[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.