Comptroller General of the United States David M. Walker to initiate a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation to reassess the body armor systems currently being issued by all the military services and the Special Operations Command for effectiveness and reliability against the threats facing U.S. troops in combat."For several years, I have heard reports from active duty troops and military experts that Dragon Skin body armor is more effective than that currently being used," said Senator Webb. "We owe it to those who are in harm's way to examine conclusively whether this is true."
One of the video links posted by Richmond Democrat refers to the NBC's Friday night report on the Dragon Skin armor versus the current Interceptor armor. What was significant, besides the Interceptor armor's inventor announcing that not only is the Dragon Skin armor superior but that he would demand it for himself if he were going to Iraq, is that it appears to be very flexible and not likely to break or crack if dropped. The Dragon Armor has no "Handle With Care" labels on it. And it's used by the Secret Service, by Special Forces, and by the CIA's forces.
The Army has never conducted complete comparative testing of the armor, although it claims to have done so, and the person in charge of the testing that was started and apparently never completed retired from the Army and went to work for the Interceptor manufacturer a few months later. Coincidence? I think not.
Thank you Senators Webb and Clinton for paying attention to this issue.
I wonder what the cost of Dragon Skin is, compared to Interceptor?
The Pinancle - Dragon Skin Body Armour failed the United States Army Test - temperature extremes.
The Company Pinancle has done everything but fix the error in their design, i.e. lobbing and raising kaine - no pun intended - to basically black mail the Army into buying their product.
Here is the low down. The Armour did pass Ballistics test - however failed envirnoment test - i.e. how it holds up in extreme temperature - They have refused to resubmit the retooled vest for testing. But have started a huge PR campaign.
One of the questions I have about the testing under temperature extremes is how well-related it is to real world conditions. How extreme are the temps? If there is a deleterious effect on the Dragon Skin does it remain only as long as the heat's on or does it subside with lower temps? How many of our troops are being attacked under extreme heat conditions? What about shrapnel? Are there any tests showing how well either armor does with the kind of shrapnel thrown up by an IED?
All this shows is that there should be complete, independent testing of both types of armor.
Concerning the temperature exposure testing, they explained that it is designed to duplicate the temperature extremes that the armor would face if stored in the hold of a plane flying from the U.S. to Baghdad, then taken out and exposed to the high heat there. Another point in favor of the Interceptor armor is that it is thinner, which helps soldiers who have to fit through hatches on armored vehicles. During the testing the Army did starting in May 16, the Dragon Skin failed something like 13 out of 43 ballistics tests they did, where the acceptable rate of failure was zero. At that point they terminated the testing.
Now I've read the rebuttal to the Army's testing written by a Pinnacle representative which is posted on the SFT website. And I did watch the video of the testing NBC did in Germany, in which the Dragon Skin equaled or surpassed the Interceptor armor. I think there is ample basis for some good faith differences of opinion. Those kind of differences are common with regard to military equipment.
The bottom line, though, is that the Army has set up a rigorous testing protocol, and so far the Interceptor armor has been passing and the Dragon Skin has been failing.