banner



Home  ›  Is Dragon Skin Still Banned

Is Dragon Skin Still Banned

Written By Tuesday 10 May 2022 Add Comment Edit

X-ray of Dragon Pare Trunk Armor

Dragon Skin is a blazon of ballistic vest formerly made by the now-defunct company Acme Armor, currently produced in Missoula, Montana by North American Development Group LLC available for public, law-enforcement and armed forces customers. Its characteristic 2-inch-wide circular discs overlap similar scale armor, creating a flexible vest that allows a good range of motion and is intended to blot a high number of hits compared with other military torso armor. The discs are composed of silicon carbide ceramic matrices and laminates, much similar the larger ceramic plates in other types of bullet resistant vests.[i]

The armor was c. 2007 bachelor in one basic protection level: Dragon Pare Extreme (formerly SOV-2000), which until 2007 was certified to comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements as a Level III armor system.[two] [3] [four]

Dragon Skin has been worn past some civilian contractors in Iraq, some special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,[five] some SWAT teams,[six] 9 generals in Afghanistan,[5] [7] bodyguards tasked with protecting generals,[7] and U.S. Secret Service personnel.[v] The Key Intelligence Agency (CIA) has besides purchased Dragon Peel.[seven]

In 2020, at that place are no known users of the armor, although sets can be found on various online retail sites, and one of the creators has gone on to create a new company, Stealth Armor Systems.[8]

Structure [edit]

Dragon Skin armor is made of an overlapping series of high tensile forcefulness ceramic discs encased in a fiberglass cloth. Unlike layout configurations with variations in coverage are bachelor.

Dragon Skin Farthermost is made of overlapping approximately 0.25-inch (6.four mm) × ii-inch (51 mm) ceramic discs encased in a textile cover. In evaluating the Dragon Skin system, information technology is important to note that while the external measurements of the Dragon Skin console are xi.five inches (290 mm) × 13.5 inches (340 mm), the area of level Three coverage provided by the encased ceramic discs is 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm); the textile edges are not intended to provide ballistic protection. Weight of the Dragon Pare Extreme armor providing 10 inches (250 mm) × 12 inches (300 mm) of level III protection was approximately 6.4 lb (2.ix kg).

Testing [edit]

Television [edit]

In a test for the History Aqueduct's military show, Mail Call, the belong repelled 9 rounds of steel-core ammunition from an AK-47 full automated and 35 rounds of nine×19mm from a Heckler & Koch MP5A3, all fired into a 10-past-12-inch area on the belong. On Examination Lab, also on the History Channel, the vest withstood 120 rounds fired from a Blazon 56 (vii.62×39mm) rifle and Heckler & Koch MP5 (9×19mm). In some other demonstration on the Discovery Aqueduct series Future Weapons, a Dragon Skin vest withstood numerous rounds (including steel core rounds) from an AK-47, a Heckler & Koch MP5SD, an M4 carbine (v.56×45mm), and a signal-bare detonation of an M67 grenade. While the belong 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 the number of trials performed was express, the Dragon Skin armor performed significantly improve.[7]

NBC also interviewed retired USMC Colonel James Magee, who was ane developers of the Ground forces's then-electric current torso armor, Interceptor. "Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands downward. Information technology's better than the Interceptor. It is land of the art. In some cases, it'south two steps ahead of anything I've ever seen."[9]

In light of the May 2007 media investigations, senators Hillary Clinton and Jim Webb requested that Comptroller General of the United States David M. Walker initiate a Regime Accountability Function investigation into the regular army'southward body armor systems.[10]

Later on being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC exam results and provided Army-supplied data of belong failures from a May 2006 test, the technical expert solicited by NBC to certify its examination backed away from his staunch defence of Dragon Pare and stated that the vests "weren't ready for prime fourth dimension".[11]

It was as well featured on Time Warp on the Discovery Channel.

Constabulary enforcement [edit]

In Fresno, California, a police force department commissioned the purchase of Dragon Skin for its officers after a belong stopped all the bullets fired during a test, including .308 rounds from a burglarize and 30 rounds from a 9mm MP5 fired from five feet away. The armor also stopped 40 rounds of PS-M1943 balmy steel-core bullets from an AK-47 along with 200 9 mm full metallic jacket bullet fired from a submachine gun.[12]

Military testing [edit]

External image
image icon Official Army Test Results[13]

Dragon Skin became the subject of controversy with the U.Due south. Army[14] over testing it confronting its Interceptor body armor. The Army claimed Meridian's torso armor was not proven to be effective. In test runs for the Air Force at that place were multiple failures to run into the claimed level of protection. This coupled with poor quality control (over 200 of the 380 vests delivered to USAF OSI were recalled due to improperly manufactured armor disks) and accusations of fraudulent claims of official NIJ rating which Meridian had non actually obtained at the time of purchase led to the termination of the USAF contract. Pinnacle attempted to appeal this decision, but courts establish in favor of the USAF.[xv]

Dragon Skin armor did not meet war machine standards when subjected to various environmental conductions, including: loftier (+150'F) and depression (-60'F) temperature, diesel, oil, and saltwater immersion, and a 14 hour temperature wheel from -25'F to +120'F. Armed services testing revealed that the epoxy gum that held its disc plates together would come undone when subjected to high temperatures, causing the discs to delaminate and accrue in the lower portion of the armor panel. This exposed meaning portions of the armor, resulting in Dragon Peel vests suffering 13 get-go or second shot complete penetrations. [xvi]

On Apr 26, 2006 Pinnacle Armor issued a press release to address these claims and a product recall instigated by the United States Navy.[17] The company stated that although vests were returned due to a manufacturing issue, a test on the Dragon Pare Level Three armor was conducted by the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Aberdeen Proving Ground in February 2006, which concluded that it "did not neglect any written contract specifications" gear up forth by the Air Force,[17] which was farther stated past Pinnacle Armor to require loftier ballistic functioning due to the hostile environments in which AFOSI operates.[17]

Weapon review website Defence Review also published an article similarly dissenting, noting that in their test and review of the Dragon Pare armor, they had found that it was "significantly superior in every combat-relevant way to U.S. Army PEO Soldier's and U.Southward. Regular army Natick Soldier Eye (NSC)/Soldier Systems Center's Interceptor Body Armor".[18]

The Pentagon stated that the test results were classified and neither side could agree to terms on another, more than comprehensive test. The Army wanted to agree and audit the vests for i–two weeks before shooting at them, and Top wanted them shot at right away from out of the box considering they said they feared the Regular army tampering with them in lodge to save their currently cheaper body armor program.[ citation needed ]

On May 19, 2006 it was appear that the dispute had been resolved and the vests were going to exist retested over again by the Army to clear the dispute.[19] On May 20, 2006 information technology was announced by The Washington Post (and other newspapers) in an article titled "Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests"[20] that the Dragon Skin vests had failed the retest co-ordinate to their anonymous source. Official results of these tests were classified at the time but have since been released by the Army.

On June 6, 2006 in comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, manager of technology for Programme Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the exam of the xxx Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level Iv body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "My day chore is acting product managing director for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the examination results make information technology up the chain. I will, nevertheless, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone because purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Peel—don't. I practice not recommend this design for employ in an AOR with a 7.62×54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 49°C (120 F). I do, however, highly recommend this system for apply by insurgents..."[21]

In response to these claims, Pinnacle Armor released a press release on June thirty, 2006.[22] Official results of these tests are classified.

According to the Army, the vests failed because the extreme temperature tests acquired the discs to dislodge, thus rendering the vest ineffective. Pinnacle Armor affirms that their products can withstand environmental tests in accordance with armed forces standards, as does testing past the Aberdeen Test Center.[23]

In response to claims fabricated by several U.S. senators, Dragon Skin and special involvement groups, on Monday, May 21, 2007, the Regular army held a press briefing where they released the results of the tests they claimed Dragon Pare failed.[24] [25] [26] [27]

In April 2008 one of the Dragon Skin vests, with a series number that identifies it as one of 30 vests bought by the Department of Defence force for U.S. Army for testing in 2006, was listed and later bought from eBay. The seller, David Bronson, allegedly was connected to a U.S. Army testing facility. The U.S. Regime Accountability Role (GAO), the U.S. Department of Justice, and the F.B.I. are investigating the matter equally of May 2008. The buyer described the vest as having been shot at least 20 times, with not a single through-penetration.[28] [29]

U.South. Army bans privately purchased trunk armor [edit]

On March thirty, 2006 the Army banned all privately purchased commercial body armor in theater. Army officials told the Associated Press that the ban society was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies.[30] The Regular army ban refers specifically to Pinnacle'south Dragon Pare armor saying that the company advertising implies that Dragon Peel "is superior in functioning" to the Interceptor Body Armor the military issues to soldiers.[31] The Marine Corps has not issued a like directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards." NBC News learned that well later on the Regular army ban select elite forces assigned to protect generals and VIPs in Iraq and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan wore Dragon Skin.[7] General Peter West. Chiarelli fabricated a argument that, "he never wore Dragon Skin simply that some members of his staff did article of clothing a lighter version of the banned armor on certain express occasions, despite the Army ban."[vii]

Chris Kyle stated in his book American Sniper that he wore Dragon Peel torso armor after his third deployment which he received from his wife's parents equally a gift.[32]

H.P. White Labs conducted tests on Dragon Skin in May 2006. Fifty-fifty under normal atmospheric condition model SOV 3000 Dragon Skin failed to cease the 2d bear on of M2AP. Then when the other tests were run, SOV 3000 failed multiple times, with the exception of the Table salt H2o examination.[33]

Certification and subsequent decertification [edit]

In an interview with KSEE 24 News, an NBC chapter, on November fourteen and 16, 2006, Acme Armor detailed the five-year process that the NIJ and Top Armor went through to establish a examination protocol and procedure for flexible rifle defeating armor, and so pass it for the certification.[34]

On December twenty, 2006, Pinnacle Armor said that they 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.[35]

The Air Forcefulness, which ordered the Dragon Skin vests partially based on claims they were NIJ certified at a time when they were not, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm Pinnacle Armor over allegations that it had fraudulently placed a characterization on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had non yet been. Murray Neal, the Meridian Armor master executive, claimed that he was given verbal authorization by the NIJ to characterization the vests although he did not have written authorization.[36]

On August 3, 2007, the Department of Justice announced that the NIJ had reviewed evidence provided past the torso armor manufacturer and had determined that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the trunk armor model would maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period. Because of this, Dragon Pare was found to non be in compliance with the NIJ'due south testing program and has been removed from the NIJ's list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements.[3] Tiptop CEO Murray Neal responded that this move was unprecedented, political, and not about the quality of the vests because they were not saying they have failed any ballistics tests. He stated it is most a dispute with the paperwork to bargain with a warranty issue instead, in which the warranty period of Dragon Skin is longer than that of nigh other commercial vests.

After passing tests at United States Test Laboratory [edit]

On August 20, 2007, at the United States Examination Laboratory in Wichita, Kansas, ix Dragon Peel SOV-2000 (Level Iii) body armor panels were retested, for the purpose of validating Pinnacle Armor'due south six-year warranty. The panels tested were between 5.vii years one-time and 6.8 years old. All items met the NIJ Level III ballistic protection, confirming Pinnacle Armor's half-dozen-year warranty for full ballistic protection.[37] Acme resubmitted the SOV-2000 vest to the NIJ for certification based on this successful testing, merely this awarding was rejected considering the test had non been properly documented. In November 2007, Summit sued to force the NIJ to recertify the SOV-2000 vest; their case was constitute to exist without merit and summarily dismissed in November 2013.[38]

References [edit]

  1. ^ Crane, David (October 9, 2006). "Dragon Peel Armor Passes More Tests: Dr. Gary Roberts and 'Exam Lab' Video".
  2. ^ "Pinnacle Armor, Inc five. The states" (PDF). The states Courts . Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  3. ^ a b "Section of justice announces findings on dragon peel body armor". Section of Justice. Archived from the original on Oct 14, 2007. Retrieved August vii, 2007.
  4. ^ "Dragon Skin Body Armor (SOV-2000) Passes all NIJ Level Iii Tests at USTL". Defense Review . Retrieved September 28, 2006.
  5. ^ a b c "Getting America's All-time?". Military.com. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
  6. ^ "Microsoft Discussion - 08-23 OP 6646.doc" (PDF). ci.minneapolis.mn.the states. September 1, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 28, 2007. Retrieved Feb 18, 2018.
  7. ^ a b c d e f "Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor? - NBC News Investigates". NBC News. May 20, 2007. Retrieved January half-dozen, 2012.
  8. ^ Systems, Stealth Armor. "Nosotros've Got Your Number, and that number is ZERO! Go to our FAQ's to come across why". Stealth Armor Systems . Retrieved March xxx, 2020.
  9. ^ "Are U.South. Soldiers wearing the best body armor?". NBC News.
  10. ^ Webb, Jim (May eighteen, 2007). "Webb & Clinton call for investigation into the effectiveness of body armor issued to our troops" (Press release). U.South. Senate. Archived from the original on June 6, 2008.
  11. ^ "Dragon Skin Backers Hammered on Hill". military.com. Retrieved June 10, 2007.
  12. ^ "Ground forces ban puts Dragon Skin in the line of burn". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on May 4, 2006. Retrieved May 15, 2006.
  13. ^ "Project Managing director Soldier Equipment Conference on the May 2006 Evaluation of Pinnacle Armor SOV 3000 'Dragon Skin'" (PDF). May 12, 2007. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
  14. ^ "Dispute ties up body armor plan". TheState.com. Retrieved May xv, 2006. [ permanent dead link ]
  15. ^ "Opinion and Decision of the Armed services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 55831, Entreatment of Acme Armor, Inc" (PDF). Military Board of Contract Appeals. July sixteen, 2009. Retrieved August 9, 2014.
  16. ^ "Project Director Soldier Equipment Briefing on the May 2006 Evaluation of Top Armor SOV 3000 "Dragon Pare"" (PDF). Department of Defense (Archive). May 2006. Retrieved Feb 2, 2021.
  17. ^ a b c "Response to United states of america Regular army's allegations of failed Air Force testing" (Press release). Peak Armor. Archived from the original on May 16, 2006. Retrieved June 22, 2006.
  18. ^ "DefRev Sees Exam Data: Dragon Skin Hands-Down Superior to Army'due south Interceptor". DefenseReview.com. Retrieved May 15, 2006.
  19. ^ "Army Tests Pinnacle Armor "Dragon Peel" Vests". military.com. Army News Service. Retrieved May 23, 2006.
  20. ^ Baldor, Lolita C. (May 20, 2006). "Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests". The Washington Post . Retrieved July viii, 2006.
  21. ^ "New Twist in Dragon Armor Tale". DefenseTech.org. Archived from the original on September 27, 2006. Retrieved August 7, 2006.
  22. ^ "Response to Karl Masters' (US Ground forces) public statements regarding unfinished FAT testing" (2nd press release) (Press release). Pinnacle Armor. Retrieved August 7, 2006.
  23. ^ "CORRECTED VERSION: Two Dragon Skin Level Iv Panels (Slightly Larger than the Standard ESAPI Plate) Took 4 & V ESAPI-FAT Specification Shots Respectively, After Loftier Temperature Exposure/Conditioning, and Defeated Every Shot". Soldiers for the Truth. Archived from the original on June 17, 2009.
  24. ^ Baldor, Lolita C. (May 21, 2007). "Army says Dragon Peel armor falls short". Yahoo! News. AP.
  25. ^ Sgt. Forest, Sara. "Army Defends Body Armor Quality". U.s. Army press release, May 22, 2007.
  26. ^ Dawson, Debi. "Ground forces Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the All-time for the Best". United States Army press release, May 22, 2007.
  27. ^ Dawson, Debi. "Ground forces Defends Interceptor Trunk Armor as the Best for the Best" Archived June 24, 2007, at the Wayback Car. United states Army, Program Executive Function Soldier press release.
  28. ^ Phillips, Preston (July 30, 2010). "Sectional: "Dragon Pare" belong bought on eBay, amid federal investigation". KSEE 24 NEWS. Archived from the original on February 13, 2012. Retrieved January vi, 2012.
  29. ^ "Trunk armor's Web of mystery". Cape Cod Times. May 4, 2008. Archived from the original on Feb 22, 2012. Retrieved January six, 2012.
  30. ^ "U.S. Ground forces Bans Utilise of Privately Purchased Body Armor by Troops". FoxNews.com. March 30, 2006. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
  31. ^ "Ground forces bans use of privately bought armor". USA Today. AP. March thirty, 2006.
  32. ^ Kyle, Chris (Dec 28, 2011). American Sniper. William Morrow and Company. p. 143. ISBN9780062082350.
  33. ^ "DoD, HP White Labs examination of Dragon Skin Ballistic Armor" (PDF).
  34. ^ "Dragon Pare Function I". KSEE 24 News / Special Assignment. Archived from the original on May 13, 2007. Retrieved December xiii, 2006. and "Dragon Skin Part II". Archived from the original on May 13, 2007. Retrieved December 13, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-11-18
  35. ^ "NIJ Certification". National Institute of Justice, U.Southward. Department of Justice. and "Notice of Compliance with NIJ 2005 Acting Requirements" (PDF). Defense Review. and "Dragon Skin armor certified". The Fresno Bee. December 21, 2006. and "KSEE 24 News". [ full commendation needed ]
  36. ^ "Government Executive: Lawmakers say body armor firm made false claims". Govexec. Retrieved June ten, 2007.
  37. ^ "Dragon Peel Passes Again: NIJ-Certified Lab Examination Validates vi-Yr Warranty". Defense Review.
  38. ^ http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020131105500.xml/PINNACLE%20ARMOR,%20INC.%20v.%20U.S.

External links [edit]

  • Dragon Pare at Pinnacle Armor
  • U.S. Regular army's Program Executive Role Soldier
  • Official results of the Army'south Dragon Skin exam.
  • Dragonskin.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin#:~:text=U.S.%20Army%20bans%20privately%20purchased%20body%20armor,-On%20March%2030&text=The%20Army%20ban%20refers%20specifically,the%20military%20issues%20to%20soldiers.

Posted by: glovermaret1994.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Is Dragon Skin Still Banned"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel