Pinnacle Dragonskin Bodyarmor

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by TacticalNuke, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. TacticalNuke

    TacticalNuke Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes Received:
    93
    http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php

    http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=490

    Do some of your own searching on it. Apparently there's a bit of a "conspiracy" theory regarding why the Army doesn't issue this stuff.

    Anyone have any good information?

    http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16999

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_body_armor

    Wiki has some good links.

    http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=864

    So why isn't the Army using this? Apparently Air Force specs ops uses it, Presidential SS detail uses it, High-ranking U.S. generals use it... the list goes on.

    So why not the army?
     
  2. Aronson

    Aronson Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    I might be wrong, but I think it's like 10 grand per piece... might be one reason
     
  3. TacticalNuke

    TacticalNuke Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes Received:
    93
    Anywhere from 4-6 grand.

    HOWEVER, Interceptor has the benefits of economies of scale. Also, I think this would be worth the extra cost, especially if soldiers want to buy it themselves (which is rumored to be against the rules).

    How much is a life worth?

    Interceptor has been known to re-label unit sizes (from L -> M) to keep up with "demand". They've been known to ship cracked. The units cannot take multiple hits. The units offer no native side or shoulder protection. They do not distribute weight well, they require a stand-off from the body.
     
  4. Aronson

    Aronson Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently, the Army was going to cancel a bunch of SF guys who wore the armor's life insurance. The reason for doing so was that they did not issue the equipment, therefore could not guarentee that it worked as well. It would be like me taking of the interceptor and putting on bubble wrap, claiming that it worked better. Maybe it does, but the Army didnt do any testing of it. There's probably also a clause in the life insurance that negates it for these reasons. Life aint fair...
     
  5. TacticalNuke

    TacticalNuke Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes Received:
    93
    This goes beyond that. That's merely a side-note.

    Fact is Pinnacle is practically begging the military to perform a comparison test by a third party. Fact is the military won't do it. Fact is (from what limited information I have) Pinnacle is vastly superior.
     
  6. ragmanlaw

    ragmanlaw USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hell, if its so good, I think thats the first thing I'll bye when I earn my commission. Can't ever be too safe. No dependents, so I have no use for life insurance anyhow.
     
  7. BigSwingFace

    BigSwingFace New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. ragmanlaw

    ragmanlaw USMA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read into the Dragonskin issue at a couple of different sources. The biggest problem seems to be Pinnacle's poor attitude. I can't imagine the Army ever using their products after some of the statements they have issued concerning Generals and the Army at large.

    I do think that they should perform a test, but apparently this has been done a number of times. The insinuation that the Army will, I suppose this is what they meant, sabotage their armor before testing sounds quite ridiculous to me. Honestly, from what I have read I would not use this bodyarmor unless I saw conclusive results from the Army or other credible source. Of course, I am no expert on what makes one armour better than another, so I think it is best to let the Army handle it. (Especially since there are rules against using non-issue bodyarmour...)
     
  9. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Always remember.....

    Your weapons and equipment were built by the lowest bidder.

    :wink:
     
  10. Colbizzle

    Colbizzle Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your damn right Z, Dragonskin is superior by far to the standard issue armor. It provides maximum protection and mobility. My uncle who was in the army says its far superior in its stopping power and makes it actually feel like your wearing the armor and the armor isnt wearing you. In other words it fits people so much better.
     
  11. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    That may well be true, because technology advances a lot faster than the beauracracy does. Also, you have to remember that, like it or not, we do have a budget to deal with.

    Bringing in a new kind of body armor isn't as easy as running a few tests and buying lots of it. The tests are extensive and expensive. Additionally, there is an entire logistics chain that has to adjust to carrying the new gear. It's just the way it is. Could be improved, of course, and it has been.

    But remember: The incredible Apache helicopter was designed in the early 70's. So were the TICONDEROGA class cruisers. The F-14, which just left service, was designed in the 60's, and the F-15, which only now is being challenged by the F-22, was also a 60's design.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of military logistics. :wink:
     
  12. DMeix

    DMeix Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the Colt .45 was a 1911 invention!

    But some fool decided it was better to spend three tiny bullets instead of one powerful round to knock an opponent down.

    THAT was one of the tools the military should have kept around as standard issue.

    Now we all get to train with pea-shooters.
     
  13. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    272
    Two 9mm to the chest and one to the head still equals death in most cases. I think the M1911 was a great weapon, although I hear the recoil was a bit much for inexperienced users.

    Bring in the Mk. 23s!

    I was a little annoyed back when I heard that the RAH-66 was cancelled...$7 billion, 20 years of work and then it's decided that we don't need it! That's the government.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006

Share This Page