Army responds to report on Dragon Skin

[CommunityEditor]

Program Executive Officer Soldier commander Brig. Gen. Mark Brown made the announcement at a press briefing at the Pentagon Monday to explain why the Army refuses to allow its soldiers to wear controversial body armor known as Dragon Skin.

The briefing followed a May 20 NBC News report that presented results of independent ballistics tests commissioned by NBC. The tests were conducted May 3 in Germany. At NBC’s request, according to NBC News spokeswoman Barbara L. Levin, the Beschussamt Mellrichstadt laboratory did comparative testing of the Army's body armor, Interceptor, against Dragon Skin, a flexible body armor.

The tests show Level IV Dragon Skin vests outperforming Interceptor vests equipped with “ESAPI” plates in ballistic tests with various types of unnamed “armor piercing” ammunition.

Brown, who oversees all body armor development for the Army, said today that the Army has requested specific details of how the test were conducted from NBC, but so far has not received that information.

In addition, Brown said he questions whether the “ESAPI” plates used in NBC’s tests were “certified” Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts that the service issues to soldiers deploying to combat.

The tests subjected Dragon Skin against the same test protocols the Army uses to test its ESAPI and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts. The vests were exposed to temperatures ranging from -60 degrees to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as being immersed in diesel fuel, oil and salt water for extended periods of time. After each of these exposures, testers shot the vests with armor-piercing ammunition, the most lethal small arms threat in the war.


Full article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...nskin_070521w/
Related article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...onskin_070518/


Is the army body armor better? Is Dragon Skin? Which report do you believe? Which armor do you want to wear?

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Is the army body armor better? Is Dragon Skin?

I suppose that we should wait for the results of "unbiased" testing (of course, if you design the test criteria properly, you could probably come up with some test results that show that papier mache is "superior" to both.

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Which report do you believe?

Let's see now, should I believe the report from the people with the vested interest in proving that their decision to buy "X" rather than "Y" or should I believe the report from the people who want to sell "Y"?

The confusion regarding testing is due to temperature. Materials behave differently when at different temperatures. Cold temperatures make materials more brittle. Hot temperatures make materials more maliable. The army tests are done at different temperatures, including extremes. The other reported tests are almost always done at room temperature. The reporters should specify in their reporting what temperature is being used by whom, instead of simply saying that different testers are getting different results. I think tests with same temperature, same projectile, and same impact velocity will yield similar results. Another interesting twist to this is the issue of what temperature ranges do you want to support? The army would say all of them, from desert under the sun to siberian cold. Yet one might argue that if you reduce your temperature range to a specific region (e.g. Iraq), then you change the specificaiton, and then might be able to get something that provides the same protection at less weight and cost. Then the question would be, how much different weight and cost? Then, based on that answer, one might opt for multiple vests, one for temp range 1 (e.g. Iraq), and the other for temp range 2 (Siberian cold). Another thing one might do is provide more fire resistant materials for shirts and pants (similar to what race car drivers wear) that are only used when the temp is not too hot (e.g. night), and folks could take them on at approx 10am when it gets warmer. That would certainly help reduce the effects on skin from blasts. If one wanted to provide maximum protection at minimal cost, they could provide different products for different temperatures Only to those on patrol (high risk positions). This might be several tens of thousands (not 160K) solders. Here, projection would decrease as the temperature got warmer. For example, a race car driver fire resistant suit might be worn in the cooler temps, and would be removed later in the day.

interesting points, but logistically difficult having all that crap available
regardless, I watched the entire press release and now feel much more confident about the OTV and IOTV as opposed to the Dragon Skin

[FINKD]

What was interesting about the NBC report is the man who developed the Interceptor vest, which the Army says is better, stated the Dragon Skin vests are better than the Interceptor. Now if he is saying this then an [u]independent]/U] test/comparison of the Interceptor and Dragon Skin vests needs to be done ASAP so the best armored vest can be bought and issued to the troops.

The general that was in charge, when the testing was done, now has a lucrative position with the manufacturer of the Interceptor?? Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this?

Gen Brown doesn’t want to do additional testing. Where is Gen Brown going to be working when he retires?

Why did they pay 1/4 million for previous test?

Don’t we have laws against war profiteering?

I belive the true answer is in the money dragon skin cost twice what intercepter costs and the military just spent millions on these vests. The same debate needs to be brought up with the M4 vs. the HK 416 and a new standard pistol. Its not that what we have is bad but there is better out there and I wish we could cut through the red tape that holds this equipment up for years and just get it in the field.

I am not an expert on the subject and have not been there while they did the tests on each. I hope to be able to trust my superiors in the appropriate positions to make the correct decisions based on which is the most effective. I have worn both myself and Dragon Skin is more comfortable but the Interceptor "feels" safer. But it all comes down to performance and hearing so many different stories from both sides, I can only hope our superiors make the correct decisions in the most effective to keep us safe.

When the Dragon Skin armour plates fall to the bottom of the carrier after exposed to extreme temperatures and fuel oil because it degrades the adhesive that holds the plates together it does not belong in a combat zone. It also had hits from AP ammunition that penetrated and would have caused lethal wounds. Oh and by the way it is heavier than the interceptor vest and has no side protection like the interceptor vest. I have worn the interceptor and it works. It will save your life. The Army does not want to use the dragon skin because it does not meet their standars and it costs more than the system in place. With people complaining about the cost of the war it would never go through. My point is don't believe the media. They like to see the military fail and our great nation fail.

The problem with the army is that we waste money! The Army paid millions on these interceptors that were green and now they bought millions more in ACU color, also bought all the extra shoulder pads and neck protectors that are pretty much wothless. I guess the point is to have more protection but at the cost of losing our accuracy while firing our weapon. Then add side plates that are to low to protect the vital organs im guessing thier there to protect. So why doesnt the army just buy the dragon skin even though thier more expensive, if you add up all the exceseries from interceptor might break even on the product.