Dragonskin
-
Hello all,
Does anybody have any idea what BA does our local Law Enforcement and Armed Forces community uses? Because it seems to me that Dragonskin BA manufactured by Pinnacle Armour is rock solid...9mm,5.56mm AP and 7.62mm AP all also no probs. Seems a pretty worthy investment -
I have read from another forum that the US army forbid their soldier's in Iraq to use non-issued body armour, citing that the so called effectiveness of commercial body armour sent by the soldier's family is not up to mark. The effectiveness is exaggerated due to better marketing tactics. Dragonskin is cited as one such example. Unfortunately i can't find this particular article now.
-
Yeah...they forbid their guys to don commercial BA when on ops...which is ridiculous given that the interceptor has been proven to be not as good after taking a few hits compared to a Dragon Skin
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYaSRIbPWkM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HRQNd84ZA
go watch and decide for yourself. -
I don't think the US Army sents its grunts out to die... Dragon Skin does have some serious issues that need to be resolved before it can replace IBA.Originally posted by SpecOps87:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYaSRIbPWkM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HRQNd84ZA
go watch and decide for yourself.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20070528.aspx
In any case the US Armt intends to replace IBA with another vest entirely, so the issue might be moot. -
It might be possible because of costs... The interceptor is cheaper and they banned it in March 2006 even before they tested it in May 2006...
-
whats more costly than losing a soldier? human life aside, the cost of training, equipments, food the military fed, etc. all gone!
-
toxicrabbit...you open account to ask about BA?
-
you're talking about a gabrament there which sent a lot of soldiers there to increase the price of oil..
and i'm dead serious...
they don't care.. Bush is Big Oil
who equips the soldiers? look it up.. it's Cheney's Halliburton..
they even banned Dragon Skin because it's not Halliburton's not because it's 'not up to standard'
their soldiers buy Dragon Skin because they KNOW it's better.. but if they go out with Dragon Skin, they do not get their insurance if they are injured..
think about that...Originally posted by toXicRabbit:whats more costly than losing a soldier? human life aside, the cost of training, equipments, food the military fed, etc. all gone! -
I hate to pop any bubbles, but the truth is Dragonskin has several dangerous defects that make it currently unsuitable for guntwork.
The extra weight of the vest aside, the problem is that while Dragonskin works at advertised as new vest, the protection of the vest starts to degrade under conditions like heat, moisture, and extended wear which are exactly the conditions you find in grunt work. This is because the scale-layout renders the materials it more vulnerable then the traditional plate design to being degraded by external factors.
So while the armour might provide better protection at first, over time it because quite unreliable... which was one of the main reasons why it was rejected.
Not that the concept is unsound, but it needs working on before we push grunts into the field with armour that is not only heavier, but less reliable.The recent controversy over Dragon Skin body armor has raised far more questions than answers. In one sense, it shows that the Army is serious about getting its troops the best armor available. In another sense, it shows how the media can royally get things wrong – and in getting it wrong can get troops killed. How? Because they can create the impression that something is effective, when it really isn't.
The Dragon Skin armor was intended to provide better all-around protection against incoming fire. One problem with most protective vests is that there are places where the protective ceramic plates for the Interceptor armor currently in service don't extend. This has caused the deaths of policemen in the U.S. and military personnel overseas. Dragon Skin was intended to provide better protection through the use of many smaller ceramic, tiles that overlapped, providing a flexible armor.
One American TV network broadcast material that seemed to indicate that Dragon Skin performed better than the current Interceptor. However, the Army has now released the results of other tests, done by an independent lab in 2006, which showed that Dragon Skin armor failed in a number of areas, including those concerning high temperatures, often after one or two shots. This is not a good thing in combat. Furthermore, the ceramic tiles have proven to be fragile – far more so than the Interceptor's ceramic plates.
The other problem for Dragon Skin is weight: It is about 20 pounds heavier than the 28 pound Interceptor Armor. This is not a minor detail for the poor grunts – it's a major problem. The troops also have to carry a loaded M16 or M4 rifle, plus a number of spare clips for that weapon (usually six, but sometimes more). If their M16 or M4 has the M203 grenade launcher, they are carrying the grenades for that. They also tend to carry a loaded M9 pistol, and a couple of spare clips for that as well. Not to mention a first-aid kit, Camelbak or canteens full of water, knife, hand grenades (usually three or four), MRE, cans of silly string (to find trip wires), radio, and other gear (to include notebooks, pens, and a helmet). This could mean a soldier gets tired sooner when wearing Dragon Skin, and more prone to heat related injuries in hot climates. If a soldier wearing Dragon Skin is wounded, the Dragon Skin means that there is 20 pounds more for a medic to drag to cover.
The Army has prohibited the use of Dragon Skin by soldiers – largely due to these problems. The problem the Army now faces is the fact that Dragon Skin has a lot of Congressional support. The manufacturer of Dragon Skin has claimed that the Army is lying – in essence claiming the Army rigged the tests. In fact, the Army did the tests last year at the insistence of Congress – who wanted the armor to be given a chance. Now that the armor has failed, the manufacturer is going to the court of public opinion to overturn the verdict of the Army, based on its tests. Now, the Army is caught in a battle to not only save the lives of its troops, but the reputation of those who test equipment for the troops. -
-
oops..
double post
anyway, i tend to take the findings of the military in the US there with a heck of a lot of salt.. considering their 'contractors' have their politicians in their pockets... -
Tough call... the thing is, it's just about as political for both sides.
But the sure thing is, one is indeed adding 20 pounds to the grunt for protection that is not sure to be reliable, and what's more the whole thing might be moot as the army is intending to replace Interceptor with another vest that is both more protective and lighter. -
you can ask about BA by opening an account.
-
August 5, 2007
Dragon Skin: Slayed AgainThough it's been tough to really know what's going on with the Dragon Skin body armor issue, at this point it appears that either it's not up to requirements or everybody in the whole freakin' world is in on the conspiracy to keep our troops wearing substandard armor.
2.Proper procedures have not followed.
Friday: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.
NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has 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.
In late 2005 and January 2006, the USAF Office of Special Investigations (OSI) purchased Dragon Skin armor marked as NIJ Level III compliant, but the Level III certification didn't come until December 2006. See Air Force considers ban on body armor maker. And now it's been revoked.
I wonder if breathless news reports covering the lost Level III rating will be on NBC and other outlets which were so quick to trumpet the Dragon Skin story as one of the government letting down the troops.
I think it's clear that body armor technology is progressing rapidly, (necessity being the mutha of invention, and all) and that Dragon Skin shows some promise. But it doesn't appear to be quite ready for primetime and these latest developments certainly don't help Pinnacle's cause. Meanwhile, the military has been issuing Side-SAPI and Enhanced SAPI (E-SAPI) plates for the Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) in response to lessons learned. A new version of the Interceptor, the Improved OTV will be available soon.
Being as this sort of release isn't nearly as exciting as 'killing the troops for money'-type headlines, I wouldn't expect nearly so much media coverage of this now that it appears that the military made the right call by banning the armor. I wonder if we'll see all sorts of "gee whiz" spots on FutureWeapons about this...
Summary of body armor protection levels below:
Continued... -
"Over its 6 years warranty period."
Right, who'd wanna be in a position to have to wear their body armor for 6 years. Its like asking any American GI if they wanna stay in Iraq for 6 years. -
And how have you come to this conclusion? Besides... kevlar alone is weak, intolerable to moisture, heat... All the same as what you claimed the DragonSkin is weak to. Just apply the same solution to how they solve Kevlar's problem la!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I hate to pop any bubbles, but the truth is Dragonskin has several dangerous defects that make it currently unsuitable for guntwork.
The extra weight of the vest aside, the problem is that while Dragonskin works at advertised as new vest, the protection of the vest starts to degrade under conditions like heat, moisture, and extended wear which are exactly the conditions you find in grunt work. This is because the scale-layout renders the materials it more vulnerable then the traditional plate design to being degraded by external factors.
So while the armour might provide better protection at first, over time it because quite unreliable... which was one of the main reasons why it was rejected.
Not that the concept is unsound, but it needs working on before we push grunts into the field with armour that is not only heavier, but less reliable. -
But dragon skin is not as bad as it seems right?
I read somewhere that IBA doesnt have a II/a(forgotten which) protection rating, and only protects up to 2 shots in a plate before breaking/failing.
Sides, all dragon skin adds is a few polymer sheets and ceramic plate for added protection, if that already add 20lb to the overall weight, then body armor technology still have a long way to go before behaving like the hype the general public believed it is/was/watever.
On the side note, singapore army issues body armor also right? -
What's IBA?Originally posted by Anonymous User:But dragon skin is not as bad as it seems right?
I read somewhere that IBA doesnt have a II/a(forgotten which) protection rating, and only protects up to 2 shots in a plate before breaking/failing.
Sides, all dragon skin adds is a few polymer sheets and ceramic plate for added protection, if that already add 20lb to the overall weight, then body armor technology still have a long way to go before behaving like the hype the general public believed it is/was/watever.
On the side note, singapore army issues body armor also right? -
Interceptor Body armor, standard issue of US Army, made(or at least designed) by them too. Go google or wiki it.Originally posted by wonderamazement:What's IBA?