Dragon Skin (body armor)

Dragon Skin is a type of ballistic vest made by Pinnacle Armor. It is distinguished by its silver dollar-sized circular discs that overlap like scale armour, creating a flexible vest that allows a greater range of motion and can allegedly absorb more hits than standard military body armor. The discs are composed of a silicon carbide ceramic matrices and laminates, much like the larger ceramic plates in other types of bulletproof vests. [cite web | url = http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=935 | title=Dragon Skin Armor Passes More Tests: Dr. Gary Roberts and 'Test Lab' Video|date=October 9, 2006|first=David|last=Crane]

The armor is available in two basic protection levels: SOV-2000, which was certified as Level III protection (this certification was withdrawn, and Pinnacle is suing to force the NIJ to reinstate on the basis of its own private retestingcite web| last = DOJ| url = http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm| title = DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR| accessdate = 2007-08-07] cite web | last = Defense Review | url = http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=925 | title = Dragon Skin Body Armor (SOV-2000) Passes all NIJ Level III Tests at USTL | accessdate = 2006-09-28 ] ) and SOV-3000, which is advertised as Level IV but has not yet been certified as such. Pinnacle Armor's website also identifies a "Level V" variant, which does not correspond to any body armor standard and is not available to the general public.

Dragon Skin has been worn by some civilian contractors in Iraq, some special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, [ [http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927,00.html Getting America's Best? ] ] some SWAT teams, [ [http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2006-meetings/20060901/Docs/15_OP_6646.pdf Microsoft Word - 08-23 OP 6646.doc ] ] nine generals in Afghanistan, [http://www.rense.com/general69/rode.htm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/print/1/displaymode/1098/ http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927,00.html] bodyguards tasked with protecting generals, [ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/page/3/ Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor? - Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com ] ] and U.S. Secret Service personnel. [ [http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,78927_2,00.html Getting America's Best? ] ]

Structure

Pinnacle SOV-2000 level III armor is made of an imbricated overlapping configuration of approximately 0.25” x 2” ceramic discs encased in an aramid textile cover. The area of Dragon skin body armor coverage varies between different layout configurations selected by the user.

Testing

Television

In a test for the History Channel's military show, "Mail Call", the vest repelled nine rounds of steel-core ammunition from a WASR-10 (7.62 × 39 mm) and 35 rounds of 9 mm, all fired into a 10-by-12-inch area on the vest. In "Test Lab", also on the History Channel, the vest withstood 120 rounds fired from an AK-47 and MP5 (9 x 19 mm). In another demonstration on the Discovery Channel series "Future Weapons", a Dragon Skin vest withstood numerous rounds (including steel cored armor-piercing rounds) from an AK-47, an MP5SD, an M-16A4 assault rifle (5.56 x 45 mm), and a point-blank detonation of an M67 grenade. While the vest was heavily damaged (mainly by the grenade), there was no penetration of the armor.

In 2007, NBC News had independent ballistics testing conducted of Dragon Skin versus Interceptor body armor. Retired four-star general Wayne A. Downing observed the tests, and concluded that although a limited number of trials were performed, that the Dragon Skin armor performed significantly better.cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/page/3/|title=Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor?|publisher=NBC News|date=2007-05-18] NBC also interviewed Jim Magee, one of the Marines involved in developing the Interceptor armor. Magee stated "If you would ask me today, Jim we’re sending you to Iraq tomorrow. What would you wear? I would buy Dragon Skin and I would wear it."

In light of the May 2007 media investigations, senators Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb requested that U.S. General David M. Walker initiate a Government Accountability Office investigation into the army's body armor systems. [cite web|url=http://www.webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=274656&|title=Webb & Clinton call for investigation into the effectiveness of body armor issued to our troops|publisher=Jim Webb|date=2007-05-18]

After being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, the technical expert solicited by NBC to certify its test backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin and stated that the vests weren't "ready for prime time."cite web
last = military.com
url = http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,138277,00.html
title = Dragon Skin Backers Hammered on Hill
accessdate = 2007-06-10]

Law enforcement

In Fresno, California, police officers ordered it after a vest stopped all the bullets fired during a test, including .308 rounds from a sniper rifle and 30 rounds from a fully automatic MP5 fired from five feet away. Ninety-eight federal, state, and local law enforcement officers witnessed the SWAT test. The armor also stopped 40 rounds of PS-M1943 mild steel-core bullets from an AK-47 along with 200 9 mm FMJ military ball bullets fired from a submachine gun.cite web
last = fresnobee.com | url = http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/12110759p-12860958c.html | title = Army ban puts Dragon Skin in the line of fire | accessdate = 2006-05-15 ]

Academic

Dragon Skin SOV-2000 level III armor was also tested the week of October 2, 2006 by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center.cite web | last = Tests by Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR, Stanford University Medical Center | url = http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001286;p=1#000000 | title = Pinnacle Dragon Skin SOV-2000 Test | accessdate = 2006-10-09 ] These tests were conducted for a local law enforcement agency, as a control sample a stand-alone Armored Mobility Incorporated (AMI) level III steel composite plate armor was used for comparison. Both types of armor were conditioned for 12 hours at F to C|170|precision=0, then moved to ambient air for approximately 90 min prior to being shot. The problems associated with the use of inelastic clay backing material have been well documented; as such, the armor was secured to a life-size curvilinear torso replica made of Perma-Gel. Each armor system was shot a minimum of 20 times with five shots of each ammunition type fired against each armor system — one 90 degree perpendicular shot, two shots at 60 degrees obliquity, and two shots at 30 degrees obliquity, using each of the following loads fired at a distance of ft to m|10:

* 5.56 mm 40 gr LeMas Urban Warfare (using a moly coated Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet) with a ft to m|3718|precision=0 per second average velocity.
* 5.56 mm M855 62 gr FMJ with a ft to m|3054|precision=0 per second average velocity.
* 7.62x39 mm M43 123 gr steel-core FMJ with a ft to m|2307|precision=0 per second average velocity.
* .30-06 M2 150 gr FMJ with a ft to m|2736|precision=0 per second average velocity.

All of the above ammo was successfully stopped by both armor systems in this testing, with no armor failures or penetrations, even after receiving multiple hits.

AMI level III plates are fabricated using an outer mm to in|3 MARS steel layer bonded to a compressed Dyneema backing, with a linex coating for spall reduction, resulting in a total plate thickness of approximately in to mm|1|precision=0. AMI level III in to mm|12|precision=0 x in to mm|14.5 plates weigh about convert|10|lb|kg|1|abbr=on and in to mm|10 x in to mm|12|precision=0 plates are about convert|9|lb|kg|1|abbr=on.

Pinnacle SOV-2000 level III armor is made of overlapping approximately in to mm|0.25 x in to mm|2 ceramic discs encased in a fabric cover. In evaluating the Dragon Skin system, it is important to note that while the external measurements of the Dragon Skin panel are in to mm|11.5 x in to mm|13.5, the area of level III coverage provided by the encased ceramic discs is in to mm|10 x in to mm|12|precision=0; the fabric edges are "not" intended to provide ballistic protection. Weight of the Pinnacle SOV-2000 Dragon Skin armor providing in to mm|10 x in to mm|12|precision=0 of level III protection was approximately convert|5.5|lb|kg|1|abbr=on.

Army testing

The Dragon Skin became the subject of controversy with the U.S. Armycite web | last = thestate.com | url = http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/14358966.htm | title = Dispute ties up body armor plan | accessdate = 2006-05-15 ] over testing it against its Interceptor body armor. The Army claimed Pinnacle's body armor was not proven to be effective and that some failed an Air Force test and were recalled.

Pinnacle Armor put out a press release stating that Dragon Skin "did not fail any written contract specifications with the Air Force" although it admitted they did "return the vests to Pinnacle following testing ... to address a manufacturing issue, but that issue did not affect the vests' performance during testing."cite web
last = pinnaclearmor.com
url = http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060426-pr.php
title = Response to US Army's allegations of failed Air Force testing
accessdate = 2006-06-22] Defense Review said they saw the test results and that they exceeded that of the Army's Interceptor vest.cite web
last = defensereview.com
url = http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=864
title = DefRev Sees Test Data: Dragon Skin Hands-Down Superior to Army's Interceptor
accessdate = 2006-05-15] The Pentagon said the test results are classified and neither side could agree to terms on another, more comprehensive test. The Army wanted to hold and inspect the vests for 1-2 weeks before shooting at them, and Pinnacle wanted them shot at right away from out of the box because they said they feared the Army tampering with them in order to save their currently cheaper body armor program.

On May 19, 2006 it was announced that the dispute had been resolved and the vests were going to be retested again by the Army to clear the dispute.cite web
last = military.com
url = http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,97959,00.html
title = Army Tests Pinnacle Armor "Dragon Skin" Vests
accessdate = 2006-05-23] On May 20, 2006 it was announced by the Washington Post (and other newspapers) in an article titled "Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests"cite web
last = Washington Post
url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901606.html
title = Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests
accessdate = 2006-07-08] that the Dragon Skin vests had failed the retest according to their anonymous source. Official results of these tests are classified and has not been released by the Army.

On June 6, 2006 in comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation] ," Masters wrote. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain. I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Skin - don't. I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120 F. I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..."cite web
last = New Twist in Dragon Armor Tale
url = http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html
title = New Twist in Dragon Armor Tale
accessdate = 2006-08-07]

In response to these claims, Pinnacle Armor released a press release on June 30, 2006 as an official response to Karl Master's comments, saying the testing was biased, not conducted professionally, that the testing is still unfinished, and the vests did not fail.cite web
last = Pinnacle Armor, 2nd Press Release
url = http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060630-pr.php
title = Response to Karl Masters' (US Army) public statements regarding unfinished FAT testing
accessdate = 2006-08-07] Official results of these tests are classified.

According to the Army, the vests failed because the ambient temperature tests caused the discs to dislodge, thus rendering the vest ineffective. Pinnacle Armor affirms that their products can withstand environmental tests in accordance with military standards, as does testing by the Aberdeen Test Center. [http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=33]

In response to claims made by several US Senators, Dragon Skin and special interest groups, on Monday, May 21, 2007, the Army held a press conference where they released the test results that the Army says shows that Dragon Skin failed the Army's testing standards and that the current Interceptor body armor is the best available in the Army's opinion. [Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short, The Associated Press, May 21, 2007 By: Baldor, Lolita C. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor] [Army Defends Body Armor Quality U.S. Army press release May 22, 2007 By: Sgt. Wood, Sara http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3292-army-defends-body-armor-quality] [Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best U.S. Army press release May 22, 2007 By: Dawson, Debi http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3298-army-defends-interceptor-body-armor-as-the-best-for-the-best] [Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best Program Executive Office Soldier U.S. Army press release By: Dawson, Debi https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/bodyarmor.asp]

While calling the failure of his vest to stop a round on the second shot of the Army test a "once in a while" occurrence, the Pinnacle Armor CEO denied Army claims that a dozen more rounds penetrated his Dragon Skin vests. He argued x-ray photos of one vest the Army claims failed showed the Dragon Skin disks had stopped the round. "The bullet did not go through the armor," Neal said flatly. Army officials responded by showing lawmakers a video clip of Neal inspecting the same vest after a test shot, watching engineers dig the penetrating round out of ballistic clay backing. "Are you telling me if you were wearing this vest ... and that round hit you in the chest, would that have killed you or not?" a skeptical Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) asked Pinnacle CEO Murray Neal. "No," he replied.

In April 2008 one of the Dragon Skin vests, with serial number that identify it as a one of 30 vests bought by Department of Defense for U.S. Army for testing in 2006, was listed and later bought from eBay. The vest was shot more than 30 times with no single failure. The seller, David Bronson, allegedly was connected to U.S. Army testing facility. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GOA), U.S. Department of Justice and F.B.I. is investigating matter as of May 2008. [ [http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/18536329.html EXCLUSIVE: "Dragon Skin" vest bought on eBay, amid federal investigation | KSEE 24 NEWS Central Valley's News Station: Fresno-Visalia | Local News ] ] [ [http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/NEWS/805040344 CapeCodTimes.com - Body armor's Web of mysterybsb ] ]

Certification and decertification

In an interview with KSEE 24 News an NBC affiliate on November 14, 2006 and November 16, 2006, Pinnacle Armor detailed the five year process that the NIJ and Pinnacle Armor went through to establish a test protocol and procedure for flexible rifle defeating armor, and then pass it for the certification.cite web
last = KSEE 24 News / Special Assignment:
url = http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5672
title = Dragon Skin Part I andcite web
url = http://www.ksee24.com/special/default.aspx?preview=&type=sa&NStoryID=5678
title = Dragon Skin Part IIRetrieved on 2006-11-18]

On December 20, 2006, Pinnacle Armor received the official letter from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) that they had passed the Level III tests, and that Dragon Skin SOV-2000 was now certified for Level III protection.cite web
last = NIJ Certification:
url = http://sftt.org/
title = Soldiers for the Truth and cite web
url = http://www.sftt.org/PDF/ComplianceLetterPinnacleArmorSOV20001-MIL3AF01levelIII.pdf
title = Official Compliance Letter andcite web
url = http://www.fresnobee.com/170/story/19998.html
title = Fresno Bee and cite web
url = http://www.ksee24.com
title = KSEE 24 News]

The Air Force, which ordered the Dragon Skin vests partially based on claims it was NIJ certified at a time when it was not, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm Pinnacle Armor over allegations that it had fraudulently placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been. Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, claimed that he was given verbal authorization by the NIJ to label the vests although he didn't have written authorization.cite web
last = Govexec
url = http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37128
title = Government Executive: Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims
accessdate = 2007-06-10]

On August 3, 2007 the Department of Justice announced that the NIJ had reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period. Because of this, Dragon Skin has been found not in complaince with the NIJ's testing program and has been removed from the NIJ's list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle CEO Murray Neal responded that this move was unprecedented, political, and not about the quality of the vests because they aren't saying they've failed any ballistics. He says it's about a dispute with the paperwork to deal with a warranty issue instead, in which the warranty period of Dragon Skin is longer than that of most other commercial vests.

On August 20, 2007 at the United States Test Laboratory in Wichita, Kansas, nine Dragon Skin SOV-2000 (Level III) body armor panels were retested, for the purpose of validating Pinnacle Armor's six year warranty. The panels tested were between 5.75 years old to 6.6 years old. All items met the NIJ Level III ballistic protection, confirming Pinnacle Armor's six-year warranty for full ballistic protection. [ [http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1043 Defense Review - Dragon Skin Passes Again: NIJ-Certified Lab Test Validates 6-Year Warranty ] ] . Pinnacle resubmitted the SOV-2000 vest to the NIJ for certification based on this successful testing, but this application was rejected because the test had not been properly documented. As of November 2007, Pinnacle is suing to force the NIJ to recertify the SOV-2000 vest without testing it.

References

External links

* [http://www.pinnaclearmor.com Pinnacle Armor]
* [http://www.evolutionarmor.com Evolution Armor Systems]
* [https://www.peosoldier.army.mil U.S. Army's Program Executive Office Soldier]
* [http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf Official results of the Army's Dragon Skin test.]