Dragon Skin Testing and the Truth

[Hipshot]

Looks like Mr. Neal needs to find another rock to crawl under.

[KClapp]

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]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

So - can we assume from reading these press reports that the congressional hearing "chewed 'em up and spit 'em out"?

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]

Oooh!

Off the top rope!

Get some, LTG Thompson.

TR

[Odd Job]

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]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

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]

Originally Posted by Odd Job

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]

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]

@ Karl Masters

Thank you, sir, that information is much appreciated and you have been very helpful.

Brandon

[The Reaper]

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?v...status=current

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

TR

[smp52]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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)]

Originally Posted by smp52

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]

Originally Posted by smp52

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.

Originally Posted by smp52

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]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

Once SF always SF

Thanks Sir.

To serve the Nation is our reward.

V/r
Karl

[afchic]

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.