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
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • 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 » Pinnacle Faces Contract Ban

Pinnacle Faces Contract Ban

DS-Cold.jpg

It looks as if the Air Force has successfully debarred Dragon Skin-maker Pinnacle Armor from participation in government contracts with the service.

During congressional hearings on the issue in early June, Air Force director of the office of special investigations, Douglas Thomas, revealed the service was investigating Pinnacle for falsely marking its SOV 2000 vests as being NIJ certified Level III armor. Without getting into the minute details, Pinnacle owner Murray Neal has basically said he obtained a verbal certification from NIJ pending the official written one.

Its unclear whether the Air Force investigation will result in any criminal charges, but suffice it to say the General Services Administration has included Pinnacle on its list of Excluded Parties that may do business with the Air Force, at least temporarily.

– Christian

Share |

June 29th, 2007 | Armor | 359033 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/06/29/pinnacle-faces-contract-ban/Pinnacle+Faces+Contract+Ban2007-06-29+15%3A57%3A37Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « The Wall-Crawling Bot | When Gun Nuts Get Nutty » »

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. Wembley says:
    June 29, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Lucky that companies like Boeing and Lockheed never get caught doing anything questionable, or the Air Force wouldn’t be able to buy any planes…!

    Reply
  2. Big Daddy says:
    June 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

    It’s always easier to go after the little guy. The bottom line is that this company started messing around with the big boys. You can’t do that if you are not 100% honest and above any questionable activity.

    Reply
  3. Charley says:
    June 29, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    whatever happened to that liquid nano armor stuff on the google video…?

    Reply
  4. Trax says:
    July 1, 2007 at 12:31 am

    This is a joke. Dragon Skin SOV-2000 is in a different universe when it comes to level III body armor. Absolutely superior. These “investigators” need to seriously find something better to do.

    Reply
  5. Dave says:
    July 1, 2007 at 1:49 am

    Verbal certification? Absolutly superior? Dragon Skin failed to meet NIJ requirements 7 times. The only version that passed were 10′*12′ panels in late 2006. I doubt that NIJ gave any verbal certification before when DS failed every official ballisitc test. Also SOV2000 failed to stop the Level IV rounds it was dsigned to stop.

    Reply
  6. Jim says:
    July 1, 2007 at 7:06 am

    Why is this pointless discussion still going on when Phillip Coyle one of Dragon Skins main pushers clearly admitted to congress that

    Reply
  7. trax says:
    July 1, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Dave,
    SOV-2000 is for level III rounds. a 10x12 panel is the standard for testing. They wouldnt waste an entire full torso wrap for testing.
    @ SlimJim
    philip coyle doesn’t weork for pinnacle, he doesnt know much about dragon skin. perhaps it would be a good idea to bank on the fact that the creator of interceptor clearly admitted his vests weren’t up to par with Dragon Skin.
    you were owned

    Reply
  8. Dave says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:47 am

    trax,
    Pinnacle claims that SOV 2000 stops several types of level 4 rounds. During Air Force tests it didn’t. Pinnacles says so, too. (Their excuse was defect ceramic) It was sold as an level 3+ vest.
    According to Mr. Morgan (NIJ) several different Dragon Skin versions didn’t pass NIJ testing, so I doubt again that there was any verbal certification before late 2006.
    Dragon Skin also failed testing by USMC, Air Force and Army.
    I also don’t understand your point about the creator of interceptor. Interceptor is normal hard plate vest. There is no single creator.

    Reply
  9. Burton says:
    July 5, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    HMMM, I thought Boeing was caught stealing Lockheed secrets and then using them to win a very large contract which they were forced to sit out on after things came to light. They were only forced to sit out the one contract, but now a smaller company is forced onto the blacklist for an undetermined amount of time. Seems to me the AF is talking out both sides of their mouth.

    Reply
  10. patriot says:
    July 27, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    Those who are following the dragon skin story, please take a moment view a copy of Col. Jim Magee’s written testimony avaliable at SFTT​.org Many questions posed by both the Army and the HASC are answered in his testimony. (note that PPI does not provide the Army with the OTV but does provide the Marines with the MTV.)

    Reply
  11. patriot says:
    July 31, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    again, take a look at SFTT​.org, apparently ARL, in Maryland tested two DS vests on about 3 weeks ago. These tests followed FAT protocol for a “high temp” test. The shot numbers and placement for these vests actually exceeded ESAPI specification. It is probably also noteworthy to mention that everyone round was defeated, and yes they is use the 7.62 x63mm AP2 rounds. The Army is going to have a lot of explaining to do. See the following link for more specifics on this story:
    http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=33

    Reply
  12. patriot says:
    July 31, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    pardon my grammar on the last post! It seems I can’t type properly.……

    Reply
  13. Dave says:
    August 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    I wonder why SFFT is pimping Dragon Skin the whole time…

    Reply
  14. patriot says:
    August 4, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    I don’t know why SFTT is so strongly behind Dragon Skin. They call themselves a watchdog group, not sure if they have some agenda to push, it seems as if they have been very objective about the facts they report on, although they have made it clear how they feel about generals who sit behind desks all day. Other people to consider are Jim Magee and Nevin Rupert, it seems as if they are body very confident in the capability of Dragon Skin.
    In any case, something doesn’t seem right, I am very suspucious of a few individuals in the Army.

    Reply
  15. Dave says:
    August 5, 2007 at 5:15 am

    What makes me suspicious is that even without all those failed tests by Army, Marines, Air Force and NIJ Dragon Skin has a lot of drawbacks that speak against a rapid fielding. (for example weight, bulk, costs, limited modularity…) I also wouldn’t call SFFT objective because they are blaming nearly everyone being part of acquisition mafia without any proof. So again I wonder why one third of their page is about defective body armor with limited use without having any proof of a conspiracy or the capabilities of Dragon Skin.

    Reply
  16. Al says:
    August 12, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Hey Patriot,
    That test you are talking about was on two vest, not 30 that is required by FAT.
    Also do you really think those are exactly the same construction as the vests the Army put holes in last year. Don’t believe that for a second, the adhesive we know for a fact has been changed, and the tile probably has been modified a bit. There has been plenty of time to do that, and wouldn’t you, if weak spots had been identified in testing?
    Not the Same Vest, and NOT official First Article Testing.

    Reply
  17. Al says:
    August 12, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Further,
    I bet Pinnacle won’t admit this to the Army or anyone that these vests that just stopped some rounds to be of different construction. They are just as bent on ramming DS down everyone’s throats as they are in proving the Army is corrupt. They should just be happy proving it’s the best choice for the military.

    Reply
  18. Dragon Slayer says:
    August 26, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    It appears that Sftt wouldn’t know the truth if weree right in front of them. They obviously have another agenda and Dragon Skin is just one of their battering rams.
    If SFTT writers believe so strongly in Dragon Skin,
    I say put it on and I will bring the guns and bullets for testing. That is real put up or shut up time.
    I have $1000 dollars says they will not show up for that test.

    Reply
  19. patriot says:
    August 31, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    Al:
    Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.
    I see that you basically describe how the weakest spot of DS are the spots in between the scales where a bullet could slip under. I have heard of plenty of oblique shots and never heard of a penetration. I see your point, but also what you describe as the weak link in DS is different from what the army describes as the weak link:
    4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the
    ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested
    panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X– Large ESAPI. The weakest point
    of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For
    FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is
    defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second
    impact will be between 0.75 — 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will
    be between 5.0 — 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the
    second impact.

    Reply
  20. patriot says:
    August 31, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Al:
    Sometime ago I looked at your “rifletile” page.
    I see that you basically describe how the weakest spot of DS are the spots in between the scales where a bullet could slip under. I have heard of plenty of oblique shots and never heard of a penetration. I see your point, but also what you describe as the weak link in DS is different from what the army describes as the weak link:
    4.9.9.2 Impact Location. The first impact location for FSAPV-E samples shall occur at the
    ballistically weakest point of the FSAPV-E, and shall occur on a curved portion of the tested
    panel using a clay template simulating the curvature of the X– Large ESAPI. The weakest point
    of the FSAPV-E will be determined by digital radiographs or other imaging methods. For
    FSAPV-E that contain multiple overlapping ceramic tiles, the ballistically weakest point is
    defined as an area of the armor panel with one single thickness of ceramic tile. The second
    impact will be between 0.75 — 1.25-inch from an edge and the distance between first impact will
    be between 5.0 — 6.0-inchs. The third impact (30 degrees) will be no further than 6.0 in. from the
    second impact.
    Forgive me for being frank Al, but who does not know what they are talking about, you or the Army?

    Reply
  21. Al says:
    September 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Patriot,
    If you look at my page again you will see it in DS Vs. IBA page. The x spot is the weakest point. I am not discussing an angle where the bullet could slip through the gap. I am discussing the correct way to get a TRUE 0 degree obliquity shot in the area where there is a single thikness (no overlaps) in the thinnest area. The Army and I talking about the same thing with exception to one key point, changing the Clay Box angle with respect to the test barrel so that it is corrected as DS tiles DO NOT sit flat.

    Reply
  22. Trigger <> says:
    January 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    “””” Yes i think they need to investigate

    Reply
  23. Trigger <> says:
    January 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    “””” Yes i think they need to investigate

    Reply
  24. Trigger <> says:
    January 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    “””” Yes i think they need to investigate

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      I agree. More organic precision fire, like the...
      SMSgt Mac
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      This has been thoroughly covered in DefenseTech:...
      SMSgt Mac
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      It looks like a Russian firm may offer an Il-96 tanker plane:...
      Brian H
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      1. DoD contracts of this sort are 'cost...
      SMSgy Mac
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      LIke I've said before it's the insistence of a...
      Dean
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      How are you going to land an F-22 on a Marine...
      Lee Gibson
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Actually, I think the Marine Aviation is better...
      @Earlydawn
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      This is quite the disaster. I hope that common sense...
      @Earlydawn
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      Committing resources, doesn't mean sending troops into...
      Thunder350
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Lockheed and Boeing: working both ends of a bent over taxpayer....
      John
  • 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| © 2010 Military Advantage