Back on May 20th, the NBC News Investigative Unit excitedly reported that US Armed forces and the Pentagon may be forcing our soldiers to use body armor that is not as effective as newer models being produced. In an alarming TV report called "Are U.S. soldiers wearing the best body armor?", NBC intimated that the Pentagon was sending our troops substandard bullet proof vests when they knew there was a better product out there suggesting that our government is putting our soldier's safety at risk. But, further Congressional investigations and military testing results are beginning to prove that NBC's breathless report about substandard armor is misleading. Will NBC do a follow up report admitting that their facts were wrong now that their original report has been revealed as hasty and ill informed?
Back on May 20th, intrepid NBC "investigator" Lisa Myers reported that NBC conducted "independent ballistics tests" to prove that Dragon Skin, the product created by Pinnacle Armor, was superior to the military's currently used "Interceptor" body armor product.
But that isn't all. NBC also claimed that there was a conspiracy against Dragon Skin. In their investigative report, NBC quotes a Nevin Rupert who claims that the Army refuses to certify Dragon Skin because approving Dragon Skin armor somehow threatened the Army's power and funding.
"It wasn’t their program. It threatened their program and mission funding," Rupert claimed in an interview with Myers.
The upshot of Myers' report is that some sort of Army cabal in the military was excluding Dragon Skin because they were more interested in funding than the troops' safety.
This May 20th report led to a series of Congressional hearings to ascertain what, if anything, was going on with this issue.
On June 7th, however, we get this report from GovermentExecutive.com (among many other sources):
House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday accused a body armor maker with falsifying information about its product and making unsubstantiated claims that the Army rigged live-fire tests to set the firm's vests up for failure.
During a long hearing that often seemed like a trial, the Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor Inc. offered lawmakers no firm evidence to back up its public assertions that Army officials manipulated tests on its Dragon Skin body armor to cover up the vests' true capabilities.
Given the chance to prove that their armor is the best, as NBC claimed it might be, Pinnacle executives could not even produce a single bit of proof that their product met standards, was better than what is currently being used by our armed forces, or that they are being unfairly frozen out of the appropriations and contracts system.
So, what does NBC say about the reliability of their "investigative" report?
The report "brings NBC's credibility into serious question," said Thompson, who added that the news organization disregarded the Army's own evidence to pursue a "salacious story." Skelton announced at the hearing that NBC News declined an invitation to appear before the committee.
A call to NBC's Washington bureau was not returned at presstime.
Yeah. Imagine that.
There seems to be all sorts of unanswered questions. From the fact that the adhesive used on Dragon Skin is not effective:
More troubling to Army testers was the near complete delamination of the disks from the Kevlar backing within the Dragon Skin on several of the environmental tests.
To Pinnacle's inexplicable labeling that certified that the Law Enforcement community certified the product when it had not done so:
On May 11, 2006, OSI received verification from the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that the type of Dragon Skin vests the Air Force purchased had not been tested or certified to National Institute of Justice standards, Thomas said.
“That was a big surprise because that’s one of the reasons we purchased the vests,” he said, adding that the vests received by OSI were clearly and falsely marked NIJ Level III.
... and from GovernmentExecutive.com:
The panel's hearing came as the Air Force, which also has tested the Pinnacle Armor vests, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm over allegations that it had placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not.
Yet, here we had NBC claiming that the Dragon Skin vests were far better and that there was some eeeevil military conspiracy against them, that Pinnacle was as innocent as the driven snow. The truth seems far murkier.
As to NBC's claims that their "independent" ballistics tests showed Dragon Skin to be better than the Army's current vests, the Army thoroughly disputes this claim.
First is the fact that NBC did not use US Government approved "Interceptor" armor suppliers for their tests:
Army officials testified Wednesday that the interceptor body armor tested against the Dragon Skin in the NBC test was not produced by any of the six companies that supply the vests to the military, a fact that may have contributed to the interceptor armor's poor showing.
Second was that US Military tests showed much the opposite of NBC's claims:
“Before the testing was halted, the Dragon Skin vest suffered 13 of 48 first- or second-round shot complete penetrations, failing four of eight initial subtests,” Thompson (Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology) said. “The bottom line is that the Dragon Skin vest did not stop the bullets.”
Clearly NBC's report is not as true as they presented it to be.
So, the question remains open. Will NBC follow up their alarmist and seemingly completely WRONG claims against our Military? Will they admit that the Pentagon did not try to quash the fortunes of a company that could have provided our soldiers with better protection from enemy bullets? Will NBC admit that they unfairly assaulted the reputation and efficacy of the US Military's procurement process in this case?
We are waiting for an answer NBC.
(Hat tip to NBer David S Grove for an update on this story)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It is my understanding that t
June 18, 2007 - 10:01 ET by RangerTomIt is my understanding that the Dragon skins weighs more than the body armor being used now by our forces. Nothing like weighing down the troops more with heavier equipment in a hot climate. I wonder if they make a lighter version of this body armor for the female troops?
Screw diversity, celebrate competancy
I saw this dragon skin on Dis
June 18, 2007 - 14:27 ET by LeonI saw this dragon skin on Discovery Channel's Future Weapons and my understanding was that one of the primary advantages of the dragon skin was its light weight.
From the testing they showed, the dragon skin seemed significantly more effective than the current body armor.
And who performed that testin
June 18, 2007 - 15:50 ET by BDAnd who performed that testing? Did they fire from virtually every angle, using differing sized caliber weapons and did the armor servive blast fragmentation as well?
Testing usually takes some significant time, for a purpose. We test things in all environements, at all angles, and with every conceivable weapon it is designed to handle. THis takes TIME.
Showing a TV show sponsored by the manufacturer is not adequate.
I've scanned the testing repo
June 18, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Big SargeI've scanned the testing reports and it did seem as though the Dragon Skin testing wasn't done to standard (i.e. it was hung so it lay flat as opposed to hanging it on a torso - which would have moved some of the disks). Either way, I've been issued the Interceptor gear and without having personally field tested it, it is MUCH better than the crap I got issued when I first got here.
Does anyone really believe that the MSM care at all about soldiers? I read the report a couple of weeks ago and the MSM is just now covering it? Just another way for them to try to embarass the military/pentagon and Bush and Co.
Since I have a little bit of room left in my "C" bag, I'll take some dragon skin with me and we'll let one of these "caring" MSM'ers come on over and test it out for themselves.
well, there's only one way to
June 18, 2007 - 10:33 ET by pmohbuckwell, there's only one way to find out ...
i say let NBC send brian williams and lisa myers to baghdad to remove IEDs ... one would be wearing the "interceptor" body armor and the other would don the "dragon skin" ...
if we're lucky, ABC will send charlie gibson and barbara walters and CBS will send dan rather and katie couric in the spirit of network competetiveness
Did the media complain about
June 18, 2007 - 10:40 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveDid the media complain about this kind of stuff in Vietnam when they wore flak vests?
Any armor is better than no armor.
And most soldiers understand signing up means possibly risking/sacrificing their life to protect and advance freedom.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Military.com has a specialt
June 18, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Right2thePointMilitary.com has a specialty site http://www.defensete... which has had extensive coverage.
Go to the site and click on the armor category on the left sidebar
What's "news" here
June 18, 2007 - 11:35 ET by rbosqueWhat's "news" here is that NBC liberals are "concerned" for the life of US soldiers. There is always a political component to their view of Iraq, this story is another attempt to further demonize this war and the moral of our troops.
Motivation
June 18, 2007 - 11:37 ET by allanfWhy would NBC run this report. We know few at NBC are actually concerned about the welfare of our troops. (They support the troops but not the mission). So the purpose is to make the Pentagon and president look bad.
Could there be another purpose. Does investigator "Lisa" have a stake in Dragon? An anxious public has the right to know.
Anyone remember when Dateline
June 18, 2007 - 12:41 ET by rightyAnyone remember when Dateline had to plant explosives to make a Chevy truck explode when hit in the side, sometime in the early nintys I think. They Justified it by saying the story was true so it was OK to fake the video. The entire NBC news orginization has no credibility in my book.
Of course NBC will not be iss
June 18, 2007 - 14:23 ET by bigtimerOf course NBC will not be issuing any apology...the are following some of the very left in Congress keeping this in the news...it is an agenda in more ways that one.
I watched the hearings over time...I think I caught most...this is all BS...the army and others have testified this dragon-skin is more of a detriment than anything else...detriment.
Of course the politico's and the msm are going to ignore that simple true fact...after-all it doesn't fit their agenda no matter how you look at it.
Btw....to top this off I read here that the Pentagon has hired an ABC reporter, hired by Gates for their spokesman...blah blah blah.....
My question is I wonder what is wrong with these people? I could be wrong I know, maybe the guy is a good reporter/spokesman....but I still wonder what Rummy would say.
(I will always think the biggest mistake we made right off the bat was embedding the reporters)
Didn't NBC interview the inve
June 18, 2007 - 19:35 ET by crsheddDidn't NBC interview the inventor of the armor currently used in Iraq? Didn't he say he would wear Dragon Skin if he ever went to Iraq?
Seems to me I saw that part of the report, which strangely enough, is not reported here.
Go figure.
You all need to do some resea
June 18, 2007 - 21:08 ET by fosstenYou all need to do some research into the controversy. Dragon Skin was being purchased by soldiers who were unwilling to wear their current issued kevlar vests b/c of the weight. Dragon Skin is lighter and tougher. The government told them they couldn't wear the Dragon Skin despite the fact that they purchased it themselves.
Also read about the NIJ standards for vests. The way they came up with those is pathetic. The guy who dreamed them up used his kid's play putty to simulate human skin in order to measure indentation.
It wouldn't be the first time the government forced our soldiers to use faulty or substandard equipment. Remember reading about all the complaints about the M16 during the Vietnam War, how the weapon would jam and fail to fire? Complaints were voiced to General Westmoreland and he told them to go pound sand. By the way, if you read up on the M16 and the civilian AR15, you will see that reliability is it's biggest problem. Yet our soldiers are forced to use it.