Content deleted Content added
Swatjester (talk | contribs) →Military testing: removing unnecessary maintenance tag; this is well-supported by the board of contract appeals reference a couple sentences later, which would not exist if it was not a "subject of controversy." |
Swatjester (talk | contribs) →Military testing: updating a number of sources, removing some unsourced claims that are unlikely to ever get an update (and thus don't need update-inline templates); and removing unreliable, WP:SPS claim from Chris Kyle (whose own bio notes his rampant history of fabrications) |
||
Line 40:
On April 26, 2006 Pinnacle Armor issued a press release to address these claims and a product recall instigated by the [[United States Navy]].<ref name=426-pr>{{cite press release | publisher = Pinnacle Armor | url = http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060426-pr.php | title = Response to US Army's allegations of failed Air Force testing|access-date = 2006-06-22|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060516081433/http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060426-pr.php|archive-date = 2006-05-16}}</ref> The company stated that although vests were returned due to a manufacturing issue, a test on the Dragon Skin Level III 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 fail any written contract specifications" set forth by the Air Force,<ref name=426-pr/> which was further said by Pinnacle to require high ballistic performance due to the hostile environments in which AFOSI operates.<ref name=426-pr/>
The Pentagon stated that the test results were classified and neither side could agree to terms on another, more comprehensive test.<ref
On May 19, 2006 it was announced that the dispute had been resolved and the vests were going to be retested again by the Army to clear the dispute.<ref>{{cite news | publisher = military.com | agency=Army News Service | url = https://www.military.com/features/0,15240,97959,00.html|date=2006-05-19|title = Army Tests Pinnacle Armor "Dragon Skin" Vests| access-date = 2006-05-23|url-status=dead|archive-date=2007-05-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070515184903/http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,97959,00.html}}</ref> On May 20, 2006 it was announced by ''[[The Washington Post]]'' (and other newspapers) in an article titled "Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests"<ref name=":2">{{cite news | newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901606.html | title = Potential Advance in Body Armor Fails Tests | access-date = 2006-07-08 | first=Lolita C.| last=Baldor | date=May 20, 2006}}</ref> that the Dragon Skin vests had failed the retest according 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, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain. I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Skin—don't. I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a [[7.62×54mmR|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 use by insurgents..."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=DefenseTech.org |url=http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html|title=New Twist in Dragon Armor Tale |access-date = 2006-08-07 |url-status= dead |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20060927044456/http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002548.html |archive-date = September 27, 2006 |df= mdy-all}}</ref> In response to these claims, Pinnacle Armor released a press release on June 30, 2006.<ref>{{cite press release | publisher = Pinnacle Armor|format= 2nd press release| url = http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060630-pr.php | title = Response to Karl Masters' (US Army) public statements regarding unfinished FAT testing | access-date = 2006-08-07|date=2006-06-30|url-status=dead|archive-date=2006-07-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060721201902/http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/20060630-pr.php}}</ref>
According to the Army, the vests failed because the extreme temperature tests caused the discs to dislodge, thus rendering the vest ineffective. Pinnacle Armor affirms that their products can withstand environmental tests in accordance with military standards, as does testing by the Aberdeen Test Center.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=33 |title= CORRECTED VERSION: Two Dragon Skin Level IV Panels (Slightly Larger than the Standard ESAPI Plate) Took Four & Five ESAPI-FAT Specification Shots Respectively, After High Temperature Exposure/Conditioning, and Defeated Every Shot |publisher= Soldiers for the Truth |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090617205535/http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007.db&command=viewone&id=33 |archive-date=2009-06-17}}</ref>
Line 50:
In response to claims made by several U.S. senators, Dragon Skin and special interest groups, on Monday, May 21, 2007, the Army held a press conference where they released the results of the tests they claimed Dragon Skin failed.<ref>{{cite news |last=Baldor |first= Lolita C. |url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor |title=Army says Dragon Skin armor falls short|agency= [[Associated Press|AP]]|date= May 21, 2007 |publisher=[[Yahoo! News]]|url-status=dead|archive-date=2007-05-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070524091358/https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Sgt. Sara Wood|url=http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3292-army-defends-body-armor-quality|title=Army Defends Body Armor Quality|publisher=[[United States Army]] press|date=May 22, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Dawson|first=Debi|url=http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/05/22/3298-army-defends-interceptor-body-armor-as-the-best-for-the-best|title=Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best|publisher=[[United States Army]]|date=May 22, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Dawson|first=Debi|url=https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/bodyarmor.asp|title=Army Defends Interceptor Body Armor as the Best for the Best|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070624215501/https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/bodyarmor.asp |archive-date=June 24, 2007 }}</ref>
In April 2008, one of the Dragon Skin vests, with a serial number that identifies it as one of 30 vests bought by the Department of Defense 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. [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO), the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]], and the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|F.B.I.]]
==U.S. Army ban==
On March 30, 2006 the Army banned all privately purchased commercial body armor in theater. Army officials said the ban order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies.<ref name=ban/> The Army ban refers specifically to Pinnacle's Dragon Skin armor saying that the company advertising implies that Dragon Skin "is superior in performance" to the [[Interceptor Body Armor]] the military issues to soldiers.<ref name=ban/> The [[United States Marine Corps]] has not issued a similar 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 after the Army ban, select elite forces assigned to protect generals and VIPs in Iraq and Afghanistan wore Dragon Skin.<ref name=MSNBC550/> General [[Peter W. Chiarelli]] made a statement that, "he never wore Dragon Skin but that some members of his staff did wear a lighter version of the banned armor on certain limited occasions, despite the Army ban."<ref name=MSNBC550/>
H.P. White Labs conducted tests on Dragon Skin in May 2006. Even under normal external and atmospheric conditions, model SOV 3000 Dragon Skin failed to stop the second impact of M2AP.
▲H.P. White Labs conducted tests on Dragon Skin in May 2006. Even under normal conditions model SOV 3000 Dragon Skin failed to stop the second impact of M2AP.{{Clarify|date=June 2022}} Then when the other tests were run, SOV 3000 failed multiple times, with the exception of the Salt Water test.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=DoD, HP White Labs test of Dragon Skin Ballistic Armor. |url=https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222212514/https://archive.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/briefingslide/304/070521-D-6570C-001.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-22 |website=Defense.gov}}</ref>
== Certification and subsequent decertification ==
| |||