Posts Tagged ‘Interceptor body armor’

Page 3 of 3123

By Roger Charles

On Friday of last week, MajGen Jeffrey Sorenson of the US Army stood up at a press conference and attempted, one more time, to drive a stake through the heart of that pesky Dragon Skin body armor, but, unlike the brittle SAPI plates of the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), Dragon Skin has proven capable of stopping multiple hits.

Sorenson will, no doubt, be rewarded for his extraordinary display of E-ring valor — he tried, and gave it his all. I expect the citation for his end of tour award will include the following boilerplate:

“On March 31, 2006, under withering questioning which swept the podium from numerous entrenched journalists, MajGen Sorenson valiantly stood his ground and directed accurate, sustained counter-fire against the media’s positions. Recognizing that one side of the Army’s carefully constructed barricade of lies had been penetrated, MajGen Sorenson quickly marshaled his forces to seal off the penetration and personally led the counterattack which resulted in a complete rout of the attacking journalists.”* The Perfumed-Prince “W” distinguishing device for Weasel-wording is authorized for wear with this citation.

Sorensen’s pretext for the news conference was the Army’s public acknowledgement of a March 17 Safety Of Use Message (SOUM), Number 06-017,”Discontinue Use of Unauthorized Body Army, Dragon Skin.”

Defense Watch’s Editor, Nat Helms, had obtained a copy of this SOUM and posted it on March 23, along with a brief introduction, “US Army Officials Continue to Trap Themselves In a Web of Deceit“.

Sorenson’s press dance appeared at first glance to have this straightforward purpose — to explain to the DOD press corps that the Army had taken this action in the best interests of America’s Grunts.

But, he soon disclosed the ulterior motive for his briefing — to announce that, “there is another service [USAF] that has procured this type of capability [Dragon Skin SOV 2000 Flexible Body Armor System], but has recently recalled it because it did not meet standards.”

Ah, now, the fun part. This Army general flat-out misrepresented two key points. One, that Pinnacle Armor’s Dragon Skin “did not meet standards,” i.e., had failed a ballistics test conducted at Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) during 16-17 February.

Second, the Air Force component for whom the test was conducted, Headquarters Office of Special Investigations (OSI), had “recalled” the Dragon Skin.

As in most of the clever web of lies spun by the PP’s in DOD press rooms, the lies were concealed under a veneer of weasel-worded statements that must literally be deconstructed word-by-word in order to get to the truth. And the rosetta stone needed to reveal the Army’s perfidy is the ATC’s test report to HQ, OSI, Andrews AFB. The subject of this letter is: “Ballistic Testing of Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin,” and it specifies that SOV 2000 was tested, not the SOV 3000.

A matrix listed eight tests, seven with 7.62mm Level IV rounds, and one “durability” test wherein the vests were dropped and “run over by a pickup truck (two passes).” [Note:remember the Interceptor SAPI plates are stamped "Handle With Care," and are shipped in boxes labeled, "Fragile - Do Not Drop." Don't expect Interceptor vests with the SAPI plates to undergo this kind of durability testing anytime soon.]

First, the Pinnacle Armor testing at ATC used all Level IV ammunition!! And Dragon Skin SOV 2000 is NOT advertised nor certified as Level IV ballistic protection. Here’s what the ATC test report said:

5. The SOV 2000 Flexible Body Armor System is advertised as a “Level III+” solution in which the “+” moniker denotes 0-m range protection from two “Level IV” threats (reference 1d)”: [NOTE: A table with two Level IV rounds, a 7.62mm and a 5.56mm, is presented. Only the "7.62 X 39-mm M1943 Ball Type PS" round was tested by ATC against the Dragon Skin SOV 2000.]

Given this, only Test No.3 from the matrix above could be considered applicable for confirmation of the ballistic performance of the system as was advertised in writing by the vendor.

6. Favorable results were observed on only two of the eight tests (Tests No.3 and 4)…” Now, folks, in everyday English, here’s what the above means: Dragon Skin SOV 2000, a Level III+ body armor, defeated “only” two of the seven Level IV rounds!!

So much for Sorenson’s patently false claim that Dragon Skin “did not meet standards. Dragon Skin not only met the standards, it exceeded them, and noticeably so!

Now, to Sorenson’s 2d phoney claim, that the other service “recalled it” (meaning Dragon Skin). Let’s stipulate that Sorenson is not stupid person, and that as an Army major general, serving as Deputy, Acquisition and Systems Management, for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, he is learned in the correct terminology of his trade.

Ford, GM and Chrysler may “recall” things, but in DOD acquistion, a contract is either in effect or it is not. The Pinnacle Armor contract with AF OSI is, as of Monday, April 4, still an active contract.

Was Sorenson just too lazy to have one of his flunkeys pick up the phone and call the Air Force to find out what was the status of the Pinnacle Armor contract? Or, did an Army general knowingly misrepresent a significant fact on an item of life-or-death importance to America’s Grunts?

Let’s see what the ATC test report had to say about this issue.

7. While the samples successfully defeated the advertised “Level III+” threat, results of this test series did not meet the vendor’s [i.e., Pinnacle Armor's] expectation for the system for the other tested threats based on physical inspections of the targets and past testing at commercial ranges. This has resulted in their initiation of a root-cause investigation…

In other words, Dragon Skin SOV 2000 passed the Air Force standards, but did not exceed the standards as much as Pinnacle Armor expected. Therefore, Pinnacle Armor initiated their own investigation, focusing on Quality Control issues related to the manufacturing of the ceramic disks provided to Pinnacle Armor by its supplier.

Rather than the Air Force “recalling it,” the Dragon Skin manufacturer voluntarily took the vests back to inspect the ceramic disks and work with the company that manufactured these disks to see why the Level III+ vests only stopped about half of the other Level IV rounds in Tests 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. (Remember — Dragon Skin SOV 2000 passed Tests 3 and 4.)

For those of you willing to give Sorenson and the Army the benefit of some doubt, that maybe he was confused about the two Dragon Skin versions, SOV 2000 and SOV 3000, save your charity for someone who deserves it.

The US Army and MajGen Sorenson are well aware of the difference between SOV 2000 and SOV 3000. In a synopsis posted on Federal Business Opportunities, the Army had announced on March 13, that it was negotiating with Pinnacle Armor for 30 sets of “Dragon Skin SOV 3000 with Full Level IV Wrap Body Armor.”

Once again, a Perfumed Prince has paid lip service to the myth that the Army acquisition system is concerned about and dedicated to providing America’s Soldiers equipment that “is safe, it is suitable and it’s effective.”

The ugly reality, exposed one more time, is that the Army acquisition system is concerned only with process, not product — with keeping a bloated, an inefficient, and, yes, too-often a criminal bureaucracy, occupied with “busy work” that pays for luxurious suites along “K” Street and funds golf trips to Saint Andrews. All the while, the best of our nation’s youth are exposed to increasingly lethal attacks while wearing inferior body armor that makes a mockery of “Duty-Honor-Country.”

P.S. The media response to Sorenson’s bald-faced lies deserves special note. Gullible DOD press representatives bought into the mendacious attack on Dragon Skin, and did so with gusto. Typical was the headline by Lolita Baldor, the Associated Press reporter: “Armor banned by Army banned by Air Force.” Sorenson could not have been more pleased if one of the designated liars in Army PAO had written the headline.

SFTT President Roger Charles is an Annapolis graduate, a retired USMC Lt. Col. who commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, is the winner of the prestigious Peabody Award for news coverage, and was a protégée’s of the late Col. David H. Hackworth. Rog can be contacted at Please send comments to

The Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest was designed for use with SAPI plates and replaces the Personnel Armor System, Ground Troop Flak vest, more commonly known as the flak vest.

The “Marine Lethal Torso Injuries: Preliminary Findings 8/29/2005” was reportedly made to identify current weaknesses in the product, which was designed and fielded in the nearly billion-dollar joint US Army-USMC Interceptor program that created the controversial body armor.

Critics of the Interceptor body armor system complain it is bulky, poorly made, limits mobility, and incorporates a design that leaves the wearer vulnerable to gunshot and shrapnel wounds over large areas of the upper torso to limit production costs.

Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) spokesman Sanford “Mack” McLaurin, although aware of the report, declined to comment on it, declaring “this information could be help to our enemies and put Marines and Soldiers in danger.” MARCORSYSCOM is the agency within the Marine Corps responsible for providing Marine Corps approved equipment to its war fighters.

Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Curry Keir, Army Public Affairs, Media Operations, was equally reticent in his Dec. 30 response to a recent DefenseWatch inquiry.

“We take operational security very seriously and will not discuss in public issues that may render any insight to the enemy on our capabilities; fielding plans; or tactics, techniques and procedures,” Keir said.

A skeptic might say the services’ sudden interest in security is more akin to closing the hen house door after the fox has entered than keeping sensitive information from the enemy. A DefenseWatch investigation begun last summer (See Is America’s Best Getting America’s Best series in DW archives) determined that the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick (SSC-Natick, Massachusetts), has known for at least several years that its in-house designed Interceptor body armor was not nearly as effective as other civilian body armor products already in production. The troops who wear the standard issue body armor are also well aware of its deficiencies. For more than two years DefenseWatch has received reports and complaints from Grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Interceptor gear is lousy.

In late October DW began receiving reports for war fighters in Iraq that the American Armed Forces Network (AFN) was warning its radio listeners there that the Coalition had received intelligence about insurgents snipers that were being trained to aim at areas of vulnerability between Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI plates) – hard composite armor plate – where Coalition war fighters wearing Interceptor armor are particularly vulnerable. War correspondent and popular blogger Michael Yon confirmed the reports in an email to DefenseWatch after hearing them broadcast in Mosul.

Many war fighters told DefenseWatch they used their own money to buy superior body armor systems available on the open market despite DOD claims that the Interceptor body armor is the best money can buy. Those warriors reported the Interceptor body armor is frequently ill-fitting, falls apart with rugged use, decreases in protective capability with age, and leaves the wearer vulnerable to side and shoulder wounds that could prove fatal. The findings of the August 29 report supports every contention the agitated war fighters made. So did evidence introduced in several civilian court cases brought against all three of the Interceptor body armor manufacturers in unrelated lawsuits by disgruntled employees, civilian police agencies and the US Justice Department.

The DOD and the U.S. Army have both declined to comment to numerous DefenseWatch inquiries made since September seeking to discover whether senior Pentagon officials knew that Interceptor OTV body armor was ineffective, and what the Pentagon intended to do about the Interceptor problems if it did. US Army Public Affairs Chief Brigadier General Vincent Brooks went so far as to accuse DefenseWatch of “clearly having an agenda” and “not [being] interested in productive discussions on this topic.”

On November 17, 2005 Army spokesman John P. Boyce, Jr., following up on Brooks’ acid comments, declined to answer a DW inquiry seeking to know whether the Interceptor program was going to be cancelled after the current contracts have been completed. Two months ago DW received several still unconfirmed reports from credible sources within the body armor industry that the ill-conceived Interceptor program was under severe scrutiny by the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Army because of the numerous complaints its members have forwarded up the chain of command. Those sources continue to insist the Interceptor program will be terminated at the end of the current production run.

Instead of answering the question Boyce wrote on behalf of the US Army that:

“… the U.S. Army fielded more than 873,270 Outer Tactical Vests, so you may definitely say we are still using Outer Tactical Vests as well as personal body-armor technologies to protect our Soldiers. Soldier protection is the highest priority for the Army. As new technologies emerge, the Army aggressively works with industry to develop, test, produce and rapidly field the best possible equipment, and get it into the hands of our Soldiers.”

Meanwhile the Marine Corps was very quietly seeking answers to the problems with Interceptor armor that Marines encountered while wearing it in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. On November 22, 2005 MARCORSYSCOM issued a “Solicitation” for interested manufacturers to bid for the opportunity to manufacture an improved design of the Interceptor OTV body armor currently issued to most service members serving in the Global War on Terror. The request was placed in the Federal Business Opportunities website without any public announcement.

The bid says the Marines are “seeking market research, potential sources, and best practice information towards designing, developing, and buying a replacement item to provide torso ballistic protection with integrated and scalable load-carrying capabilities for individual Marines.

“The OTV, along with ballistic protective inserts, is commonly known as the USMC’s very successful “Interceptor” system,” the bid request explained. “The currently used Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) portion was developed in the late 1990′s. It consists of soft armor (i.e., fragmentation protection) covering the torso, groin and neck and can carry ceramic plates to protect against rifle fire. The OTV, however, is not designed – but is being used for – carrying equipment and items during USMC missions. Consequently, the OTV lacks efficient state-of-the-art load carrying capabilities and technologies that limit the user’s effectiveness.”

In his written response McLaurin gave a biographical account of the development of the Interceptor system, adding that “since the OTV was not designed to carry the excessive weight of a Marine’s combat load, we developed and procured a limited number of Assault Load Carriers (ALC)…”

“This modular system will allow Marines to adapt the OTV to the threat they face. However, Marines in combat wanted to attach their MOLLE pouches (ammunition and equipment carriers) directly to the OTV instead of using the ALC,” McLaurin continued. “We also developed and procured the Fighting Load Carrier (FLC), designed to carry ammunition magazines, the first aid kit, canteens and other combat equipment.”

Almost as an afterthought McLaurin concluded, “Consequently, since Marines in combat have identified the need for additional area of coverage, we developed and fielded the Side Small Arms Protective Inserts (S-SAPI) to protect deployed Marines.”

The Marine’s development of the Side Small Arms Protective Inserts (S-SAPI) modification corrects one of the most glaring problems inherent to the Interceptor system, several experts said. Natick’s failure to recognize early on the need for axillary protection led to the unnecessary deaths of the”nearly 23%” of the Marines” who “might have benefited from protection along the mid-axillary line of the lateral chest, ” according to the August 29 report. In laymen’s terms, the mid-axillary line of the lateral chest identifies the sides of the body’s upper torso.

McLaurin added that the November 22 solicitation for bids “is a result of Spiral Development on the OTV” and not a complete replacement program for the Interceptor system.

The summary of the solicitation request confirms his assessment:

“The OTV needs to be redesigned to carry a Marine’s assault load (i.e. magazines, water, grenades, etc.). It is to use state of the art load carriage techniques to optimally distribute the load over the torso. The contemplated integrated OTV will combine the capabilities to carry the ballistic protection and combat load. The system will use the current Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates.

Several representatives of body armor manufacturers recently told DefenseWatch they have heard reports that US Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker has given a green light to Army planners to begin looking for a suitable replacement for the Interceptor body armor system.

Patriot Materials Company President Mike Henderson, a former Special operations soldier, said his Sanford, North Carolina-based company is actively seeking a shot at promoting its body armor products to the Pentagon at this time. Patriot already has contracts to up armor all the Army’s medium and heavy-duty trucks used in Iraq at its Kuwait support facility and also sells personal body armor to special operations operators, he said.

Mark Carey, Patriot’s director of overseas operations, and a retired Spec Ops master sergeant, agreed that the word is already out across the industry that the Interceptor program will be scrapped as soon as the current contracts are filled. His assessment was seconded by Pinnacle Armor’s Paul Chopra, a retired US Army Special Operations aviator, and two other manufacturers who declined to go on record. Pinnacle make Dragon Skin body armor, which DefenseWatch examined closely in its America’s Best series.

Both manufacturers who spoke on the record said they would actively seek the new business when it becomes available and that their companies already produced body armor vastly superior to the Interceptor OTV system.

Since last May the Army and Marine Corps have recalled more than 23,000 body armor vests because they failed ballistic requirements when they were manufactured in 1999 and 2000. Many of those vests may now be in the war zone. About 5,000 were recalled in May, 2005 and 18,000 last November 16, according to Pentagon officials. All of the vests involved were produced by the same manufacturer, Point Blank Body Armor Inc. of Pompano Beach, Fla., under contract to the Marine Corps and the Army. The Marines Corps has repeatedly assured its war fighters the recalls did not involve safety issues and were merely manufacturing flaws that affected size and quality control – not bullet and shrapnel stopping capabilities.

In January, 2005 Point Blank’s CEO, a Long Island, New York businessman, gained a bit of notoriety for giving his 12-year-old daughter a $10 million party at a swank New York eatery. Brooks is the CEO of DHB Industries, the parent company of Point Blank, which makes the vests that were recalled in 2005. In 2004 Brooks exercised DHB stock options worth almost $70 million and at year’s end (Dec. 29, 2004), sold 5 million of his 11 million shares of common stock for a whopping $106.4 million, according to public records. Soon after the value of DHB stock began to decline.

As early as July 19, 2004, according to memos originally obtained by the Army Times newspaper, the Marine Corps found “major quality assurance deficiencies within Point Blank.” One month later, on August 24, 2004, the military rejected two orders from Point Blank after tests revealed that the vests did not meet safety requirements.

Faced with a severe shortage of body armor the Army decided that nine Point Blank orders that did not meet safety requirements would be sent to troops overseas anyway, according to court records obtained by DW from an unrelated Point Blank labor dispute heard in a Florida court. On May 3, 2005 Point Blank hired retired four-star Army Gen. Larry Ellis to lead the beleaguered company. On May 4, 2005, the U.S. Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor vests manufactured by Point Blank Body Armor. On July 20 Point Blank received an additional $10.1 million contract from the U.S. government. In November another18, 000 vests were recalled.

Another Interceptor body armor manufacturer, formerly known as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for fraud for knowingly selling body armor that can’t stop bullets from killing its wearers. Second Chance was the leading body armor supplier to the American Armed Forces three years ago. It has since declared bankruptcy in Michigan and gone out of business.

Standing in the wings to pick up the slack was Armor Holdings, Inc. of Jacksonville, Fla, the current leading manufacturer and distributor of body armor for the U.S. military, On August 2, 2005 Armor Holdings announced that it had completed acquiring all of the domestic assets of Second Chance after the company declared bankruptcy following charges of fraud in its domestic operations. The announcement followed on the heels of a July 13 press release from Armor Holdings trumpeting that it had become the “exclusive provider” to replace up to 156,000 defective vests manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor and issued to American war fighters while it led the pack of armor manufacturers milking the cash cow conceived and fattened in the wake of the sudden need for body armor to fight the Global War on Terror.

Scott O’Brien, President of the Armor Holdings Products Division, commented in a September 2 press release that, “We are delighted to welcome Second Chance to the Armor Holdings team, and we believe this transaction creates a fresh start for Second Chance.”

Armor Holdings paid $45 million in cash for the assets of Second Chance, “including substantially all intellectual property, free and clear of all liens, claims and encumbrances, and assumed certain trade liabilities,” according to the Sept. 2 press release. An attorney close to the Second Chance debacle said Armor Holdings acquisition of the former body armor manufacturer’s assets left the American taxpayer – as usual -holding the bag for the cost of the failed equipment.

Despite the multitude of problems the Interceptor program has encountered the US Army apparently still stands by its product.

“The Army has made several improvements in the area of Soldier Protection equipment to the Outer Tactical Vests and to the Small Arms Protective Inserts.” Keir explained in his Dec. 30th email to DefenseWatch that promised a more complete explanation was still forthcoming. “In response to the changing battlefield conditions and as new technologies emerge; the Army will continue to develop improvements to Soldier Protection equipment that enhances survivability and mobility. Soldier protection is the highest priority for the U.S. Army,”

Keir’s comments prove what Miguel de Cervantes claimed in Don Quixote in the 17th Century is still relevant today: “The proof of the pudding is the eating.”

Bon Appetit!

DefenseWatch Editor Nathaniel R. “Nat” Helms is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, long-time journalist and war correspondent living in Missouri.

Page 3 of 3123

Share a story

Whether you are on active duty or retired, a friend or family member we encourage you to share your story. As proud Americans we salute our heroes and thank you for your courage and sacrifice. We want to hear from you and so do our readers.

Stay informed: latest news and stories

We respect your email privacy

Thank you for signing up! An email will be sent to the address you provided, asking you to confirm your sign up.

News & Announcements

Our Story

photo of a soldierStand For The Troops (“SFTT”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit Educational Foundation established by the late Col. David H. Hackworth and his wife Eilhys England to insure that our frontline troops have the best available leadership, equipment and training.

In the past four-plus years SFTT'S active campaign has focused on ensuring America's frontline troops get the best available individual protective equipment and combat gear.

Donations and contributions from concerned Americans help fund the SFTT website.

Hackworth Memorial DVD

photo of HackworthIncludes rare footage from Hack's memorial service at Fort Myers Chapel and burial in Arlington National Cemetery.
All donations received from purchasing of The Hackworth Memorial DVD go to Stand For The Troops a 501 (c) 3 non-profit, non-partisan apolitical foundation established by Hack and his wife Eilhys to make sure that America's front-line forces—the kids Hack loved out at the tip of the spear—always have the right training, leadership and equipment to meet their assigned missions and make it home alive and in one piece.

Our Campaigns

  • December 23, 2009: The law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP filed the final motion with the Federal Court in Washington, DC in the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on behalf of the SFTT’s editor for forensic records held by the Department of Defense (“DOD”).
  • October 16, 2009: The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) issues report to Congress calling for “independent expert assessment of Army body armor test results.” This damning report of US Army body armor test procedures is the outgrowth of a two-year investigative and educational campaign by SFTT to seek fair and impartial test procedures.

Get Involved

  • RSS feed
    Subscribe to our RSS feed
  • YouTube
    Watch our videos
  • Flickr
    See our photos