If the service thought they’d buried the issue of armor testing, they forgot to ask their new Secretary.
ArmySec John McHugh announced today he had enlisted the services of the National Research Council to examine the service’s armor testing procedures and compliance protocols in light of a recent GAO report calling into question the Army’s adherence to QA standards.
Secretary of the Army John McHugh announced today that the National Research Council (NRC) will perform an independent assessment of the Army’s body armor testing, following last month’s recommendation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for an independent review. The NRC functions under the auspices of the National Academies, a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology, and health policy advice to the federal government and the public on critical national issues.
Under an agreement between the National Academies and the director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), the Department of Defense’s final independent authority on survivability testing of body armor, the NRC will perform an independent assessment of ongoing body armor testing. The purpose of the NRC assessment is to ensure that the Army maintains the highest standards for testing processes and protocols, thus addressing concerns raised by the GAO about current testing procedures.
On the face of it, this is a good thing. As ballistics experts will tell you, there’s still some voodoo in the ballistic testing science and one more set of eyeballs on the problem wouldn’t hurt. Maybe at the end of this saga the Pentagon can adopt one standard testing protocol for all military body armor and the notional threats to it so there’ll be a bit more confidence in the results and less objectivity.
Walkoff question: Will they open the flexible armor testing standards and procedures can of worms?
– Christian
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
"Will they open the flexible armor testing standards and procedures can of worms?"
No it forms a useful distraction from all the IED deaths.
I hope so; flexible armor may save lives because it makes the wearer more maneuverable.
Yeah, I don't get it. The "Dragon Skin" armor was good enough for specops and politicians, but failed "standard" Army ballistics, so it wasn't "good" enough for regular troops.
Granted, the adhesive used in the original armor was a concern, but the fact that Specops was using it left you with that "voodoo" feeling…
They are going to have to look at the whole flexible armor issue to clear the stink of scandal around it. Independent review is the only answer. Then we can move forward at last.
Ptsfp: I'm as curious about Dragon Skin as anybody else, but have users come out publicly discussing how its liabilities work out in the field? Rather hear from people who have field-tested rather than people working hard at "simulating" field conditions.
Charles,
Here is an interesting testimonial from an older post on military.com:
"… After the contact, when I removed my tactical vest, I saw that I had taken hits in the back of my vest. They were 7.62x39mm (AK-47) and they were inches apart. I was hit in the back (and we checked, if I was wearing any other body armor, I would not be writing this to you), as it were both low hits (below the typical 10"x12" plate coverage). In terms of bruising, nothing whatsoever. I did not even KNOW that I was hit twice until I took off my tactical vest (this was after about 2 hours after the contact) and saw the damage. It was only then that we took a close look at my body armor that we realized I was hit twice by an AK-47. I had another ricochet hit around the top end of my back that may have caused serious injury to my lower neck… "
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927_2,0...
Ptsfp
That does sound awesome. But it's a single anecdotal case. As a scientist I shudder at the thought of single data points.
Pinnacle needs to go on the offensive. They need to publicly disclose user responses from everyone who has bought and used one overseas. It's hard to ask people to make judgements on effectiveness otherwise.
I found Dragonskin survivor testimonials on the Pinnacle website, it is only 4 letters, but interesting none the less.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/dragon-skin-survivor...
I agree with you Charles, it is the news from the field that really counts. I mean are these vests falling apart in the heat, or are they really as good as advertised? And, if they are as good as advertised, we need to get these into our troops hands, all our troops, not just the "special" ones…
There were two things that struck me about the whole armor argument.
1) The 7.62*54mmR that 'doomed' dragonskin is a round that cannot be fired from an AK-47. (It is shot from sniper rifles and some medium MGs.)
2) The variant they used against dragonskin were not just any 7.62*54mmR, but special issue armor piercing rounds that would also go through the interceptor vest plates.
Uhhhhh, …Christian? ….In your last paragraph, you had the sentence, "Maybe at the end of this saga the Pentagon can adopt one standard testing protocol for all military body armor and the notional threats to it so there’ll be a bit more confidence in the results and less objectivity."
This is a nit, I know, but you really meant to end it with "less subjectivity", right?
I just spoke with an Air Force MP and shooting instructor, and he said that the more coverage that flexible armor he has tried on meant more difficulty bringing his gun to shoulder. Interceptor and Plates are just thick in the squardes on the front back and sides but these Scalar types that wrap the whole torso are a whole different animal, from what I understand bulky in all those areas they have that much more coverage in.
Let's face it, the Army hates change. They did the same tricks when the US was supposed to replace the M1911 .45 firearm with the 9mm. Basically, they failed every 9mm, just because they did not want to switch.
Congress had to pull ammunition funding on them to force them to switch. Hopefully, the Army is not up to it's old tricks and can get our guys what will protect them the best.
Reliance on anecdotes isn't acceptable as a measure of success. Seriously, you're not going to know how effective Pinnacle is in the field until a lot of people wearing it are shot. That's the ultimate test of body armor, and if the Army's test results are accurate, there's a good chance that a lot of that armor will have degraded and lost effectiveness.
Txzen: If it's an encumberance issue, I suppose Pinnacle could redesign the vests to reduce coverage around the shoulders. However it correspondingly reduces protection to the shoulders. It sounds like a design issue moreso than the failure of the concept of flexible armor.
I think you are right, I have called Pinacle and talked a little bit of civilian model weight and coverage and they have many different levels of protection front back to wrap around. And of course we always compare the wrap around full torso to the interceptor with front back plates and maybe side plates depending who we talk to, and don't forgot interceptor has shoulder guards and all kinds of stuff that to bulk up with.