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.
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 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.
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.”
IMHO, & for a long time now (such as the Boeing Tanker debacle). There really needs to be a law that prohibits military & civilian personnel overseeing DoD projects from “retiring”, and then going to work for the same exact company/s they were providing “oversight” to. Maybe a 5 year limitation at least.
I’ve been wondering for a while now, if there isn’t a compromise solution here. Maybe a best of both worlds… although two worlds might be kind of heavy. None the less, might it be possible to create a combination of Interceptor plate flanked by the dragon skin on the sides? And/Or to hinge the interceptor plate to provide more mobility?
Or if the Dragon Skin adhesive is causing the failures, then to use a mechanical fastener in addition to. Such as, encapsulating the Dragon Skin disk in a Kevlar wrap & sewing the wrap to the vest to keep it in place. Then followed by the application of the adhesive… eh, just random thoughts.
YouTubed:
Military Rejects Dragon Body Armor
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KTrTrsJu3pk
Dragon Skin Body Armor Report (Part 1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lMrA2SEat8k
The Army is not credible because they’ve provably run biased tests in the past and didn’t seem to follow their own testing protocal with Dragon Skin.
Dragon Skin is not credible because they have a horse in this race.
NBC is not credible because they are not professional testers and did not give Dragon Skin a DOD full test.
Most of all, internet posters are not credible because a lot of them seem to have a horse in this race. I would not be surprised to learn that the internet posters most aggressively against either system actually work for one side or the other (either the various Interceptor manufacturers, the Army, or Dragon Skin).
The only solution as I see it is for an independent testing organization to perform tests to agreed guidelines with no interference or participation from any of the involved parties. Perhaps the tests could be monitored by representatives from the GAO or some other auditing organization.
I’d suggest a Canadian or European testing organization so there could be no allegations that the testing firm didn’t want to anger a large customer like the Army. (Unless there is a US weapons testing firm who doesn’t have large DOD contracts, something I find unlikely).
I’d like to see those exact same tests performed on the Interceptor. I’d like to see all findings released to the Congress and the public.
If you’re against such a final, public test, I have to think you have a horse in this race.
Desmond,
Individual soldiers in the Canadian army are using Dragon Skin already.…
As an internet poster, I have no horse in the race.
I honestly don’t think that dragon skin should be in the regular army standard issue. The soldiers shouldn’t be forced to wear dragon skin, but should be made aware of the risks of dragon skin and make their own decision.
The big problem with dragon skin, is no visual way to verify the plates are where they are suppose to be. At least with interceptor you can verify your armour is in fighting shape.
I think NBC said congress is doing it’s own tests.. but by the time dragon skin would be come ‘standard issue’ it’d probably be 3 years later, and the war will probably be way to sick of this war… and most likely won’t even get used in Iraq.
Dear Camp,
Your hybrid idea (or compromise as you put it) was proposed last year in the RFI for the military. It still may be considered in the near future. Part of the problem is that it is really difficult to get around the DS patents, and therefore for so few pieces it places the hybrid system into a pain in the butt category to manufacturer. Pinnacle and our company would be in the best position to do this though.
Another company may be joining the arena , but they have maninly focused on semi flexible and very light rifle resistant armor. They also have been going the route of Level 3+ first.
Now I think the issue that people aren’t really grasping here is that the army doesn’t do a side by side test. I actually think and wonder what Mr. Bain William and the Sgt. think about how dragon skin would do in a shooting test if it was just fired upon in the similar area that the interceptor body armor is fired upon. Like the 10x12 center of mass and the 6x8 center of the profile of the armor. The video the army showed it appears like the bullet went through when fired at a very high part like at the upper chest I don’t think the interceptor armor would have stopped a shot in that relative placement as the chest plate does not extend that high. This is where the public and the army perceptions differ. The public wants the side by side test and the army does a test with new parameters because the armor is a different type. I wonder if like in the ACR trial the army isn’t trying to get a “better” piece but a dramatically better piece of equiptment in that the army said it would only replace the m16 if a competitor was 100 percent better in testing. I don’t know if that is the case but if the protective area of the IBA was drawn onto the dragon skin and only that area fired upon I wonder wich vest would do better.
Whether or not Dragon Skin is BS, I don’t know. I do know the troops have good armor, but not the best money can buy, based on current B4C plates and configurations.
I am assuming troops now carry Level 3A E-OTV, plus front and back 10x12 ESAPI Level 4 ballistic plates, left and right torso Level 3 SAPI plates, and maybe some Level 3A shoulder/groin protection.
The highest level or protection with the most body coverage with the best technology will cost a lot of money and extra weight. Here is what I found: For sale right now.
Special Operations Multi Hit Ballistic Plate Level 4(6 Hit API) (Restricted Item) Set of Two
Armored Warrior Torso Side Plate Level 4-Medium Set of Two (Restricted Item)
AW Ballistic Shoulder Bicep Armor Level 3 (Set of 2)
Armored Warrior Lower Back Armor Level 3 (Triple) (Restricted Item)
AW Ballistic Drop Leg Platform with Rifle Plate (Set of 2) Level 3(Restricted Item)
Armored Warrior LimbSaver
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdfAfter From those x rays it doesn’t appear like the penetrations were at only unoverlapping disc areas or just on the edge of non overlapping discs. The only issue I still see is that the penetrations look just like the non-penetrations on the x ray, a shattered disc I guess. Really couldn’t tell the difference with out the red circle.
From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the Dragon Armor (DA) works with most rounds. According to the military it failed when a 7.62x54R AP round was used against it. Everytime DA has passed the test against a 7.62 round, it has been usually 7.62x45 or smaller. This may be where the real problem lies.
I think that no matter what the Army does, whether they retest and determine that DA is the way to go or whether the retest and determine that it won’t work, we have another political problem.
If new armor was issued starting now, do you really think they’d be doing a mass switch out of the interceptor for DA? Could they really afford to?
Due to the design, I’m not surprised that the level of trauma is lower with DA. What I’m wondering is, after I’ve absorbed 3 shots and I get back to base, how do I verify that all my plates are still good? How do I replace a plate if its broken? With Interceptor, I switch out the plate and I’m good to go. With DA I’m either running around with a hole in my protection or I’m drawing a new set of armor.
From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the Dragon Armor (DA) works with most rounds. According to the military it failed when a 7.62x54R AP round was used against it. Everytime DA has passed the test against a 7.62 round, it has been usually 7.62x45 or smaller. This may be where the real problem lies.
I think that no matter what the Army does, whether they retest and determine that DA is the way to go or whether the retest and determine that it won’t work, we have another political problem.
If new armor was issued starting now, do you really think they’d be doing a mass switch out of the interceptor for DA? Could they really afford to?
Due to the design, I’m not surprised that the level of trauma is lower with DA. What I’m wondering is, after I’ve absorbed 3 shots and I get back to base, how do I verify that all my plates are still good? How do I replace a plate if its broken? With Interceptor, I switch out the plate and I’m good to go. With DA I’m either running around with a hole in my protection or I’m drawing a new set of armor.
Dear Txzen,
Thats the problem you can’t do a side by side test with flat planular armor vs flexible scalar armor with the same testing protocol. This is the reason why the NIJ adapted a whole new protocol for flexible scalar armor vs testing hard plates. It is the opinion of many that it doesn’t go far enough to address known weak spots of scalar armor.
Pinnacle knows this and thats why they don’t want the armor tested on a curved surface with the test barrell set up to achieve a true 90 degree attack on the weakest points in any tests they conducts or allows. I think NBC went along with this restriction not really thinking the matter through or talking to real experts. However you can bet the Army does this, interesting that this is where all the failures occur.
It’s easy to get a 90 degree shot on modeslty curved uniform thick planular armor.
Side by side in this instance means you test the plates like a plate, and the scalar armor like scalar armor should be tested against the same rounds and velocities.
Check out Pinnacle’s level 5 body armor!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKnfHhRl7U0
this is no joke, check it out
Yea, I saw it! Amateaur Hour all over again, did you see the guy who got a bullet fragment in his leg? Do not try this at home, these guys are seriously lacking in the brains department. Anytime you shoot bullets at hard surfaces, e.g. armor, you can get hit by bullet fragments or even richocets. Not real smart there boys. This is also why everyone in reality land tests in controlled conditions, lets’ see, a “lab” comes to mind, yea that’s it, a “lab”. Maybe the Pinnacle boys might consider using a test facility with proper isolation of the armor being tested from the personnel, you know, just one of those minor common sense things there. I did see that they are using a chronograph now, maybe they are starting to listen some but I doubt it.
Desmond I have a horse in the race from a component sales side, not actually a body armor manufacturer any more, but I agree with you, the kind of testing you propose is indeed what is needed for all participants, but I can also say don’t hold your breath. The military has a good point, why do we have to use armor we haven’t tested personally, thats kind of like telling the airforce that we have no say in the planes we fly. the pilots have a lot to say about planes in development and so must the people using system in the Army.