SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13838)5/15/2007 2:54:25 AM
From: CYBERKEN  Respond to of 14758
 
End it.

Next month, just don't SEND it...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13838)5/18/2007 10:11:56 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 14758
 
TV report questions Army ban on Dragon Skin

PEO Soldier counters by releasing details of its armor test
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Friday May 18, 2007 20:05:16 EDT

A recent media report has re-ignited a long-simmering feud over the Army’s refusal to allow soldiers to wear a controversial body armor known as Dragon Skin.

The May 17 NBC News report questions whether the Army’s Interceptor Body Armor is the best at protecting soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The news agency “commissioned an independent, side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Army’s Interceptor vest. The tests show Dragon Skin outperformed the Army’s body armor in stopping the most lethal threats,” according to the report.

Retired four-star Army Gen. Wayne Downing, now an NBC news analyst, is quoted in the report saying, “What we saw today ... and again, it’s a limited number of trials, Dragon Skin was significantly better.”

While the report provided no specifics about the test standards or ammunition used, it states that these “limited tests raise serious questions about the Army’s claim that Dragon Skin doesn’t work.”

Senior NBC investigative producer Jim Popkin declined to discuss details of the testing, noting that more specifics were to be released in a May 20 broadcast. He referred questions to an NBC spokeswoman, who was unavailable for comment.

The controversy over Dragon Skin began in early 2006 when the Army released a “safety of use” message banning soldiers from wearing all commercially purchased body armor, and singling out Dragon Skin, a particular type of armor manufactured by Pinnacle Armor Inc., in Fresno, Calif. Army officials said they released the message after testing of an early design of Dragon Skin failed to meet the service’s ballistic requirements.

More than a year later, Army officials from Program Executive Office Soldier contacted some media outlets, including Army Times, a day in advance of the NBC broadcast in an attempt to defend its position on Dragon Skin.

Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the head of PEO Soldier, said the Army has not discussed the tests it performed on Pinnacle’s SOV 3000 Level VI Dragon Skin vests last May out of concern that doing so might reveal information about soldier body armor standards.

“There is a balance between operational security and our soldiers’ and their families’ confidence in their equipment, and we think now that the balance has tipped in favor of we can no longer withhold this information,” Brown said.

“We know with high confidence that we have the best body armor on the world.”

The Army tests on Dragon Skin, conducted May 16-19, 2006, at H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., subjected Pinnacle’s unique armor design against the same test protocols the Army uses to test its Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts, Karl Masters, PEO Soldier’s chief engineer for body armor, said.

The vests were exposed to temperatures ranging from minus 60 degrees to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, and were immersed in diesel fuel, oil and salt water for extended periods of time. After each of these exposures, testers shot the vests with armor-piercing ammunition, the most lethal small arms threat on the battlefield.

Four out the eight vests tested failed after suffering 13 first or second shot complete penetrations with 7.62mm x 63mm APM2 Armor Piercing ammunition, Masters said.

“The number we are looking for here is zero,” Masters said. “That’s what we are fielding to soldiers is plates that meet these requirements for zero penetrations. ... Everybody who has fielded body armor to soldiers must go through and pass this protocol.”

Murray Neal, chief executive officer for Pinnacle Armor Inc., could not be reached for comment by press time.

The Dragon Skin vests also “suffered catastrophic failure” during the Army’s extreme temperature tests, which caused the adhesive that holds the ceramic disks together to deteriorate, Masters said.

The result was the disks slid to the lower portion of the panel, exposing the spine, vital organs and critical blood vessels to lesser ballistic threats, Masters said.

Brown said: “The bottom line is we tested this, it failed miserably. That test cost of us a quarter of a million dollars. The current Interceptor costs about $3,100. We could have bought lots of IBA for that quarter of a million dollars, but we did this to give [Pinnacle] a fair shake and see if there was something better out there.”

PEO Soldier officials also said a size large SOV 3000 Level VI vest weighs 44 pounds and offer less coverage than the 28-pound size large Interceptor vest soldiers wore in 2006. Since the tests, the Army has upgraded its design to make it 3 pounds lighter.

The NBC report criticizes the Army’s Interceptor’s reliance on four rigid plates that leave some vital organs unprotected.

“Dragon Skin — with discs that interconnect like medieval chain mail — can wrap most of a soldier’s torso, providing a greater area of maximum protection,” the report states.

PEO officials said they continue to look for improvements to soldier body armor to address this issue.

“We get the gap issue between plates, which is why we continue to look at these armors,” Masters said. “We are going to continue to try to evolve because our users are asking us for lighter and flexible armor.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (13838)5/19/2007 10:17:44 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14758
 
May 20, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Playing the Hand We’ve Dealt
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Last week, President Bush appointed a “war czar,” Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, to oversee everything we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan — which raises the question: Who was doing this job up to now? The answer, amazingly, is no one. We’re like a fine restaurant that has decided five years after it’s opened — and has lost most of its customers — that it might be good to hire a head chef. Better late than never. General Lute comes advertised as smart and tough. Good. I hope his first memo to the president starts like this:

Mr. President, if you look around the region, all those we’ve tried to isolate — Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban — are stronger today than they were two years ago. We have to reassess our strategy, beginning by facing up to the fact that we’ve fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.

We brought down the hard walls that surrounded Iran by destroying Iran’s two archenemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam’s regime in Iraq. As a result, we are dealing today with an emboldened, resurgent Iran, which has taken advantage of our good works to expand its economic, cultural, religious and geopolitical influence into Persian-speaking western Afghanistan and into Shiite Iraq.

With Saddam gone, none of the Arab states are strong enough to balance Iran. They are all either too weak or too dysfunctional. This means we have two choices. We can be the regional power balancing Iran, which will require keeping thousands of troops in the area indefinitely. Or we have to engage Tehran in a high-level dialogue, in which we focus on our mutual interests in stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. You have to choose, Mr. President: I can’t do my job if you don’t face the fact that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and our energy gluttony — have empowered Iran.

War with Iran is not inevitable. Let me remind you how well we worked with the Iranians in Afghanistan, initially. As you recall, we had a regular cooperative dialogue between our ambassadors in Kabul. The Iranians helped to deliver us the Northern Alliance. Then they cut their financial support for their favorite warlord in Herat, Ismail Khan, so that the pro-American Afghan government could extend its authority there. When, in early 2002, we gave them the names of members of a Qaeda group operating in Meshad, Iran, they rolled them up and put them on a plane to Afghanistan. There was much more, until things went sour.

I don’t know who is responsible for the breakdown — the Iranians point to your calling them part of the “axis of evil,” after they had helped us so much. We can point to their involvement in bombings in Saudi Arabia in 2003. But for the past few years we’ve been in cold war with them — and today their proxies are beating our proxies in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq.

As Vali Nasr, author of “The Shia Revival,” points out: “Stability in the Middle East is now about U.S.-Iran relations, and it is fantasy to think that we can go back to the old days where the Cairo-Riyadh-Amman axis manages the region for us.” Iran will not allow a stable Iraq to emerge if its interests are not protected, and if the new balance of power in Iraq — one based on a Shiite-Kurdish majority — is not recognized.

Yes, the Saudis will go nuts, but look what they’ve been doing: in private the Saudis tell us we can’t leave Iraq and in public their king denounces our occupation there as “illegal.” Of course, we must protect the Saudis. But they and their Sunni allies in Iraq have to accept the new reality there, and stop treating the Shiites as a lower form of life. Then we can cut them the best deal possible. If not, they’re on their own. Our kids are not going to die to restore Sunni minority rule to Iraq.

At the same time, we have to open a dialogue with Hamas — not to embrace it, but to lay out a gradual pathway that will bring it into relations with Israel. As Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University’s Palestinian expert and author of “The Iron Cage,” points out: “If we let the Palestinian Authority be destroyed, and then we keep Hamas isolated” — even though it won a democratic election that we sponsored — “we will end up with the hard boys, the gangs you see today on the streets of Gaza, who respond to no authority at all.”

If I thought that isolating Iran and Hamas was working, I’d continue it. But it manifestly is not — any more than isolating Castro has worked. So either we find a way to draw them in or we’ll be fighting them — and the hard boys — in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan for a long, long time.