Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth [Archive]

Warrior-Mentor

01-22-2006, 20:14

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits
By Nathaniel R. Helms
January 14, 2006

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

"Those headlines entirely miss the point," Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor "has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months," he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the "best body armor in the world."

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he "had no choice because the orders came from very high up" and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was "so much better" than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

"He didn't want to use that other stuff," she said. "He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell."

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.

Nathaniel R. Helms is the editor of DefenseWatch Magazine. He can be reached at natshouse1@chater.net. Please send all inquiries and comments to dwfeedback@yahoo.com .

Gypsy

01-23-2006, 21:09

A member of another Military board sent an email to SGLI and these were their responses. HTH...

Sir:

This is incorrect information. Rumors, such as this one, are certainly unfortunate.

Cindy Castell
Associate Manager, Claims - OSGLI

If a member of the military is covered under SGLI in the amount of $250,0000 at the time of death, that would be the payable amount to his beneficiaries, benefits would not be decreased because of the type of body armour worn.

Sincerely,

Patricia McKoy
Sr. Claims Examiner
Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance

Warrior-Mentor

01-30-2006, 21:35

Thanks for the info. I didn't find it on snopes.

I suspect asking the SGLI office a question is like asking the IRS a question...depends on who answers the phone, what answer you'll get.

Doesn't mean some Commander somewhere didn't tell his folks that, just that someone got a different answer when they called the SGLI Office.

JM

The Reaper

01-30-2006, 21:47

The only way this would be even remotely possible would be if the Army issued you armor, and you chose to wear the Dragon Skin instead and got a penetrating injury that the issued armor was rated to have stopped.

Then you could theoretically have an LOD investigation with an LOD-No determination.

Given the likelihood of that happening with the Dragon Skin's improved armor rating over the issued gear, and the reluctance of DA to screw with the benefits of a KIA's familiy members, I suspect that the issue is moot.

If you wore the Dragon Skin in lieu of the issue armor after being ordered not to do so, you could be UCMJed for Failure to Obey.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Warrior-Mentor

01-30-2006, 22:03

Spoken like a former IG...;)

FILO

01-31-2006, 09:49

CDRODA396

02-19-2006, 16:48

"U.S. Special Operations Command has fully tested and approved one system of ballistic stopping components and a family of vest carriers for use by Special Operations Forces. The ballistic components currently approved for use by USSOCOM elements are the Body Armor Load Carriage System (BALCS) ballistic components (which can be referred to as “ballistic components,” “plates,” or soft “armor”) fielded under the Special Operations Forces Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) program."

“If you have purchased anything off the market other than the USSOCOM approved BALCS/SPEAR system, you may be unprotected and wrong.”
— Gen. Doug Brown, Commander, USSOCOM

I know its been a while since a posting to this thread but I am just getting around to catching up on some reading...when I retired last Sept. there were policy letters from USSOCOM, USASOC and 3d GRP all outlining what you could/couldnt wear. They were mainly targeted at stopping the wear of the plate carrier with no soft body armor, but also addressed the entire body armor "ensemble,"...as some well educated, verbose officer put it.

Alot of guys back then were buying the paraclete carrier, but were using the issue soft and hard inserts so were fine...but anyone wearing non-issue, commercially purchased units were in fact in very real danger of the army trying to cover their arse and finding their death not in the line of duty, violation of written policy, etc...I dont know if after nearly half of year of retirement if this has changed, but that was the case through 9/05.

The Reaper

02-19-2006, 18:12

CDRODA396:

Thanks for the info.

How about looking at the stickies and introducing yourself in the proper place?

TR

NousDefionsDoc

02-19-2006, 18:52

Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?

Bob1984

02-19-2006, 21:42

Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?

I would like to know as well.

CDRODA396

02-24-2006, 07:36

Hate to take up so much room, but I think this makes for some good reading. I wonder is the term "proponent" means "paid lobbist?"

FIGHT NIGHT: Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Army scientists say, look, be careful with dragon skin because it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues." Really? Defense Review is interested to see if someone can actually back up this statement.

By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com

About DefenseReview.com

DefenseReview.com is an online tactical technology/military defense industry magazine designed to keep active U.S. military personnel (including Special Operations), PSD/Security Operators, law enforcement SWAT operators and 1st Responders, security professionals, and civilians informed about the latest developments in cutting-edge military, law enforcement, and security technologies from around the world.

DefenseReview received some interesting information yesterday regarding this NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) interview of Lt. Col. Roger Charles (Ret.) and Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (Ret.) conducted by Margaret Warner on Pinnacle Armor SOV Flexible Body Armor/Dragon Skin vs. the Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System Outer Tactical Vest (OTV), a.k.a. Interceptor Body Armor. As many of our readers are probably aware, DefenseReview has published a number of articles on SOV/Dragon Skin. We first started writing about Dragon Skin body armor in October 2001. We followed that original blurb up with a more in-depth article on May 27, 2004. Our most recent article on Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin reported on an actual save made by a Dragon Skin against three 7.62x39mm API (armor-piercing incendiary) round hits. The vest's wearer was PSD operator (Security Operator) employed by DynCorp International, and when he got hit (during an ambush that turned into a firefight) he didn't even feel the bullet impacts. That particular article is titled, appropriately enough, Flexible Body Armor Saves PSD/Security Operator from 7.62x39mm API Round Hits.

I also wrote an article specifically for Military.com SoldierTech, titled Body Armor Times 10: Pinnacle's Innovative, Flexible Body Armor that provides more detailed information about Dragon Skin/SOV flexible body armor's unique protective attributes and capabilities. After reading that article, Nat Helms from Soldiers for the Truth (SFTT) ended up interviewing me and subsequently quoting me in his excellent article on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin, titled Getting America's Best?. We highly suggest that you read it.

Once you read those, you can understand our surprise upon reading some of the statements made by Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.) (Interceptor Body Armor proponent) during the aforementioned interview, including this one:

[On Dragon Skin] "Well, it would be if it was all proven through science. You know, certainly the shoulders and the neck, major difference with this -- no groin protection. And, you know, the contracting people as well as the Army scientists say, look, be careful with dragon skin because it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues. And they're not comfortable with it yet, but perhaps in the future."

Hmm. So, according to Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.), Pinnacle Armor's SOV Flexible Body Armor/Dragon Skin isn't proven enough through science and, according to "Army Scientists", one needs to "be careful" with Dragon Skin because, again, according to "Army Scientists", "it's good for a knife fight, but we don't want to take it to Iraq because of the ballistic issues." Really. Folks, this one's about to get REALLY interesting. We're interested to see if Lt. Col. Maginnis and his "Army Scientists" can actually back up his statement. Defense Review is particularly interested in seeing their data regarding the "ballistic issues" Lt. Col. Maginnis (Ret.) mentioned.

Lt. Col. Maginnis' (Ret.) statements were challenged by Lt. Col. Roger Charles (Ret.) (Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin flexible body armor proponent), who said "[on Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body armor] This will not only will take that hit but will take multiple hits and the ceramic plate used in Interceptor, one of the complaints from the troops in the field was that too often after one round impact, then you had a bunch of gravel basically inside the pouch.". Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) went on to say, "[on Dragon Skin] There was an unsolicited letter from an American contractor over there who was shot eight times in the back wearing one of these that he purchased for his own use. And he did not know he had been shot until he got back and took it off and saw the bullet perforations in the canvas cover. There was no soft tissue damage so it's proven in the field that it can take multiple hits and still provide protection."

It's Lt. Col. Charles' (Ret.) opinion that the reason the U.S. Army has chosen to outfit U.S. troops with Interceptor body armor over Pinnacle Armor SOV flexible body armor/Dragon Skin is that the U.S. Army suffers from "not invented here" syndrome. "The basic reason, as hard as this may be for your audience to understand, is not invented here: Bureaucratic turf protection because the Army people that were charged with providing this ten, fifteen years ago had a program -- it produced something beginning in 1998 I believe, 1999. But it wasn't this - and they didn't want to use this because they did not claim invention of it." Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) continues, "We were told by several independent consultants who work for the Pentagon that cannot be named because of fear of losing their jobs that this was probably the best available body armor. It's what they would take to Baghdad. They do not have any financial ties with Pinnacle Armor. We're not saying it's the best. We're saying it ought to get a fair test."

Here's one solution (to settle the argument): Have one or two independent testing centers that both U.S. Army Natick and Pinnacle Armor trust test both body armor systems (Interceptor body armor and Dragon Skin body armor) side-by-side in set number of combat-relevant ballistic tests under a set time period limit to determine a winner. The number, type, and duration of the ballistic tests should be determined and overseen by an independent and impartial group/entity, with both parties (U.S. Army Natick and Pinnacle Armor present as witnesses during all tests). If the U.S. Army doesn't want to do that (for instance, if they wee to claim it's too expensive), there is another way:

It's Defense Review's understanding that Pinnacle Armor's SOV/Dragon Skin flexible hard armor system has been tested to according to Mil-Spec protocols at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC), United States Test Laboratory (USTL), and H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.. It's our understanding at present that both Level III+ and Level IV (Classified) Dragon Skin has been tested. If the U.S. Army's Interceptor body armor has also been tested via identical Mil-Spec testing protocols by at least two of these same facilities, those facilities (and both Pinnacle Armor and U.S. Army Natick/Natick Soldier Center (NSC)) should already have enough ballistic data to present on their respective body armor systems to declare a winner, right now.(Those facilities and Pinnacle Armor, Inc. would only be allowed to present data on their Level III+ armor, since Pinnacle's Level IV armor's anti-ballistic capabilities are classified). There should also already be a fair amount of field performance data for both systems in terms of wearability, durability, and anti-ballistic performance. We'll investigate it.

DefenseReview will be following this story very closely and posting follow-ups to this article. Needless to say, we're going to try to secure interviews with Lt. Col. Maginnis and the Army scientists he refers to, as soon as possible.

So, stay tuned. This should be good.

Razor

02-24-2006, 09:50

I stopped reading it when I came to the part about some contractor claiming he didn't even feel getting hit 8 times by rifle rounds in the back. :rolleyes:

Bob1984

02-24-2006, 10:38

I stopped reading it when I came to the part about some contractor claiming he didn't even feel getting hit 8 times by rifle rounds in the back. :rolleyes:

That part seems a bit fishy. Most of the stories I've read of people who've actually been shot tend to describe it as similar to being hit with a sledgehammer and that experience seems to be the same regardless of wether or not the shootee was wearing armor.

CDRODA396

02-27-2006, 12:06

Has there been an official military evaluation of this Dragon armor?

Based on the article below, I doubt that any testing of the Dragon Skin did, or will take place as some well funded lobbiest has convinced the right somebody that this is the product to have! I'd be willing to buy lunch for the 4th ID that not one soldier down range was included in the development/testing/evaluation of this particular item. Article off of the Army Times website.

February 24, 2006

Contract for flexible body armor awarded

By Alex Dominguez
Associated Press

BALTIMORE — A Florida firm has been chosen to produce flexible body armor and other products based on technology developed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., and the University of Delaware. Fabric used in the armor is treated with a solution that stiffens when force is applied, but remains fluid otherwise.

The first products, which will initially focus on protection for law enforcement and corrections officers, are expected to be introduced later this year by Armor Holdings, Inc., a Jacksonville, Fla., company best known for providing armored Humvees for the military. Body armor vests, helmets, gloves and extremity protection are among the products planned, the company announced Friday.

Body armor fabric treated with the fluid, for example, can resist an ice pick that would normally penetrate the fabric. Tests have also shown the treated fabric is better able to spread the force of an impact over a wider area, said Dr. Tony Russell, chief technology officer for Armor Holdings.

When force is applied, the fluid, which contains nano-sized particles, acts “more like a solid. It locks the fibers in place and makes them more resistant to penetration,” Russell said.

“If you take a normal ballistic fabric that’s pretty good at stopping bullets and you hit it with an ice pick, the fibers will move out of the way. So what you normally have to do is put more layers to stop that ice pick,” reducing flexibility that can inhibit motion.

The new technology allows the vest to stop penetration with fewer layers. The treated fabric, meanwhile, has virtually the same look, feel, texture, weight and flexibility, Russell said.

“You may get a little residue on your fingers but it doesn’t feel wet to the touch,” Russell said.

The company hopes the technology will eventually lead to lighter, more comfortable body armor that will cover more of the body.

The technology takes advantage of a property known as shear-thickening, in which fluids become solid when a force is applied. A common example is a paste of corn starch and water. A spoon rested on the surface will slowly sick to the bottom, but if force is suddenly applied the paste can’t move to the sides quickly enough.

The technology Armor Holdings will use was developed by the University of Delaware’s Center for Composite Materials and the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

University of Delaware professor Norman Wagner said the technology has the potential for new products that will “provide better protection to those who need it.”

In addition to body armor, potential applications include vehicle armor, bomb blankets, industrial environments and transportation — “anywhere you want to protect people against sharp flying objects,” Wagner said.

Warrior-Mentor

03-22-2006, 11:47

This is a Safety Of Use Message. MACOM Commanders will retransmit this message to all subordinate Commands/Activities within 24 hours of receipt of this message and acknowledge receipt of this message within five working days to: DELETED FOR SIGSEC.

2. PROBLEM DISCUSSION:

A. There may be Soldiers deployed in OIF/OEF who are wearing a commercial body armor called "Dragon Skin," made by Pinnacle Armor, in lieu of their issued Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). Media releases and related advertising imply that Dragon Skin is superior in performance to IBA. The Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims.

B. The Army has been involved in the development of Dragon Skin and the different technology it employs. In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements. In fact, Dragon Skin has not been certified by the Army for protection against several small arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

C. Although this message specifically identifies Dragon Skin, it applies to other commercially available body armor products (such as commercial police vests) that are not Army approved and issued.

3. USER ACTIONS: {Menu}

A. Commanders at all levels will ensure only IBA, and its components, is used by our Soldiers. All other body armor should be immediately replaced with IBA.

B. Authorized components of the IBA include the outer tactical vest and ballistic plates, throat protector, collar, groin protector, Deltoid and Axillary Protector (DAP), side plates, and side plate carriers. Commanders may tailor the IBA configuration to meet threat and mission requirements.

C. Soldiers may dispose of unauthorized body armor by sending the items directly to PEO Soldier or by turning them in to the local CIF who will ship the items to PEO Soldier. PEO Soldier will refund shipping expenses from anywhere in the world however, it cannot reimburse any purchase expenses for the items. Contact the PEO Soldier POC identified in paragraph 6 below for shipping instructions.

D. Parts, Assembly, Components or End Item inspection procedures: N/A.

E. Category of Maintenance: N/A.

F. Task or inspection suspense date: Commanders have 30 Days after receipt of this message to complete a body armor inspection and be in compliance.

The Reaper

03-22-2006, 11:59

OZ HAS SPOKEN!!

Yeah, I am going to pack up my $1500 DragonSkin vest and turn it into the CIF to be shipped to Natick where it can be destroyed.

Right.:rolleyes:

TR

Warrior-Mentor

03-22-2006, 12:36

OZ HAS SPOKEN!!

Yeah, I am going to pack up my $1500 DragonSkin vest and turn it into the CIF to be shipped to Natick where it can be destroyed.

Right.:rolleyes:

TR

And not be reimbursed for the cost of the vest.

Urinanalysis anyone?

Lothar

03-23-2006, 06:41

The Reaper

03-23-2006, 08:50

QRQ 30

03-23-2006, 10:19

Sounds like a lot of arse covering ( and zero defect mentality) on the part of GOs who have no idea what it is truly like to hump that heavy ass, hot IBA. Espcecially when you are at 5000 ft plus in the Hindu Kush or sweating your ass off in TK, DR, Blessing, etc.......

Just my .02......

That is IMNSHO a typical GI bitch. In reality NATTIC truly tries to provide the best equipment possible. They do seek and accept troop input. It is troops who actually do much of the testing. I am sure there are QPs on this forum who have been involved in the testing. We were involved in the testing done by the Tropical Test Center in the Canal Zone. Many improvements to equipment were developed there for issue in RVN.

Its not a matter of KYA. If a directive is issued forbidding the use of a certain piece of equipment then it is a matter of obeying orders. Standardization is a necessity when dealing with 130K+ troops. You may sweat your ass off humping the mountains and have to live with the deaths of a few comrads. Believe me, those stupid, unknowing FG and GOs live with their responsibilities and feel the weight of thousands of lives on their shoulders.

To me it is pretty simple. If they say don't then don't. The consequences for disobeying could truly be a LOD "No" finding and loss of survivor benefits.

An old saying I used to use on my men when given an unpopular order was: "You can make it easy and go ahead and do it; or you can bitch, stamp your feet and hit your head against the wall and then do it; but you will do it or else."

Sorry for the rant. Bitching is one of the few rights of a subordinate. I was a frequent and avid user of this right. But in the end I did as ordered.

Maytime

03-30-2006, 20:09

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189763,00.html

I think there were a few questions on the military's own tests of the Dragon Skin. Here ya go:

"Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan."

Lothar

04-01-2006, 06:07

Roger that! Just exercising my rights. You and TR do understand "Joe". WILCO on the issue of the bodyarmor. DEROS in 60 days.

bost1751

04-02-2006, 05:55

Reading all of this about body armor Is very interesting to me. We never used to wear vests, but were never in a conflict such as the current one either. I wore a vest for a couple of years after I retired and was a State Trooper, and only then because we were issued them and it was mandated by our department to wear them. It was hot, very uncomfortable and restricted my movement noticably.

Every company boosts of their claim to fame about their product. I never heard of a vest that would stop an ice pick. I t may stop a large caliber hand gun but could be penetrated by a .22. Technology continues to advance so I am sure headway has been made the past couple of years. Now that the military is using vests the manufacures have a new, very large, targeted audience. Big profits!

I have to admire the guys wearing this beasts in the current environment they are in. I also have to respect their decisions to pursue a better, more comfortable vest than what is being issued to them.

The comments about Natic labs were instersting. Natic used to use the ground pounders for evaluations and input. They were soldier friendly so to speak. One of you commented they still are that way.

SF has always been a "do what it takes to get the job done" organization. We always spent a lot of our own money to have lighter, better equipment and that was the way it was. The vest controversy is a little different than in previous years. It is there to protect your life if needed. It also has to provide freedom of movement. I do not think "comfort " can be connected to a vest.

Do your research on vests before spending a fortune to purchase one. I have never been to go with the flow so I support those who stray from party line. I never completely trusted the military's testing and evaluations for items either. What in the hell arelGenerals evaluating vests for anyway? They are not humping, dodging, reacting and so on. that is right up there with a clerk testing new boots for the field guys. That provides a flawed evaluation report.

Good luck.

Dave

QRQ 30

04-03-2006, 07:27

Do your research on vests before spending a fortune to purchase one. I have never been to go with the flow so I support those who stray from party line. I never completely trusted the military's testing and evaluations for items either. What in the hell arelGenerals evaluating vests for anyway? They are not humping, dodging, reacting and so on. that is right up there with a clerk testing new boots for the field guys. That provides a flawed evaluation report.

It is apparent that you have never been detailed to the Hunter Ligget test site. We had SF Teams, as well as conventional combat units assigned to the Test site. The environmental as well as combat conditions are replicated as closely as possible. The same was true for the Tropical Test Center which was located in the Canal Zone.

Team Sergeant

04-03-2006, 08:26

It is apparent that you have never been detailed to the Hunter Ligget test site. We had SF Teams, as well as conventional combat units assigned to the Test site. The environmental as well as combat conditions are replicated as closely as possible. The same was true for the Tropical Test Center which was located in the Canal Zone.

Terry,
We also used to stand men in front of nuclear blasts, for testing. There are some things we no longer do. It may surprise you as to how some equipment is currently tested, or not tested until it actually reaches the hands of the men fighting the war.
There's a lot of things we did 40, 30, even 5 years ago we no longer do.;)

TS

QRQ 30

04-03-2006, 08:37

Terry,
We also used to stand men in front of nuclear blasts, for testing. There are some things we no longer do. It may surprise you as to how some equipment is currently tested, or not tested until it actually reaches the hands of the men fighting the war.
There's a lot of things we did 40, 30, even 5 years ago we no longer do.;)

TS

I am sure this is true. OTOH I know some people who were detailed to NATTIC (spelling?) while at Devons. My point is that there is more than likely much more research and developement in progress than people are aware of.

It was said that when an item got into the troops hands, its replacement was already in production and many more changes were on the drawing board. I used to have a clerk assigned who did nothing but post changes to the commel manuals and he never caught up.

Team Sergeant

04-03-2006, 08:47

I am sure this is true. OTOH I know some people who were detailed to NATTIC (spelling?) while at Devons. My point is that there is more than likely much more research and developement in progress than people are aware of.

And some are very aware....

http://www.natick.army.mil/

http://www.darpa.mil/

http://www.otc.army.mil/Otc/abnsotd.htm

bost1751

04-03-2006, 09:13

I have been to Hunter Ligget, back in 1973 or 1974. I did not witneww the same conditions you seem to have witnessed. Natic used to be great at testing cold weather euipment and rations. The controlled environment testing did not always fair very good in the actual environment. I am sure testing is being done, but when time if a factor, not every aspect the testing requirements for the item are very thorough. Testing a vest in a real environment is tough. Another factor the military used weigh very heavily was cost and fielding time can be a major consideration. I have never ruled out the old buddy factor either.

The Reaper

04-03-2006, 09:23

Peregrino

04-03-2006, 10:57

Have to agree. *******

Based upon what I saw over almost 30 years, I think that the miltiary RDT&E community needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the bottom up.

TR

I don't think anybody has to look much further than combat soldier's comments on the ACU to support the contention that NATICK is broken. Nor does anyone have to look much further than Congress to see it will probably never get fixed. COTS is ALWAYS more responsive and less expensive when it comes to individual soldier support. Gov't labs should stick to products that have no commercial equivalent and therefore cannot be researched and developed economically by private industry e.g. planes, tanks, warships and their support structure. Body armor "might" be in a gray area with overlap. So why isn't there an objective standard with independant testing and everything that passes the standards is allowed? One size does not fit all and economics is a piss poor reason to force soldiers to put square pegs in round holes. FYI - USASOC has a list of accepted IBA that includes more than just the Interceptor. My .02 - Peregrino

bost1751

04-03-2006, 11:19

Reaper and Peragrino hit on the head. I started skiing on the old Korean era stuff and my first time to the field in northern Maine in Feb my first and last time with the GI sleeping bag. Somewhere in the early 80's SF purchased off the shelf winter equipment modified to meet SF standards. A great move and a big money saver to those new to 10th Group.

I would like to think SF has continued to recognised the advantages of off the shelf purchases. They are numerous. The R&D by those companies is enormous and eliminates the outrageous cost to the government, along with a real procurement of the equipment. I have been away from SF world for several years. What I am gathering from this conversation, SF is still on the same wagon wheel the rest of the Army is. Everything is on a wagon wheel. As the wheel turns the same spokes come back around. A peice of ptentially life saving equipment is not something to toy around with. The govt has a system readily available to them and should use it to their advantge. Natic, like all government entities, impedes progress. the field soliers knows what is needed, listen to them.

TFM

04-03-2006, 11:22

Have to agree.

The Army has a huge bureaucracy dedicated to T&Eing soldier equipment.

IMHO, it is slow, non-responsive, territorial, bureaucratic, probably ridden with graft, nepotism, and NIH syndrome, and not terribly good at listening to soldier input to give them what they need, much less what they want.

For example, it took them over 50 years to get away from non-break-away ski bindings, M-1950 pattern LBE, and Korean War-era cold weather gear. By the time they came up with new products, they were three more generations behind the COTS equivalent.

Meanwhile, the civilian outdoor industry has leapt decades ahead of the military in developing and fielding quality field products.

Based upon what I saw over almost 30 years, I think that the miltiary RDT&E community needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the bottom up.

TR
No kidding. I've opted to replace some critical issued items with better commercial equipment. The cost adds up, but if it gives me just that little extra edge in combat/survival it is probably worth it. Some of that old stuff is just comical. SMA Preston came out to the brigade and opened the floor for questions/suggestions/comments about uniforms/gear. Basically all he kept saying was that this is why it is how it is, and why it is gonna stay that way. Not very encouraging. I expected as much.

TFM

QRQ 30

04-03-2006, 12:10

I always thought those f***ing feathers they put on top of our hrlmets sucked.:D

My great, great, great. . . . . grand father made custom sandles for the Romanlegionaires who could afford them.:munchin

Lothar

04-04-2006, 10:25

Just got the order to stop wearing my EAGLE vest with SPEAR BALCS insert and issued SAPI plates. The order specifically stated that only the Army issued Interceptor is authorized.

I was under the impression that USASOC soldiers were authorized to wear SPEAR BALCS as an approved alternative and therefore exempt from this policy.

04-04-2006, 12:06

groundup

04-04-2006, 12:52

The Reaper

04-04-2006, 16:50

Reaper, I'm getting my gear together for a possible contract job in the sandbox. Dragon Skin comes highly recommended. I've found the website and got a pretty good handle on what I "Think" I need. Problem is they don't list prices. You said yours was $1500?? Not bad and what kinda coverage do you get for the price? I won't be doing PSD or dashing around like I did years ago. Mainly training troops and advising. Maybe some convoy security. Any recommendations? "Q".

That was a rhetorical "my" as in a soldier who has a set.

I believe that the Dragon Skin is likely pretty good, probably better than the issued armor, but is slightly heavier and much more expensive.

I would be concerned about any company that would sent you over to a combat zone without protective gear.

TR

Pete

04-17-2006, 04:04

AKO News - http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8765

I think they would rather have the general public believe that the body armor is superior to all others than to actually have superior body armor.

OK, The Fayetteville Observer is a rag. Read something below the fold on the front page and try and find the article in it's online edition. Beyond me this AM.

Anyway the AP is reporting that the tests are stalled because the maker is in a dispute over testing and how long the Army has the vests before testing them.

Hey, what? Do they good "bad" after a few weeks out of the bag?

Nearest link I could find was;

httl://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=Dragon%20Skin

Somebody get a better link?

Pete

Sapper101

04-17-2006, 20:34

since no one's linked to this yet,
lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/440107306/m/5161098802/p/1[/url]
pretty good thread on the topic, with someone from dragon skin participating.

gtcrispy

04-20-2006, 19:04

If you don't have a LF login, then this article has information, videos, links etc.

defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=864[/url]

MtnGoat

05-20-2006, 14:17

Man this is going to get sticky with these companies - the old back and forth on its good and it fails. What's next in this round. Wait which state will be funded for the next DoD order. That's why I wish Politics didn't get into the buying of equipment for us. I can't get the sure fire I want because the SOFMOD system had a rail light WTF no really please. Okay so G4 you say I can order really thing as a single item to make the light system that is 400.00 cheaper. Yes, your fuk stupid Sir.

Off my box but I found this today on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12876952/).

Military hoped high-tech Dragon Skin could make troops more mobile

AP - Updated: 9:45 p.m. ET May 19, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Army’s struggle to find a new, more flexible body armor was dealt a setback Friday when high-tech vests called Dragon Skin failed to pass military testing, a senior defense official said.

After three days of testing this week, the Army determined the body armor does not meet military specifications, said the official, who would not specify which tests the armor failed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the results have not yet been released.

The Army paid about $170,000 to buy 30 sets of the armor for the testing.

Generally, during testing, various types of ammunition are fired at the vests, and the armor also may be subjected to extreme temperatures or environmental conditions. The tests were done by H.P. White, an independent ballistic testing lab in Street, Md.

The Army has expressed great interest in getting more flexible body armor. A principal complaint about the armor used by troops on the battlefield is that it is so heavy and inflexible it might lessen a soldier’s speed and agility. The current armor includes heavy ceramic plates in the front, back and sides.

The Dragon Skin testing was delayed initially by a dispute over testing conditions between the Army and Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif., which makes the protective gear known as Dragon Skin.

Earlier this week, the Army announced it would carry out three days of testing, which signaled the dispute’s resolution. A request for comment from Murray Neal, Pinnacle Armor’s chief executive officer, was not immediately returned.

Neal previously has contended that his armor is high quality, and its “capabilities have been proven to be significant improvements over the current Army issue.”

He said he has nine years of ballistic data, both classified and unclassified, that show the armor taking over 40 rounds of ammunition from an AK-47, then another 150 rounds from a submachine gun, all at close range, without a failure

Kyobanim

05-20-2006, 14:47

This is way out of my lane but,
After three days of testing this week, the Army determined the body armor does not meet military specifications

Hell, I can't even tell if new underware is going to pass the test in 3 days. That has got to be a political decision because it just doesn't make sense.

The Reaper

05-20-2006, 15:12

I can't get the sure fire I want because the SOFMOD system had a rail light WTF no really please. Okay so G4 you say I can order really thing as a single item to make the light system that is 400.00 cheaper. Yes, your fuk stupid Sir.

VG:

Translate please.:rolleyes: :D

TR

Soft Target

05-25-2006, 06:31

Army Tests Pinnacle Armor "Dragon Skin" Vests
Army News Service | May 19, 2006
The Army announced that PEO Soldier has contracted with Pinnacle Armor to purchase 30 of its latest body armor vests, known as “Dragon Skin,” for delivery no later than May 17.

The 30 production-representative vests will be delivered to H.P. White in Street, Md., for ballistic testing. HP White is the only National Institute of Justice-certified, independent, ballistic-testing laboratory in the United States capable of conducting the complete First Article Test. This is the same facility and ballistic testing standards used on the body armor currently fielded to Soldiers. Upon completion of the First Article Test -- which is a three-day test -- the Army will issue a press release stating the results.

All suppliers of Army body armor are required to pass the First Article Test. This is the same standard test conducted on the currently fielded body armor. Standard testing consists of a variety of ammunition and weapons fired on various size vests, under a range of conditions that replicate combat environments.

If “Dragon Skin” successfully completes First Article testing, it will advance to the second phase of testing. The Second Phase testing is conducted at Fort Benning, Ga., and consists of form, fit, function and operational suitability to meet Soldiers’ needs across a wide variety of combat tasks.
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

Copyright 2006 Army News Service. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

Karl.Masters

06-06-2006, 19:36

I was recently tasked by the Army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV 3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E referred to earlier in this thread. My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor.

I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing a SOV 3000 Dragon Skin - don't.

I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120F.

I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents... :D

Jack Moroney (RIP)

06-06-2006, 19:47

I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents... :D

I have a mutual aquaintance of ours I can recommend for delivery of them to the insurgents if you can arrange the transport. Hell, I'm sure he still has his bogus carry permit:D

Karl.Masters

06-06-2006, 20:01

Roger that Sir. But I don't think he could handle the 48lbs in size XL....

NousDefionsDoc

06-06-2006, 20:43

I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents...
Hah! I freakin' knew it. That was funny. Thanks for the non-G2.

Karl.Masters

06-07-2006, 07:49

Should have some more non-G2 later this week. May was a very interesting month....

v/r
Karl

DefRev

06-07-2006, 11:58

Mr. Masters,

I've been informed that you completed less than 1/3rd of the scheduled tests (8 out of 30) on Dragon Skin.

Is this information correct? If so, why did you stop the tests?

If the information I received is not correct, can you tell us how many tests you did complete?

If you have stopped the testing before completing all 30 tests, are you going to resume it? If you are going to resume, when do you plan to do so, and what conditions must be met in order to do so?

Mr Crane,

Next time you post on this forum you will identify yourself to whom you are asking a question or you will be gone. Anything printed here is copyrighted, remember that. Also you are not immune to the rules of this board and I suggest you read them before you post again.

Team Sergeant

Karl,
Mr Crane writes for an internet military news website that has a keen interest in anything new or in development.
TS

Pete

06-07-2006, 12:40

.......I've been informed that you completed less than 1/3rd of the scheduled tests (8 out of 30) on Dragon Skin.

Is this information correct? If so, why did you stop the tests?

I'm no news junky and am not searching the internet for news on this subject but as I recall, as reported in the Army Times, the testing was kind of like school. You had to pass a step before going on to the next grade. If you flunk the 5th grade you don't go on to the 6th grade.

As the story said it didn't pass the first round of tests so there was no reason to continue. I can wait for the "Official word" to come down.

Pete

Karl.Masters

06-07-2006, 23:02

TS: Appreciate the advisory.

Pete: 5x5.

Mr. Crane: After reviewing your web site, I see that you have already determined the military utility of Dragon Skin for the Army. Fortunately, that's my job-not yours. I also note that you feel free to demean those who have views different from yours. That's a non-habit forming technique in this forum.

The Army has a cautious and deliberate process to field personal protective equipment. It is impossible to "hype" your pet body armor onto the backs of Soldiers. Leaflet drops on capitol hill, smear campaigns, and glossy brochures with rosy performance claims are not going to get Dragon Skin through the ESAPI first article test protocol. In the absence of ballistic performance data that will support a Soldier safety release, Dragon Skin is a NO GO for fielding.

I recommend that you do some more research on the product you advocate. I invite your attention to the Federal Trade Commision website. A search on body armor will illustrate that the FTC has taken a rather dim view of body armor manufacturers that misrepresent the National Institute of Justice compliance status of their products.

The sun is about to shine on the Army's rationale for issuing the body armor Safety of Use Message. Get your suncreen ready.

I'll be watching to see if you set the record straight, or if I will have to do it for you. Welcome aboard.

Karl

DefRev

06-09-2006, 03:02

Welcome aboard to you, as well, sir. I see you joined PS after I did.

With all due respect, Mr. Masters, I must say that I find it troubling that the "acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor" is in charge of testing SOV/Dragon Skin body armor, considering that SOV-3000 Level IV Dragon Skin appears to be the #1 threat to the Interceptor Body Armor/ESAPI program. How do you avoid a conflict of interest, there?

Also, why do you not recommend SOV-3000 Level IV Dragon Skin for use against 7.62x54R AP ammo? It's my understanding that you didn't shoot the SOV-3000 with any type of 7.62x54R during the latest tests. If my information is correct--and please let me know if it isn't, as I realize that's possible--how can you know? With regard to the 7.62x54R, did you test the ESAPI (Level IV) plate against the 7.62x54R round, specifically, or did you test it against a surrogate? I'm not asking for any test data/results.

It's also my understanding that the ESAPI's magnesium backing burns pretty intensely when it gets hit with an API round (The SOV-3000 Dragon Skin doesn't have this problem.). So, if the enemy is armed with PKMs and 7.62x54R API ammo, even if the operator's ESAPI plate stops the round, he's still going to get burned pretty severely, right? Magnesium burns pretty hot.

TS, since you've already identified me to Mr. Masters (above), and he's already addressed me by my last name (and visited my site), you mean the next time I reply to a different person or in a different thread, right? Just in case you don't...

I'm the owner/editor of DefenseReview, Mr. Masters.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

06-09-2006, 04:56

How do you avoid a conflict of interest, there?.

I am not going to claim to have any expertise in this discussion, save one. While Karl Masters is not going to say this because of the type of person he is, I am just so you have a better insight into the person to whom you are talking. He is a consumate professional, I know this because he worked with me when we were in the same organization. He has also walked in the boots of the soldiers he has choosen to continue to serve as a program manager so he has a personal stake in continuing to look out for his men as a former Special Forces Officer. This, and I mean this as no criticism for those that have not served with us for one reason or another because this commitment is for a select few, is an obligation and calling that those that have not served with these outstanding men will never understand. His professionalism, and his concern for making sure that the troops get the best product available, would absolutely ensure that he has no conflict of interest.

Basicload

06-09-2006, 06:45

Mr Masters,

I would like to see any information that can be released to other DOD agencies. My survivability combat developer would be very interested in any insight that you have in this matter.

You can send the information SIPR and it will be handled at whatever classification level that you choose.

I can PM you a SIPR adress if you can assist.

Team Sergeant

06-09-2006, 08:18

Welcome aboard to you, as well, sir. I see you joined PS after I did.

With all due respect, Mr. Masters, I must say that I find it troubling that the "acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor" is in charge of testing SOV/Dragon Skin body armor, considering that SOV-3000 Level IV Dragon Skin appears to be the #1 threat to the Interceptor Body Armor/ESAPI program. How do you avoid a conflict of interest, there?

Mr. Crane, I'll say this once because you have zero military experience, zero LEO experience and zero credibility as a defense advisor as far as I'm concerned;

The next time you find something "troubling" seek professional help. The next time you question a Special Forces soldier integrity you will be gone.

I find it outrageous as a tax payer and a professional that you, with zero experience, consult/advise for Homeland Security. I have read articles on your website and find some of them as interesting as the super market tabloids.

Think before you post again.

"Welcome aboard to you, as well, sir. I see you joined PS after I did."

AS a person that keep an eye on noteworthy dates you may find interesting that Dr. Vails article was first posted on this website, and not yours as your "exclusive" headline suggests.

You have my full attention.

Team Sergeant

Karl.Masters

06-09-2006, 09:43

DefRev:

I control the configuration baseline of the US Army ESAPI plate. I know that there is no magnesium in any production ESAPI plate.

Why do you think that there is magnesium in ESAPI? How did you arrive at this "understanding"?

Let me know if this is just an element of the Dragon Skin media campaign or if there is somebody you know actually making bogus ESAPI with magnesium backing material in it.

If so, I'd like to know their grid coordinates ASAP to take appropriate action.

I know it's hard to believe, but there are body armor manufacturers that make performance claims that can't be backed up on the range. They sometimes even mark their products as NIJ level 3 certified when they are not, or distort facts relating to fielded systems to make thier own product look more attractive.

Yup, looks like there is a "conflict of interest" here - between marketing spin and the facts.

Karl

Karl.Masters

06-09-2006, 10:25

Basicload,

As of yesterday I am authorized to release test report and findings on the US Army Dragon Skin SOV 3000 test to any DoD agency. PM with a NIPR and SIPR address and I will send it out.

If any other members serving within DoD are interested in a copy, PM w/a DoD NIPR and SIPR email address and I am happy to forward it.

Karl

x SF med

06-09-2006, 10:54

The next time you question a Special Forces soldier integrity you will be gone.
...he has a personal stake in continuing to look out for his men as a former Special Forces Officer.

Thank you TS and Col M - you beat me to the punch.

skeeter8654

06-09-2006, 11:51

It's also my understanding that the ESAPI's magnesium backing burns pretty intensely when it gets hit with an API round (The SOV-3000 Dragon Skin doesn't have this problem.). So, if the enemy is armed with PKMs and 7.62x54R API ammo, even if the operator's ESAPI plate stops the round, he's still going to get burned pretty severely, right? Magnesium burns pretty hot.

Having personally witnessed a nearly unfortunate incident where the wearer of an E-sapi plate was struck in the plate by a 7.62x54 API round, there was no burn at all and the plate stopped the round cold. I'm not sure how you find your sources, as I remember when you were called out on the carpet elsewhere when you erroneously reported that the USMC had purchased 10,000 GLOCK G37 .45 GAP pistols.

DefRev

06-09-2006, 14:32

skeeter8654,

The incident you refer to (G37/USMC) happened in late April 2004. While it was the only incident of its kind, it did happen, and we did have to retract it. The retraction was published very quickly. So, you are correct. The incident you mention did indeed occur.

However, it should be noted that because of this single, solitary incident, we (DefenseReview) immediately instituted new protocols to insure that it would not recur in the future. And, it won't. It can't, actually (due to the protocols we instituted).

This post has been edited for clarification.

Razor

06-09-2006, 14:48

Everybody makes mistakes; its what you learn from them that is important. In this case, unless you're absolutely, unquestionably, 100% sure about your info source, in the future you may want to reconsider questioning the methods and motives of someone personally involved in an event. Not every government decision involves conspiracy.

NousDefionsDoc

06-09-2006, 15:05

DefRev,
Have you tested Dragon Skin?

DefRev

06-09-2006, 15:13

Mr. Masters,

Thank you, and I believe you that there is no magnesium component of ESAPI. I accept your answer as the truth. Just FYI, I haven't reported anything about magnesium being in ESAPI on Defense Review (DefRev). Anyone here is of course free to research that. Coincidentally (since skeeter8654 brought up the G37/USMC incident), one of the reasons I haven't reported anything about magnesium being in ESAPI on Defense Review is that I wasn't sure about it and didn't have any confirmation from government sources or manufacturing sources. DefRev changed its publishing protocols after the G37/USMC debacle two years ago.

Anyway, that's why I used the phrasing "it's my understanding" (because I wasn't sure about it). Based on your answer, I understood wrong. I appreciate you giving me the correct information on it.

Point taken, Razor. I agree with you.

Karl.Masters

06-09-2006, 16:41

Skeeter8654,

Thanks for your operational observations on ESAPI vs. 7.62x54R API. At the end of the day that is exactly what it's all about.

The Defense Contract Management Agency has on site QA reps that select a random sample of ESAPI plates for quality assurance ballistic testing from each and every production lot of ESAPI - from every manufacturer that is qualified to build ESAPI for the Army. There are only 6 that have passed the ESAPI First Artical Test protocol and are qualified and under contract to build these plates.

To ensure ESAPI plates maintain consistently high ballistic performance in combat, an ESAPI from every sample pulled from every lot from every manufacturer gets tested against 7.62x54R B-32 API - before the lot is accepted by PEO Soldier.

Each and every ESAPI lot is tested against the B-32 API threat. That means that we do quite a bit of testing, but this is a small price to pay to ensure that Soldiers get kit that they can rely on to perform when it counts.

It also gives us confidence that any material problem, process change, or any other factor affecting ESAPI ballistic performance is detected - before it gets to an Operator/Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor in combat.

Karl

VelociMorte

06-27-2006, 03:34

Response to US Army's Pentagon Brief / SOUM Regarding
Dragon Skin Body Armor

After reading the US Army's latest Safety of Use Message (SOUM) dealing with the effectiveness of Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin body armor, and viewing the Army's press brief by Major General Sorenson, I wish to respond to the assertions, allegations and innuendo. It is our belief that your criticism of Dragon Skin is simply wrong and unwarranted.

Despite all the testing of Dragon Skin armor systems by numerous Federal, State, Local, D.o.D. and other Federal agencies, - including the Army's own Army Research Lab, as well as a D.o.D. approved ballistic test facility, the Army still refuses to accept the fact that our Level 3 and the new level 4 Dragon Skin body armor - researched, designed and produced by an individual entrepreneur - is years ahead of the currently issued SAPI/Interceptor rigid plate system.

Dragon Skin exceeds in nine areas of performance and capabilities: flexibility with increased mobility, lower system weight, durability, greater torso coverage, less trauma to the body, better edge-hit capability, increased multiple/repeat hit capability, increased projectile diversity resistance, and ergonomic design. Dragon Skin capabilities have been proven to be significant improvements over the current Army issue.

Developed in 1996, we have provided full torso coverage Dragon Skin armor numerous times to deployed personnel. They purchased Dragon Skin armor with their own money after their first deployment. We hear and read reports that troops are complaining that the currently issued rigid armor is too heavy, too cumbersome, does not fit well and seriously restricts movement. And these reports are from troops who have been in-theater wearing it, and this latest iteration has been out less than three months!

We have received many e-mails from soldiers wearing Dragon Skin telling us they feel more comfortable and have better mobility, together with full torso coverage, and for approximately the same weight as the currently issued system with the new side plates; also without the lower back pain resulting from rigid plates. Proper design adds flexibility with greater mobility and coverage, without inhibiting daily performance.

Government offers exist for assistance up to $1,100.00 to soldiers that buy body armor (How does this agree with the newest and latest BAN ON ALL NOT-ISSUED armor?). Yet when they do buy something that is proven to be superior to the currently issued armor they are threatened with loss of their death benefits, told to not wear it, and to turn it in to PEO. These soldiers purchased this armor themselves, it belongs to them, not the Army.

While the Army is moving to equip its personnel with level 4 body armor, over 90% of the SAPI/Interceptor systems fielded today is level 3. The currently offered level 3 Dragon Skin body armor system has been proven on the battlefield in combat.

Our new level 4 Dragon Skin system just entering production will be as comparably advanced over the ESAPI program as over the current issued armor. We have also been able to defeat the "new emerging threat" categories; threats which, to date, the Army has not been able to defeat.

The Army says they look forward to testing Dragon Skin body armor to validate the "claims" of superior performance made by Pinnacle Armor. The Army, SOUM, states, "The Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims". I would like to know why - after 9 years of receiving ballistic data, both unclassified and classified, and actually witnessing several shoots at ARL, plus testimonials from battlefield survivors - that such evidence does not constitute validation. One only has to see the witnessed video shoots that were conducted showing Dragon Skin armor taking over 40 rounds of indigenous military ball ammunition from an AK-47 at 20 feet and then another 150 rounds of 9mm from 10 feet from a sub-machine gun - on top of the first impacted points - WITHOUT ANY FAILURE, to see that Dragon Skin is far superior to the current system in use by the Army.

The Army says it does not have enough information on Dragon Skin. Also, they say they helped fund its development. These statements are completely false. In 1996 we were commercially manufacturing and selling Dragon Skin body armor. Never has the Army been involved with the development of Dragon Skin body armor. We currently hold five issued patents on this technology with numerous others pending. It was patent pending before we showed it to Natick and ARL. We know Natick has tried to circumvent our patents, without success. When we first presented our armor to Natick and ARL we were told they had both spent 4-5 years and approximately 18-20 million dollars trying to develop a body armor system that could meet the flexibility and mobility requirements of the battlefield. To date, they haven't succeeded.

I think it is a travesty that men and women who continue to protect the freedoms and values that we have and enjoy are treated so shabbily - preventing them from owning and wearing the best body armor that technology can offer. We have all seen the Pathology Reports reporting lives lost due to inadequate torso side coverage by the issued armor. The Army's answer is to provide rigid side plates - less flexibility and more weight.

In my opinion such treatment borders on being criminal when you continue to place people directly in harms way yet do not provide the best equipment to protect them. Being aware of problems with the currently issued armor and knowingly preventing solutions to such problems demonstrates culpability.

We have found the following statements from the Army to be false:

The Army's latest attempts to obfuscate this issue with the american public in a Pentagon release is wrong. General Sorenson said, "Now, I will say that there is another services that has procured this type of capability, but has recently recalled it because it did not meet standards".
General Sorenson says regarding the Dragon Skin development, that we have had to take a look at the latest seven iterations of the SAPI/Interceptor system to come up with a different way of manufacturing our body armor, and that the Army has encouraged this.
General Sorenson told the press "the latest iteration of Army body armor has been completely fielded into theater".
General Sorenson still speaking on behalf of the Army again, agrees that there is lighter and more flexible body armor, but, that the Army has "not seen that this capability has done anything with respect to preventing, providing any level of force protection that we evaluate as even standard". "There is particular evidence to state that we're not really sure what it provides". The second statement we are not sure of its meaning.
General Moran states, " …it's probably not advisable because we have not found that the protection provided by these other particular systems is anywhere near what the soldiers have today".
General Sorenson further states, " If they can provide the capability that satisfies the test which, to date, anything that they've delivered has not satisfied the test".
General Sorenson replying to a question to the validity of the amount of Dragon Skin body armor in theater states, "Again, to my knowledge, I do not know. I mean, the claims are such, we have not been able to verify those claims".
General Sorenson states in regards to money that Army has paid to develop the Dragon Skin, that the Army has provided to us, close to a million dollars in an SBIR and that he is "shocked" that we would disagree that they provided us money to develop the system.

These are statements from officers of the military who should be honest, unbiased and above reproach.

CONTINUED

VelociMorte

06-27-2006, 03:35

Aside from the actual classified information and test data, the letters, e-mail correspondence, test data are available to provide proof that the Army and specifically General Moran and General Sorenson have been provided information in January and February 2006 to verify and refute these misrepresentations and false statements that were designed to create a false impression and discredit the Dragon Skin body armor. This is the level of perfidy that is allowed to go on within the Army while our troops are suffering and/or dying because of it. We can provide viewing of such for validation but will not allow any copying or removal of such documents.

We have agreed with General Moran to provide at their cost 30 complete full torso wrapped vests to be shot at a range with pre-set specifications. The test will be viewed and observed by industry and ballistic professionals. Now the Army is asking that the vests be sent to them for inspection for several days prior to the test, which was not agreed to. We will not do that when they have shown to try to do everything to cause discredit to our company, and the armor we provide, in addition to other things such as creating irregularities that would induce premature failure during the ballistic test. If the test with the Army does not take place, we will carry out a test for Congress, the House and Senate Armed Services, Senators, the Executive Branch, or other qualified observers to prove what we have said and demonstrated is directly opposite of what the Army is telling the American People. During these tests, those who attend can open the crate of vests, look at, count, inspect, weigh and then have the armor shot without any interference with the armor before it is tested.

The Army has recently stated they are looking at their needs for a flexible, greater ballistic capability, lighter weight body armor for replacement of the current system and for future systems. Dragon Skin armor has been providing what the Army now says it needs FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS!

Let's stop paying good taxpayer money for rigid plate armor that does not provide the highest level of protection and continually needs to be replaced. Purchase what will work, be durable, and meet the needs of our troops, their lives depend upon it!

We have asked the Army several times for a Ballistic "proof" side-by-side test with the Army's un-categorically best in the world and General Moran has told me that it will not happen, however, if it is categorically the best, then put the best along side the Dragon Skin for a fair and unbiased shoot to let the evidence make that determination.

Sincerely,

Murray Neal
CEO
Pinnacle Armor, Inc.
5425 E. Home Ave. #104
Fresno, CA 93727-2106
(800) 200-0915 *TOLL FREE*
(559) 320-1221 *VOICE*
(559) 320-1229/1230 *FAX*
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not to be reproduced, printed, excerpted, copied or disseminated in any form other than the full content of this release without permission from Pinnacle Armor, Inc.

Pete

06-27-2006, 04:41

Well that letter shows they wanted to have Dragon Skin tested quick and right out of the box.

And I would guess the company also knew why they didn't want the Skins hanging around for a few days. Thats why they demanded that the Skin's be shot at so quickly.

Hmmm.

You would think that something a grunt was going to drag around for a year or more could surely handle hanging out at a testing facility for a few days. I wonder "not".

VelociMorte

06-27-2006, 16:51

There is a video on their web site that shows a DragonSkin taking multiple impacts from both 7.62X39 and 9mm, without a single penetration. Most if not all ceramic plates turn into a sack of rocks after a couple rounds. At 16.5 pounds, my Large SOV-2000 is about 7 pounds lighter, and provides about 40% more coverage (in standard configuration) than an Interceptor with SAPI front and rear. It exceeds DOJ level III, in that it also stops level IV 7.62X39 steel core and Green Tip. More coverage, lighter, flexible....hell, unless everything they say is total bullshit, how could you go wrong?

MtnGoat

06-30-2006, 07:39

TS (& ALL) looks like there are others coming here to grab information to be posted on other sites (http://www.defensetech.org/).

May this be a lesson to everyone, Sluggos and all, that people come to PS.Com to see what we are stating. That is good and BAD GUY alike. Heed the warnings about OPSEC. This is why TS, TR, all of the Moderators ensure we do our spell checks and proper grammar, ETC. Thanks TR :D It's called Professional Soldier.com for many reasons, here's one of them.

As they say, your reputation starts with.... (SFQC) ETC

I was recently tasked by the Army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV 3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E referred to earlier in this thread. My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor.

I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing a SOV 3000 Dragon Skin - don't.

I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120F.

I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents... :D

KARL obviously you got some eyes waiting for the report to be released to the people but the higher ups. Waiting out!!

Hopefully the Insurgents will pick up a set or two for themselves. Hee :p

Karl.Masters

07-01-2006, 19:08

Not every government decision involves conspiracy.

Our nation is at war. Performance is the determining factor.

v/r
Karl

Karl.Masters

07-01-2006, 19:18

You would think that something a grunt was going to drag around for a year or more could surely handle hanging out at a testing facility for a few days.

Pete,

Spot on. Durability and ballistic integrity in environmental extremes are important considerations for anyone making a purchase decision on body armor.

v/r
Karl

Karl.Masters

07-01-2006, 20:04

It exceeds DOJ level III, in that it also stops level IV 7.62X39 steel core and Green Tip.

VelociMorte,

Test question. How do you know it exceeds NIJ Type III (7.62x51mm FMJ) performance? For that matter, how do you know it meets NIJ Type III performance? Let's put the glossy brochures and videos aside for the moment.

NIJ Standard 0101.04 Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor establishes performance requirements and test methods used by DOJ to certify body armor.

From paragraph 4.5.1 (L) of this standard:

"For armor that has been successfully tested for compliance to this standard through NIJ's voluntary compliance testing program (CTP) at an NIJ-approved testing facility, the following statement shall be included on the label: The Manufacturer certifies that this model of armor has been tested through NLECTC and has been found to comply with Type (insert appropriate type designation) Performance for NIJ Standard-0101.04"

If your SOV 2000 armor successfully passed DOJ/NIJ testing, it would have this compliance statement on the label of the armor panel inside the carrier.

I'm curious, does your SOV 2000 bear the NIJ compliance statement above for Type 3 performance?

Karl

Karl.Masters

07-01-2006, 20:24

KARL obviously you got some eyes waiting for the report to be released to the people but the higher ups. Waiting out!!

MtnGoat,

5x5. All this drama goes away when the results are released. Until then, we are doomed to be adrift in a sea of agendas, opinions, and speculations.

v/r
Karl

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-02-2006, 04:55

MtnGoat,

5x5. All this drama goes away when the results are released. Until then, we are doomed to be adrift in a sea of agendas, opinions, and speculations.

v/r
Karl

Some folks may be. Your word is good enough for me. If my son was on his way back to the sandbox right now and told me he was adding this to the other 300 lbs of crap in his kit I would be, as he likes to say, "all over him":D

MtnGoat

07-02-2006, 07:59

MtnGoat,

5x5. All this drama goes away when the results are released. Until then, we are doomed to be adrift in a sea of agendas, opinions, and speculations.

v/r
Karl
So True!! :munchin

VelociMorte

07-07-2006, 15:30

VelociMorte,

Test question. How do you know it exceeds NIJ Type III (7.62x51mm FMJ) performance? For that matter, how do you know it meets NIJ Type III performance? Let's put the glossy brochures and videos aside for the moment.

NIJ Standard 0101.04 Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor establishes performance requirements and test methods used by DOJ to certify body armor.

From paragraph 4.5.1 (L) of this standard:

"For armor that has been successfully tested for compliance to this standard through NIJ's voluntary compliance testing program (CTP) at an NIJ-approved testing facility, the following statement shall be included on the label: The Manufacturer certifies that this model of armor has been tested through NLECTC and has been found to comply with Type (insert appropriate type designation) Performance for NIJ Standard-0101.04"

If your SOV 2000 armor successfully passed DOJ/NIJ testing, it would have this compliance statement on the label of the armor panel inside the carrier.

I'm curious, does your SOV 2000 bear the NIJ compliance statement above for Type 3 performance?

Karl

Why yes, as a matter of fact, it does.

Test Question: How is it that you didn't already know the answer to that question if you are responsible for evaluating the product? Would the Army even bother evaluating a vest that had not passed this basic standard?

On another note, can you confirm or deny what the following letter from http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060630-pr.php says ?

"Response to Karl Masters' (US Army) public statements
regarding unfinished FAT testing

There has been a lot said about the latest test of Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin® body armor by the Army in official and unofficial statements. Now their story is we didn't meet a specification.

We would like to let you in on the truth about the testing. The Dragon Skin® body armor was supposed to be tested to the ESAPI (current level 4 system) test protocol and procedures as the Army agreed to, unfortunately less then one third of the thirty vests were tested. This does not constitute a completed First Article Test.

During the period of 17-19 May 2006, the Army's Project Manager Soldier Equipment (PM SEQ) conducted First Article Testing of Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin® Full Torso Wrap coverage level 4 body armor system at HP White Laboratory as requested by Brigadier General Moran (he has since been forced to retire). After the first round was fired on the 17th the test director Karl Masters and technical liaison James Zheng argued openly and loudly about the placement of the shot and what constituted an edge for flexible armor systems. At this point Karl Masters threw down his paperwork and stormed off as he told James Zheng "You represent the government you select the shots and you will be responsible"! Next, Karl and James threw x-rays of our body armor at us and claimed that we didn't know how to design a flexible armor system. When we asked how James Zheng came to that conclusion James said "look at the spacing of the discs, they are not evenly spaced"? We showed him that when he picked up the vest to place it on the x-ray table he changed the spacing of some of the rows of discs and that this is what is supposed to happen in flexible systems! You could see the light come on over his head, no wonder they can't seem to design anything better than what they have. Again, deviation from the ESAPI test protocols and procedures took place by the selection of shot placements of APM2 rounds around the ceramics in non-rifle defeating areas (where there was an adhesive anomaly. James Zheng attempted to induce failure with selective placement of shots at the center and edge of individually isolated discs on the system and the system did not fail. This set James Zheng off on a tirade saying "it's not supposed to do that" and throwing his arms in the air and yelling. This does not sound like fair and unbiased testing to us.

The testing was stopped by the Army at 12:37 pm on the 19th, Karl Masters and James Zheng had just shot one of our Medium sized vest with 12 rounds of APM2 (level 4) with complete stops on all rounds with a back face trauma average of 22.5mm for this vest and 23mm for all the vests tested, which is a 50% reduction in trauma over the current system. Imagine how many more lives could have been saved if the Dragon Skin® body armor system was available to our troops today. When was the last time the Army dared to shot 12 rounds of M2AP (level 4) into any Interceptor IBA with ESAPI plates? The reason Karl Masters, Col. John Norwood (being forced to retire early) and James Zheng gave for stopping the testing early on the 19th was as quoted by Karl Masters: "I'm completely baffled by this flexible technology and I'm not going to send another round down range until I can understand how a flexible system works"! This is the same group that falsely claimed to have paid Pinnacle Armor nearly a million dollars to develop our Dragon Skin® system as Major General Sorenson said on CNN, 31 March 2006!

All of the Government agencies that use our Dragon Skin® body armor have all tested the system and found it to be far superior to the current Army system. We are still looking forward to working with the Department of Defense to conduct fair and unbiased testing to prove that our Dragon Skin® system is far superior to any other system."

The Reaper

07-07-2006, 17:25

VM:

Unless there are corroberating witness statements, That is pretty close to a slanderous attack on Karl.

Okay, now we are getting two versions of this with some apparent pretty strong emotions.

This report is unsubstantiated and I for one, would like to remind everyone posting on this thread to pause and remember that we will keep it professional, remember that this is just the internet, and that everyone here wants the same thing - to ensure that soldiers get the very best gear that we can, especially armor.

Be polite, be professional, keep it clean. Just the facts.

TR

VelociMorte

07-07-2006, 18:00

Reeper,

The preceeding letter was Cut and Pasted from the Pinnacle Armor website. I am in NO WAY questioning anyone's integrity, honesty, or motives. As you stated, we all want the same thing; what's best for the Soldier.

In fact, this goal drives me to such an extent that I sometimes voluntarily deploy with SOTAs and others, to some of the most interesting places...places in Paktika, TK, and Ramadi are a few examples. I just got back from two months in Iraq. I do this for two reasons: the first is to deploy specialized equipment, and the second is to gain valuable insight into how that equipment is utilized in a real-life tactical environment so that I can build a better product for the user. In the past, I normally ended up with whatever PPE I could get my hands on. I carry all my own stuff, and never know where I'll end up, or how long I'll be there. I'm 46 years old, and I get a little tired after an hour or two of carrying a hundred pounds of ruck, armor, ammo, weapons, and water.

For that reason, I purchased a Pinnacle Armor SOV-2000. It meets DOJ level III requirements. It weighs 16.5 pounds. It's comfortable. And it doesn't feel like I've got a damn sheet of plate steel strapped to my spine and sternum.

Now I just want to know if it really works, and I'd like to know before I'm getting shot at again.

smp52

07-07-2006, 18:37

I've discussed this on SOCNET and recently posted a link to this thread in the discussion there, in particular with Pinnacle's letter posted.

From my experience in acquistion, First Article Testing, contractors, etc. it seems like the letter is reaching for straws to grasp. It has attacked the professionalism, test methodology, and competancy of Government personnel charged with making the appropriate techincial decision for troop protection. From other posts made here, I believe the Progam Manager is a professional. Not that folks at Pinnacle aren't, it's just that the above letter does not respond in a diligent objective manner. Rather than stick to a discussion regarding the objective merits of the equipment in question, or even the test, it attacks individuals in a personal manner. That is not productive, IMHO.

An internet article (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html) links to the original post by Mr. Masters in this thread that has evoked the above response from Pinnacle.

As a fellow DOD acquisition employee (though probably junior in pay grade and with a different service). Pardon me Mr. Masters, I would recommend you NOT commenton this letter as asked by VM (sorry, nothing personal) here. I understand this is the home of QPs and I am a guest, so if my comments overstep, I apologize.

I know of instances where such comments (as the above letter) eventually wind up in some type of litigation and puts the government in a difficult position. I may be being overprotective or paranoid, but in my Govt. - Contractor dealings, I've had to be very careful in how and what medium comments/recommendations are made.

irtusk

07-07-2006, 22:50

He is a consumate professional

He may be very committed, he might be very skilled, he may have only the bests interests of this country and its soldiers at heart, he may have more integrity than anyone alive, but his comments here clearly do not demonstrate that he is 'a consumate professional'.

> My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor

A consumate professional would have recused himself to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.

When Pinnacle Armor's primary complaint is that they have been the victim of 'conspiracy' to foist IBA on our troops, how does it look to have someone on IBA's payroll running the test? Does it not confirm everything they have been saying?

The sad thing is, if what you say is accurate and DragonSkin is trash, many will not believe you because of the appearance of inpropriety. You just further fuel their propaganda.

> I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

Then a true professional would honor the gag order and keep his mouth shut and let his report do the talking for him.

> I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents... :D

This is a very cheap shot that comes across as . . . well, unprofessional

Simply stating that it did not pass the test and the full results will be available in the report shortly would have been more than sufficient.

Look, we're all human and we all make mistakes, but do you not see how your actions encourage the conspiracy theorists?

PS: I am by no means saying Pinnacle Armor has handled this professionally either

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-08-2006, 05:15

NousDefionsDoc

07-08-2006, 09:01

He may be very committed, he might be very skilled, he may have only the bests interests of this country and its soldiers at heart, he may have more integrity than anyone alive, but his comments here clearly do not demonstrate that he is 'a consumate professional'.

> My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor

A consumate professional would have recused himself to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.

When Pinnacle Armor's primary complaint is that they have been the victim of 'conspiracy' to foist IBA on our troops, how does it look to have someone on IBA's payroll running the test? Does it not confirm everything they have been saying?

The sad thing is, if what you say is accurate and DragonSkin is trash, many will not believe you because of the appearance of inpropriety. You just further fuel their propaganda.

> I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain.

Then a true professional would honor the gag order and keep his mouth shut and let his report do the talking for him.

> I do however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents... :D

This is a very cheap shot that comes across as . . . well, unprofessional

Simply stating that it did not pass the test and the full results will be available in the report shortly would have been more than sufficient.

Look, we're all human and we all make mistakes, but do you not see how your actions encourage the conspiracy theorists?

PS: I am by no means saying Pinnacle Armor has handled this professionally either
You are entitled to your opinion. However, around here we like opinions to be based on something in order for them to be expressed.

From what I can see, your knowledge of the topic at hand is limited to this thread on the internet? That about the extent of it?

You "happened across the thread" and you "just had to comment" and this is what you came up with? Somehow I doubt you "happened across" anything. You would have been better served commenting on the armor rather than the poster. Because you see, we might actually care if you have worn/tested/shot the armor. But the truth is, none of us give a flying rat's ass what you think about us personally.

Again I ask, what special traits or skills do you have that allow you to qualify the characters of Special Forces officers as less than professional?

You be careful there Mr. irtusk person. Your introduction was weak, your profile unimpressive and you are insulting professionals. You watch your tone and content or seek life elsewhere. There won't be another warning.

Karl.Masters

07-08-2006, 10:42

For that reason, I purchased a Pinnacle Armor SOV-2000. It meets DOJ level III requirements. It weighs 16.5 pounds. It's comfortable. And it doesn't feel like I've got a damn sheet of plate steel strapped to my spine and sternum.

Now I just want to know if it really works, and I'd like to know before I'm getting shot at again.

VM,

You seem to have been misled on the actual NIJ compliance status of your armor.

The National Institute of Justice/National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NIJ/NLECTC) maintains a consumer products list (CPL) of body armor models that have been tested under the NIJ compliance testing program (CTP) and found to comply with threat specific performance requirements detailed in NIJ-Standard 0101.04, Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor.

The NIJ/NLECTC CPL can be found at:
http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp

The CPL lists models of armor that have obtained the status of NIJ/NLECTC "Compliance", defined by the standard as "NIJ approval, AFTER SUCCESSFUL BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE TESTING TO THIS STANDARD, of a body armor model submitted to the NIJ compliance testing program CTP."

After NIJ grants compliance status for a particular model of armor, the manufacturer is authorized to apply the "Certification of Compliance", defined by the standard as the "Manufacturer's affadavit (certification) that a production unit of body armor meets (complies with) all of the requirements of this standard for the labeled protection classification."

NIJ-Standard 0101.04 also attempts to maintain the integrity of the CTP with the proviso that: "THE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ABOVE SHALL NOT APPEAR ON ARMOR THAT HAS FAILED NIJ COMPLIANCE TESTING, OR ON ARMOR THAT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED FOR COMPLIANCE AS SPECIFIED BY THIS STANDARD. ONCE AUTHORIZED TO PLACE THIS STATEMENT ON A MODEL OF ARMOR, THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT ALTER OR MODIFY THIS STATEMENT IN ANY WAY."

There are three ways to verify the compliance status of an armor that has been labeled with the NIJ Type III compliance statement:

1) Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the NIJ Type III compliance certification.

2) Check the NIJ/NLECTC CPL at http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp[/url] to determine if the model is certified for NIJ Type III performance.

3) E-mail or call the NIJ/NLECTC directly with an inquiry. E-mail to kmerlo@nlectc.org or call 301 519-5119.

In the case of a conflict between the Type III compliance statement on the armor label and the CPL, as we seem to have in this case, I recommend that you contact the NIJ directly for an explanation of this unfortunate situation.

Karl

CoLawman

07-08-2006, 11:34

VM,

Sticking my nose in.......
DOJ Level III requirements are used in determining a federal buildings level of security. Probably just a mixup on acronyms. I understand that NIJ is a branch of DOJ, but it is probably best to use the appropriate acronyms to avoid any confusion amongst us less educated and experienced.

Mr. Masters sir...........touche!:munchin

Doc

07-08-2006, 17:14

Freakin sales people.

Most of them have never ever entered the arena they are selling in and bet their position in life and/or their reputation by the decision(s) they make in such matters.

I have zero respect for that type of person.

No conviction and no humility.

Team Sergeant

07-08-2006, 19:42

Reeper,

The preceeding letter was Cut and Pasted from the Pinnacle Armor website.

I will tell you this once:

If you (or anyone else) does a "cut and paste" WITHOUT also posting a URL (link) properly attributing the site the cut and paste was taken from I'll delete it all and ban you next time, do I make myself clear?

Now you have a few minutes to make that above post correct or I'll delete all your posts and remove you from the board.

Team Sergeant

VelociMorte

07-08-2006, 21:29

VM,

You seem to have been misled on the actual NIJ compliance status of your armor.

The National Institute of Justice/National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NIJ/NLECTC) maintains a consumer products list (CPL) of body armor models that have been tested under the NIJ compliance testing program (CTP) and found to comply with threat specific performance requirements detailed in NIJ-Standard 0101.04, Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor.

The NIJ/NLECTC CPL can be found at:
http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp

The CPL lists models of armor that have obtained the status of NIJ/NLECTC "Compliance", defined by the standard as "NIJ approval, AFTER SUCCESSFUL BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE TESTING TO THIS STANDARD, of a body armor model submitted to the NIJ compliance testing program CTP."

After NIJ grants compliance status for a particular model of armor, the manufacturer is authorized to apply the "Certification of Compliance", defined by the standard as the "Manufacturer's affadavit (certification) that a production unit of body armor meets (complies with) all of the requirements of this standard for the labeled protection classification."

NIJ-Standard 0101.04 also attempts to maintain the integrity of the CTP with the proviso that: "THE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ABOVE SHALL NOT APPEAR ON ARMOR THAT HAS FAILED NIJ COMPLIANCE TESTING, OR ON ARMOR THAT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED FOR COMPLIANCE AS SPECIFIED BY THIS STANDARD. ONCE AUTHORIZED TO PLACE THIS STATEMENT ON A MODEL OF ARMOR, THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT ALTER OR MODIFY THIS STATEMENT IN ANY WAY."

There are three ways to verify the compliance status of an armor that has been labeled with the NIJ Type III compliance statement:

1) Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the NIJ Type III compliance certification.

2) Check the NIJ/NLECTC CPL at http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp[/url] to determine if the model is certified for NIJ Type III performance.

3) E-mail or call the NIJ/NLECTC directly with an inquiry. E-mail to kmerlo@nlectc.org or call 301 519-5119.

In the case of a conflict between the Type III compliance statement on the armor label and the CPL, as we seem to have in this case, I recommend that you contact the NIJ directly for an explanation of this unfortunate situation.

Karl

Karl,

The site http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp provides a list of products that are certified to the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor, effective September 26, 2005, not NIJ-Standard 0101.04. On August 24, 2005, NIJ introduced the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor. These requirements modify and supplement NIJ's Standard-0101.04, Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor. They are promulgated on an interim basis to address recent NIJ research findings that indicate that certain body armor models previously found by NIJ to be compliant with earlier NIJ requirements for ballistic resistance of new body armor (including NIJ Standard-0101.04) may not adequately maintain ballistic performance during their service life (specifically those made of Zylon). The report does not lists products which conform to NIJ-Standard 0101.04. NIJ Standard 0101.04, “Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor,” document NCJ 183651, was originally published in September 2000.

I'll email kmerlo@nlectc.org and see what's up. I'll also email Pinnacle and ask for a copy of the compliance certification.

Karl.Masters

07-09-2006, 16:25

VM,

All requirements of NIJ-Standard 0101.04 must be met for an armor panel to be certified under the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements, which as you state contain additive requirements involving materials and service life/warranty period. Manufacturing date will determine which standard is referenced in the compliance statement.

The point of the post was that an armor panel must actually be submitted for NIJ Type III compliance testing, and must actually pass NIJ Type III compliance testing before it can be labeled with an NIJ Type III compliance statement.

Karl

VelociMorte

07-09-2006, 19:28

Pete

07-09-2006, 19:51

Karl,

Are you stating that Pinnacle Armor labels their SOV-2000 product as compliant, when in fact it is not?

That web site only shows Pinnacle Armor going up to Level IIIA, not III or IV.

Man, just look at all those companies with Level IIIs and IVs. I wonder how heavy and bulky that Level IV stuff is. Also if it is Level IV all over or just on plates.

Looks like I can have a little fun next weekend digging around some of those companies.

Pete

Karl.Masters

07-10-2006, 18:51

There are three ways to verify the compliance status of an armor that has been labeled with the NIJ Type III compliance statement:

1) Ask the manufacturer for a copy of the NIJ Type III compliance certification.

2) Check the NIJ/NLECTC CPL at http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/Reports/rptCPL2005.asp[/url] to determine if the model is certified for NIJ Type III performance.

3) E-mail or call the NIJ/NLECTC directly with an inquiry. E-mail to kmerlo@nlectc.org or call 301 519-5119.

In the case of a conflict between the Type III compliance statement on the armor label and the CPL, as we seem to have in this case, I recommend that you contact the NIJ directly for an explanation of this unfortunate situation.

Karl

VM,

Welcome to my world.

You can verify this situation for yourself by contacting the NIJ/NLECTC.

Is paragraph 2A of post #15 in this thread by W-M starting to make sense?

Karl

Karl.Masters

07-11-2006, 08:08

That web site only shows Pinnacle Armor going up to Level IIIA, not III or IV.

Pete,

I checked with NIJ/NLECTC on the discrepancy between the CPL web site and the compliance statement on the labels, and received the following response:

"The list on our website is up to date, therefore the model you are inquiring about is not certified. But you may have noticed though that model MIL3AF01 is certified. Your Dragon Skin vest is what we call an "in conjunction" vest, meaning it is the combination of a hard armor and soft armor. When we test these, two things must occur. First, the soft armor must be tested and certified (as the MIL3AF01 is). Second, the combination of the two are tested together as a system. If that passes, it certified to that exact configuration. Meaning our certification applies only for that hard armor used with that soft armor.

What I am getting at is that the SOV2000 and the MIL3AF01 have not been tested together and are not level III certified. I have spoken with Pinnacle Armor about the issue and we are trying to get the situation resolved, hopefully by getting it tested."

Karl

VelociMorte

07-12-2006, 07:05

Oh well. I guess now if I get shot through the vest my wife gets the life insurance and a nice settlement from Pinnacle...

Eagle5US

07-12-2006, 07:31

Oh well. I guess now if I get shot through the vest my wife gets the life insurance and a nice settlement from Pinnacle...
That's one way to look at it...of course, I'd rather have a proven reliable piece of equipment and live to spend my own money with my wife instead of my widow spending a mondo settlement with a Fabio lookalike in Bermuda someplace:rolleyes:

Eagle

TPD1280

07-12-2006, 08:29

Get something you have confidence in. Ignore hype, do your homework, and accept it if the answers don't fit your desires.

In this thread you have the answers to your questions. No matter how bad you want the answer to be different, it aint happening.

MtnGoat

09-30-2006, 21:05

09-13-2006

sftt.org

By Roger Charles

Tried to find more information on the testing. But I have some really slow speed for internet, so I'm lucky if I don't get dropped while I'm reading a home page.

Karl Masters, what do you know about this test data?

I'll be looking to see what offically comes from this testing with the certification by NIJ. This will be one big step forward for "rifle" proetction.

MtnGoat,

sftt.org is not a creditable source of information, it's linked with defensereview.com and echos what David Crane posts, IMO both lack any real research data, mostly hearsay from both websites.

In the future please don't post anything on this website from either of their websites. We have no desire to lend credence to anything either has to say. All they are are internet tabloids and a waste of time.

TS

sf11b_p

10-01-2006, 09:22

At first thought I wouldn't want a military article tested only to non-military use, at first glance the statement reinforces that. I believe military body armor requires more than a "bullet proof" LEO vest.

that the NIJ tests did not include all the components in a DOD First Article Test (FAT), such as environmental tests.

From what I read the requirements of NIJ are that materials, workmanship and resistance meet the protection level (bullet size and velocity) and warrantee life claimed.

Here's links to NIJ testing issues and requirements. These are power point and word documents.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/protection/body_armor.htm

Evidently NIJ testing fails to test for automatic fire or consecutive and multiple hits, weather, other impacts besides single round specific caliber, and if I read it right, different size plates and body size or consider coverage.

Oh, and there are two NIJ testing standards, bullet and stab. I haven't seen if DoD or NIJ tested anything not claiming stab resistance to that standard.

NousDefionsDoc

10-01-2006, 09:43

That's one way to look at it...of course, I'd rather have a proven reliable piece of equipment and live to spend my own money with my wife instead of my widow spending a mondo settlement with a Fabio lookalike in Bermuda someplace:rolleyes:

Eagle
Yeah, but let's ask her what she thinks...;)

Cincinnatus

10-01-2006, 19:46

:eek: Oooh, that's got to sting... :D

Team Sergeant

02-26-2007, 14:21

NousDefionsDoc

02-26-2007, 17:30

Well said Brother.

jakerrr

02-26-2007, 20:44

I'm only looking for the cold hard facts regarding Dragon Skin. However, it seems there's plenty of @$%* and unsubstantiated hype to sort through.

This may help clear some of the smoke. I emailed the NIJ yesterday to ask about the legitimacy of Pinnacle's claim that their Dragon Skin SOV-2000 vest is able to stop Level III rifle threats.

Here's their answer:

John,

Thank you for contacting the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC). Our program does administer NIJ’s voluntary body-armor testing program and publishes a list of compliant models: http://www.justnet.org/BatPro/. As evidenced on that list, there is one model of Dragon Skin that is NIJ level III compliant (SOV2000.1-MIL3AF01). This particular configuration is a Dragon Skin plate insert used in conjunction with a previously compliant level IIIA model (MIL3AF01). The resulting system does meet level III requirements.

Regards,

Kevin Merlo

NLECTC

301.519.5119

However, I didn't ask about Pinnacle's Level IV vest, the SOV-3000. Pinnacle claims that vest is able to stop Level IV rifle threats. That vest is not listed on the NIJ registry. So, that's going to be a follow up question. Has it not been tested yet or did it fail?

Ever critical, but open minded

Karl.Masters

03-11-2007, 16:38

Sure been a lot of crap on the internet concerning dragon skin especially after the future weapons show. Lot’s of non-military websites writing articles concerning dragon skin pro’s and cons. (mostly pro’s coming from websites that take paid advertising)

I’ve read a lot of stories concerning dragon skin, and I was looking to confirm some of the stories to no avail. (Dragon TALES?) Stories such as “the president wears dragon skin” as does the secret service?????? My personal favorite is that Special Operations personnel are wearing dragon skin and that’s false.

Do you have any idea what goes into the testing process for military equipment? Obviously you do not.

Any of the tabloids care to confirm the dragon tales? Please sound off like you’ve got a pair.

De Oppresso Liber,

Team Sergeant

TS,

Don't see anybody stepping up to the plate. No surprise there.

It is also no surprise that different test ranges get different results with this armor. The three primary sensitivities are shot location, curvature, and temperature.

Shot location: Did the projectile impact a single ceramic disc? Two overlapping ceramic discs? Three overlapping ceramic discs? There are three distinct levels of protection within this armor design that threat projectiles can encounter. Consequently, there are three distinct levels of performance.

If one takes the perspective of selling armor, we shoot at the three overlapping disc coverage area. Let's call this "best case".

If one takes the perspective of the user wearing it, perhaps there is more interest in shooting at the single ceramic disc coverage area. In my view, the "worst case" shot location from a vulnerability perspective is what Soldiers and law enforcement agencies are most interested in.

Curvature: Was the armor panel tested in a curved configuration, similar to how it is worn? Or was the test run with the armor panel mounted flat?

If one takes the perspecitve of selling armor, we can minimize air gaps between the overlapping ceramic discs by testing it flat.

If one takes the perspective of the user, perhaps there is some interest in knowing how this armor performs - against maximum rated threats - when it is curved-as it will be when it is worn. Do the curvature induced air gaps between ceramic discs matter at maximum rated threats?

Temperature: Was the armor temperature conditioned prior to testing? If so was the armor panel positioned flat in the chamber, or positioned in the chamber as it is worn? This issue has proven to be extremely relevant to durability and maintaining ballistic integrity.

WRT to the recent media events - I didn't see any M-80 NATO ball (NIJ Type III threats) going down range. AK 7.62 muzzle is comonly accepted as 2380 fps. NIJ Type III 7.62 threat test velocity is 2780 fps +/- 30 fps. So on TV we're shooting a lighter bullet roughly 400 fps slower than what the system is rated, and as of Dec 06, NIJ certified to defeat. Was that AK projo actually running at muzzle? Don't know, didn't see a chronograph. It would be even more interesting to know the velocity of the 9mm, based on the subgun used on TV. Bet it wasn't anywhere close to NIJ IIIA velocity, currently 1430 +/- 30 fps. Guess what-an NIJ certified type IIA vest with no ceramic can do the same thing against that particular 9mm weapon where the projectiles are very likely running at subsonic velocity. We'll never know-no chronograph and no air temp/pressure/RH instrumentation.

WRT to the relevance of recent media events - the bullets that our Soldiers are dealing with down range are armor piercing 7.62x54R - from SVDs, FPK/PSL, Al K's and PK MGs-not PS Ball out of an AK with mild steel core referred to on TV by "experts" as an armor piercing threat. Very misleading.

What about weight? Mass efficiency of the armor? If we have overlapping ceramic disc coverage, doesn't that mean that any panel of this design is going to be heavier than a plate with a uniform density built to defeat the same threat? Of course it does. But you never see a scale in any of these videos.

What about design trades? If we design the armor to defeat the rated threat at a single disc area, good news for the wearer in terms of protection, bad news in terms of the extra weight of 2x and 3x overlapping coverage areas that the wearer is humping around the battlefield. If we defeat the rated threats at 2x ahnd 3x, but not 1x areas of coverage, then you are wearing flexible swiss cheese armor.

Balllistic protection is all about armor performance. Performance has to be defined in terms of a specific ballistic threat (mass and velocity) at a specific armor weight per unit area. It IS NOT about testimonials and marketing.

If armor threats/velocities are not defined/documented, if you don't know how the armor was tested and how much it weighs- be afraid.

v/r
Karl

Team Sergeant

03-29-2007, 16:30

I went to Pinnacle Armor's (Murray Neal) website and see they have hired the jello experts to test their armor. That should add creditability to their product. I've been told that the jello protocols are the only protocols that the FBI will use. (The heck with live tissue testing and authentic surgeons, besides jello doesn't argue, no mess and the results are always the same.)

I sure hope that the dentist told Mr. Neal we on ProfessionalSoldiers.com were already questioning the dentist's expertise and scientific method concerning his jello testing. I'm sure there's no conflict of interest there.

Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center. Most "Dr.'s" I know are proud to list their medical specialty, Dr. Roberts are you not a doctor of dentistry? Or did you forget to place that on Pinnacle Armor's website? Now don't get me wrong, I believe you are the foremost expert on bullets colliding with jello, and I believe the FBI thinks highly of your jello testing, but please tell me when you became an expert on the testing of body armor??? Are you a certified NIJ armor tester?

Moving on……

The dentist states that Dragon Skin can handle high temps etc etc etc thusly refuting the Army's claims. I've not yet seen the Army's claims? Have you Mr Neal? Dr Dentist? Mr Neal as the inventor / owner of Dragon Skin I’m sure the Army told you why Dragon Skin failed the testing did they not?

Mr Neal you do know that the US military fights in cold weather. Dr Dentist where's the cold weather data? I'm just a boy from Iowa but when I was attending Special Forces Sniper school we'd shoot at these steel figures hanging from chains at a few hundred meters (300 I think) and there were more at various ranges out to 1000m. The idea was that if hit it would "ring" giving us almost instant feed back and we could also "see" the impacts (bullet exploding). In the "cold" weather the instructors would tell us not to shoot the steel targets because they become too brittle and the bullets would punch a hole in them. I'm sure that's not the case with Dragon Skin body armor. (Cold weather data????)

I'd sure like to know who put this information in wikipedia concerning Dragon Skin????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor

Mr. Neal care to share with us on ProfessionalSoldiers.com who in the "SPECIAL OPS" community is currently wearing Dragon Skin? If it's in wikipedia it must be true, just like sftt.org and defensereview.com.

Personally Mr. Neal I hope your product becomes as great as you tout it to be, I really do. But this is not the Discovery Channel and we will not be easily fooled, by anyone.

Team Sergeant

TPD1280

04-08-2007, 19:28

Team Sergeant

04-09-2007, 09:46

It would appear that Murray Neal did not invent DS, but rather bought it from the company for which he was a salesman.

Neal was given money by DOD to further develop DS for use by the military. He sure didn't spend it on adhesives.

The actual originator is now released from the non-competition clause in the sale and is ready to get back in the game.

http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm

Seems someone has opened Pandora’s box and creditability is lacking.

Thank you "TPD1280" for posting that, funny how the truth is found on the internet.

I guess Murray Neal didn't spend the money the ARMY gave him fixing the problems with Dragon Skin, he must have spent it all on advertising.....

Murray Neal did NOT invent the armor, funny, from his website sure sounds like he did…….. and I quote…..

Pinnacle Armor was founded by a noted inventor and author in the field of ballistic armor, Murray Neal. Mr. Neal has relied on his combined expertise of ballistic sciences and field experience to jointly achieve a quantum leap in technology-the first flexible body armor that defeats rifle fire. Now you can wear armor that flexes and molds to the contours of your body and allows for greater coverage than a rigid 10" x 12" plate which is the typical coverage offered in current technology.
SOV™ flexible armor is completely fabricated in the USA for American Special Forces, Police Tactical Teams and approved foreign militaries.

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php

In reference to Mr Neals advertising I as a Special Forces soldier say NO American Special Forces soldiers are wearing Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin, none zero nada.

Let me say that again, No American Special Forces soldiers are wearing Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin.

I’m always amazed at those who "use" our (American Special Forces soldiers) hard earned reputation paid for in blood, to advertise their wares. Mr. Neal care to comment on the above quote taken from your website?

No one has yet told me who in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community has worn Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin body armor in harms way. Funny how internet companies, corporations etc can stretch the truth, funny how the sheeple take that sort of advertising hook line and sinker.

Interesting how defensereview.com or SFTT.org has not yet picked up this story..... yes I called both of you "internet tabloids".

Mr Crane what say you now? You still doubt the Army testing of Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin? Where are you David Crane, care to comment? (Or are you afraid of losing your paying sponsors? Oh and by the way Professionalsoldiers.com has no sponsors, no advertising; this website is entirely owned and operated by genuine American Special Forces soldiers, no one pulls our strings Mr Crane, no one.)

Dr. Gary Roberts (dentist), LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center do you have any integrity left? Again Dr. Roberts, why oh why do you leave out the "FACT" that you are a doctor of dentistry every time I see your name on the internet? (Just like on this webpage http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php )

Does anyone know that "doctor" Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center is nothing more than a DENTIST? Yet he continues to argue with bona fide Trauma Surgeons concerning terminal ballistics effects on human tissue? (I’m continually amazed at the level of human stupidity; then again Dr Dentist does hang out at the “tacticalchildrensforums.com)

Integrity and creditability is sorely lacking. How do you people look at yourselves in the mirror.

Team Sergeant

NousDefionsDoc

04-09-2007, 10:00

Interesting how defensereview.com or SFTT.org has not yet picked up this story..... yes I called both of you "internet tabloids".
Right, but I was the troop-hating son of a bitch that wanted to deny better kit to soldiers - second only to General Benedict Arnold himself in my treason.

I am still waiting for my apology from the Crew That Never Wore Body Armor In Their Lives.

NousDefionsDoc For The Truth supporting Team Sergeant For The Truth.

Team Sergeant

04-09-2007, 10:07

From Evolutionarmor.com:

The Flexible Rifle Armor Concept

There has been much publicity behind the scalar type armor made of discus shaped tiles called "Dragon Skin". Pinnacle Armor has also been at odds with the military as it pertains to why the military hasn't adopted this system.

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!

We certainly won't be the ones to say the technology isn't good, we believe it is the future, but since our non-compete agreement expired with Pinnacle Armor we have entered the market and have our own flexible armor that doesn't use dependent claims to achieve a workable tile capable of flexible operation and defeat of the A.P. rifle threats. Kodos for Pinnacle Armor and their saves with this system, but we're back and soon will enter the market with fully functional flexible rifle armor.

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.

In a few months look for our products as they leave the development stage and begin service. For more info review our products page for updates as they occur.

http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm

You know that's going to leave a mark.

evolutionarmor.com, we look forward to your products.

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant

04-10-2007, 10:13

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!http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Flex.htm

So if I read the information correctly from both Pinnacle Armor website and Evolutionarmor website the problem with Dragon Skin is the "fact" that it catastrophically fails under high heat.

In other words, let’s say you’re a cop in Phoenix, or a soldier in Baghdad. You wake up to take your 3:00 PM shift and your Pinnacle Armor DRAGON SKIN body armor was left in your car out in the hot sun. The outside temp is a mere 110 degrees (that occurs quite often during the summer in Phoenix, what say you soldiers in Baghdad? Does it get to 110 degrees there? ) but inside your car it’s almost 200 degrees.
( a study done by those that brought us dynamite http://www.tyvekcarcovers.com/english/carcover2.html )

You don your Dragon Skin armor and are promptly shot by some crazed AK wielding bad-guy. You didn’t have time to wait the 90 minutes as Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test by "dentist" Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center states below and I quote;

Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 level III armor was also tested the week of October 2, 2006 by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center. These tests were conducted for a local law enforcement agency, as a control sample a stand-alone Armored Mobility Incorporated (AMI) level III steel composite plate armor was used for comparison. 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.

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php

And you die.

Thank you “dentist” Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center (doctor of dentistry). Thank you for lending your dental expertise to the field of body armor and thank god few listen to you, defensereview.com or SFTT.org.

And LCDR Gary Roberts of the United States Naval Reserve, if you knew about this chink in the Pinnacle Armor DRAGON SKIN body armor may you rot in hell.

Team Sergeant

The Reaper

04-10-2007, 10:27

I wish that the powers that be spent more time worrying about whether the soldiers had what they needed and less about rice bowls and where they were going to go to work after retirement.

There are way too many internet experts who got everything they know from someone else, rather than strapping it on and trying it out for themselves under realistic conditions. That easily leads to being duped and spun on a product.

Guys like Karl are doing their duty and saving soldiers lives.

It is a real shame that marketing and hype are accepted as fact, and the soldiers should have to pay the price to find out it is false.

The sad fact is that the SOF procurement system works better than the Big Army's. Mainly because they are not opposed to COTS, if it is actually better, and they T&E with real troops and solicit their feedback before handing out billions of dollars developing and buying crap that some beltway bandit wanted to sell them. Look at the OICW and Land Warrior programs for great examples of how not to develop or buy soldier equipment.

Keep up the fire, Karl.

TR

Karl.Masters

04-11-2007, 08:35

TR,

Thanks, CHARLIE MIKE

Karl

Dub

04-17-2007, 19:38

I was channel surfing tonight and stopped on C-span briefly to listen to a live feed from the US House of Representatives, then I realized the Representative was talking about Dragon Skin. I tuned in.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas of Pine Bluff, Eldorado Hotsprings was talking at about 919pm tonight. He called for soldiers to be allowed to wear Dragon Skin because it was better than Interceptor armor. He claimed that the armor had been subjected to bias testing and that the company claims Dragon Skin failed no tests.

He stated that while regular US Army soldiers cannot wear the armor NSA, CIA, USSS Presidential team, and some special forces soldiers wear the armor.

...yeah i took a couple notes;)

Basically he repeated all the Dragon Skin propaganda that has been ousted here.

Just an FYI

- Dub

Sionnach

04-17-2007, 20:21

When I asked Soldiers for Truth if they were concerned about soldiers, or just anti-establishment, they accused me of "listening to Army propaganda" and made a couple of personal attacks.

When you have to result to personal attacks to defend your position, your credibility is less than zero.

FWIW, politicians don't get elected for their IQ.

Karl.Masters

04-27-2007, 12:59

Team Sergeant

04-27-2007, 18:22

In 2006, Congress asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the US Army and USMC body armor programs.

Today, the GAO released their report.

The report is entitled "Army and Marine Corps Individual Body Armor System Issues", GAO-07-662R, 26 April 2007, and is available to the public.

Link to GAO website & report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07662r.pdf

GAO found that both United States Army and United States Marine Corps body armor programs are meeting warfighter threat requirements.

The GAO visited service installations, reviewed readiness reports, and found no supply problems or shortages.

GAO had no findings or recommendations for the Department of Defense.

That's going to leave a mark.

Guess there’s no conspiracy or corruption in the way the military tests armor. Good news for our fighting men and bad news for Pinnacle Armor, defensereview.com, SFTT.org and the rest of the idiotic websites that cried conspiracy or corruption.

I guess Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin Body armor just really sucks.

I’m waiting for defensereview.com and Mr. Crane, SFTT.org, Pinnacle Armor, et al to post the fact that the US GAO is corrupt. Morons and internet tabloids, here's your koolaid.

Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center (doctor of dentistry) what do you say now? I’m sure your findings will contradict the GAO’s report?

Thank you LTC Masters for standing your ground and doing right by the men and women of the US Armed Forces.

This thread is almost done……

Mr. Crane, defensereview.com; Professionalsoldiers.com and Karl Masters are waiting for an apology.

Team Sergeant

NousDefionsDoc

04-27-2007, 19:52

Excuse me, I've got some crow to serve to some "experts". Be right back.

Team Sergeant

04-27-2007, 20:13

Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center (doctor of dentistry)

You are my next objective.

I fully intend to write the Department of the Navy about your using your Navy credentials to further a product that catastrophically failed military testing and would have placed our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen in a life threatening situation.

You are a dishonor to your branch, your nation and the Navy.

You disgust me.

I will see you removed from the Navy.

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant

04-28-2007, 10:24

I'm betting that GAO report left a mark on the Corps also.;)

There's only one reason the US military most powerful ground combatants ban an item, it doesn't work.

Good luck Mr. Murray Neal selling your snake oil to the uninformed masses.

Team Sergeant

Corps bans off-the-shelf body armor

By John Hoellwarth - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Apr 23, 2007 10:02:41 EDT

Don’t bother buying your own high-tech body armor. You can’t wear it, according to a Corps-wide message released Tuesday that mandates only government-issued “personal protective equipment.”

The policy shift puts an end to the use of store-bought vests, helmets, eye protection, ballistic plates, flame-resistant clothing, earplugs and anything else that would replace “government tested, approved and issued” gear Marines receive from their supply sections, according to MarAdmin 262/07.

Marines are still allowed to use commercially purchased protective items “in addition to those issued by the government, as long as additions do not interfere with the functionality of approved PPE,” the message states.

In March of last year, the Army issued a similar order amid growing concern among troops that military-issued body armor was inferior to the Dragon Skin vest manufactured by Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, Calif.

Murray Neal, Pinnacle’s chief executive officer, called the Corps’ policy change “disappointing” but said he anticipates Dragon Skin sales will increase as they did when the Army banned it because of public distrust over the government’s motives for banning body armor some believe to be superior.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/04/marine_bodyarmor_ban_070419/

Team Sergeant

04-28-2007, 11:22

Another tibit I found on the internet. I guess U.S. Representative Mike Ross (Dem) Arkansas's Fourth Congressional District didn't get the GAO report that is now public. Wake up Mr Ross.

Team Sergeant

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2007 Contact: Jon Niven
(202) 225-0753

Ross to Call for Full Investigation
Into Body Armor for Troops

(Washington, D.C.) U.S. Representative Mike Ross (AR-04) plans to call for a full, unbiased, external investigation to explore whether the U.S. Army is using the most effective body armor and equipment available for our troops’ protection.

The issue at hand involves the U.S. Army’s recent testing and comparison of Pinnacle Armor’s “Dragon Skin” body armor and the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) currently in use by the Armed Forces. This issue was brought to the attention of Ross by a constituent whose son is a member of Arkansas’s 39th Infantry Brigade, which was recently informed that they could be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year.

“I believe that it is our duty and obligation to supply our troops, who risk their lives on a daily basis, with the most advanced technology and resources available,” Ross said. “We owe it to all soldiers and their families to ensure that our troops are given the finest armor and equipment available. We must resolve this issue for our soldiers’ welfare and their families’ peace of mind.”

Ross is enlisting the support of his colleagues in House of Representatives by asking them to sign onto a bipartisan letter he plans to send to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. Ross said that his letter will demand that the most stringent tests possible be conducted to resolve recent reports that have led many to question whether our troops are being given access to the absolute best body armor available.

In response to equipment shortages in 2005, some troops purchased equipment at their own expense, including body armor, and Congress enacted legislation to reimburse these soldiers. Months later however, the Army issued a “Safety of Use Message,” in which they prohibited the use of any body armor except for the IBA and dispelled reports that Dragon Skin was superior to the IBA, citing that Dragon Skin has failed various tests and therefore, does not meet the Army’s requirements for Soldier Body Armor protection.

“As a result of this message by the Army, if a soldier purchases and uses any armor other than the IBA, their action will be construed as though the soldier has disobeyed a direct order and could jeopardize his or her receiving Service Group Life Insurance, if killed in combat,” Ross says in the letter that he intends to send to the Pentagon. “This concerns me greatly because our combat soldiers should not be denied the use of the latest and most effective body armor, regardless of the cost involved, if it will result in the preservation of their lives.”

Military support organizations such as “Soldiers for the Truth” along with Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor argue that Dragon Skin did not fail any tests, stating that the testing was biased and stands behind their assertions that Dragon Skin is superior to the IBA.

Pinnacle also notes that Dragon Skin has been approved and is used by the U.S. Air Force, CIA, NSA, U.S. Department of Energy officials in Iraq, the U.S. Secret Service Presidential Protection detail, some Special Forces Units, and various police departments and SWAT teams around the nation.

“I am calling for an unbiased, external investigation to determine whether the IBA is the most effective armor available and if additional testing reveals that Dragon Skin Body Armor is, in fact, superior, then the Army should provide it to our troops,” Ross said. “My only goal is to protect our troops in harm’s way by ensuring that they receive the most advanced body armor on the market today as they carry out their mission.”

-30-

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:aG_Pf_dzUIQJ:www.house.gov/list/press/ar04_ross/041607bodyarmor.html+Air+Force+Dragon+Skin+Pinnacl e+Armor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us

kgoerz

04-28-2007, 13:50

This issue was brought to the attention of Ross by a constituent whose son is a member of Arkansas’s 39th Infantry Brigade, which was recently informed that they could be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year.

Is there any way to know who this constituent is, has he donated to the Ross campaign before and if so, the amount of money donated. More power to him for asking. besides truly being concerned that our troops have the best equipment out there. Is there any other reason he is concerned for the well being of Soldiers? Ill check out his Home Page if he has one.

He has done the Military visiting circuit. He has recognized a couple of KIA Soldiers from AR on the floor. He is for the war resolution with a pull out date. Wouldn't of voted for the war if he knew then what he knows today, never heard that before. States we need to pull out once Iraq security forces are trained up and can take over, thats what we are trying to do last time I checked. But agrees to having a withdrawal date????

The Reaper

04-28-2007, 14:58

He has done the Military visiting circuit. He has recognized a couple of KIA Soldiers from AR on the floor. He is for the war resolution with a pull out date. Wouldn't of voted for the war if he knew then what he knows today, never heard that before. States we need to pull out once Iraq security forces are trained up and can take over, thats what we are trying to do last time I checked. But agrees to having a withdrawal date????

He is trying to have it both ways.

He supports the troops, and the Dems national cut and run policy at the same time.

Typical.:rolleyes:

TR

Karl.Masters

04-28-2007, 16:26

Is there any way to know who this constituent is?

Representative Ross stated on the floor that his constituent, Mr. Grant, is a "member of SFTT".

The Associated Press State & Local Wire
April 17, 2007 Tuesday 6:27 AM GMT

Arkansas man leads charge for best body armor for soldiers

BYLINE: By JILL ZEMAN, Associated Press Writer
SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL
LENGTH: 443 words
DATELINE: LITTLE ROCK

An Arkansas man is leading a charge for a congressional investigation on whether the U.S. military is using the best available body armor, saying he wants the best possible protection for his 20-year-old son about to serve a second tour of duty in Iraq.

John Grant of Pearcy has engaged the help of U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who said he plans to call for the investigation.

"We owe it to all soldiers and their families to ensure that our troops are given the finest armor and equipment available. We must resolve this issue for our soldiers' welfare and their families' peace of mind," Ross said.

Ross said he planned to submit a letter to military officials, asking for more tests on the Dragon Skin armor and the Interceptor Body Armor.

Grant said his son, Sgt. John Tyler Grant, joined the Arkansas National Guard at age 17 and is a dedicated soldier who's looking at a career in the military. He said his son "loves the Guard."

"I think it's unconscionable that they haven't given the troops the armor they deserve," Grant said.

Grant began researching body armor in January, after watching a cable television program that compared one type of body armor against that used by the Army, Interceptor Body Armor.

The Army has banned soldiers from wearing the Dragon Skin armor that Grant prefers. Dragon Skin has not yet passed Army testing, and Grant says it can provide better protection because it is more flexible than the armor currently in use.

"When you have the technology available to better protect the soldiers and (military officials) choose not to use it, it's a criminal act," Grant said Monday. "There are soldiers that died that didn't have to die. Soldiers die in war, but we've got to give them the best chance to live."

Some troops purchased their own body armor after equipment shortages in 2005, and Congress enacted legislation to reimburse them. But months later the Army issued a "Safety of Use Message" that banned all body armor except the Interceptor armor.

"This concerns me greatly because our combat soldiers should not be denied the use of the latest and most effective body armor, regardless of the cost involved, if it will result in the preservation of their lives," Ross' letter said.

The Army has said armor bought commercially is either untested or inadequate. The Army has said it wants to buy the best protective gear possible, including the Dragon Skin vest, if the gear passes testing.

"And if someone finds the holy grail (of body armor), then we'll be right there to back up the dump truck and buy it," Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, the Army secretary's deputy assistant for acquisition and systems management, said last spring.

The Reaper

04-28-2007, 16:46

Does Mr. Grant own and operate a certified armor testing facility, and if not, what is the basis for his expertise and comments? SFTT assclown.

Maybe he should have his Congressman inquire into what happened to the 100 MPG carburetor as well. And where is Elvis and the UFOs? :rolleyes:

TR

Pete

04-28-2007, 17:01

Does Mr. Grant own and operate a certified armor testing facility.....TR

No but he did watch a piece on the Discovery Channel. I guess that makes him an expert in his own mind.

Pete

Team Sergeant

04-28-2007, 19:45

No but he did watch a piece on the Discovery Channel. I guess that makes him an expert in his own mind.

Pete

There's stupid and then there's "Discovery Channel" stupid.;)

If it's on TV it must be true.

TS

VMI_Marine

05-02-2007, 16:14

"When you have the technology available to better protect the soldiers and (military officials) choose not to use it, it's a criminal act," Grant said Monday. "There are soldiers that died that didn't have to die. Soldiers die in war, but we've got to give them the best chance to live."

Typical bullshit hyperbole. Cite me one example of a Soldier or Marine that died from SAF who would have been saved by Dragon Skin's "superior" attributes.

LTC Masters, correct me if I am wrong, but DS has not been proven to defeat 7.62X54R API. I have been unable to find anything on the net discussing tests on DS involving anything more powerful than 7.62X39 mild steel core.

I've kind of thrown my hat in the ring (http://op-for.com/2007/04/marine_corps_publishes_new_pol.html) over on OPFOR. I also plan to address it at the MilBlog conference in Arlington this weekend.

Karl.Masters

05-02-2007, 18:07

proven to defeat 7.62X54R API.

.....after immersion in saltwater, a soak in diesel fuel, a soak in motor oil, 6 hours at 160 deg F, temp cycled between -25 deg F and 120 deg F, and cold soaked to -60 deg F for 6 hours.

Let's not forget the impact/drop test and the flame/melt drip test.

Armor conditioned to these standards must stop the specified AP threats 100% of the time.

The number of complete penetrations we are looking for after these tests is ZERO.

And yes, if you can pass these tests, we will accept it from the lowest bidder:D

There is more to Army body armor testing than what you might see on the Discovery Channel.

Karl

VMI_Marine

05-03-2007, 08:11

How about this dumbass?

Now that the Corps has banned off-the-shelf gear as well, Staff Sgt. Taylor Cobb, the Corporals Course curriculum coordinator at Training and Education Command in Quantico, Va., said he’ll buy “a triple large set of cammies” and wear his Dragon Skin armor underneath if he deploys to a combat zone.

“I have the utmost confidence in that piece of gear,” he said.

After spending $2,000 on his Dragon Skin armor, Cobb placed it on a dummy and shot it with a .45-caliber pistol. The armor worked as advertised, so he said he put it on and — get this — shot himself in the stomach on purpose.

“It left a pretty nice bruise, but it didn’t even break the skin,” he said. “It works. But I wouldn’t try that with the [Modular Tactical Vest] the Corps gives. I’m not that trusting.”

The Reaper

05-03-2007, 09:44

How about this dumbass?

Darwin was right.

He should have shot himself in the nuts, just to complete the analogy.

TR

Team Sergeant

05-03-2007, 10:00

kgoerz

05-03-2007, 12:30

.....after immersion in saltwater, a soak in diesel fuel, a soak in motor oil, 6 hours at 160 deg F, temp cycled between -25 deg F and 120 deg F, and cold soaked to -60 deg F for 6 hours.

Let's not forget the impact/drop test and the flame/melt drip test.

Armor conditioned to these standards must stop the specified AP threats 100% of the time.

The number of complete penetrations we are looking for after these tests is ZERO.

And yes, if you can pass these tests, we will accept it from the lowest bidder:D

There is more to Army body armor testing than what you might see on the Discovery Channel.

Karl
Do what the HRT did if it breaks down because of bad weather

Maybe everyone could have two sets of DS issued. The real world mission set and the training set. The FBI HRT had two sets for every cop. One set hung in a climate controlled room. This set was only used for real call outs. This preserved the Armor, so they thought. This was around 1992, right after Ruby Ridg.
The sniper team I was working with were the ones with eyes on when the one member shot that lady. They were very proud of that. Photos hanging on the walls. High speed presentation with vidio and all. They still had that post mission high. Month later I saw them all on CNN with their right hands in the air, not looking to happy.
Ok back to body Armor, I thought it was the most bazaar thing I ever saw. Ill admit it seemed kind of high speed to me at the time. The other set was training only but exactly the same. The set for real missions was also used for demonstrations. It was cleaner. Two of everything, pouches, Flex Ties, knives....etc
I didn't know what to say when they showed me this. Only thing I can come up with today is, they just had bad info or the person who ordered their Armor was an idiot. They might of been stuck with defective Armor. That broke down to easy but they had a whole lot of it. So this was how they used it instead of throwing it away.
But with their funding I highly doubt this. I really think some Lab Geek or Dentist told them to do it. Just misinformed like a lot of us at one time or another. Geek probably had stock in the company and figured out how to double the sales:D I wish I remembered what type it was.
I have asked former HRT members who were there close to that time frame. The three I have asked said they don't remember doing this "WE NEVER DID THAT, your confused" I know I'm not crazy because I confirmed my memory is correct by asking a former team member who was there with me. I also remember returning to Pananma and telling people about this practice in the AAR. Back then most people didn't know a whole lot about ballistic plates. Like me most thought this was kind of high speed. But not practical for our mission.

Peregrino

05-03-2007, 13:06

Do what the HRT did if it breaks down because of bad weather

That way when they get shot in a training accident (far more likely than anything happening on a callout) they can say "I've no idea why it failed; it's the same as our 'real world' kit". :rolleyes:

Personally, I hated using body armor "of an unknown provenance". If it takes a hit or an unusual impact, replace it. That's cheap insurance. Do life cycle replacements in any event. I was always more worried about abuse, (something very likely with "training" equipment - because of mindset issues) e.g. people throwing the vest (with plates installed) off the back of vehicles or down from the lofts in the team rooms, than I was cosmetics and fair wear & tear. (How often have we seen people throw helmets?) Nothing like carelessness to compromise the effectiveness of a ceramic plate. Don't know if that ever was an issue (Karl?), but I do know we couldn't inspect the plates for compromise if they had been abused.

Can't believe that idiot would spend $2,000 of his own money on armor, shoot it, and still expect to use it afterwards. WTF was he thinking? Can any of you Marines/Marine sympathizers explain this for the rest of us? Certainly seems to reinforce a negative "jarhead" stereotype.

Peregrino

Karl.Masters

05-04-2007, 10:26

Personally, I hated using body armor "of an unknown provenance". If it takes a hit or an unusual impact, replace it. That's cheap insurance. Do life cycle replacements in any event.
Peregrino,

Army policy is to replace a plate that has been hit or damaged. If the plate is hit, turn it in and get a new one. Serviceability inspection procedures for the inserts are in the IBA user manual and in the clothing and individual equipment TM 10-8400-203-23:

"Inspection. (Army) Inspect the overall condition of the SAPI. (Marine Corps) Inspect the overall condition of the SAPI prior to each field evolution and once per day during field use. Check for rips or tears, surface cracks in the plate itself, or if the plate flexes and crunching sounds can be heard, or loose pieces can be heard inside plate when it is shaken."

And if you are in the box and are wearing black plates, you're wrong. Get the green ones.

I was always more worried about abuse, (something very likely with "training" equipment - because of mindset issues) e.g. people throwing the vest (with plates installed) off the back of vehicles or down from the lofts in the team rooms, than I was cosmetics and fair wear & tear. (How often have we seen people throw helmets?) Nothing like carelessness to compromise the effectiveness of a ceramic plate. Don't know if that ever was an issue (Karl?), but I do know we couldn't inspect the plates for compromise if they had been abused.

Abuse is an issue. "Take care of your gear and it will take care of you" has never been more true. We could always issue steel plates for those who like to throw their kit around. What's a few extra pounds....This works well in most Eastern Bloc Armies, BTW, as I learned in Belgrade a couple years ago when I was checking out how the rest of the world builds body armor. Cheaper too.

What we are doing instead is continuing to issue the high dollar lightweight plates and using a mobile shelter with a digital x-ray inspection system to periodically inspect serviceability via non-destructive testing of the plates. We brought it to the FBNC post CIF in January and ran it through an operational assessment, testing a sample of 2,000 plates in the CIF. System is GTG and we are doing a demo at Fort Drum this summer when 10th Mountain elements rotate home. Our objectives are to provide a quick serviceability inspection method for the warfighter and calculate a combat consumption planning factor for the ESAPI inserts. We are working with the boys in the box to do an in-theater evaluation ASAP. SOCOM and Picatinny Arsenal helped get us up to speed on this, both organizations have some NDE experts that have considerable experience in this area. Thanks brothers-

Can't believe that idiot would spend $2,000 of his own money on armor, shoot it, and still expect to use it afterwards. WTF was he thinking? Can any of you Marines/Marine sympathizers explain this for the rest of us? Certainly seems to reinforce a negative "jarhead" stereotype.

He's been watching way too much TV lately-probably Discovery Channel.

Hope his CO can keep this guy away from the hand grenade range.....

Peregrino

05-04-2007, 10:52

Snaquebite

05-04-2007, 16:18

And if you are in the box and are wearing black plates, you're wrong. Get the green ones.

Can you educate me (and maybe others) on the difference?
Is this strictly a gov't issue plate difference?

Karl.Masters

05-04-2007, 17:13

Can you educate me (and maybe others) on the difference?
Is this strictly a gov't issue plate difference?

Roger, strictly a government issue plate difference.

US Army issue SAPI (7.62 ball protection) are black, US Army issue ESAPI (7.62 AP protection) are green.

Karl.Masters

05-04-2007, 18:54

Karl - IIRC the operator inspection proceedures you cite are the same thing we had 5-6 years ago. Thanks for filling me/us in on the ND test capability. That's heartening news. Were you satisfied with the pass/fail rate for the 2000 plates tested at Bragg? Peregrino

Roger-we are working to upgrade to a more reliable inspection procedure than is in the user manual & TM. Was extremely satisfied with the P/F rate and most importantly, the correlation between the machine and the manual image check. BTW-the lads get brand new green plates on their deployment issue. Life cycle management is our objective, tracking each plate through DOD's unique item identification (UID) program that is being implemented in all the services now. Key is tracking consumption by size to get "smart sustainment" via asset visibility.

Dub

05-17-2007, 20:19

FYI: The NBC Nightly News had just a 'wonderful' and quite long segment tonight bashing Interceptor armor and promoting the hell out of Dragon Skin.

Seemed to be a nice shot from the liberals at the Army for (in their opinion) sending our troops in without top notch gear.

Interestingly though they had the creator of Interceptor on who stated that if he was sent to Iraq tommorow he would definitely wear Dragon Skin.

-Dub

Team Sergeant

05-17-2007, 22:27

Team Sergeant

05-20-2007, 09:19

Dr. Gary Roberts DDS , (In laymen terms that's a dentist).

Your time is almost up.

The truth is about to be released and then I'm going to write a few letters to the Dept of the Navy as to why a LCDR, USNR and dentist is using Navy credentials to further a product that catastrophically failed military and to why a NAVY dentist is conducting armor testing in the first place?

And another question; where did all the data go that was on Pinnacle Armor's website, you know the testing you conducted, its now GONE? (well about 80%-90% is now gone)

You have still not explained WHY you left out your "medical speciality" or in other words your doctoral speciality, (DDS= Dentist) when you tested pinnacle armor's body armor. WOW, to a layperson that might be EXTREMELY MISLEADING. (See below, no DDS anywhere to be found.)

(You are amusing, especially when arguing with real Trauma Surgeons.;))

You might want to prepare for questions from your superiors concerning your body armor testing and web postings. You should be happy the military repealed the sedition act years ago.

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Would someone let me know just what NAVAL RESERVE unit Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center is assigned to? Thank you.

Team Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Special Forces (ret)

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php

Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test by Dr. Gary Roberts : October 10, 2006
Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center
Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 level III armor was also tested the week of October 2, 2006 by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center. These tests were conducted for a local law enforcement agency, as a control sample a stand-alone Armored Mobility Incorporated (AMI) level III steel composite plate armor was used for comparison. 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. The problems associated with the use of inelastic clay backing material have been well documented; as such, the armor was secured to a life-size curvilinear torso replica made of Perma-Gel. Each armor system was shot a minimum of 20 times with five shots of each ammunition type fired against each armor system -- one 90 degree perpendicular shot, two shots at 60 degrees obliquity, and two shots at 30 degrees obliquity, using each of the following loads fired at a distance of 10 feet:

continued;

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20061005-pr.php

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

05-22-2007, 10:01

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.

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

Team Sergeant

05-22-2007, 10:03

Army Defends Body Armor Quality
May 22, 2007
BY Sgt. Sara Wood

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, May 22, 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," 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., Brig. Gen. 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, Brig. Gen. 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, Brig. Gen. 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.

Brig. Gen. 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 to the extra large Dragon Skin vests, weigh 28 pounds and are 1.3 inches thick.

"Bottom line is it does not meet Army standards," the general said of the Pinnacle body armor.

Brig. Gen. 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, Brig. Gen. 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 all Soldiers use Interceptor body armor, which has passed the same tests the Pinnacle armor failed, Brig. Gen. 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.

Brig. Gen. 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.

(Sgt. Sara Wood serves with American Forces Press Service.)

http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3292-army-defends-body-armor-quality/

Team Sergeant

05-22-2007, 10:05

Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best
May 22, 2007
BY Debi Dawson

After enduring a year of debate on the supremacy of its Interceptor Body Armor in relative silence, the Army is going public to put to rest any doubts that IBA is the best available and that it has out-performed other armor in rigorous testing.

According to Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown, Program Executive Officer Soldier, the Army had been reluctant to release test results that could inform the enemy of U.S. capabilities. "Right now, we believe it's critical that our Soldiers have confidence in their equipment and that their families know force protection is the Army's number one priority," Brown said. "So it's a balancing act. We have been freed to discuss limited data on body armor testing."

"We provide our Soldiers the best body armor available, bar none. It is live-fire tested and proven in combat," Brown said.

Driving the decision to release May 2006 test data is an assertion by Pinnacle Armor Inc. of unfair treatment. Pinnacle, based in Fresno, Calif., is the manufacturer of Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor, which Brown said failed "catastrophically" when it was tested by HB White Labs in Street, Md., one of two labs in the nation certified by the National Institute of Justice.

"It failed to stop 13 of 48 [first- or second-round] test shots," Brown said of the testing at H.P. White. "The CEO and vice president of Pinnacle witnessed it. One bullet penetration is cause for failure to meet the Army's standard."

Pinnacle's Dragon Skin SOV3000 body armor was subject to the same fair and independent testing, in a variety of environmental conditions, as products from the six producers of the Army's current body armor. All six of the current producers passed every test with zero failures, which is the standard. In addition to failing ballistic testing, Dragon Skin is also operationally unsuitable because of its greater weight and bulk and compared with the Army's body armor. Depending on size, Pinnacle is 46% to 70% heavier than the current IBA. "We are trying to make the armor lighter, not heavier," Brown said.

Brown said, "We never stop trying to make our body armor and other gear even better. We welcome innovative ideas that offer even better protection, and we will continue to evaluate all viable approaches in open competition and with fair testing that ensures the highest standards."

IBA, the newest generation of multiple-threat body protection, features a modular design with pieces that work together to provide a personal shield against bullets and fragments, including those from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Protective inserts can withstand multiple small-arms hits. Throat and groin protectors can be attached, and recent upgrades add protection to the upper arm and underarm areas. The overall design greatly reduces the number and severity of wounds.

PEO Soldier designs, produces and fields virtually everything that the American Soldier wears or carries. The organization's Soldier-as-a-System approach ensures that equipment works in an integrated manner, thus preparing our troops for peak performance.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3298-army-defends-interceptor-body-armor-as-the-best-for-the-best/

Team Sergeant

05-23-2007, 07:20

Go here (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168953#post168953) to discuss The Reapers article.

All comments concerning the Reapers article were moved to the general discussions forum.;)

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:05

BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY CUCOLO (chief, Army Public Affairs): Good afternoon, everybody. Brigadier General Tony Cucolo, chief of public affairs, United States Army.

And this afternoon we've got an Army press briefing all about body armor. Now, why are we doing that? Well, primarily because news reports last Thursday, Sunday evening -- between last Thursday and, quite frankly, this morning, have caused us to be concerned about the confidence that soldiers' families, parents, spouses might have in the body armor that their soldiers are wearing in combat right now.

And so we thought it important to brief you on facts, give you some context, clarify any issues that you might have with your questions. And to do that today, I've got Brigadier General Mark Brown. He is our Program Executive Office Soldier boss. He's the boss of Individual Soldier Kit for the United States Army. And he has brought a team of experts from his office with him. And without further ado, I'd like to turn the podium over to General Mark Brown.

GEN. BROWN: Thank you, Tony.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you here this morning to this briefing. I'm very glad that you took the time to be here because we would like to get ground truth out there in the wake of recent reports that have been in the media.

The first thing I'd like to do in my statement, before I throw it open to questions, is introduce you to some folks that I've brought with me, some subject matter experts, if you will. And you'll have access to them as we go along.

First I'd like to introduce you to the program manager for soldier equipment, Colonel John McGuiness. He's an airborne Ranger infantryman, Desert Storm -- I mean OIF veteran.

He has also got a master's degree in operations research from the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Second, I'd like to introduce you to Karl Masters, my chief engineer and test director. He is a retired lieutenant colonel of 21 years, special operator, Airborne Ranger jump master, master's degree in engineering from George Washington University in engineering management.

Third, I would like to introduce you to my sergeant major, works directly for me, Sergeant Major Thomas Coleman. Four combat tours, the first in Operation Just Cause in Panama, the second in Desert Storm, and two in Iraq, one with the 82nd Airborne and one with the 101st Air Assault, most recently returned from the 101st Air Assault. In Iraq he is an Airborne Ranger infantryman, CIB with a star.

They are my subject matter experts and they advise me on all matters of soldier equipment.

The first thing I'd like to do is get the point out that force protection is the number-one priority of the U.S. Army. We value our soldiers very highly and we do everything we can do to ensure they have the finest in force protection as they go into the battle. Force protection is not merely a matter of body armor. It is a matter of overlapping protective measures that we take, and the body armor is one component of that that must work in conjunction with every other component that we issue that soldier as they go downrange.

The four points I would like to make to you, if I were to say that you could take away four key points today, is number one, our soldiers and Marines today have the best body armor in the world bar none. It is live-fire tested and it is proven in combat. As a matter of fact, recent news clips on Thursday, Friday and Sunday opened up with a soldier being shot by a jihadist. That soldier was knocked down from the force of the impact and he got up and maneuvered and returned fire on the enemy. That body armor he was wearing was Interceptor body armor, the Army's current body armor.

Number two, I have more than one set of body armor for every soldier in theater. Number three, I have all the money and all the leadership support I need to get body armor and to get improvements to body armor.

Number four, although we are highly confident that we have the best body armor in the world bar none, we are never satisfied with the status quo and we are always looking for the next best thing. And to borrow a phrase from Lee Iacocca, if there's something better out there, we're going to buy it -- after we've live-fired tested it.

As a matter of fact, I have ongoing programs to ensure that that happens. Three times a year at least, we have a soldier protection demo at Fort Benning, Georgia, under the auspices of the U.S. Army Infantry Center. I have an up and running and funded soldier enhancement program that can either improve existing Army products or off-the-shelf products to meet our requirements, and we are in a constant dialogue with industry to get that next best thing.

So in conclusion before I throw it open for your questions, I would say that this is not just a matter of debate for us; this is personal. Sergeant Major Coleman has a brother that is getting ready to deploy into Iraq. My director of Administration and Personnel has a son in Iraq. My director of the Rapid Equipping Force has a son that is headed into Iraq. We take this personally. In fact, one- third of the general officers in the United States Army have either a son or a daughter either in theater today or has been to theater, so it is a matter of great import to us, and it is our number one priority and it is robustly funded.

So without further ado, I will move over and I will show you some facts and figures to make the point. If you'd flip to the first chart.

This is the actual test X-ray prior to live-fire test of the Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-3000 Body Armor Vest. And you'll see the configuration of this -- much like the news report said, is chain mail.

Now, body armor is about stopping the bullet, but it's not just about stopping the bullet. You'll see the way this configuration is there are actually three separate areas of protecting overlay. This white area here is single-disc coverage -- one disc, like this. This gray area is dual-disc coverage, like a Venn diagram. This dark area here is triple-disc coverage. So what you see -- the laws of probability and statistics will take hold in the live-fire test. There is probably a 50 percent probability of impact in a single-disc coverage area. This is very important information, and you will see why in just a moment.

Chart.

Okay. This is the live-fire first article test sequence that we put Pinnacle SOV-3000 Body Armor through.

It's the exact same test protocol that we put every single body armor producer through that is in the employ of the U.S. Army today.

I will say up front that all six of the body armor producers of the U.S. Army in their employ passed this live-fire test protocol with zero failures. Zero failures is the correct answer. One failure is sudden death and you lose the game.

So what we do is we do a configuration analysis of the test article; we receive the vests; we establish accountability, storage and security; we label, weigh, measure the dimensions, x-ray and photograph the test article. Then, we move into the ballistic testing, and I'll get into the exact test protocol in a moment. But it is a series of events not unlike a decathlon in the Olympics. It's a multi-event test. We start off with the most difficult, most rigorous event first, because if we can induce a failure early on, that means that we don't have to spend $250,000 on the test because one failure, one penetration, you fail the test.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:06

We also conduct harsh environment tests. Downtown Baghdad and 10,000 feet in Afghanistan is not a room temperature war. Our equipment has to stand up to the harshest of conditions not only in use by the soldier, but in deployment -- when you put it in the belly of an aircraft at 120 degrees in Nevada and then fly up to 30,000 or 40,000 feet where it's minus 60 degrees and then land back in Baghdad again where it's 125 or 130 degrees in the street. So the structural integrity of the product must hold up to that harsh environmental testing. We also do durability and drop tests, such as soldiers diving and hitting the ground when they come under fire, to make sure that that product holds up under those conditions. And then, we record and analyze the results.

Next, please.

This is just a cartoon view of how we go through the configuration analysis, and we do this hand in hand with the CEO and the vice president of Pinnacle. We received delivery of the box, interviewed them, tag, tally and weighed them, and then we measure, weight, photograph and put them on a scale and x-ray them. Then we send them into appropriate storage or conditioning prior to environmental testing, and then we analyze, correlate and print all the measurements and x-ray the vests both before and after the live- fire test.

Chart, please.

This is the test protocol.

It is a three-day test event. These particular tests in yellow are very expensive test protocols, so we defer them to the end of the test to see if the test article will pass the test, because it may not be necessary to spend the dollars to conduct that part of the test if the vest has already failed.

It's just like if you were taking an exam in high school, and the max score on the exam was 100 and you already missed 51, there is no way that you can pass the test. It's mathematically and physically impossible. Also, these two test protocols are less rigorous than the initial protocols. And so if it can pass the highly rigorous test protocol, it is -- then we can go on to the less rigorous protocol. But the bottom line is, there were 30 vests tested, 30 vests per test, 27 tested and three were control items. Chart, please.

Okay, as I said, body armor is about stopping the bullet, but it's not just about stopping the bullet. It has to do area-of- coverage; it has to be compliant with the needs of human factors engineering and soldier usability. And therefore it's more than just stopping the bullet.

What you see here is the actual Pinnacle body armor, SOV-3000, worn on the same soldier as the interceptor body armor. In the test we rationalized a size extra-large to a size large to get a similar area of coverage. The Pinnacle-size body armors actually run a bit small, and therefore the most equal comparison is between these two.

And you can see, the weight of the SOV-3000 is 47-and-a-half pounds. The weight of the interceptor body armor is 28 pounds. That is before auxiliary protection, deltoid protection, groin protection and throat protection.

Thickness is also a key issue, because many soldiers fight mounted. They fight in armored vehicles, and the hatches of those vehicles are designed and they are inflexible. When soldiers have to get in and out of those vehicle hatches, it's a matter of great importance. So the fact that Pinnacle is 1.7 inches to 1.9 inches thicker as related to 1.3 inches thick for interceptor body armor, that makes a big difference.

The reason for the range in here is the configuration of those disks. When they're laying flat, they're like that. But when they get curved on the soldier's body, they open up like that.

Bottom line coverage area -- because we chose a Pinnacle SOV- 3000, we actually advantaged Pinnacle in the test to provide them greater area of coverage than we did the interceptor body armor.

Had we chosen a large Pinnacle, SOV-3000, the coverage area would have been less than the large Interceptor body armor.

To make this point, we have an actual Interceptor body armor on this scale and an actual Pinnacle SOV-3000 body armor on this scale. If you would like to come up and inspect those after the briefing, you're welcome to do so, but I think you'll find the weights are fairly accurate.

Chart, please.

Q Is that the large and the extra-large?

GEN. BROWN: This is the large, this is the extra-large. Okay.

The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps do not fight room- temperature wars. They fight in very harsh places -- Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. Nonetheless, the very first test we run through is an ambient room temperature live-fire test. And we have a specific firing pattern protocol that we go through.

As you see, we x-rayed the Pinnacle SOV-3000 prior to the live fire test. Then we took shots at the front -- there's two shots at the front, two shots at each side and two shots at the back. What you see is in the front, at room temperature, the second shot did a complete penetration, one round on one disc. At that point Pinnacle had failed the test. However, in the interest of fairness and giving the contractor a good shake, we decided to proceed on and we tested it under other conditions.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:06

Chart, please.

Okay. Now, I've talked about environmental testing. Soldiers and Marines work around motor oil, they work around diesel, they work in hot conditions, they work in high-altitude conditions and others. This is an example of an environmental live-fire test protocol. What we do is we take the Pinnacle SOV-3000 body armor and we soak it in motor oil for about two hours. Let's say the soldier had been in a fight and the vehicle took a round and motor oil spewed everywhere and soaked the vest. Then we take it out and we let it dry, drip dry. Then we fire. And you see the second shot on the front -- all the shot protocols are the same, two shots at front, two shots at the side -- at each side, two shots in the rear. the second shot made a complete penetration of the front, and the second shot made a complete penetration in the back.

Chart, please.

This is a clip of the actual test protocol, video clip, a still shot from that.

We have 24 hours of video from five different camera angles of every single test shot.

This individual is the CEO of Pinnacle Corporation. He observed every single test shot and observed every test. You will note he is peering into the penetration that was made by the test shot, which is right here. You will note here, he is viewing the penetration to see if it went all the way through the test stand, because it took them a good 20 minutes or so to dig the round out; that's how deep the round penetrated. And we actually -- this is the actual test stand up close. You'll note that we marked it, tagged it, recorded it, and this is the penetrating shot right there. It went so deep it took them quite a bit of time to dig that round out for recovery. We have the video, and we're going to show that to you.

Chart, please. (To staff.) Keep that up, please. Yeah, keep that up. Roll the video, please.

This is an employee of H.P. White Laboratories, one of two National Institutes of Justice certified laboratories in the United States. We've set it up on the test stand. This is the timing. This is the CEO of Pinnacle; you see he's checking the test mount to make sure that the test is not being rigged in any way. There is the shot. This is real time here.

Now there's the employees of H.P. White Laboratories, they're turning around the test stand, and they're going to recover the test article. You see the damage that was done. It matches up with the photo here. The employees of H.P. White are measuring and recording the data. We then do photographic recording of the data. That is the CEO of Pinnacle observing the entire protocol.

Q Has H.P. White released their report on this test?

GEN. BROWN: I'll take your questions when I'm done briefing.

There he is observing it again. He's trying to figure out how deep the bullet went in, and you'll see the employees trying to dig it out.

Q What medium is that?

Do you -- I mean, is that clay or --

GEN. BROWN: That's clay, ballistic clay -- which is much tougher than the human body. You see him peering around behind to see if it had gone all the way through.

Again, I will remind you, we have that type of video and that type of record for every single one of the shots that was taken -- 24 hours of video in all from five different camera angles.

Chart, please.

Okay. Temperature cycle is very important, and I already alluded to it. If you are deploying from the Fort Polk area of Louisiana, where it gets quite hot, and you're loading your body armor, you don't wear the body armor on the aircraft. You load the body armor in the belly of the aircraft, and then you go up to 30,000 or 40,000 feet for transit to Baghdad or Fallujah or wherever you're headed.

It's 110 (degrees), 120 (degrees) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, and then when you get up to altitude, it's minus 25 (degrees), and then when you land back down in Baghdad or Kandahar, it's 120 degrees. So what happens is that puts very much of a stress and strain on the product. This was an X-ray of the product prior to that environmental temperature cycling test. This is what it looked like after that cycle. As you see -- if you get a chance to come up here afterwards, each one of these discs has some glue, some adhesive; that temperature cycle and that high temperature and that low temperature play havoc on that adhesive, causing it to delaminate and fall to the bottom of the vest, much like a roll of quarters or a roll of nickels. When that happens, it leaves voids in the armor protection. Again, we didn't see that prior to taking the shot, because the test protocol is you X- ray, you shoot, you re-X-ray. The back shot, both first and second rounds, were complete penetrations, obviously because there was nothing there. That area covers vital organs -- spine, heart, aortic arch, others -- so it failed.

Chart.

Okay. Background. So we conducted this test, which was just the latest in a series of tests from 16 to 19 May, and I'd like to give you some time relevance here. I took over as the program executive officer for soldier on 15 May 2006. We started the test on 16 May; we conducted it through 19 May. Mr. Masters was the test director; the program manager at the time called me and said, "General, Pinnacle has failed 13 of 48 shots so far. Do you want me to continue with the test?" I said, "What is the actual pass-fail ratio?"

He said, "Sir, if they get one penetration, they fail the test." I said, "And you've already let them do it 13 times?" And he said, "Yes." I said, "Terminate the test." He terminated the test.

Since the inception of the Interceptor body armor program in 1999, Pinnacle has never once responded to a full and open competition. They have never gone head-to-head with other producers that have passed that test protocol with zero penetration. We currently have an ongoing full and open competition. They have not responded to that, to our knowledge, at this point either.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:07

Q Just to be clear, the Interceptor body armor that you have got has never failed any of these tests?

GEN. BROWN: Not in the first article test. We would have a lot that would fail. We test each lot, and if the lot failed, we go back and we say, "What happened? Was it a production mistake, a technical mistake?" And then we'd find out why it failed. But the ones that the soldiers have all passed the first article test.

We also tested the Interceptor body armor using the enhanced small-arms protective inserts and the enhanced side ballistic inserts to the first article test protocol, which I've gone through. And then i talked about all the environmental testing. We've got the first shot at ambient room temperature, as i told you earlier.

Chart, please.

Pinnacle SOV-3000 Level IV Dragon Skin suffered catastrophic failure of the ceramic disc adhesive between minus-60 below and 120 degrees and 160 degrees. Minus-60 degrees below are temperatures we experience at Camp Ripley, Minnesota; Alaska; Korea; and at 10,000 feet in Afghanistan, and other places. One hundred twenty degrees, we can experience that nearly in Washington, D.C., but certainly at places like Phoenix in the National Training Center, not to mention Baghdad.

The design is sensitive to extreme temperatures and failed to maintain ballistic integrity at temperatures below ambient in OIF. The failure mode caused the disc to delaminate and accumulate in the lower portion of the armored vest and expose the vital organs. Thirteen first or second shots, it failed four of eight initial subtests with the threat baseline, which is 7.62 by 63 millimeter armor-piercing AP M2 ammunition.

The bottom line is it does not meet Army standards.

Chart, please.

We tested eight vests, four failed, 13 penetrating shots out of 48.

Now, in addition to the weight test, I have the actual test articles. This is the test article that went through the temperature cycle test. And you can see the red rods where they were penetrated.

Q Could you just point it up so that we could see it on camera with the pointer? I mean, can you physically go over and point to it so we can just see what you're talking about?

GEN. BROWN: The actual penetration. This is the ambient.

Okay, the one question I wanted to clarify before I throw it open for your questions is, the question was: Why did we issue a Safety of Use Message in March of `06 prior to this test?

Well, as I said in my chronology, I took over as PEO Soldier in -- on 15 May 2006. We started conducting this test on 16 May 2006. My frame of reference was this test. The Safety of Use Message was issued in March of `06 prior to my arrival by my predecessor, Brigadier General James Moran, and approved by Major General Mike Laniers (sp), and put out in theater by the combatant commander of Central Command. The basis for issuing that Safety of Use Message was a series of limited developmental tests leading up to the Safety of Use Message, and I will tell you what they were.

Dragon Skin failed ballistic testing in May `04 at H.P. White Laboratories. We encouraged Dragon Skin to go back to the drawing board and try to solve their problems because we're very interested in these types of armors, we're very interested in these flexible armors. If we can get the problems shaken out of them, we think they offer great potential. That potential has not yet been realized.

Later, from July to December of `05, Army Test and Evaluation Command conducted another developmental test; again the results were inconclusive. And then, in February of `06, Dragon Skin failed an Air Force ballistic test. At that time, we started receiving reports that soldiers and families were starting to buy Dragon Skin with their own money and shipping it into theater, and we wanted to ensure that our soldiers had the best protection available. Therefore, my predecessor issued the Safety of Use Message up the chain of command and it was approved.

And I would ask you to think for a moment -- is the battlefield the right place to live-fire test a piece of equipment? Of course we would issue a Safety of Use Message before we sent the test results and (took ?) down the test results because we didn't know how it was going to perform. We don't give something to a soldier unless we know exactly how it's going to perform, and that's the purpose of the test program.

So I think I've pretty much clarified why we did what we did, and you see the actual test articles.

The bottom line, before I turn it over to you for your questions, this is a 7.62mm x 63mm APM2 round. At the end of the day, this one disc of a Pinnacle SOV-3000 vest has to stop this round. It didn't 13 times.

And I will -- at this point I'll turn it over for your questions.

Yes, Jamie?

Q You've made a very compelling case here about why this armor doesn't meet the standard. And you talked to the reporter who did this story, right?

GEN. BROWN: Yes, I did.

Q And presumably, you would have laid -- did you lay out all of this --

GEN. BROWN: Yes, we did.

Q So why do you think that the reporter was unconvinced by what appears to be fairly --

GEN. BROWN: You'll have to ask the reporter. I can't get inside the head of the reporter.

Q Did you feel that the story unfairly portrayed the test results or didn't adequately reflect what --

GEN. BROWN: If you'll note, the story did not discuss our test results. The story discussed the test results that were bought and paid for by the network that sponsored the test.

Q Do you have any reason to think that those -- I mean, were those test results good as far as they went, they just didn't go far enough? Or --

GEN. BROWN: In contravention to what was put out in that report, we have asked for that sort of test data and none has been forthcoming. So we don't know any of the data or the conditions or the angle of shot or the type of rounds that those were conducted under.

Yes?

Q General, you've had this data for almost a year, actually almost exactly a year. Why was it that you didn't release it until after this NBC report?

GEN. BROWN: I'm very glad you asked that question. We are facing a very media-savvy enemy. They are not only media-savvy, they are Internet-savvy. We call it the "Information Domain of Warfare." Everything that we put out into the public domain, we just must assume that they get. We don't like to discuss our vulnerabilities and our counters to those vulnerabilities in the open public. However, there's a balance to be struck. Our soldiers, and more importantly their families -- the wives, the children, the parents -- have to have confidence that our soldiers have the best equipment in the world.

We felt that the NBC story -- we wanted to give NBC the chance to give a balanced account of the story, and we would wait and see. But we felt that that report tipped the balance in favor of operation security to ensuring that our soldiers, and more importantly their families, have the utmost of confidence in their equipment.

Q Can I follow up?

GEN. CUCOLO: Mark, let me --

GEN. BROWN: Yes, Tony.

(Cross talk.)

GEN. CUCOLO: Okay, so I'm a strategic communicator for the Army, and I could tell you when -- and I took over last June. When these sorts of stories, websites, blogging, kind of put doubt in people's minds that would cause them to do things like have bakesales for body armor, when those sorts of things happen, we considered and took to our senior leadership, and if I could use a term, a, sir, let's take the gloves off on this; let's go and counter.

And quite frankly our senior leadership wanted to stay on the moral high ground of this, and primarily because Pinnacle is a contractor of value. They may come up with something that is good, that meets standards, and the intent was not to blow bridges between us, the Army, and some very credible contractor. And so the idea was, well, let's just hold what we got, and it's just that this most recent news report and its potential impact on Mr. and Mrs. America, the parents and spouses and family members of soldiers, that's why we went with this.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:07

Q Was the Army concerned at all that it would get sued if it released this information, that it would allow Pinnacle to say, you're releasing proprietary information?

GEN. CUCOLO: No.

GEN. BROWN: Let me -- Tony is spot-on.

It is the policy of the United States that we will get goods and services to support the Department of Defense from the maximum extent possible from the commercial industrial base. We cannot go to war without the industrial base. And almost universally the contractors in this country and the Defense producers in this country have responded in magnificent fashion. We can't do it without them. They are a critical piece of the information.

I manage over 400 specific soldier items and deal with thousands and thousands of contractors. We don't see it in the interest of the U.S. Army or in the interest of the Department of Defense to cast aspersions on the good, well-intentioned efforts of any of our contractors, because they may be able to product-improve their product and come back. And we may have something better, and then we're ready to go.

As I've mentioned, we're very interested in this type of armor, this concept. It has great promise, but it is not meeting our requirements as we speak today. I've also said in the past that should Pinnacle make product improvements or changes to their product, we are prepared to look at it again, as we have looked at it four times already since May of '04.

Q The owner of Pinnacle admits that the test may have problems with it. He says there were problems with the adhesive. And what he's calling for is an independent organization to do a test with the new stuff that they've made correcting the problem.

Are you guys open to that idea of having an independent --

GEN. BROWN: If they have a made a product improvement, my first recommendation to them would be to compete in the full and open competition that is currently open right now. The second recommendation I would make to them is to come in and explain to us what their product improvement is.

Q (Off mike) -- lab that's not connected to DOD, an independent lab doing it, or the operational test evaluation -- (off mike)?

GEN. BROWN: We have conducted the same live-fire -- we test to a standard. We have conducted the same test standard for all of our current body armor producers. Every one of them is tasked with zero failures. This has passed with 13 failures. If they make a product improvement, we are willing to test again to that standard and see if they can make it.

But, as I said, it is about the bullet, but it's not all about the bullet. Forty-seven pounds versus 28 pounds -- it's a well-known fact that the architecture for the soldier as a system is the human body. The human body does not change. You should not load the soldier -- although we do it sometimes -- you should not load the soldier with more than one-third of their body weight. For a 150- pound soldier -- many of which our soldiers are -- 47 pounds would be that one-third. That would be before we added a helmet, before we added a rifle, before we added boots, before we added NightSight, before we added water, before we added ammunition, before we added any other mission equipment. It is simply not meeting Army requirements at this time.

Q No, but if an Army soldier weighs 150 pounds -- (off mike)?

GEN. BROWN: Still, whatever size the soldier -- I'm 220 pounds, okay? You're welcome to come up and pick this up after the interview. I think you'll see what I'm talking about. If you put that thing on in 120 degrees in Baghdad, you're going to last 10, 15 minutes. That's before you add artillery protection or you add any other mission equipment. I think you'd like to have a helmet and a rifle, wouldn't you? A rifle weighs six pounds, a helmet weighs 4.5 pounds. That's 10 more pounds right there. Okay.

Q General, can you talk about any congressional interest in this issue before the testing and particularly after this NBC report? They claim that there's calls for hearings, that sort of thing. What have you heard?

GEN. BROWN: Well, we have had congressional interest both before and after. Before, we would normally get inquiries from staff both in the military legislative assistant's personal staff, professional staff or members themselves, and we were glad to go over and brief them. When we briefed them, the universal response was, you have a very compelling case here.

Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest, as you might expect, and I believe that we are planning on going over to the Hill on Wednesday or Thursday. We're still working out the dates at this point in time. But yes, there's been a great deal of interest at this time.

Q Is that for hearings or is that just for meetings?

GEN. BROWN: It's for discussions with key members over there.

Q So is the army going to release the testers' report from the May 2006 test?

GEN. BROWN: Again, putting that out in the public domain is informing the enemy. And we have chosen not to do that at this time.

GEN. CUCOLO: Other questions.

Q I just want to clarify. Which portion of this did you present to the reporter for NBC?

GEN. BROWN: All of it.

Q Including the --

GEN. BROWN: We did not give her the actual test articles or show her the actual test articles, but we showed her the video, we showed her the test protocol, the results. And we discussed the user suitability, such as the weight and those sorts of things.

Q Do you believe there was something wrong in the test performed in the NBC report that might -- gave these results?

GEN. BROWN: I don't know anything about that test that was performed, but I'd tell you there were questions raised in my mind because the lab workers that I observed were slapping the body armor up on the test stand with one hand and then strapping it in. If you pick that up, I defy you to say that that lab worker could have done that.

Also, you'll note they were firing through a very calibrated piece of equipment, and they very easily could have targeted that round to hit in the area of coverage of three overlapping discs. I'm not saying that's that happened. I don't know. The fact is, is we don't have any of the test data, and contrary to what was reported on the news, none of that test data -- conditions, shot standards -- have been provided to us.

Q How about our body armor -- (off mike)? Can you comment on that?

GEN. BROWN: What are you specifically --

Q How did they get ESAPI?

GEN. BROWN: Oh. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we have six producers of ESAPI. There are producers out there in the open market, on the Internet and other places, that purport to have ESAPI, but it is either not certified or it is counterfeit. The contracts we have with our six producers are DO-rated contracts. That is a type of contracting priority that means the contractors must provide all of their production to us. If they obtained that test sample from one of those contractors, that contractor was in violation and there may have been things that we need to look into. I'm not convinced that those plates were certified ESAPI plates.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:15

There was also some question about the color.

If you look at the coloring of them, we had a color coding on those plates. One of the NBC News technical advisers informed us, and I quote, "We got these test plates off of your production line in Canada." Unquote. Then, when we went back to him and said, you know, that's very interesting because we don't have any producers in Canada, 24 hours later they came back and recanted and said, "I was in error."

So we don't know where those plates came from or whether they were certified or what.

Q Let me ask, the rounds that penetrated in the case of the Dragon Skin, did they go through the single discs? Did they go through overlapping discs? I'm curious as to whether -- you know, whether they struck the part of the armor that's --

GEN. BROWN: Go to the -- pull the ambient card. It's the very first -- I think it was one of the first charts we had. No, no, the ambient live-fire test protocol.

Room temperature, one bullet, one disc, one penetration. It makes -- passes the common -- you know, we talk about live-fire tests and environmental tests. How about the common-sense test? The common-sense test is that you would want to test this vest at its weakest point, not at its strongest point, although the laws of probability and statistics apply, you might -- through the test protocol, there were times when we hit a double disc area or a single disc area, and in those conditions the vest defeated the threat.

Q Yeah, I understand that. I'm just curious as to whether it defeated the vest at its weakest point or at its strongest point in your tests?

GEN. BROWN: In our test? We defeated it at several points, both one disc, multiple disc.

Q Have you formally responded to NBC about this, told them your concerns?

GEN. BROWN: Yes.

Q And how did you do it? Did you write them a letter? Did you speak to their news --

GEN. BROWN: We've been in constant dialogue with them for weeks.

Q Over this recent report -- reports?

GEN. BROWN: Yes.

Q And what have they told you about --

GEN. BROWN: Well, they have made some changes to their report, and we noted that some of the information we gave them started to be incorporated as the development of the story went on.

Q But did they acknowledge that what was reported was incorrect? Or when you said they made changes, what kind of changes --

GEN. BROWN: No, they never acknowledged that.

Q Well, what were the changes?

GEN. BROWN: Well, they, in initial reports early on, they denigrated a very fine officer and said that he violated the Safety of Use Message and wore Dragon Skin in lieu of Interceptor body armor. And in fact, when they showed a picture of that officer on the television, he was coming into a meeting and he was peeling out of his body armor.

And the very body armor he was peeling out of was interceptor body armor. And that officer has informed us that he never wore Dragon Skin but that he did wear a very small, concealable armor underneath his shirt when he had to go to a dinner at a sheikh's house, so as not to offend his guest. And of course the area had been cleared and so the threat reduction was down, but he was wearing a very light armor underneath his shirt in the home of a sheikh.

Q General, can you say -- do special forces also use the interceptor body armor? Or do they use a different version or even commercially available body armor?

GEN. BROWN: I don't -- I can't speak for the special forces. Although we do R&D and support for the special forces, you'll have to discuss their requirements and their uses with them.

Q Just a quick clarification, was Neal there when you were taking the before-and-after X-rays? And did he see those results? Because he contends that the Army tampered with the vests to get those pictures.

GEN. BROWN: Yes, he was present the whole time.

Q So but how do you explain that the general officer's security detail bought Dragon Skin? How do you explain that?

GEN. BROWN: My understanding is that there was a very well- intentioned warrant officer that went out and thought that he had found something better. Of course that warrant officer was not privy to the test data, privy to the test protocol, and was not an expert in the development and test of body armor. And at any rate General Chiarelli indicates that he never wore Dragon Skin, even though it may have been purchased.

Q Please clarify --

GEN. CUCOLO: If I could --

GEN. BROWN: Yes.

GEN. CUCOLO: I'm only jumping up because I got the transmission from the warrant officer who, again, very well-meaning, didn't know -- was not aware of the Safety of Use Message. The purpose was, gee, I'd like to have something to wear under a shirt like I'm wearing right now when we go into a meeting. Because when we go into meetings, we take off all of our combat gear to sit and converse.

This warrant officer looked around. Someone recommended -- somebody reported that the concealable -- not that, not the outer tactical vest but the concealable, small-arms protectant body armor from Dragon Skin was worthwhile. That warrant officer purchased that body armor.

General Chiarelli put it on for about 10 minutes and then took it off. And just to make a correction, he went into that meeting, much to the chagrin of his personal security detachment, just wearing what all other soldiers would be wearing once they took off their interceptor body armor. And that was nothing, just his Army combat uniform shirt. And he never put it on again.

Now that personal security detachment felt compelled to wear the concealable. But I think it's very important that -- I think the word "concealable" was missed by many. If you listen to the broadcast, and that young soldier, covered up, wearing a hat, with the voiceover in that particular segment was talking about concealable, not soldiers purchasing or wearing the 47-pound Dragon Skin vest. That was not purchased, this undershirt thing.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 09:16

Q Has the concealable Dragon Skin armor -- has that been tested and found to be --

GEN. BROWN (?): It's tested to a level of requirements, and I could tell you, I can talk about that. General Cucolo is right on the mark.

Look, when I was a little boy, my dad and my granddad said, look, use the right tool for the right job. Okay. The tool for the job when you're going into a sheikh's house is not the same as when you're walking down Main Street Baghdad, Sadr City, Tall Afar, Kirkuk or any of those other places. When you're going in harm's way down those places, you know the bad guys are out there, you know they're going to be shooting at you, you know you're going to be facing hostile threats.

If you're from another agency or if you're taking a dignitary into theater, I guarantee you that area has been cleared prior, which lowers the threat level, and then you've got a security detail around him, which again lowers the threat level, and that's a tailorable type of use.

There are four levels of Dragon Skin. There's SOV-1000, -2000, - 3000 and -4000. We tested the -4000 against our Level IV threat, but you have to use the right tool for the right job. When a Marine or a soldier is going into harm's way down Main Street Kandahar, he's got to be ready.

Q So you don't know whether the concealable is --

GEN. BROWN: I believe that the -- I don't know. I would have to defer that question.

Q (Off mike) -- it hasn't been tested?

GEN. BROWN: I don't know the answer to that. We don't buy concealable body armor as a matter of the Army institution.

Q Just to clarify, is that an OTV or an IOTV that's on the screen?

GEN. BROWN: This is an OTV.

Q Okay.

Q You said you were getting reports that these vests are being purchased by people going into theater. Do we know if there were any --

GEN. BROWN: You mean the Dragon Skin 3000? Yeah.

Q Do you know if there are any actual casualties that have resulted from servicemen wearing these vests? And if so, do you have any numbers or estimates of how many actually made it into theater?

GEN. BROWN: I'm not at liberty to release that information at this time.

Q Regarding casualties or regarding -- so, sir, does that mean that there were casualties as a result of it?

GEN. BROWN: I don't know that for sure.

Q Why not?

GEN. BROWN: Well, I have heard reports. But again, you'd have to go to the agencies that have had that problem. And agencies were not the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army uses Interceptor body armor, the Safety of Use Message mandates the use of Interceptor body armor for all soldiers everywhere. There are other organizations over there that may or may not use other body armor, and their performance results have varied. That's been reported to us but we don't -- we're not at liberty to discuss that.

Q But you don't know of any soldiers who --

GEN. BROWN: Not U.S. Army soldiers, no.

Q Who have suffered wounds as a result --

GEN. BROWN: U.S. Army soldiers --

Q -- of wearing Dragon Skin?

GEN. BROWN: U.S. Army soldiers are not supposed to be wearing anything but Interceptor body armor.

Q Because there was a concern that the family members were providing it to the soldiers. I mean, that was --

GEN. BROWN: Well, if they're following orders like good soldiers, they'll be wearing the Interceptor body armor.

GEN. CUCOLO: Another question.

GEN. BROWN: Okay. I'll close by saying once again that force protection is the number one priority of the U.S. Army. We have the best body armor in the world bar none, live-fire tested, proven in combat. We have more than one set for every soldier in theater. I have all the money and all the leadership support I need to pursue improvements to body armor, and we are not resting on our laurels. We are always pursuing better kit for everything, not just body armor. In fact, in the last three years we've eight improvements to Interceptor body armor, and there are more in the queue that are coming very shortly. This is not just some number on the wall, this is personal to us. As I've said, just about every member of my organization is either an active duty or a retired military or has a son or a daughter involved. It's very near and dear to us, and so we take it deadly seriously, which is why we're talking to you today.

So I'd like to thank you for being here, and you can avail yourselves of the product up here.

Thank you very much.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3967

Permission was granted by FNS to ProfessionalSoldiers.com to reproduce this transcript in its entirety. (C Nyberg 133024May07 EST)

(C) COPYRIGHT 2005, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE. NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES. FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347-1400.

ironstoNe

05-24-2007, 09:36

Do you think it's safe to say(hides behind large bush)..... case closed?

armorman

05-24-2007, 10:59

Hey Txzen,

I am here at your invite posted at Defense Tech forums.

So, what is it that you would like me to comment on specifically??

VMI_Marine

05-24-2007, 14:00

TS, who do I contact to obtain permission to post the transcript on OPFOR.com? I didn't see an e-mail address on the website.

txzen

05-24-2007, 14:56

I think you are welcome to participate anywhere on this forum you like. I have added some questions to the end of this thread, no directed toward anyone in particular, http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168953#post168953
People here I am sure are interested in your new company and it's products also I would guess that people would be interested in your experience with Mr. Neal in the past. Overall you are welcome to participate however you like in believe, I have made a few comments about the .pdf released by the army and might make a few about the NBC news report with testing shortly.
I hope you enjoy the forum here.

txzen

05-24-2007, 15:40

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/05/coyle_on_dragon.html
"Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's former chief tester and a consultant in the NBC News investigation into Dragon Skin body armor, says he's not convinced by the Army's defense of its Interceptor system over the past few days. Coyle, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, observed NBC News' side-by-side tests of Dragon Skin and Interceptor at a ballistics laboratory in Germany. He observed the tests pro bono after a request from NBC News.

Coyle said in a telephone interview with Ares last night that the Army's PowerPoint slide was "misleading" in its comparison of body coverage between the Army's Interceptor and Dragon Skin manufactured by Pinnacle Armor. The Army banned soldiers from buying Dragon Skin last year. Coyle said he had his own private briefing of the Dragon Skin testing by one of Brig. Gen. Mark Brown's senior staff members and was told the Inteceptor's body coverage was compared to Dragon Skin without the plates that actually provide the protection. Brown heads the Army office charged with selecting body armor.

"What’s the point of that?" Coyle said. "A fair comparison would measure how much coverage each of the vests gave you. The disadvantage of the Army’s system is there are gaps in the front and back and sides where bullets can get through. Pinnacle's armor covers whole torso."

The Army is launching a full defense of its Interceptor system, and has released a PowerPoint slide on its own testing of Dragon Skin, which the Army asserts failed 13 out of 48 shots last year. "Force protection is the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Army," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown during an Army press briefing. "Our soldiers and marines today have the best body armor in the world, bar none. It is live fire tested and it is proven in combat."

Coyle said he has asked for a copy of the Army's actual test results rather than just the PowerPoint slide the Army has released and was told the request, which he had to submit in writing, is being processed up the chain of command. "There are PowerPoint briefings and there are PowerPoint briefings," Coyle said. He was also not convinced by the Army's weight comparisons between the two vests. The Army says the Dragon Skin vest is 19.5 pounds heavier than the Interceptor, an assertion Pinnacle Armor disputes and Coyle said wasn't apparent during the NBC News tests in Germany.

"I know that’s what the Army says," said Coyle. "And they had quite a convincing display of that [during the press conference]."

I've been trying to give the Army the benefit of the doubt on its Dragon Skin tests, but the skepticism of someone as qualified and respected as Coyle and the refusal of the Army to reconsider side-by-side testing makes me wonder. I've been bothered by Brig. Gen. Brown's response to NBC News reporter Lisa Myers question about side-by-side testing since Sunday night. When asked whether the Army would do side-by-side testing, Brown just said that the Army doesn't do side-by-side testing but "tests to a standard." Well fine, but NBC News tested both vests to the Army's standard and Inteceptor came up short. The Army's tests of Dragon Skin were a full year ago. Maybe it's improved? It sure looked that way in the NBC News tests.

In any case, no one is saying Interceptor doesn't provide good protection. Both Coyle and retired Army Gen. Wayne Downing, another observer, said the Interceptor performed well during the NBC News tests. It's just that Dragon Skin was better, particularly in reducing blunt force trauma, which can kill even if a bullet doesn't actually penetrate the vest.

"The Pinnacle Armor has some advantages that I saw during the tests in Germany that the Army ought to be interested in," said Coyle. He cited five advantages of Dragon Skin over Interceptor:

1. It's flexibility better conforms to the contours of the human body, which is particularly important for female soldiers.
2. It covers more of the torso.
3. Dragon Skin is better with multiple shots.
4. Dragon Skin reduces blunt force trauma. Coyle says the depth of cavities caused in the test clay by shots fired at Dragon Skin were half as deep as the cavities caused in the clay during the Interceptor test. (Coyle says both vests were tested in the same way to Army standards against curved clay backings despite assertions to the contrary making their way through the blogosphere.)
5. Dragon Skin performed better against some of the more deadly ammunition being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report has the attention of Congress.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sent a letter yesterday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting that the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation -- Coyle's old job -- conduct a technical assessment of body armor systems currently available on the domestic market. The senators question the "fairness and reliability" of the Army's tests. Separately, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and James Webb (D-VA) sent their own letter to the General Accountability Office requesting an assessment of the Interceptor against Dragon Skin and any other commercially available body armor.

--Catherine MacRae Hockmuth"

The Reaper

05-24-2007, 16:04

Well fine, but NBC News tested both vests to the Army's standard and Inteceptor came up short.

Untrue. Only a couple of vests shot, no environmental testing, no contamination testing, tested on a flat surface rather than a curved, human shaped torso, no notation of complete compliance with the ammo requirement, no V50 testing, etc., etc.

1. It's flexibility better conforms to the contours of the human body, which is particularly important for female soldiers.

How many females do we have out on patrol who are not adequately covered by the IBA?

4. Dragon Skin reduces blunt force trauma. Coyle says the depth of cavities caused in the test clay by shots fired at Dragon Skin were half as deep as the cavities caused in the clay during the Interceptor test. (Coyle says both vests were tested in the same way to Army standards against curved clay backings despite assertions to the contrary making their way through the blogosphere.)

I couldnt see any curve in the video I saw. Looked to me like they were strapping the armor to a flat clay surface. How do you evaluate full-coverage armor in anything less than a full three dimensions?

5. Dragon Skin performed better against some of the more deadly ammunition being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The API is a less effective penetrator than the AP, all other factors being equal. To my knowledge, no US soldier has been shot with the alternate ammo tested, it may not even be fielded in theater.

I am not saying that the Army will stay with the IBA forever or never consider or adopt flexible body armor. It is probable that a flexible armor design may be the wave of the future. Once it passes the tests, and a comparable weight product can be produced. I do not think we will buy a Level 3 vest to replace a Level 4 vest of the same weight, regardless of the comfort and increased coverage. Why shoot up additional IBA and buy more $5000 plus vests to do the same test at the same time? Products are selected that meet a standard. If DS performs as advertised, let the manufacturer follow the FAT protocol and the Army test it to their standards, and anyone who wants oversight can attend?

I will say that I do not think the Army will buy the DS as it was tested last May.

TR

armorman

05-24-2007, 16:04

Hi Txzen,

Well My experience with Mr. Neal while may be relevant if you believe me rather than his statements, it is also probably non productive. We intend to compete against him and anyone else who enters the market of flexible rifle armor, and I have seen some approaches to the market by Pinnacle that we will avoid.

As for the recent testing I think that what we saw in Germany had the appearance of side by side independant testing , but in fact no comparable data was generated that I could see. Perhaps there was more they didn't show, but let me explain why I say this.

The tiles in Dragon Skin are stacked from Left to right (you can do it right to left), but which ever direction you start the stack pattern the next row must start from the same direction, and then you work your way from top to bottom the way we read. The direction of the stack dictates which way the tiles are angled. And thats the point, if your using a discus which is thickest at the center and thinner at the edge (which is the case) there are numerous spots with this scalar pattern layout just off center where there is less thickness and no overlap. However the tile is angled because it's partially overlappeding the last tile and therefor when you fire a test round perpendicular to the armor system laying flat strapped to the clay box you are NOT perpendicular to the tile. Thats what allows a thinner section of the tile to defeat rounds head on because of the deflection angle. So all the penetrations I have seen over 15 years of development of scalar armor have always been in that spot and usually when you hit this area at 90 degrees. The tile angle is usually about 30 degree depending on numerous variabsles that change from system to tsystem i.e. tile thickness, amount of overlap, diameter, and radius.

It's a small area scattered all over the vest, and probably not as exploitable in the level 3 threat, but none the less a weakness that any military thinking about buying armor like this should test repeatably in order to generate separate V-X numbers at the given velocity. That area according to one estimate by an R&D department could pose as high as a 10% chance of penetration, while all the other areas present a V-0 at the required velocity.

We are designing around this problem and hopeful our first or second test with the military will go well. One thing is for certain if it doesn't, we'll just go home and try again and refrain from calling everyone in the military a bunch of crooks. I have seen so many people in this industry act like that. If your stuff is good and all it needs is a redesign a failure can be a good thing.

Allan D. Bain

txzen

05-24-2007, 16:07

One interesting points being that Mr Coyle says that both vests were tested on curved backing and myself having watched the NBC video, it is tough to say either way, 2d television, really brief footage of the clay, camera angle and shadows really play a roll in that. Also I don't know if some appearance of mounding is from the deformation of the clay because of testing or what. In the very first test it does appear like there is a turtle of clay, I can see like an outline drawn in the clay at least an outline of an oval it is hard to tell if it is raised up or just a turtle shell shaped outline, but it doesn't appear to be there for the DS.

Another thing easier to notice while watching the NBC video again was that Jim Mcgee is shown pulling a something out of an IBA vest pouch and it looks dark blue or black maybe or it is a shadow or something other than the plate to be used then in the next shot he is standing with the reporter next to the IBA and I think plate on top of the iba and it is about the same color as the darkest "greyish green," on that digital camo print of the ACU? Maybe the blue/black thing was a space holder because maybe he didn't travel with the green plate in the iba pouch? In another scene you can see a tester putting a greyish green plate that says "Size large Strike Face," into the pouch. So If that is in fact the green that Mr Masters is talking about it appears to be an e-sapi if I read his posts correctly.

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 16:32

Hi Txzen,

Well My experience with Mr. Neal while may be relevant if you believe me rather than his statements, it is also probably non productive. We intend to compete against him and anyone else who enters the market of flexible rifle armor, and I have seen some approaches to the market by Pinnacle that we will avoid.

As for th recent testing I think that what we saw in Germany had the appearance of side by side independant testing , but in fact no
comparable data was generated that I could see. Perhaps there was more they didn't show, but let me explain why I say this.

The tiles in Dragon Skin are stacked from Left to right (you can do it right to left), but which ever direction you start the stack pattern the next row must start from the same direction, and then you work your way from top to bottom the way we read. The direction of the stack dictates which way the tiles are angled. And thats the point if your using a discus which is thickest at the center and thinner at the edge (which is the case) there are numerous spots with this scalar pattern latyout just off center where there is less thickness and no overlap. However the tile is angled because it's partially overlappeding the last tile and therefor when you fire a test round at the system laying flat perpendicular to the clay box you are NOT perpendicular to the tile. Thats what allows a thinner section of the tile to defeat rounds head on because of the deflection angle. So all the penetrations I have seen over 15 years of development of scalar armor have always been in that spot and usually when you hit this area at 90 degrees, which is generally about 30 degree depending on how thick the tile and how large the diameter of the tile is.

It's a small area scattered all over the vest, and probably not as exploitable in the level 3 threat, but none the less a weakness that any military thinking about buying armor like this should test repeatably in order to generate separate V-X numbers at the given velocity. That area according to one estimate by an R&D department could pose as high a 10% change of penetration, while all the other areas present a V-0 at the required velocity.

We are designing around this problem and hopeful our first or second test with the military will go well. One thing is for certain if it doesn't, we'll just go home and try again and refrain from calling everyone in the military a bunch of crooks. I have seen so many people in this industry act like that. If your stuff is good and all it needs is a redesign a failure can be a good thing.

Allan D. Bain

Welcome Mr. Bain,

We're glad to have you aboard.

Team Sergeant

Team Sergeant

05-24-2007, 16:40

TS, who do I contact to obtain permission to post the transcript on OPFOR.com? I didn't see an e-mail address on the website.

I called the "FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC" this morning to obtain permission. I will PM you the name and phone number of the person I talked to......;)

Team Sergeant

txzen

05-24-2007, 17:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5PNZFCzCMw&mode=related&search=
1:57-58, you can see the black spacer or holder thing whatever it is.
2:00 you can see the and verify if the plate in question is the green e-sapi
2:24 you can see the pre tested "turtle shell" like backing or outline there of for the IBA first test.
2:44 Post test on the IBA you see a pretty clearly raised "turtle shell" shape of clay
2:57 & 3:07 3:15 you see the oval outline I was talking about and the 2d televisions draw backs :)
4:03 You see what appears to be flat backing of clay after I think a ds test
4:24 a brief view before a IBA test I think maybe mound maybe not
5:08 lots of deformed clay, mounded I can't tell, after an iba
5:20 you see a shadowed clay bed that looks pretty flat before the DS test
5:37 After the test deformed not flat anymore tough to tell if it was mounded or flat
6:23 After the final "uber bullet" test on the DS it looks like it was flat maybe

I wonder if it is just video distortion, but it appears to me that the tests beds weren't the same maybe someone else can confirm with the video or confirm that it is too hard to tell.

VMI_Marine

05-24-2007, 17:25

I called the "FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC" this morning to obtain permission. I will PM you the name and phone number of the person I talked to......;)

Team Sergeant

You called them? I mean, I always knew you were salty, but I didn't think you were that old. :D

Shar

05-24-2007, 17:54

One thing is for certain if it doesn't, we'll just go home and try again and refrain from calling everyone in the military a bunch of crooks. I have seen so many people in this industry act like that. If your stuff is good and all it needs is a redesign a failure can be a good thing.

And you are the guy I want designing my husband's, family members, dear friends and heroes' armor, not some dude trying to slide by the protocol by whining and complaining. Glad to know you are out there and good luck!

CSB

05-25-2007, 21:55

This is the finest thread I have ever read, on any BBS/Blog, from any source. The professionalism is outstanding. I had a number of questions after reading bits and pieces of the claim/counter-claim in other sources where each side seemed to be bypassing the other.

So it is that Mr. Neal is quoted as saying that some penetrations were invalid because the disk slipped out of position due to faulty adhesive, and implying that the shooter then deliberately aimed for the gap in the disk structure (with Superman-like x-ray vision, no doubt). Some of the penetrations may well have been through areas where the disks, for whatever reason, slipped out of position. If the protective disks won't/can't stay in position, that alone should be reason to reject the armor.

But ultimately, the briefing and the x-rays make it clear: on more than one occasion the bullet fairly hit the disk, the disk broke, the bullet went through the disk and into the torso.

And that's a failure.

Thank you for the information.

armorman

05-26-2007, 09:30

Thank you for your support, I will do my best. By the end of the summer we should all know if this endeavor we have going will be a suitable design for the military.

Best Regards,

Allan D. Bain

Team Sergeant

05-26-2007, 10:23

Thank you for your support, I will do my best. By the end of the summer we should all know if this endeavor we have going will be a suitable design for the military.

Best Regards,

Allan D. Bain

Good Luck Mr. Bain.

(Keep us posted!)

Team Sergeant

txzen

05-26-2007, 12:13

I wonder what the experts, operators and former operators think of this stuff.
Liquid Body Armor http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6cc_1177262138
And a canadian inventor with a little brother in the middle east fighting for canada his invention Trojan Armor 97 percent body coverage with ceramic armor and ballistic foam
video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=750_1180138182
print http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168470616997&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815
here is video of his ballistic cushion/fire plates taking rounds and dynamite http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=9/15/2004#

Team Sergeant

05-26-2007, 12:39

armorman

05-26-2007, 22:58

Yea Ya know thats right eh.. Ceramic and foam hmmm, it looks very light the way he moves in it, I am not sure about the Bear spray knocking out 40 insurgents though, looked a little insignificant.

txzen

05-29-2007, 14:06

ebay.ca/The-Trojan-full-body-armor-designed-by-Troy-Hurtubise_W0QQitemZ190079888295QQihZ009QQcategoryZ 25552QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem[/url] THe trojan is just level 3, as states on the ebay auction :) "The Armor is a level three light/hard armor that weighs a mere 26 ounces per square foot and is a mere 2/8 of an inch thick. " Do these make sense. I also found the shield pretty fun looking. I guess since it is level 3 it is out of the running for a front line system? And on a side are shields just too unweildy for soldiers to use even in specific occasions. It seems like a large percentage of SWAT breaching for LE utilize a shield and it seems that with door to door searches the first guy threw with a shield might benefit a team even in a combat zone Especially since some squads at least aren't too far from a humvee or a IFV.

Team Sergeant

05-29-2007, 14:38

longjon

06-07-2007, 08:20

Gentlemen,

It appears that Mr. Neal's lies, deception and utter disregard for the safety of our service members has gone far enough...

http://www.miamiherald.com/509/story/131296.html

Target bracketed, fire for effect.

Snaquebite

06-07-2007, 08:52

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/0,13319,138277,00.html

Karl.Masters

06-07-2007, 15:13

Another take.

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

Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims

By Megan Scully

CongressDaily 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.

Peregrino

06-07-2007, 15:26

Hipshot

06-07-2007, 15:46

Looks like Mr. Neal needs to find another rock to crawl under.

KClapp

06-08-2007, 09:16

I certainly enjoy it when the integrity of my brethern warriors stands solid against the self-serving rhetoric and actions of individuals and the press.

Karl.Masters

06-09-2007, 11:49

So - can we assume from reading these press reports that the congressional hearing "chewed 'em up and spit 'em out"? :munchin

I know that's how I read it, but over the years I've learned not to trust the press. I also see some of the Democrats are still calling for independant tests.

Karl, sounds like your guys came out swinging. From here it looks like they did a good job.

Peregrino

Peregrino,

LTG Thompson made a very significant observation in his opening remarks on behalf of the Army:

"Before I conclude my remarks, I'd like to highlight an issue of grave concern to me, and that is the role of a responsible press, and in that term I include the print media and the broadcasting industry.

The press is an important guarantor of our freedom, and with that right comes the responsibility to get the facts right and the story straight.

The Army did not go public with our test results from last year because we are dealing with a very media savvy enemy.

The airing of the NBC News story prompted the Army to release information to assure service members and their families that the Army is providing the best body armor available.

In this case, credible and factual evidence provided by the Army was cast aside for a sensational story that just was not true.

It created needless worry among our men and women in uniform and their families and provided an adaptable enemy with additional information about how we equip our soldiers for the important missions they perform.

It is a most unfortunate situation and, in my view, brings NBC's credibility into serious question.

This concludes my opening remarks. I want to thank you, the members of this committee, for this opportunity to assure the families of our courageous men and women in uniform that they receive the best equipment, including the finest body armor in the world, so they can accomplish their mission successfully and return home safely, and we look forward to your questions."

Karl

The Reaper

06-09-2007, 14:34

Oooh!

Off the top rope!

Get some, LTG Thompson.

TR

Odd Job

06-17-2007, 14:50

Interesting discussion, gentlemen, thank you.

Now I know full well that there is substantial bitterness between certain members of this forum and certain members of TacticalForums. That carries over from another heated debate that I won't bring up here. I respectfully ask only two things of the moderators and others viewing this thread:

1) Despite this bitterness, I can see that members of both sites don't want any harm to come to friendly forces. Hell, even I have an interest in the safety of US troops: the majority of my family now resides in the US. Can we restrict this debate to the Dragonskin product please? I know that many of you don't like gel tests and don't like Dr Roberts but I am convinced that he doesn't want to jeopardise any of your safety and as far as I am aware he tested that panel (Oct 2006) for a law enforcement agency only, not for the army.

2) There is a useful discussion to be had, if it is not cut short. Some PS members have been of great help to me in some of my enquiries and I hope that some of my observations have been helpful to PS members. I think that there is much bitterness that needs to be suppressed in favour of useful dialogue. We all the want the same thing, ultimately, is all I'm saying.

@ Karl Masters

Shot location: Did the projectile impact a single ceramic disc? Two overlapping ceramic discs? Three overlapping ceramic discs? There are three distinct levels of protection within this armor design that threat projectiles can encounter. Consequently, there are three distinct levels of performance.

This was the exact observation I made on the 5th of October 2006, after Dr Roberts posted the Dragonskin test on Tactical Forums. Here is the link, note my graphics overlay on the radiograph:

(edit by the Team Sergeant, see below)
I suggested at the time that the vest be subjected to fluoroscopy and that the location of single disc protection areas be fired on precisely.
I would dearly love to see radiographs of single strikes to the Dragonskin panel, where the projectile can be demonstrated to have struck one disc only.

The radiograph does indeed prove that the level of protection of the panel varies from 1 to 3 layers. Over the course of a weekend in December 2006 I employed sophisticated 3D design package to plot all the possible incident trajectories to that panel, based on two models that I designed: the first having a disc height arrangement totalling 4 and the second having a disc height arrangement totalling 3. The 4 layer configuration had chinks but the 3 layer did not.
I telephoned Pinnacle Armour and I was told by their representative that the layering of discs totalled 2. At the time I was convinced that either the representative was misinformed, or there were multiple configurations of Dragonskin panels. Furthermore, snippets of various videos promoting Dragon Skin showed a layout of discs in the vests that was not compatible with the radiological features of the Dragonskin panel as posted on Tactical Forums. Now this can be (in my humble and inquisitive technical opinion) due to one of two factors:

1) The configuration of discs in the vests is different from the configuration of discs in the panel.
2) The snippets seen in the videos were staged for clarity of components, not clarity of configuration.

A side issue is that the 3 layer configuration that I modelled in 3D and rendered from every angle may just happen to produce the same radiological features (and I guarantee you it will) but it may not reproduce the Pinnacle layout if they are tilting their discs so that one disc can occupy multiple levels when viewed edge-on. It is a mystery that I can't solve without seeing an intact panel with the top fabric removed. Anyway that is not a matter of any grave concern any longer.

I would like to see two things:

1) A radiograph of the panel from edge on.
2) A radiograph of the panel after it has been struck by a tested projectile directly in the center of one disc.

I don't want to comment on the adhesive issues and the question of the mechanical properties of the discs at various temperatures. I am assuming that those of you who have the vests are already testing that. What I am interested in is the configuration of the discs and the effect of a one disc strike on the panel.
I must add that I have no commercial interest in Pinnacle Armor or any financial entity or represesentive of the company or any of its rivals.
I am just curious, that's all.

Team Sergeant

06-17-2007, 16:06

Interesting discussion, gentlemen, thank you.

I must add that I have no commercial interest in Pinnacle Armor or any financial entity or represesentive of the company or any of its rivals.
I am just curious, that's all.

Oddjob,

I will not tolerate a hot link to tacticalforums.com, or any link to that forum for that matter. It’s nothing more than a profit driven, fat little civilian punk owned site that caters to mall security guards & air softers. It has no value in the real world, none.

The dragon skin issue is over, for us anyway, for Mr Neal, it might be becoming a little hotter, lying and false advertising might carry a prison sentence.

As for Dr Roberts, I’m sure he will be answering to his superiors soon enough. The US military takes a dim view when a military member uses his rank to promote a commercial product.

Again, dragon skin is a dead issue.

Team Sergeant

Karl.Masters

06-17-2007, 16:46

1) The configuration of discs in the vests is different from the configuration of discs in the panel.
2) The snippets seen in the videos were staged for clarity of components, not clarity of configuration.

A side issue is that the 3 layer configuration that I modelled in 3D and rendered from every angle may just happen to produce the same radiological features (and I guarantee you it will) but it may not reproduce the Pinnacle layout if they are tilting their discs so that one disc can occupy multiple levels when viewed edge-on.

Odd Job,

I recommend that you continue to contact the manufacturer in order to understand the configuration of this armor. There are many designs and many variations in materials.

I can only speak to the four DS vest configurations that I have personally tested and radiographed. To answer your question I will use the example of the SOV 3000 DS in vest configuration that is the subject of current events.

The ceramic disc layup of the SOV 3000 Dragon Skin vests that I tested in May 2006 was in fact tilted as you describe. One edge of every disc in the layup is supported by the soft armor backing of the armor panel, with one exception: there is a single disc at the start point of the disc layup that lies perfectly flat.

In the SOV 3000 DS vests that the Army purchased, this "base disc" is located at the lower left corner of the disc layup, when looking at the strike face of the front armor panel. The disc layup proceeds left to right in a single row along the bottom edge of the panel. The layup of this row terminates at the right side of the front panel, then begins again at the left of the panel in a new row, again proceeding left to right, but at the offset visible in the radiographs.

On 15 June I had an opportunity to examine a SOV 2000.1 DS plate that was tested for NIJ certification. The disc layup in this plate appeared by visual inspection to be similar to the disc layup in the SOV 3000 DS vests, but I made no attempt to measure or document differences between the DS plate and DS vest configurations.

HTH,
Karl

Hipshot

06-17-2007, 18:17

The Military Channel is running a segment on Body Armor with our "favorite" listed as the "best body armor in the world". Just sent an e-mail to them explaining my displeasure in their misrepresentation.

Odd Job

06-18-2007, 00:28

@ Karl Masters

Thank you, sir, that information is much appreciated and you have been very helpful.

Brandon

The Reaper

06-25-2007, 19:32

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. "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.)."

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

smp52

06-25-2007, 22:30

This is procurement code A1, which means it is a proposed debarment. "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.)."

This article has more on the AF's debarment of Pinnacle.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/061107cdpm2.htm

Despite how the media is trying to portray this, what most people don't understand is that the government isn't out to harass its industrial base (As Mr. Neal's spin is trying to make it look like). Quite the contrary, the USG wants to see a healthy supplier base and conforming product based upon the user's requirements. Contractors, if they own up to mistakes and work with the government utilizing any constructive feedback to produce a compliant product, won't be out high and dry.

There is also a source selection process that reviews bids accordingly. If it is a sole source contract, there is usually good reason for it. While everything isn't rosy in the military industrial complex, overall it has produced some of the best equipment in the world.

Fraudulent Certificates of Analysis (not merely compliance), material certs, data, records, or misleading government agencies into believing a claim is breaking the law. The FAR is law, blessed by Congress. I don't think he's going to have enough votes in Congress to amend the FAR to his liking...

The public should read all the information presented here and other places, particularly what the Program Manager and technical evaluations say. This Dragonskin issue has all elements of what NOT to do when trying to sell product to the USG in it - Trying to go over the acquisition process, media, fraudulent claims, childish whining and name calling, etc.

DAU should include this in its ACQ classes as a case study.

Thank you and your team Mr. Masters. Sir, this has been an outstanding example to those in government tasked with ensuring compliance of product for troops.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

06-26-2007, 05:07

Thank you and your team Mr. Masters. Sir, this has been an outstanding example to those in government tasked with ensuring compliance of product for troops.

Actually it is an outstanding example of a retired SF soldier still looking out for the troops. Once SF always SF and for those of you who did not have the pleasure of knowing or working with Karl it is typical of the quality of his performance that I got to know personally.

Karl.Masters

06-26-2007, 18:09

Despite how the media is trying to portray this, what most people don't understand is that the government isn't out to harass its industrial base (As Mr. Neal's spin is trying to make it look like). Quite the contrary, the USG wants to see a healthy supplier base and conforming product based upon the user's requirements. Contractors, if they own up to mistakes and work with the government utilizing any constructive feedback to produce a compliant product, won't be out high and dry..

Absolutely agree. The Federal Acquisition Regulation prohibits the use of debarment as a punitive measure. The purpose of debarment is to protect the government. Working well in this case thanks to US Air Force.

DAU should include this in its ACQ classes as a case study.

Great recommendation. There are volumes of lessons learned that should be captured. There is training value here.

Thanks,
Karl

Karl.Masters

06-26-2007, 18:13

Once SF always SF

Thanks Sir.

To serve the Nation is our reward.

V/r
Karl

afchic

06-28-2007, 12:36

Just saw this, 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.

The Reaper

06-28-2007, 14:39

"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.

Not if he is disbarred from bidding.

TR

afchic

07-05-2007, 08:25

Not if he is disbarred from bidding.

TR

Just found this on AIM POINTS this morning. Thought you all might like to hear this!!!

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.

Karl.Masters

07-13-2007, 19:48

Another take on the NBC Dateline body armor segment.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/03/new-vent-nbcs-emotional-terrorism/

crn

08-05-2007, 19:15

been reading these forums for awhile. good forum guys :D

just thought I would add this link about the Dragon Skin
sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=33

Kyobanim

08-05-2007, 19:20

crn,

Follow the instructions in the welcome letter and fill out your profile and introduce yourself in the Introductions thread.

Kyo

Team Sergeant

08-08-2007, 10:59

So murray neal is not the inventor of dragon skin body armor.

The Army, Marines and Air Force have banned pinnacle armor.

The DoJ has decertified Dragon Skin. Mr. neal states the move is political and is an "Unprecedented Withdrawal of Certification by NIJ".

Pinnacle Armor, first to be banned by three military services.

First body armor to be de-certified by the Department of Justice?

hollywood and a few of their idiots believe dragon skin is great. Then again no one in hollywood has ever gone into harms way.

I’m guessing the first law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty while wearing pinnacle armor will put an end to pinnacle armor and Mr. murray neal.

Why does it take so long for the United States Law Enforcement community to wake up?

Someone needs to die first?

ProfessionalSoldiers.com is not the only website following the story;

Revealed: DoJ Dumps Dragon Skin body armor
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/08/revealed-doj-dumps-dragon-skin-body-armor/

Dragon Skin Gets the Shaft...
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_armor.html

Dragon Skin SOV 2000 Certification Revoked
http://op-for.com/2007/08/dragon_skin_sov_2000_certifica.html

Dragon Skin Bites the Dust
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/fredbrown/2007/08/dragon_skin_bites_the_dust.html

Dragon Skin: Slayed Again
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/005022.html

Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128

Dragon Skin Under Investigation
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/dragon_skin_und.html

What the "REAL" inventor has to say.....
http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Rifletile.htm

Mr. neal, ever think that calling a retired Special Forces soldier a liar was a good idea?

I didn’t think so.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Team Sergeant

txzen

08-31-2007, 14:33

Surgicalcric

08-31-2007, 16:05

...pretty interesting that zylon which had a failure in the line of duty wasn't immediately decertified but dragon skin with no reported failures was.

I care not what testing it passed that "validated its 6-year warranty." NIJ certification has nothing to do with DOD and Army testing. The environments that soldiers operate in and around are worlds apart from those that a LEO does.

Comparing apples to oranges again but this time its LEO lives in the balance.

Crip

Team Sergeant

08-31-2007, 16:16

Dragon Skin Passes Again: NIJ-Certified Lab Test Validates 6-Year Warranty
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1043

And that sight links to a SFFT article about how the decertification was unprecedented. How zylon armor had failed in the line of duty and then 5 months of testing and then 2 and half years they were still issueing citations. Well it is a nuanced situation maybe, but pretty interesting that zylon wich had a failure in the line of duty wasn't immediately decertified but dragon skin with no reported failures was.

That's nice.

I personally do not care as the military no longer uses dragon skin body armor. If the thousands of LEO departments failed to take notice of the military ban then so be it. I've said it before, it will take a cop being killed before they understand the issues involved.

I would not trust Mr. neal as far as I could throw him, IMO his credibility is lower than zero, defensereview.com ain't far behind....:rolleyes:

The Reaper

08-31-2007, 16:44

... dragon skin with no reported failures was.

And how do you know this?

TR

txzen

08-31-2007, 20:37

Well I know about the zylon failure but not a dragon skin line of duty failure, I will say I have not been told of any, as in none reported to me at least. I did searches and found none. I found a similar line on pinacles webpage. plus wouldn't failures in the line of duty be at least part of the arguement against it? I just posted it because people were posting the decertification and the circumstances of the decert are interesting compared to other systems with widely reported on failures.

I would think that the test isn't a secret and surely the test facility wouldn't want false reports about it going around. I guess defensereview could have lied but I think they would have a big problem on thier hands if they did, but I posted that defensereview site because I saw it had been used as a source of the previous post to mine.

pinnaclearmor.com/in-the-news.php maybe they lied but I would think that someone would come up for a lawsuit about that. The official line is there have been no reported failures in the line of duty. Now I searched, if you can find in the line of duty reports of dragon skin system failures I will redact this assertion.

Ambush Master

08-31-2007, 21:12

Well I know about the zylon failure but not a dragon skin line of duty failure, I will say I have not been told of any, as in none reported to me at least. I did searches and found none. I found a similar line on pinacles webpage. plus wouldn't failures in the line of duty be at least part of the arguement against it? I just posted it because people were posting the decertification and the circumstances of the decert are interesting compared to other systems with widely reported on failures.

I would think that the test isn't a secret and surely the test facility wouldn't want false reports about it going around. I guess defensereview could have lied but I think they would have a big problem on thier hands if they did, but I posted that defensereview site because I saw it had been used as a source of the previous post to mine.

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/in-the-news.php maybe they lied but I would think that someone would come up for a lawsuit about that. The official line is there have been no reported failures in the line of duty. Now I searched, if you can find in the line of duty reports of dragon skin system failures I will redact this assertion.

Just a note of interest here, of your 24 Posts in here only TWO were not in this Thread!!

What kind of stake or claim do you have in this?!?!?! Your first post was in this Thread and not in the Intro, you were busted for it!!!

Do the Zylon failures that you mention have the DOD Certification that DS could not achieve?!?!?!

You really do not know what/with whom you are dealing with in here!!!!!

:munchin

The Reaper

08-31-2007, 21:38

I have to agree with AM. You seem to have an agenda here.

As for DS, if you cheat, and put a bogus certification label inside your vest that you haven't earned, sell them to one branch of the military anyway, then fail military testing, and lie about it, you SHOULD be disbarred and prohibited from further government business.

I don't know what your deal is, but if one of my friends in the Box gets killed wearing that crap, someone is going to be very, very sorry.

TR

NousDefionsDoc

08-31-2007, 22:26

Well I know about the zylon failure but not a dragon skin line of duty failure, I will say I have not been told of any, as in none reported to me at least. I did searches and found none. I found a similar line on pinacles webpage. plus wouldn't failures in the line of duty be at least part of the arguement against it? I just posted it because people were posting the decertification and the circumstances of the decert are interesting compared to other systems with widely reported on failures.

I would think that the test isn't a secret and surely the test facility wouldn't want false reports about it going around. I guess defensereview could have lied but I think they would have a big problem on thier hands if they did, but I posted that defensereview site because I saw it had been used as a source of the previous post to mine.

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/in-the-news.php maybe they lied but I would think that someone would come up for a lawsuit about that. The official line is there have been no reported failures in the line of duty. Now I searched, if you can find in the line of duty reports of dragon skin system failures I will redact this assertion.
1. Who reports to you?
2. What units are issuing DS that would include DS in a LOD investigation?

smp52

08-31-2007, 23:51

I care not what testing it passed that "validated its 6-year warranty." NIJ certification has nothing to do with DOD and Army testing. The environments that soldiers operate in and around are worlds apart from those that a LEO does.

Comparing apples to oranges again but this time its LEO lives in the balance.

Crip

Along these lines, several items procured by the government/military require commercial certification, however commercial certification in itself is not the be all end all. The contract and government specifications can add a multitude of additional requirements and tests beyond certification.

For example one can purchase metal certified to a certain ASTM standard, yet the government can tack on additional tests to ensure it meets the necessary quality requirements. Pinnacle waving a cert doesn't mean anything if it failed Army testing. In certain situations, one may not have commercial cert, yet the military may want it since it meets their needs and not the overall industry's.

txzen

09-01-2007, 11:39

I claim to be nothing more than interested in this topic. I do see it is sensitive topic. I have been following dragon skin for many years and the fact that advanced body armor is not available for public use I came here assuming/hoping that the military proffesionals here would have more of the experience I don't have.

Just typingin "zylon fails in the line of duty" in a google iteration returns http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=zylon+fails+in+the+line+of+duty&btnG=Search
the third one is a report of a griving widow of a husband who was killed while wearing zylon fibers that had 2 penetrations http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/02/21/news/top_stories/22005194524.txt

I think our backgrounds are effecting our ability to communicate. There are of course networks that report news to me and websites that link topics of interest but I can see in your sense of the world I am not a commanding officer so it would be easy for you to say no one reports to me, I can accept that.

Typing "dragon skin fails in the line of duty" returns http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dragon+skin+fails+in+the+line+of+duty&btnG=Search with none in the top twenty of an occurence of an in the line of duty failure. about half are reports of testing failures and the other half are the successes of the independant tests

I have 0 dogs in this fight aside from trying a desire to make sure the testing that is government run is fair and balanced and that reports of "mafias" and influence peddling are explored so that it happens as little as possible.

My post was only in response to others posting from defensereview.com and about the decertification. In my post of contention I didn't refer to DOD testing, I didn't refer to army certification, I didn't refer to FAT tests, I didn't refer to anything other than the recent justice decertification and the recent questions arising from why zylon armor with a know failure was not decertified with the speed of the dragon skin certification. I really want to reiterate that I have no financial stake in any armor company. I have no friends in any of these industries further more I have nothing to gain other than purely intelectualy by talking about these topics.

About being busted for not posting iin the intro section, I just saw a "come to ps.com there is a great discussion" and I had lots of questions for you guys and mr masters and just was too hasty in thinking that I was invited and didn't read all the intro specifics. I have posted on many forums and can't name more than this one that have a required introduction in a forum. I have nothing against it I fixed the problem as fast as I could.

Team Sergeant

09-01-2007, 12:11

I have posted on many forums and can't name more than this one that have a required introduction in a forum. I have nothing against it I fixed the problem as fast as I could.

If you read the rules you will realize you are a guest in "our" house. This website is for US Army Special Forces Soldiers, often referred to as the Green Berets, all others are guests.

We have a very low tolerance for unintelligent posts, some like myself, have almost zero tolerance.

Those other websites you have visited have a "profit motive" hence the nice, sensitive, PC, atmosphere. We don't answer to advertisers and we do not have a profit motive, we answer to no one. If you think we're hostile on here you should see us on the battle field.

Re-read the rules again, just so you understand our operating environment and rules of engagement. You are welcome to stay as long as you abide by the rules.

Team Sergeant

txzen

09-01-2007, 14:31

Ambush Master

09-01-2007, 15:10

I think I was mistaken, sorry, I wasn't comparing your website to anyone elses just trying to state my experience in that I was invited to discuss this issue and was wrong to expect the site was like most others. I have now in fact read the rules and corrected my mistake. I meant nothing negative about your sight. I was trying to say it was different and I sign up for so much stuff in a year that I got into a habit and it got me in trouble.

Is sfft.org a good site as it is non-profit educational? I know their views might differ from you guys but I wonder you think on a credibility, motive or fact based assesment? I know they do accept donations and have a membership for donation policy does that and google banner ads effect these aspects in your opinon?

Great!!! Those people accept "Donations"!!! We stand on our own and can/will speak our mind without regard to "The Hand That Feeds Us" mentality!!!! How much does pinnacle or any of their minions contribute to "Buy Space" and alliegance on that Board?!?!

I quote:

"Those other websites you have visited have a "profit motive" hence the nice, sensitive, PC, atmosphere. We don't answer to advertisers and we do not have a profit motive, we answer to no one. If you think we're hostile on here you should see us on the battle field."

Mister, or what ever you are, you have ventured into a realm that you are ill prepared to enter and expect to be able to defend yourself, much less survive!!!

I suggest that you try removing your Brain Housing Group from your 4th point of contact and wake up to the reality of what is being discussed here!!!

Good luck!!
Martin

NousDefionsDoc

09-01-2007, 17:21

Just typingin "zylon fails in the line of duty" in a google iteration returns http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&btn G=Search
the third one is a report of a griving widow of a husband who was killed while wearing zylon fibers that had 2 penetrations http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005...2005194524.txt
He was an LEO. How about you show us a soldier with a zylon vest failure. Then show us total zylon wearers/failure and then total DS wearers.

Then show us how many vests were approved by NIJ that had zylon in them before it was a known problem. And then how many were issued after the problem became known.

What is the "grieving widow" supposed to prove? you think you are going to slide that one by here?

NousDefionsDoc

09-01-2007, 17:25

Is sfft.org a good site as it is non-profit educational? I know their views might differ from you guys but I wonder you think on a credibility, motive or fact based assesment? I know they do accept donations and have a membership for donation policy does that and google banner ads effect these aspects in your opinon?
They basically demanded that the US military buy DS and issue it without having done their research. They accused the people that make super human effort every day to get the best kit they can for troops of being sell outs.

Do you think it's a good site?

txzen

09-01-2007, 18:51

Thanks, I understand it is your belief that any cite that has outside funding is likely going to be corrupted I didn't know if non profits were in a grey area for you now I think I have a better view of what you will consider credible.. Posting an article from a site you don't trust is pretty much not going to matter. Speaking to my opinion of sfft I have no idea. I am just trying to gather as many opinons and facts as I can. They report on Lab Testing they say meets NIJ standards and I don't see why those reports would be any less credible than any other report of a lab test. Just to defend myself I haven't called for a forced purchase or a forced side by side or a retest. I pretty much wanted to see if anyone had any other experiences with certifications or decertifications. Also I believe I was the pf.com asset that asked Allan Bain, the purported inventor of Dragon Skin armor or technology, to chat on pf.com. He was and I believe still is very critical of M. Neal, owner of dragon skin technology, and backs the DOD assessments 100 percent. He of course has his own armor coming on to the market so we all know that.

I talked about the LEO aspects because previously their were posts about the NIJ certifications. I know there is a difference, I thought if someone else brought it up they would like to see the latest. My comments about zylon were of course just to discuss NIJ's standards and practices. But NIJ certs do seem to play a role in aspects of things that effect DOD.

http://www.lexdon.com/article/DHB_Confirms_Commitment_to_Officer/5365.html
Speaking to Zylon this link says that DHB, Armor Group's customers include the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, INS, ATF, NATO, U.S. Marshals, the NYC Police Department, the LA Police Department, and the California Highway Patrol, would discontinue the use of zylon after the decertification by the NIJ.

Here is the question that is raised: http://www.firstchoiceclassaction.com/ On August 24, 2005, the United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, decertified all vests containing-Zylon® and on the same date issued a warning stating "The National Institute of Justice hereby advises that it has identified…Zylon® as a material that appears to create a risk of death or serious injury as a result of degraded ballistic performance when used in body armor."

That was 2005 that the NIJ decertified zylon and the shooting in the line of duty where zylon failed was in 2003. http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18482.html Oceanside Police Officer Tony Zeppetella was killed in the line of duty on June 13, 2003. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/08/news/top_stories/1_02_0511_7_06.txt that link isn't a forum.

I was just wondering if NIJ changed their standards of decertification maybe they "learned" something from the zylon tragedy? And I think I found it here http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NKDur13MD4QJ:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bvpbasi/docs/08_18_05BodyArmor_int_reqts.doc+nij+armor+certific ation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a 2005 interium body army requirements. Until I found that it seemed that the standards had changed and they had. So I had a question it was legitimate I believe and found the answer myself. :) good ole google So NIJ used the 4th reason to decertify under the 2005 interum requirements 4. NIJ determines, at any time, that the evidence provided to NIJ as described in Requirements ¶ 2(b)(3) and/or in connection with the model is insufficient to demonstrate to the satisfaction of NIJ that the model will maintain its ballistic performance (consistent with its originally declared threat level) over its declared warranty period.
but reports say that 5 years-9 & 1/2 months to 6 years-8 months old armor was tested at an NIJ testing facility. Data is all good I guess because there is no contradictory reports about july 10th 2007 testing. That is the odd part test on 5 and 6 year old armor is provided and still a decert because they weren't satified with evidence that the armor would hold up to the 6 year warranty. I get the requirements changed from zylon but I just don't see the evidence it didn't pass NIJ tests. Maybe it will surface?

Guy

09-01-2007, 19:24

txzen:

There are a few things I want to ask you....

1. Can you tell me the weight of DS, compared to what is being issued too military personnel?

2. Have you EVER used DS in a hostile environment?

:munchin

NousDefionsDoc

09-01-2007, 19:47

You didn't answer the questions that were asked did you.

What does NIJ do for environmental testing?

txzen

09-01-2007, 19:49

I called pinnacle a few months ago and I believe they said that the weight of the full torso wrap armor was 35 pounds if memory serves. Note that I believe the full torso wrap covers more than front back and side sapi plates. And no I have not worn any body armor.
I have read that scalar armor is more comfortable I don't know of course. I am not backing any horse in any race, I really am interested in the new technology, and I am interested in the procurement process. When I talked with allan bain he seemed to really think that scalar armor is the future and I suggested pouches for each disc so there is no glue to fail and cause slippage he said it would work but the manufacturing would be a nightmare. So maybe they are just a sewing breakthrough away from something more comfortable and safer. Speaking to weight I read the other day that there was a commander in the middle east asking for permission to let his soldiers not wear the side plates to increase comfort and descrease weight because the region they were working in was relatively passive. Maybe this is evidence of a the need for a certain tool for a certain job?

Again I knowing people have a more informed view of the equiptment than I do. Maybe one of the soldiers tried on some dragon skin before it was banned from use?

txzen

09-01-2007, 19:59

Sorry, I edited the previos post and started the last post before I had a chance to read the last two comments directed at me.

The Interceptor Body Armor system weighs a total of 16.4 pounds (7.4 kg), with the vest weighing 8.4 pounds (3.8 kg), and two plates inserted weighing four pounds (1.8 kg) each. This is considerably lighter than the previous body armor fielded in Somalia weighing 25.1 pounds (11.4 kg) that most troops complained was too heavy and unwieldy for combat operations.

Side-SAPIs are also available, along with the newer version of the vital plate, the Enhanced SAPI (E-SAPI). These two systems are becoming standard for forward deployed troops in OEF and OIF III. The E-SAPI plates are thicker and heavier than the normal SAPIs, but they offer increased protection from M-80 armor piercing ammunition. The Side-SAPIs protect the side of the torso under the arm. With the Interceptor body armor, E-SAPI plates (10.9 lb), S-SAPI plates (7.1 lb), and with the neck, throat and groin protectors installed the armor is significantly heavier than 16.4 pounds (7.44 kg). A combat load of ammunition and first aid kit are almost universally attached to the webbing on the vest, adding even more mass.

That is from wiki. So basically consensus is that IBA weights 16.4 pounds before side plates and before neck and groin protector. See if this is right... Start with 16.4 add 2.9 pounds for the difference in weight of upgrading to E-SAPI then add 7.1 pounds for side plates... 16.4 + 2.9 + 7.1 for 26.4 pounds side front and back e-sapi protection. again I not that I think that the full torso wrap that i quoted covers more than front and side plates do with less. Lighter is better and more bullet resistant is better.

txzen

09-01-2007, 20:06

And to NIJ testing and eviroment I don't think they have anywhere near the same enviroment tests that the FAT test of the army does. http://www.nlectc.org/testing/ba_environment.html "It is important to note that body armor, as a system of several material components, is generally designed to offer environmental protection to its ballistic materials; and most care and maintenance instructions, including NIJ Guide 100-01, Selection and Application Guide to Personal Body Armor, advise users about cleaning, storage, and exposure of the armor to moisture, chemicals, and direct sunlight. NIJ compliant body armor is tested while in a wet condition per the requirements of NIJ Standard-0101.04, providing a quantitative measure of the ballistic performance of the armor during a short-term extreme moisture environment. "

So I don't think NIJ standards are near as hard as DOD standards but they are individual standards. NIJ only enviromental test is in a west condition as far as I know.

The Reaper

09-01-2007, 20:10

txzen

09-01-2007, 20:36

The Reaper

09-01-2007, 20:41

47.5 some sources medium 33.5 other sources, I just quoting the weigt I was told on the phone that I hear directly from their sales. At this point I am not even comparing Dragon Skin with IBA. I just talking about NIJs decertificaion standards and the reports of independant tests. Like with the DOD the FAT test was ugly for Dragon Skin. But NIJ testing isn't that rigorous and it was decertified for lack of evidence of warranty fufillage. And then there seems to be tests done on 5 and 6 year old vests at one of the two NIJ certificated testing grounds and sent to NIJ.

You cannot compare weight of a Medium to an X-Large, or any other method but area coverage to area coverage.

I believe that there is more to the NIJ decertification than warranty coverage. Have you sought opposing viewpoints, or just the Kool-Aid from SFTT and Pinnacle?

TR

Guy

09-01-2007, 21:05

txzen

09-01-2007, 22:43

Guy

09-01-2007, 23:16

txzen:

Why do you keep quoting studies/articles?

Many of us have worn body armor before yet: YOU fail to realize this fact!:confused:

txzen

09-01-2007, 23:45

That was in response to a request of where I got the information on if I only looked one place for the info on the NIJ decertification.

I can't find if Weight and Comfort or wearability play any role in NIJ certifications. They say " The weight and comfort of soft body armor is inversely proportional to the level of ballistic protection that it provides."

If you have worn scalar and rigid it would interesting to know if the reports that the weight distrobution is better on one than the other is noticable or if the shear weight is overwhelming even with good weight distrobution.

I sorta want to say again that I haven't called for anyone to wear anything or for anyone to test anything again or that anyone should be fired or any gear replaced I just have had some questions about the NIJ certification. Weight and comfort are an issue someone else could talk about.

Has anyone worn scalar armor?

The Reaper

09-02-2007, 08:37

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

The current issue I have been looking into has nothing to do with forcing anyone to use anything just learning more abou the NIJ certifications and revocations.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm It is a very short read. 1st paragraph found non compliance 2nd paragraph didn't convince nij with evidence provided by the manufacturer, pinnacle I think, that the NIJ compliant bullet resistance would hold for 6 months. And thats the only reason I see. That is all the reason it takes according to the other cached link I posted previously not convincing them with evidence they must provide about the 2005 interum requirements of NIJ. 3rd paragraph says wear it until it is replaced because it is better than nothing, 4th paragraph buy and wear vests that NIJ approved.

The final issue is that, yes sfft, and Robert Crane have said that 5 and 6 year old vests have been tested and passed NIJ level testing and that info was given to the NIJ.

They seemed to be right about the NIJ release on the decertification and I think someone in the national lab in Wichita, Kansas would not like being lied about and probably would have denied it by now, but it could still happen. I know US Test Lab is confidential with it's clients but if you lie about results I bet that would break the agreement. I am not sure of course.

That does not address warranty concerns, it means that the vest does not last for its intended lifespan.

It could delaminate and fail tomorrow, with that statement. Sure, it could last six years, or it might fail the first time it goes through a temperature cycle. NIJ does no environmental testing. I am sure that you can find older vests that will pass, especially if they were stored in climate controlled conditions and were not dropped, contaminated, etc. There are many cars that are rated as unreliable that if unused, will look and operate fine.

If you are selling vests, and some will pass, while others will not, what do you think is an acceptable percentage of defective ones to buy for our soldiers? Will you take the word of a company that lied about NIJ certification and sewed NIJ certification labels in uncertified vests? How about an organization like SFTT that supported them?

Note that we have not said that scalar armor will not be a technology that has no promise. What we are saying is that the current version, manufactured by Pinnacle, is too heavy, unreliable, and expensive to be fielded, and the company has a checked history of untrustworthiness. I wish Mr. Bain all of the luck in the world with a newer generation of the armor.

None of us on this board want anything less than the best for our brothers serving in harm's way. At the same time, we do not want a bunch of defective gear fielded to them that will jeopardize their lives because of a media frenzy. Can you imagine the hatchet job that the same network that bought into the hype would produce, should the armor be fielded and prove in combat to be defective, killing a number of US soldiers? I think that the Army (and DoD) have given Pinnacle more than a fair opportunity, and have been taken advantage of in return. Fool me once, shame on you....

Yes, I have briefly worn one of the scalar vests, as well as the IBA. The DS version of the scalar in an equivalent level of protection and coverage is much heavier, and more flexible. I am not willing to add almost 20 pounds to my load for the advantage of more flexible armor. At one time, I was looking at purchasing one of the DS vests. When I called Pinnacle, and spoke with Murray Neal, he told me that I should go with a Level III vest, since it provided Level IV coverage. In fact, it does not. Given the number of lies, misleading statements, and prevarications that we have heard from Pinnacle, why should we trust them now? You want to take their word for it and jock up a bunch of soldiers in a product that costs almost twice as much, weighs 20 pounds more, and melts in the shade in Baghdad in the Army's own testing, based on the statements to the contrary of a known liar and a crackpot website?

Again, I have to ask, since you do not wear the armor, or work in the armor industry, what is your interest in perpetuating this argument? Do you just like to argue, and have randomly picked this topic?

TR

smp52

09-02-2007, 11:31

If you are selling vests, and some will pass, while others will not, what do you think is an acceptable percentage of defective ones to buy for our soldiers? Will you take the word of a company that lied about NIJ certification and sewed NIJ certification labels in uncertified vests? How about an organization like SFTT that supported them?

On the munitions side of the house, defects deemed as critical are held to the requirement of 1 Critical defect/ million (produced). While this may be impractical for some manufacturing environments and the DOD works around it to help producers, critical defect escapes (even one) from a manufacturers facility is due cause for shutdown of their plant until the issue can be resolved. A critical defect 'escape' for body armor translates into injury/death for the war fighter as it would for munitions, too ( in-bore detonation, falling short, and more).

IMHO, the public at large does not understand the quality requirements DOD places upon its producers. I can only assume that systems such as body armor have similar if not more stringent requirements for quality. This is all after a system meets user needs first to begin with ( by all objective evidence, DS has not).

txzen: Risk assessments are made by PMs, they do not gamble.

Team Sergeant

09-02-2007, 11:36

SF_BHT

09-02-2007, 12:46

I will tell you this only once, do not hyperlink anything from defensereview.com or SFTT.org to this website. Both are nothing more than internet tabloids. If that is what you read so be it, none of it will be posted on Professionalsoldiers.com.

You now have my full attention.

Team Sergeant

You're also quoting Wikipedia! Your days posting on this website are almost over. (Wikipedia is not even allowed to be used as a reference in most colleges and other places of higher education.) Drink your koolaid but spare us your comments concerning dragons. This is your last warning.

TXZEN

If you are not getting the hint. STOP or he will BAN YOU!!!!!
Just figured you were like me and needed Glasses.
Just Friendly Advice....:munchin

txzen

09-02-2007, 15:09

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:aOCC9xXrtqkJ:peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/IBA.pdf+weight+of+sapi+e-sapi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
That is a html of this http://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/IBA.pdf "Weight: System—15.7 pounds to 23.9 pounds (size medium)
depending on configuration; OTV–7.7 pounds; SAPI–8.0
pounds per pair (size medium); ESAPI—10.9 per pair (size
medium); DAP—5.3 pounds; ESBI--7.1 pounds per set"

"Insert/Enhanced SAPI (SAPI)/(ESAPI), Deltoid and Axillary
Protector (DAP), and the Enhanced Side Ballistic Insert (ESBI)"

Those number, I think, are the same as the unreferenceable site. So luckily no facts were blurred do to resource chosen. What was interesting was that on that PEO.mil site they said that the medium armor wich I assume medium plates was 23.9 that is with the sides and delt protections also. Sizes go to XXXX-large for OTV and to X-large for the sapi plates. interesting and I don't know how I would find the weight of an xxxx-large with an x-large plate since the point blank site doesn't list many specifics.

Again I just like this topic. Let's hope Mr Bain's armor gets ready for prime time sooner than later.

I have no dog in this fight. I just have been wondering about NIJ practices. The NIJ sites I listed only listed that the evidence wasn't sufficient to believe that the ballistic protection would last over 6 years. I know that is enough under the new 2005 rules, truly though it doesn't mean it has failed any of NIJ's actual physical test, pinnacle didn't convince NIJ officials with paper evidence, I thought that was interesting. I hope that anger tpward pinnacle or at mr neal isn't effecting anyone's official word. I have no evidence it is I don't claim it is but there is a lot of anger at Mr Neal I hope that good products, even from bad people, that meet the needed stats aren't being pushed aside because of embarrassment or harsh words aimed at high officials. Lastly I think I read and posted http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:i7USy5GJcJ8J:www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/0101.04RevA.pdf+nij+wet+test&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a
that lists the test conditions of the NIJ and there is a wet test it is point 5.7 on page 20. It is no where near the DOD tests, as you know, but it was implemented in the 70's or 80's when they discovered that rain could diminish the effectiveness of kevlar. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183651.htm that is easier to see it is from the doj and it says that they have wet tests or conditions. It is not the same link though.

SF_BHT

09-02-2007, 15:57