DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Armor » Body Armor on Track

Body Armor on Track

IOTV-front-web.jpg

The inves­tiga­tive arm of Congress released an updated report Friday on the sta­tus of the U.S. mil­i­tarys body armor acqui­si­tion efforts and the effec­tive­ness of the armor the ser­vices are fielding.

The reports were con­ducted at the behest of the U.S. Comptroller General — the head of the Government Accountability Office after news reports brought to light short­falls in armor field­ing and flaws in test­ing that resulted in tens of thou­sands of vest sent to the war zone that had not passed spec dur­ing qual­ity assur­ance testing.

The lat­est GAO report found the Army and Marine Corps had effec­tively revamped their test­ing reg­i­men and raised their spec­i­fi­ca­tions to meet emerg­ing threats in the com­bat zone. It also marked one of the first times that a gov­ern­ment entity has stated for­mally that the new Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert plates, or ESAPI, were devel­oped to address the threat of armor pierc­ing 7.62 rounds.

During my report­ing on this issue, the ser­vices threat­ened me with every­thing short of a shank in a dark alley if I revealed the rea­sons behind the ESPAI buy. Specifically, the Marine Corps had a plate in its hands (that I knew about) with a hole in it from an armor-​​piercing round around the first of the year in 2005. They shared the plate with Army bal­lis­tics experts, who were con­cerned by the pen­e­tra­tion as well.

The plate was exam­ined at bal­lis­tics labs, includ­ing HP White in Street, Md., where the Army prefers to do its bal­lis­tic tests. Tungsten-​​carbide residue was found in the impact zone, lead­ing experts to con­clude the armor-​​piercing round penetration.

Thus the rush for ESAPI began

The ser­vices seem to have got­ten their act together when it comes to spec­i­fi­ca­tions and test­ing, the GAO report shows. Congressional audi­tors did men­tion, how­ever, an ini­tia­tive by the Pentagons office for oper­a­tional test and eval­u­a­tion to stan­dard­ize the Army/​Marine Corps test­ing regime — which is slightly dif­fer­ent and con­ducted at sep­a­rate NIJ-​​certified test­ing sites that will be put into place in 2007.

– Christian

Share |

April 30th, 2007 | Armor | 248742 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/04/30/body-armor-on-track/Body+Armor+on+Track2007-04-30+15%3A23%3A14Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « M4 Debate Fires Up | JTRS on the Skids » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Moose says:
    April 30, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    Now if only they’d give Pinnacle a fair trial.

    Reply
  2. nick says:
    April 30, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Christian,
    Just like you’ve opened a ball of wax with the M4 issue, thank God for that too, per­haps it’s time a lit­tle sun­shine should be brought to the body armor issue and the fiasco behind the rejec­tion of Dragon Skin body armor. Here’s yet another piece of equip­ment that has shown is bet­ter that what the troops cur­rently have yet it’s not being fielded for who knows what reason.

    Reply
  3. Wembley says:
    April 30, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    All the signs are that Pinnacle’s Dragonskin was rejected for all the wrong rea­sons — ‘not invented here’ — and really deserves a bet­ter look.
    Does it have any cham­pi­ons here?

    Reply
  4. Christian says:
    April 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Guys,
    I’ve got a lot to say (and some pretty in-​​depth report­ing done) on the Dragon Skin. Lemme make some more calls and I’ll post some­thing on the lat­est on Dragon Skin devel­op­ment and the rum­bling con­tro­versy…
    I’m on it!
    Christian

    Reply
  5. carl says:
    April 30, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Just a thought on the drag­on­skin http://​op​-for​.com/​2​0​0​7​/​0​4​/​m​a​r​i​n​e​_​c​o​r​p​s​_​p​u​b​l​i​s​h​e​s​_​n​e​w​_​p​o​l​.​h​tml — more over the link to the pro­fes­sional sol­diers website.

    Reply
  6. Billy Big Spuds says:
    April 30, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    There are only 2 things with Dragon Skin. Little pro­tec­tion from extreme angles, and price. Other than that, The Army and USMC need to get their s*** together and get Dragon Skin. I mean, we’re not dis­cussin sun­glasses or hol­sters here, here dealin with essen­tial life-​​saving equipt­ment. And whats the point of usin armour that wont stop a 7.62, espe­cially when thats what the bad guys are usin.

    Reply
  7. Slab says:
    April 30, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Billy Big Spuds,
    Interceptor with ESAPIs will defeat 7.62X54R API ammu­ni­tion. Even before the days of ESAPI it would defeat 7.62X54R, which is used in enemy sniper rifles and medium machine­guns. The aver­age insur­gent is armed with an AK47, fir­ing 7.62X39mm. The Interceptor and SAPI plate combo has been suc­cess­fully defeat­ing that threat since 2003.
    Christian, I look for­ward to your piece on Dragon Skin. I think there is a lot of mis­in­for­ma­tion and con­jec­ture out there regard­ing body armor, which leads to incor­rect state­ments like the ones made by Billy.

    Reply
  8. Kevin says:
    April 30, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Seeing that The Amazing and Revolutionary Dragon Skin armor can’t pass NIJ Level IV test­ing I decline to drink the kool-​​aid. Videotaped “demos”, gush­ing endorse­ments and “secret” test results are what late night rip-​​off artists use to seper­ate suck­ers from their money. Why should we believe them in this case?

    Reply
  9. preban says:
    May 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

    And don’t for­get the lam­i­na­tion fail­ing in tem­pra­tures above 120 degrees, DragonSkin is one shiny peice of mar­ket­ing that’s for sure, but proven reli­able tech should cer­tainly win out over slick adver­tis­ing shouldn’t it?

    Reply
  10. Wembley says:
    May 1, 2007 at 7:50 am

    Well, the DragonSkin nay-​​sayers are cer­tainly out, but why not have proper test­ing in the open (with­out any vested inter­ests being involved this time) and get the facts?
    As I recall DargonSkin’s robust­ness — it doesn’t break when you drop it — was another big plus. As for cost, are we com­par­ing like with like? Order 10,000 DrangonSkins and I sus­pect you’d start get­ting some economies of scale kick­ing in.
    Looking for­ward to Christian’s posting…

    Reply
  11. Grandjester says:
    May 1, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Watched Gunny Ermey unload a full AK mag at the Dragon Skin (didn’t say what type of ammo) at damn near point blank with zero pen­e­tra­tions on Mail Call. Not sci­en­tific to be sure but damn, looked good. I real­ize that these man­u­fac­tur­ers are all try­ing to make a buck, but isn’t there some point where the mil­i­tary steps up and says, we like this other sys­tem, but gosh darn can we license the Dragon Skin scale sys­tem to replace the cur­rent plate sys­tem (may be a bad exam­ple, but would like to see some sharing/​blending of the tech­nolo­gies for max ben­e­fit for our dudes).

    Reply
  12. Sheldon says:
    May 1, 2007 at 10:46 am

    I agree with grand­jester we should do a blend­ing of armor or some­thing so we can get this debate over with and just get the guys some decent armor that offers bet­ter cov­er­age, is lighter weight, breth­able, and can save some lives!

    Reply
  13. Grandjester says:
    May 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Yeah Ben, but what about the weight?

    Reply
  14. Mike says:
    May 1, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    One great Technolagy about the dragon skin is the fact that just about the intire vest is “bul­let proof.” This can be inc­op­er­ated with other vest to make the shold­ers and sides armored against bul­lets, not just shrapnel.

    Reply
  15. Greg D says:
    May 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Having seen, in per­son, Dragonskin fail test after test after test at HP White, color me a bit skep­ti­cal about the Dragonskin boost­ers here and else­where in the community…

    Reply
  16. Willie says:
    May 3, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    I’d like to see a move­ment to boy­cott recruit­ing more troops until we can get them the pro­tec­tive gear they need, and some descent weapons like the FN P90 bullpup assault rifles. There’s a lot of good tech­nol­ogy out there.
    We should leave Iraq so they can have a good descent civil war and earn their free­dom the old fash­ioned way so they might actu­ally appre­ci­ate what we’ve handed them on a sil­ver plat­ter already.

    Reply
  17. Slab says:
    May 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Willie, we have pro­tec­tive gear, and the FN P90 is a per­sonal defense weapon, not an assault rifle. It fires a pistol-​​caliber car­tridge, with a max effec­tive range of 200m, which is far from equiv­a­lent to the cur­rent M16/​M4 fam­ily of weapon systems.

    Reply
  18. Allan Bain says:
    May 12, 2007 at 12:30 am

    I just don’t see a con­tro­versy, the price tag from a bud­getary stand­point com­bined with the “shove it down your throat” sales tac­tics by Pinnacle Armor is a sure fire for­mula to inspire the the Army to just invest in bet­ter inter­cep­tor mod­els, and thats what they did. In fact they have a newer Boron Carbide com­ing down the pike that has bet­ter frac­ture tough­ness, we intend on using it thats for sure.
    The newest inter­cep­tor vest is a nice unit.

    Reply
  19. Sarge says:
    May 18, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    As a sol­dier cur­rently serv­ing in Iraq, I want the best. According to tests from H.P. White, U.S. Test Labs, and Aberdeen test cen­ter, Dragon Skin beats Interceptor in Several cat­e­gories. These include: Ballistic Performance, Weight, Flexibility, Multi-​​hit Capability, Durability, Back-​​face Deformation, Ergonomics, and Edge Hit Capability. This test­ing was done with level 4 ESAPI in the inter­cep­tor and the lat­est Dragon Skin(SOV-3000) That being the case, I want Dragon Skin.

    Reply
  20. William says:
    May 30, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    Dragon Skin makes all kind of claims, but nobody wants to wear a 47+ lbs vest. Pinnacle avoids this issue like the plague. Go look at their lat­est enter­tain­ment video show­ing off their Level V vest. It is hideous and looks like the thick­ness of a New York City phone­book. You be the judge.

    Reply
  21. Chris says:
    November 4, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    I think Dragon scale is good but is quite heavy and does not take inceri­ble amout of hits maybe 10 at best. A newer amour from Defend-​​X is much bet­ter it is like hard plates in shape and size but thats were the sim­i­lar­ies end. I saw a video on you tube of it tak­ing 63 5.56 nato green tip rounds before even dint­ing on the back. The armour has two plates with some for of rino lin­ing on them and sand­wiched in bete­ween them is a bal­sitic foam. any way it looks like the best amour out there right now.

    Reply
  22. Requiem gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.

    Reply
  23. kamas says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    For you, I would rather to give up my all trea­sures and the kamas which I prac­tice the level hard.

    Reply
  24. Tibia coins says:
    August 20, 2008 at 12:20 am

    One day, I read a arti­cle about Tibia Gold game. I was very dispir­ited and couldn’t help to give up Tibia coins.

    Reply
  25. buy sro gold says:
    August 20, 2008 at 12:22 am

    If you’re won­der­ing how to look out for bots, how to avoid them and what to do buy sro gold, you have come to the right place.

    Reply
  26. Silkroad gold says:
    August 20, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Thanks for read­ing and hope­fully there will be a lot more Silkroad gold where that came from!

    Reply
  27. Bulletproof Vests says:
    July 22, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Yeah pin­na­cle does deserve a fair trial. With all of the test­ing and cer­ti­fi­ca­tion prob­lems i believe peo­ple are a lit­tle hes­i­tant about pur­chas­ing body armor until this gets straight­ened up.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
      DualityOfMan
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage