Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[Team Sergeant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/transcrip...nscriptid=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]

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

[armorman]

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]

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]

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/...953#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]

http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares...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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by armorman

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]

Originally Posted by VMI_Marine

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