NBC Accuses Pentagon of Using Less Safe Body Armor… But is it? (Dragon Skin Body Armor)

http://newsbusters.org/ ^ | June 18, 2007 | Warner Todd Huston

[lowbridge]

NBC Accuses Pentagon of Using Less Safe Body Armor… But is it?

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on June 18, 2007 - 10:16.

Back on May 20th, the NBC News Investigative Unit excitedly reported that US Armed forces and the Pentagon may be forcing our soldiers to use body armor that is not as effective as newer models being produced. In an alarming TV report called "Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor?", NBC intimated that the Pentagon was sending our troops substandard bullet proof vests when they knew there was a better product out there suggesting that our government is putting our soldier's safety at risk. But, further Congressional investigations and military testing results are beginning to prove that NBC's breathless report about substandard armor is misleading. Will NBC do a follow up report admitting that their facts were wrong now that their original report has been revealed as hasty and ill informed?

Back on May 20th, intrepid NBC "investigator" Lisa Myers reported that NBC conducted "independent ballistics tests" to prove that Dragon Skin, the product created by Pinnacle Armor, was superior to the military's currently used "Interceptor" body armor product.

But that isn't all. NBC also claimed that there was a conspiracy against Dragon Skin. In their investigative report, NBC quotes a Nevin Rupert who claims that the Army refuses to certify Dragon Skin because approving Dragon Skin armor somehow threatened the Army's power and funding.

"It wasn’t their program. It threatened their program and mission funding," Rupert claimed in an interview with Myers.

The upshot of Myers' report is that some sort of Army cabal in the military was excluding Dragon Skin because they were more interested in funding than the troops' safety.

This May 20th report led to a series of Congressional hearings to ascertain what, if anything, was going on with this issue.

On June 7th, however, we get this report from GovermentExecutive.com (among many other sources):

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.

Given the chance to prove that their armor is the best, as NBC claimed it might be, Pinnacle executives could not even produce a single bit of proof that their product met standards, was better than what is currently being used by our armed forces, or that they are being unfairly frozen out of the appropriations and contracts system.

So, what does NBC say about the reliability of their "investigative" report?

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.

Yeah. Imagine that.

There seems to be all sorts of unanswered questions. From the fact that the adhesive used on Dragon Skin is not effective:

More troubling to Army testers was the near complete delamination of the disks from the Kevlar backing within the Dragon Skin on several of the environmental tests.

To Pinnacle's inexplicable labeling that certified that the Law Enforcement community certified the product when it had not done so:

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

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

... and from GovernmentExecutive.com:

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.

Yet, here we had NBC claiming that the Dragon Skin vests were far better and that there was some eeeevil military conspiracy against them, that Pinnacle was as innocent as the driven snow. The truth seems far murkier.

As to NBC's claims that their "independent" ballistics tests showed Dragon Skin to be better than the Army's current vests, the Army thoroughly disputes this claim.

First is the fact that NBC did not use US Government approved "Interceptor" armor suppliers for their tests:

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.

Second was that US Military tests showed much the opposite of NBC's claims:

“Before the testing was halted, the Dragon Skin vest suffered 13 of 48 first- or second-round shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests,” Thompson (Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology) said. “The bottom line is that the Dragon Skin vest did not stop the bullets.”

Clearly NBC's report is not as true as they presented it to be.

So, the question remains open. Will NBC follow up their alarmist and seemingly completely WRONG claims against our Military? Will they admit that the Pentagon did not try to quash the fortunes of a company that could have provided our soldiers with better protection from enemy bullets? Will NBC admit that they unfairly assaulted the reputation and efficacy of the US Military's procurement process in this case?

We are waiting for an answer NBC.

(Hat tip to NBer David S Grove for an update on this story)

[lowbridge]

Related threads:

Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims [body armor scandal]

Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short

Body armor maker being investigated [Dragon Skin in Trouble]

Courtney calls for probe of body armor for troops

[traderrob6]

Related...

http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2007/06/dragon-skin-backers-hammered-on-hill.html

[pissant]

Duncan Hunter exposed this frauduletn NBC report within the first few minutes of the hearing.

[Obadiah]

Lemme guess, NBC attached a concealed Estes model rocket engine to some body armor, right? And, it’s Bush’s fault, right?

[Bommer]

NBC intimated that the Pentagon was sending our troops substandard bullet proof vests when they knew there was a better product out there suggesting that our government is putting our soldier's safety at risk.

Sorry but these are the same dimwits that sent fiberglass hummers to Iraq! I've seen dragonskin tested on FutureWeapons. What I do not here is how the Interceptor BA is superior! I say give them both to Mac on FutureWeapons and retest them both side-by-side independently with a former Navy Seal testing them instead of military career bureaucrats that may have ties to contractors.

[riverrunner]

There are plenty of people on Freerepublic who are eager to believe the old leftist lies that our military sell their souls for a few coins.

In my experience, it simply is not true, nor is it true that the large corporations conspire to sell us inferior products in order to make higher profits.

There are always differences in opinions about what should be bought, and how much. It is not easy to determine what the right mix is. But nearly all the time, people act with integrity. Certainly, there are lapses, mistakes, and some bad actors. But, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Americans generally have the best equipment that money can buy... and mostly, it is because we are the richest country on earth, because we are the most productive and the most free (the two go hand in hand).

[Mobile Vulgus]

There is often incompetence, granted. But our military has never been against either the common soldier OR the country.

[Little Ray]

The only thing that makes Dragonskin viable is good publicity (Future Weapons) and political patronage...

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-3450.aspx

Subject: Dragon Skin Deconstructed
Harold C. Hutchison 6/7/2007 12:00:55 AM
The recent controversy over Dragon Skin body armor has raised far more questions than answers. In one sense, it shows that the Army is serious about getting its troops the best armor available. In another sense, it shows how the media can royally get things wrong – and in getting it wrong can get troops killed. How? Because they can create the impression that something is effective, when it really isn’t.

The Dragon Skin armor was intended to provide better all-around protection against incoming fire. One problem with most protective vests is that there are places where the protective ceramic plates for the Interceptor armor currently in service don’t extend. This has caused the deaths of policemen in the U.S. and military personnel overseas. Dragon Skin was intended to provide better protection through the use of many smaller ceramic, tiles that overlapped, providing a flexible armor.

One American TV network broadcast material that seemed to indicate that Dragon Skin performed better than the current Interceptor. However, the Army has now released the results of other tests, done by an independent lab in 2006, which showed that Dragon Skin armor failed in a number of areas, including those concerning high temperatures, often after one or two shots. This is not a good thing in combat. Furthermore, the ceramic tiles have proven to be fragile – far more so than the Interceptor’s ceramic plates.

The other problem for Dragon Skin is weight: It is about 20 pounds heavier than the 28 pound Interceptor Armor. This is not a minor detail for the poor grunts – it’s a major problem. The troops also have to carry a loaded M16 or M4 rifle, plus a number of spare clips for that weapon (usually six, but sometimes more). If their M16 or M4 has the M203 grenade launcher, they are carrying the grenades for that. They also tend to carry a loaded M9 pistol, and a couple of spare clips for that as well. Not to mention a first-aid kit, Camelbak or canteens full of water, knife, hand grenades (usually three or four), MRE, cans of silly string (to find trip wires), radio, and other gear (to include notebooks, pens, and a helmet). This could mean a soldier gets tired sooner when wearing Dragon Skin, and more prone to heat related injuries in hot climates. If a soldier wearing Dragon Skin is wounded, the Dragon Skin means that there is 20 pounds more for a medic to drag to cover.

The Army has prohibited the use of Dragon Skin by soldiers – largely due to these problems. The problem the Army now faces is the fact that Dragon Skin has a lot of Congressional support. The manufacturer of Dragon Skin has claimed that the Army is lying – in essence claiming the Army rigged the tests. In fact, the Army did the tests last year at the insistence of Congress – who wanted the armor to be given a chance. Now that the armor has failed, the manufacturer is going to the court of public opinion to overturn the verdict of the Army, based on its tests. Now, the Army is caught in a battle to not only save the lives of its troops, but the reputation of those who test equipment for the troops.

[Brilliant]

NBC conducted "independent ballistics tests" to prove that Dragon Skin, the product created by Pinnacle Armor, was superior to the military's currently used "Interceptor" body armor product.

OK. So we're being asked to believe that experts at NBC know more about testing body armor than experts in the US military, and that somehow, their opinion is more accurate than the military's opinion? Get real.

[amigatec]

bttt

[Doctor Raoul]

NBC and al-Qaeda both use exploding pick up trucks.

[mbynack]

I've noticed that "Future weapons" seems to do a report on military equipment whenever the manufacturer wants some positive advertising. They've done several series on the Stryker, even though it's been plaqued by problems and cost overruns. Two weeks after a report from Iraq showed that 11 of the 24 Strykers that were deployed were destroyed in the first month Future Weapons raved about what a great system it was.

The same thing for Dragon Skin. As soon as the results of the testing were released showing that it failed 6 out of 11 times Future Weapons has a segment on what a great product it is.

Most of those shows are based on information and testing that's done by the manufacturer. The contractors have millions tied up in R&D on these systems and are just doing some positive marketing.

The company I work for does independent testing on systems purchased by the military. About 80% of us are retired military and several of our workers are currently in the Guard or Reserves. I would risk my job and the future of this whole company before I would send the military a piece of equipment that I knew was defective.

[SFC Chromey]

This story got its started with Col. Hackworth’s group, Soldiers For The Truth.org. He has always had the troops safety foremost in everything he has done. NBC is doing nothing more than getting this story some publicity, which had been going on over the last two plus years.

It was supposed by SFTT.org, that these weren’t given a fair trial, and the basically any test of these were delayed or mishandled to the point that the current Interceptor vest would have failed as well.

As someone else already pointed out, this is the same US Military that sent troops in “fiberglass humvees”. So is it not possible, that maybe, just maybe there might be better equipment available that the average Joe doesn’t have access to?

Get real.

[Bommer]

I've noticed that "Future weapons" seems to do a report on military equipment whenever the manufacturer wants some positive advertising.

You may be right, but I do not see how you can fake a round shot into a vest, or fake a grenade being blown up with the vest on top of it. All I'm saying is do a side-by-side independent test, away from the people that have special interests and tested by a soldier instead of a bureaucrat! I still have yet to see the video of the Pentagons testing. Is there one available?

[SFC Chromey]

Why then is this issued to select CIA, State Dept, and Spec Ops personnel on security details? How do I know? I happened to run across a couple of spec ops guys while doing convoy escorts. These guys had the Dragonskin armor, frangible bullets- which also “fail” US Military ballistics tests, and other goodies that regular Joe’s can only dream of.

[Little Ray]

Dunno ‘bout the CIA and State Department, but I’ve read somewhere that Special Operations has a budget that allows there troops to buy what they want, right now, rather than going through regular channels, and having to wait for it.
That is probably how they ended up with Dragonskin and frangible bullets. If it does well by them, despite an extra 20 lbs weight, then great! However, I doubt their needs are entirely the same as regular troops.
And an SF trooper might not notice 20 more pounds of armor!

Also, was this before or after the Future Weapons episode?

[colt1911]

The segment on “Future Weapons” was done with the manufacturer of “Dragonskin” and was nothing more than an “infomercial” for their product. Not once did it mention the extra 20 pounds of weight over the interceptor, nor the problems with durability and longevity found by the Army and USMC in their testing. The latest issue of “Amy Times” has a good article about the Dragonskin/Interceptor controversy that debunks many of the Dragonskin myths. Is the interceptor foolproof? No-but its better than any of the viable alternatives out there right now. And yes, I’ve been in the sand box worn Army-issued body armor.

[colt1911]

Well-its pretty easy. You take a vest hand picked by the manufacturer, right from the assembly line, to do the tests on. Then you do the test with weapons and ammunition and on a range provided by the vest manufacturer. Finally, you edit the test in post production to emphasize what made your product look better. If it was a legitimate test, they need to do it to a vest that has been picked at random and exposed to heat, sunlight, and sweat for a few months to see how it performs after a few months exposure to combat conditions. The segment on Future Weapons, although impressive, was nowhere near a realistic test. Nd yes, I’ve been there, and yes, I’ve worn it....

[oh8eleven]

NBC Accuses Pentagon of Using Less Safe Body Armor…
Hmmm, NBC less than truthful? It Didn't Start With Dateline NBC
[snip]
"Would any half-awake news organization have helped stage a crash test that was rigged to get a particular outcome? Or concealed from the public key elements--the hidden rockets, the over-filled tank, the loose gas cap?"

[SFC Chromey]

FutureWeapons wasn’t even a show. This was in early ‘04. Blackwater was also supplying their contractors with both frangibles and DragonSkin. There are several different versions, and the “20lbs” weight difference doesn’t take into account the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (E-SAPI) additional side plates. With those added the weight difference drops to 5 lbs. Dragonskin already covers that side area more completely than Interceptor does, and has better chance at stopping shrapnel from a variety of angles, as opposed to direct frontal shots.

There are positives and negatives to both systems, but I haven’t seen anyone truly examine both from all sides.