Interceptor vs. Dragon Skin on MacNeill-Lehrer

[John Kettler]

Caught only the last part, but it was good. Despite all kinds of problems with both the military and police models, Interceptor still keeps getting bought and sent to Iraq, where it's not working properly. Waivers were granted for failed lots to be sent there, too. Program discussed revolving doors, conflicts of interest, criminal indictments against the company president of DHB and a criminal investigation of the firm. Meanwhile, Dragon Skin is on the verge of outright prohibition of federal contract award and can't get comparison tests done vs. Interceptor. Part 2 of the series will focus on small arms. Anyone see the whole program?

Regards,

John Kettler

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Despite all kinds of problems with both the military and police models, Interceptor still keeps getting bought and sent to Iraq, where it's not working properly.

r

The problem is that you can't prove body armour performance under field conditions. Soft armour systems are higly unreliable in the field compared to test conditions. EG - Armour shot at 15' off angle will pass, shot 18' off angle will fail. Ammuntion velocity of the same calibre can vary by as much as 20%, which is why all good armour testing is done against hand-loads using specified bullets. eg - 9mm DM11B2.

- also the body armour industry is uniquely corrupt and irressponsible!

[flamingknives]

AIUI, body armour testing specifies velocity limits on the test - if a shot falls out of tolerance, that test is deemed void. Rounds are specified very closely, both cartridge and projectile, so a 20% variation is not credible.

Dragon Skin is a interesting case. Quite apart from the marketing director being an absolute arse, there are a number of issues that people seem to miss.

* First off, the small plates are inclined to what would be the conventional plane, so unless you compensate for this and alter the test, they get a free 15-30' angle bonus. To properly test it, you need to shoot it at an angle so the strike is normal to the plates - the angle at which it offers the least protection. There is the other angle (the reciprocal?) to the normal, where incoming rounds will potentially go between the plates. Granted there is a substantial amount of soft armour to defeat from that angle, but ceramic is what you need against rifle rounds (although you can use thick, rigid, fibre plates in some situations) When comparing it to the single plate type, the weakest point is normal to the plate, as tested, and any off angle will increase protection until it starts going round the side.

* Secondly one of the vaunted Dragon skin advantage is the multi-hit capacity. The question that raises is how many times are you likely to get shot that it's worth carrying that much extra weight around. Each disc has to stop a rifle round, but there also has to be substantial overlap to avoid edge effects. Therefore it will always weigh much more than a single plate-type.

* Thirdly, there is the reuse issue. Dragon skin gets hit, it needs to be sent back to manufacturer, otherwise complete, as all the plates are encapsulated within the vest. Single plate types may be salvaged (don't know what the procedure is in the military with this) Certainly you can remove the expensive ceramic plates that haven't been hit and re-use them.

* Fourth, there is the manufacturing quality. Dragon skin has been found wanting at least once, during full production, and causing a redesign. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

To further explain the marketing director of Dragon Skin, imagine that you are the people who bought in Interceptor, on the basis of cost, effectiveness, proven design, weight and any one of a myriad of consideration. Then this bloke comes along and starts having a go about how his product provides (or will provide, AIUI, the high protection vests were not in production at that point) slightly better protection and how you are corrupt you are for not choosing it. That's really going to endear him to you, isn't it?

[Dirtweasle]

Did they test performance and bio readings (temperature, heart rate, respiratory, perspiration, etc..) of the wearer doing a variety tasks over varying periods of time?

[RT North Dakota]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

AIUI, body armour testing specifies velocity limits on the test - if a shot falls out of tolerance, that test is deemed void. Rounds are specified very closely, both cartridge and projectile, so a 20% variation is not credible.

You missed the point. While ammo in testing is consistent, ammo in the real world is not. I've seen batches of Romanian 7.62 x 25mm which had variations of nearly 30%. - THUS you can't sue a body armour manufacturer for vest failure unless you can prove exactly how fast and at what range and angle to round was travelling.

[Omenowl]

I thought dragonskin armor failed the tests because it could not handle the extreme temperature variations. It is one reason the CEO of the company was demanding they test it immediately out of the box instead of the usual -20 to 120 degree temperature variation that armor can be expected to go through on a plane.

The problem was the plates would not be held in place if it went through this temperature variation and this is what caused catastrophic failure. The CEO also misrepresented the fact the armor was Class III. It was not certified until almost 6 months after the army's test.

It looks like wonderful armor under ideal conditions. It just needs a bit more work before it is ready to compete again.

[tiny_tanker]

There was a loooooong discussion on this a while back, where some good info for both sides was brought up. From what I remember the temperature issue was related to glue failure, which was resolved by using wire I think.

I don't foresee anything good happening for DS with the army, since they are clearly vested in Interceptor.

On a side note, the Air Force is still testing DS, and they are actually using Paracleete (sp?) armor right now. I haven't heard any complaints about it.