Article

2007-05-22 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2007-05-22 07:56|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 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.

Sounds like a case of NIH Syndrome.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-05-22 08:36|| 2007-05-22 08:36|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like a case of NIH Syndrome.

Sorry, Ignorance Alert:
NIH?

It's probably something absurdly simple, but I haven't had my tea yet . . .

Posted by The Doctor 2007-05-22 08:41|| 2007-05-22 08:41|| Front Page Top

#3 Not Invented Here. Most organizations with a strong research & development tradition suffer from it.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-22 08:51|| 2007-05-22 08:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Sounds like a case of NIH Syndrome.

Maybe.

NIH certainly is one reason for large organizations refusing to be early adopters of a product. But another reason is that large organizations have to live with the failures of that tech when, as is often the case, it isn't quite up to real-world heavy use.

In this case, given the costs to the soldier involved when Dragon Skin fails, the Army is right to insist that armor that can't reliably repel rounds which are encountered daily during operations isn't ready for real-world use.

Posted by occasional observer 2007-05-22 09:14|| 2007-05-22 09:14|| Front Page Top

#5 I saw the Future Weapons episode of the dragon skin. They unloaded a MP5. Then an AK-47. Then a .357. No bullets got through the vest. Pretty amazing. Now they did use standard rounds and I'm sure an armor piercing weapon would be vastly different, but no vest is "bulletproof". They all fail at some point. I see this as a turf war pissing match gone hot between army divisions.
Not the first time this has happened. Just look at the M-16.

I would like to see a third party take some vests and blow the crap out of them. I know a gun club here made up of mostly vets that would love to test them. They even have a .50 cal.

BOOM BABY!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-22 09:27|| 2007-05-22 09:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Simple. A battalion's worth of both to an active unit in the field. After 90 days, let's see which one the troops are wearing into harms way. Their choice. Go-No Go testing. You think the average troop is stupid? You think he's going to take the one he's willing to bet his life on?

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-05-22 09:36|| 2007-05-22 09:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Personally Procopius2k, as an 11B (infantry for you civy types) I would prefer as little as possible on patrol. Speed is armor against armatures. At a guard post where you have to stand around, I would want a tank against snipers. If a tank isn't available, a bunker. If that isn't there, then as much body armor as I can put on and still breathe and not overheat. Failing that, nuclear hand grenades.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-22 09:49|| 2007-05-22 09:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Muzzle energy
9mm - 360 ft-lbs
.357 - 550 ft-lbs
7.62x39mm - 1500 ft-lbs
7.62x54mm - 2500 ft-lbs
7.62x63mm (.30-06) - 2800 ft-lbs

The Russian 7.62x54mm is common on the battlefield as the PKM machine gun and the Dragonov sniper rifle. I sure would not feel confident facing 7.62x54mm fire in a vest that got holed by .30-06 AP rounds.

Posted by ed 2007-05-22 09:59|| 2007-05-22 09:59|| Front Page Top

#9 There is a profound psychological element to this as well. Since time immemorial, soldiers have always had the dark suspicion that the enemies weapons are superior to their own--because they see its effects more than they see the effect of their own weapons.

This is so endemic, that in past, wise combat leaders allowed *one* of their soldiers in a squad to carry and use the enemies weapon, solely to keep up morale, and even when he knew better.

You can get away with this with offensive weapons. However, *defensive* equipment is a different kettle of fish.

If only one soldier has a different type of defensive equipment, the entire unit gets "issues". They get focused on it and its performance; they become afraid because they don't have it; it generally separates out the one guy who does have it as different, and not a team player.

In short, it can be a serious morale problem. And this is why, early on, the military took the odd step of banning Dragon Skin. It probably isn't that bad an armor, but it is heavy, not designed around other equipment, and has other problems that would make it difficult to use with uniformity.

Don't think that the Army is just being glib, either. This is one of those things they take as seriously as a heart attack. And they won't play any political games with Congress over it.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-05-22 10:15|| 2007-05-22 10:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Doing the proving in the field trials instead of the laboratory seems expensive in lives.

At first glance, the material in SAPI plates, boron carbide, is superior than the silicon carbide in of Dragon Skin. Boron carbide is a bit harder and 22% lighter. While the flexible nature of Dragon Skin may absorb some of the shock, I do not see that making up for the 28% extra (and harder) material you get with BC. Flexible BC disks could be useful as extra armor on the hips, sides, or shoulders that the SAPI plates do not cover.

Posted by ed 2007-05-22 10:39|| 2007-05-22 10:39|| Front Page Top

#11 SAPI sucks in the field.

Dragon Skin is more effective - it flexes and wraps and doesn't gap like the SPI stuff.

As for testing, the Pinnacle guys got into a pissing match with some Major in the testing area, who then set up a series of tests and ran them, changing the conditions until he found 1 (non-real istic from what I hear) circumstance where the SAPI would outperform the Dragonskin, and then used that as the standard.

Figure the DoJ and many police forces have approved Dragonskin to very high levels of protection, and that tells me somethind stinks here on the Army side - more bass asses in the rear playing politics.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-22 12:11|| 2007-05-22 12:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Mail Call liked the Dragon Skin, but I vaguely recall there was an upgraded model coming. I did stop a pistol and AK-47 from 20 feet away, but it seems the .30-06 is a bit more powerful.

Posted by Bobby 2007-05-22 13:43|| 2007-05-22 13:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Being able to move effectively is essential...my rig came in around 80 pounds and I didn't routinely carry everything I normally used and I didn't wear the throat, groin, shoulder and side protectors. Hang another 20 pounds on a soldier in armor and they quickly become ineffective, especially when it is 120+ and their body weight is in that average area of 165...

I had several of my Iraqi privates take sniper hits in the plates and not get penetrated. Fact is snipers are now focusing on head shots because of the effectiveness of our armor.

Did I want something better...you bet, but not at the expense of being able to operate and sustain. 27 years in uniform taught me when congressmen get involved like this, it usually is pandering, and as far as a single major altering a test enough to fabricate an outcome...not likely, if he wants to go much farther and there was always one of those pesky accountabilty folks around to make sure that kind of stuff is happening.

Posted by Top Mac 2007-05-22 13:44|| 2007-05-22 13:44|| Front Page Top

#14 Top, what do you think of the MICH vs the PASGT helmet since it covers less of the skull? Is is provide adequate protection in light of what you wrote? I noticed the Marines and Iraqis are wearing the older PASGT.

Posted by ed 2007-05-22 14:07|| 2007-05-22 14:07|| Front Page Top

#15 Bobby: they used 20 feet as the testing distance?

If anyone watched the NBC special, what distance did they use to test then?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2007-05-22 15:31|| 2007-05-22 15:31|| Front Page Top

#16 OK, maybe 20 yards. It was quite close. It wasn't to see if the Gunney could hit it, ya know!

Posted by Bobby 2007-05-22 15:42|| 2007-05-22 15:42|| Front Page Top

#17 The future weapons show did their test at 15 meters.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-22 15:51|| 2007-05-22 15:51|| Front Page Top

#18 From Op-for site -- scroll down to Dragon Skin title -- there is a lengthy report that is worth the read.

This was posted today on Professional Soldiers by a gentleman who uses the handle The Reaper. He intentionally guards his identity on the internet, but I will submit to our readers that he is a very experienced Special Forces officer of unquestionable integrity. This comes to me from a friend who has met him, so it is secondhand information. Anyone who wishes to know more about him should ask him directly.

Also, the Army test results are available for public disemmination. A copy can be found here.

Dragon Skin?

There may be something better called Dragon Skin, but better than what?

Bottom line up front. From 16-19 May 2006, in Department of Defense (DoD) test protocols at HP White Labs, Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests suffered 13 first or second shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests with Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI) threat baseline 7.62 x 63mm M2 Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition. The Project Manager (PM) Soldier Equipment Briefing report is on line and is easily available.

More below...

Read More »

I say again, of eight Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin (DS) vests tested for V0 penetration, four of them failed, and 13 of 48 rounds fired for record were complete penetrations. Of these, significant first shot failures were noted when the DS vests were exposed to diesel fuel, a serious concern since almost all of our vehicles use this fuel and between spillage during refueling and the potential for saturation after an IED attack on US convoys, vests can easily be contaminated with fuels. A first shot complete penetration was also observed after a DS vest was drop tested. Anyone who has served understands that a 48 pound vest is going to get dropped, dragged, and abused a LOT in a combat zone, even during normal patrolling and movement. Finally, and most significantly, the vest cannot be exposed to heat. With solar loads regularly generating vehicle interior temperatures well in excess of 150 degrees, the DS vest disks delaminate themselves and fall to the bottom of the vest, effectively reducing the armor protection to nearly nothing. All panels shot after high temperature exposure failed in the first shot. This is unacceptable and is hardly a characteristic I would look for in a product to replace the current proven ESAPI in conjunction with the Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts (ESBI).

According to the X-Rays in the Army report, all hits were in protected areas with full disk coverage. Also easily seen in the X-Rays is the complete failure of the vests adhesive to retain the disks in place during extreme hot and cold weather testing.

NBC also neglected to mention the weight penalty of the Pinnacle SOV 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vests, which can weigh up to 47.5 pounds or 20 pounds more than the Interceptor vest with ESAPI and ESBI. They appear to have tested the armor, flat, which favors the flexible Pinnacle armor. And they tested it at room temperature only, which means, I suppose, that if you are a soldier who never leaves the office, say, at NBC headquarters, the Dragon Skin may work well for you. If you, however, actually have to go outside, well, you may not want to throw away the Interceptor with the ESAPI quite yet.

The Pinnacle SOV 3000 vests tested were purchased and manufactured the same month that the Army PM test was conducted. They were tested under the ESAPI Purchase Description for front and rear, and ESBI Purchase Description for left and right side. All tests were conducted with 7.62 x 63mm 166 grain M2 AP projectiles stripped from Government Issue complete rounds and hand loaded for each shot by HP White Lab personnel. These rounds were loaded to a specific velocity (+ or 25 fps) known to replicate the most common threat AP ammunition. In scientific testing, 27%, or more than one in four of these rounds went completely through the armor and into the target. Are you sure you want to suit up a loved one in this stuff?

Much, much more at the site -- it this sort of thing interests you.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2007-05-22 16:01|| 2007-05-22 16:01|| Front Page Top

#19 #2 The Doctor - Don't feel bad. NIH to me means National Institutes of Health. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-05-22 16:14|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2007-05-22 16:14|| Front Page Top

#20 You don't want a Major that is key to a program getting pissed at you if you are the contractor. Then he becomes Major Pain. But I am suspect that a Major alone could rig the tests.

Seems to me that there is a weight delta to performance delta that has to be considered. If the increase in performance does not correspond to the increase in weight then you stay with the standard issue.

Somehow I don't think the Pinnacle folks are making many friends over at PEO Soldier.

Posted by remoteman 2007-05-22 16:24|| 2007-05-22 16:24|| Front Page Top

#21 This is emotional but it needs to be in perspective. Just how many troops died as a result of any difference between body armors? How many would have died as a result in the wealnesses of the dragon skin compaired to the weaknesses in the current models. That Major over there at PEO Soldier is doing the math, not some dipshit reporter from NBC. Dragon skin just might be the optimal stuff for our SOF troops but not worth a damn for the grunts, transporters, and tankers. This just is not that easy of a thing as lining up a 9mm at 20 feet and firing. Mobility, fitting with the rest of the gear, vehicles, etc...

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2007-05-22 17:25|| 2007-05-22 17:25|| Front Page Top

#22 Bottom line: they used a sniper round onthe side panel.

They set the miltiary's armor up with the SAPI plate insert in on the sides.

They set up the dragon skin unflexed just like the Army panel armor.

And thats how they rigged the tests. The Dragon Skin is not rated for that - and the Army changed the tests once they found this area.

The problem is nobody wears the side inserts like that - typically I've seen only the chest and back plates worn, and leave the more flexible stuff on the side - no plates there.

And the other problem is that the DS was stretched out flat on the side, instead of flexed like it is designed to be. This allowed more single-platelet exposure with air gaps, which prevented the interlock support from reinforcing one platelet to the other - accounting for the higher failure rate.

The test conditions were designed to produce failures in any flexible overlapping armor. The were designed to prove single flat plates.

And another thing - the "failures" and one of the "look thru the hole" things were in areas that were not part of the test area, and not rated for sniper rounds (and the Army vest would have failed there too, given they don't have plate in those gaps).

Like I said before the NIJ has certified Dragon Skin to Level II - thats 7.62 x 39 mm 125 GR, steel case mild steel core - 2300 - 2700 fps, at 15 feet.

And it passed the first set of tests with 7.62x51mm M80 ball steel-jacketed round (2850-2900 fps) at a distance of 15ft (muzzle to body armor)

The National Institute of Justice, which has long rated bullet-proofing systems, has come up with a different opinion. The NIJ will formally certified Level III protection -- good enough to stop AK-47 fire. If I'm not mistaken, that would make the Dragon Skin the first soft armor, without plate inserts, to get that high of a rating. And it would certainly call into question the Army managers' disparaging remarks about the armor -- after Dragon Skin went from ballyhooed to banned to grudgingly accepted for testing, all in a matter of months.

This is one infantryman's input ont he Interceptor that the Pentagon is pushing: "The other thing is that the insurgents have known about the weaknesses at least since I was there. I recall seeing a leaflett that was in a suspected Al Qaedah opperative's house (or compound I should say) the leaflett had a picture of the Interceptor vest and in red highlighting were areas of high fatality risks as our interpereter conveyed. It is time for a change in our armor"

The Army cooked the tests is my conclusion. Its all a pentagon desk-bound blanket folder getting into a d*ck-size contest with a vendor, and stacking the deck, with no regard to the truth, only his ego and rep.

I say send all these things to an ANSI lab, or better yet, let the Germans or Canadians test them. Or private companies that do not have an interest.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-22 19:27|| 2007-05-22 19:27|| Front Page Top

#23 "Due to the difficulties and complexities in tasking the dragon skin flexible technology, this new certification test requires flexible rifle-defeating armor to have an additional 18 rounds shot into it to achieve the same Level III Certification as the traditional plate systems."

So, you see, its not even the SAME test as the plate. They are playing games with our soldier's lives.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-22 19:30|| 2007-05-22 19:30|| Front Page Top

#24 What about the wieght difference and the plates falling off in high temp? Reread the post on OpFor and see if it looks like the test was cooked after all.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2007-05-22 20:27|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2007-05-22 20:27|| Front Page Top

23:58 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:57 CrazyFool
23:45 Zenster
23:45 Anonymoose
23:44 Jackal
23:38 Lonzo Thavitle3624
23:35 newc
23:34 Jackal
23:32 CrazyFool
23:32 DMFD
23:31 DMFD
23:05 Zenster
23:04 Jan
22:57 trailing wife
22:49 crosspatch
22:49 Frank G
22:49 trailing wife
22:48 gromgoru
22:44 Jan
22:43 Phineter Thraviger1073
22:43 GK
22:35 Jules
22:27 crosspatch
22:27 Jan