Dragon Skin Body Armor By Pinnacle Armor
- Thread starter msteen1
- Start date
B
Boondocksaint375
Guest
Army Taking Dragon Skin Case to Hill
By Christian Lowe | May 22, 2007
The Army plans to brief Congress about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports touting the vest's capabilities prompted calls from lawmakers for an official explanation.
The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said he plans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast an investigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series of interlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armor currently issued by the Army.
"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning on going over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."
Brown declined to specify which lawmakers contacted his office, explaining he's still working out the final details on this week's congressional visit.
The Monday briefing was the first public accounting after a year of silence on the Dragon Skin issue. Army officials are fighting back with an aggressive campaign to undercut NBC's claims, which based much of its report on ballistic tests the network conducted in Germany and on the claims of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor.
http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=9791216&type=CO
The Army laid out its case with x-ray photos showing complete penetrations of the armor during a standardized test in mid-May of last year. Brown appeared at the Pentagon briefing with the actual test articles that had failed to stop armor-piercing rounds, which Army officials claim its current enhanced small arms protective insert plate can withstand.
"'Zero failures' is the correct answer," Brown said. "One failure is sudden death, and you lose the game."
The Dragon Skin vests tested by the Army in May suffered 13 penetrations in 48 shots, service officials said.
The controversy first 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."
The Army initially held off countering Pinnacle president Murray Neal's claims that his armor was superior, despite the adverse test results, in hopes of keeping the dispute from going nuclear. But after nearly a week of NBC News reports claiming Dragon Skin is stronger, the Army decided to lay out its case.
"The intent was not to blow bridges between the Army and some very credible contractor," said Brig. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the Army's top spokesman. "It's just that with this most recent news report and its potential impact on Mr. and Mrs. America ... that's why we went with this" detailed defense.
Pinnacle's Neal told Military.com Friday the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology. 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.
Army officials say they want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramic disks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility than currently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest, Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.
"We're very interested in this type of armor - in this concept," Brown explained. "It has great promise. But it is not meeting our requirements as we speak today."
Brown hopes his public case against Dragon Skin will keep Soldiers and their families from doubting the strength of their Army-issued vests.
"This is not just some number on a wall, this is personal to us," Brown said. "It's very near and dear to us which is why we take it deadly seriously."
By Christian Lowe | May 22, 2007
The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said he plans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast an investigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series of interlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armor currently issued by the Army.
"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning on going over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."
Brown declined to specify which lawmakers contacted his office, explaining he's still working out the final details on this week's congressional visit.
The Monday briefing was the first public accounting after a year of silence on the Dragon Skin issue. Army officials are fighting back with an aggressive campaign to undercut NBC's claims, which based much of its report on ballistic tests the network conducted in Germany and on the claims of Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor.
http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=9791216&type=CO
The Army laid out its case with x-ray photos showing complete penetrations of the armor during a standardized test in mid-May of last year. Brown appeared at the Pentagon briefing with the actual test articles that had failed to stop armor-piercing rounds, which Army officials claim its current enhanced small arms protective insert plate can withstand.
"'Zero failures' is the correct answer," Brown said. "One failure is sudden death, and you lose the game."
The Dragon Skin vests tested by the Army in May suffered 13 penetrations in 48 shots, service officials said.
The controversy first 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."
The Army initially held off countering Pinnacle president Murray Neal's claims that his armor was superior, despite the adverse test results, in hopes of keeping the dispute from going nuclear. But after nearly a week of NBC News reports claiming Dragon Skin is stronger, the Army decided to lay out its case.
"The intent was not to blow bridges between the Army and some very credible contractor," said Brig. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the Army's top spokesman. "It's just that with this most recent news report and its potential impact on Mr. and Mrs. America ... that's why we went with this" detailed defense.
Pinnacle's Neal told Military.com Friday the tests were flawed and that Army testers were unsure how to adequately evaluate his technology. 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.
Army officials say they want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramic disks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility than currently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest, Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.
"We're very interested in this type of armor - in this concept," Brown explained. "It has great promise. But it is not meeting our requirements as we speak today."
Brown hopes his public case against Dragon Skin will keep Soldiers and their families from doubting the strength of their Army-issued vests.
"This is not just some number on a wall, this is personal to us," Brown said. "It's very near and dear to us which is why we take it deadly seriously."
That's exactly what I was thinking. Design, workmanship, whatever....no one cares if the bullets goes through it.
Pinnacle is a whining bunch of fags, that want to make money off the soldiers and US Government/Taxpayers, with no regard as to the quality of their armor. They should have to wear it and go on a few raids in the sandbox, or be willing to test the armor on their families to prove how good it is.
I think what he means is they were testing the armor the way it will be used and it wasnt designed for the rigors of combat, but for show and tell...
R_M sends
LibraryLady
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 5,072
Ain't that the truth. :cool:
Never trust testing by a manufacturer. They will make sure the testing is designed to guarantee the item passes with flying colors.
Never trust testing by the media. They will make sure the testing supports their contentions.
LL
Indeed. I feel the same way about a lot of the hardware that gets peddled to the military. The Osprey is a case in point. Every executive, lobbyist and program director should have to take rides in that thing every step of the way.
If the principals in these companies are so confident that this armor stops all of these rounds, put it on and may the best armor win.
O
ODA CDR
Guest
Don't mean to hijack but...
You know you can't even fit a HUMVEE in the Osprey! What a colossal waste of $$$$.
You know you can't even fit a HUMVEE in the Osprey! What a colossal waste of $$$$.
They will with the new and improved Heavy Lift Osprey.
If two tilt rotors are good, then four tilt rotors must be better. Right? Right?!...:doh:
Attachments
L
Looon
Guest
Any body armor is better than no armor.:uhh: Of course there is going to be some fucking shady shit going on regardless of which system is better.
B
Boondocksaint375
Guest
Dragon Skin Backers Hammered on Hill
By Christian Lowe | June 07, 2007
The technical expert solicited by a major news network to certify its tests of Dragon Skin body armor admitted Wednesday that the controversial vests weren't "ready for prime time."
In an investigative report broadcast by NBC May 20, the network used the expert opinion of Dr. Phillip Coyle - the former director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration - to certify results of side-by-side tests conducted at NBC's expense in Germany.
In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.
But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.
"You're saying today ... that you cannot say that it's ready for prime time. That's your testimony?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) asked Coyle.
Coyle agreed that the NBC tests fell short of proving Dragon Skin was ready for fielding.
Sitting beside Coyle at the hearing, Pinnacle president Murray Neal put forward a vigorous, if disjointed, defense of his product, telling lawmakers in written testimony the Army was manipulating test results, conducted unfair shots on his armor and released contradictory data to lawmakers and the media.
"Nothing jives, nothing makes sense," Neal told committee members. "The information coming from the Army is fraught with inconsistencies."
Video: Do U.S. Troops Have the Right Body Armor?
While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, Neal denied Army claims that a dozen more rounds penetrated his Dragon Skin vests.
He argued x-ray photos of one vest the Army claims failed showed the Dragon Skin disks had stopped the round.
"The bullet did not go through the armor," Neal said flatly.
Army officials responded by showing lawmakers a video clip of Neal inspecting the same vest after a test shot, watching engineers dig the penetrating round out of ballistic clay backing.
"Are you telling me if you were wearing this vest ... and that round hit you in the chest, would that have killed you or not?" a skeptical Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) asked Neal.
"No," he replied.
The Armed Services Committee hearing is the latest round in the long-simmering debate over Pinnacle's claims that its armor system - which uses a series of linked ceramic disks wrapped around a Soldier's body to stop armor-piercing rifle rounds - is better than the Army-issued Interceptor vest that uses four rigid ceramic plates.
At the request of Hunter and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the Army conducted a so-called "first article test" for Dragon Skin armor at a private ballistics lab in Maryland last year to see if the Dragon Skin technology met Army specifications.
Those tests resulted in 13 penetrations in 48 shots, the Army claims, including a full penetration on the second shot of the first test vest.
Investigators with NBC conducted their own series of tests at a German lab this spring, firing dozens of armor-piercing rounds at both Dragon Skin and a vest they said contained Army-issued plates, though Coyle cast some doubt on whether they were the same plates used by Soldiers in the field.
The NBC tests showed Dragon Skin absorbing many more rifle rounds than the Army vest, prompting Coyle's assertion that Dragon Skin was better than Interceptor armor.
Coyle, Neal and NBC are calling for another series of independent, side-by-side tests to prove once and for all which armor system is better.
"The best way to resolve this matter would be for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command to conduct comparable side-by-side tests of both Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor," Coyle said.
While Hunter subjected both Neal and Coyle to harsh questioning over their claims, the California lawmaker agreed that another round of tests is the only thing that will put the issue to rest.
"We need to straight away, in an expeditious way, to find out if there's value to this system," Hunter said. "And if there is value, we need to extract it as soon as possible and get it to the troops in the field."
By Christian Lowe | June 07, 2007
The technical expert solicited by a major news network to certify its tests of Dragon Skin body armor admitted Wednesday that the controversial vests weren't "ready for prime time."
In an investigative report broadcast by NBC May 20, the network used the expert opinion of Dr. Phillip Coyle - the former director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration - to certify results of side-by-side tests conducted at NBC's expense in Germany.
In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.
But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.
"You're saying today ... that you cannot say that it's ready for prime time. That's your testimony?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) asked Coyle.
Coyle agreed that the NBC tests fell short of proving Dragon Skin was ready for fielding.
Sitting beside Coyle at the hearing, Pinnacle president Murray Neal put forward a vigorous, if disjointed, defense of his product, telling lawmakers in written testimony the Army was manipulating test results, conducted unfair shots on his armor and released contradictory data to lawmakers and the media.
"Nothing jives, nothing makes sense," Neal told committee members. "The information coming from the Army is fraught with inconsistencies."
While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, Neal denied Army claims that a dozen more rounds penetrated his Dragon Skin vests.
He argued x-ray photos of one vest the Army claims failed showed the Dragon Skin disks had stopped the round.
"The bullet did not go through the armor," Neal said flatly.
Army officials responded by showing lawmakers a video clip of Neal inspecting the same vest after a test shot, watching engineers dig the penetrating round out of ballistic clay backing.
"Are you telling me if you were wearing this vest ... and that round hit you in the chest, would that have killed you or not?" a skeptical Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) asked Neal.
"No," he replied.
The Armed Services Committee hearing is the latest round in the long-simmering debate over Pinnacle's claims that its armor system - which uses a series of linked ceramic disks wrapped around a Soldier's body to stop armor-piercing rifle rounds - is better than the Army-issued Interceptor vest that uses four rigid ceramic plates.
At the request of Hunter and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the Army conducted a so-called "first article test" for Dragon Skin armor at a private ballistics lab in Maryland last year to see if the Dragon Skin technology met Army specifications.
Those tests resulted in 13 penetrations in 48 shots, the Army claims, including a full penetration on the second shot of the first test vest.
Investigators with NBC conducted their own series of tests at a German lab this spring, firing dozens of armor-piercing rounds at both Dragon Skin and a vest they said contained Army-issued plates, though Coyle cast some doubt on whether they were the same plates used by Soldiers in the field.
The NBC tests showed Dragon Skin absorbing many more rifle rounds than the Army vest, prompting Coyle's assertion that Dragon Skin was better than Interceptor armor.
Coyle, Neal and NBC are calling for another series of independent, side-by-side tests to prove once and for all which armor system is better.
"The best way to resolve this matter would be for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command to conduct comparable side-by-side tests of both Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor," Coyle said.
While Hunter subjected both Neal and Coyle to harsh questioning over their claims, the California lawmaker agreed that another round of tests is the only thing that will put the issue to rest.
"We need to straight away, in an expeditious way, to find out if there's value to this system," Hunter said. "And if there is value, we need to extract it as soon as possible and get it to the troops in the field."
I can't remember if it was mentioned earlier...probably was...but this jackass is a dentist.
Air Force considers ban on body armor maker
Based on the first paragraph, this would preclude Pinnacle from being awarded any government contracts, regardless of which branch they would be supplying, correct?
At least that's the way it reads. Maybe they are just referring to AF contracts.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_pinnacleban_070612/
Based on the first paragraph, this would preclude Pinnacle from being awarded any government contracts, regardless of which branch they would be supplying, correct?
At least that's the way it reads. Maybe they are just referring to AF contracts.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_pinnacleban_070612/
I hope they come out with something that works soon. the current interceptor stuff just isn't that comfortable and it's hard to move around in, especially if you have the DAPS installed. just to make it more comfy I ditched my LBV and put mag pouches on my vest, and used a S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12 and extra bs like earplugs and stuff. I'm not aircrew rated yet, so I don't get the high-speed air warrior shit they issue now. it makes it interesting when you see some big fucker dismount a helo wearing the big bulky IBA with an aircrew helmet on instead of the ACH. se la vi. Flight Medic School, here I come. (just a few more months....) oh, and lets not forget, if you're humping an aid bag or radio, I hope your straps have enough extra length so you can wear it over the vest.
S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12
Damn dude, could you have used any more acronyms in that sentence?
Damn dude, could you have used any more acronyms in that sentence?
S.O.B. IBA belt to mount my IFAKs and 2 TT 1V pouches for my PRC-12
Damn dude, could you have used any more acronyms in that sentence?
Absolutely. but if that's a hint that I used too many, let me translate:
Spec-Ops Brand Interceptor Body Armor battle belt to mount my Improved First Aid Kits and 2 Tactical Tailor Vertical pouches for my Personell Recovery Communications-12 (check that one... ) and other miscellaneous bullshit.
:)
while I'm thinking about it, is anyone wearing the new OTV the Army adopted? it's side entry and has a little pull-tab for emergency doffing (in case you fall in a river, i imagine, or a medic needs to remove it quickly). it's also adjustable in the shoulder straps and supports all the current mods, like the deltoid/axillary/groin/throat pads and such. I got wind of it a few months ago, big army says us nasty girls get to keep our front-entry shit since everyone else is getting side-entry vests as part of RFI. Anybody?
