncertified, including older vests marked as NIJ certified. That is a Level 3 vest rated for impacts up to 7.62x51mm M-80 ball. No AP. IMHO, the only way to know if the one you have is safe is to shoot it. And then you need a new one. To my knowledge, all issued lots of SAPI and ESAPI are certified. Good luck.

TR

rubberneck

05-22-2007, 11:03

The following is from the Pinnacle website:

Both types of armor were conditioned for 12 hours at 170 degrees F, then moved to ambient air for approximately 90 min prior to being shot.

What exactly does this test prove? Shouldn't the armor be tested exactly as it is likely to be used? If for instance the armor was tested at 170 degrees while laying flat (and gravity can't act to degrade the structural integrity of the armor) and then allowed to cool enough for the adhesive to re-set what does it prove? Seems to me that the more appropriate test is if the armor is heated upright and then shot immediately before cooling off. Even a unsophisticated civilian like me is smart enough to realize that these vests will be exposed to extreme temperature conditions without any "cooling off" period before it has to perform. Who cares if it works after being left at room temperature for an hour and a half to cool, if it won't work while still hot or cold.

I must be stuck on stupid.

LibraryLady

05-22-2007, 11:23

I'm confused. I admit I haven't read all the links, and I'm definitely NOT up to speed on this subject.

In response, Murray Neal, president of Pinnacle Armor which produces Dragon Skin, suggested that the Army lied about some of the testing, and he questioned why the Army was counting shots that "were fired into the non-rifle defeating areas."

Why would there be places on the armor that doesn't protect against rifle fire? Isn't that the point of the stuff? :confused:

It seems to me, as the president, admitting there are places on the armor that don't stop the bullets is akin to admitting this equipment isn't designed to do it's job, regardless of whether it passes a test or not.

LL

txzen

05-22-2007, 11:33

I see most of the controversy coming from a few perceptions that might be misconceptions now that I have looked at a lot of the information available, so that is why I think I can talk about the public perception and about some of the facts made avaible to the public.
1. Most of the critics of the army cite a conflict of interest because Karl Masters is a program manager for the Interceptor and asked to test the "competition" dragon skin. I was recently told that Mr. Masters is employed by the army as a civilian contractor and this source suggested that if another armor was chosen by the army then Mr. Masters would then become the program manager for the "new" armor. If this is true and publicised I think this fact would decrease the negative perception that surrounds this issue.
2. That Dragon Skin failed because of heat. Murray Neal submitted a rebuttle at sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=22 (edit by Team Sergeant, do not "hotlink" this website to that internet tabloid) now basically he says that the discs slipped in the test causing a catastophic failure because of an anomoly in the manufactureing. I.E. a subcontractor failed to place one strip of adhevise causing a row of discs to slip and the vest to fail. Now I thought about this and wouldn't every disc have slipped if the adhesive had been compromised with the heat/ageing conditioning? I am ready to believe this since it was just one strip of discs and he says that the subcontractor has changed the process and added a quality assurance check for this anomoly and pinnacle has added another layer of quality assurance that this failure might not be due to the concept or the normaly final product. People percieve this as not the biggest deal in the light that IBA has had recalls due to problems in quality control.
3. I called pinnacle on monday and the military sales rep told me that the sov 3000 front and back frull torso wrap weighs 36 pounds the website says that each torso wrap covers 80 percent more than a 10x12 plate. This is the real issue I think for the DS. I have read posts from people who say that the IBA is too heavy and causes non combat related injury from over heating dehydration back problems and mobility hindurace, so if that is true I can totally understand saying that 36 pounds is too much when 27 pounds is too much.
4. Continueing on the last point if the system is just too heavy I think most people can take that. Problems have arisen from now 4 publically available tests and another 4 tests done by pinnacle that show the dragon skin stopping a lot of lead. Now of course these tests are not the same as what Karl Masters did but the perception is something is wrong when there is video of the vest stopping hundreds of rounds no disc slipping on a curved gel dummy and then the army tests it catastophic failures arise. I don't think anyone is lieing it i just people often believe it when they see it and they have not seen DS fail.
5. I liked The Reapers report but found that the heat issue being explained as really a sub contractor manufactuer error and a lack on adhesive strip and not an adhesive being destroyed by heat.. Like in that evolutionarmor site, it is not signed and that is strange but I also wonder how he knows it was an error is the DS being not ready for 160 degree temps. as opposed to an adhesive strip being left off. The 160 degrees temp test has been suggested to be a hyper aging test trying to test the durability over longer less extreme heat by giving short duration extreme heat exposure. I also find it strange that he would say the issue was known to him in that that means he manufactured sold and then sold the patent to a piece of gear he knew was not able to last in certain conditions. If he is the creator and seller of DS's technology why didn't he solve the heat issue if there was one before? Not signing the page and not talking about why he let a known issue go for 5 years and then he admits he taught Neal how to make the armor why he would teach someone else how to make faulty gear. I still want to know if it was a heat issue or a missing adhesive strip. I repeat though if it was a heat issue why didn't every vest tested and 10-30 were tested, right?, turn into a pile kevlar and discs?
6. Also I think the perception that Neal asks questions about the edge tests, that shots were placed .5 inch off the edge and the edge test requires a shot .75 to 1.25 inch off edge raises concern. That shots were placed in kevlar areas that didn't have ceramic discs and called failures if true would be a problem the accusation raises concern but they could just be accusations. Most people know that even IBA has "gaps" in the rifle protection so they are preconditioned to the idea that a vest can be shown to have a failure just by aiming an inch to the side of the plate or disc or whatever.

I hope and think these issues can be addressed. Reaper brought up a lot of good questions also. I realize that some of the things we would like to know are said to be classified or sensitive because of operational security.

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 11:52

txzen:

Please introduce yourself in the proper place and fill in your profile before commenting again, as you were instructed in your confirmation email.

Given the thoughtful nature of your response, I will deviate from our norm here and will reply to your comments.

1. Correct. Karl posts here and can speak for himself, but I do not think he has a dog in this fight beyond the desire to get the soldiers the best, most reliable armor possible.

2. I do not buy Murray's explanation as to a single row slipping. Look at the X-rays. Over 50% of the tiles appear to have delaminated and fell to the bottom of the vest under fire. I think that the adhesive was a known problem, since Allan Bain, the inventor of DS, knew about it as well. IIRC, he has just come off of his non-compete agreement after selling the company to Murray Neal, and is looking to manufacture his own flexible armor. It occurs to me that Pinnacle's testing methodology is flawed, since as noted, the vest may not have the opportunity to cool before being shot. Temps in vehicles exposed to the sun in Iraq regularly exceed 150 degrees, and the armor may be shot at that temperature, or higher.

3. I do not believe that 36 pounds is for the XL size SOV 3000 Level 4 armor with 743 sq. in. of coverage, more or less equivalent to the IBA Large size. I suspect that they just quoted you a Small or Medium size weight to keep the total down. The Army brought the XL size SOV 3000 Level 4 DS to the press conference and put it on a scale. The media were allowed to weigh it as well. It weighed 47.5 pounds, as the Army claims. The Large IBA, with ESAPI and ESBI side plates provide 720 sq. in. of Level 4 coverage, almost all the way to the edge. If the DS Level 4 coverage does not extend all the way to the edge, how many sq. in. does it actually protect?

4. The weight is an issue, as the current load of an infantryman in Iraq is over 100 pounds. Not only is it hard to hump the weight, it keeps you from being tactically alert, and it adds to the wear and tear on your body over the years. I have no doubt that the ESAPI will take a lot of Level 3 and below threats as well. Not the point.

5. See 2 above.

6. Look at the pics in the Army PM brief. Examine the X-Rays in the 13 complete penetrations. How many of those appear to have been close to the edge?

I am not a ballistics expert, or an armor expert. I am just a broken down, former trigger puller. If I can figure this out, why can't everybody?

Gratifying to see that someone is actually reading and thinking. Good comments, thanks.

TR

smp52

05-22-2007, 12:02

I am with you. If I can't get 30 good vests out to compete for a multi-billion dollar contract, what happens when I have to make 10,000 per month? The Army cannot destructively test all of the vests issued, or even a large number at that cost. A lot of soldiers, IMHO, will get defective gear.

Exactly.

One can test a small sample size enough times that out of 100, one set will eventually pass. Then that single test will be held up as an example of how 'it works' to hoodwink people without relevant facts. When product comes rolling off the line and hits the field, eventually resulting in defects. it is the military that has to pick up the tab, spending time, money, and effort of troops returing the material back (doing malfunction investigations, segregating lots, repackaging, etc.)

It all leads to one thing - troops losing resources they need to fight (making their job harder and more dangerous than it already is).

txzen

05-22-2007, 12:45

I guess the question people would like answered is if another body armor is chosen does Mr Masters stay on as the head of the army's body armor project or would a different person, a flexible armor specialist if that is the case, take over? I do believe people are overly harsh on this topic. Most people are not in a job where life and death are a job related issue, so I don't think they fully comprehend how employment and money aren't everyone's op priority. We are just conditioned to be on the watch for impropriety with the Cunningham convictions and Ney convictions and the Abrahmoff convictions and the jefferson indictment and the Delay Indictment. It might make more people see impropriety where is there is none, and I think this issue can be cleared up and the confidence in aquisitions increased.

Now with the x-ray, I have little idea what i am looking at really. I don't know where the edge on a scaled armor is. I suppose the edge is where there is only 1 disc? Also if adhesive was not placed and a row of discs slipped that would mean that there was an "edge" in the middle of the vest. There being no longer the overlapping but single discs "hung out to dry." I get that this is a failure if they can't make vests that work don't even mention their name, but I also would be feel badly if a great technology was shunned because of not a concept error but becaues of a implementation error. My father often tells a story about the dimaxian car created by buckminster fuller was shot down because of a death of a driver related to a crash. 30 mpg in 1933 u turned within it's length and was aerodynamic. I don't know how many chances new technology should get but I want to say as many as it takes to get it right, without making the test easier of course.

I am still trying to get the coverage and weight issues sorted out. I do want to know where you got 700 inches plus though. 10x12 plates have about 115 square inches of coverage 4 of them would be 460 and I thought that was more than two e-sapi and two s-sapi since sides plate are smaller. I wonder if 700 is the coverage of the total vest and around 400 is the coverage of the rifle defeating armor?

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 13:08

I am no expert, but I am going to try to respond to your question, as I understand it.

As I have posted in my comments, with Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), rifle protection is the sum of the areas of the front and rear plates and the two side plates.

The 720 and 743 sq. in. refers to the total armored areas. The rifle armor portion of the vest will necessarily be smaller.

TR

plato

05-22-2007, 13:24

The new material that the army will be fielding soon for it's body armor shows a weight loss of about 15%, an increase in strength that's greater than that, and with a very large improvement in the arena of multiple hits. I held the stuff in my hands during a courtesy call. It's not just theory. (Yep, some numbers I'm not posting)

I've met the Phd's and the guys from the test centers. For them, body armor is more akin to a religion than a job. And, I'm not a big enough fish in their pond for them to try to impress me. I was impressed because even the "pure civilians" there are all-Army. For them body armor is closer to a religion than a job.

For the folks down the hall from me, just to the east, vehicle armor is a religion.

The probability that any of those folks would avoid a better-performing design or material is about the same as the probability that Michelle Pfeiffer will pounce upon this old bod as I pass her on the street.

Re: the latter...................

Please, God ;)

KevinB

05-22-2007, 13:27

Okay I see a bit more clearly now.

I have the LIII version (yes, I know running LIII in Iraq is questionable) It is new production as of Feb 07

I have also tried to show where the armor has just the Level IIIA soft panel. By the edge the disks cannot cover -- the vest does point out that the area outside the disk coverage is only IIIA.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Gear/DSArmor001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Gear/DSArmor002.jpg

If those are the areas in which Mr Neal is talking about -- then in all honesty the ESAPI would not be there.

txzen

05-22-2007, 14:32

I of course don't know if it is the real Alan Bain but the information seems intelligent and knowledgable anyway. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003506.html
Dear Patriot,

That was a very nice explaination of force and impact. Here are a few additional points to consider:

1) All the tiles sit at an angle when flat or when wrapped around the body as they are overlapped by adjoining tiles. It's called an imbricated pattern or better known as scalar armor. These tiles open a bit as they flex around the body by the tiles pivoting off each other to make the curve.

2) The tiles are true discuses, where the center is the thickest part, and they have a uniform downward slope of radius co-extensive with a radius or a segment. This is an Independant claim. All other claims are basic public domain concepts dependant upon the first claim. That is they have all entered the market well before the Dragon Skin patents.

3) The weakest point here is the point between successor tiles offset from the center, whereby you angle the test barrel receiver so that you get a perpendicular shot on the thinnest spot not supported by an overlapping disk. This is the definition of your perpendicular impact discussion.

4) Currently the armor is not tested this way in respect to the NIJ protocol or in the German lab that recently conducted side by side testing for the NBC Dateline news show. It is tested flat.

5) For scalar armor to be tested correctly it MUST be set around a fixed target around a test fixture designed to mimick the true wearing of the vest, and then impacted as set forth above so that the weakest point is attacked in a true 90 degree angle and also attacked at an angle to try and take advantage of the slight opening of the tiles as they make the bend around the body.

6) From what I gather the army did this, and the German laboratory didn't, as well as any other testing entity that has reported results on Dragon Skin.

While interceptor plates certainly possess less repeat capability as shown at the German laboratory in what appeared to be true independant testing; remember the uniform thick plannular plates represented by the Interceptor system doesn't change it's poition at all while wearing, but the scalar armor does, and that's why the NIJ has devised a different test for scalar armor. The military has simply taken it two step further; true wearing placement while testing, and extreme environmental conditioning testing. I remember very clearly giving armor to the military to train with, the boys play rough! The armor comes back looking like crap in a short period of time unless it's built tough.

The environmental testing is designed to accelerate the aging process. In service life testing and maintenance has become quite common with military body armor world wide.

Regards,

Al

Posted by: Allan Bain at May 22, 2007 02:45 PM

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 14:38

Looks legit to me.

I do not find fault with any of those points, and mentioned that the flat test protocol favored the DS armor.

TR

txzen

05-22-2007, 15:29

I sort of gathered that he was saying that to find the most vulnerable spot you go to the top or bottom row where there is no overlappering and you you go to the edge of the disc where it is the thinnest. There is also the "opening created by curving around," I just asked mr bain if there really was like mr neal has stated an edge test that required the shots be within .75 and 1.25 inches from the edge and neal says that zheng shot .5 inches from the edge making the shots outside of the test rules. This stuff is complicated. The tests that are on pinnacles website most of them are tests with the DS on a human shaped "curvy" dummy including the 7.62x51 test on an sov1000. Now the test on the non overlapping discs if that is what "successor disc means" and on the opening due to curves needs to be shown. It still doesn't seem so bad though that to hit the most vulnerable places on the amor you have to aim away from the center of mass and aim at the sides to hit the opening at the curve. And it is interesting to note that if you were facing the profile of the armor you would then have to shoot at the side of the profile to hit an opening, I think.

txzen

05-22-2007, 15:32

Dear Txen,

At the time I sold my rights out to Pinnacle Armo we had not progressed to the point where we would be making a serious bid for Artlicle One testing. The systems worked, the next generations was already planned, and the only conditioning tests that we had to pass at the time was a water immersion test. That was fairly straight forward. We used light weight Nylon fabric with the same amount of urethane coating as a boyancy comepensator and then ultrasonically welded the system inside this water proof cover.

We had sold some to SOCOM as well and again the issue of heat was never presented.

As far as placing the tiles into an individual envelop of fabric rather than using glue and fabric, it is possible, but a sewing nightmare, and of course placing all the tile in place is another time thief to high production manufacturing. I guess that might be a viable way to go, but I would think that the adhesive method will be tried again until it doesn't or does prove out. It's faster, cheaper, and easier.

We are experimenting with an adhesive for niche applications that seems to have this problem solved, we'll see.

As for the discs, why did they only fall in one area, I can't confirm this as a fact, one possible explaination is one section was light on adhesive and the fabric sandwich separated and allowed some tiles to fall and stack up on area where the glue didn't fail, but this is conjecture because I don't know exactly how the tiles looked after the heat exposure. I don't trust what Pinnacle states as an explaination because I spent the majority part of the 1990's using adhesive coated fabrics to affix everything from squares to hexagons in various matricies, and one thing was certain, if the glue wasn't right we knew it, it wasn't some difficult thing to see. We knew it. If what Pinnacle Armor is saying is true, which I doubt anyway, take responsibility for not having your staff up to specs in training. I mean look, if I were Mr. Neal, the 30 units that I sent to the military for evaluation would have been personally inspected and double checked. This was his first and supposedly best foot forward.

I say "Manup", take responsibility instead of crying foul all the time, if your stuff is good you will get another chance, especially if you aren't accusing the Army and it's evaluators of being crooked all the time. It's about diplomacy as well, Mr. Neal reminds me of the boy who cried wolf too many times.

If you look at another of my posting you will also see the difference between the testing at the German laboratory and the NIJ Vs. What the Military considers important in testing scalar armor. It was a post in response to Mr. Patriot.

Best Regards

Posted by: Allan Bain at May 22, 2007 04:07 PM

Casket

05-22-2007, 15:43

TR: Thanks for writing that up Sir. It was very informative.

Keep up the good work.

Gary

Scotty

05-22-2007, 15:57

Hey guys, long time no see! TR, Doc, Bill, and JH, hope you guys are doing well...

Does anyone here know what DS's stab/puncture (ie: syringe) stopping effectiveness is?

Just curious,

Scotty

VMI_Marine

05-22-2007, 16:26

I just got this comment on an older post at OPFOR.

There was an show about future weapons that showed a grenade being detonated under the armor. After watching that I think I'd like that kind of protection.

:rolleyes:

Some kinds of ignorance are just incurable.

txzen

05-22-2007, 16:29

We don't seem to know how many of the vests had disc slippage. The army recieved 30 vests how many did they test? Did they all have disc slippage? Did all the discs on all the vests slip? And then seeing as how the army is just looking for armor that is better than what they have then why not mark the protective area that the sapi plates of the interceptor protect onto the DS and just fire at that. The video the army showed it appears like high shots that the chest plate of the interceptor doesn't even extend up to. I think it is apt to note that IBA doesn't protect everywhere on the vest for level IV threats. The DS should get to designate where it is protecting against level IV threats also and not be expected to protect against rifle threats even at the edges where there are no overlapping discs. The IBA is expected to defeat rifle threats outside of the rigid plate, it seems only fair, and if the coverage of overlapping discs is less than the coverage of rigid plates then that is a factor is who is best but saying defeats occurred because of anomalies in manufacturing or because shots were fired at areas of on a vest that the current system doesn't protect against either it is just raising more unneeded questions.

VMI_Marine

05-22-2007, 16:33

“Force protection is the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army.

Nit-picking a bit, but shouldn't winning the damned war be the "No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army"? Force protection is simply a component of that. And one that is often over-prioritized.

For similar reasons, I make it a point to tell Marines during range safety briefs that safety is NOT the first priority. Effective training is the first priority, and we will do it safely.

VMI_Marine

05-22-2007, 17:09

Does anyone here know what DS's stab/puncture (ie: syringe) stopping effectiveness is?

Just curious,

Scotty

And will it go with Scotty's cute new outfit he just picked out? :D

kgoerz

05-22-2007, 17:10

The following is from the Pinnacle website:

What exactly does this test prove? Shouldn't the armor be tested exactly as it is likely to be used? If for instance the armor was tested at 170 degrees while laying flat (and gravity can't act to degrade the structural integrity of the armor) and then allowed to cool enough for the adhesive to re-set what does it prove? Seems to me that the more appropriate test is if the armor is heated upright and then shot immediately before cooling off. Even a unsophisticated civilian like me is smart enough to realize that these vests will be exposed to extreme temperature conditions without any "cooling off" period before it has to perform. Who cares if it works after being left at room temperature for an hour and a half to cool, if it won't work while still hot or cold.

I must be stuck on stupid.

Your not stupid. But they are counting on people who are stupid. One of the reasons for these people being called out on the carpet. I think TS summed up this cool off period. When a Cop or soldier is getting ready to do a hit. He is suppose to pull his vest out of his hot trunk or sit in the shade. After 90 minutes they can continue with the mission:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

05-22-2007, 17:15

Pete

05-22-2007, 17:31

.... The DS should get to designate where it is protecting against level IV threats also and not be expected to protect against rifle threats even at the edges where there are no overlapping discs.....

You don't get to pick where the enemy shoots you. The test is "none" and a number of rounds did.

The X-rays show the before and after views of the vests. The before shot on most of them show the scale overlap. Mightly small overlap area to be wishing the enemy hits only them. Remeber the enemy are bad shots, they just might "miss" and kill you.

Pete

txzen

05-22-2007, 17:36

All that is true, but IBA's level IV protection doesn't cover the whole vest and the tests hit it's level IV protected areas.

Pete

05-22-2007, 18:00

All that is true, but IBA's level IV protection doesn't cover the whole vest and the tests hit it's level IV protected areas.

Look at the before X-ray - you can see the overlap of the scales. You have single layer and then double and triple overlaps. The single layer appears to cover only about 1/2 of the area.

Heck man, if thats your defense, you have to hit the overlap areas for a test; the soldiers might as well wear a T shirt.

I'm kinda' pokin' ya a bit but the standard is a shot in the, I'll call it torso, area must be stopped. All 6 suppliers of Intercepter meet those standards. DS failed, with what 13 of 48 shots?

So the real question is how much money has the company poured into DS and what do they stand to lose if their product is a bust and people start asking for their money back? I think a ton and I think, to them, it's all about money and not about the soldier.

Has DS had a recall of any vests for glue problems or were the only problems with the vests submitted for government testing? I find that odd.

Pete
No answers, but a lot of uneasy questions on my mind.

Karl.Masters

05-22-2007, 18:16

Why would there be places on the armor that doesn't protect against rifle fire? Isn't that the point of the stuff? :confused:

It seems to me, as the president, admitting there are places on the armor that don't stop the bullets is akin to admitting this equipment isn't designed to do it's job, regardless of whether it passes a test or not.

LL

LL,

I agree completely with your anlaysis.

Shots on the SOV 3000 were only taken on areas of ceramic coverage, or on areas where there was ceramic coverage at the start of temperature conditioning.

We call this the fair hit area.

Just because the ceramic discs went AWOL from their appointed place of duty dosen't mean the fair hit area is modified.

This environmentally induced disc migration, were it were to occur in the field, would create a vulnerability that would place Soldiers at risk of lethal injury, since the failure occurred in areas that are critical to providing rifle protection to the upper torso and vital organs.

I think you said it best - that's the point of the stuff.

To use the terms in the embedded quote in your post, it would be much more precise to say that there were "rifle defeating areas" that transitioned to "non-rifle defeating areas" after the adhesive failed in temperature conditioning testing and the ceramic discs migrated into random disorder at the bottom of the vest.

The Army body armor testing protocol is intended to support a Soldier safety release for use in a combat enviroment, which often involves operations at extreme temperatures.

It is very important to discover these types of equipment failures on the range instead of on a Soldier in harm's way. This is why we test.

In the spirit of continuous process improvement and corporate responsibility, I submit that it would be much more productive for this manufactuer to analyze the cause(s) of this failure mode, and take proactive steps to address this critical design deficiency.

Karl

txzen

05-22-2007, 18:38

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 18:39

I'm confused. I admit I haven't read all the links, and I'm definitely NOT up to speed on this subject.

Why would there be places on the armor that doesn't protect against rifle fire? Isn't that the point of the stuff? :confused:

It seems to me, as the president, admitting there are places on the armor that don't stop the bullets is akin to admitting this equipment isn't designed to do it's job, regardless of whether it passes a test or not.

LL

To futher muddy the waters, there is a layer of soft body armor which is pistol and fragmentation resistant. Rifle armor, especially Level 4 rated armor, is generally thick, hard, and inflexible.

The soft armor is located in the carrier, next to the body with the rifle plate towards the outside.

To make the entire vest rifle grade would make strapping on differnent coverage areas of plates like a medieval knight.

The entire concept is a tradeoff between unarmored, which is light, mobile, and reliant on speed and mobility for protection, versus armored, which make us slower, heavier, less mobile, but better protected. The same dilemma has existed with tanks. Some designers like heavy armor and slow, some prefer lighter armor and faster.

It is much easier if just the vital areas are hard armored. The shoulders, arms, legs, etc. are not as vulnerable as the torso, and in 130 degree heat and 100 pounds of mission related gear, there has to be some compromise.

At the same time, as I explained to the eggheads from Rand, we have reached a physical limiting factor, where we just can't carry any more weight without leaving something vital behind. It is a zero sum game, something people who have never humped a ruck have trouble understanding. Even after stripping down the MREs and only carrying one per day, after deciding to change socks just every other day, one t-shirt for the whole month, no underwear, cuttting off half the toothbrush handle, etc., there is only so much you can leave behind and still function, and just so much that you can carry. An extra 20 pounds? That is equivalent to 16 30 round mags of 5.56 ammo, and four frag grenades. I don't think so.

TR

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 19:26

Does the sapi plate cover more than the overlapping discs? About the glue I still want to know if all 30 of the vests's glue melted, or if there just wasn't enough glue on that one vest on that one strip of discs and if is a wide spread issue or what. Neal did say that it was one vest that had the disc slippage and that like the IBA not all of the vest is level IV protected.

txzen:

Good input from Mr. Bain.

After an auspicious beginning, you are beginning to piss me off.

The methodology and disposition of all of the vests tested by the Army is in the PM's slide presentation at the other DS thread. The "what did..." and "how many..." questions are already answered, and we are not going to waste time answering them again. You don't seem to understand the mechanics or construction of the vests. If you can't keep up, you are going to be left behind.

Look at the pretty pictures and read it all before posting again.

TR

Karl.Masters

05-22-2007, 19:45

I guess the question people would like answered is if another body armor is chosen does Mr Masters stay on as the head of the army's body armor project....

I plan to die in this job. My most important credential is what the Army terms "sole surviving family member". RIP SP4 JE Masters, CSC 1-508 PIR 82nd ABN DIV.

...or would a different person, a flexible armor specialist if that is the case, take over?

Since 2003, I have evaluated three flexible body armor systems for the Army, and will soon receive a fourth for ballistic evaluation.

The Army is interested in lightweight flexible armor to provide Soldiers more lethality and survivability through improvements in agility, mobility, and comfort.

However:

BG Brown, PEO Soldier, stated in a press conference yesterday that the Army is unwilling to take any steps backwards in personal armor mass efficiency, nor is the Army willing to sacrifice ballistic performance, operational suitability, durability, modularity, or safety in order to field flexible armor.

I am confident that this nation's industrial base will overcome the technical challenges which currently limit the military utility of flexible body armor.

Karl

x SF med

05-22-2007, 20:31

TR-
you are restating the first law of economics "Everything has a cost" or "Every negotiation has a tradeoff"

It seems the eggheads from Rand would recognize what we ugly, dirty, intellectually challenged mud monkeys see right off the bat, but they don't.

txzen

05-22-2007, 20:41

Thanks for responding, this is a very common criticism that I think you have cleared up here. People really do either think you work for the manufacturers of Interceptor or that you job is dependent on Interceptor staying the armor of choice for the military. It being up to the army who runs the program and that they have chosen you to test flexible systems in the past I think those concerns are now unfounded.

And to The Reaper I am sorrow that my response to Pete came off as flippant. I have reviewed all of the PEO's pdf and see exactly what you are talking about. The shots that penetrated didn't seem to be on any edge or on a single disc. They also didn't seem to be at angles that would sneak bullets between discs. Thanks for directing me to the .pdf, I am embarrassed I hadn't seen it before I did have to turn UAC controls back on Windows Vista and restart my computer just to get adobe acrobat to install, but it was worth it. Sorry and thanks again.

txzen

05-22-2007, 21:39

I have an easy question I think and a simple observation about the .pdf.
1. I assume the initial xray is taken before any "testing" so that means that there aren't x-rays of after the temperature or chemical conditioning and before the ballistic test? So there are two x rays one of an untested and unconditioned armor and 1 after it has been fired on, right?
2. The observation is that when I looked at the x rays there looked like a lot of destruction. I mean the circled in, red spots I assume are the penetrations, but the amount of destruction done to those areas looks often as bad or at least very similar to the destruction done to other parts of the vest that I assume were hit with bullets and did not have penetrations because of a missing disc but no red circle.

The Reaper

05-22-2007, 22:16

LibraryLady

05-22-2007, 22:22

KM and TR,

I appreciate your explanations; it furthered my clarity of the test results in the .pdf.

Thank you KM, sir, for the kind words.

LL

txzen

05-22-2007, 22:41

I see what you mean. On the low temp, the high, and the low to high temp there are large numbers of discs missing or displaced. On the first 5 tests it appears that there 1 disc decimated and the surrounding discs chipped/broken. The extreme temperature tests really do show lots of destruction.

Chalmers

05-23-2007, 06:12

Dragon skin discussion was nasty over past years but right now it seems that Pinnacle took its mouth too full and Army leadership responded in a proper way.

It is nearly funny to see the argumentation for Dragon SKin over the past years. At first level III SOV2000 was praised as "superior in every field" to IBA. It was mainly advertised because of its larger coverage, weight reduction and flexibility. Flashy videos showing the vest catching dozens of rounds did the rest (mostly 9mm). The scary part is that back then weight reduction and increased comfort in order to increase mobility were main arguments. Also IBA
was called junk because e.g. SFTT claimed that "heavy, brittle SAPI plates don't stand up several hits". If NBC testing showed anything, than that ESAPI plates own an extreme multihit capability even during testing that is disigned to proof they have not. Also fielding of side plates was criticized because
of increased weight. Quite strange, because right now it is said that SOV3000 is worth a weight increase between 10-20lbs.
Reality in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that encountered threats required level IV protection because snipers used PFL or old Russian rifles using e.g. 7,62x54R. Even thus this threat SOV2000 supporters said main threat is Ak and so SOV2000 is enough. I won't comment on that.
IBA offers protection against levelIV threats. Ballistic side protection was fielded especially to prevent shots in the axillariy line which was a popular sniper target. Right now there is only a small gap between ESAPI and ESBI. A frontal shot in this area is not likely to hit any vital organ or a big blood vessel. It riquires either an expert marksman shooting the small gap between two plates in a certain angle to achieve a life threatening wound or simply bad luck. But unlike media claims it was possible to close this gap even with fielded equipement. Depending on your build a XS Esapi instead of ESBI nearly closed that gap. But it was unpopular because of its weight and bulk.
Now SOV3000 appeared and failed testing. Pinnacle claimed: "Dumb and corrupt Army testers sabotaged tests". Strange. Now let's see, who has more credibility. Yes corruption occured in the Army. When personal is corrupted they lie in order to do what evil companies tell them. But d'uh Pinnacle is an Armor company... So they don't even need to be corrupted to lie. In fact they were lying all the time or to say more nicely used "misleading information" and aggressive marketing. And they still do so. Mr. Neal insited that Dragon SKin never failed any tests. As I remember it failed several tests. He also claimed before that "evil Army testers" shot soft armor portions of his vest. In fact they did. Because the rifle protected area fell off and only soft armor was left. Directly after testing he claimed that those hits were on shoulder straps. Now, it was an anomaly of the glue. Strange...
They were also using weight and size infos that were designed to confuse. Claims about lightweight level IV SOV3000 were common thus actual weights were hardly offered. Also their sizing was one number smaller than IBA. So an Army L is a Pinnacle XL. Thus that a weight comparison between an L Interceptor and L SOV3000 is still pretty bad for Dragon skin because of a 12lb weight difference.
Best part of their lying campain is their "rebuttal to unofficial Army Info Paper". They compare medium sized IBA to a medium sized SOV3000. First they are using wrong weights. As far as I know a medium sized SOV3000 with full torso wrap weights 36lbs not 33. Second a medium sized IBA with ESBI neither
weights 31,1 nor 33,1lb. A fully rigged up medium sized IBA only weights 33lb with ESAPI, ESBI, groin protector, DAP, neck/ throat protection. Thus that it is still not as heavy as SOV3000. IOTV with all that stuff will weight about 28lb.
Also the claimed coverage of an IBA is also too small. Their result is: A medium sized IBA is 47% percent heavier than SOV3000. What? And hard armor proteciton by Dragon skin is lightweight compared to IBA? HArd to believe. One square inch of SOV3000 hard armor protection weights 0,065lb. One square inch of ESAPI coverage weigths 0,047lb. So hardly convincing...
How do you want to trust somebody who states such nonesense?
Now let's ignore that Dragons skin failed FAT testing and is heavier. "Greater coverage is only possible with Dragon Skin. Huge gaps in IBA don't protect vital organs." Again misleading. Because offered coverage options by Pinnacle also leave gaps that have a deadly potential like those that were closed: e.g. shoulders, abdomen, lower back, axillary, upper chest, neck... Do want to cover all those gaps? You'd have to carry 60lb or even more for that and eg. your head still remains unprotected. There is no total security. You have to find a compromise between weight and protection. IBA offers that compromise thus it is already on the egde because of its weight.
Thus the ban of purchased body armor soldiers that want to carry more rifle coverage can do so. Different armor companies offer plates that can be worn additionally to IBA: XS Sapis instead ESBI to close the gap between side and front protection (actually fielded!), shoulder SAPIs, plates for groin protector or plates for neck/throat area.
So if you want to have greater coverrage you can buy/ get this stuff. Why aren't soldiers, Marines or members of other first rate armies running around with that? Because it is simply to heavy. Another point: Due to overlapping air catches between discs. That forms an insulation barrier. Great for winter combat, but bad for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The flexibility of Dragon skin is also praised. But in fact it has no real impact. You'll get better weight distribution by IOTV and the "flexibillity" of Dragon SKin is like a live vest or wearing two level IIIa vests over each other. Add your gear
to your vest and it is nearly as hard to move as with plates. This "advantage" is not worth the extra weight.
Back face trauma is another point. NBC says it reduces backface trauma. But the Dragon Skin inserts were shot on a flat surface. So there was more overlapping which resulted in less backface trauma. Hardly convincing.
Pinnacle bought the idea of flexible body armor and had huge problems to construct a working product. 10 years later their vests are as faulty as in the beginning. None of their flashy videos nor NBC testing adressed its eaknesses. Their marketing is only suited to impress uneducated civilians, idiots or fat journalists.
SOV3000 is good for what it was used until now: Entertainment shows and protecting dudes who didn't leave their air conditioned offices. It is heavy,it is brittle, it is not suited for current AOs.

SF18C

05-23-2007, 06:54

Pardon me SF18C,

Chalmers, first read the rules and then the stickies. And then heed what SF18C posted, or you will find your stay short. Team Sergeant

Chalmers...post an intro

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13758

txzen

05-24-2007, 13:44

On the .pdf linked in the first paragraph of this thread it says on the last page that 8 vests were tested and 4 failed, but when I go through the data on the 8 vests tested there are only 2 with no penetrations and I think I heard mr brown say that 1 penetration is a failure is is 100 percent success or 0 percent success. What am I missing? Page 3 says sov 3000 failed "4 of 8 subtests," I assume a subtest is a single vest. But the data shows 6 of 8 vests had at least one penetration. and yet in two places on page 3 and page 18 it says 4 of 8. What is the rub here?

txzen

05-24-2007, 14:04

Anyone else notice that the 60 below test that is listed as a catastophic failure because of disc "slippage," everyone can see that the discs are in different places before and after testing, got 4 "OK," ratings? Wow is that just dumb luck that after a catastophic failure of the adhesive the discs slip out of their intended places and the vest still stopped 8, I think they fire 2 shots at each side front back left and right, shots? These tests have some weird stuff to talk about. Something made me laugh about this observation "how catastophic can a failure be if after it happens 8 level IV threats in the form of 7.62x63 APM2 Armor Piercing bullets are stopped." Also I found it strange that the Germans NBC hired to test the IBA and the DS refused to tell the caliber of the round fired at the vests but the army released it in their .pdf, maybe since the NBC test came before the army released the .pdf they were just playing it safe.

The Reaper

05-24-2007, 14:24

I found it strange that the Germans NBC hired to test the IBA and the DS refused to tell the caliber of the round fired at the vests but the army released it in their .pdf, maybe since the NBC test came before the army released the .pdf they were just playing it safe.

Because they were asked not to. They fired rounds beyond the M2, and did not reveal the muzzle velocity.

Do you want the enemy to know what our guys' armor protects against and what it doesn't protect against? Can we help the bad guys kill them better to satisfy your idle curiosity? :rolleyes: Please refresh your OPSEC training.

Sheesh.:mad:

TR

txzen

05-24-2007, 15:00

I thought it strange that the army would release the caliber of weapon they used in testing, but more stange was the .pdf showing 6 failed tests and then saying 4 of 8 failed and then just the weird phenomenon that on the -60 test a "catastophic disc failure," occured but not one shot penetrated. And to be clear I don't need or want opsec violated for my curiosity. I think I get that since DS isn't fielded by the US military they don't mind saying what they used to defeat just thought it was strange the army would be specific about their testing methods and the german nbc test wouldn't. I get why the nbc test didn't and can understand why the army did, it just would have surprised me less if neither had released ammunition specifics.

The Reaper

05-24-2007, 15:09

Karl.Masters

05-24-2007, 21:12

Karl.Masters

05-24-2007, 21:29

...and then just the weird phenomenon that on the -60 test a "catastophic disc failure,"....

txzen,

You're right, we don't need any "weird phenomenon" or "anomalies" on armor that is going to be issued to US Army Soldiers.

Since we have never, until this FAT test, seen armor that dissolves or fails to maintain ballistic integrity after the temperature conditioning tests, I am adding a new criteria to the FAT test.

Any armor that dissolves, as evidenced by a post conditioning/pre-shot x-ray, is now an automatic FAT failure.

The failure will be documented by placing shots into any area that is revealed by post conditioning x-ray to have degraded ballistic integrity.

We currently use this exact protocol for the impact test, where a pre-drop x-ray is taken, the armor drop tested, a pre-shot x-ray is taken to detect cracks. The shots in the impact tested armor are placed on any crack(s) detected, and a post shot x-ray is taken. That's why you see 3 x-rays on the impact drop test chart.

Continuous process improvement at work here.

Bottom line is the lads don't need armor that cannot maintain ballistic integrity at at extreme temperatures, particularly temperatures found in the current AOR.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Karl

txzen

05-24-2007, 22:18

I really do appreciate the answers and information you have provided. Instilling confidence where before there were questions. Thanks again.

7624U

05-24-2007, 22:40

I want to just wear my plate carrier again with a stand alone hard steel plate damn it... yea you might get alittle impact splash from the bullet but it wont ever go threw :D

Karl.Masters

05-25-2007, 09:50

Christian Science Monitor has picked up the debate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0524/p99s01-duts.html

US Army and armor-maker embroiled in debate over body-armor safety
Army refutes claims that Pinnacle Armor's product superior to troops' armor, and plans to brief Congress on subject.
By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com
An NBC report on the US Army's rejection of a new type of body armor has sparked a widespread debate over the safety of US troops in the field.

The NBC investigative report, which aired over the weekend, suggested that Interceptor body armor – which the Army current uses, calling it "the best in the world" – may be inferior to a privately-developed armor called Dragon Skin. Dragon Skin, made of a series of overlapping ceramic disks "like Medieval chainmail" that defend against bullets, has been sought by military personnel and their families in the belief it offers better protection than the Army-issued Interceptor vests, NBC said.

NBC News tracked down the man who helped design Interceptor a decade ago, Jim Magee, a retired Marine colonel:

LISA MYERS: What is the best body armor available today in your view?

JIM MAGEE: Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases, it's two steps ahead of anything I've ever seen.

MYERS: You developed the body armor that the Army is using today.

MAGEE: That's correct.

MYERS: And you say Dragon Skin is better?

MAGEE: Yes. And I think anybody in my industry would say the same thing were they to be perfectly honest about it.

But Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, who oversees the Army's body-armor program, told NBC that the Dragon Skin armor "failed miserably" in Army testing, which NBC says he suggested led to its ban from use by personnel. But NBC notes that the Army banned soldiers from using Dragon Skin two months before the Army tested the armor.

The report adds that the CIA has tested and approved the armor for use by its own operatives, and one former Army ballistics expert, Nevin Rupert, says he was fired for supporting the use of Dragon Skin, and believes that the Army is eschewing the armor because "it threatened their program and mission funding."

NBC later posted the results of its own testing, which found Dragon Skin to be superior to the Army's Interceptor vests. In two tests, performed earlier this month by the Beschussamt Mellrichstadt laboratory in Germany, an Interceptor vest was penetrated by gunfire after several shots, while the same number of shots did not penetrate a Dragon Skin vest. A third test of a Dragon Skin vest against a more lethal caliber of bullet - one that the Army does not require its vests to protect against - also showed no pentration of the armor.

The Associated Press writes that, in response to the NBC report, the Army "in a rare move" released the results of its Dragon Skin testing on Monday. In a press conference (transcript available on the Defense Department's website) General Brown said that the armor suffered "catastrophic failures," failing to stop 13 of 48 armor-piercing rounds.

"Zero failures is the correct answer," he said. "One failure is sudden death and you lose the game."

Brown added that the armor failed to endure required temperatures shifts - from minus 20 degrees to 120 above zero - which weakened the adhesive holding the discs together. And he said that the Dragon Skin's heavy weight was also a problem for soldiers who need to carry a lot of gear.

The Dragon Skin, he said, weighs 47.5 pounds, compared to the Army-issued Interceptor armor, which weighs 28 pounds.

The NBC report was also met with some skepticism on military community websites. DefenseTech, a military technology blog run by Military.com, points out that in NBC's video of the armor tests, the Dragon Skin armor is on a flat surface, which maximizes the overlap of the protective disks that make up the armor. When worn, however, the armor would be curved, reducing the disks' protection. DefenseTech also notes that the armor's excessive weight reduces its "operational suitability." A post at the military website ProfessionalSoldiers.com, run by and for members of the Special Forces, also criticizes the testing in a lengthy article endorsed by the site.

Stars and Stripes, a daily paper for the US military authorized by the Defense Department, writes that Murray Neal, the founder of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor, says the Army is lying about the test results.

Murray Neal said eight of the rounds that penetrated the Dragon Skin vests were specifically aimed where there were no ballistic discs.

Of the remaining shots that went through the vests, five needed to be verified by a follow-up test, but the Army failed to do so, Neal said.

As for the Army's contention that the mesh of ceramic discs falls apart after being exposed to extreme temperatures, Neal said, "That's a bold-face lie."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Neal has made similar accusations against the Army in the past, but, "the test results speak for themselves."

ABC News affiliate KFSN in Fresno, Calif., reports that Mr. Neal says third-party testing is needed to resolve the issue of which armor, Interceptor or Dragon Skin, is safer. "[The test] won't be conducted by the Army. It won't be conducted by me. That's the whole issue here."

Military.com reports that Brown said the Army has "gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill since the NBC report was released, and that the Army will be meeting with members of Congress this week to discuss the armor issue.

armorman

05-26-2007, 09:56

Wow, so Mr. Neal wants the Army to wear something they are not allowed to test personally?

KevinB

05-27-2007, 10:03

I would guess that he is trying to have an independant test prior to Army acceptance (the .mil would then be free to test lots during acceptance)
My guess.

smp52

05-27-2007, 10:24

I would guess that he is trying to have an independant test prior to Army acceptance (the .mil would then be free to test lots during acceptance)
My guess.

From my understanding, the government isn't even thinking lot acceptance yet. Independent testing is great, but all testing for material the military accepts is conducted under their eyes ( Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC, or Defense Contract Management Agency QA reps). The armor failed First Article Testing, which is essentially required prior to any production even beginning (contractor can always produce at their own risk). Once FAT is successful, production begins and along with inspection requirements stipulated in the spec/contract for Critical, Major, and Minor characteristics, an LAT (lot acceptance test) of the appropriate sample size is tested for conformance to the requirements for individual lots. At least this is how it is for the ammo world. I would reckon it is somewhat similar to the weapons side of the house.

armorman

05-29-2007, 21:21

Here is something for you guys to look at in your spare time. Go to the Pinnacle Armor web site and scroll down to the video shows demonstrating the DS armor.

The one in the left hand corner at the bottom really shocked me, titled History Channel Test Labs. Towards the end they brought in a Hollywood stunt fabricator to make a pnuematic cannon (fancy air gun), and they used sharp laser cut steel parts fashioned like chinese throwing stars and sharp daggers ect... They launched them at velocities they said were about 900 Ft./Sec and inferred that this was a test that would recreate results that our troops would face from IED's in Iraq. They also stated prior to mounting some presumably level 3 DS armor that they didn't know what would happen, and neither did the manufacturer (Neal).

Well this is right up there with exploding a hand grenade and making a big deal that the fragments were defeated by the DS armor. BIG DEAL, bomb blankets can do that at a mere 20 layers of Kevlar. Once again Pinnacle Armor is showing off attributes of their armor that is really nothing to write home about. Maybe their Hollywood constructed test is tougher than a hand grenade, but it's nothing that any Level 3 plate or level 3 flexible insert can't handle. To assert that somehow this is a similar threat to a real IED is absurd.

It make me really angry to see the public being hoodwinked into thinking our military is blatently corrupt to the point that they would endager our troops lives.

I spoke with several rangers about this, and a real IED that's causing all the problems for our troops in Iraq makes that Hollywood cannon look like a spitwad.

Anybody else on board with this or am I crazy??

Ambush Master

05-29-2007, 21:52

I spoke with several rangers about this, and a real IED that's causing all the problems for our troops in Iraq makes that Hollywood cannon look like a spitwad.

Anybody else on board with this or am I crazy??

If you are talking about an EFP, there is no body armor that can stop it!!!

ktek01

06-03-2007, 20:19

Anyone here who has actually worn armor want to comment on how welcome an extra 20 pounds would be?
TR

Having worn SAPI vests in 140 degree heat, no way would I want another 20 pounds of armor. 47 pounds it better stop everything, because getting hit at the end of a long run your not getting out of the way of anything with another 20 pounds on you. I had no problem getting in and out of vehicles quickly with the conventional vests. I have absolutely no faith in any kind of armor discs held together by glue. We had our doubts about the SAPI when we first got in country. Taking some vests to the range ended most doubts, and seeing it work in actual conditions really ended any debate for us. We had guys leave with arm and leg wounds, but didnt loose anyone thanks to the SAPI plates.

afchic

06-05-2007, 14:55

I thought you all might be interested that the House Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing on Defense Department body armor programs tomorrow at 10 a.m. in 2118 Rayburn (just in case anyone is in DC and wants to sit in).

With all the stuff that has been in the news they decided they needed to get involved. I will see if I can pull a transcript of the hearing (if it isn't closed) to see what is said. The transcripts usually come out about 24-48 hours after a hearing, and I have a "ding" sent into CQ to let me know when it appears.

I certainly hope they don't decide to legislate this, only because of a poorly done, hyped up media report.

The Reaper

06-05-2007, 17:24

I would encourage everyone with an interest in this topic, regardless of your beliefs pro or con, to watch this briefing (or read it) with an open mind.

We now know that the plates that NBC said were issued ESAPI, were some sort of Canadian soft armor and ersatz plates that Mr. Magee, the "inventor" of ESAPI got for them, NOT Army issued ESAPI.

Watch tomorrow and see what happens.

TR

spartanfed182

06-05-2007, 18:21

I heard about dragon skin a while back, it pretty sweet stuff. I also of some sonic device used against rpg's and I think they were mounting the devices on tanks. I know the marines have already started the process in getting this new tech field ready. But I was wondering if anyone knew where the army stands, thats assuming you know what I am talking about.

Guy

06-05-2007, 18:29

The Reaper

06-05-2007, 19:01

SF18C

06-05-2007, 19:29

I heard about dragon skin a while back, it pretty sweet stuff.

Now that’s a severe lack of situational awareness!:munchin

afchic

06-06-2007, 09:32

I just finished watching the hearing, and it was pretty darn interesting. The list below are those that were scheduled to testify, and were actually sitting at the hearing table. Granted there were a few minutes I missed in the beginning for a meeting, but the rest of the time the only witnesses asked ANY questions Mr. Neal and Mr. Coyle.

In my honest opinion, both sides of the aisle toasted them both pretty good. I actually had to laugh out loud when Rep Stevens from Alaska, read aloud many of Mr. Neal's press realeases in which they called into question the integrity of the Army lab, the Army itself, the Army leadership, amongst others. He then asked Mr Neal if his sole purpose was to impugn the integrity of the Army. He stated it wasn't his purpose, but it was evident that Mr. Stevens thought he was lying through his teeth. IF that wasn't his intent he never would have said half of what he did in his press release, then he had the gall to say it wasn't his words, that he was only relaying what military families felt about the Army. Unbelieveable.

It seems that everyone has agreed to do another test, in which members of the HASC will be present, to see what happens.

I am interested to hear what Mr. Masters thinks of what was said today.

I will post the trascript as soon as it comes out on Thomas.

Thanks
Alli

Witnesses Scheduled
Murray Neal - CEO, Pinnacle Armor
Philip E. Coyle III - senior adviser, World Security Institute

Witnesses Scheduled Lt. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III - military deputy and director, Army Acquisition Corps, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

Brig. Gen. Mark Brown - program executive officer, U.S. Army

Roger Smith - deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for littoral and mine warfare

Col. Ed Smith - product group director, combat equipment and support systems, Marine Corps

Douglas D. Thomas - executive director, Aiir Force Office of Special Investigations

Col. Kevin Noonan - manager, Program Executive Office, Special Operations Forces Warrior, U.S. Special Operations Command

William 'Bill 'M. Solis - director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, Government Accountability Office

Jonathan Morgan - deputy director, National Institute of Justice

The Reaper

06-06-2007, 10:37

A head to head retest is against procurement regs and is just what Mr. Neal wants.

He needs to submit armor that meets specs for FAT testing. Meeting specs would include equal or less weight for the same or better coverage, under all environmental protocols, for a comparable price.

The last time the Army spent $250,000 testing his junk, it failed. Maybe he should pay for the test this time?

TR

afchic

06-06-2007, 11:23

Snaquebite

06-06-2007, 14:43

http://armedservices.house.gov/apps/list/press/armedsvc_dem/skeltonpr060607.shtml

Washington, DC – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) delivered the following opening statement at today’s Full Committee hearing on Department of Defense Body Armor Programs:

"The committee will come to order. This morning the committee meets to receive testimony on Department of Defense body armor programs. We have with us today two panels of distinguished witnesses representing the military services, private industry, and independent agencies. I want to thank all of our witnesses in attendance today.

"The jurisdiction of this committee is such that we cover a very wide range of issues. But the significance of other issues pales relative to the importance of providing the best protection possible to our men and women serving in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

"This committee has been at the forefront in providing necessary non-partisan oversight on the full spectrum of force protection matters. Since 2001 this committee has authorized over $5.1 billion to help the services procure body armor and expand the industrial base.

"Effective body armor is the baseline component to force protection and it is critical to promoting the survivability of military personnel serving in extreme combat environments. It has to work and it has to be the best available bar none.
"Recent media reports have suggested that we may not be providing the best body armor available. NBC News commissioned an independent round of limited ballistic tests that compared current body armor to another system called Dragon Skin. NBC indicates the results from these limited tests favor Dragon Skin over the current military interceptor body armor system or IBA.

"NBC tests contradict the information provided to this committee by military and Department of Defense officials in numerous hearings and briefings. Most recently the Army indicated to this committee in a closed briefing on May 24 that they conducted first article live fire ballistic tests on the Dragon Skin system in May of 2006. These tests also included environmental constraints such as subjecting the vests to extreme temperatures and fluids to ensure the vests would hold up to conditions troops might face in the field. The Army tests indicated Dragon Skin failed to meet military body armor specifications.

"We’re here today to gain a better understanding of the facts and to reassure our constituents that our goal remains ensuring that their sons and daughters are being provided the best body armor available. We owe them that. This committee takes its oversight role very seriously. If it is determined we aren’t providing our troops the best body armor available, then this committee will fix that problem.

"Today’s hearing should help Members understand the rigorous standardized test and evaluation procedures that are required for procuring effective body armor systems for the military and understand why these rigorous protocols are necessary. We need to understand what the military requirements are—whether the ability to stop incoming rounds, or the weight they put on a soldier or Marine, or the heat and cold they must be able to withstand in theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Understanding the requirements and the process should make it clear that this is more than a competition between two makers of body armor. A fair, open, and objective process would allow any manufacturer to bring a product to the Department for consideration. That is the best way to ensure that our troops will have access to the best products.

"Troops and their families must have confidence in the product they are wearing. I hope today’s hearing will help shed some light on where we should go from here. But either way, I would urge the Army to conduct comprehensive first article tests of the current body armor system and the Pinnacle Dragon Skin system using an independent third party as control. This would ensure to everyone that we are providing the most capable, tactically suitable system available. We must continue to seek better, lighter, more effective body armor systems.

"Now let me say a couple practical words about the hearing today. Our goal is to present all sides of this issue. As such there are two panels and this is a big committee. I would urge members to keep their questions concise and to remember that we have a second panel. We should give the same courtesy to both panels.

"Also, it should be noted the committee did extend an official invitation to NBC News, retired General Wayne Downing, and retired Colonel (USMC) James Magee to provide their analysis of their ballistic side-by-side comparison tests. NBC declined to appear as did General Downing. Mr. Magee could not attend due to an unbreakable prior engagement but did submit a formal statement for the record.
"Before we introduce the first panel of witnesses for their opening remarks, I would like to recognize my good friend from California, the ranking Member Duncan Hunter for any remarks."

Snaquebite

06-06-2007, 14:48

More remarks here
http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml

open the pdf by each witness

There is also an audio transcript in 2 parts.

Snaquebite

06-06-2007, 15:10

Downloaded all the pdf's for everyone.

Prepared Statements:

7773

7774

7775

Snaquebite

06-06-2007, 15:12

Prepared statements:

7778 (Brown and Thompson issued a joint prepared statement)

7780

Wouldn't let me attach the GAO transcript for some reason.

Audio:
Part 1: http://hascaudio.house.gov/FC060607.wma 3:55 min
Part 2: http://hascaudio.house.gov/FC2060607.wma 33 min

Snaquebite

06-06-2007, 15:36

Neal and Coyles prepared statements.

7781

7782

Still reading and listening....comments to follow.

afchic

06-07-2007, 06:29

Here is an article from the Miami Herald on the hearing yesterday.

Miami Herald
June 7, 2007

Body-Armor Firm's Claims Draw Scrutiny

The Pentagon is investigating a company that claims its armor is better than the vests U.S. troops wear.

By Michael Doyle

A California manufacturer of body armor is under criminal investigation for possibly making false claims, Pentagon officials said Wednesday, but lawmakers are pressing for an independent test to determine whether the company's protective vests are better than the ones that American troops in Iraq are wearing.

Air Force investigators said they'd been probing Pinnacle Armor Inc. of Fresno, Calif., for a year, looking into allegations that the company lied about having its vests certified as safe. Pinnacle made the claim nine months before it received the federal certification, officials said.

''In my opinion, this is a fraudulent claim, and it is my hope that the investigation results in the appropriate consequences,'' Army Lt. Gen. N. Ross Thompson III told the House Armed Services Committee.

Exploiting fears?

Lawmakers from both parties accused Pinnacle's president, Murray Neal, of hyping his product, exploiting the fears of soldiers' families, misleading Congress and impugning the Army's integrity.

Neal said his company's Dragon Skin body armor was superior to the Interceptor brand the Pentagon was buying now. It's a big market: The Army and Marine Corps need 178,000 body armor systems for service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some soldiers and Marines have been paying upward of $5,000 to equip themselves with Dragon Skin.

''The bottom line,'' Neal said, ``is that Dragon Skin has been verified as the best body armor in the world.''

Unlike the solid Interceptor vests, Dragon Skin uses overlapping silver dollar-sized discs. The flexible system is popular with police SWAT teams, Secret Service agents and others. Pinnacle also has contracted with different military branches.

Neal charged that ''there is a pattern of anti-Dragon Skin misinformation coming from the armed forces.'' He said a side-by-side test of the two systems, conducted by an independent evaluator, should decide once and for all which was more effective.

''I think we can do that in short order,'' agreed Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.

Defending product

A Vietnam combat veteran, Hunter offered to set up some quick tests himself with an M-14 rifle.

''There has been a lot of mishandling of this issue by [Pinnacle], and that's clearly disturbing,'' Hunter said. ``I know the Army has got its back up, and justifiably so. On the other hand, we have a technology that may have some value.''

Two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- including Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton -- want the Government Accountability Office to oversee armor tests. Until now, the Pentagon has tested equipment against certain standards, but not side by side.

''Continuing allegations that superior body armor may be available but is not being acquired by the Department of Defense warrant an independent assessment,'' Clinton and Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who's also a Vietnam veteran, wrote to the GAO last month.

In the House of Representatives, Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut has joined with Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia and other lawmakers to call for a GAO test. The bipartisan urging makes it likely that further testing will take place.

Neal acknowledged Wednesday that recent media attention has boosted his company's sales, including an NBC Dateline report that included independent testing in Germany.

The Reaper

06-07-2007, 06:57

Okay, let's assume for a moment, and this is a big assumption, that Mr. Neal has fixed his adhesive problem and the disks stay in place regardless of environmental exposures.

We now have a new vest for our troops that can provide equivalent protection, for an extra 20 pounds per unit and at twice the price.

As a soldier, you do not want the additional weight. The XL vest weight difference is equivelent to almost 20 mags with 600 rounds of 5.56 ammo. With approach march loads near 130 pounds, what 20 pounds of mission essential gear are you going to leave behind?

As the government or as a taxpayer, you do not want to replace an item with one that provides no better protection at a cost of an additional billion dollars. He already stuck the Army for $170,000 for defective vests on the last test go 'round. Assuming normal mark-up, Mr. Neal and his crew stand to make at least $500,000,000 should the vest be accepted and purchased by the Army and Marines. That is big money, folks, even for government contracts, and can make otherwise good men look the other way.

As a competitor, you are playing by the rules when suddenly, Murray's hype machine gets him a head to head test, in violation of the procurement regs. Is that fair to you? Why can't you get a head to head test for your product, if Pinnacle did?

As a human, you do not want to deal with a business that has lied and cheated the way that Pinnacle has. We now know that Pinnacle was claiming NIJ certification and putting the NIJ certified label on vests well before the vests actually passed NIJ certification. Would you buy a used car from this man?

Most of the troops I have seen purchasing these vests have bought lesser protection (Level Three) on the company's recommendation that it would defeat the greater threats. When I spoke with Pinnacle, the person I spoke with told me that I could go with the lighter DS vest, as the Level Three vest would actually stop Level Four threats. The only way for the soldier to find out that this is untrue (other than shooting up your $5,000 vest, as apparently some troops have) is to wear it and get shot by the enemy. So we have troops and contractors leaving their certified Level Four ESAPI at home and taking their until recently NIJ uncertified Level Three DS to combat. Not the smartest thing I have ever heard.

I think that a flexible armor may be in the Army's future, once it is lighter, cheaper, and actually proven to be durable enough to stop threats in a combat environment. I am not sure that it will be Pinnacle's Dragon Skin armor that is the eventual solution.

That is my .02 on it.

TR

rubberneck

06-07-2007, 07:20

Snaquebite

06-07-2007, 08:56

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | June 07, 2007

The technical expert solicited by a major news network to certify its tests of Dragon Skin body armor admitted Wednesday that the controversial vests weren't "ready for prime time."

In an investigative report broadcast by NBC May 20, the network used the expert opinion of Dr. Phillip Coyle - the former director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration - to certify results of side-by-side tests conducted at NBC's expense in Germany.

In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.

In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.

But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.

"You're saying today ... that you cannot say that it's ready for prime time. That's your testimony?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) asked Coyle.

Coyle agreed that the NBC tests fell short of proving Dragon Skin was ready for fielding.

More...with links
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...138277,00.html

incommin

06-07-2007, 09:22

Sadly it has never been about the soldier or the mission when it comes to Congress. Soldiers don't write big fat checks to Congressmen. I know I am cynical but I honestly believe that most elected officials from both parties care more about their self interests than they do about you and your mission, despite the spin that comes out of their mouths.

This whole sordid affair just confirms my opinion of that. A crappy over weight product fails the Army's tests miserably and yet somehow Congress is going to give them a second bite at the apple.:rolleyes:

It is not cynical to believe a truth! Members on the "Hill" prove your point day after day. Rising election $$$$ and taking care of family and friends come first. We, the people come last. We also know the apples are rotten but we keep putting the same ones back in the barrel.....

Jim

Karl.Masters

06-07-2007, 15:23

http://www.governmentexecutive.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128&dcn=todaysnews

Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims

By Megan Scully Congress

Daily June 7, 2007

House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday accused a body armor maker with falsifying information about its product and making unsubstantiated claims that the Army rigged live-fire tests to set the firm's vests up for failure.

During a long hearing that often seemed like a trial, the Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor Inc. offered lawmakers no firm evidence to back up its public assertions that Army officials manipulated tests on its Dragon Skin body armor to cover up the vests' true capabilities.

Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, expressed displeasure over a May 2006 Army test and a "pattern of anti-Dragon Skin misinformation" coming from the military. But Neal was unable to provide specific information on wrongdoing done by either the Army or H.P. White Laboratory Inc., a private ballistic research facility in Maryland that ran the tests.

"They are trying to impugn the integrity of the Army through innuendo," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said of the firm in a brief interview outside the hearing room. Meanwhile, Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, said Neal's testimony was "one of the least professional" he has ever heard before the committee.

The panel's hearing came as the Air Force, which also has tested the Pinnacle Armor vests, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm over allegations that it had placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not.

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and other lawmakers, saying they want to ensure U.S. troops have the best protection available, called for more tests to determine which armor works better.

Nonetheless, Skelton seized on written evidence demonstrating that Pinnacle Armor had labeled its armor as certified eight months before the National Institute of Justice, which evaluates the Dragon Skin vests used for law enforcement personnel, actually certified it as meeting a certain law enforcement specification.

"Being a country lawyer, this bothers me a great deal when you mistake dates so far apart," Skelton told reporters after the hearing.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, the military director of the Army's acquisition office, called the mislabeling a "serious, fraudulent claim."

Neal told reporters he had not heard of the criminal investigation before the hearing, but added that his company is now in talks with the Air Force. He also said the National Institute of Justice had "verbally" informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. Neal said he received no written authorization to do so.

Pinnacle Armor has promoted Dragon Skin armor as a more protective and flexible alternative to the rigid interceptor body armor U.S. troops now wear in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has banned its use, but the families of service members have bought the vests and shipped them overseas.

During the hearing, Neal asserted that the Army had inaccurately concluded that bullets had penetrated the Dragon Skin armor during the tests, when in fact it had only pierced the surface of the vests. But Army officials later played a video of the same test that Neal alluded to in his testimony, demonstrating that at least portions of the fragmented bullet had traveled through the entire vest.

Neal, who was featured in the video, said later that the Army showed the wrong test, and disputed that the bullet had actually penetrated the armor. The video showed a large bullet hole on the surface behind the vest.

Skelton called the hearing just weeks after an NBC News report indicated that the Dragon Skin armor performed better in NBC-sponsored ballistic tests than the interceptor body armor the military now distributes to troops.

Army officials testified Wednesday that the interceptor body armor tested against the Dragon Skin in the NBC test was not produced by any of the six companies that supply the vests to the military, a fact that may have contributed to the interceptor armor's poor showing.

The report "brings NBC's credibility into serious question," said Thompson, who added that the news organization disregarded the Army's own evidence to pursue a "salacious story." Skelton announced at the hearing that NBC News declined an invitation to appear before the committee.

A call to NBC's Washington bureau was not returned at presstime.
Thompson suggested that Pinnacle Armor respond to a recent request for proposals for new body armor. By doing so, the company would get its product re-tested along with other potential suppliers.

Thompson stressed that it would be unfair to other armor makers to test Pinnacle Armor's product separately, as the company has proposed. But, in a gesture to the company, he said the Army would not run the tests at the H.P. White facility.

Pinnacle Armor has not responded to three similar requests for proposals offered by the Army in the last three years, according to the Army. Company representatives did participate in an "industry day" last year -- a chance for firms to interact with the Army -- but did not respond to a subsequent request for information.

The Reaper

06-07-2007, 15:57

"Nonetheless, Skelton seized on written evidence demonstrating that Pinnacle Armor had labeled its armor as certified eight months before the National Institute of Justice, which evaluates the Dragon Skin vests used for law enforcement personnel, actually certified it as meeting a certain law enforcement specification.

"Being a country lawyer, this bothers me a great deal when you mistake dates so far apart," Skelton told reporters after the hearing.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, the military director of the Army's acquisition office, called the mislabeling a "serious, fraudulent claim."

Neal told reporters he had not heard of the criminal investigation before the hearing, but added that his company is now in talks with the Air Force. He also said the National Institute of Justice had "verbally" informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. Neal said he received no written authorization to do so.

Pinnacle Armor has promoted Dragon Skin armor as a more protective and flexible alternative to the rigid interceptor body armor U.S. troops now wear in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has banned its use, but the families of service members have bought the vests and shipped them overseas.

During the hearing, Neal asserted that the Army had inaccurately concluded that bullets had penetrated the Dragon Skin armor during the tests, when in fact it had only pierced the surface of the vests. But Army officials later played a video of the same test that Neal alluded to in his testimony, demonstrating that at least portions of the fragmented bullet had traveled through the entire vest.

Neal, who was featured in the video, said later that the Army showed the wrong test, and disputed that the bullet had actually penetrated the armor. The video showed a large bullet hole on the surface behind the vest.

Skelton called the hearing just weeks after an NBC News report indicated that the Dragon Skin armor performed better in NBC-sponsored ballistic tests than the interceptor body armor the military now distributes to troops.

Army officials testified Wednesday that the interceptor body armor tested against the Dragon Skin in the NBC test was not produced by any of the six companies that supply the vests to the military, a fact that may have contributed to the interceptor armor's poor showing.

The report "brings NBC's credibility into serious question," said Thompson, who added that the news organization disregarded the Army's own evidence to pursue a "salacious story." Skelton announced at the hearing that NBC News declined an invitation to appear before the committee.

A call to NBC's Washington bureau was not returned at presstime.
Thompson suggested that Pinnacle Armor respond to a recent request for proposals for new body armor. By doing so, the company would get its product re-tested along with other potential suppliers.

Thompson stressed that it would be unfair to other armor makers to test Pinnacle Armor's product separately, as the company has proposed.

Pinnacle Armor has not responded to three similar requests for proposals offered by the Army in the last three years, according to the Army."

1. Pinnacle appears to have lied about the certifcation and fraudulently sold unsuspecting purchasers uncertified vests which were marked as certified.

2. Murray says that the bullets you see penetrating the armor did not. Who are you going to believe, him or your lying eyes?

3. McGee, NBC's expert, provided them with non-ESAPI plates and passed them off as issue when they clearly were not. I suppose if he had handed NBC a pillow in a plate carrier, and claimed that it was issued body armor, they would have used that and claimed it was legit, too. So McGee lied on tape, and NBC failed to check their facts before going public.

4. Pinnacle has not responded to multiple RFPs, but wants a head to head comparative test against the lighter and less expensive issue Interceptor Body Armor, in violation of procurement regs that everyone else has to follow. Right.

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a pattern emerging here? Who has the credibility now, the Army, or Pinnacle, McGee, SFTT, and NBC?

TR

LibraryLady

06-07-2007, 16:23

... Assuming normal mark-up, Mr. Neal and his crew stand to make at least $500,000,000 should the vest be accepted and purchased by the Army and Marines. That is big money, folks, even for government contracts, and can make otherwise good men look the other way...

Seems to me this is the crux of the situation.

Everyone has their price. For some, they will lay down their lives for others. That's their price - a life for a life. For others, it's all about the $$$.

Looks like we know the price of this man.

Good to see the HASC has figured it out too.

LL

NousDefionsDoc

06-07-2007, 16:30

Can anybody think of one piece of equipment that ever turned out to be a good deal after it was rejected by the normal process and Congress got involved?

I'm probably not wording this quite right.

ktek01

06-07-2007, 18:13

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a pattern emerging here? Who has the credibility now, the Army, or Pinnacle, McGee, SFTT, and NBC?

TR

Definite pattern from NBC News, who once proved that GMC/Chevy pickups would catch fire when broadsided and had an incindiary device planted in the fuel tank.

NousDefionsDoc

06-07-2007, 18:16

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a pattern emerging here? Who has the credibility now, the Army, or Pinnacle, McGee, SFTT, and NBC?

Whomever screams "Bush sucks" the loudest.

afchic

06-07-2007, 18:28

Whomever screams "Bush sucks" the loudest.
Unfortunately, those that are willing to get their information from only one or two news sources will believe whatever is repeated the most often. "Bush Sucks" seems to be the current mantra.

SF18C

06-07-2007, 20:45

Definite pattern from NBC News, who once proved that GMC/Chevy pickups would catch fire when broadsided and had an incindiary device planted in the fuel tank.

I believe it was Ford...not GMC!

Guy

06-08-2007, 00:51

ktek01

06-08-2007, 03:55

I believe it was Ford...not GMC!

Actually it was Chevy/GMC, and GM has a link to the NBC apology on their website. Scroll down to 1993, http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1990.html#

NBC News motto, never let the facts get in the way of a good story line. :D

SF18C

06-08-2007, 10:04

Actually it was Chevy/GMC, and GM has a link to the NBC apology on their website. Scroll down to 1993, http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1990.html#

NBC News motto, never let the facts get in the way of a good story line. :D

Yes you are correct...now I hate NBC even more! (I drive a GMC and have driven Chevy/GMC since I was 16!)

Karl.Masters

06-10-2007, 10:57

1. Pinnacle appears to have lied about the certifcation and fraudulently sold unsuspecting purchasers uncertified vests which were marked as certified.

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a pattern emerging here? Who has the credibility now, the Army, or Pinnacle, McGee, SFTT, and NBC?

TR

TR,

The NIJ did potential body armor purchasers a big favor with their testimony on the actual NIJ certification status of Dragon Skin.

Precise and accurate information has been tough to come by.

As a result, many consumers don't understand that only one Dragon Skin model, the SOV-2000.1 (Type III 10x12 "in conjuction" plate configuration of Dragon Skin) is NIJ certified.

The Assistant Director of the NIJ's Office of Science and Technology, John Morgan, pointed out in his testimony to the HASC on 6 June 2007 that the SOV-2000 and SOV-3000 Dragon Skin "/MIL" vests are not certified by the NIJ.

Audio testimony is available on the House Armed Services Committee website:

http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml

An extract of the NIJ's HASC testimony below, in the interest of ground truth:

"Since May of 2006, Pinnacle Armor has submitted seven models of Dragon Skin-based armor to NIJ's body armor compliance program.

NIJ and its partners have developed a flexible armor protocol, which was specifically designed to test the perceived vulnerabilities to angled shots of Dragon Skin and similar armor consisting of multiple or tiled-plate systems.

Two of the seven models were resubmitted after inconclusive results, resulting in a total of nine submissions by the company of Dragon Skin-based models.

The results for these nine submissions are:

Five failed to comply with the NIJ standard.

One passed NIJ compliance testing and was issued a letter of compliance.

Two were found to be inconclusive and were not found in compliance.

And one is pending.

Pinnacle Armor has submitted two different armor configurations.

The first configuration of armor used an existing IIIA compliant model and adds a 10x12 hard armor plate insert, which is intended to bring the level of protection up to the Level III requirements. We call this the "in conjunction" model.

That in conjunction model -- one in conjunction model has passed compliance testing and is listed on NIJ's list of armor models that comply with the standard.

That is refered to as the SOV-2000.1/MIL3AF01 model.

Pinnacle Armor has also submitted two models of in conjuction Dragon Skin armor with the SOV-3000 Level IV plate.

The SOV-3000 Level IV system failed to comply with the NIJ standard in its first submission.

The second submission of the Level IV in conjunction system, the SOV-3000.1, is currently pending.

The second configuration Pinnacle Armor submitted for Level III protection utilized the Dragon Skin technology throughout the armor panel and looks more like the traditional Level IIIA vest that provides full front, back, and side armor protection for the upper torso.

Pinnacle Armor has given this type of system a model designation that ended in MIL, for example SOV-2000-MIL or SOV-2000.1 MIL. These models appear to be similar in construction to models that have been subjected to military testing, such as you see on the table. But NIJ and its technical partners have not compared the models directly.

No Dragon Skin-based armor in this configuration, the second configuration, has passed NIJ compliance."

Karl

Snaquebite

06-10-2007, 13:19

If some have their way Neal may get another test. Will this open the door for other companies that failed to get another shot too?

Congressional members led by Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., are requesting an independent study by the Government Accountability Office to review the Army's testing procedures, a comparison study and review of current safety compliance rules.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/07/ap3796940.html

Karl.Masters

06-11-2007, 15:35

Snaquebite,

Yes-absolutely.

Intent is to expand and extend the current solicitation to include flexible armor systems from any & all vendors-not just Pinnacle Armor.

We want our acquisition strategy to comply with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).

There is absolutely no intent to limit the Army's solicitation exclusively to Pinnacle Armor.

That would violate the law of the land - CICA.

Karl

NousDefionsDoc

06-16-2007, 11:02

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_pinnacleban_070612/

Air Force considers ban on body armor maker

Staff report
Posted : Wednesday Jun 13, 2007 10:34:26 EDT

Air Force Materiel Command recommended Friday that the Air Force bar Pinnacle Armor Inc., the maker of Dragon Skin body armor, from signing new contracts with the U.S. government, CongressDaily reported.

Headquarters Air Force will review the recommendation and decide on a potential ban within several weeks, the report said.

The recommendation comes just days after it was revealed that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations is investigating the California-based manufacturer on allegations that it falsely claimed Dragon Skin vests were certified to a level of protection they did not possess.

Pinnacle has denied any wrongdoing.

OSI contracted to buy 590 Dragon Skin vests based on literature from and claims by the company, Douglas Thomas, executive director of OSI, testified June 6 on Capitol Hill.

The vests were delivered and fielded between October 2005 and January 2006 to deployed and deploying OSI agents, Thomas said.

Dragon Skin subsequently failed two tests conducted by the Air Force.

“In February 2006, we issued a stop order/immediate discontinue message to all our personnel, which basically says stop using them ... and send them back to headquarters,” said Capt. Christine Millette, an OSI spokeswoman.

On May 11, 2006, OSI received verification from the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that the type of Dragon Skin vests the Air Force purchased had not been tested or certified to National Institute of Justice standards, Thomas said.

“That was a big surprise because that’s one of the reasons we purchased the vests,” he said, adding that the vests received by OSI were clearly and falsely marked NIJ Level III.

“In May 2006, OSI opened a joint criminal investigation with [Defense Criminal Investigative Service] for false [National Institute of Justice] certification on the vest and false representation of its capabilities,” Thomas said. “In June 2006, we tested the vest again. It failed.”

The claim made by Pinnacle “is a serious fraudulent claim,” said Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

Meanwhile, military officials, lawmakers and industry professionals continue to debate whether Pinnacle’s vests outperform the military’s Interceptor armor.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, joined Thomas, Thompson and representatives from the other services June 6 in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the committee chairman, questioned Pinnacle about its claim, which was placed on the vests and dated April 14, 2006.

“I have in front of me a later letter from the Department of Justice dated Dec. 20, 2006,” Skelton said. “What I find to be interesting is that this attachment to the [body armor] is dated April 14, 2006, and the actual certification is Dec. 20, 2006. ... this is a serious discrepancy of making an assertion months before it actually came to pass.”

NIJ has a body armor testing program to “enhance the confidence of public safety agencies and officers,” said Jonathan Morgan, deputy director of the institute.

Pinnacle has submitted seven models of Dragon Skin-based armor to NIJ since May 2006, Morgan said. The company resubmitted two of the seven models after inconclusive results. Of those nine submissions, five failed to comply with NIJ standards, one passed, two were found to be inconclusive and one is pending, Morgan said.

The Army will test Dragon Skin vests — along with products from any other bidder — if the company submits its product to a request for proposals that’s open until late July, Thompson said. The Army will look at any offers from manufacturers who believe they can improve on the enhanced small-arms protective inserts and enhanced side ballistic inserts now worn by soldiers, Thompson said.

Neal said all he wants is a fair test for his product.

“The bottom line for me ... is that Dragon Skin has been verified as the best body armor in the world,” he testified. “Therefore, all we ask is for a third-party independent testing of Dragon Skin at a facility that has Office of the Secretary of Defense and Department of Testing and Evaluation oversight.”

Lawmakers grilled Neal and Philip Coyle, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, about a test, commissioned by NBC TV, that the news agency said shows Dragon Skin is superior to the Interceptor armor being worn in combat. Coyle served as a witness for the NBC test.

The NBC report, which aired May 20, prompted lawmakers to call the hearing, which included witnesses from the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy.

Lawmakers called for another test to put the Dragon Skin-Interceptor debate to rest, but they did not seem convinced by Neal’s testimony. They spent more than three hours questioning him about the ability of Dragon Skin, and his assertions that a May 2006 Army test of his product was manipulated to favor Interceptor.

Coyle wasn’t spared, either. After testifying that the NBC test clearly showed Dragon Skin was superior to Interceptor, Coyle conceded, after being questioned repeatedly by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee’s ranking member, that Dragon Skin is “not ready for prime time.”

The Army — along with the other services — stands by Interceptor and the May 2006 Army test that showed Interceptor outperforming Dragon Skin, he said.

“Before the testing was halted, the Dragon Skin vest suffered 13 of 48 first- or second-round shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests,” Thompson said. “The bottom line is that the Dragon Skin vest did not stop the bullets.”

Staff writers Michelle Tan and Erik Holmes contributed to this report.

Team Sergeant

06-16-2007, 11:49

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_pinnacleban_070612/

Air Force considers ban on body armor maker

Staff report
Posted : Wednesday Jun 13, 2007 10:34:26 EDT

Air Force Materiel Command recommended Friday that the Air Force bar Pinnacle Armor Inc., the maker of Dragon Skin body armor, from signing new contracts with the U.S. government, CongressDaily reported.

Headquarters Air Force will review the recommendation and decide on a potential ban within several weeks, the report said.

The recommendation comes just days after it was revealed that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations is investigating the California-based manufacturer on allegations that it falsely claimed Dragon Skin vests were certified to a level of protection they did not possess.

Pinnacle has denied any wrongdoing.

OSI contracted to buy 590 Dragon Skin vests based on literature from and claims by the company, Douglas Thomas, executive director of OSI, testified June 6 on Capitol Hill.

The vests were delivered and fielded between October 2005 and January 2006 to deployed and deploying OSI agents, Thomas said.

Dragon Skin subsequently failed two tests conducted by the Air Force.
“In February 2006, we issued a stop order/immediate discontinue message to all our personnel, which basically says stop using them ... and send them back to headquarters,” said Capt. Christine Millette, an OSI spokeswoman.

On May 11, 2006, OSI received verification from the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that the type of Dragon Skin vests the Air Force purchased had not been tested or certified to National Institute of Justice standards, Thomas said.

“That was a big surprise because that’s one of the reasons we purchased the vests,” he said, adding that the vests received by OSI were clearly and falsely marked NIJ Level III.
“In May 2006, OSI opened a joint criminal investigation with [Defense Criminal Investigative Service] for false [National Institute of Justice] certification on the vest and false representation of its capabilities,” Thomas said. “In June 2006, we tested the vest again. It failed.”

The claim made by Pinnacle “is a serious fraudulent claim,” said Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

Meanwhile, military officials, lawmakers and industry professionals continue to debate whether Pinnacle’s vests outperform the military’s Interceptor armor.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, joined Thomas, Thompson and representatives from the other services June 6 in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the committee chairman, questioned Pinnacle about its claim, which was placed on the vests and dated April 14, 2006.

“I have in front of me a later letter from the Department of Justice dated Dec. 20, 2006,” Skelton said. “What I find to be interesting is that this attachment to the [body armor] is dated April 14, 2006, and the actual certification is Dec. 20, 2006. ... this is a serious discrepancy of making an assertion months before it actually came to pass.”

NIJ has a body armor testing program to “enhance the confidence of public safety agencies and officers,” said Jonathan Morgan, deputy director of the institute.

Pinnacle has submitted seven models of Dragon Skin-based armor to NIJ since May 2006, Morgan said. The company resubmitted two of the seven models after inconclusive results. Of those nine submissions, five failed to comply with NIJ standards, one passed, two were found to be inconclusive and one is pending, Morgan said.

The Army will test Dragon Skin vests — along with products from any other bidder — if the company submits its product to a request for proposals that’s open until late July, Thompson said. The Army will look at any offers from manufacturers who believe they can improve on the enhanced small-arms protective inserts and enhanced side ballistic inserts now worn by soldiers, Thompson said.

Neal said all he wants is a fair test for his product.

“The bottom line for me ... is that Dragon Skin has been verified as the best body armor in the world,” he testified. “Therefore, all we ask is for a third-party independent testing of Dragon Skin at a facility that has Office of the Secretary of Defense and Department of Testing and Evaluation oversight.”

Lawmakers grilled Neal and Philip Coyle, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, about a test, commissioned by NBC TV, that the news agency said shows Dragon Skin is superior to the Interceptor armor being worn in combat. Coyle served as a witness for the NBC test.

The NBC report, which aired May 20, prompted lawmakers to call the hearing, which included witnesses from the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy.

Lawmakers called for another test to put the Dragon Skin-Interceptor debate to rest, but they did not seem convinced by Neal’s testimony. They spent more than three hours questioning him about the ability of Dragon Skin, and his assertions that a May 2006 Army test of his product was manipulated to favor Interceptor.

Coyle wasn’t spared, either. After testifying that the NBC test clearly showed Dragon Skin was superior to Interceptor, Coyle conceded, after being questioned repeatedly by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee’s ranking member, that Dragon Skin is “not ready for prime time.”

The Army — along with the other services — stands by Interceptor and the May 2006 Army test that showed Interceptor outperforming Dragon Skin, he said.

“Before the testing was halted, the Dragon Skin vest suffered 13 of 48 first- or second-round shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests,” Thompson said. “The bottom line is that the Dragon Skin vest did not stop the bullets.”

Staff writers Michelle Tan and Erik Holmes contributed to this report.

I'm guessing now Mr. Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, will be attempting to stay out of prison. :munchin

Where oh where are all those websites that backed Dragon Skin now? I see Defensereview.com has yet to write one article concerning dragon skin's complete failure. Where are you David Crane? Care to comment?

Team Sergeant

Jack Moroney (RIP)

06-16-2007, 11:52

I see Defensereview.com has yet to write one article concerning dragon skin's complete failure. Where are you David Crane? Care to comment?

Team Sergeant

I am waiting for the peckerwood that jumped my post basically calling me an idiot for supporting Karl Masters to have the guts to apologize-or at least meet me for a hot cup of STFU.

The Reaper

06-25-2007, 19:31

Gypsy

06-25-2007, 19:49

Where is SFTT and NBC covering this? Maybe I am missing it?

TR

Haven't heard a peep about this until now. Wonder if NBC will ever cover it. :rolleyes:

Airbornelawyer

06-26-2007, 02:01

Also in recent developments:

http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/795iwopr.asp

Donnelly's piece was based on the June 6, 2007 HASC hearings on body armor. I haven't fully kept up with this thread, so I don't know if those hearing have been discussed in detail, but here is a link to the statements and an audio transcript: http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml

Team Sergeant

06-26-2007, 08:16

Looks like the Air Force didn't appreciate being sold defective vests with counterfeit NIJ certification labels.

Guess who was just proposed to be disbarred from future government contract bidding?

This is procurement code A1, which means it is a proposed debarment. The notice of intent to debar was signed out by HQ USAF on Thursday last week.

They have 30 days to respond, but I suspect that the AF has their ducks in a row. Look for Neal and company and his armchair quarterbacks to cry to Congress and the media about discrimination against his magic vest.

Note that the treatment for code A1 is the same as for code A (debarment) -which means that Pinnacle is not eligible for any contract awards. No contracts, even with debarment pending vice executed.

http://www.epls.gov/epls/search.do?vindex=0&page=1&text=pinnacle&status=current

Where is SFTT and NBC covering this? Maybe I am missing it?

TR

I'm sure between Dr. Gary Roberts, DDS, testing Pinnacle Armor and Mr Neals lies that many a police force, state, local, and federal will still be using Pinnacle Armor products.

Where's defensereview.com write up? Mr David Crane what do you have to say now? Still writing bullshit articles for military.com? I'd say that david crane, owner of defensereview.com will not be addressing the Pinnacle Armor issue ever again.

TS

Team Sergeant

06-26-2007, 08:38

Search Results for Parties Excluded by
Partial Name : Pinnacle

Previous Next

Name Pinnacle Armor, Inc.
Classification Individual
Exclusion Type Reciprocal
Description none

Address(es) --
Verify Street 1
Verify Street 2
Address CA
DUNS none

CT Action(s) --
Action Date
Termination Date Indef.
CT Code A1
Agency AF
Agency POC AF Contacts
Action Status Created (25-Jun-2007)

Cross Reference(s) --
Name Action Date Term Date CT Code
1. Murray Neal 20-Jun-2007 Indef. A1
2. Paul Chopra Indef. A1

Reciprocal Cause and Treatment Codes

Defines the cause and treatment code (letter/number) indicating the cause of the action and the treatment to be accorded the excluded party.

A

Cause
Debarment by an agency pursuant to FAR 9.406-2, GPO Instructions 110.11A, or PS Publication 41, for one or more of the following causes (a) conviction of or civil judgment for fraud violation of antitrust laws, embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, false statements, or other offenses indicating a lack of business integrity; (b) violation of the terms of a Government contract, such as a willful failure to perform in accordance with its terms or a history of failure to perform; or (c) any other cause of a serious and compelling nature affecting responsibility. (See Code N- Debarment pursuant to FAR 9.406 2(b)(2) Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.)
Treatment
Contractors are excluded from receiving contracts and from directly or indirectly receiving benefits under Federal nonprocurement programs, and agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contract to renew or otherwise extend the duration of current contracts, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors, unless the acquiring agency's head or a designee determines that there is a compelling reason for such action. Government prime contractors, when required by the terms of their contract, shall not enter into any subcontract equal to or in excess of $25,000 with a contractor that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Debarments are for a specified term as determined by the debarring agency and as indicated in the listing.
TOP

A1

Cause
Proposed debarment by an agency pursuant to FAR 9.406-2 for one or more of the causes listed in FAR 9.406.2. (See Code N1- Proposed debarment pursuant to FAR 9.406-2(b)(2) Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.)
Treatment
Same as Code A, except that proposed debarments are temporary actions. Therefore the termination date will be listed as "Indefinite" (Indef.).

afchic

06-28-2007, 12:37

Found this in Aim Points this morning:

Army soliciting new, improved body armor
BY: Matthew Cox, Air Force Times
06/28/2007

The Army wants a new body armor system that will provide better protection than the current vest and plate system soldiers wear into combat.

The solicitation, posted on Federal Business Opportunities, includes requests for a new X Small Arms Protective Insert to be worn with Interceptor body armor and separate Flexible Small Arms Protective Vests, capable of providing the protection against high-powered rifle rounds without plate inserts.

Both the XSAPI plate and the flexible vests would be designed to stop “specific 5.56mm and 7.62mm” ammunition, the solicitation states.

The 30-day solicitation originally was released May 27, but Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren extended the request in the wake of a recent television report that questioned whether Dragon Skin, a type of flexible armor made by Pinnacle Armor, was superior to the Army-issue vests.

The body armor soldiers now wear consists of vests designed to protect against shrapnel and 9mm rounds, fitted with protective composite ceramic plates known as Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts. The E-SAPI plates protect against larger caliber ammunition, including armor-piercing rounds.

The report prompted a June 6 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.

“The closing date was June 27th; however, the Army will extend the solicitation for 30 days,” Geren wrote in a June 22 letter to several House Armed Services’ members. “As part of the evaluation process, the Army will test all body armor products that are submitted, including any products submitted by Pinnacle Armor.”

The Army and Pinnacle began to clash in March 2006, when the service forbade soldiers from wearing Dragon Skin. The “safety of use” message banned soldiers from wearing any commercially purchased body armor, but singled out Dragon Skin by name.

Army body armor officials maintain that Dragon Skin has failed to meet Army protection requirements but remain open to testing the system again.

Lawmakers have called on the Defense Department to oversee a technical assessment of all commercially available body armor to put this debate to rest.

In a recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pinnacle Chief Executive Officer Murray Neal stated “My company stands ready to cooperate in every reasonable manner” with such a review.

Ballistic testing for the solicitation entries will be conducted at the Army Testing and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, with oversight by DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Geren stated in his letter to lawmakers.

afchic

07-05-2007, 08:29

Found this, this morning. Good news.

Air Force recommends debarment for Pinnacle armor
BY: Jen DiMascio, Defense Daily
07/03/2007

An Air Force proposal has placed Pinnacle Armor, the maker of Dragon Skin body armor, on a list of contractors forbidden to take talking with the Defense Department about proceeding with an independent test of the armor.

On June 21, the Air Force general counsel upheld an Air Force Materiel Command recommendation and sent a proposal for debarment to Pinnacle for claiming its body armor was certified by the National Institute of Justice before certification came through.

An actual decision regarding debarment could take time, said Air Force spokesman Capt. Tom Wenz. Pinnacle has at least 30 days to respond to the Air Force's notification, after which a government debarment official has at least another month to make a formal decision about the case. In the meantime, Pinnacle remains on the list of debarred contractors and is not eligible to win new government contracts, Wenz said.

The issue came to light during a June 6 House Armed Services Committee (HASC) hearing that was called in response to an NBC News story. The story detailed the results of a test showing Dragon Skin body armor performed better than the Interceptor Body Armor used by the Army and other services. The news story contradicted an earlier test conducted by the Army showing that Dragon Skin had failed on a number of counts.

During the hearing, Army Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, the military deputy to the civilian acquisition chief, spoke in support of the Army's initial tests. He added that the service was planning to look for new sources of body armor that might improve protection soldiers are currently receiving (Defense Daily, June 7).

On June 22, Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren wrote letters to the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees endorsing that plan for a new body armor competition and inviting Pinnacle to participate.

The solicitation for enhanced small arms protective inserts officially closed June 27, but according to Geren's letter the service will accept responses for 30 additional days.

"As part of the evaluation process, the Army will test all body armor products that are submitted, including any products submitted by Pinnacle Armor," the letter said.

But because Pinnacle is on the debarment list, the company cannot participate in that competition.

That leaves the question of testing up in the air.

The Army could agree to test Pinnacle if it finds a "compelling reason" to override the debarment issue, according to Loren Dealy, a HASC spokeswoman. She added that no independent test is scheduled.

Regardless, members of the House and Senate think Dragon Skin should undergo another round of tests, said Josh Holly, a spokesman for HASC Republicans.

New tests would serve two purposes, he said. It would settle any lingering doubts generated by the news story, and if Dragon Skin turns out to be an excellent product, it would prevent the Army from missing out on the technology, Holly said.

82ndtrooper

07-05-2007, 10:53

Something tells me that the Army is not going to find aCOMPELLING REASONto restest the Pinnacle Armor

The Reaper

08-03-2007, 15:51

Uh oh, the one NIJ approved DS model just got decertified.

Looks like NIJ decided that it would not hold up for the warranted period of six years.

That is without severe environmental cycling.

I do not think I would mind if AQ bought a bunch of them though. They might be easier to hit under all of that weight and if the vest had ever gotten got hot, probably won't stop any rounds either.

Who would have thought it?:rolleyes:

Maybe all of the DS fans and defenders would like to step up and explain this one?

NBC, perhaps? Maybe they, or Soldiers For The True Lies would find that a retraction might be in order, after they said that it was far superior to the ESAPI and the Army was deliberately refusing to buy the superior DS product?:munchin

TR

8/3/2007: Department of Justice Announces Findings on Dragon Skin® Body ArmorDepartment of Justice Announces Findings on Dragon Skin® Body Armor

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.

NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.

Notwithstanding NIJ's determination, DOJ encourages public safety officers to wear their Pinnacle Body Armor, Inc. body armor, model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01 until replacement because research has shown that officers are more likely to suffer a fatal injury when not wearing body armor.

In addition, DOJ strongly recommends that public safety agencies and officers who purchase new bullet-resistant body armor verify, prior to purchase, that the body armor model appears on NIJ's list of models that comply with its most current requirements, the 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor. A list of these models is available at www.justnet.org. DOJ also encourages public safety officers to follow body armor manufacturer "wear and care" instructions, and not to store armor in the trunk of their vehicle or other environments in which armor might be exposed to extreme heat or cold.

Information about the DOJ Body Armor Safety Initiative can be found at http://vests.ojp.gov.

Team Sergeant

08-05-2007, 09:15

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.

NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm

Funny how defensereview.com and david crane does not post this information on his website.
Pretty crappy reporting david crane, unbias reporting, not a chance.
Roger Charles, sftt.org and david crane are going to be laughed off the internet.

After the usdoj (above) report I wonder how long it will be before murray neal is sued into bankruptcy.

Kyobanim

09-22-2007, 05:44

Vangard, you need to fill out your profile and go to the introductions thread and introduce yourself. You're welcome to post your views but you need to follow PS.com rules in order to do so.

jwt5

09-22-2007, 06:18

Vanguard, the issue is not whether or not dragon skin can stop bullets, its whether or not dragon skin can hold up under the extremes of combat. I do not want to wear body armor that will melt and become a big pile of goo in 120+ degree weather....

Oh, and how apparentely the people behind dragon skin have been lying about their certifications...

What you read here are opinions and facts posted by people who do/have worn body armor their entire careers. There be warriors here. Their opinions matter more then some show or some person who is getting PAID to say things.

Oh, and it's The Reaper, show some respect...

Sorry QPs, I'll go back to my hidesite...

The Reaper

09-22-2007, 07:02

Vanguard:

I'll make it easy for you.

You have signed up, skipped reading the instructions that came in your registration message, failed to follow the requested protocols, and jumped right into a contentious issue with a bunch of innuendo and opinions. This tends to discredit any statements you might make and ask us to take at face value. You do not strike me as impartial, in fact, you sound like you have already drunk the SFTT and Pinnacle Kool-Aid.

You have zero credibility with us. For all we know, you could be Murray Neal or Jim McGee, and have some dog in this fight, as we have seen many times before here. We don't care what you believe, or what you heard. What are the facts, what can be proven, and why should we (or the Army) listen to Mr. Neal, who has already been proven duplicitous?

Frankly, we don't care what you "think" a DS vest weighs. The Army office responsible actually went out and got a thing called a scale, and weighed the comparable sizes and protection of the armor. Thanks for your opinion, but I will take the empirical evidence over your calibrated arm every day.

Furthermore, you have completely disregarded the failures of the armor during environmental testing. How do you know that has been remedied? Because you heard that one vest passed someone else's temp cycle? How many friends and family members do you have in the box wearing armor right now?

Finally, what kind of a company puts NIJ certification labels in their armor and sells them to the US military when in fact, the vests had not passed NIJ testing or been awarded a NIJ certification at that point? I believe that Mr. Neal offered some lame excuse about it being a "verbal approval" that he had been given. Yeah, right. He also recommends lighter vests that are not certified as well to replace ESAPIs. No thanks.:rolleyes:

That isn't the way we do things on PS.com. Your poor logic and failure to comply with our requests make your arguments moot.

You have 24 hours to comply with the new membership rules, or I am going to delete your comments, and your user account.

This is not an auspicious beginning for you here, if you plan to stay, you need to tighten up quickly and fix your errors.

TR

The Reaper

09-22-2007, 17:39

Vanguard:

Since you could not be bothered to read the registration message that you received, to introduce yourself in the proper place, as requested by a Mod and two Admins, or to fill out your profile, I am closing your account.

We have better things to do than to argue with a kid who does not appear to have been anywhere, or done anything. Our info is based on the Army and AF testing of the armor, not outhouse rumors. Our brothers are wearing ESAPI in combat right now, and we do not believe that they should be forced to wear the inferior, heavier, and prone to failure DS. Are you wearing hard plates for a living?

I might also add that the Army determined the 19.5 lb. weight difference by weighing comparable systems, as you requested. They did, and the weight result is as stated. A quick read of the slides that begun this thread would have explained that easily.

TR

Ret10Echo

12-20-2007, 07:41

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003915.html

Now, the Entire Armor Test Delay Story

The Army has opted to delay testing of new body armor designs that can stop powerful armor piercing bullets and vests that contain flexible plating much like the controversial Dragon Skin armor.

Citing industry requests, the Army's top gear buyer told Military.com the test firing on so-called "XSAPI" and "FSAPI" armor would be held off until March 2008.

"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier.

Brown said the new armor designs would likely be tested at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., beginning in March and finished up by June. Testing on the new designs was previously set to begin last fall.

The Army was pressured into launching a new solicitation for body armor designs after lawmakers held hearings on Capitol Hill to delve into the debate surrounding Dragon Skin, which is made by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. An NBC News investigative report in May claimed that the flexible Dragon Skin armor was far more protective than the current Interceptor system, which uses two rigid ceramic plates to stop armor-piercing bullets.

The Army came out swinging before the NBC report aired, claiming Dragon Skin had catastrophically failed several make-or-break tests it had conducted -- the same kinds of tests used to certify all body armor systems submitted to the Army for fielding.

But that didn't stop some Dragon Skin advocates from claiming the fix was in, prompting a House Armed Services Committee hearing June 6 that pitted Pinnacle chief Murray Neal against the anti-Dragon Skin Army brass.

Nevertheless, the committee's ranking member, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), called for a side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Interceptor run by government engineers and overseen by both congressional and Pentagon auditors. That led to the Army's June 20 request to industry for both flexible armor designs like Dragon Skin -- which incorporates a series of interlocking ceramic disks rather than a single rigid plate -- and for a so-called "XSAPI" plate which could stop armor piercing rounds the current ESAPI can't.

Brown said part of the delay in testing comes from industry's inability to create an XSAPI plate that comes in under the weight limit of about seven pounds for a size "large" plate, about a pound more than the current ESAPI.

"One thing troops in the field have told us is they don't want any more weight with a new armor system," Brown said, adding that preliminary submissions for XSAPI have been too heavy.

For his part, Pinnacle's Neal says he plans to submit Dragon Skin samples for the upcoming test and is glad the Army is finally taking his technology seriously.

"The extensions, as we have been told by several Army personnel, are primarily for the current manufacturers to fix the plates that have been run through preliminary testing and that are not passing with enough percentage to guarantee passing the [final] testing," Neal said in a email to Military.com, adding he's only too eager to pit his flexible -- otherwise known as "scalar" -- system up against any comers.

Another top body armor designer who has a scalar system of his own said he doubts many companies other than Pinnacle will submit a flexible vest. Allan Bain, president of Evolution Armor, said the Army is right to delay the process to make sure any new submissions have realistic chance of success, though his company has declined to participate.

"The Army is looking for a state of the art system, and there is a lot of pressure by Congress to make every effort on a major purchase like this to ensure that the armor purchased is truly the best performed by unbiased testers and evaluators," Bain said via email. "So they are not rushing it."

Snaquebite

12-20-2007, 08:36

"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown,

This is very true. Some of the newer materials used in some manufacturer's designs require certain materials that have long backlogs and are extremely hard to get due to only having a single point of purchase. Also there have been unique product developments recently by manufacturers of materials overseas that cause additional delays due to Berry Ammendment restrictions..

Team Sergeant

01-07-2008, 19:57

Hey "a-gunguy" how would you like a serious lawsuit on your lap?

You, moron, are about to retract and apologise what you have written about me or face legal action. Your lies directly reflect on my credibility and the members of this website. You "a-gunguy" are about to learn first hand of my resolve.

Team Sergeant

Would one of you internet smart guy/gals please make a copy of this morons webpage for me? Thanks. TS

Body Armor Controversy
Jan. 5th, 2008 at 4:39 PM
You know that there are a lot of people that think that anything that the Army says is the gospel truth and sometimes it is. There are shades of the truth that I would like to dispell for some of the detractors of Pinnacle Armor Inc. and Dragon Skin out there.

Firstly

I used to work for the company -for 5 Years and that is a long time - I know all that there is to knowabout Dragon Skin armor and IBA (Current Issue)

IBA is a GOOD if not Great piece of equipment that has undenyably saved the lives of THOUSANDS of our men and women in Combat over the past years. There are a lot of variations of the armor - as improvements are made - it is fielded to extend its capabilities which is the way that it should be - and is.

I have seen IBA Systems take incredible punishment and come through perfectly well. And I have personally tested Dragon Skin and seen the same results - but within its capabilities - APPLES FOR APPLES Dragon Skin had the edge in a lot of criteria.

IBA using rigid plate technology is "Old School" and there is nothing wrong with that at all. It is the best solution that could have been fielded at the time given the massive amount and costs involved to issue. As time passes there are improvements using the latest technology and the latest materials - that is where Dragon Skin comes in.

Dragon Skin is a complication of very old technology - basically for lack of a better comparison- Scale Mail Armor - it is the oldest of the old in tech - but when using the latest in materials - it works undenyably well.

There has been a lot of obfuscation of the issue between PInnacle Armor Inc and the NIJ as well as the Army and USAF. Yes it is true that there were orders for this armor by the big army as well as smaller operational groups and there has also been some well - a lot of controversy surrounding the technology.

What you all saw on Futureweapons was ABSOLUTELY 100% ACCURATE depiction of the performance of the Level 3 System under simulated conditions. I stand behind that 100% BUT

There are folks out there that think that it was all smoke and mirrors given the information that the Army is putting out - this is not the case at all. The system that seems to be involved deeply in controversy is the Level 4 System - a system that I was absolutely 100% not involved with in any way shape form or manner in development - testing yes to a very small degree (first article testing - results are Categorized as trade secret - classified - and shall not be divulged in this or any other forum) .

Some of the issues involved are as follows:

1. Army Claims that DS did not meet their standards - as best I know (as I was not involved in the testing or marketing of this product to the military) DS Performed Admirably well with a very high V50 vs the IBA System under similar conditions. APPLES TO APPLES - DS offers more shootable area

2. The USAF Claims that DS Failed their acceptance testing - This is true - they bought Level 3 Armor labeled as such - testing was performed to a Level 4 Standard - not a fair criteria. Of Course it failed.

3. Based upon #2 the USAF Moved to Debarr Pinnacle Armor Inc. as a company and individuals involved with the USAF Deal - TRUE this was done and an interim debarrment was achieved. As this is a matter of Public Record at this time there were 3 individuals inolved in the Debarrment that were named as well as the company - I was not one of them.

4. The NIJ De-Certified Dragon Skin for use and sale by Law Enforcement - TRUE The NIJ Certainly did do this - after DS Set Records and the New 05 Interim Standard for NIJ Level 3 Performance Criteria. The basis was a Warranty Period issue - an unprescidented withdrawal of certification - this is matter is in the hands of the Federal Court at this time.

There are a lot of unanswered questions at this time about a lot of issues. There are blogs out there that really spear Pinnacle Armor and in some ways - the spearing is well deserved and in others - it is not at all factual or warranted.

Professionalsoldiers.com is one place where you can find extensive commentary on this subject - the site owner is someone that is heavily involved with IBA and its development. So take that with a grain of salt... Some of the infromation there is VERY GOOD and some is absolutely not.

Dragon Skin is a great product that I am afraid will never see widespread use in combat - the level 3 materials are absolutely second to none in their category - weight vs. protected area is fantastc and will cover the majority of the threats that anyone would realistically face. Level 4 is a spooky thing to beat - can DS Do it - YES and I have seen it time and time again.

As someone who worked for the company for a long time - all that I have to say is that this has been a contentious issue and one that I regret being involved with - I highly object to the supposition of the conspiracy theory posed by other company officials - and I did not care for the tact or lack thereof in presenting the argument and facts of this matter. My objections were voiced time and time again on this matter - but to no avail.

So here Pinnacle Armor Inc. is - great idea - great product - lousy PR - and on the verge of oblivion. This is what happens when you make enemies out of the entire world. A lifesaving product with huge merit and potential will likely be shelved for eternity.

G-D bless our men and women in the armed forces. Thank you for your service and come home safe.

On a personal note

AS I HAVE NO HORSE IN THIS RACE ANYMORE (I DO NOT WORK FOR NOR DO I HAVE ANY FINANCIAL TIES TO PINNACLE ARMOR INC.) I WILL SAY THIS

IF I WERE TO GO TO A COMAT ZONE - I WOULD WEAR AND TRUST WITHOUT QUESTION LEVEL 3 DRAGON SKIN AND ITS CAPABILITIES AS A LIFE SAVING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. I HAVE TESTED WORN AND EVEN BUILT THE ARMOR MYSELF AND IT IS OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY AND PERFORMS FLAWLESSLY WITHIN ITS STATED PARAMETERS AND PERFORMS VASTLY LONGER THAN ITS STATED WARRANTY PERIOD.

http://a-gunguy.livejournal.com/1022.html

Snaquebite

01-07-2008, 20:12

TS...check your ps.com e-mail. Saved it for you and converted to .pdf

George

The Reaper

01-07-2008, 20:24

Errors, mistakes, lies, and bad grammar, all from an "impartial" former employee.

Right.:rolleyes:

Somebody needs an education, and a clue. Badly.

1. DS failed Army testing primarily due to its tendency to delaminate under environmental conditions, and then fall apart in ballistic testing. The excessive weight for equivalent coverage didn't make it better either.

2. I believe that Pinnacle told the AF that Level III DS would defeat a Level IV threat. I myself was told that when I called about the armor, and that was the way the weight was kept to a minimum as well. An NIJ certification label was also alleged to have been falsely attached, allegedly based on a "verbal" NIJ certification. NIJ does not subject the tested armor to environmental cycling, BTW.

3. Debarment resulted from false claims to the AF and NIJ decertification as I understand it.

TR

NousDefionsDoc

01-07-2008, 22:02

IF I WERE TO GO TO A COMAT ZONE - I WOULD WEAR AND TRUST WITHOUT QUESTION LEVEL 3
I haven't worn L3 as an Instructor for training in over 3 years.

Team Sergeant

01-08-2008, 08:21

TS...check your ps.com e-mail. Saved it for you and converted to .pdf

George

Thank you!

Keep an eye on that morons blog, I think it's about to come down.;)

Team Sergeant

Retired W4

01-08-2008, 09:35

Errors, mistakes, lies, and bad grammar, all from an "impartial" former employee.TR

a_gunguy is vewy, vewy stwange. I tink his spell/grammar checker has infected my compooter.:mad:

brownapple

01-08-2008, 09:51

We had a good turn out for our SFA Chapter meeting tonight. A number of AD guys, and a number who have been doing contracting work. After the meeting proper, I brought up the issue of DragonSkin to see if anyone had any input.

Got some interesting replies.

A number of guys knew about it. Some knew people who had bought it and worn it in combat zones... but not for very long. I was told that the crap ended up hanging on hooks in Team rooms because it was heavy (I was told by two different people that the marketing was deceptive and it had been purchased because it was supposed to be light. It isn't), because it deteriorated (don't know if this is related to temperature, one person thought it was because of the scales rubbing against each other) and because it just didn't work.

And none of them were interested in going to war with Level III protection. They wanted Level IV. 7.62x63 AP at the muzzle? That struck them as a pretty good standard.

Nothing scientific about this. Just asking people who had seen the stuff and had some experience with it their opinion.

What's striking? That opinion consistently agrees with the Army's tests.

Maybe the Army does know what it's doing? :cool:

Oh, and before I'm accused of being involved in IBA development, I'm what we call a Fucking Old Guy. The only body armor I have EVER worn was the Vietnam-era flak vest when doing riot control training..

dmgedgoods

01-08-2008, 14:28

Team Sergeant

01-08-2008, 15:28

If you make crap body armor, have it tested, then whine and call people names when it fails you should expect to lose your business.

Banned by the Armed Forces of the United States of America, decertified by the NIJ.....

Looks like a last ditch effort before dragon skin becomes extinct.

OK all you wacko blogs time to rally the your wacko followers!

Defensereview.com I don't see any new news articles concerning the mighty dragon skin?:munchin

Calif. body armor maker sues feds

Fresno company says decertification cost it millions in contracts.

By Sanford Nax,
The Fresno Bee

FRESNO, Calif. — Officials at Pinnacle Armor, saying their business is on the verge of financial ruin, are suing the federal government for removing their bullet-proof vests from a list of approved body armor.

The Fresno company says it lost millions of dollars worth of contracts after the National Institute of Justice in August decertified its Dragon Skin body armor, claiming the company couldn't prove its declared six-year warranty.

"This has been utterly devastating to the financial solvency of Pinnacle," the lawsuit says.

The company estimates it has lost about $2.3 million this year, and has reduced the number of employees from 49 to 32. "We've made major cuts," said Murray Neal, chief executive.

Pinnacle is not asking for monetary damages but is seeking an emergency hearing before a judge in hopes of getting the decertification overturned, said Layne Hayden, the company's Fresno lawyer.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/tactical/body-armor/articles/1636990/

jwt5

01-09-2008, 04:00

Looks like another Blogger has written about dragonskin. I think I would be more willing to listen to this one then "a-gunguy".

Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/news-flash-the-battle-over-body-armor.htm)

:lifter

Edited to add: Looks like A-GunGuy added his two cents and commented on Mr. Yon's blog:

"66.
a.gunguy Says:
As you know you were TOLD that the DS is heavier than the IBA when you bought it! It is the tradeoff for giving 120% better coverage. Suck up to the army so that they keep giving you the “sweatheart deal” you so prize!!

January 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm "

dr. mabuse

01-09-2008, 22:32

jwt5, thats a great avatar. :D

Team Sergeant

01-16-2008, 15:18

Now I'm laughing my ass off.

Someone contact Michael Yon and tell him about ProfessionalSoldiers.com

Edit to add, We may have had a hand in Michael Yon's decision to sell his boady armor, someone posted this threads URL on Michael Yon's website a few weeks ago......

Team Sergeant

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/news-flash-dragon-skin.htm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Michael-Yons-Dragon-Skin-Body-Armor_W0QQitemZ260203742022QQihZ016QQcategoryZ3607 1QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Moving Target

01-16-2008, 19:31

ROFL

http://a-gunguy.livejournal.com/

You must have really pissed this guy off. As an impartial former employee, you'd think he might be civil. :rolleyes:

This is fine entertainment. :munchin

Shawn

I've learned to take anything written on LiveJournal with a hefty dose of skepticism, BS seems to flow quite freely there.

As far as Pinnacle is concerned, if they really do recruit twits like this guy, I think I'll purchase my protection elsewhere.

NousDefionsDoc

02-17-2008, 12:56

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/15685157.html

By Preston Phillips
Watch the story
According to Pinnacle Armor's CEO, Murray Neal, an unknown number of people could be facing some very serious charges in the weeks to come.

He still insists: "Dragon Skin" is the best protection on the market...

Pinnacle Armor CEO and President, Murray Neal: "If I get a fair day at the range, next to any body armor in the world, Dragon skin will beat it hands down."

Murray Neal claims that to this day, his body armor, better known as "Dragon Skin," has never received the fair shot, he says it deserves.

Neal: "We tested with the Army, the Army last time said we’re not gonna give you any written data, so it’s going to be my word against your word… and then they say… we failed.”

But according to Neal, a piece of armor from the same purchase order, tested by U.S. Army that allegedly failed back in May of 2006, recently surfaced on the internet, from someone attempting to sell it on Ebay.

Neal: "If that armor failed catastrophically, you wanna make sure you’ve got good control of that. Not only would you have good control of it, because they knew I was gonna come back and re-test"

Neal says his company sent 30, SOV-3000, level IV protection vests, to H.P. White Laboratory in Maryland for the U.S. Army's testing, back in May of 06'.

He says the U.S. Army told him the vest for sale on Ebay wasn't one of the vests used… and said it had a manufacture date of June 12th, 2006...

But Neal says the pictures posted on Ebay, and the purchase order signed back in May of 06’ tell a different story.

Neal: "We used a dark chocolate brown, which we don’t sell, so “A”… its kind of a give away.”

Not to mention the fact that the serial numbers from the pictures on the website also match up to the ones listed on the invoice.

According to Neal, Karl Masters, the individual who signed for the purchase order, was also to maintain full control of the vests listed on the invoice.

When we spoke with Masters today, he told us that he could not speak on the issue because it was under investigation.

But by whom?

The U.S. Army spoke with us by phone from The Pentagon today.

Lieutenant Colonel Martin Downie said he knew nothing about an investigation.

Downie: "I’m saying that right now, the U.S. Army right now is not aware of any investigation regarding these claims.”

But according to retired Lieutenant Colonel, Roger Charles, who has been studying "Dragon Skin” for years: The Department of Homeland Security is the one heading up this multi-pronged federal investigation, and currently questioning the individual who put it up for sale.

Charles says: The U.S. Army has a lot of explaining to do.

Charles: "There's gonna have to be some external federal law enforcement agency investigate and see what happened to the custody, and how did this government owned item end up being for sale on Ebay.”

Downie: "As far as the information we have, our internal investigative body, criminal investigation division, we don’t have any information that validates these claims.”

Downie later called us back to say he came across several pages on the internet that made allegations toward federal entities... And said The U.S. Army would begin looking into this matter immediately.

The U.S. Army even attempted to contact masters today, to find out why he was being investigated, but were not able to get an answer.

Phillips: did you call Karl Masters today?

Downie: “I did.”

Phillips: And what happened when you called him?

Downie: “I answered his voice mail and I left him a message for him to call me immediately."

One week prior to this attempted sale on e-bay, another piece of "Dragon Skin" body armor, purchased by the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigations Division (CID) in March of 2005, also surfaced on Ebay.

Both pages have since removed by the online marketplace, and according to Neal, all items have been confiscated.

If someone is found to be at fault, they could be looking at years in federal prison and could face felony charges for both, grand larceny, and the loss of sensitive restricted technology items during a time of war.

Click on link to view Preston Phillips’ report.

Snaquebite

02-17-2008, 13:35

Saw this yesterday. Seems a little strange to me that a Fresno (same location as Pinnacle) news station is the only source I can find for this story. What's Murray up to now?

Team Sergeant

02-17-2008, 13:41

Sounds like a desperate attempt by Murray Neal to shift the focus of Pinnacle Armor’s Dragon Skin body armor FAILURE and its subsequent BANNING by the US ARMY, US NAVY, US MARINES & the US AIR FORCE.

I’m sure Murray Neal would say just about anything at this point in time thinking maybe there’s a few LE agencies that have not heard/read of the BANNING of Pinnacle Armor “Dragon Skin” by the entire US Military.

Don’t worry Neal, those ultra left wing blogs and defensereview.com are behind you 100% if they can’t pull Dragon Skin back into the US Military no one can……:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

smp52

02-17-2008, 14:10

But according to Neal, a piece of armor from the same purchase order, tested by U.S. Army that allegedly failed back in May of 2006, recently surfaced on the internet, from someone attempting to sell it on Ebay.

This has no bearing on whether Dragon Skin passed or failed. If anything, it's about a product purchased by the government being sold in a manner not authorized by procedures (if that is the case, but there isn't any credible information pointing that way). If the government decided to get rid of the vests it purchased from Dragon Skin, ensuring tax payers got some cost compensation back for it, it has every right to do so. The government routinely scraps product it purchased from private corporations in the marketplace for various reasons.

Snaquebite

02-17-2008, 14:57

On another note. If they were scrapped or destroyed, the SN's, lot #'s, Manuf date etc are all hand written on the panels. It would be very easy to jsut enter whatever info desired on a blank set.

Ambush Master

02-19-2008, 21:15

As a casual observance/side note, Pinnacle was NOT at SHOT Show this year!!

MickFury

03-24-2008, 16:22

They were, however, just on the National Geographic Channel - "Police Tech: Catching a Crook".

I came home to the tail end of and just caught the word Dragonskin and saw Murray et al. Can't provide any information about the show content, claims, or exact purpose. I wish I knew the Police Department.

Perhaps an e-mail or call to the NGC is in order to promote awareness and possibly save lives? I believe they would take a Service Member / Quiet Professional more seriously and the situation would reach a quicker resolution than for a DEP to contact them.

National Geographic Channel : Tell us what you think of the National Geographic Channel. - comments@natgeochannel.com

Public Relations Send press inquiries here. pressroom@ngs.org

National Geographic Channel/Information or Inquiries +1 202 857 7000

If I am out of my lane, I apologize.

afchic

01-29-2009, 10:58

I wonder how long it will be before the snakes at Dragon Skin rear their ugly heads in this???

Washington Times
January 29, 2009
Pg. 1

Army To Pull Questionable Body Armor Plates

Inspector general deems danger from improper testing

By Sara A. Carter, The Washington Times

The Army will withdraw from service more than 16,000 sets of ceramic body armor plates that the Pentagon's inspector general thinks were not properly tested and could jeopardize the lives of U.S. service personnel, The Washington Times has learned.

A Defense official, speaking on the condition that he not be named, said the Army is acting proactively while challenging the contention of Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell that the armor could be unsafe.

"This decision reflects the Army's commitment to do everything within its power to be sure only the very best equipment is fielded to its soldiers," the official said. He said, however, that there have been no reports of defects in the plates or deaths or injuries resulting from their use. The plates are being recalled so that soldiers will not worry that they are wearing unsafe armor, he said.

The equipment in question was manufactured 2005 to 2007 and accounts for 1.6 percent of the 1.9 million plates that the Army has purchased to date, he said.

The withdrawal of the gear was announced a day before the inspector general's office is to brief the chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter. Mrs. Slaughter, New York Democrat, has focused on the issue of body armor failures and procurement.

"Two years ago, I asked the Department of Defense Inspector General to make sure that the U.S. Army was doing their due diligence in ensuring that the quality of body armor being used by our Armed Forces meets the very highest standards to save lives," Mrs. Slaughter said in a statement. "The first report we received from the Inspector General was totally inadequate. We expect that this report will be more accurate. I will keep fighting tooth and nail to hold the Army accountable to our men and women in uniform and their families."

In April, after receiving a report on the subject, she said, "During a time of war, it's shameful that the Army would not scrupulously ensure that every piece of equipment is properly tested, especially a fundamentally life and death product such as body armor. ... I demand that those who negligently and callously gambled with the lives of our brave men and women in uniform be fired immediately."

Gary Comerford, a spokesman for the inspector general, said Wednesday, "We do have a body armor report and it will be out within the next few days."

He declined to discuss the findings or say to what extent troop deaths or injuries might have resulted from armor that had not been properly tested.

A Defense official who is familiar with the issue said that the "Army is going to push back" against the report and accused the inspector general of "digging until something was found that was not very solid."

Late Tuesday, Army and Defense officials were still submitting information to the inspector general's office challenging the findings, another Defense official told The Times.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report and the findings had not been made public.

In March, the inspector general found that the Army did not follow federal requirements in procuring body armor components and identified deficiencies in 16 of 28 Army contracts.

Maj. Clifford Yarbrough, who served with the 3rd Special Forces group in Afghanistan, told The Times that his unit, along with other Special Forces and the Delta Forces, were issued titanium plates. These plates, which are ordered by these special units under a separate budget, can withstand multiple hits by the enemy and have saved many lives, said Maj. Yarbrough, who now teaches at a high school in Arkansas.

The major, who has two enlisted sons, said that the ceramic plates issued to Army and Marine Corps personnel do not provide sufficient protection against close enemy fire.

"Interceptor vests are not fielded with the interceptor titanium that give the men more enhanced protection," he said. "We had guys who were engaged, and short of a 50 caliber, it would stop everything. They got a little trauma from the bruising. Normally, those rounds would go right through them."

Roger Charles, a retired Marine and editor of DefenseWatch, the Internet news magazine for Soldiers for the Truth, a nonprofit foundation representing front-line troops, has investigated the body armor issue for 3 1/2 years and said that the Army's failures have placed the "men on the front lines at risk."

"There is no question in my mind ... that the Army and Marine Corps have issued inferior body armor to our troops," he said. "It's their lives that are at stake, and their lives are worth getting them the best."

Army officials have said that they stand by the body armor that the service issues and plan to release additional information to challenge the audit.

In March, the inspector general found that in 11 of the 28 contracts, adequate files were not kept and that it could not be determined whether the best informed decisions were made regarding procurement of body armor.

The March audit was limited to Army and Marine body armor contracts and orders awarded between January 2004 and December 2006 valued at more than $5.2 billion.