Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims [body armor scandal]

Military.com ^ | May 18, 2007 | Christian Lowe

[Sleeping Beauty]

The war between Pinnacle Armor and the Army went nuclear this week as NBC News claimed that Pinnacle's innovative "Dragon Skin" armor is far superior to the vest the Army currently issues to Soldiers.

The report shows test conducted by NBC that seem to prove the vest - as its proponents have claimed over the last several years - can take many more rifle shots than the Army's Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts.

But Army officials disclosed to Military.com that in a series of tests conducted by the service in May of last year, the Dragon Skin vest failed to stop bullets as well as the current Army armor. In fact, test results showed that bullets slipped through the vest as early as the second shot.

"The bottom line is that Dragon Skin by Pinnacle catastrophically failed to meet the requirement," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier, in a May 17 interview.

Pinnacle's president Murray Neal told Military.com the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology - which uses a series of small ceramic disk "scales" to cover the entire torso.

He called Army claims that his vests failed "a bold-faced lie" and said the service is embarrassed to admit its current armor isn't the best out there.

The Army's ESAPI is a rigid ceramic plate about 12-inches high and six inches wide. Soldiers wear front and back plates and two smaller side plates, all of which are designed to stop armor piercing AK-47 rounds found in the war zone.

The controversy went public last March when the Army issued a so-called "Safety of Use Message" that banned all store-bought armor, and specifically stated that Dragon Skin did not meet the service's requirement for ballistic protection.

At the urging of Capitol Hill, the Army bought 30 Dragon Skin vests in May of 2006 and put them through a standard "first article" test to see if the armor could hold up to the same ballistic conditions its current-issued ESAPIs must endure during certification.

According to Karl Masters, one of the Army's top ballistics experts, the Dragon Skin failed to stop a 7.62 x 63mm APM2 round on the second shot of the test.

"We ran this vest through the exact same test protocol that every ESAPI supplier goes through," Masters said. "Can you meet the ESAPI requirement or not? That's the question."

Neal argued in a release after last year's tests that Masters and another Army ballistics expert were dumbfounded by the "flexible armor system" and weren't sure where to place the shots for the test.

"Deviation from the ESAPI test protocols and procedures tool place by the selection of shot placements of APM2 rounds around the ceramics in non-rifle defeating areas," Neal said in a written statement.

But Army officials said the shots were aimed at the same areas for ESPI testing and that the first penetration would typically have been the end of the "sudden death" test.

Engineers agreed to continue with the evaluation, however, subjecting separate Dragon Skin vests to submersion in oil, salt water, extreme cold and extreme heat.

Army data shows 13 complete penetrations or unacceptable back-face deformations - where the bullet doesn't go all the way through but causes enough of a dent that it would result in serious trauma - on four failed vests.

The tests were held in mid-May at H.P. White labs, a respected ballistics testing facility in Street, Md. H.P. White is the same test lab where the Army evaluates all its armor components, preferring not to use the Army-run Aberdeen Proving Ground ranges to fend off accusations of bias.

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.

After being subjected to 160-degree heat for six hours, the Dragon Skin vest failed on the first shot. X-ray photos of the vest show the disks slipped off their backing, exposing portions of the chest area without any ceramic protection.

"Certain areas of the adhesive hardened and become brittle and when that happened, they all dropped down," Brown said.

Further tests in minus-60-degree cold, immersion in oil and diesel fuel showed similar delaminations and shot failures.

Neal said the Army manipulated the x-ray photos, but admitted one vest had an adhesive "anomaly."

Perhaps the biggest Army concern is Dragon Skin's weight. An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though Masters admitted it did have more rifle protective coverage than issued vests.

"The Army continues to look at these types of armor," Masters admitted. "If we can ever eliminate this weight penalty, we may have an opportunity to go to gapless coverage."

The Army declined to provide details of the test failures when the controversy erupted last year, claiming operational security concerns.

But the NBC News investigation prompted officials to rethink their strategy in an effort to keep Army families from purchasing Dragon Skin vests for their loved ones in the combat zone.

"Soldiers must have confidence in their equipment when they go down range," Brown said. "They've got to know that they're wearing the best and their families have got to know that they're wearing the best."

[familyop]

"20 lbs MORE is totally unacceptable."

...agreed. Trying to bound and fire with than on would be out of the question.

[familyop]

...with that on, even.

[Sleeping Beauty]

All about Dragon Skin Tests on Wikipeia

It's kinda cool.

[miliantnutcase]

Yeah, but they listen to viewer feedback and try to do it right on their revisit episodes.

[Eagle Eye]

Any protective equipment that is too cumbersome or causes other hazards is unacceptable.

The military Interceptor armor system may not be perfect but it is adequate.

What the heck did we do before someone decided to issue body armor to every one? I mean, even in WWI we could have strapped thick metal plates on soldiers’ chests and sent them to battle.

[dynachrome]

“disks slipped off their backing”
It is the glue used that is the problem. No experience with body armor BUT, I have worked with discs glued to a flexible, some sort of plastic lattice backing. Supposedly for layering in, say, a civilian bus side in Israel or anywhere with bomb or shooting problems. The glue did not stand up and I believe that product was shelved. (could be wrong about it being shelved. I was just a grunt)

[Strategerist]

It is fun to watch, but that’s about it. I’ve seen them get it wrong a number of times because their test conditions were completely flawed.

They're claiming they "busted" the myth that wood splinters were the main cause of casualties on wooden fighting ships was a joke.

[Sleeping Beauty]

According to their webite, it's the lightest tactical armor in existance.

Check it out.

Flexibility

The only Level III ballistic vests that are flexible enough to wrap around the whole torso area that "move when you move". No more restricted movements when rappelling, fast roping, diving, entry work, sky diving or other rigorous activities. These vests wear like level III-A soft body armor.

Lightweight

The lightest overt tactical and only covert concealable vests offering this type of protection and coverage.

They seem to have plenty of customers. They sell it to foreign armies -- and one message board says "it's ideal for insurgents, who have to keep a low profile and move fast."

[300winmag]

Anybody have any experience with body armor?

I've been active with Operation Helmet. Did you know that the PASGT helmet, in use for the last 25 years, would stop a 9mm bullet? Unfortunately, the impact deformed the helmet four inches, resulting in a lethal traumatic impact.

Until a few years ago, when new protective inserts prevented the blunt trauma (and made the helmet a lot more comfortable to wear). Operation Helmet was formed to get the military (mostly the civilian program leadership) off the dime, and get the pads out of lab, and into helmets.

That task is pretty much complete, but I learned a lot about bullet protection in the process. For one thing, vest manufacturers (and the military itself) are constantly tinkering with their designs. Depending on how they are tested, some designs may be 5-10% better than the current IBA. There is no "magic bullet" on the horizon, but the Army Natick Lab evaluates designs submitted to it too consider for future upgrades.

The next "big" item may be a trauma pad that is stuck to the back of the SAPI plate, or in a pocket behind "soft" body armor. It reduces blunt trauma injury after the bullet has been defeated.

Troops are hearing rumors that they will be issued these pads shortly.

I've heard the claims and counter-claims on Dragon Skin. I treat their claims with some skepticism. As with every other armor design, it may have its advantages and disadvantages, but there is no miraculous breakthrough on the horizon.

[Crazy Jim]

WTFO?!? Is there no posterior protection?

[Sleeping Beauty]

Thanks so much for the info.

That was very informative.

The letter sent by Senators Clinton and Webb today (posted above) looks like a political attack rather than a true concern.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Here's the latest Al Qaeda body armor.

[james500]

Several years ago, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel would basically take defense contractor video brochures for weapon systems, add a commercial break to it and put it on TV. I think the Military Channel does this too.

I enjoy watching them very much but it’s probably good to know that the TV show is purely marketing from Raytheon or General Atomics.

[Laverne]

I saw the LIsa Meyers story tonight on Hardball; I thought she was quite snarkey. She doesn’t seem to understand what operational test and evaluation is, and only looked at one aspect of it, their own “independent” tester. She didn’t look or discuss environmentals, she didn’t discuss the weight issue (at least that I recall), and she didn’t discuss longetivity.

I don’t trust anything on nbc/msnbc, and although sometimes Lisa can be an ok “reporter”, in this case, she is barking up the wrong tree, imho.

She tried to make a big deal out of some folks using the dragon skin, but without any context. Perhaps there was an approved test for a prototype/tech demo to evaluate the affects of the additional weight, etc., but of course, Ms. Meyers didn’t put any context to her report.

Most telling of all, is that the story is carried by MSNBC and the spitter — puts it all in proper perspective for me. Propaganda.

[300winmag]

The letter sent by Senators Clinton and Webb today (posted above) looks like a political attack rather than a true concern.

Let's not forget that it was under Bill Clinton's watch that the first Interceptor Body Armor was bought.

The problem was, the Clinton military leadership felt that IBA was too expensive, and not needed for "ordinary" troops. It was nicknamed "Ranger armor" because only a couple hundred sets were bought per year, to be issued only to Army Rangers on "especially hazardous" missions. At all other times, the armor was kept under lock and key, and had to be signed for and promptly returned to the vault.

The PASGT system was around from the early 1980s, and was a great improvement over the Vietnam-era armor. But by the mid-90s, the Interceptor design was shown to be another quantum leap, but was considered "too expensive".

Remember, it was Bill Clinton who skimped on the troops in order to have more money to spend elsewhere. And it was Hillary who complained that Bush didn't more fast enough to get enough IBA armor into the pipeline, when all he was doing was trying to make up for Clinton's own malfeasance. And now Hillary will use an issue where she is either totally uniformed, or intentionally MISinformed, to score political points again.

[Eagle Eye]

An extra large vest is nearly 20 pounds heavier than the Army's current armor, though Masters admitted it did have more rifle protective coverage than issued vests.

And just because they claim or actually do sell to other armies doesn't mean that they are suitable for our troops.

Trust me, I appreciate lightwieght body armor having had to wear stuff that wore me out just riding in a truck all day, not even getting out and patrolling.

But company propganda (read about what happened with Second Chance) is hardly an authoritative source.

[TexKat]

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

Dragon Skin® flexible body armor - YouTube

Interceptor vs. Dragon Skin: Body Armor Fight Gets Ugly

Bullet-eating dragon

Parents raise funds to buy body armor for son, his squad

Army bans commercial body armor

[Pelham]

Get a job in movie special effects. That’s the background of the Myth Busters.

[Fundamentally Fair]

Troopers (and their parents) are too often convinced that flashy logos, sleek designs and cool names on tactical gear will save them and they MUST have them.

[The KG9 Kid]

My opinions, having followed this story a bit over the last several months:

1. There's definitely more to this story than meets the eye, particularly the notion of body armor contracts being awarded based on political connections.

2. There's definitely been some fibbing on both sides: Pinnacle on their claims of certification, and the Pentagon on their rigged-ass tests that un-qualifies what the Army doesn't want even if it's the better system. They've been doing that for ages and ages. That's why we're still burdened with the AR15 platform, the 5.56mm round, and whole bunch of other gear that doesn't measure up. The military junkyard is filled with cast off crap that the Army just had to have.

3. Pentagon's fibbing aside, Interceptor is still pretty dang good.

4. Pinnacle's fibbing aside, Dragon Skin blows Interceptor away.

5. No armor is guaranteed to save a warrior.

6. I really want some Dragon Skin armor with pauldrons. I hope Tactical Santa brings me some for Hanuramakwanzmas, because I sure don't wanna pay for it.