The issue of open testing of body-armor alternatives is one about which I have been writing for nearly a year-and-a-half. During that time, 1,308 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Pentagon has only dug its heels in harder to prevent alternatives to the regulation-issue Interceptor body-armor system from being fully evaluated.
Why is this? What is the Pentagon hiding?
Well, stay tuned - literally:
PEO Soldier, the Army office responsible for body armor, has been talking to the press, namely, NBC News. The Army's been gearing up for an NBC News segment airing this weekend on body armor. Apparently, NBC News is taking on the debate over Dragon Skin armor, which proponents claim is superior to Interceptor armor being provided to troops.
This story is about to get huge. Here's a little bit of background on it.
The Simple Version
In January 2006, it came to light that the Pentagon had issued directives to its field commanders that troops were not to wear non-regulation body armor. The issue of body armor had surfaced just months before, when a secret Marine Corps study revealed that the armor issued to troops was inadequate, and that even that armor was not getting to American troops in combat zones in sufficient quantities.
When the "no-non-G.I." directive first was revealed, an outcry ensued. Combat troops and their families were concerned that the soldiers and Marines were not receiving the best available body armor. Many had paid out of their own pockets to supply armor; indeed, until last year, the Pentagon had in place a program that reimbursed a certain amount of out-of-pocket expenditure for certain items of troops' gear that they had elected to supply themselves.
One of the types of non-regulation body armor favored by troops was a kind called Dragon Skin, manufactured by Pinnacle Armor of Fresno, California. Dragon Skin uses multiple overlapping discs of titanium and ceramic to deflect, dissipate and absorb the energy of incoming bullets. Its design allows it to take multiple hits and still retain its integrity and function, as revealed in videos of tests conducted with and by various law enforcement agencies and television documentarians.
In contrast, the current type of body armor issued to U.S. combat troops is a kind called Interceptor. Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) uses single, monolithic ceramic plates carried over the chest, back and sides of the protected soldier to stop small-arms rounds. The plates are inserted into pockets built into a "tactical vest."
Interceptor's ceramic plates are large, cumbersome and fragile. They are said to incur a 60% loss-replacement ratio in the field. The crates they are shipped in, as well as the plates themselves, prominently feature warnings about their fragility.
The brittleness and fragility of the Interceptor plates is at the crux of the body armor debate: When hit with multiple rounds, the Interceptor plates break down, leaving, as retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles of Soldiers for the Truth put it, "a bunch of gravel basically inside the pouch," which cannot stop any further rounds, thus leaving the soldier wearing the armor vulnerable.
The Pentagon has fought tooth and nail for the past eighteen months to keep Dragon Skin out of the hands of U.S. combat troops. After the January 2006 directive proved not specific enough, the Army issued a Safety of Use Message (SOUM) in March 2006 that specifically forbade the use of Dragon Skin. Various military spokespeople and anonymous sources hinted - incorrectly - that Dragon Skin had failed military testing and thus was not suitable for use by American troops.
This despite the fact that the Secret Service uses Dragon Skin.
Dragon Skin's proponents continued to push hard for full and open Pentagon testing. Finally in May 2006, the Pentagon agreed to one more round of testing. That testing was halted only part way through with no explanation, and has never been resumed.
Oh - one other thing, real quick:
The lead contractor for Interceptor body armor, Armor Holdings, is a big-time Republican campaign donor, as were some of Armor Holdings' largest shareholders . . . The person in charge of the testing at the Pentagon's facility last May was Col. John D. Norwood . . . After the tests of Dragon Skin were stopped last year, Col. Norwood retired to go to work [a couple of months later] in the private sector . . .
Col. (Ret.) John D. Norwood is now a Vice President of Armor Holdings' Aerospace and Defense Group
Twelve months after Col. Norwood and the Pentagon abruptly halted the testing of Dragon Skin body armor, the issue is about to take on new life.
Congressman Mike Ross
Javier and Marian La Rosa of Maryville, Tennesse, have a son in the Marine Corps who soon will be shipping out to Iraq. The La Rosas wanted their son, Lance Cpl. Alex La Rosa, to have the best available body armor. They were prepared to purchase him a set of Dragon Skin, at a cost to themselves of about $3,500. (Unlike the Army, until last month the Marine Corps had never issued a Safety of Use Message or its equivalent banning the use of Dragon Skin.) But Alex La Rosa told his parents that he would wear it only if all 12 members of his unit could wear it. So the La Rosas set out to raise enough money to do accomplish that.
When the La Rosa's efforts started picking up steam, attracting first regional, then national attention (in the form of PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" taking an interest in their story), the Corps tried to put the kabosh on them. The day after the Marines were contacted by a reporter from the local Maryville newspaper about the matter, the Corps issued its own directive banning the use of Dragon Skin:
Corps Bans Non-Issued Armor
The Marine Corps issued a directive Tuesday banning the use of store-bought personal protective equipment in the war zone, including body armor, ballistic glasses, armor plates and fire-retardant clothing.
The Marines' directive came more than a year after the Army's SOUM; so much for "First in, last out."
But the new directive wasn't enough; the Marines also decided to try the Mafia approach, sending Guido the Enforcer to have a little chat with the La Rosas:
According to Javier, he was contacted by an official from the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., saying "that I need to be educated (about the current body armor)," he said. "Here we are just thinking we're buying these 12 vests, and we're walking into this viper's nest." . . .
[T]he message was that the Marines weren't happy with [the La Rosas's] efforts to raise money for "Dragon Skin" and the publicity they have been receiving, Javier said. They don't want them to continue to pursue buying the new body armor, he said. "That was very clear." . . .
"They're afraid," Javier said bluntly. "They are just flat out afraid of these things coming up.
Meanwhile, back in Pearcy, Arkansas, John Grant was campaigning for an investigation to be opened into why the Pentagon was not fully pursuing seemingly viable options to its existing body armor system. Grant's son, John Tyler Grant, was about to be deployed on his second tour to Iraq with the Arkansas National Guard. The senior Mr. Grant contacted his congressman, Mike Ross (AR-04), who agreed to pursue the matter:
"We owe it to all soldiers and their families to ensure that our troops are given the finest armor and equipment available," Ross said. "We must resolve this issue for our soldiers’ welfare and their families’ peace of mind."
Ross wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren (link not yet available), calling for
an unbiased, external investigation to determine whether the IBA is the most effective body armor available for our troops. This should include an independent assessment of the previous tests conducted on Dragon Skin to determine if they were done objectively using the current standard testing practices and also an independent, objective assessment of the Dragon Skin Body Armor.
When a local reporter, a few days before Ross sent the letter, asked Tennessee Republican Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr., who represents Blount County, home of Javier and Marian La Rosa, whether he would sign Ross's letter, Duncan
indicated he is considering supporting Ross' request for an investigation.
"We spend more on defense than any country in the world," he said in an e-mail response. "There is no reason that our troops shouldn't have the best equipment, and most of the military's equipment is the best that money can buy."
Sounds great, except - Duncan did not sign the letter. Nor did any other of Tennessee's four Republican representatives. Rep. Zach Wamp, in particular, was especially forthright when asked about his intentions regarding the letter (emphases added):
"I'm looking at this very closely, but before I signed onto a resolution or took an official position I wanted to get the facts and find out what the defense department's response was to this," Wamp said. "I continue to look into this because I'm very interested in making sure these families can be assured that our country is doing everything we can for every man and woman that we put in harms way.
"I'll continue to look in to this and take the appropriate action as quickly as possible."
In case his level of concern about the issue wasn't clear from his response, Wamp, too, declined to sign the letter calling for an investigation.
Ross's letter was finally co-signed by a total of 41 other representatives, among them only four Republicans.
The letter went on to say,
[I]f additional testing reveals that Dragon Skin Body Armor is, in fact, superior to the IBA and that the Army is denying our soldiers the choice to use superior body armor; we ask that the Army's Safety of Use Message be rescinded.
We are also requesting copies of any conclusive evidence confirming that the Dragon Skin body armor does not meet the military's specifications and that the Interceptor Body Armor currently being used is the best body armor available.
So far, the Pentagon has responded by holding a briefing with a few congressional staffers, providing documentation to support its claims. A source close to the investigation says the staffers were not impressed, and are continuing to push for more authoritative answers.
The Smokescreen
In the year-and-a-half since the Dragon Skin controversy first hit public awareness, much has been written and said on the matter. Very little of it has been of much substance, at least on the Pentagon's side.
Pinnacle Armor has made no secret of its position on the issue. Its website includes statements regarding the conduct and upshot of the Pentagon testing and videos of Dragon Skin taking multiple hits of various types of small-arms fire.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, has not made public any objective, verifiable evidence that Dragon Skin failed any testing.
Instead, what the Pentagon and its apologists have put out is a smokescreen of innuendo and circumlocution directed against Dragon Skin. One of the first recorded incidents occurred in March 2006, when, in a press briefing at the time the SOUM was issued, Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson said about Dragon Skin,
[T]here is particular evidence to state that we're not really sure what it provides, and it has not demonstrated it can provide up to standard . . .
[W]e have not found that the protection provided by these other particular systems is anywhere near what the soldiers have today . . .
I will say that there is another service that has procured this type of capability, but has recently recalled it because it did not meet standards.
Umm, which would all be great, except . . . that . . .
the Pentagon has provided absolutely no evidence to indicate that any of that is true.
Hmm. So, Gen. Sorenson says Dragon Skin "isn't anywhere near" Interceptor's capability. Hmm. Remember that name: Sorenson; it'll come up later.
The whispering campaign continued after the aborted May 2006 testing, when an "anonymous Pentagon source" "revealed" that Dragon Skin had "failed" military testing.
Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests
The Army's struggle to find a new, more flexible body armor was dealt a setback yesterday when a California company's high-tech Dragon Skin vests failed to pass military testing, a senior Defense Department official said.
After three days of testing this week, the Army determined that the body armor does not meet military specifications, said the official, who declined to specify which tests the armor failed. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been released.
Karl Masters, the engineer for the Interceptor program who helped conduct the May 2006 testing of Dragon Skin, piped up in a discussion thread on professionalsoldiers.com, a website "dedicated to the Special Forces Soldier and those interested in the SF way of life," in July 2006:
The sun is about to shine on the Army's rationale for issuing the body armor Safety of Use Message. Get your suncreen ready.
Needless to say, a year later, the sun still hasn't shone on the Army's rationale. Mr. Masters and some of his more enthusiastic supporters have provided glimpses of their rationales, however. Masters alludes to the requirement that body armor repel armor-piercing rounds
.....after immersion in saltwater, a soak in diesel fuel, a soak in motor oil, 6 hours at 160 deg F, temp cycled between -25 deg F and 120 deg F, and cold soaked to -60 deg F for 6 hours.
Let's not forget the impact/drop test and the flame/melt drip test.
Armor conditioned to these standards must stop the specified AP [armor-piercing] threats 100% of the time.
The number of complete penetrations we are looking for after these tests is ZERO.
Yes, he actually referred to the "impact/drop test."
I wonder how Interceptor holds up to that test. Oh, that's right:
Further down in the same professionalsoldiers.com thread cited above, hints about adhesive problems are mentioned. A new company, Evolution Armor, is cited by thread moderator "Team Sergeant":
Funny how the actual inventor of Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin knew why Dragon Skin catastrophically failed and went as far to post that little FACT on his website;
The major flaw was not observing the Article One testing environmental conditioning protocol, which calls for the armor to withstand 165 degrees F for 6 hours. After five years of development and having the protocol in hand you would figure that the adhesive used to affix the tiles to the high strength fabric would be of the high temperature variety, it wasn't, and because of that these vests failed. OOPS! http://www.evolutionarmor.com/...
A visit to "Evolution Armor's" website is instructional. On the home page, the proprietors - who do not directly identify themselves anywhere on the site, although at the bottom of the home page, the words, "Dragon Skin armor evolved to the next generation by Allan D. Bain & Associates," appear - make this claim:
We [sic] invented the concept behind Dragon Skin back in the early 1990's. So when you talk to us, your [sic] talking to the original inventor of "Dragon Skin" and most of Pinnacle Armor's "body armor" systems.
But shoot, when you go to the "Contact Us" page, you're given addresses in Bangkok and Brisbane, but only a phone number here in the States.
Another commenter in the Professional Soldiers thread, TPD1280, says,
It would appear that Murray Neal did not invent DS, but rather bought it from the company for which he was a salesman.
Hmm. That's odd, 'cause according to the U.S. Patent Office - not that they would know anything about this, but still - Murray Neal (Pinnacle Armor's owner) is shown as the lead inventor of the Dragon Skin technology.
And as near as I can tell, the only U.S. patent with which an "Allan Bain" - the only name to be found on the Evolution Armor website, and presumably the "we" referred to on the home page - is credited without Murray Neal is this one, which is for an utterly different type of body armor.
So - unless the U.S. Patent Office is mistaken, any claims by anyone that Murray Neal is not "the original inventor of 'Dragon Skin' and most of Pinnacle Armor's 'body armor' systems" look to be, well, a load of crap.
But I could be wrong about that.
Then there's OpFor, "a blog dedicated" - as a continuation of the proprietors' previous Officers' Club blog - "towards expanding milblogging topics to include foreign policy, wargaming, grand strategy, and hippy bashing." Fair enough. One of its site-moderator-types, Slab (whom, I gather, posts as "VMI Marine" over at Professional Soldiers), ran this delightful tidbit a few weeks ago, just after the Marine Corps announced its ban:
The debate surrounding Dragon Skin and body armor has become so full of conjecture, hyperbole, and ad hominem attacks as to make the truth impossible to distinguish. Hell, even Daily Kos jumped on the "Army bad, Dragon Skin good" bandwagon last July. What I want to see is scientific proof that Dragon Skin will stop 7.62X54R B32 API in the same tests used for the E-SAPIs. [Diarist's note: Interestingly, so do I.] Until then, I refuse to buy the hype. Pinnacle has had ample time to roll out incontrovertible proof that their armor will perform up to E-SAPI standards, and all that I have heard from them are screams of "corruption" and a propaganda campaign attacking the reputation and integrity of the Army's chief testers.
Well, never mind that the guy in charge of the testing was hired a few months later as a vice president for the manufacturer of Interceptor. But I digress.
Slab then goes on to praise Karl Masters' "unvarnished opinion" (emphases added):
I highly encourage our readers to do more research on their own. Professional Soldiers.com, a website run by and for the "Quiet Professionals" of Special Forces, gained quite a bit of fame when Karl Masters published his unvarnished opinion of Dragon Skin. Infamy aside, this thread remains the best source of information I have seen to date on the body armor question. The fact remains that it has not met the Army's standards, and as such, will not be adopted or approved for use until it does.
Okay, then: If the Pentagon says so, it must be FACT.
Jessica Lynch What was that?
Pat Tillman Did I just say that?
Slab on OpFor a few days later then made quite a show of Utterly Missing The Point when he posted this world-class non sequitur:
WHAT, NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY?
Seems the Government Accounting Office has released the results of its investigation into U.S. Army and Marine Corps body armor testing and procurement. [snip]
Sorry Pinnacle. No. Government. Conspiracy.
Yes, it seems Slab mistook a GAO report (PDF file) on the Pentagon's response to the body-armor shortage and defect issues of 2003-2005 with the question of Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor.
D'oh!
But don't expect to hear a retraction or clarification any time soon.
And when discussing the misinformation/obfuscation campaign generated by Pentagon supporters, we mustn't forget the clumsy attempt to shut up the La Rosas:
[Capt. Jeff Landis, spokesman for the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., said,] "We've actually done a lot of testing with Dragon Skin, and it failed all the tests that we put it through" . . .
"That's bull," [Pinnacle Armor CEO Murray Neal] said of Landis' explanation. "I've been at every test ... and we haven't failed anything."
Because of the "sensitive" nature of body armor tests, Landis couldn't give specifics, but said some of the issues involved Dragon Skin "breaking down" during testing in extreme heat and salt-water conditions . . .
Again, Neal disagrees in no uncertain terms, saying independent testing shows Dragon Skin stays effective in both extreme heat and salt water.
Perhaps the Pentagon needs a new public-relations firm. Its recent attempt to crack down on military blogging, for example, was intended to increase operational security (OPSEC):
Maj. Ceralde cited an example of how "innocuous" bits of information can give a snapshot of a bigger picture. He described how the Pentagon parking lot had more parked cars than usual on the evening of Jan. 16, 1991, and how pizza parlors noticed a significant increase of pizza to the Pentagon and other government agencies. These observations are indicators, unclassified information available to all, Maj. Ceralde said. That was the same night that Operation Desert Storm began.
Got that? No tracking pizza deliveries. Presumably, spreading dubious information about non-regulation body-armor systems is OK, though, as is the Commander-Guy-In-Chief making a speech to the entire world in front of a map showing detailed troop deployments in Baghdad.
Oh, and in case Congress decides it wants to ask military personnel any questions? They can only talk to Bush appointees; otherwise, No Go.
So, what's going on with all of this? What's the truth? Is Dragon Skin better than Interceptor, or is Pinnacle Armor just riding the publicity train for all it's worth? I honestly don't know - and I admit it. Of course, unless and until open, fair, side-by-side testing is conducted, the whole issue devolves to one person's word against another's.
In the next installment of this diary, we'll take a look at some of the big players in the Interceptor-vs.-Dragon Skin saga, and how their well-documented histories might tell us a little something more about their credibility. We'll also review the Pentagon's less-than-stellar record with regard to testing and procurement, and how recent events leave plenty of room for doubt in that area.
In the meantime, keep your eyes peeled - and your TiVo set on NBC.
And bring popcorn. Heh®.
UPDATE: How could I have forgotten a much-deserved and humble hat tip to Kossack Dburn, who has been slogging through this very important issue on a different, much less visible track. Thanks, Dburn.
UPDATE 2: Here's the link to NBC's online version of Lisa Myers's report. An excerpt (emphases added):
Given the controversy over body armor, NBC News commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor vest. In that testing, Dragon Skin outperformed the Army’s body armor in stopping the most lethal threats. Retired four-star Army Gen. Wayne Downing, now an NBC news analyst, observed the tests.
"What we saw today, Lisa, and again it’s a limited number of trials, Dragon Skin was significantly better," he said.
These independent, limited tests raise serious questions about the Army’s claim that Dragon Skin doesn’t work. NBC News will report on the specific results of that testing on Dateline NBC Sunday. Critics tell NBC they’d like to see the Army re-test and re-evaluate Dragon Skin.
(Also available at My Left Wing)