Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[afchic]

Found this, this morning. Good news.

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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


That leaves the question of testing up in the air.



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



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



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

[82ndtrooper]

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

[The Reaper]

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

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

That is without severe environmental cycling.

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

Who would have thought it?

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

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

TR

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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

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

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

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

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

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

[Team Sergeant]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR


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

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

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



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

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

[Kyobanim]

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

[jwt5]

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

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

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

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


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

[The Reaper]

Vanguard:

I'll make it easy for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TR

[The Reaper]

Vanguard:

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

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

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

TR

[Ret10Echo]

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


Now, the Entire Armor Test Delay Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Snaquebite]

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

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

[Team Sergeant]

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

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


Team Sergeant

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





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

Firstly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the issues involved are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a personal note

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

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

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

[Snaquebite]

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

George

[The Reaper]

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

Right.

Somebody needs an education, and a clue. Badly.

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

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

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

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

IF I WERE TO GO TO A COMAT ZONE - I WOULD WEAR AND TRUST WITHOUT QUESTION LEVEL 3

I haven't worn L3 as an Instructor for training in over 3 years.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

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

George

Thank you!

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

Team Sergeant