U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i

37–812 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–58]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BODY ARMOR

PROGRAMS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD

JUNE 6, 2007

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

ADAM SMITH, Washington

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island

RICK LARSEN, Washington

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas

PATRICK MURPHY, Pennsylvania

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida

KATHY CASTOR, Florida

DUNCAN HUNTER, California

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

KEN CALVERT, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

TOM COLE, Oklahoma

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director

DOUG ROACH, Professional Staff Member

JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member

JOHN WASON, Professional Staff Member

BEN GLERUM, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Wednesday, June 6, 2007, Department of Defense Body Armor Programs ........ 1

APPENDIX:

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 ........................................................................................ 81

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BODY ARMOR PROGRAMS

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Abercrombie, Hon. Neal, a Representative from Hawaii, Chairman, Air and

Land Forces Subcommittee ................................................................................. 18

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Ranking Member,

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2

Saxton, Hon. Jim., a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking Member,

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee ................................................................... 19

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES

Coyle, Hon. Philip E., III, Senior Advisor, World Security Institute .................. 7

Morgan, Dr. Jonathan, Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice .............. 60

Neal, Murray, Founder and CEO, Pinnacle Armor, Inc. ...................................... 5

Noonan, Col. Kevin S., Program Executive Officer, Special Operations Forces

Warrior Programs, United States Special Operations Command, U.S. Army 58

Smith, Col. Edward J., Product Group Director, Combat Equipment and

Support Systems, U.S. Marine Corps ................................................................. 56

Smith, Roger M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Expeditionary

Warfare) ................................................................................................................ 55

Solis, William ‘‘Bill’’ M., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Issues .................................................................................................................... 59

Thomas, Douglas D., Executive Director for the Air Force Office of Special

Investigations, U.S. Air Force ............................................................................. 57

Thompson, Lt. Gen. N. Ross, III, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary

of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology ..................................... 53

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Abercrombie, Hon. Neal ................................................................................... 87

Coyle, Hon. Philip E., III ................................................................................. 144

Grant, John D., from Pearcy, Arkansas ......................................................... 92

Neal, Murray ..................................................................................................... 97

Noonan, Col. Kevin S. ...................................................................................... 111

Skelton, Hon. Ike .............................................................................................. 85

Smith, Col. Edward J. ...................................................................................... 122

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

Smith, Roger M. ................................................................................................ 129

Solis, William ‘‘Bill’’ M. .................................................................................... 157

Thomas, Douglas D. ......................................................................................... 116

Thompson, Lt. Gen. N. Ross, III, joint with Brig. Gen. R. Mark Brown ..... 134

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Body Armor Inquiry enclosures a, b, c, d, submitted by James G. Magee .. 194

Letter from John Morgan, Assistant Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Institute of Justice Dated December 20, 2006 ............... 173

Recommendations for Testing Dragon Skin® Armor from Kirk Rice,

NIST/OLES to Alex Sundstrom, NLECTC-National .................................. 183

[Pinnacle Armor submitted over 50 pages of testimony including the

HP White test results, general company literature, product profiles,

and biographical information which is retained in the committee files.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 218

Mr. Conaway ..................................................................................................... 219

Ms. Davis ........................................................................................................... 223

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 218

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ 222

Mr. Saxton ......................................................................................................... 217

Mr. Skelton ....................................................................................................... 201

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 217

Mr. Spratt ......................................................................................................... 217

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 221

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BODY ARMOR PROGRAMS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 6, 2007.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED

SERVICES

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This morning

we will have testimony on the Department of Defense Body Armor

Programs. We have with us today two panels. We have distinguished witnesses representing the military services, private industry, and independent agencies.

First, I want to thank them for appearing. I would like to remind

the members, which I usually do anyway, that we are under the

5-minute rule; and because we have two panels, we want to move

along as expeditiously as possible.

However, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Ross of Arkansas,

Mr. Radanovich of California and other noncommittee members, if

any, be allowed to participate in today’s hearing after all committee

members have had an opportunity to ask questions.

Is there an objection?

If not, without objection, those Members will be recognized at appropriate times for five minutes.

The jurisdiction of our committee is such that we cover a wide

range of issues with the significance of other issues relative to the

importance of providing the best protection possible for our men

and women serving.

Our committee has been in the forefront providing necessary,

nonpartisan oversight on the full spectrum of protection matters.

Since 2001, our committee has authorized over $5 billion to help

the services procure body armor and expand that industrial base.

Effective body armor is the baseline component to force protection. It is critical to promoting the survivability of military personnel serving in combat environments.

Recent media reports have suggested that we may not be providing the best body armor available. NBC News commissioned an

independent round of limited ballistic tests that compared current

body armor to another system called Dragon Skin. NBC indicates

the results from these limited tests favor Dragon Skin over the current military Interceptor Body Armor (IBA).

2

NBC tests contradict the information provided to this committee

by military and Department of Defense (DOD) officials in numerous briefings and hearings. Most recently, the Army indicated to

this committee in a closed briefing on May the 24th that they conducted first article live-fire ballistic tests on the Dragon Skin system in May of 2006. These tests also included environmental constraints such as subjecting the vests to extreme temperatures and

fluids to ensure the vests would hold up to conditions that the

troops might find in the field. The Army tests engaged in showed

Dragon Skin failed to meet the military body armor specifications.

We are here today to gain a better understanding of our facts

and to reassure our constituents that our goal remains that we are

ensuring their sons and daughters are being provided the best body

armor available.

I ask unanimous consent to put the balance of my statement in

the record.

However, I wish to point out that we have as witnesses on the

first panel:

Representing Pinnacle Armor, Inc., Mr. Murray Neal, President

and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Neal. We thank you.

The Honorable Philip Coyle, III. Mr. Coyle served at the NBC

News tests. And thank you, Mr. Coyle.

After Panel I concludes, we will have Panel II:

Lieutenant General Ross Thompson, III; representing the Department of Navy, Mr. Roger Smith; representing the Marine

Corps, Colonel Ed Smith; representing the Air Force, Douglas

Thomas; representing the Special Operations Command, Colonel

Kevin Noonan; representing the Government Accountability Office

(GAO), Mr. Bill Solis, the Director of Defense Capabilities and

Management; and representing the National Institute of Justice

(NIJ), Dr. Jonathan Morgan.

With that, I will recognize the ranking member, my friend from

California, Mr. Duncan Hunter.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix on page 85.]

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON

ARMED SERVICES

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding

this hearing. I think it is a good hearing and it is a good—it is always, always the right time to work on force protection.

You know, I looked over a few of the statements that were submitted to the hearing. Mr. Coyle, we have worked with you for a

long time and appreciate your statement that you sent in. But one

that I wanted to lay out first, I noticed a statement by you saying

you thought that the Armed Services Committee needed to be more

open to innovation. And I thought that we needed to let you know

about some of the innovations that we have done.

When our guys started to get hurt with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq, this committee went to Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and got money and we built a gun

truck. In fact, we built over 113 of them and gave them to the U.S.

3

Army. The Army ultimately funded a few of them, but we basically

gave them to them—built it with DARPA money.

This is a picture of one of them that I am going to send down

to you. This is one of the gun trucks, called the Iron Horse; and

there is a letter written to one of the Livermore personnel who

helped to put this together, thanking him for saving his life with

this truck that has a double hull with an inch and a quarter of E

Glass, something that has never been done by any of the services,

that we distributed to Iraq, that has taken massive IED blasts.

And to my knowledge, not one of these trucks that was provided

by this committee was ever penetrated.

Now, that is an initiative that this committee took with no urging from any service but because we needed it.

I have got another picture, and that is something we call Little

Blue that is a portable jammer. Ten thousand of these jammers

were provided by this committee in 70 days, which was a record

time from start to finish, so that our marines and soldiers could

have a jammer that they could carry on foot patrols, because as you

know, all of the jammers that we had in the theater heretofore

were massive jammers that had to be carried on Humvees or larger

vehicles.

We turned those babies out in 70 days, 10,000 of them; and we

found out that we needed to bypass acquisition regulations. So

there is a third thing I want you to take a look at, and that is a

one-page certification for the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) that

Mr. Skelton and I and the other members of the committee provided by changing the law. That says, if we are taking hits on the

battlefield, if we are taking injuries on the battlefield, the Secretary of Defense, by signing his name, can waive every acquisition

regulation in the United States and move equipment to the battlefield quickly; and by signing that, Secretary Rumsfeld allowed us

to get 10,000 jammers to the field in 70 days—incidentally, a

record that hasn’t come close to being broken since we have reverted back to the old system.

Now, I know that Mr. Abercrombie has worked on this issue that

we are going to talk about today, and Mr. Skelton also. I wanted

to just offer a little corporate history here.

I heard about the Dragon Skin either from a soldier or a marine

who had heard about it from a family member or from a Web site;

I can’t remember exactly which one. But I called our staff here and

said, Bring these guys in; let’s see what they’ve got.

Your guys, Mr. Neal, came in and met with the Armed Services

folks; and our guys called up the Army and said, We wanted you

to test this, to which the Army responded, We have already got a

test laid on. And I have got a letter here, but apparently they also

responded to Mrs.—to Senator Hutchison, who had made a request

to have Dragon Skin tested.

The Army said, We are going to test it; and the Army did test

it.

Now, I have looked at the tests today, the tests that they did,

and they said they did these tests with you folks present at the

test. Showed a lot of penetrations. I saw after that—the back-andforth where you felt that you had unfair tests. You shot at the

edges, and other things were done that you think allowed these

4

penetrations to take place, but there are fairly substantial penetrations in that armor.

Now I understand that you then went to a German tester and

you got a test done that indicated that Dragon Skin does great.

A couple of things: I think that there is always a massive bureaucracy in the Department of Defense. We all know that, and we

in Congress who helped to create that bureaucracy with our rules

and regulations—many of which attend the competitive arena and

accommodate the competitive arena, which you wouldn’t have otherwise.

But we also have the ability to move very quickly, and often

there is a response, a bureaucratic response. It builds up. That

does impede getting equipment to the battlefield quickly.

I don’t know which category this falls in, but I do know this: The

Army reported back to us, after we told them we wanted them to

test this, that they did test this and they told us the results and

they showed penetrations.

I know there are lots of folks, families paying 5K apiece for this

body armor. I can tell you there are five members of this committee

who have their kids at one time or another wearing body armor in

theater, either Iraq or Afghanistan. And that includes this Member

of Congress. In fact, as we sit here today, my son is wearing, on

his third tour, the body armor that is issued to him by the U.S.

Marine Corps, the same stuff that everybody else is using.

So what I would like you to address today is whether or not you

folks have come to closure with the Army on doing a test.

The Army informed us that it took five months to get a set of

Dragon Skin or enough sets from you guys to get the test done, but

that ultimately it was done with you folks attending the test. And

I want to know what your take is, if you stood there and watched

them shoot this stuff and the bullets went through it, if you think

the test was faulty. If it wasn’t faulty, why didn’t you speak up,

or let us know that you thought you had a faulty test? And did you

talk to the Army about it? And then we are going to ask the Army

if there is an opportunity to take this stuff out and shoot it and

see if it works.

And, Mr. Coyle, as a guy who has worked on lots of things like

the B–2 bomber and lots of other very complex systems, it seems

to me that this shouldn’t require rocket science to tell if a bullet

goes through a certain substance. We ought to be able to figure this

out.

So I hope that we finish this hearing off by coming to some kind

of an agreed-upon third-party test, Mr. Chairman, that will help to

resolve this issue. And I think we need to move egos and personalities and cross-currents aside.

And, Mr. Neal, I saw some pretty strong statements by you after

I asked our guys to have you come in and show us what you had.

They wrote a report that said that they saw what the Army had

seen on this test. You had a couple of strong statements about

them to the effect that they were part of a—part of the problem.

And I can just assure you that the guys that we have got working, the men and women that we have working on force protection,

have had lots of occasions when they brought in the Army and the

Marine Corps, and this committee has brought in the Army and

5

the Marine Corps, and we have put enormous pressure on them

when they have not provided what we thought was needed to be

provided in terms of force protection.

If you want to go to sleep, get some late night C-SPAN, you can

run some of the old tests or some of the old C-SPAN of hearings

that this committee has done on force protection with respect to

Humvees, up-armor, and jammers and the like.

So we are interested in making sure we get the right protection

for our troops. But the big question here is, how could the Army’s

test—which shows complete penetration, and I have looked at it—

be so different from this test that you folks took with this independent agency in Germany? I would like to see those tests reconciled.

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I

think it is absolutely timely, and I look forward to seeing how

these, how the Army tests and the Dragon Skin tests stack up. And

if you’ve got the—if you’ve got the real McCoy, Mr. Neal, we want

to get it out there fast.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter.

We will hear from the chairman of the subcommittee and the

ranking member a bit later.

Be that as it may, we will now welcome Mr. Neal and Mr. Coyle.

Thank you.

Mr. Neal.

STATEMENT OF MURRAY NEAL, FOUNDER AND CEO,

PINNACLE ARMOR, INC.

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee. Thank you

for the opportunity to come before you today to give you the facts

and information needed to make sure that as long as——

Mr. HUNTER. I think you have got the wrong Neal.

The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. Abercrombie will speak later.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to get the testimony in.

The CHAIRMAN. I called on Mr. Neal. That is his name; is that

correct?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. You are on.

Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee. Thank you

for the opportunity to come before you today to give you the facts

and information needed to make sure that as long as we have

American men and women in harm’s way in Iraq, Afghanistan, or

anywhere else, they will have the best possible body armor production available.

My name is Murray Neal, and I am the founder and chief executive officer of Pinnacle Armor, a company in Fresno, California.

You have my written testimony addressing all of the concerns of

testing, protocol issues, and my request for a fair and honest, unbiased hearing.

The bottom line for me, and I would say for the American people,

is that Dragon Skin has been verified as the best body armor in

the world by testing throughout the U.S., as well as in other allied

6

nations and beyond. Therefore, all we ask is for a third-party independent testing of Dragon Skin at a facility that has Office of the

Secretary of the Defense Department Testing and Evaluation oversight.

Please note that the only testing facility where the Dragon Skin

has allegedly failed happens to be the only place where the current

Interceptor has always passed, which is why we are seeking a neutral and independent party.

That testing facility where the Interceptor always passes is the

H.P. White Laboratory, which is primarily the Army’s go-to lab for

the testing of body armor. And I believe that any future tests at

that laboratory of either type of body armor will yield the same results.

The Army tells you that it wants to test Dragon Skin along with

the Interceptor, and we welcome such a test. But they insist on us

using rigid-plate technology, and we insist on using the most technologically advanced, only flexible, rifle-defeating body armor in

the world. If Dragon Skin performed as poorly as the Army claims,

why is it doing everything in its power to obfuscate and avoid such

an independent test, which would ostensibly validate its allegations

against Dragon Skin and support Army claims that the Interceptor

is the best body armor in the world, bar none?

There is a pattern of anti-Dragon Skin disinformation coming

from the Armed Forces, and most of this can be traced to a single

source.

If that isn’t enough, you would be intrigued that despite the fact

that the Army claims it uses H.P. White Laboratory as an independent facility, it is that source that runs the entire so-called

‘‘independent testing protocol,’’ monitors and controls the test. General Mark Brown has told you that he told the media in the May

21st briefing that Mr. Karl Masters is, in Brown’s words, the chief

engineer and test director. That begs the question of how independent and unbiased the H.P. White test really was or could be in the

future.

The issue of the lack of quality of the Interceptor vests was

broadly discussed during a Federal investigation of a body armor

defense contractor that was conducted by the FBI, the Defense

Criminal Investigative agency, and the United States attorney for

the Eastern District of New York.

This Federal investigation also determined that fielded Interceptor Body Armor did not meet ballistic standards. And the investigator discovered that the armor had failed these standards and was

recalled, yet it is was still issued to our troops.

The Army allows the test director to have broad discretion above

and beyond the written test protocols and procedures.

Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel Patricio of the Marine Corps, program manager responsible for body armor said, and I quote, ‘‘Failing or passing anything, that is a matter of some testing, procedures, and interpretations.’’

Over a 3-year period from 2002 to 2005, in cooperation with the

Army Research Lab in Aberdeen, I worked on a development of a

testing protocol for a flexible, rifle-defeating body armor that would

provide a 95 percent level of confidence indicating multiple highpowered rifle rounds across the board. This is at a success rate

7

level that is 100 percent higher than the current issued Interceptor

whose ballistic integrity degrades with each additional shot.

Natick was established to test and evaluate clothing and foodstuffs and additional, ancillary equipment for the military and now

spends approximately—the vast majority of its time and budget on

the ceramic-plate-based Interceptor Body Armor system.

The introduction of a flexible system like Dragon Skin would cost

Natick a significant chunk of its research and development budget

because the dated armor plate system would disappear. Could that

threat to the Natick’s budget be the reason for this opposition? I

don’t know.

Honorable members, when the smoke clears from a true, independent, third-party testing of Dragon Skin, you will see that

Dragon Skin has the capability to substantially save American

lives. That is the bottom line.

Thank you for your time and your invitation to lay out some

facts and the true story of Dragon Skin, and for giving me the opportunity to share with you my passion for protecting the lives of

men and women in harm’s way.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my testimony and documents package to be provided and entered into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Mr. NEAL. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neal can be found in the Appendix on page 97. Also Pinnacle Armor submitted testimony including

the HP White test results, general company literature, product profiles, and biographical information which is retained in the committee files.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Coyle.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP E. COYLE, III, SENIOR ADVISOR,

WORLD SECURITY INSTITUTE

Mr. COYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hunter, members of the committee, I very

much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the comparative body armor tests sponsored by NBC and conducted in Germany early last month.

I last appeared before the Air and Land Subcommittee of this full

committee on January 18, 2007. Then, as now, I provided a description of my affiliations. I do not have a financial conflict of interest

in this matter.

This declaration constitutes the first section of my prepared

statement. I won’t read all of that now, but I would like to submit

my entire statement for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Mr. COYLE. I have over 30 years of test and test-related experience involving U.S. defense systems and equipment; and knowing

this, NBC invited me to observe side-by-side body armor tests that

were conducted at the Beschussamt Mellrichstadt laboratory in

Germany on May 3, 2007. My role was to observe those tests, to

provide advice and commentary where I saw fit; and I neither requested nor received any compensation from NBC for my time

spent traveling to the laboratory nor for observing the tests.

8

This committee needs to be open-minded about looking at the

questions which the NBC body armor tests have raised. I say this

because you know that body armor is of critical importance to U.S.

military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in the recent

past, this committee has not shown itself to be open-minded on

issues raised by NBC. I refer to NBC reporting on active protective

systems. The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held two

hearings to denounce NBC for raising those issues, and those hearings did not engage the specific facts which NBC raised. In the

course of those two hearings, this committee received testimony

from the U.S. Army which was misleading and sometimes just

plain wrong.

On the positive side, after those two hearings, Senator John Warner requested an independent study of active protection systems.

That study was completed 2 months ago by the Institute for Defense Analyses and showed that NBC was correct. The IDA study

showed that the Trophy Active Protection System was the farthest

along, as NBC had reported, and ranked the system which the

Army system favored, the Raytheon ‘‘Quick Kill’’ system, ninth in

terms of technical readiness.

In short, the IDA report confirmed that NBC got it right.

With respect to the questions that NBC has raised on body

armor, I hope this committee will consider that NBC may have gotten it right again.

From the outset, it was apparent that NBC would not have the

capacity to conduct full-scale body armor tests that would capture

all of the variables of importance to the U.S. Army. For example,

NBC did not conduct tests at high or low temperatures; all of the

rounds fired in the NBC body armor tests were fired at ambient

temperature. Nevertheless, it was important for NBC to be sure

that their tests, although limited, were fair and conducted according to professional standards, which I can attest they were.

The results of the NBC tests, which are summarized on their

Web site, were significant. The test showed that the Army Interceptor Body Armor meets U.S. Army requirements, something

which I myself stated on camera. The NBC tests also showed that

the ballistic protection from Dragon Skin body armor is better.

I would now like to talk about the actual results of those tests

commissioned by NBC and conducted on May 3rd in Germany—actually, northern Bavaria.

At NBC’s request, the Mellrichstadt laboratory performed comparative testing of the Army’s body armor, Interceptor, which employs rigid plates inserted into large pockets in an outer vest,

against Dragon Skin, a flexible body armor, which employs a series

of overlapping disks, each a little larger in diameter than a silver

dollar.

The Mellrichstadt laboratory is well familiar with the specifications governing body armor testing, regularly conducts body armor

tests and has an outstanding reputation as the BMW of ballistic

testing laboratories. Body armor tests are tested against a special

kind of clay that simulates the resistance of the human body and

provides a way to measure blunt force trauma. After each shot,

each vest is removed to see whether or not the bullet has peneVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
9

trated, and if not, to measure the blunt force trauma to a person

wearing the vest.

The U.S. Army generally considers a cavity deeper than 44 millimeters to be a failure even if the bullet does not penetrate because

the shock can be so great that the wearer of the body armor could

die anyway. The sternum is a particularly dangerous area for blunt

force trauma, as chest bones can be broken and propelled into the

heart, lungs and so forth. A ruptured spleen or other damaged

organ can be very dangerous, if not fatal, also.

The measure of this blunt force trauma is called BFS, or Back

Face Signature. That is the depth of the indentation caused in the

clay when a bullet strikes a body armor vest. The NBC test consisted of six groups of test firings involving a total of 31 rounds of

ammunition of different types and lethalities.

Test number one was of Dragon Skin only. That is before the

comparative testing began, a preliminary series of six shots were

fired against Dragon Skin only using 7.62 caliber by 51mm long,

M80 rounds. This is called a Level III threat, meaning capable of

defending against high-powered rifle ammunition, and both Dragon

Skin and Interceptor are National Institute of Justice certified at

this level.

The Army requires that three rounds be defeated; the National

Institute of Justice requires that six rounds be defeated. And in

this first test series, six rounds were fired at Dragon Skin body

armor, and it stopped all six rounds, allowing no penetration. The

Back Face Signatures were well within the Army standard. So this

test showed that Dragon Skin could defeat this threat and meet

both the Army standard and the tougher National Institute of Justice standard.

From this point forward in this open testimony, I do not speak

of the specific caliber or construction of each round fired in the

NBC-sponsored test. Similarly, in their broadcast and on their Web

site, NBC News did not describe the specific caliber or ammunition

used in the comparative test because the Army believes that level

of detail may assist the enemy.

NBC News did, however, share those details with the Army, and

the Army itself reported some of those in an open press conference

on May 21st.

Test 1a, part one of the first comparative test series, consisted

of four rounds of a type of armor-piercing ammunition fired against

an Interceptor Level IV vest with what are called ‘‘enhanced small

arms protective inserts’’ installed in an outer vest. Level IV refers

to a higher level threat from armor-piercing ammunition.

This test shows that the Army’s Interceptor Body Armor meets

minimum U.S. Army standards for this type of round at ambient

temperature, which only requires body armor to stop one round of

this type of ammunition. However, when taken to a third and

fourth round, the blunt force trauma on the third round was high,

47mm at the top end of the range; and on the fourth shot there

was a complete penetration of the Interceptor Body Armor.

Test 1b, part two of this comparative test series, consisted of six

rounds of the same type of armor-piercing ammunition as was fired

in Test 1a, but now fired against Dragon Skin.

10

This test showed that Dragon Skin also meets U.S. Army standards for this type of round at ambient temperature. Better still,

Dragon Skin allowed no penetration in six rounds fired, and the

blunt force trauma from each was significantly less than with Interceptor.

On average, the Back Face trauma signature was 56 percent

greater with Interceptor than with Dragon Skin. This test was also

significant because the Army has indicated that in its test of Dragon Skin last year, the Dragon Skin could not defeat this type of

ammunition. In the test that I observed, it clearly did and never

failed.

Test 2a, the next comparative test series, was conducted with a

type of armor-piercing incendiary ammunition and consisted of six

rounds firing at the Army body armor. This test shows that the Interceptor Body Armor can stop this type of armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, but when taken to a fifth round, the blunt force

trauma exceeded general Army standards, and the sixth round allowed a complete penetration.

Test 2b then was conducted with the same type of armor-piercing

incendiary ammunition as in 2a, but now against Dragon Skin, and

six rounds were fired. This test showed the Dragon Skin can defeat

this type of armor-piercing incendiary round as it did six times.

There were no penetrations, and the depth of the blunt force trauma signature was dramatically less than for Interceptor. On average in this test series, the Back Face trauma depth was nearly 82

percent higher for Interceptor than for Dragon Skin.

The third and final test was of Dragon Skin alone. The ammunition fired was of a composite nature. The Army does not require

its body armor to defend against a bullet of this lethality. Three

rounds were fired. This test showed the Dragon Skin can defeat a

highly lethal type of armor-piercing ammunition. Also notable is

that the Back Face trauma signature on these three shots averaged

less than 19 millimeters, less then half of the Army’s 44mm standard, a standard which is only required for less lethal types of ammunition.

Given the NBC test results, the refusal of the Army to undertake

side-by-side testing is puzzling. When NBC News Reporter Lisa

Myers asked General Mark Brown whether the Army would do

side-by-side testing, General Brown said that the Army doesn’t do

side-by-side testing, but tests to a standard. Of course, they test to

a standard, but NBC News tested both vests to the Army standard,

and Dragon Skin performed better.

Side-by-side testing means testing both types of body armor

under the same conditions according to the same scoring rules, in

short, a level playing field.

In his recent press conference, General Brown said he had all of

the money and all of the leadership support he needed to get body

armor and to get improvements to body armor. He also said that

the Army is never satisfied with the status quo and that the Army

is always looking for the next best thing and that if there is something better out there, we are going to buy it after we have livefire tested it. If this is true, doing fair, contemporary, side-by-side

tests should not be a problem.

11

I am not saying that Interceptor does not provide good protection; nor is retired Army General Wayne Downing, who observed

the tests with me. He noted on camera, as did I, that Interceptor

performed well during the NBC tests. But Dragon Skin was better,

notably against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma which can kill even if a bullet doesn’t actually penetrate the

vest.

From the body armor tests that I observed in Germany, Dragon

Skin appears to have five advantages, advantages in which I would

think the Army and this committee would be interested. Those advantages appear to be, first, Dragon Skin is flexible and conforms

better to the contours of the human body which is also helpful for

female soldiers.

Dragon Skin covers more of the torso and does not leave gaps.

Dragon Skin is better against multiple shots.

Dragon Skin reduces blunt force trauma. The depth of the cavities caused in the test clay by shots fired at Dragon Skin were

often half as deep as the cavities caused in the clay during Interceptor tests.

And fifth, Dragon Skin performed perfectly, allowing no penetrations, and defeated six rounds of a particularly deadly ammunition

threat which U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may face.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the controversy over the most effective body armor for the U.S. Army has been brewing for a long

time and was not started by NBC. NBC, ABC, CBS, the Discovery

Channel, the History Channel and the National Geographic Channel, that I know of, have all either aired programs on this controversy or plan to do so.

This does not count the scores of prank media sources who have

reported on the body armor controversy. Even YouTube has pictures of Dragon Skin body armor testing on the Internet and

Wikipedia has posted a carefully documented description of the history of this controversy. Some news organizations have shown successful ballistic tests of Dragon Skin body armor conducted on behalf of other agencies such as police departments.

In addition, officials with the FBI, the CIA, the U.S. Marshal

Service, the GSA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the Federal

Protective Service, the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Coast Guard have all bought or placed orders

for Dragon Skin. And so also have private security firms that provide security protection for high-ranking officials in Iraq or other

dangerous places.

Mr. Chairman, the tests conducted by H.P. White for the Army

in May 2006 and the NBC tests conducted this year can probably

never be compared one for one. Too much time has passed since the

tests a year ago, and the Army is overly invested in proving NBC

wrong.

The best way to resolve this matter would be for the U.S. Army

Test and Evaluation Command to conduct comparable side-by-side

tests of both the Interceptor and Dragon Skin body armor.

Those tests should be overseen, in my view, by an independent

third party such as the Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation. That is what the Senate Armed Services Committee has called

for, and I hope the House Armed Services Committee will join the

12

Senate to call for a fair, balanced, and refereed body armor testing

program.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to take any questions you

might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coyle can be found in the Appendix on page 144.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Coyle, in your prepared statement—and you made reference

in your oral comments that you do not think our committee is

open-minded in looking at questions—you make reference in your

written statement, though I don’t recall your using the phrase, the

Active Protection Systems, which have nothing to do with body

armor, but deal with devices that go on vehicles; and you question

the Armed Services Committee which held two hearings, one in

September when Mr. Hunter was chairman and one in January

when I am chairman.

The Active Protective Systems won’t be ready for prime time

until March of next year, and I have no idea why in the world you

make reference to that when we are talking about body armor. I

frankly resent your doing so. I think we should stay on subject.

Mr. Coyle, let me ask you this: In the test that was done in Germany, who provided the Army body armor system for that test?

Mr. COYLE. The body armor system——

The CHAIRMAN. On the test that was done in Germany.

Mr. COYLE [continuing]. Was provided by Jim Magee, who, I understand from the press, is an inventor of the Interceptor system.

I don’t know where he got it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no independent understanding as to

whether this is the exact Interceptor system that the Army uses or

not?

Mr. COYLE. I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you, Mr. Coyle, what does the Dragon Skin—say, size large—weigh, please.

Mr. COYLE. I don’t know. You will have to ask Mr. Neal that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Neal, do you know how much it weighs?

Mr. NEAL. Size large with two 10-by–12 plates, Level IV, weighs

24 pounds. Depending upon the area of coverage, it could weigh

more or it could weigh less. That is one of the unique things about

Dragon Skin. You can go from as small as an independent disk all

the way up to a full torso wrap. Depending upon the size of coverage and the size of the vest, the weights will vary.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you have the fullest protection possible.

How much would it weigh?

Mr. NEAL. Fullest protection in a Level III.

Mr. SKELTON. Large.

Mr. NEAL. On a large, full-torso wrap, Dragon Skin weighs 26.7

pounds.

The CHAIRMAN. If we were to do another test, how fast could you

provide required 30 vests, Mr. Neal?

Mr. NEAL. I would have to look at the DFAS rated orders we

have in house. We had the same situation initially with Brigadier

General Moran’s request. We had DFAS rated orders in house, and

under Federal law, I am required to do them first unless I can augVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
13

ment production enough to not interrupt my deliverable timeline.

I would anticipate probably by the middle of July.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hunter.

Mr. COYLE. If I could comment about the first thing you raised.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would.

Let me tell you, Mr. Coyle, I don’t care who is chairing this committee or who is on this committee, we do our best to protect the

soldier. And we are open-minded on everything that we have before

us. We are not rubber stamps for anyone. I think our recent bill

shows that.

Go ahead and comment.

Mr. COYLE. Nor did I mean to imply anything of the sort.

The CHAIRMAN. I read your words.

Mr. COYLE. But what I said and what I meant was that I had

the feeling that this committee was not open to issues when they

were raised by NBC. I did not say that this committee was not

open-minded. I did not say that this committee was not supportive

of new innovations. I very much appreciate the examples that Mr.

Hunter brought up of new innovation which might not have happened if not for this committee.

My only point was that, last January, it didn’t appear to me that

this committee was open to the questions that NBC raised and certainly didn’t discuss those specific questions. And I was hoping that

wouldn’t happen this time just because it was an NBC thing.

That was my only point.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hunter.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Coyle, without beating a dead horse, when did

NBC become aware of Dragon Skin?

Mr. COYLE. I don’t know.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, my memory is, because I heard about Dragon

Skin from a Special Forces guy, or saw it on a Web site or something, that it was January of 2006 when I had our staff contact the

Dragon Skin folks and had them come in and have a meeting with

the Armed Services Committee, a year before NBC became interested in it. And we subsequently called the Army and told the

Army that we wanted them to test it. The Army fired back that

they, infact, had a request, I believe, from Kay Bailey Hutchison

to do the same thing.

They did test it, and what I would like to have you look at—because I agree with you, let us get down to the nuts and bolts here—

which test, which test is right and/or maybe, are both of them

right, but they were using different types of material or different

or disparate systems?

I have got the Army tests in front of me. The Army test in front

of me has a—that they gave the committee has Dragon Skin with

a bunch of holes in it, and I want to—let me ask the staff to bring

that down and give that to you.

Could you give a copy of that to—have you got it there, Mr.

Coyle?

Mr. COYLE. I believe I do.

Mr. HUNTER. Open that up to the chart that has got the photographs of Dragon Skin with the holes in it. Those are x rays that

they took of the Dragon Skin.

14

And first, it says they weighed them, and the Dragon Skin was

not 24 pounds; it was 48 pounds.

Am I missing something here? Because Mr. Neal said they are

27.

Mr. COYLE. I was not there. I didn’t see these tests that were

done a year ago last May. Mr. Neal was. I think it is probably better if you ask him.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Neal, we were told that your folks were present

at the test. That is what the Army tells us. Were they present?

Mr. NEAL. Myself and one other individual were present at the

test.

Mr. HUNTER. Now, if you go to the first shot, I am looking at the

first test and they say this was done under ambient temperatures,

and it says XL–01 front, second shot, complete penetration.

Now, Mr. Neal, we just heard of the tests that were done in Germany where you had, what, a total of—was it a total of, Mr. Coyle,

of 12 shots or 18 shots that were taken? Some series of 6, right?

Mr. COYLE. You are talking about the German?

Mr. HUNTER. The German tests.

Mr. COYLE. All in all, there were 31.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Neal, is this an accurate x ray of the Dragon

Skin with a hole in it, underneath the statement that says ‘‘second

shot, complete penetration’’? You were standing there when they

shot that one, right?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Do you think it was an unfair shot or a shot from

a bad angle? Or what happened here?

Mr. NEAL. No. On that I don’t think this is an unfair shot or an

incorrect angle.

One of the things that is—in the process of going through this

to show you, I have got copies that are in the data package of three

different Power Point presentations that have been presented, and

there is a little bit of discrepancy or difference in the data. And let

me just show you one of those for your information, if I can find

how these things were copied. Bear with me one minute, please.

On one of them, under the high temperature, 160——

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s go to the low temperature first. It may be unfair to you guys to go to a high temperature. Let’s go to the regular

ambient temperature. It says ‘‘second shot, complete penetration.’’

you were standing there.

Mr. NEAL. I don’t disagree with that.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Then let’s go to—let me ask you a question:

Why do you think that the Army test, then—if you were standing

there watching the Army test, and they fired the gun and the bullet went through the Dragon Skin, why didn’t it go through the

Dragon Skin in the German test?

What is your answer for that discrepancy?

Mr. NEAL. I don’t have an answer for the discrepancy in that

particular situation. You will have armor systems, it doesn’t matter

how many times they pass, once in a while you will end up with

a complete penetration. That is just part of the nature of ballistics,

and there is no way of getting around that.

15

However, that is why test protocols and procedures often have

QA issues attached to them, such as this First Article Testing. It

has the QA retest procedure.

If you—you are allowed—if you go through and you have some

penetrations, they are required to be retested. That was never the

case in this situation. And that is part of the protocol and procedures.

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask you another question.

Turn to saltwater exposure. That one looks like you did pretty

good on that one. It says, apparently, because there is always a

chance you are going to have saltwater exposure if you are talking

about the Marines, the Army, et cetera, it said results okay, okay,

okay, okay.

Now go to motor oil exposure because apparently you—or diesel,

and it is a diesel fuel exposure after that. The services believe that

there will be an exposure to motor oil and diesel fuel, and they

don’t want to have degradation.

Now they have got under that, and they have got the pictures

that back it up that after they shot it with you standing there, they

have got second shot complete penetration on MO–1 front and then

on MO–1 back, second shot complete penetration.

On the sides, to be fair, on the sides they have got that it stopped

the bullets. But on the front and back complete penetration.

In your estimation, is that—was that an unfair test or do you

think that is an unfair requirement that you can come in contact

with motor oil and keep its structural integrity.

Mr. NEAL. No, I don’t feel that’s an unfair requirement. If you

look at the x ray that has a round circle in it in the center, you

will see the bullet residing in the armor. That is not a penetration.

That is a defeat. The bullet did not go through the armor. It is residing in the center of that round circle that they call a penetration.

Mr. HUNTER. So how would you classify that?

Mr. NEAL. That is a defeat. If there was no bullet core residing

in the x ray, it would have gone through the vest.

Mr. HUNTER. We will reserve that question then for the Army

and let them explain that one.

Mr. NEAL. Same, too, with the diesel fuel exposure with—the one

with the circle shows it has a bullet core sitting in the center of

the circle. That is not a penetration. That is a defeat of the projectile.

Mr. HUNTER. So when they say ‘‘penetration,’’ in your estimation

that is not accurate. So we will bring that up with the Army when

we let them take the witness table.

Now if you go to impact drop. Apparently they drop these things

so that—because you are going to have your vests thrown around

in the Army and the Marine Corps, et cetera.

They have got on the fourth test they have got left, 01, right side,

first shot, complete penetration. Do you disagree with that? Was

that an unfair——

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. Because the bullet core is residing in the

upper 1 o’clock position within that circle. If the bullet is residing

in the armor, the bullet was defeated. It did not penetrate and go

through the armor.

16

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. So that is the third one where you say the

bullet still hung in there and didn’t get all the way through?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Let’s go to low temperature, and low temperature.

I have got minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit. It says ‘‘okay’’ all the way

through, then high temperature 160 degrees Fahrenheit. I thought

that was a little high, but I was reminded when my kid went to

Kuwait the other day on his way into country, it was like 137 degrees in the shade. So I take it the reason they got the 160 degrees

is because if it is in the back of a Humvee and it is closed, you

could get up to 160, right?

Mr. NEAL. You could have it in a metal container. You could

have the armor sitting in—we have a lot of law enforcement officers who are in Arizona, and they wear their concealed armor and

then they have the Dragon Skin tactical; and they throw it in the

trunk of their vehicles all the time, and it has been with them all

the time, and it is warm in the trunk.

Mr. HUNTER. I understand. But let me go to the test.

They took this up to 160 degrees in this test while you were

there and they have got XL–03, front, first shot, complete penetration; XL–03, back, first shot, complete penetration; XL–03, left side,

first shot, complete penetration.

What do you think? Did you observe those? Did you think they

were unfairly taken or was there, in fact, complete penetration?

Mr. NEAL. Eight of the shots that were taken on the high temperature vests were shot in areas where there were no Dragon

Skin ceramic discs. They shot through the textile component only.

It did not engage the rifle-defeating portion of the body armor.

That is not considered a——

Mr. HUNTER. How did that happen?

Mr. NEAL. What happened in this particular one—it was addressed with Mr. Masters and Mr. Zheng—was, we had a section,

a 25mm strip where there was no adhesive in the material. We

even cut it open, peeled the vest back.

The adhesive anomaly, as it was considered at that time, is—if

I may explain this to you, because I have to tell you how it works.

We have 200-yard rolls of an aramid textile that goes through a

laminating press, which is similar to a wringer washer, and it is

put under pressure and heat. The laminator that does it has 50-

yard rolls. So they butt-joint them and run them through.

Well, what happened in this incident was, one pulled through,

left a 25mm 1-inch gap where there was no adhesive. It did not get

caught when we manufactured the vests, and that happened to be

on the front——

Mr. HUNTER. So you are saying, basically your adhesive failed.

Mr. NEAL. No, it did not. It did not have adhesive in those areas.

We have subsequently got with the manufacturer. The manufacturer now guarantees not a butt joint, but an overlap and additionally have to mark every time there is a joint to the right and left

of the roll; and then we have now changed the QC procedures in

house to visually inspect every one of those joints as well.

Mr. HUNTER. So the adhesive didn’t fail, but there was a lack of

adhesive because of a problem that you fixed.

17

So the stuff fell down, and you really didn’t have a shoot through

the armor. You really didn’t have an opportunity to test the armor

on that shot; is that accurate?

Mr. NEAL. What you will see here, where you see the one disk

with the inside, the red circle, there was one roll of discs that we

are missing. The second row for the x rays, those have been put

in because you can see, as you compare to the left side, the lap

overlap joints aren’t the same.

We had peeled that back and we opened it up on the range. It

was during that time that Mr. Zheng chose to shoot through. The

textile component, as he said, he was gathering data points, and

then it was at that time where they decided to shoot three individual discs by themselves.

One disk they shot in the center; it defeated the round. The second disk they shot half way between the center and the edge; it defeated the round. The third shot they fired approximately a quarter

inch to three-eighths from the edge and the round went through,

which is what it will do because you wouldn’t shoot that close to

the edge on the armor system.

So aside from that—oh, and by the way, the one that is in the

circle here is the one they shot about the 6 o’clock position, very

close to the bottom of the edge that did have the penetration.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. So just to take it—and I thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for letting me have some time, but you kind of have to

go through this stuff. You are saying the first shot that went

through, you kind of accept that. That one went through. And if

you had shot—the first one we went to, where you said——

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. You didn’t think it was an unfair shot.

Mr. NEAL. That is correct.

Mr. HUNTER. But the other ones you disagree that there was

total penetration, and the last one it was just a problem with not

having adhesive there, so the armor really down, slipped down, and

you didn’t have an opportunity to really test the armor is what you

are saying.

Mr. NEAL. We had one row of disks that just dropped——

Mr. HUNTER. Okay.

Mr. NEAL [continuing]. Down probably that far, yes.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Thank you. And so we will take up those discrepancies with the Army when they come up. And I just say this,

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neal, you got some sets of this Dragon Skin,

at least one or two sets available?

Mr. NEAL. Here.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to see us take them down, while we

are waiting for these sophisticated tests to be set up, take them

down to the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, break out an M14 with

7.62 armor-piercing and shoot it and see if it goes through.

Mr. NEAL. I would have to get some sent in.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. That’s not mission impossible, is it?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir, it is not.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to see us do that. I think we could do

that in short order. Anyway thank you, and I look forward to the

Army’s response on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

18

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are going to go a bit out of order

because the subcommittee chairman and the ranking subcommittee

gentleman will be recognized each for five minutes, and then we

will go in regular order.

Mr. Abercrombie.

STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL ABERCROMBIE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII, CHAIRMAN, AIR AND LAND FORCES

SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record I would like to submit.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie can be found in the

Appendix on page 87.]

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, recently I was introduced to a group in Hawaii by someone who felt

they wanted to give a good introduction to me, and so they did a

little research on Wikipedia. And when I was introduced I could

not recognize myself, because what was apparently in Wikipedia

was so far removed from any of the facts surrounding my life or

interpretations of the facts surrounding my life that it made no

sense at all.

So I understand and perhaps have a better understanding now

of Mr. Coyle’s testimony inasmuch as he thinks Wikipedia is something that should be cited for careful documentation. And I quite

agree with Mr. Coyle that he did not imply that the committee was

not open-minded. He said it absolutely. He didn’t imply it at all.

In case he has already forgotten what he said, he said in the recent

past this committee has not shown itself to be open-minded on

issues raised by NBC. He was talking about the Active Protection

System. But now we suddenly got into armor. He did refer to two

hearings to denounce NBC for raising the issue, and those hearings

did not engage the specific facts which NBC raised.

Well, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the first hearing was

held under the direction of Mr. Hunter as chairman of the committee, and he charged Mr. Weldon, who was chairman of the subcommittee, and I was ranking member, to follow through on what

he has already enunciated today. And we did. And for those new

members here who don’t know Mr. Weldon, I can assure you—although Mr. Sestak I guess knows Mr. Weldon. Perhaps Mr. Weldon

is not so happy about that today. But the plain fact of the matter

is that I don’t think anybody here who ever knew Mr. Weldon, and

for those members who didn’t know him, he was never hesitant

about reaching out to get any kind of facts. And as I say, he did

it under Mr. Hunter’s direction. And he always involved the ranking member and the staff. That was me. And I can tell you we went

to NBC, and by phone, calling, everything, trying to get them to

come here to the hearing or involve themselves with the staffs so

we could find out what was going on. And then when I became the

chairman under Mr. Skelton, Mr. Skelton charged me and Mr.

Saxton to do it. And I can assure you, again for new members who

may not be familiar, this committee as a whole and the subcommittees to the best of my knowledge don’t do anything except on a bipartisan basis. And I can say when I was ranking member for all

19

the time under Mr. Hunter of the committee, or just a member of

the committee, our staffs and ourselves were always involved from

beginning to end.

And the hearing that we held, the second hearing that Mr. Coyle

refers to, which we held to denounce NBC, it is a little hard to denounce NBC when I asked Mr. Coyle to be a witness. So I don’t

know why he bothered to go through all the hearing if we were not

taking everything up that was at point.

So I don’t know—and today—and I want to finish with this—is

that today we have been trying to get NBC to participate in some

way. Where did you get the information? What are you referring

to? Can you please let us know about the tests? NBC refuses to

talk to us. The only contact I have had and Mr. Saxton has had

with NBC is to watch some overpaid multimillionaire line reader

show up on television, properly groomed and coifed and made up,

to denounce this committee.

Now the reason that I am so exercised about it, and I think what

needs to be said with as much emphasis as I can place upon it, is

that we have the direct responsibility for the Armed Forces of the

United States to prepare them in terms of equipment, in terms of

proper personnel, and in terms of proper training to carry out the

strategic interests of this country as is required of them when they

are sent into the field and deployed. Everything and anything that

is done by this committee is done with that in mind. It’s not a Republican issue, it’s not a Democratic issue, it is not an issue of contending with networks who, when they finish their discussion of

the Active Protection System or the body armor, went on to their

ads for erectile dysfunction or a murder or whether or not some celebrity slut was going to jail. So I am not interested in those kinds

of things. What we are interested in is seeing to it that the men

and women of the armed services have the best possible equipment,

the best possible training, the best possible preparation for the

tasks that have been assigned them.

Now, if the Army or anybody else has not been able to fulfill that

obligation, that is fair and legitimate inquiry, Mr. Chairman. But

that has not been the case. The Army has come forward in this instance, at least as far as I can tell from Mr. Saxton and myself,

fully prepared to engage in the issue. And I am prepared to engage

in the issue as your subcommittee chair, as is Mr. Saxton.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Saxton from New

Jersey.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM

NEW JERSEY, RANKING MEMBER, AIR AND LAND FORCES

SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to just pick up where Mr. Hunter left

off, Mr. Neal. Mr. Hunter ran out of time just as he was getting

to page 17 of the Army report, which has photographs of the vests

that were taken after the Army tests, where the temperature was

cycled with the vest from minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit to plus 120

degrees Fahrenheit. Do you have that page there with you?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

20

Mr. SAXTON. Okay. It shows that three of the tests were okay,

but the test on the back, it says here that the first and second shot

completely penetrated. Would you like to give us your version of

why that happened? Or explain to us why that happened?

Mr. NEAL. I don’t recall if there was a first shot penetration. I

think there was a second and third shot complete penetration on

those. I don’t know the results on it. I do know that the armor performed well. The second and third shot penetrations, I don’t know

if it was on the—one was on the front and one was on the back,

I am not too sure. I don’t have that data here in front of me.

Mr. SAXTON. Are you saying that the information that the Army

presented us was wrong, incorrect?

Mr. NEAL. No, I am not saying that. I am saying I can’t recall

whether the one that they are calling the first and second shot

completes on the back, I recall the second and third shot, but I

don’t know if they were all on the back panel or one on the front

and/or one on the back.

Mr. SAXTON. I am not an expert at reading x-rays, but it would

seem that—it would appear that some of those disks had in fact

delaminated in that picture. Would you agree with that?

Mr. NEAL. I don’t know what has happened there. The disks are

actually turned on side.

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. NEAL. Can I pull something up to show the members? I need

to show you something, if you may, an example of the armor to explain what I need to do.

Mr. SAXTON. Sure. If you could just let me go on to one more

question before we do that.

Mr. NEAL. All right.

Mr. SAXTON. On page seven there are two pictures, and other information relating to Interceptor Body Armor on the left and Pinnacle body armor on the right. And in his oral statement, Mr.

Coyle mentioned that the Pinnacle body armor provides better coverage of the upper torso because it can wrap in places and there

are no gaps. And in fact, these two pictures, it indicates that the

coverage with the Pinnacle is 743 square inches, where with the

Interceptor Body Armor the coverage is 720 square inches. I did a

little math, and it shows that in fact the Pinnacle armor does provide about 3 percent more coverage in this instance. It also shows

here that the Interceptor Body Armor weighs 28 pounds and that

the Pinnacle body armor in this example weighs 47–1/2 pounds.

And I will say that when the Army was here they actually brought

two scales and hung these two vests on the scales and showed that

those weights did register as such on the scales. And that would

seem to me to indicate that there was a significant disadvantage.

In fact, the weight was said to be 46 by the Army, 46 percent to

70 percent heavier with Pinnacle body armor than with Interceptor

Body Armor. Would you speak to that?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. The information that is on this PowerPoint

presentation is misleading and incorrect. The coverage that they

have there in square inches, which is as most people would assume

it looking at that, would be considered the amount of coverage area

to defeat rifle rounds. That is incorrect. The Interceptor Body

Armor, with the front and rear plate and two side SAPI plates repVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
21

resents about 2.88 square feet of rifle-defeating coverage. The extra

large vest which was ordered by Brigadier General Moran was an

extra large full torso wrap with added disks at the top and the

edge, which brought it to 5.45 square feet of rifle-defeating coverage. You are getting an apples and oranges comparison. The

weight on that, if you will look in the document package presented

to you, part A, where there is this picture right here, this is the

actual three dimensions of the vest, the serial numbers, and handwritten on the side are the actual weights of the body armor as

weighed the day of the test. There is nothing that weighs 47–1/2

pounds as weighed by the Army. The information provided in here

is misleading. They are trying to tell you that 47–1/2 pounds,

which is a pound and a half too heavy for an overloaded vest,

which has more disks in it, as General Moran asked us to load it

up, that is more than we would normally put in for a full torso

wrap. And giving you a 5.4-square foot area of coverage, and trying

it to compare it to 2.88, and breaking the weight down and calling

that an apples to apples representation is a misrepresentation.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Neal.

Mr. NEAL. You are welcome.

Mr. HUNTER. Could I take——

Mr. SAXTON. If I may yield to——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman

for yielding. Mr. Coyle, you made the statement when you opened

up you didn’t see the Army test, you saw the test in Germany in

which there was no penetration. And you concluded that therefore

it appeared to test in your test in a way superior to the Interceptor.

Is that right?

Mr. COYLE. That is correct.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Now that you saw the test in which Mr. Neal

acknowledged that he was present, stood there, watched them

shoot it, watched them shoot his package that he had given them,

and the first shot or second shot had total penetration, which he

acknowledges, would that change your conclusion that it is superior

to the Interceptor? If you accept that as a valid shot?

Mr. COYLE. If that was a valid shot it certainly would raise questions in my mind.

Mr. HUNTER. Oh, really?

Mr. COYLE. Like questions you asked, which is how come, you

know, the Dragon Skin stopped everything in Germany but didn’t

in the cases——

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. But if you had taken that and considered

that to be the sixth shot, that was a seventh shot that was

made——

Mr. COYLE. Yes.

Mr. HUNTER [continuing]. You wouldn’t then have put in your report that you considered it to be superior to the Interceptor, would

you?

Mr. COYLE. I would not have, no.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

Incidentally, before we go off this, I think every member of the

committee is interested in having the very best. I think the flexibility is a value that you pointed out. When my son came into Iraq

22

the first time, coming over the berm out of Kuwait, his gunner was

shot and fell back into him, and they had a tough time getting him

out of the way and getting their guns operated, and we brought in

some people to try to design a serapi-type of a covering that the

gunner could wear on a Humvee, something that was heavier than

the normal vest. It looks to me like this Dragon Skin may have

some possibilities in that connection. I would like to explore that

later when we are finished with this hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Spratt, five minutes.

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you both for your testimony. It seems a bit

odd that, given the fact we have all kinds of testing facilities in this

country, we would go all the way to Germany for conducting these

tests. You know if any effort was undertaken by NBC or by yourselves, particularly you, Mr. Neal, to have the tests conducted here

on some kind of reasonable parity basis?

Mr. NEAL. I was asked by NBC to provide body armor to do a

comparative test. You will have to ask NBC with regard to why

they chose——

Mr. SPRATT. You didn’t have anything to do with selecting the

German laboratory?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir.

Mr. SPRATT. Do you know why NBC made this decision?

Mr. NEAL. No. That, sir, you will have to ask them. I am not

privy to that. Again, I was asked to bring the body armor to do a

side-by-side comparative test, a level IV system, and I did.

Mr. SPRATT. You were present for one of the tests comparing

your body armor with Interceptor Body Armor. Is that correct?

Mr. NEAL. No, I was at a First Article Test with the Army, and

there was no comparison testing done.

Mr. SPRATT. Did you make or did anyone make any effort to find

out what the testing protocols were and whether or not what was

being done in Germany was consistent with what had been done

by the Army to select between these two systems?

Mr. NEAL. I know that the testing that was done in Germany

was to the ESAPI specifications, which is a level IV.

Mr. SPRATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. NEAL. That is what was done.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Coyle, it appears that both systems were reasonably protective for the first several rounds, and they began to

break down around round five, round six. In particular the Interceptor, according to your tests, the German tests, seems to have

broken down and allowed penetration at round number six. Does

this assume that there is a certain cluster? Are these impacts clustered in the same area such that the cumulative impact finally

penetrates the armor, or are the shots scattered over the whole

surface of the armor, body armor?

Mr. COYLE. For the tests in Germany, the shot—the various

shots were spread out. They didn’t shoot twice at the same place,

for example. If you have an opportunity to see the NBC presentation on this, you can actually see a technician at the German laboratory holding up a template as to where the shots are going to

go. It is a fixed template that they always use.

23

Mr. SPRATT. The CEP so to speak was what, 6 inches in diameter?

Mr. COYLE. I don’t know what the CEP was, but what they did

at the laboratory is they held up the template with holes in the

template where the bullet shots were going to go and marked those

on the vest, and then they aimed at each one of those.

Mr. SPRATT. So they preselected where they were going to——

Mr. COYLE. Yes, they picked a template which is used for body

armor testing, a standard template. It wasn’t different for the NBC

and they would have used for any other body armor test. It was

just a standard template.

Mr. SPRATT. If the rounds weren’t concentrated on one particular

spot so that the cumulative impact finally defeated the system why

does the cumulative impact of a wider scattering of rounds eventually produce a failure in the Interceptor system around round number six.

Mr. COYLE. I am not sure I can answer that question. It probably

has to do with how cracks develop in the armor plates in those

cases where armor plates are used. But it gets to be a quite complicated matter as to structurally why does something stop one or

two or three bullets and then not a fourth or a fifth or a sixth.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Neal, Mr. Coyle, it has been proposed that there

be a side by side, a formal test conducted with the Army’s participation. Would you be satisfied if this test were overseen and conducted and established by an independent agency like the Government Accountability Office?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRATT. That is suitable to you?

Mr. COYLE. Absolutely.

Mr. SPRATT. And you think this is where the matter should be

taken next? Is that your testimony?

Mr. NEAL. I would like to see a third-party test, out of the hands

and control of the Army and done with Office of Secretary of Defense.

Mr. SPRATT. What about NIJ? Would NIJ be an acceptable——

Mr. NEAL. I didn’t hear that.

Mr. SPRATT. National Institutes of Justice. Would they be acceptable?

Mr. NEAL. Provided that it doesn’t go to the same lab that was

utilized last time, I have no problem with that. NIJ is a very credible source. NIJ developed a flexible body armor system for level III

and IV this last year. The level III, which is even a more rigorous

standard than the typical level III test, that not only is required

to stop six instead of three rounds, as in the Army specification,

but as the information campaign about Dragon Skin went out and

misinformation was out that the Dragon Skin couldn’t stop rounds

at obliquities, the NIJ took the wherewithal to go forward develop

a test protocol and procedure that added induced angled penetrations at specific locations that were said that it couldn’t defeat to

make sure of that. So it has induced additional angles into it. They

have gone over and above as far as developing a flexible rifle-defeating body armor protocol and procedures, of which the level III

one we have already passed, and we are getting ready to do the

level IV. So I feel that they are more than capable of doing that.

24

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. McHugh

from New York.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neal, just seconds

ago you repeated a rather unveiled accusation against the integrity

of the H.P. White Laboratories. They are an NIJ-certified lab. Can

you share with this committee any specifics as to how you feel they

conducted the tests in a way that produced a prior conclusion and

outcome? Because that would be a very serious charge, and I think

we would want to follow through on that.

Mr. NEAL. Okay. What I mean by going to H.P. White Laboratories is the fact that I would like to see total autonomy pulled

away from the current location where the military tests, to go to

a complete different facility, to a complete different people doing

the testing, and that——

Mr. MCHUGH. That is fine.

Mr. NEAL. May I finish my thought, please?

Mr. MCHUGH. Absolutely.

Mr. NEAL. H.P. White Laboratories, while I was there I did not

see any wrongdoing. But you have to also realize that they are a

laboratory, a civilian laboratory, and they will follow the discretion

of the client or the customer who asks to do the test protocol and

procedures. There is a lot of latitude given to the test director, and

there was a lot of deviations taken from the protocol and procedures during the First Article Test. If you have got a test, as an

example, that says you got to go from number one to number 10,

in this specific order, you go from number one to number 10 and

you complete the test. You don’t do research and development, shot

placement, specific shootings to try to come to an understanding of

how you don’t understand how an armor system works while you

are doing the test. You do the test. If it passes, it passes. If it

doesn’t, it doesn’t. Then you can go ahead and induce your research

and development. But when you have a First Article Test and you

start doing research and developmental testing on it during the

test, that is incorrect. I don’t have any——

Mr. MCHUGH. Are you accusing them of doing that?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir, I didn’t say that.

Mr. MCHUGH. Then why would we bring this up? The answer

then is, no, you don’t. If you do—and I am not trying to catch you

in a prevarication. I am stating, and why don’t we leave it with

this, if you have specifics against this lab that we rely upon for accurate results, then I would strongly encourage you to bring them

forward. I can understand your interests, because your article

failed the lab test. And you want to have another test at a different

facility. And I don’t question that. That is fine. But what I am worried about is the very clear suggestion you made that this laboratory that we rely upon may conduct itself inappropriately. So I am

just going to leave that part of the question. And if you can detail

that, please share it with us, because I think it is something that

is critical and needs to be pursued.

Having said that, Mr. Coyle, in your testimony you said from the

outset it was apparent NBC would not have the capacity to conduct

full scale body armor tests, etc. Why was that obvious? Why were

they not able to do that?

25

Mr. COYLE. The tests that NBC conducted in Germany were done

in one day. The setup took longer than that, because that is what

happens when you do a test.

Mr. MCHUGH. Then they were not able to because they chose not

to?

Mr. COYLE. Exactly.

Mr. MCHUGH. Did they discuss this with you? You are an expert

in the field. You understand the need to fully test under the other

circumstances, the temperature, the salt water, the diesel fuel. Did

you talk to them about that? And if so, what kind of explanation

did they provide?

Mr. COYLE. Those kinds of tests are quite difficult and expensive

to do, high temperature, low temperature, salt water, all of those

things, and expensive to do. And in fact the Army itself, General

Brown in his press conference the other day pointed out that the

Army itself puts off those tests when they are testing body armor

because if it is going to fail the easier tests, so to speak, they don’t

want to spend the money on the more difficult tests. So I think it

was really a matter of time and resources.

Mr. MCHUGH. Do you feel—you stated repeatedly, or at least

gave the suggestion that Dragon Skin met Army standards. And I

think what you would mean to say is at ambient temperature only;

is that correct?

Mr. COYLE. And that is what I say in my testimony, yes.

Mr. MCHUGH. Do you feel the other tests are irrelevant, that

they shouldn’t be conducted? If indeed the slides that have been

shown to you as to what the Army describes as catastrophic failures of Dragon Skin, through a variety of the varying testing environments, if that was indeed the case, what would your conclusion

be as to that being the preferable system?

Mr. COYLE. The other tests are very important, tests at high and

low temperature, with diesel oil, motor oil, salt water, all of those

other tests are very important, and I would not say that they are

irrelevant at all. Quite the contrary, they are very important and

need to be done. My point was only that NBC didn’t do them. You

can quarrel that maybe they should have spent more of their

money doing a wider slate of tests, but they didn’t. But no, those

other tests are very important, and I think really only the Army

can do that. I think the Army Test and Evaluation Command can

do those tests just fine.

Mr. MCHUGH. All right. Well, just if I may, Mr. Chairman, to

close, I have no interest in seeing one manufacturer over another.

Like every other member, we need to procure the best. And I want

to echo the statements of my colleagues, that is the critical interest

and the only objective of this committee on a bipartisan basis. And

if it is one system or another we should buy the best.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentleman. Mr. Taylor, the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the

gentlemen for being with us, and I appreciate your interest in this.

Mr. Coyle, I have got to admit that you have confused me. I

thought I heard you in the beginning say that the Army had performed an unfair test, that the test that NBC had performed was

26

more accurate, and just a minute ago I thought I understood you

to say that the Army had performed a very good test, that the conditions that they subjected the body armor to were what they

should have. And so I am going to give you the opportunity to clarify for me which is it? And one other thing. I have got to admit that

when I first saw that the Army had subjected this to diesel and

motor oil and very huge temperature changes, it was one of those

moments where you go, gee, that is brilliant. Because they are

going to get soaked with diesel fuel, they are going to get soaked

with motor oil, and yes, when you go from the valleys of Afghanistan to the mountains of Afghanistan you are going to have huge

temperature differences. So that makes perfect sense.

So I want to give you, number one, tell me which of your statements did I get wrong? And the second one is what tests have we

missed that you would include in a fair comparison?

Mr. COYLE. Mr. Taylor, I did not say that the Army conducted

an unfair test. There is nothing in my testimony that says that the

Army conducted an unfair test, and I am sorry if you got that impression, because I never intended anything of the sort. The tests

that were conducted by H.P. White, I wasn’t there, I can’t say what

happened. So I am not even in a position to say they were unfair.

I wasn’t there and wouldn’t say so, not having had that opportunity.

I did raise some questions in my written testimony, which I did

not go into in my oral testimony, about the briefings that we have

been talking about. But I think Mr. Hunter and others have already gotten to those questions with Mr. Neal. So my point was

simply that the tests that I observed in Germany showed that

Dragon Skin was at least equal to Interceptor, if not better.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Coyle, again let’s—again I think the Army did

us all a favor by doing what I think is a more accurate test. I do

think a soldier, sailor, Marine is probably going to get diesel

splashed on him at some point, probably going to get motor oil

splashed on him at some point. It is going to stay with that vest

for the life of that vest. And yes, they are going to be exposed to

extreme temperatures. And again, that is the reality that we have

to deal with.

Did you have a problem with any of those other factors being included in the Army tests?

Mr. COYLE. Not at all. And I don’t why you would think that I

would, because obviously all of those factors are important, and the

Army standards have to be met by any company that makes body

armor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Do you question the validity then of the Army results that reported penetrations in the Dragon Skin?

Mr. COYLE. I have no basis to question them. I wasn’t there.

Mr. TAYLOR. How about you, Mr. Neal, because I thought I heard

you say that those weren’t penetrations?

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Hunter, Mr. Duncan Hunter brought up—he

brought me to specific pages, pointed at specific x-rays. And as I

elaborated in those specific x-rays, if you will look on the motor oil

exposure, for example, it shows a big red circle, and it says right

there, it shows where it is supposed to be a penetration. It is clearly evident that right there is a projectile core. If the projectile core

27

is there, it did not exit the armor; it was not a complete penetration. Likewise—excuse me, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. No, because I am trying to learn something here

and I need to be asking the questions.

Mr. NEAL. Okay. All right.

Mr. TAYLOR. All right. So we have a discrepancy as to whether

or not it was a penetration. But was the impact in the indentation

enough to have caused a fatality, even if it wasn’t a penetration?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. All of the blunt trauma Back Face signatures,

Back Face deformations on the Dragon Skin system have always

been between 50 and 62 percent less than any current plated system today manufactured, whether it be military or commercial.

Mr. TAYLOR. So why would the Army in this official publication

call that a penetration?

Mr. NEAL. I have absolutely no idea why they would do that. It

is just like the same thing that I started to go to, which I got sidetracked on with Mr. Hunter——

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Neal, let’s bring this back to reality. Are you

telling me if you were wearing this vest that had been subjected

to this test and that round hit you in the chest, would that have

killed you or not?

Mr. NEAL. No.

Mr. TAYLOR. And you stand by that absolutely?

Mr. NEAL. Yeah, because the bulletis sitting right there in the

body armor. Yes, sir. The other thing I was trying to get to is if

you look, there is actually three briefs provided in your package.

You will see on the high temperature on one brief they show first

shot complete penetrations on all of it. On another brief they only

show it on three of them. There is a lot of discrepancies between

various briefs that have been handed out. And to me, when you

start having discrepancies in information handed out in briefs, and

it doesn’t matter whether it is to all of you people here or whether

it is to a military person, to a mother and father in the field or to

a law enforcement, you can’t give different data for different audiences. That is providing disinformation to them. A lot of this is

played upon what people don’t know. Nobody caught any of this

stuff with the bullet still stuck in the x-rays. Why would the Army

put an x-ray up there that clearly shows a projectile defeated on

the armor, call it a defeat when—I mean a complete penetration

when it was not? That is just like the information provided on the

weight. You got coverages wrong. Nothing jives. Nothing makes

sense. And if you are going to cover something as important as a

safety issue to protect people’s lives, you at least need to get it accurate. That is why I am saying and I am asking for an independent test, because the information coming out from the Army is

fraught full of inaccuracies. And that is not how it happened. That

is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Gentleman. Mr. Miller from Florida.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Neal,

going into the first test with the Army, what were your thoughts

about the integrity of the test? Did you feel—prior to any testing

taking place, did you feel that the lab was a credible lab, that you

were going to be given an opportunity for a fair test and fair results?

28

Mr. NEAL. I have tested before at H.P. White Laboratories. We

have done some certification testing from them in the past and we

have had no problems with them. The issue as far as whether I

thought I was going to get a fair shake, if you will, out of that, I

had trepidations. And trepidations were because of prior testings

conducted there. Not so much——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Testings by who and what?

Mr. NEAL. Right. That is what I am going to get to. Testings that

were conducted in 2005 which the Army has retroactively gone to

as saying that was the reason for their issuance of the Safety of

Use Message, where there was a test conducted for the Marine

Corps on side panels for at that time the Marine Corps, for them

to use side plates, or we provided panels—where the testing was

conducted again at the same laboratory, however again it was conducted with Mr. James Zheng defining how the armor was going

to be shot. Mr. Michael Codega for the Marine Corps was the test

director for that. In that, and the documentation is provided in

here as submitted by H.P. White Laboratories, it does show that

the armor met the requirements.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. If I could interrupt, because I only have

just a few minutes to ask questions, did you raise any of these

issues prior to the tests taking place?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, I have. And as I was instructed when we got

there—there were five different rooms where things were. I was

only allowed to be in one room at any given time during certain

events and during the testing. And I was invited there and I

was——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. No, what I am talking about is prior to

you getting there for the test, you raised those issues before you

got there?

Mr. NEAL. In the meeting with the Brigadier General Moran, I

said, you know, we have had some issues in the past. I said I just

want to make sure that——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. You had some issues or you saw some

issues?

Mr. NEAL. I saw some issues.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. You hadn’t had issues in the past?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. That there was issues in the past with

testing——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. You said we. I am sorry, you said we

have had issues in the past with the lab.

Mr. NEAL. What I meant was our equipment tested at that lab

for the Army or the Marine Corps, with the Army and the Marine

Corps directing how the tests are to be conducted, we have had

issues, and I wanted to make sure that this would be a non-issue

test, fair and unbiased, yes.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. And was it?

Mr. NEAL. I would not say so, because research and development

went on, and it should have been a First Article Test.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Is it your intent to impugn the integrity

of the Army?

Mr. NEAL. There were individuals working for Natick——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Is it, yes or no, your intent to impugn

the integrity of the Army?

29

Mr. NEAL. I am not saying that.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Can I ask you a question on a press release that you issued on the 30th of May and ask you why you

needed to put in the press release that there were concerns from

military families that the Army has manipulated tests on body

armor? That was in your press release, correct?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. And is involved in a coverup similar to

recent Walter Reed, Trophy Missile, Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch

scandals that have resulted in multiple investigations, congressional hearings and proposed punishment, retirement and demotion of several top Army officials.

What was the purpose for putting that in your press release?

Mr. NEAL. That was information provided to me by the families,

and that was their concern, and basically I was stating their concerns.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Not to impugn the integrity of the

Army?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. I am just stating their concerns.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. But it is on your letterhead, Pinnacle.

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. It was a press release. I am trying not to

hold——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. So you adhere to the accuracy of this

press release?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. I am representing what they——

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Then on the second page you say that

Defense Assistant—former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip

Coyle participated in the test, rated Dragon Skin far superior. Is

that correct?

Mr. NEAL. Yeah. I would say it was far superior.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Why did Mr. Coyle just say it was

equal, if not better, and did not say far superior?

Mr. NEAL. You will have to ask that to him, sir.

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Mr. Coyle.

Mr. COYLE. I don’t believe I have ever used the phrase ‘‘far superior.’’ It is not in my testimony, written or oral. I did say that I

thought the tests in Germany that I observed showed that Dragon

Skin was better, especially against multiple shots and against more

lethal threats.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I

might, I would like to have submitted for the record a statement

from John D. Grant from Pearcy, Arkansas, in Congressman Mike

Ross’ district, who had a son serve in the military, and would like

to have his statement submitted for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, will be submitted for the

record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant can be found in the Appendix on page 92.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. Mr. Neal, pursuing a little bit along Mr.

Miller’s line from your—I had not seen your written statement

until this morning. I don’t know if it was here or not. But on page

eight interesting you state the following. Quote, ‘‘Some of the dads

30

who have come to see me seeking Dragon Skin for their sons and

daughters in harm’s way believe that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to keep better body armor off the market. I don’t want

to believe that, but H.P. White Labs in Maryland had an explosion

and fire shortly after NBC sought to get some Army test data. I

do find that interesting,’’ end of quote.

That is from your written statement. Are you making an allegation that there was some kind of an explosion or fire set to somehow kind of cover up evidence or to get rid of test results? Do you

have any evidence that this committee or our government or the

FBI ought to have that warrants some kind of a criminal investigation of this fire or explosion that you refer to?

Mr. NEAL. I am sorry, could you say that one more time, please?

Dr. SNYDER. You make an allegation or make a statement here

that you find it interesting that there was an explosion and fire

shortly after NBC sought to get some Army test data from H.P.

White Labs. Do you have any evidence or information that this

committee—or you should be turning over to the FBI or any law

enforcement agency with regard to an allegation that there was

some kind of a fire covering up the destruction of test data at H.P.

White Labs?

Mr. NEAL. I don’t have anywhere written in here that it covered

up or destroyed any test data, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. I just read to you what you said, Mr. Neal. This is

an inflammatory statement. ‘‘I don’t want to believe that, but H.P.

White Labs in Maryland had an explosion and fire shortly after

NBC sought to get some Army test data. I do find that interesting.’’

Well, I think it is pretty clear what the innuendo you are trying

to make. But you are saying you don’t have any evidence that there

was any kind of criminal activity that went on in regard to that

fire. Is that correct?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Coyle, it is not clear to me—one of the concerns

I have is the difference in the Army testing on the Interceptor Body

Armor, between what the Army does and what you all demonstrated in Germany. Is it clear to you that the Interceptor Body

Armor that was tested in Germany is identical to what our troops

use?

Mr. COYLE. No, sir. I did not, you know, go to the factory where

Interceptor is built. I think in both instances Mr. McGee and Mr.

Neal each brought the best they had. I think they both wanted to

do as well as they could.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. McGee was—I think wanted to be here but was

unable to be here today, had a conflict——

Mr. COYLE. Right.

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. And submitted a statement. He states

in his written statement with regard to the NBC test, the soft body

armor Interceptor vest and the ESAPI plates were made by Protective Products International, PPI, in Sunrise, Florida. Maybe Mr.

Chairman and staff can help with this. It is my understanding that

is not one of the vendors that supplies the Interceptor Body Armor.

Is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. I could not answer that. The staff says that is

correct.

31

Dr. SNYDER. So were you aware when you did this comparison

involving this comparison testing that you were comparing the

Dragon Skin to a Interceptor Body Armor that is not currently

being supplied—that was not supplied by one of the vendors that

is currently supplying the military?

Mr. COYLE. No, I was not, and I still couldn’t speak to the pedigree of either sets of body armor that were tested.

Dr. SNYDER. And in fairness to Mr. McGee, he should have an

opportunity to submit any kind of statement for the record in response to that since he is not here.

Mr. Neal, one of the concerns I heard about, one of our members

that has a military base in their district, is that since the NBC report that there is a very active solicitation going on to sell Dragon

Skin to the families of people in Iraq. Is that correct? Since the

NBC report? Are you doing a solicitation of military families to buy

your product?

Mr. NEAL. No, we don’t solicit any families to sell our product.

In fact, we—any of this, you know, all of the stuff that has been

brought on by the media and all that, that isn’t us. We haven’t

paid for anything. All of the TV stations, like Modern Marvels, Test

Lab, Future Weapons, Mail Call, they have all come to Pinnacle.

The only thing we have done is supplied the armor to be shot. We

don’t do that, no.

Dr. SNYDER. Let me ask you a question. Mr. Coyle, why do we

call the Dragon Skin—help me with this technical question here—

why do we call the Dragon Skin an example of a flexible? Do you

use that word when you refer to the Dragon Skin?

Mr. COYLE. Yes.

Dr. SNYDER. I don’t understand that. When I picked it the up the

other day, it didn’t seem flexible. If those little plates are glued to

each other, they are glued to each other. Do they have movement

in those joints? Why do we call that flexible? Aren’t they glued into

a solid piece?

Mr. COYLE. Well, Mr. Neal can speak better to the construction,

but it is flexible in the sense that it can bend around you. Whereas

the solid plates that the Army uses that fit into pockets are solid

like a board and don’t bend. I agree with you that it is not as flexible as a jacket or something might be.

Dr. SNYDER. It seems like if it had give, the adhesive would be

having some——

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Franks.

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

gentlemen. You are aware that we have had testimony from the

Army that is what in contradiction to some of the testimony we

have heard today. And I don’t think any of us here have any motivation other than trying to give our soldiers the very best that we

can give them. And I am sure that, you know, that both sides believe that they are correct. But you know, the bottom line is that

the truth always has the last word. And it is just perhaps a little

bit unusual, the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, but we have got a gun

range in the basement of this building. And I think we ought to

take a couple of sets of both sets of this body armor and have both

sides have a sworn affidavit that this is indeed the exact armor

32

that is going into the field, and that we all go down and have some

experts there to make sure that the tests are fair, and witness this

for ourselves. Because, you know, I have to say to you that many

times expert witnesses and expert testimony only confuses those of

us who are not always experts. But I would like to see this for myself. And I would like to suggest to the chairman that the ranking

member is correct, that Mr. Hunter has got the best idea for us,

to go down and see this for ourselves. We don’t even have to let

the media in. We can talk to them afterwards. But let’s test this

out and get to the bottom of it and do what’s right for the soldiers

of this country. And I just wonder if you would be interested. We

will use the same guns, same 7.62, same box of cartridges, or several of them, to make sure that everythingis as fair as possible,

and shoot both sets front and back and see whether or not we can

get a clear picture of this.

Would the gentleman be amenable to that or does that sound entirely too straightforward?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir, I would go for that. I have no problem with

that.

Mr. FRANKS. Sometimes something so common sensical is not

embraced readily. But Mr. Chairman, I would leave that for your

consideration, and hope that perhaps we could just simply check it

out ourselves, if for no other reason—not to solve this controversy

on a broader picture. That is probably going to take a while. But

I think it would be good for this committee to witness for ourselves

the performance of this equipment for the sake of our soldiers. And

that is pretty much all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We do know that any test

would be under the same conditions such as temperatures, what it

is soaked in and the like.

Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today. I have a couple questions, first of

all for Honorable Coyle. Just to reiterate what I heard you say

from the last couple of my colleagues, you are not sure that the Interceptor Body Armor that was tested by NBC is actually the same

one that we test and we use on our Army and other service members?

Mr. COYLE. That is correct.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. And the room temperature conditions that

NBC tested are not the same as the ones that we use in the tests

that the Army has been conducting?

Mr. COYLE. The Army does require ambient room temperature

tests, but then they do more than that.

Ms. SANCHEZ. But with a broader array of different conditions?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. For Mr. Neal.

Mr. NEAL. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Have you ever responded to an RFP by our military services to put this armor on——

Mr. NEAL. Yes, ma’am, I have. And in the documents package I

provide at least five examples of responses to requests for proposals

by the Army, by the Marine Corps, by——

Ms. SANCHEZ. But you have responded?

33

Mr. NEAL. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. SANCHEZ. To the Army?

Mr. NEAL. Yes. In the pack——

Ms. SANCHEZ. You put forward to an RFP by the Army?

Mr. NEAL. Yes. I have the RFPs that we responded to, as well

as the submissions that we put in there. Every time that we submitted we have been declined because we fail to submit to the spec,

and the specs calls for rigid plate systems. We have said that we

don’t have a rigid plate system, we have a flexible system. But they

don’t allow for alternates. They are not looking for anything other

than a rigid plated system, and so we fail to get anywhere every

time.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Are you aware of anybody else in the services who

uses something other than rigid plate?

Mr. NEAL. No, ma’am.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Coyle, do you know of any other service that

uses, any other service members, any special teams that uses anything other than?

Mr. COYLE. Well, I think Mr. Neal could tell you who has bought

his armor. That is not an area where I am an expert. But I believe

he has sold his armor to, you know, to officials in a number of

agencies, including armed services, that are mentioned in my testimony.

Ms. SANCHEZ. And Mr. Neal——

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Go ahead and finish your

question, please. Finish your question, please.

Ms. SANCHEZ. I just had one last question for Mr. Neal. If you

are not actively soliciting our military families for them to buy this

armor, then what great means of communication are you using to

get this armor into their hands?

Mr. NEAL. They e-mail us. They call us. They want to know information about the armor, how they can get it. We tell everybody

that there is a Safety of Use Message out there. And now that the

Marines have put out their directive, we let everyone know about

that. We don’t hide behind anything. People call us. They just

aren’t feeling comfortable, or their sons that are over there are asking that they look into procuring the Dragon Skin because what

they are seeing in the theater from guys that have been shot, they

are overly impressed with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I will be short, because I had to be

out for about 45 minutes, and I am sure that I can’t add much

more to whathas been said. But I would say to Mr. Neal, I read

your comments about you said—and I hope you feel differently

when you finished today—you said I would be remiss if I didn’t tell

you my deep disappointment and concern in coming here. Let me

say as a Congressman that has been here for 14 years, and I represent Camp Lejeune Marine Base, and God bless our Marines and

our men and women in uniform, it is very difficult for us who go

home every weekend, and most Members do in Congress, you

might be in the grocery store, you know, for some reason, or a drug

store, and someone will come up, and they have seen the NBC

show about the body armor and what works and what does not

34

work, and this hearing is critical. And I want to thank you for your

participation, as well as Mr. Coyle, for this reason. And the next

panel I look forward to hearing from as well.

You know, it is hard. I actually I don’t tell you this for any other

reason except I want you to understand my passion for giving the

best to our men and women in uniform. I took it upon myself three

years ago, because of my regret for voting to give the President the

authority to go into Iraq, I write every family in America that has

lost a loved one. When you fight to end extensions of families, we

have sent over 6,400 letters that I have personally signed. So my

being here, Mr. Chairman, is I want to make sure that, as every

member of this committee does, that our men and women will

never have to call their moms and dads or their friends or their

wives or their husbands and say help me purchase this type of

armor because this is the best. This government owes our military

men and women the very best. And it should not be any secondguessing of what is the best for our men and women in uniform.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you

all for being here. I wanted to just go to the issue of testing to a

standard and trying to understand that a little bit more. And Mr.

Coyle, in your opinion—you have obviously been involved in this on

many occasions. Is that always the case? Have you participated in

tests where there is a side by side test, where it is actually something that is going out in the field or going to be used in some fashion? How unusual is it to have that kind of side by side test? And

do you think that is a better way of taking a look at this issue?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, Ms. Davis, I have observed, participated in side

by side tests. The Army does do them. Of course both sides, so to

speak, have to meet the standard. But side by side means more

than just testing to a standard. It means under the same conditions at about the same time. For example, the tests a year ago

conducted for the Army, a year ago last May, were not side by side

tests. They were tests of the Dragon Skin. And I don’t know what

would have happened if the Interceptor had been in those same

tests, tested exactly the same way. So it is what makes it so difficult to compare all of this.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Neal, have you been involved in

tests in the past where you would say it is an accurate and appropriate side by side test, or have you generally seen more of the

testing to the standard?

Mr. NEAL. We do both. Where we get called to do side by side

tests is because an agency or an entity feels that they really want

to make a decision, and they want to just test it for themselves

right there, aside from any protocol and procedures, the way that

they feel it would be shot on the street or, you know, in a battle

zone or whatever. And they just want to grab a rifle, whatever,

shoot it, detonate something against it, do these types of tests. So

it is not conducted in any specific way. It is just wild and random

like it would be on the street. That type of thing. And that is why

they kind of do those.

35

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. You mentioned one of the real discrepancies here is the weight, and whether or not the tests in Germany

were identical to the tests here in the States, especially concerning

the weight issue. And is that something that you can actually get

to and determine that yes, in fact, you know, any one individual

carrying this vest is going to be the same as another individual?

I mean obviously weights are—individual personal weights are different as well in terms of the way people carry themselves. I am

just wondering is there a problem here in terms of really determining that? And the other question would be whether you can test

with a moving individual essentially, and does that make a difference? Because clearly if something is so heavy that someone

can’t move quickly enough they could be caught in the crossfire and

otherwise would not have to be if they had that mobility. So how

do you see us being able to accurately diagnose that situation?

Mr. COYLE. And I think that is a place where the side by side

tests could help. You would think a simple matter like comparing

weights shouldn’t be that difficult. But the vests that we used in

Germany, that were used in the tests in Germany, there wasn’t the

kind of weight difference that the Army reports. Now maybe something has changed in the past year that I don’t know about. I can’t

explain it. But a fair comparison just of weights, forget about other

measures, would be same level of threat, you know, same size person wearing it, all of that.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Were you aware that the weight differences were quite different? Did you have any knowledge of that

going in, that perhaps they had said this was 47 pounds versus 27

or whatever? Were you aware of that and did you ask any questions about that?

Mr. COYLE. I had seen that on the Internet and news reports. I

didn’t have any firsthand knowledge, but I had seen it in the news

and all. And for exactly that reason, the ballistics lab in Germany

weighed them, which they would have done anyway, because that

is their normal protocol. So whether we suggested they would have

been weighed or not, the lab would have done it anyway and did.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. But in weighing them, were they

weighing them as if they were being used in the field under those

same circumstances? Was there any way of getting a handle on

that particular specificity?

Mr. COYLE. As I said, they did weigh them, and there was a difference. Dragon Skin was a pound or so heavier. But not the 19

pounds the Army reports, which may have been correct a year ago

because of what they compared then. But again it may have been

an apples and oranges comparison. I just don’t know.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Any particular insights as to why this

was done at the German lab?

Mr. COYLE. You would have to ask NBC that. But I think one

of the reasons they chose that lab is because it has a very good reputation, you know. They did it to typical German detailed standards.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from

Texas, Mr. Conaway.

36

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to a question

that Ms. Sanchez asked. Has Pinnacle participated in all the full

and open competitions since 1999 for body armor?

Mr. NEAL. We haven’t been able—well, we didn’t compete to all

them because when I guess Commerce Business Daily changed,

and then now it is FedBizOpps, we missed a transition there.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay.

Mr. NEAL. I can’t tell you if we have participated in everything

that has gone out, but we have participated in a substantial

amount of them.

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Apparently we are artfully choosing our

words. Is there an open competition going on right now? And if so,

are you participating in that?

Mr. NEAL. I can’t think of the entity, we put that pack in here

as well.

Mr. CONAWAY. Is the answer yes or no?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, we have responded to it, yes.

Mr. CONAWAY. So you are participating in that?

Mr. NEAL. We are still waiting on a response, whether there will

be an accepted allowance for a flexible system instead of a rigid

system.

Mr. CONAWAY. I am a CPA, so I don’t know a lot about ballistics,

but I can weigh things. And I am still trying to understand how

we can get a 19-pound differential. Let me ask a question. You

have referred to level III protection. And I am assuming that we

are really wanting level IV protection. So the page seven shows a

large for Interceptor Body Armor, with an asterisk saying that the

extra large on the Pinnacle is the equivalent, because some clothes

are measured differently. Can you see the body armor for your

Dragon Skin? Does that not weigh 47 pounds in that configuration?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. As weighed it was 46.1 pounds. And that was

an extra large with more disks in it than our full torso wrap, which

is our maximum coverage.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. You mentioned a while ago the coverage on

the IBA was 2.8 square feet?

Mr. NEAL. Approximately 2.88 square feet, yes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Seven hundred and twenty square inches is five

square feet. So that is——

Mr. NEAL. What the inches are in coverage here is the OTV component measurement, not rifle-defeating component.

Mr. CONAWAY. And your rifle-defeating component is 743 square

inches?

Mr. NEAL. No, in this one here it is 5.4. That is what I am saying

is——

Mr. CONAWAY. Five point four square feet is marginally more

than 743 square inches.

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. CONAWAY. I mean, well, 743 square inches is a 5.15 square

feet. So you are saying it really should be 5.4 square feet?

Mr. NEAL. Yes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Several times during your——

Mr. NEAL. But there is no way 2.88 square feet is in here. That

is why I said it is kind of——

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. We will get the Army up.

37

Mr. NEAL [continuing]. Misleading.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. You mentioned several times that the lab

at H.P. White did some R&D testing in the midst of the regular

scheme of the tests, and that bothers you. Did it distort the results

in your mind? I mean what bothers you about that?

Mr. NEAL. The research and development testing that went on

was under the discretion of either Mr. Zheng or Mr. Masters. They

just were following out orders as given to them. And yes, it does

bother me, because when you do a First Article Test you are there

to test the product, not do research and development during the

test.

Mr. CONAWAY. How did it distort the test?

Mr. NEAL. Well——

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. There are First Article Tests, X steps. How

were those test steps distorted by at the same time doing these

other R&D tests?

Mr. NEAL. Well, take eight of the penetrations that the Army

claims where Mr. Zheng shot it through the textile component and

didn’t even impact the Dragon Skin disks. So it wouldn’t have

stopped it anyway.

Mr. CONAWAY. So you are saying the lab took R&D tests and

folded those over into the First Article Tests as if were part of that

test?

Mr. NEAL. I am not saying the lab, I am saying Mr. Zheng did.

Mr. CONAWAY. Who is Mr. Zheng?

Mr. NEAL. He is a gentleman that was there with Mr. Masters,

running the shots and where the shots would go.

Mr. CONAWAY. Who does he work for?

Mr. NEAL. Natick.

Mr. CONAWAY. Who?

Mr. NEAL. Natick.

Mr. CONAWAY. Who is that?

Mr. NEAL. That is a research and development body in Natick,

Massachusetts.

Mr. CONAWAY. Who are they affiliated with?

Mr. NEAL. The Army.

Mr. CONAWAY. So the Army owns them?

Mr. NEAL. As far as I know, they do.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. With respect to the makeup of your market,

how much of your body armor levels II and III—help me understand. You sell to law enforcement agencies and CIA and other

kinds of folks who don’t need a combat field version of your body

armor. What is the breakup in your market between—if you know

off the top of your head?

Mr. NEAL. Well, we sell—if I could do a clump, if you will, if I

can go——

Mr. CONAWAY. What is a clump?

Mr. NEAL. Clump them together. It is probably easier for me that

way to do, like military, Federal entities and law enforcement, and

then like State and local, that kind of a deal.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay.

Mr. NEAL. Right now I would say we probably have about a 45

percent share would be DOD, probably 30, 35 percent of it, roughly,

38

would be Federal, and then the balance would be State, local law

enforcement, SWAT entities, that type of thing.

Mr. CONAWAY. You are selling 45 percent of your gear to DOD?

Mr. NEAL. To people who order it for use over in Iraq or Afghanistan, yes.

Mr. CONAWAY. So the DOD is ordering it for use in Iraq right

now?

Mr. NEAL. Individuals are.

Mr. CONAWAY. Individuals?

Mr. NEAL. Individual soldiers.

Mr. CONAWAY. The Department of Defense is not doing that?

Mr. NEAL. No, I said clump it together. What I am saying is, all

right, military related, that sort of thing.

Mr. CONAWAY. You said Department of Defense is buying 45 percent of your stuff. And that is not——

Mr. NEAL. I didn’t mean department, I clumped it.

Mr. CONAWAY. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not quite clear. Forty-five percent of your

market is sold to whom?

Mr. NEAL. To people in the military.

The CHAIRMAN. Who writes the paychecks to you? The Department of Defense? Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines?

Mr. NEAL. We have had them from various branches of the military as well as DynCorps, Department of State.

The CHAIRMAN. You said DOD.

Mr. NEAL. As I said, I clumped them in.

The CHAIRMAN. Unclump them for me. You are within the Department of Defense. If you can say, who in the Department of Defense buys your system.

Mr. NEAL. The Army buys from me. I have had the REF buy

from me. Rapid Equipping Information. REF. I have had the Navy

buy from me. And I have had the Air Force buy from me. Those

are the——

The CHAIRMAN. In great quantities?

Mr. NEAL. We have had quantities of about 680, 700 units at a

time, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Neal, I would suppose that all of the free publicity that has

been generated about the Dragon Skin——

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman get a little closer to the

microphone?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would imagine that all of the free publicity that

has been generated about the Dragon Skin armor system has been

good for the company; isn’t that true?

Mr. NEAL. It is a double-edged sword.

Mr. JOHNSON. Sales have increased as a result of this; is that

correct?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you this question: Prior to the Dateline

NBC reports in May, did you or someone known to you or someone

aided—whom you aided and encouraged provided the tip to NBC

to investigate this matter?

39

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. NBC came to me about 6 months into an investigation I was doing and asked me if I would be interested in

doing a side-by-side shoot.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you know how their side-by-side shoot got

started?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you cooperated fully with them?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Coyle. Have you

ever worked as a paid consultant to NBC?

Mr. COYLE. No, sir. You asked me that question in January, and

the answer was no then and it still is no.

Mr. JOHNSON. How about your firm? I asked you that also.

Mr. COYLE. I don’t work for a firm. I work for a think tank, and

no, they don’t either.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Coyle.

In your opinion, were the tests that were conducted by NBC

news in Germany a fair, objective, and comparable test with respect to evaluating the ballistic capability of body armor?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir. I believe that they were. They were limited,

as has been explained during the day today. They didn’t include

high temperature, low temperature, but as far as that went, yes,

I thought they were very fair.

Mr. JOHNSON. You reports say that you have got 30 years of test

and test-related experiences related to test and test-related equipment; is that correct?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. How much experience have you had in terms of

observing body armor tests and evaluation of protocols and procedures on those tests?

Mr. COYLE. Not very much. When I was in the Pentagon from

1994 to 2001, body armor was not the issue that it is today.

Mr. JOHNSON. So you have answered my question.

So tell me on what basis can you determine that the tests conducted in Germany by NBC were fair and objective?

Mr. COYLE. The basis for saying that is that both sides, so to

speak, the Interceptor and Dragon Skin were treated the same.

The tests were done under the same conditions, the same ammunition for both, the same shot patent for both. Everything was done

identically.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you know if the vendor who provided the IBA

system was a qualified source of a military body armor for both the

outer technical vests and ESAPI plates?

Mr. COYLE. No, sir. I don’t.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Neal, did you personally observe the NBC

news ballistic tests conducted in Germany?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. How did the test conducted in Germany compare

to the tests that you observed at the H.P. white test facility?

Mr. NEAL. As far as the ambient shoot that we did, it was primarily the same but the main difference is the NBC shoot they

were aiming to put six rounds on target because they wanted to

show the multiple repeat hit capability requirement that is brought

up by NIJ. So that was one of the main things.

40

The first three shots that were fired were to the shop placement

protocols as far as spacing and it was all shot to the ESABI specification issue that you asked.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did you have any input into the selection of that

particular location or that particular entity to conduct the NBC

tests?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Were you paid for any consultancy by NBC regarding the Dateline NBC expose?

Mr. NEAL. The only thing I was to do was to supply my Level

IV Dragon Skin to have it shot against an ESAPI system.

Mr. JOHNSON. Has the Dragon Skin SOV–3000 vest been tested

at NIJ Level IV threat level?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir. We are due to get tested. We are just waiting

for the range to give us the appropriate time. There is a lot of other

armor systems in front of us right now.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does that SOV–3000 vest size extra-large weigh,

I think you said, 46.1 pounds you said?

Mr. NEAL. In the configuration that is shown here and as

weighed it was 46.1 pounds. Again, that is more than we put in

our full torso wrap. Our full torso wrap will end up weighing in an

extra-large about 43.4 pounds, roughly.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that pretty heavy for a serviceman or woman

walking around or running around on patrol on duty in Iraq?

Mr. NEAL. Yeah, it would be, and again, that is one of the reasons why the Dragon Skin offers the capability being mission specific tailored as far as the amount of coverage. If you were to take

same Interceptor Body Armor, the weights of all of the added

plates come up with a square inch, if you will, aerial density and

if you were to add that same amount of coverage in aerial density

weights with the amounts of coverage that are in there, so too will

the weights go up substantially.

But the way I look at it from designing and working the Dragon

Skin body armor, is if an individual needs to add added protection

to protect themselves from IEDs or projectiles, it is better to add

flexible uninterrupted, no gap coverage than coverage which starts

to further restrict your movement as with rigid plates and has gaps

between all four plates.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Dr. Gingrey from Georgia, please.

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and to the witnesses, I

want to apologize that I have not been here for the entire hearing.

I have missed a lot of the clumping, lumping, dumping and slumping that has gone on over the last hour and a half. I had to go to

a very important press conference on medical liability tort reform.

But I do have a question, and I am glad I didn’t miss my colleague from Georgia, Representative Johnson, who just asked you

a question in regard to the company, Pinnacle Armor, in regard to

all of the publicity, did it actually increase your sales, Mr. Neal,

and I think you very emphatically said yes. It sounds like maybe

this is the Stuart Downey Hilton as in Martha, Robert and Paris

model of success. So it is kind of interesting.

I think the question that all of us probably are thinking, and I

am going to ask you, what motive do you think the Army would

41

have in not doing a good test when lives are at stake? And I have

had a young first lieutenant, president of the student body at my

alma matter, Georgia Tech, 26 years old, and was transferred from

the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Korea to Iraq a couple of years

ago, and leading his platoon the first week on the ground, he was

shot and killed below his body armor below the level of protection.

And, of course, we are constantly improving so that the femoral artery area, the groin area, as we refer to it medically, is protected.

So it just astounds me to hear you suggest, now you may say

well, we didn’t say that, but at least the suggestion that for some

ulterior motive, God knows what, maybe you can explain, that our

military would rig the system in favor of some favored vendor contractor when lives are at stake like First Lieutenant Tyler Brown,

president of the student body at Georgia Tech several years ago

who is buried at Arlington.

So just answer that question for me. Maybe you have already answered it. I don’t know. I associate myself very much with the comments of my chairman, Mr. Skelton, and our ranking member, Mr.

Hunter, and probably a lot of the others on both sides of the aisle.

But go ahead and explain that to us if you can. Why would they

do that?

Mr. NEAL. You will have to ask the Army that. We have brought

a system to them that provides several substantial advantages over

the current system. You were just talking about the femoral artery

area in the lower platform in the hip section.

We have been providing, since we started with the body armor

program in tactical armor, a groin protector that not only does it

not just hang below like the current system, it tucks up underneath so there is no gaps. It is actually wider, not as long, so it

does actually cover the hip joint areas which are the direct paths

for the femoral artery rather than something narrow.

So we provided—we provide something that is actually wider and

takes into consideration the platform as it is called much more

readily.

We provided higher up into the armor—up under the arm coverage. We have done that since the beginning. Instead of a front

opening vest, once you load a bunch of gear down on it, now the

vest has a hard time staying closed, we have always done side

opening vests with overlapping coverage so when you make an adjustment, you still have——

Dr. GINGREY. Let me interrupt you, because I have limited time,

and you are taking an opportunity to say how much better the body

armor that you provided in regard to the femoral artery or the axillary area, but that wasn’t my question. Please answer my question.

Why do you think that our Army would rig the system in regard

to this when lives are at stake? What motive would they have?

Mr. NEAL. As I said earlier, sir, I don’t know what motive they

would have. You would have to ask them.

Dr. GINGREY. Go ahead.

Mr. COYLE. I have not said that the Army rigged the tests. I

wasn’t at the test they did a year ago. Haven’t impugned the Army

in any way. And I wouldn’t. The U.S. Army is a noble institution,

and I defend them regularly.

42

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ross has a unanimous consent request at

this moment.

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for

allowing me to participate in today’s hearing on this important

topic.

Let me say quickly this issue was brought to my attention by one

of my constituents, Mr. John Grant, whose son serves in the Arkansas National Guard and has already been to Iraq once and is

getting ready to go back again.

And the father’s concern and my concern is simply making sure

that the U.S. Army is providing these young men and women with

the most technologically advanced body armor available. I don’t

care who makes it. I just want to make sure whatever is most advanced on the marketplace is being provided to our men and

women in uniform as the Arkansas 39 prepares to go back to Iraq.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that while Mr. Grant

wasn’t allowed to be on one of the panels today, I would ask that

we make part of the permanent record of this hearing a copy of his

written testimony that I can present to you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant can be found in the Appendix on page 92.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. So ordered.

Mr. Turner, the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TURNER. I have a series of questions for Mr. Neal, but I have

a question also of you, Mr. Chairman, if you would with the staff

subsequent to this hearing, follow up with Mr. Neal on his issue

of the actual numbers of the sales of this equipment. You began a

series of questions that I think this committee could benefit from

the information because just as we want to make certain that we

have the best equipment, and everyone on this committee is absolutely committed to it.

We also want to make certain that our men and women and

their families are not being taken advantage of, and I think there

are a series of further questions that our staff would be best able

to ask Mr. Neal that he could answer about the actual number of

sales, who they are being sold to, how are they being marketed to

our families.

If you would please ask the staff to do that, I would appreciate

that.

Mr. Neal, I have got to tell you, I have been on this committee

five years. Your presentation has to be one of the least professional

I have ever seen in front of this committee. I came to the hearing

expecting to hear detailed information on the success of your product. I think this is one of the greatest countries in the world for

innovation, and I wanted to hear about innovation. I wanted to

hear about a commitment to our men and women in uniform.

I am going to read to you and for the people who are listening,

excerpts of your great testimony on your product.

‘‘Some diehard military traditionalists, as one of your staff members has put out disinformation, it would seem that there is a specific convenience for convenience. Obviously being singly sighted.

But to selectively choose, body armor system was ridiculed. The

43

Army disgustingly took great liberties in deliberately stating innuendo:

‘‘The Army is going to slander me and derive our product.’’

And I want everybody to know this is your written testimony:

‘‘it is a sad commentary that the Army’s version of the truth

doesn’t always jive with the facts. General Brown conveniently

failed to tell you. General Brown said he is always looking for better body armor, but I question if that is true. I am sure some of

you are scratching your heads and asking yourself, why would the

Army lie. General Brown’s egregious assertions,‘‘—I am going to

take a pause at this point. Quite a Thesaurus that you had to turn

to for negative comments to make about individuals that you are

giving us information about.

‘‘I am sorry they just don’t understand it. They still have a ceramic plate mentality.

‘‘So in addition to not giving you all of the data, he then tries

to confuse you. We did not ask for this war. Did not seek it out and

did nothing to trigger such an overreaction by the Army.’’

And then your press release today:

‘‘During the hearing, Pinnacle Armor CEO Murray Neal will also

respond to what he calls scurrilous lies made by top Army officials.’’

And then it includes the other information about what you say

about other Army scandals.

Could you please tell me, Mr. Neal, who is Frank—I am going

to mispronounce this, I am sure—who is Frank Jiminez?

Mr. NEAL. He is an individual that works with us on—because

of this whole issue, works with us to filter the media information

that comes in to us.

Mr. TURNER. He works for you?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TURNER. This you provided to us for your testimony. In the

back of it there is a piece of information that has been prepared

by Frank for us. And it has—it has your logo, and it has Pat Tillman’s photo. It has Jessica Lynch’s photo, and it says this: ‘‘Today,

sadly these words ring with the hollowness that should make the

military hang its head in shame. From the same people who gave

us the Pat Tillman debacle, the Jessica Lynch fabrication, the Trovi

missile controversy, secret Pentagon death study and the Walter

Reed scandal, we now present Dragon Skin, the latest victim of an

Army campaign of misinformation and obfuscation.’’

This is prepared by your staff member on behalf of your company

with your company’s logo. And it is outrageous. And I am pretty

certain, and please tell me if I am wrong, do you have the permission of the Tillman family or Jessica Lynch to place this in your

corporate materials?

Mr. NEAL. You would have to ask——

Mr. TURNER. I would like you to find out for us because my guess

is going to be no.

Now let us go to the next thing you say in here.

You say, ‘‘I am a straight shooter, and I am as forthright about

that as I will be about every single thing I will tell you today.’’

Great. You have got—Mr. Chairman, I have got one quick item.

44

You say in here that there was a fire at the—your line—you say

I don’t want to believe that but H.P. white labs in Maryland had

an explosion and fire shortly after NBC sought to get some Army

test data. I do find that interesting.’’

In your straight shooting way, what does that mean?

Mr. NEAL. I was told about the fire and the information that was

given to me, and like I said, I don’t want to believe that. It just

seems somewhat coincidental. That is exactly what I meant by

that.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Courtney. Mr. Klein. Mr. Radanovich, in that order, five

minutes each. We will not take a recess. We will go immediately

to the next panel.

Mr. Courtney.

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the NBC story, there was a definite point made that other

government agencies besides the Army and the Marines have U.S.

employees that are using Dragon Skin. Congressman Wilson and I

were over in Afghanistan last week, had escorts of State Department personnel as well as some of the civilian security guards that

were with us, and it was pointed out to me that a number of them

were actually wearing Dragon Skin,

And again, you have started a few times during today’s testimony to talk about your sales to government agencies of Level IV

Dragon Skin. I guess—I think it would be very helpful because

having seen it in Afghanistan, I mean, obviously there are people

out there that are in this theater who are voting with their feet.

They are buying your product and they work for the U.S. Government, and that certainly, at best, or at worst, sends a mixed message to our troops who may be wondering about whether or not

they are, in fact, getting the best body armor.

So, again, the NBC story indicated that the Central Intelligence

Agency uses Dragon Skin; is that true?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. COURTNEY. And again, having seen the State Department

employee in Afghanistan wearing Dragon Skin, is that another

agency where employees buy Dragon Skin?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir, or the State Department has purchased them

themselves as well.

Mr. COURTNEY. So the State itself, in some instances, has purchased your products?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. COURTNEY. And the Department of Defense clump that you

referred to earlier, again, those are individual purchases by soldiers or their families; is that happening?

Mr. NEAL. Individual soldiers, and we have sold to various

branches earlier on. The clump was like for use in the military operations overseas.

Mr. COURTNEY. It sounded like there were high ranking officers

whose own bodyguards were also using Dragon Skin in the story

that NBC presented.

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. And, in fact, in the packet, there is the data

that show—it has got the contract for both of those times where

45

the commanding general, his personal security detail, had procured

the Dragon Skin in a concealed variant. The Dragon Skin is the

only body armor that you can get rifle coverage in a concealed vest.

Mr. COURTNEY. Are there any other branches, Navy or Air Force,

that use Dragon Skin?

Mr. NEAL. They have bought and so have individual airmen and

sailors from the various branches.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, obviously emotions are running

pretty high in this hearing today and there are certainly issues

about the testimony, which I agree with the prior member could

have been presented better, frankly. But to me, again, the bottom

line, it is not about you or us or the services. It is about what the

confidence level is of our troops. And the fact that, again, the

American government is, on the one hand, setting up a ban and yet

other agencies are purchasing it and other individuals are feeling

the need to purchase it suggests to me that at best or at the minimum, we ought to be getting to the bottom of this with a totally

purely independent test so that people will have their questions answered.

Like Congressman Ross, I have a constituent in my district, exMarine, whose son is about to go off on his second deployment, a

Marine who has been in constant contact with my office since the

day I got elected last November, demanding help so that his son

can get Dragon Skin protection. And again, it is hard, I believe, for

us as Members of Congress or government officials, to say that he

can’t have what other people who work for our government feel

they need and are able to have.

And that is—to me it is an untenable situation that we have got

to resolve in a fair and open and transparent process and hopefully

without some of the over the top finger pointing, which, again, I

think legitimately has been criticized today. So with that, I yield

back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I am anxious to get to the second panel

and hear from the Army and Marines. I don’t have any questions

for these witnesses. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask this before I go to Mr. Radanovich.

Are there any present contracts for Dragon Skin ongoing between

your company and the Department of Defense?

Mr. NEAL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When was the last time that there was any such

contract with the Department of Defense or a subsidiary thereof?

Mr. NEAL. The last time—I don’t have that data here to tell you

when the last contract——

The CHAIRMAN. Your best recollection.

Mr. NEAL. It would have been last year.

The CHAIRMAN. With whom was that?

Mr. NEAL. We had one—just bear with me one second.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you find the answer, Mr. Neal?

Mr. NEAL. I believe it was with the Army, but I have to find it

to give you exactly which one it was.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

46

Did you certify as to the level of protection that your vest gives

to the National Institute of Justice at any time? Any member of the

Armed Forces or subsidiary thereof?

Mr. NEAL. I am sorry. I don’t understand the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn’t there a Level III protection?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. There is.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever state that your vest rises to the

level of Level III based upon the National Institution of Justice

test?

Mr. NEAL. Once we received the certification yes, we have. Prior

to that we tested—we test to the same threat level and have it

tested at an independent laboratory, but we weren’t seeking the

certification because NIJ had to adopt a new protocol and procedure for flexible armor.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Radanovich, please.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you for inviting me to the committee. It

is an honor to be part of this hearing today.

I want to say, Pinnacle Armor is manufactured in my district in

California. Back in 2005, myself and some of my colleagues had requested that the Army do tests on the vests, and I am pleased to

know that the Army has.

I think the idea of the test was to make real clear which was the

better test, and unfortunately I think that still to me remains uncertain.

But I did, Mr. Coyle, have a couple of questions for you.

And one is, as I understand these testing standards by the FBI,

the CIA, the U.S. Marshall and other agencies are mentioned in

your testimony, that they currently use or purchased Dragon Skin,

are they more strenuous than the Army standards and if so, why,

in your opinion, has Dragon Skin passed the test of the test of the

FBI, CIA and U.S. Marshall but not the Army’s test?

Mr. COYLE. Well, in some cases, the National Institute of Justice

does have higher standards, more difficult standards than the

Army does. For example, requiring six shots instead of three in one

case, or just one shot in another case.

So there are differences. But I wasn’t trying to make a special

point about that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the U.S. Army test evaluation and command

conducted a comparable side-by-side test of both the Interceptor

and the Dragon Skin body armor, which, in your expert opinion, do

you believe would prove to be the superior piece of equipment?

Mr. COYLE. It would be hard to say because I haven’t seen the

high temperature tests yet, I haven’t seen the low temperature

tests, haven’t seen the motor oil and all of those. So until you have

seen a full suite of tests, which NBC did not do, and I dare say

you would have a hard time doing in the basement of this building,

it would be hard to say.

Mr. RADANOVICH. While I feel that Pinnacle Armor, and Mr. Neal

might be advised to get a public relations expert on the material

that they do pass out, that might be advice well taken, I still think

the bottom line of the test is to, and ought to be of everybody here

today, which piece of armor is the best to protect the lives of men

and women who are on the ground in the battlefield. And I don’t

47

think that the tests that have been conducted has really proven

that, and that is why I support an independent study going out so

we can answer that question.

I don’t fault the military, and I don’t think this ought to be any

insult toward the military. I think what is lacking is an apples-toapples comparison which may be difficult to do by the nature of the

vests and the plates versus the scales and getting something that

is an equal comparison. I don’t think I have seen, by what has been

presented today, that there is that comparison made.

And I really think that we owe it to our troops and the men and

women on the ground to go back and make sure that we know that

these are—that there is an apples-to-apples comparison test here

that does prove which is the better vest, because our troops on the

ground ought to be wearing that better vest.

Again, I make no slight toward the military. I think some of the

material that Pinnacle has submitted is inappropriate. But you

know, this isn’t a debate about whether, you know, they are insulting the military. This is a debate on which is the best vest to protect the troops on the ground. And I think we need to make the

extra effort to guarantee that.

And with that, again, I thank the chairman for allowing me to

be a part of this committee and yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hunter.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and pardon me for stepping out for a minute and we are all Jacks of many trades; we have

got other stuff we have got to do, and I think this has been a very

good hearing.

Let me follow on with my friend with this statement.

Mr. Neal, when we walked through this thing, you did say that

the first penetration that was made you didn’t—you didn’t see—you

were standing there, you don’t think that was done unfairly or at

a bad angle or was somehow a trick, but that that appeared, in

fact, to be a penetration, and you sometimes have those, and you

have to keep testing, and that may be just a defective one-in-a-million piece of equipment you have.

Is that fairly accurate?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Having said that, Mr. Coyle, you have a long

reputation of very fastidious testing where you would come to this

committee after something had been shot 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 times

and you would say no, it is not ready for prime time. We had a failure.

Now here is what we had. Mr. Neal had a test with the U.S.

Army for practical purposes in a lab with integrity, a recognized

certified, et cetera, laboratory. They had a test with him standing

there and did a penetration. They then went to you and NBC and

you guys did a separate test.

Did he tell you about the first test where they had the penetration?

Mr. COYLE. I saw from, as I say, materials that I saw in the

press and other places, I saw that that had happened. So I knew

that the history from the tests a year ago was different. I didn’t

know what to expect——

48

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt. Answer the question. Did he

tell you?

Mr. COYLE. He didn’t, but he didn’t need to because I already

knew it.

Mr. HUNTER. You knew there had been a total frontal penetration in this.

Mr. COYLE. I knew that before the tests in Germany began.

Mr. HUNTER. I thought you told me earlier on in this testimony,

I asked you after you had done the 12 shots or the 18 shots that

were done in Germany, if you knew about the shot that went all

the way through that was done in the Army lab, would you have

then said that this was superior to the Army product and you said

no. At least, that is what I got back about half an hour ago.

Mr. COYLE. If the results in Germany had been like the results

that are——

Mr. HUNTER. That wasn’t my question. My question was if you

had known about those results at a government lab like the ones

you relied on for years when you take data from one of those government labs and say, Armed Services Committee, this is what we

just got. The missile failed. I would not recommend going ahead.

You did not say I think that this is duplicitous or we should do another test with a non-governmental lab. You said they failed. Don’t

go ahead.

Now you had a shoot there that would have been fatal to a soldier wearing that vest, right?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Now if you had known that and you presumed that it was done under good conditions, and in this case

they are unique conditions because your client or clients or the gentleman who owns the company was allowed by the Army was allowed to stand there and watch the shot and boom, the shot went

through, would you have then said without further testing that this

appeared to be a superior product to the Army product?

Mr. NEAL. If I hadn’t seen the results from the tests in Germany,

no, sir. The Army has, I think, a very important position here. The

Army says that one penetration is too many. And I agree with that.

I think they are just right when they emphasize that point of view.

Mr. HUNTER. So here is my question. You took how many shots

in Germany?

Mr. COYLE. All in all, of all of the different types, 31.

Mr. HUNTER. But the ones that you had, your primary ones you

talked to us about, that was 18: Three sets of 6; is that right?

Mr. COYLE. Yes.

Mr. HUNTER. So you took three sets of six and you had no penetrations, right?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Neal, before that, had his product which he selected, took down to the Army lab and they shot it and no complaints from Mr. Neal and boom, it went through with a killing

shot, right?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. So for practical purposes there you have at least

one killing shot, and then you did 18 that were defeated.

49

Now I have known you for a long time testifying before this committee. Would you think that you could make that conclusive statement that it was superior to the Army product without shooting it

a lot more times? This is the operational and test guy who tells us

that thoroughness is so important?

Mr. COYLE. All I said was based on the test that I saw in Germany, Pinnacle performed better.

Mr. HUNTER. We are getting to my point, and Mr. Chairman, I

hope you would suffer me here because this is an important point.

Based on your statement, because you have a—you have an outstanding reputation. You are charged not only with the tests that

you stood and watched, you are also charged with the information

that comes from an officially certified military lab, like the ones

you relied on for 20 years in your profession.

Now having known that fact, and Mr. Neal does not dispute it,

that was a killing shot through that vest, would you then say that

this lab—that this vest was ready for prime time?

Mr. COYLE. No, sir, and I do not say that today. What I say is

the tests in Germany, which were limited, and which I say in my

testimony were limited, based on those, as far as they went, which

wasn’t far enough, the Dragon Skin did better.

Mr. HUNTER. So you are saying today, and I hope somebody from

NBC is in the audience, you are saying today that based on those

18 shots and the shot that you now know about that was a killing

shot, you can’t say it is ready for prime time; is that your testimony?

Mr. COYLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Now having said that, Mr. Neal, you have

thousands of parents reading articles who are going to go out now

and pay five grand a piece for this thing, don’t you think it is important for them to know not only about the successful test that

NBC did, but the killing shot that was made, the unsuccessful defending of that vest which you would call a defeat of the vest rather than a defeat of the bullet, that that killing shot was made in

a test that you personally watched.

I mean, if you are going to look a parent in the eye, you talk

about looking parents in the eye, I have got a kid in theater who

has done three tours. He reads the same newspaper articles that

say this appears to be better than anything else. Don’t you think

you have an obligation to tell those parents, you know, I have

watched one shot that went right through the heart, and I have got

to tell you that to be honest.

Don’t you think you have that obligation?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, sir. I do. But——

Mr. HUNTER. Have you ever made it available in any of your literature?

Mr. NEAL. May I finish the rest of my thought here, please?

Having said that, the test protocol and procedures has requirements in it and a lot of people know, as well as I do, that there

have been a lot of people killed from one shots through the SAPI

plates. The Dragon Skin Interceptor—sorry about that—the Dragon Skin body armor system does far superior in performance on a

regular basis. It is far more superior against fragmentation than

anything out there. But this is a science that is not 100 percent.

50

And nobody, I don’t know the Army or anyone else, that will state

that body armor can 100 percent of the time defeat a round.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay. Mr. Neal, having said that then, don’t you

think it is your obligation to tell the mothers and dads of this country when they read these articles that imply that Dragon Skin is

a supreme type of a protection system, that you, in fact, did the

test, the test that you did, that you don’t disagree with, when you

were standing there you were personally there, a killing shot went

through that. Don’t you think they need to know that as a caveat

before they go down and spend their $5,000? And Mr. Coyle, your

tester, now says it is not ready for prime time.

Now don’t you think that you at least owe that—if you are going

to have these statements circulating in the press that are going to

upset parents and make them think that there is a super system

out there, and it may overall, in fact, I think some of the aspects

of this system, the flexibility of the system, the possibility being

able to use this where you can put more weight on it where you

are using armored vehicles, et cetera, where you are not having to

carry stuff in a squad formation, I think there is a lot of possibilities here.

But I think the idea that you circulate this implication without

telling them that you stood there and watched a killing shot go

through this, I think that is not full disclosure. I think you owed

full disclosure to Mr. Coyle, and I hope Mr. Coyle says it is not

ready for prime time. That is not the headline that goes out over

Dragon Skin. The headline that goes out over Dragon Skin is that

it is fantastic.

One last point here that I think needs to be made is this:

I saw this thing, and I told my guys to have you come in, or whoever your team is and show us because I wanted to get good stuff

out to the field. About a year before NBC showed it.

Your guys came in, they briefed up our team. We called the

Army, told them to test it. They said we are testing it, and they

subsequently tested it, and those are the results that we have been

discussing in that handout. That they did test it. And it may be

better than they have advertised. It may be worse than they have

advertised, and I want to see a test. In fact, I am ready to go down

with an M–14 and some 7.62 stuff to the Marine Corps lab and try

to get some shots off in the next week or so.

But everywhere you go, you leave the implication that everybody

is a devil. I have got great professional staff members who called

your guys in at my request, not NBC’s, long before they discovered

this because we heard about it. A few days later, their names pop

up on Web sites saying that staff members of the Armed Services

Committee are the devil, that somehow they are in a conspiracy to

thwart you from trying to get good stuff to the troops.

Every place you go you get these apocalyptic letters describing

anybody who has questions about this as a devil and when you are

asked about this about these letters in the hearing, you say you

know, I was just passing along the concerns of the families.

I think it might be interesting for the families to know, in fact

I would like to hear from them, how many got the information from

you when you stood there and had your test, your vest shot, and

the bullet went all the way through it, and you didn’t report that

51

to anybody. You didn’t think those families needed to be burdened

with that knowledge, did you?

Mr. NEAL. I didn’t say that, sir. And as far as the comment to

what goes on on the Web sites, I don’t have any control——

Mr. HUNTER. Wait one second. Your team came in and—the

Armed Services guys said hey, we want to see this and test it.

Within days, comments about them that weren’t very laudatory appeared on Web sites. Now the only people in here talking with

them were your representatives.

And so I think—I think you need to acknowledge to this committee do you think any of the Armed Services staff members have

tried to thwart you or have a conspiracy against you any way? I

think you need to acknowledge that for the cameras so if there is

a problem, we know about that.

Mr. NEAL. I didn’t say that, and I am not here to insinuate that.

What I want to tell you is a, whatever goes out over the Web site

and the blogs, I have no control over. I will respectively make a

statement to the chairman and the honorable members here that

this is my first time here, and I might not be one that articulates

very well some of the information that goes out. And for that, you

know, I will apologize to you, and I will apologize to the American

public. I am not a great writer. But when I am quoting and providing information that has been given to me, I have no control over

that.

Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask you to do one thing.

You have got these Web sites out there that obviously follow

every statement that you make. And in some cases, you are saying

they expand them or they turn them in some way that is far beyond what you have said.

I think you have an obligation to go to them after this hearing

and tell them if there hasn’t been a conspiracy on the part of the

members of our staff to somehow thwart you or have some kind of

a campaign to keep your product from being seen or tested or

heard, I think you need to make that statement to them so that

that—so that that matter is cleared up because obviously an impression has been given by these things that go out on the Internet. And if you are saying you have nothing to do with that and

you have no information that would back that up, I think it is important to clear that up.

Do you think that is a fair thing?

Mr. NEAL. I can do that if I knew which Web sites.

Mr. HUNTER. I think one that immediately reported after your

trip down here that said that you had been conspired against was,

I think the Web site called Soldiers For the Truth. Now somebody

from your team obviously talked to them and even while they were

criticizing the staff members, the staff members were calling the

Army saying let us do this test.

Mr. NEAL. I don’t know, sir. I don’t write for Soldiers For the

Truth.

Mr. HUNTER. Your people obviously talked to them because your

folks were the only guys here in the meeting.

Mr. NEAL. We get called by a lot of people all the time about

stuff and asking questions.

52

Mr. HUNTER. In that case, why don’t you make it clear that the

staff members treated you in a professional way and that you did

get a test from the Army following or subsequent to the meeting

that your folks had here even if you don’t agree with the tests.

Mr. NEAL. And I never said that we didn’t. No, sir. I didn’t.

Mr. HUNTER. If you would make that affirmatively clear, I think

that is important to us.

Having said that, I think we need a test. So I think we have got

all of the information that we need to put this stuff side by side,

get those M–14s ready to go and if we can get better equipment

to the troops, let us do it.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from California.

I am troubled, Mr. Neal. In front of me is a photograph of an apparent attachment to the body armor itself. At the top it says Pinnacle Armor and your address, the Web site number, personal body

armor. It has the size and the model and the serial number. Then

it says this: The manufacturer certifies that this model of armor

has been tested through NLECTC and has been found to comply

with Type 3, performance in accordance with NIJ standard

0101.04.

Warning: This garment is rated only for the ballistic threat level

stated above where the plates or composite disks are in place.

Areas outside the zone are designed for Level IIIA ballistic protection only.

This is dated April 14, 2006.

I have in front of me a letter from the Department of Justice

dated December 20, 2006, a letter to you. Dear, Mr. Neal, it is notice of compliance with NIJ 2005 interim requirements body armor

model Level III.

And what I found to be interesting is that this attachment to the

body armor is dated April 14th, 2006 and the actual certification

is December 20, 2006.

I will not ask you to explain that. But I merely point this out

that this is a serious discrepancy of making an ascertain months

before it actually came to pass.

We will now go to our second panel.

[Recess.]

Dr. SNYDER [presiding]. I am going to go ahead and introduce

you here.

We will now move to the second panel. With us today are representatives of each of the military services, the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Justice, H.P. White

Laboratory. We really appreciate you being here and we appreciate

the fact that you have stuck with us this long, and he heading into

this afternoon.

Representing the Army is Lieutenant General Ross Thompson,

III, Military Deputy/Director of the Army Acquisition Corps, Office

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army.

Representing the Department of the Navy Mr. Roger Smith, the

Deputy Assistant, Secretary of the Navy, Littoral and Mine Warfare.

Representing the Marine Corps, Colonel Ed Smith, Product

Group Director, Combat Equipment and Support Systems.

53

Representing the Air Force, Mr. Douglas Thomas, Executive Director for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

Representing the Special Operation Forces Command Colonel

Kevin Noonan, Program of Executive Office, Special Operations

Forces.

Representing the Government Accountability Office is Mr. Bill

Solis, Director of Defense Capabilities and Management Team.

Representing the National Institute of Justice is Dr. John Morgan, assistant director.

The CHAIRMAN. General Thompson, it is my understanding that

you will be the lead witness and the other services may join in as

you all deem fit, and if you want us to wait, you begin wherever

you want to wait. You may know that the noise level is going to

continue here so you fire away whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. N. ROSS THOMPSON, III, MILITARY

DEPUTY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR

ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

General THOMPSON. Thank you. I think I will go ahead and start.

I am prone to be heard——

Good afternoon. Chairman Skelton, Congressman Hunter and

distinguished committee members, we thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Interceptor Body Armor system.

With me today is Brigadier General Mark Brown, who is our program executive officer soldier and members of his organization, and

you have already introduced the other panel members.

We have a joint written statement that I respectfully request be

made part of the record for today’s hearing, but let me say at the

outset that it is a distinct honor to appear before you and to have

this opportunity on behalf the Army’s senior leadership to assure

you and your fellow Members of Congress, the American people,

our service members, and the loved ones of our brave men and

women in uniform, that we in the Department of Defense have no

higher priority than force protection.

Cost and affordability are not the deciding issues. The pertinent

issues for us are whether lives will be saved, the lives of our service members and those who lead them.

Interceptor Body Armor saves lives. It is the most effective body

armor available anywhere on earth. And that is why our men and

women in uniform wear it and have confidence in it. It is passed

rigorous live fire and environmental testing, and most importantly,

has been proven in combat time and again.

Although no body armor will be fielded to our troops until it has

passed rigorous testing, there is another key factor when determining a system’s operational suitability and that is the weight of the

system.

The Army continues to look at ways to reduce the weight of body

armor and all other soldier equipment and to better distribute that

weight. In this case, there have been eight improvements to the Interceptor Body Armor system, including four vest weight reductions, enhancements to the ballistic plates, the introduction of supplemental protection for the sides, arms, neck, and groin areas, and

improvements to the overall design of the outer vest.

54

Our men and women in uniform wear body armor that offers the

best protection available.

To demonstrate its life saving capabilities, we have today Specialist Gregory Miller. He is originally from Peoria, Illinois. On December 18, 2006, he and his fellow soldiers in C Company, Second

Battalion 327th Infantry 101st Airborne Division were in Kirkut,

Iraq. Specialist Miller was dismounted pulling security at a busy

intersection while his unit conducted weapons inventories at a political party headquarters. Suddenly and without warning, he was

hit by a sniper with a 7.62 mm round. Fortunately he was wearing

Interceptor Body Armor, and he sustained the hit in the back plate

top right corner. Specialist Miller was able to continue his mission

because of the protection he received, and I will note, and he can

discuss this later, that he put this body armor on one hour before

he was hit with the 7.62 mm round.

He will stay after the hearing to demonstrate and discuss the Interceptor Body Armor he is wearing.

He is one of America’s finest, and I would like him to stand up

and, and I would like to thank him publicly for his outstanding

service to our nation.

[Applause.]

Every soldier has at least one set of body armor, and when improvements are made, we quickly field the new equipment with priority to those in combat or those deploying to combat. We continually seek improvements to our body armor, and when we are presented with the potential improvement, we test it to the highest

standards, and when and only when those standards are met, production in fielding begin.

The safety of our soldiers is paramount. In March of 2006, the

Army issued a Safety of Use Message prohibiting the use of any

commercially available body armor products to include Dragon

Skin that are not Army approved and issued.

This Safety of Use Message was issued as a result of several previous tests that took place from May 2004 to February of 2006 on

Dragon Skin. These tests indicated that Dragon Skin did not meet

the Army requirements. So we are talking about five previous

tests, not just the test in May of 2006 that was referred to in the

panel one testimony today.

As a result of the Safety of Use Message Pinnacle Dragon Skin

2000 Body Armor purchased by an Army unit was turned into the

PEO and as indicated during the previous panel’s testimony, it contained a fraudulent National Institute of Justice certification statement that was fully 8 months before the National Institute of Justice certified that version of the body armor.

Each vest contained the Pinnacle Armor’s manufacture label

with the compliance statement that was read by Chairman Skelton.

Army coordination with the National Institute of Justice revealed

that this statement was not true. As of April 2006, the 2000 Dragon Skin armor had not been tested by NIJ and was not certified

to defeat the Level III threat.

In my opinion, this is a serious fraudulent claim, and it is my

hope that the investigative process results in the appropriate consequences.

55

In the interest of fairness and because of intense media interest

in Dragon Skin, the Army chose to run a full test of Dragon Skin

last spring. In May 2006, H.P. White Laboratory, an independent

test facility, certified by the National Institute of Justice for ballistic testing, tested Pinnacle’s 3000 Level IV Dragon Skin vest using

the same test protocols that we use with the Interceptor Body

Armor. Before the testing was halted, the Dragon Skin vest suffered 13 of 48 first- or second-round shot complete penetrations

failing four of eight initial subtests.

The bottom line is that the Dragon Skin vest did not stop the

bullets.

And we can get into this in the questions and answers later, but

Congressman Snyder and others asked a key question on who provided that body armor for the test that was conducted by NBC in

Germany, and we have indicated from talking to NBC that PPI

provided that body armor but that body armor that was provided

for the NBC test was not from one of the six certified and tested

producers of the body armor that is used by the military.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to highlight an issue

of grave concern to me and that is the role of a responsible press,

and in that term, I include the print media and the broadcasting

industry. The press is an important guarantor of our freedom, and

with that right, comes the responsibility to get the facts right and

the stories straight.

The Army did not go public with our test results from last year

because we are dealing with the very media-savvy enemy. The airing of the NBC news story prompted the Army to release information to assure service members and their families that the Army

is providing the best body armor available. In this case, credible

and factual evidence provided by the Army was cast aside for a

sensational story that just was not true. It created needless worry

among our men and women in uniform and their families and provided an adaptable enemy with additional information about how

we equip our solders for the important missions they perform. It

is a most unfortunate situation, and in my view, brings NBC’s

credibility into serious question.

This concludes my opening marks. I want to thank you, the

members of the committee, for this opportunity to assure the families of our courageous men and women in uniform that they receive

the best equipment including the finest body armor in the world so

they can accomplish their mission successfully and return home

safely, and we look forward to your questions.

[The joint prepared statement of General Thompson and General

Brown can be found in the Appendix on page 134.]

Dr. SNYDER [presiding]. Who else has an oral statement they

want to make.

Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF ROGER M. SMITH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, (EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE)

Mr. ROGER SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. Snyder, other distinguished

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be

back here today and appear to discuss the Navy’s body armor proVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
56

grams. I would like to ask that my statement be submitted for the

record.

The Navy procures and fields various body armor configurations

based upon our ashore and maritime mission requirements as defined by the combat commanders. These systems all provide a minimum of defense level IIIa ballistic protection, while enhanced systems that are scalable provide level IV protection to meet the most

stressing mission requirements.

Today, we have 13,000 Navy personnel deployed on the ground

in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. About

90 percent of those personnel are deployed in support of ground

forces in their traditional military roles or core competencies

ashore, such as base and port operations, medical services, explosive ordnance disposal, construction and engineer battalions, or the

Seabees, detainee operations, and traditional joint intelligence and

staff support roles. Navy personnel are equipped with the appropriate body armor required for the mission that the individual or

the unit they are assigned to will perform.

We acquire body armor for three main mission requirements:

Navy Expeditionary Forces, like I had mentioned earlier, explosive

ordnance disposal teams, Seabees, mobile security forces; individual augmentees assigned to joint forces; and shipboard

antiterrorism roles.

We leverage the Army and Marine Corps research and development of individual ballistic protection material and equipment programs, both of which are extensive efforts to maintain a high level

of ballistic protection. We capitalize on these investments by using

the most recent approved specifications and test procedures from

the Army’s Natick Soldier RDT&E Center and procure body armor

that meets these requirements, while incorporating features dictated by our operating requirements.

The Navy also adopts Marine Corps body armor solutions when

they support the mission needs and the fielding goals. In the interest of time, and I will conclude my remarks by saying the Navy

procures and equips its forces with the best available body armor

tailored to our maritime and joint mission requirements, and continues to seek improvements in equipment, while leveraging Army

and Marine Corps research and development initiatives.

Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 129.]

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Smith.

STATEMENT OF COL. EDWARD J. SMITH, PRODUCT GROUP DIRECTOR, COMBAT EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS, U.S.

MARINE CORPS

Colonel SMITH. Dr. Snyder, Congressman Hunter, and distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear before

you today and this opportunity to discuss Marine Corps body

armor. But first, on behalf of all marines and their families, I want

to thank you for your continued support to meet the needs of our

marines as they continue to fight the war on terror.

Force protection is a top priority for the Marine Corps. We are

committed to providing body armor and other personal protection

57

equipment to save marines’ lives, reduce casualties, and limit the

severity of those casualties. Our warfighters have the best body

armor available. According to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, there have been no deaths attributed to the penetration of an

Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI, by a threat

round that it is designed to defeat. Our body armor works.

All of our protection equipment is certified through rigorous ballistic testing that must withstand fluctuating temperatures and extreme environmental conditions. The Army and the Marine Corps

use the same test protocols. In addition to testing by the government, testing is also conducted at an independent ballistic laboratory. I am confident in the unbiased results.

In addition, after a system is fielded, we continue to look for

ways to further improve those systems. We collaborate with industry, our sister services, Office of Naval Research, and the joint

science and technology community on future technologies. We also

turn to our medical community for their expertise to evaluate and

make our systems the safest they can be for our warfighters. The

wartime environment constantly changes, and no one is better suited to determine what would be most effective in any given situation than the warfighter.

With our modular ballistic body armoring system, we provide

body armor solutions that can be configured to meet varying threat

levels and mission requirements. Working with the Army, the technology base and industry, we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of our marines by providing them with the best and

most effective force protection equipment at the lowest possible

weight. The lives of our marines and sailors are precious.

In conclusion, on behalf of your marines, I extend great appreciation for your support today, and thank you in advance for your ongoing efforts to support our brave servicemen and women in harm’s

way. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Colonel.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Smith can be found in the

Appendix on page 122.]

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Thomas.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS D. THOMAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

FOR THE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS,

U.S. AIR FORCE

Mr. THOMAS. Good afternoon, Dr. Snyder, Ranking Member

Hunter, distinguished members of this committee. On behalf of

General Simmons, who is the commander of Air Force Office of

Special Investigations, and the men and women of OSI, and the entire Air Force, I want to thank you for your support in war against

terrorism.

Briefly, I would like to talk about our timeline with our association—short association with Pinnacle Armor. On 31 August 2005,

based on Pinnacle literature and Pinnacle claims, OSI contracted

to purchase 590 vests from Pinnacle Armor. Between October 2005

and 1 January 2006, Dragon Skin vests were delivered to OSI and

fielded for our deployed agents and our deploying agents. On 26

58

January 2006, the United States Air Force Battle Lab notified us

that the vests failed.

On 16 February 2006, OSI, working with Aberdeen Test Center,

tested vests, and they failed. On 11 May 2006, we received verification from the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that the SOV 2000 Dragon Skin, which is what we

purchased, had not been tested or certified to NIJ standards. That

is what Chairman Skelton read earlier. That was a big surprise to

us, because that is one of the reasons we purchased the vests.

In May, 2006, OSI opened a joint criminal investigation with

DCIS against Pinnacle Armor for false NIJ certification on the

vests and false representation of its capabilities. In June, 2006, we

tested the vests again with H.P. White, and failed.

In closing, sirs, ma’am, I can assure this distinguished committee

we are committed to providing our men and women the best protective gear and equipment. Safety is our number one concern for our

deploying agents. Yesterday morning we lost two more OSI agents.

We do not take safety and security and force protection lightly.

Again, please accept my sincerest gratitude for your continued

support and efforts. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas can be found in the Appendix on page 116.]

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Noonan.

STATEMENT OF COL. KEVIN S. NOONAN, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES WARRIOR

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND, U.S. ARMY

Colonel NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hunter, and distinguished

members of the committee, it is an honor to appear here before this

committee today to report on the United States Special Operations

Command body armor requirement and material solution.

I am Colonel Kevin Noonan, the USSOCOM Program Executive

Officer for Special Operations Forces Warrior Programs within the

Command’s Acquisitions and Logistics Center. I am in charge of acquiring SOF-peculiar solutions for a variety of items, including

weapons, ammunition, ground mobility, visual augmentation systems, and personal survivability equipment that are not provided

by service-common solutions.

To achieve this, we use utilize a process that directly teams with

our component users from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine

Corps Special Operations Commands. Our goal is to maximize the

use of service-common solutions, and we are actively engaged with

service program offices to test the equipment that can meet SOF

requirements.

The USSOCOM ballistic protection solution is known as the SOF

Personnel Equipment Advance Requirement, or SPEAR, body

armor system. The USSOCOM requirement is one to provide a

level of protection to defeat two-strike armor-piercing munitions.

We do this by rapidly fielding successive lightweight and advanced

SOF-unique components of clothing and individual equipment

while integrating them into a tailorable system.

This tailorable system is called the SPEAR Body Armor Load

Carriage System, or BALCS. It is a family of integrated armor and

59

load carriage systems which provides SOF operators with the

modularity required to meet the various mission profiles and environment extremes. Specifically, USSOCOM requires the ability for

individual operators to tailor his protection and load to meet various mission profiles while maintaining the necessary agility, mobility, and range of motion required to meet SOF mission standards.

In accordance with USSOCOM requirement for modularity and

tailorability, the SPEAR body armor system employs a variety of

pockets, pouches, harnesses, and an additional plate carrier to

meet various SOF mission scenarios.

USSOCOM uses the SPEAR body armor system because it has

been successfully tested and has been proven in combat to meet the

two-strike armor-piercing munitions. The SPEAR body armor system has proven an effective ballistic system in SOF combat operations throughout the world since 2002. There are many documented cases in which the SPEAR body armor system has saved

the lives of SOF operators in combat. These results have produced

an enormous confidence in SOF operators with regard to their ballistic protection.

USSOCOM continually researches—correction, searches—for new

technology and support for its SOF missions. We test our SPEAR

armor system against current, emerging, and future battlefield

threats.

We recognize that in order to meet the need of our SOF Warrior,

we must constantly strive to reduce the weight of our body armor,

while increasing the ballistic protection. We have challenged industry to meet this requirement in our current solicitation for the

SPEAR family of ballistic plates, which was released this month.

Responses to this solicitation are due August 7th, and we expect

to award a contract no later than the second quarter of fiscal year

2008 for this improvement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the

House Armed Services Committee for your continued support of the

SOF soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and our dedicated

USSOCOM families. In particular, I would like to thank you for

your support of SPEAR, the SPEAR program, and request your

continued support in the future for all SOF operators.

Sir, I am available to take of any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Noonan can be found in the

Appendix on page 111.]

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Solis, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ M. SOLIS, DIRECTOR,

DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mr. SOLIS. Thank you, sir. Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member

Hunter, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss our recently

issued report on Interceptor Body Armor, which is currently used

by our military. I will briefly summarize two key aspects of that

report as relate to today’s hearing.

Since 2003, U.S. Central Command has required service members and DOD civilians in its area of operations to be issued Interceptor Body Armor. Because of the broad congressional interest in

60

the adequacy of body armor for U.S. ground forces, we reviewed the

extent to which Army and Marine Corps are, one, meeting ballistic

and inventory requirements for body armor; and two, have controls

in place to assure that manufacturing and fielding of body armor

meet requirements.

With regard to the adequacy of ballistic protection and inventory

requirements, the Army and Marine Corps Interceptor Body Armor

is currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in theater, including the

amounts needed for the surge of troops into Iraq. The outer tactical

vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds, while the

plate inserts provide an additional protection against 7.62 armorpiercing rounds. Additional protection can be provided for the

shoulder, throat, and groin areas. In December, 2006, and January,

2007, Army and Marine Corps classified readiness reports for deployed and nondeployed units did not identify body armor as a critical equipment item affecting unit readiness.

With regards to testing, the Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to assure

that body armor meets requirements. Those services conduct quality and ballistic testing prior to fielding, and lots are rejected if

standards are not met.

Samples of body armor are sent to the National Institute of Justice-certified lab for live ballistic testing, and to the Defense Contract Management Agency for quality testing, which includes testing for size, weight, and stitching, prior to issuance to the troops.

After the body armor systems have been fielded, both the Army

and Marine Corps conduct limited tests to determine if there had

been any degradation to the outer tactical vest or the inserts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement, and I will be

happy to answer any questions that you or the committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Solis can be found in the Appendix on page 157.]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. John Morgan, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN MORGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE.

Dr. MORGAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the Department of

Justice’s Office of Justice Programs’ National Institute of Justice

concerning NIJ’s body armor compliance testing program. NIJ is

the research, development and evaluation agency of the Department of Justice, and our mission is to advance scientific research,

development and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety.

For 30 years, NIJ has administered a body armor compliance

program. During that time, over 3,000 officers’ lives have been

saved by NIJ-compliant body armor. The program is administered

through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, NLECTC, in Rockville, Maryland; and scientific research and technical support for the body armor program are provided by the Office of Law Enforcement Standards within the DeVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
61

partment of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The purpose of the Body Armor Compliance Testing Program is

to enhance the confidence of public safety agencies and officers that

body armor used for public safety applications is safe and reliable

and meets minimum performance requirements throughout the

manufacturer-declared warranty period. Like NIJ’s other performance standards, the body armor standard is a collaborative effort

among Federal, State, and local public safety agencies, the scientific community, and the commercial sector.

It is important to emphasize that NIJ’s standards development

process focuses on the operational needs and requirements of civilian law enforcement officers and the threats they commonly face in

the performance of their duties, which are significantly different

than threats faced in the military combat environment. While NIJ

and military agencies routinely exchange technical information

about body armor, the two test programs are very different from

one another because the operational requirements of police officers

and soldiers are very different.

Although NIJ’s compliance testing programs rely on voluntary

participation by suppliers, most police departments require that

equipment be tested and then evaluated and found in conformance

with NIJ standards before they purchase the equipment. As a result, most manufacturers for law enforcement body armor design

their equipment to comply with the standards and have each model

tested for conformance with NIJ.

Since May of 2006, Pinnacle Armor has submitted seven models

of Dragon Skin-based armor to NIJ’s Body Armor Compliance Program. NIJ and its partners, NITS and OLES, have developed a

flexible armor protocol which was specifically designed to test the

perceived vulnerabilities to angled shots of Dragon Skin and similar armor consisting of multiple or tiled plate systems. Two of the

seven models were resubmitted after inconclusive results, resulting

in a total of nine submissions by the company of Dragon Skinbased models. The results for these nine submissions are five failed

to comply with the NIJ standard, one passed NIJ compliance testing and was issued a letter of compliance, two were found to be inconclusive and were not found compliant, and one is pending.

Pinnacle Armor has submitted two different armor configurations. The first configuration of armor uses an existing 3a-compliant model and has a 10-by–12 hard armor plate insert which is intended to bring the level of protection up to the level III requirements. We call this the In Conjunction Model. That In Conjunction

Model—one In Conjunction Model has passed compliance testing

and is listed on NIJ’s list of armor models that comply with the

standard; that is referred to as the SOV 2000.1/MIL 3AF01 model.

Pinnacle Armor has also submitted two models of In Conjunction

Dragon Skin armor with the SOV 3000 level IV plate. The SOV

3000 level IV system failed to comply with the NIJ standard on its

first submission. The second submission of the level IV In Conjunction System, the SOV 3000.1 is currently pending.

The second configuration Pinnacle Armor submitted for level III

protection utilized the Dragon Skin technology throughout the

armor panel and looks more like the traditional level 3a vest that

62

provides full front, back, and side armor protection for the upper

torso. Pinnacle Armor has given this type of system a model designation that ended in MIL, for example, SOV 2000-MIL or SOV

2000.1/MIL. These models appear to be similar in construction to

models that have been subjected to military testing such as you see

on the table, but NIJ and its technical partners have not compared

the models directly. No Dragon Skin-based armor in this configuration, the second configuration, has passed NIJ compliance.

We have submitted to the committee a complete and detailed

timeline and description of NIJ’s testing on Dragon Skin-based

armor. And I thank you for your time and attention and welcome

your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Morgan, thank you.

I am going to ask the staff to pass down to you two documents,

Dr. Morgan. One, dated April 14, 2006, is apparently an attachment to Dragon Skin body armor, entitled Pinnacle Armor, stating

that the manufacturer certifies that this model of armor has been

tested through NLECTC and has been found to comply with type

III performance in accordance with NIJ standard 0101.4.

I will also pass down to you a letter dated December 20, 2006,

signed by you, that is a notice of compliance with NIJ 2005 interim

requirements level III; and I will ask you if these two documents

are accurately and correctly stated by me.

Dr. MORGAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I ask unanimous consent that both be placed in

the record. Without objection.

Doctor, thank you.

Mr. Hunter.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on

page 173.]

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for the composite presentation that you have made here. Let

me just make an observation.

I think it is clear that we need to have another test. I think there

are about three cross-currents working in this hearing. One is that

there is lots of, I think, mishandling of this issue by the contractor.

And I related that to him, especially in terms of communication, in

terms of statements made about the professionalism of the United

States Army, statements made about the professionalism of our

staff members and people who have been connected with this program in any way. And I think that is clearly, you know, disturbing.

It happens in this show business that we call the function of government, where you have lots of agencies and you have got a big—

we have got a big military bureaucracy, a big congressional bureaucracy, and folks on the outside selling their products. And

often we have clashes of personalities and people. And all those

things go into the mix through which we ultimately derive our

weapons systems.

This is an interesting case because, underneath all of this, the

inconsistencies—and I think the statement made by Phil Coyle, one

of the most respected guys in this business, who was our top tester

for many years, that the Dragon Skin is, quote, ‘‘not ready for

prime time,’’ I think is a very telling statement that should go out

to everybody who is considering purchasing it.

63

Nonetheless, in my estimation, Mr. Chairman, I think we need

to sweep all of the underbrush aside and look directly at the key

question, which is, does this technology have some value? And is

it, in fact—if we test it with a straight-up, side-by-side test, will it

demonstrate values that either now or, if changed somewhat, if

adapted, would save more lives of our folks in theater? And I am

thinking about not only bullet penetration, but also frag penetration.

It is unclear as to what the coverage is. The contractor says you

have got more coverage than you have with the Interceptor Body

Armor. He said that his systems were 24 pounds. I know you have

got—you have done a weigh-in here in which one set is over 40. So

there are lots of things that need to be cleared up, but here is what

I think we need do.

I think we need to straight away, in an expeditious way, find out

if there is value to this system; and there may well be. And if there

is value, I think we need to extract it as quickly as possible and

get it to the troops in field. And we have the 1-page document that

this committee put into the law that the Secretary of Defense can

sign; if he is taking casualties on the battlefield, he can sign that

and he can bypass acquisition regulations. And certainly we are

taking casualties, and we are taking them from small arms fire.

Although it is clear that the Interceptor Body Armor has a good

record that has been laid out here. So this is one of those unusual

cases in which I know the Army has got its back up, probably justifiably so; we have kind of got our backs up, and justifiably so. On

the other hand, you have a technology which may have some value,

and none of these things come wrapped in neat packages.

So, Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is—I know there are a

few unanswered questions. One should be on that complete penetration versus noncomplete penetration that showed up on this

test. And I think the Army has some answering to do on that. I

think that was a valid point that was raised by the contractor. But

assuming that that can be—that there is a rationale for that that

is justifiable, I think we need to have the complete test and get it

done quickly, expeditiously. And if there is value to this system either in this form or a modified form, utilize it. Let’s get it to the

field and let’s get it to our troops.

So, Mr. Chairman, it has been a very interesting hearing, with

lots and lots of dimensions. And maybe, General Thompson, you

could speak briefly—or whoever is expert in this area—as to this

penetration versus nonpenetration, because I thought the contractor had a good point on that one. It looked like—I think I could see

those bullets embedded, and it didn’t look like there was complete

penetration.

What is the story there?

General THOMPSON. Sir, I would like to address that, and are you

all prepared to show the——

The CHAIRMAN. We can’t hear you, General.

General THOMPSON. I am prepared to address that, but what I

would like to show you is the actual footage of the shot where Mr.

Neal observed the shot, and show you that penetration. And then

I will ask either General Brown or Karl Masters, who observed

that test, to explain this difference.

64

Now this is the shot that was referred to as the penetrator being

left on top of the plates. And what we are going to show you here

is that the penetrator was not left on top of the plates, and it was

a complete penetration, because of the penetration of the ballistic

clay behind there.

And that was Mr. Neal in the footage.

Mr. HUNTER. I don’t understand. What are you saying? I thought

Mr. Neal’s claim was—he said it didn’t go all the way through because you can see it still lodged in the plate.

General THOMPSON. The x-ray shows residual metal that is

there, and that could be part of the jacket. But the penetrator went

all the way through the vest. And we are going to see it.

Mr. HUNTER. So you are saying the bullet came apart and part

of it went through the vest?

General THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNTER. So there was a complete penetration?

General THOMPSON. There was a complete penetration.

Mr. HUNTER. How much of that bullet got through?

General THOMPSON. I am going to show you that.

Mr. HUNTER. Okay.

General THOMPSON. There was the shot.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Hunter, would you yield for just a follow-up?

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely.

Dr. SNYDER. General, when the x-rays are done, you have got a

portable x-ray machine that is rolled out there and they just x-ray

it right there? Is that how that works?

When are the x-rays done? After the shot?

General THOMPSON. No, the x-rays are done right there.

Dr. SNYDER. While they are still hung up there?

General THOMPSON. Okay. Mr. Masters is showing me. He is

going to show you the penetration through the thing into the ballistic clay.

And then we actually pull the vest off and x ray it with an x ray

machine which is right on site, right there.

And so this is the shot where Mr. Neal said it did not go all the

way through; and you saw his head in the picture as he observed

that, and then you can see here the penetration in the ballistic

clay. And the H.P. White Laboratory representative is measuring

that penetration into the ballistic clay.

The CHAIRMAN. The record shows there was a hole behind the

vest; is that correct?

General THOMPSON. That is correct, sir. And that is Mr. Neal

right there observing the complete penetration.

General BROWN. You see there they are trying to dig out the

round. And that is Mr. Neal observing them digging out the round.

And they are having some difficulty. The clock up in the upper center is real time.

The CHAIRMAN. So when Mr. Neal——

General BROWN. He is going around the back now to see if it

went all the way through the ballistic clay.

The CHAIRMAN. When Mr. Neal told us a few moments ago he

could see the bullet, that wasn’t a bullet in that hole.

General BROWN. No, sir. The impact physics of a round hitting

the target is a very violent act, by design. And a slug, a round,

65

sometimes it is a misnomer, it is not actually a slug of solid, formal

material.

The CHAIRMAN. So Mr. Neal’s testimony is incorrect.

General BROWN. Correct, sir. It is a full metal jacket. And what

you saw in that x-ray is residue of the metal jacket and some of

the interior material of the round.

Mr. CONAWAY. Can we explain the two different clocks running?

There are two different dates at the top of the screen.

General BROWN. I believe one is actual time and one is test time.

The time that we made the video.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Taylor has a follow-up question, too, then, if

Mr. Hunter will yield.

Go ahead.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

I asked Mr. Neal just a few minutes ago regarding that shot, if

he was wearing that vest, would he have lived. And he said ‘‘yes.’’

General THOMPSON. Yes, he did say that. I listened to the testimony and——

Mr. TAYLOR. What would be your response to that, General?

General BROWN. I would say he may have lived, but he would

have also been penetrated by a round.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Saxton.

Mr. SAXTON. Just to tie this down, the test that we saw the film

of was the so-called, quote, ‘‘motor oil test’’; is that right?

General BROWN. Yes, sir, that was the motor oil test.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay.

Now, as to the 5-minute rule, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I very much appreciate you being here, because I would like

you on a point-by-point basis to walk through some of the statements that were made. If I understand Mr. Neal, he said that there

was no penetration, that if he was wearing that vest, he would

have lived. And so my question to you is, after what you have

shown us, was there penetration? Was it of an amount that a medical professional, such as Dr. Snyder, would have considered a critical wound? Was this a one-time event or did this happen on several

occasions?

And just for the heck of it, when you talk about motor oil exposure, was this vest soaked in motor oil for a period of days? Was

some splashed on it? Just for my information, and same thing with

the diesel fuel test, was it a matter of splashing some on there?

Was it immersed in the substance?

Walk us through that, please.

General BROWN. Okay, sir, I will try to get to every one of the

points.

Number one, it was a complete penetration.

Number two, it would have entered the human body. Whether

the subject, test subject, would have lived or not, if it had severed

an aortic arch or spine, clearly the individual would have died. If

it had gone into another part of the body, the individual may have

lived.

The subject test item is soaked in diesel for 2 hours and then allowed to drip dry and then tested at that point.

66

And your other questions were, sir?

Same with the motor oil and the diesel. They are both soaked for

two hours and then allowed to drip dry and then fired.

Mr. TAYLOR. General, in your opinion, do you feel like Mr. Neal

lied to this committee?

General BROWN. Sir——

Mr. TAYLOR. He made a blanket statement that that round did

not penetrate that vest.

General BROWN. Sir, in my personal opinion, Mr. Neal was not

correct. Now, whether he intentionally misrepresented what he

knew to be the truth or not, I can’t say. But he—in my personal

opinion, he was incorrect.

Mr. TAYLOR. General Thompson.

General THOMPSON. Sir, what I would like to say is one of the

things we did in this test—Mr. Neal observed all these tests—we

taped, videotaped the entire procedure, and Mr. Neal was present

during the entire test. And of the eight vests that we tested, four

failed. Forty-eight shots for the record. Thirteen of those shots were

first- or second-round penetrations, and those are complete failures

by our test standard for level IV armor, which is the armor protection we provide to our men and women.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the time I have remaining, a matter of curiosity:

I see a few gray hairs there, and obviously a lot of combat experience based upon the ribbons on your chest. So I am not going to

ask about yourselves, but if you have, or if the scenario would be

you had a son or daughter in uniform, which set of armor would

you want for your son or daughter in uniform?

Is it what we are presently buying? Is it the Dragon Skin? Or

is there another brand out there that our Nation should be looking

at?

General BROWN. Sir, I do have a daughter; she is not in the military service. But today, as we speak, I do have 160 of my personal

employees in theater today in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Kuwait.

Also, my direct reports have sons and daughters over there. My director of the Rapid Fielding Initiative, Colonel Mike Bonheim’s son

is over there. My director of Personnel Administration, her son is

over there. My sergeant major, who is with us today, Sergeant

Major Coleman, his brother is headed there. And for all of them,

and myself—I am going over there very soon—I intend to wear Interceptor Body Armor. And for all of them I would recommend Interceptor Body Armor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Does anyone have an answer contrary to that?

Could we say for the record that this panel, if given the opportunity of placing one set of armor or the other on their child going

into combat—let’s just, while we are here, each one of you say it.

Mr. ROGER SMITH. Sir, I don’t any children, but I personally wore

an Interceptor armor in Iraq, probably like many of you have on

your Congressional Delegations (CODELS) over there, and I would

prefer that over any other because it is tested and evaluated.

Mr. TAYLOR. Colonel Smith.

Colonel SMITH. Sir, I do have a son, and if he were to go to Iraq

or Afghanistan, he would wear the Interceptor Body Armor without

a question.

Mr. TAYLOR. And that would be your preference?

67

Colonel SMITH. Yes, sir, it would.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Thomas.

Mr. THOMAS. Fortunately, I am too young to have a son in the

Air Force or the military, but if I did I would want them to wear

the Interceptor as opposed to the Dragon Skin.

Mr. TAYLOR. Colonel Noonan.

Colonel NOONAN. Sir, I have three sons, none currently in service. However, if they were in service and did deploy, I would require them and want them to wear—and let me use the terminology a little bit differently. We all in our briefings talked about the

name of a product. In reality, we are using a technology, and that

technology is a monolithic, solid-plate technology, which is currently tested and evaluated to meet the AP2 armor requirement.

That is what we all in the services currently utilize under some

different name; and that would be the product that I would have

my son go to deploy with, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Solis. Dr. Morgan.

Mr. SOLIS. I have a son who is in the military. And if I had—

I would prefer that he would go with the IBA, since that has been

tested and evaluated to this point.

Dr. MORGAN. I have three small children, and should they ever

serve in the military, I think that they would be best served by

using the Interceptor armor. There is no question.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

General Thompson, let me make an official request of you. I wish

to ask the Army to provide the H.P. White Laboratory test reports

to this committee so we can make them part of this hearing.

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files

and can be viewed upon request.]

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show the two scales in front of us.

The Dragon Skin scale shows what, General Thompson, on weight?

Can you see it?

Mr. SAXTON. It shows close to 50.

General THOMPSON. It should show 47, 47.5 versus 28 pounds.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And the currently used Interceptor

weight, as shown, by what on the scales?

VOICE. Sir, what I am looking at is about 27.8 pounds, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-seven point eight pounds. Let the record

show that.

We have a total of four votes coming up, one 15-minute, three 5-

minutes. If we don’t finish, gentlemen, we are going to ask you to

stick around, but we will see how far we can go.

Mr. Saxton.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just follow up on

your mention of the scales and the equipment in front of us.

Mr. Neal, when I asked Mr. Neal about the weight differential,

Mr. Neal said it was like comparing apples and oranges. And as

I look at the information that was provided to us by you in a previous hearing, I noticed that on this sheet the Interceptor Body

Armor was size large and the Pinnacle Armor was size extra large.

And I believe you explained why that was, previously, to us.

Would you tell us why this is not like comparing apples and oranges, if indeed it isn’t?

68

General THOMPSON. Sir, I will kick it to General Brown here if

I don’t get this quite right, but it is the difference in sizing based

on the manufacturer. Just like you go to a clothing sales store and

buy clothes for you, some manufacturers manufacture things a little bit differently.

For a soldier that would need to wear either the Pinnacle or the

IBA body armor, these are the two sizes that would give a soldier

of a certain body size the comparable level of vest to be able to put

on. And so that is why there is a large and an extra large.

Mr. SAXTON. Can you explain why Mr. Neal believes that the appropriate level of protection can be provided with his system with

27 pounds, which is what he indicated earlier?

General BROWN. We asked him to provide a system that would

simulate the front and back plates and the side plates. And when

you put all those disks in—as you see, there are side-plate equivalents in there—when you have that triple, overlapping disk, it

tends to start to drive the weight up.

But what we sought to achieve was a similar, comparable area

of coverage, area of protection. And it actually in this test case for

area of coverage, we actually advantaged Pinnacle by giving

them—I believe the number was about 20 square inches more in

area of coverage by going with this methodology.

But it is simply a matter that the Pinnacle vests generally run

a size small compared to the Interceptor Body Armor, and we

wanted to get as close as we could in area of coverage.

Mr. SAXTON. And is it true that—as it says here on your sheet,

that the Interceptor Body Armor that we see here provides 720

square inches of coverage and the Pinnacle body armor that see we

has 743 square inches of coverage? Is that about right?

General BROWN. Yes, sir, that is our assertion.

Mr. SAXTON. I did some math, and my math says it is 3 percent

more with the Pinnacle Armor than it is with the Interceptor

armor.

General BROWN. Yes, sir. As I stated, we actually advantaged

Pinnacle in this test in area of coverage.

Mr. SAXTON. But the three percent is a marginal advantage, isn’t

it?

General BROWN. Yes, sir. Had we gone with a large Pinnacle

rather than an extra large, it would have been marginally smaller.

Mr. SAXTON. So providing the same body—roughly the same body

coverage, 3 percent more for Pinnacle, we see a 47.5-pound Pinnacle Armor system and a 28-pound Interceptor system; is that correct?

General BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Saxton, is the definition of coverage the same

for both vests in terms of ballistic coverage?

General BROWN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen.

Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Thompson, I want to quibble with you a little bit. I don’t

think this is NBC’s problem; I think this is our problem. We have

got a lot of military families out there and people in the public that

have questions about this. And for whatever reason it has been

69

generated, we all need to do a better job of answering it. And the

reality is, the NBC show, there are some questions to be asked

about what NBC showed.

I want to know why the, what they are calling the Interceptor

in that NBC show, why it did not perform better, why it did not

perform comparable to what General Brown has showed us in the

closed briefings before. It may be because it didn’t come from one

of the vendors. It may be that there are some other questions to

be answered.

Have you all reached any conclusions about why the Interceptor

didn’t—what did you call it, the fixed, the generic term for it—why

the IBA did not perform on the NBC show as you would have expected?

General THOMPSON. I will kick it off, and I will let General

Brown pick it up, but the reality is, I don’t know. I know they tested from one manufacturer. And like I said in my testimony, that

was not one of the six manufacturers of the plates for us.

Dr. SNYDER. Right.

General THOMPSON. I don’t know what their test protocol is. I

don’t know exactly the product that they tested. So it is very difficult, without factual information, to evaluate the results that they

are claiming on the test that was done in Germany.

And so for them to have the same test protocol as we do, I don’t

know that, because they have not been forthcoming with that information although they have been asked.

Dr. SNYDER. General Brown, you have anything to add?

General BROWN. Yes, sir. As General Thompson alluded to, we

have six primary producers of body armor plate ESAPI. The quantities and the quality assurance procedures and the test procedures

are very tightly controlled with those plate suppliers.

And we also mentioned in the early part of our statement that

we see the press as a key pillar to our democracy, and therefore

we must keep the American public informed. For that reason, we

cooperated fully with NBC on this interview. We gave NBC everything we had, showed them everything; and what we were concerned about was that, when the report came out, they had done

serious damage to the confidence of soldiers, but more importantly,

the confidence of soldiers’ families in their equipment.

As I watched the show unfold, many questions were raised in my

head about the quality and the effectiveness and objectivity of that

test. The first part was, we have different colors that constitute

what calls an ESAPI plate or a SAPI plate or some other kind of

plate. And as I saw the flashes across the screen, the plates that

I saw did not appear to be ESAPI plates based on the color coding

that we know.

Dr. SNYDER. I think those are the kinds of questions that are

raised.

I want to ask another question. We are running out of time here.

One of the things Mr. Neal talked about was, in one of the tests

that you all conducted he had an adhesive tape problem.

General BROWN. Right.

Dr. SNYDER. And that it went through an area that didn’t have

plates. Essentially, what he was asking—it seemed to me that he

was implying that he should get a do-over. How does that work

70

out? Doesn’t that create some—I mean, he is going to say that he

has corrected the problem, and I am sure he has, but it does create

some issues. How do you handle that when you have tested other

things and there clearly was some technical problem?

You were trying to test the plates themselves, but the plates

weren’t there because they had dropped away. Do you get do-overs

in these things?

General BROWN. Before I get to the do-over aspect, the second

major flaw in the test was that the Pinnacle body armor was tested

in a flat mode rather than a curvature mode. Because the human

body is a curved shape——

Dr. SNYDER. You mean, it was hanging flat against——

General BROWN. Right. And that would have caused the Pinnacle

body armor to perform better. And then Honorable Mr. Coyle’s testimony, he said they were using the 7.62 x 54 round, which is not

the test round. The 7.62 x 63 APM2 is the test round which we specifically selected to put in a wider margin of safety into the plates.

So that may also account for why the plate performed better.

Dr. SNYDER. A do-over.

General THOMPSON. And just to make it clear, what General

Brown is referring to is, when it was tested flat—it was the test

run by NBC in Germany where it was tested flat; when we tested

the body armor in our test, it was tested in a curved configuration,

which is the way it is worn by soldiers. And you saw that in the

picture of the curve of the Pinnacle Armor around the ballistic clay.

Dr. SNYDER. And the question on do-overs?

General BROWN. When you go into the test, it is like an examination, the GRE, the GMAT, the LSAT. You go in and that is the

test. You take the test, and the standard for passing the test is

zero penetrations; at the first penetration, that test was failed.

There are no do-overs.

However, we have made it clear that should they make a product

improvement, we are willing to relook at their system again, do appropriate procedures.

The CHAIRMAN. We have less than 2 minutes to make the vote.

Mr. Saxton has a question.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am told by some of our

smart staff here behind me that I need to ask this question, and

we have to go vote, so perhaps you can answer this for us in writing.

The question is, how much armor-piercing round coverage is

there in IBA versus Pinnacle? And I ask this question because we

want to make sure we get all the facts out on the table and be fair

to both Pinnacle as well as the currently used Interceptor Body

Armor.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 217.]

The CHAIRMAN. We will be in recess until after the votes. And

thank you for waiting.

[Recess.]

Dr. SNYDER [presiding]. I wanted to—we will come back to order.

General Thompson—I had two or three questions that came up

during the break. General Thompson, is there currently an RFP

out? You are seeking proposals now; is that correct?

71

Now, Mr. Neal in his testimony said earlier that by the nature

of past RFPs he thought there were several that, because his is

considered a flexible system, would not even be eligible to be considered. If he were to submit—has he submitted a proposal? And

if he does, will he be considered, or by the nature of the disk versus

the monolithic form, would he not be eligible for that RFP?

General THOMPSON. I think that is a great question. Right now

there is a request for proposal on the street that was issued on 25

May. That request for proposal is for continuation of ESAPI, or if

somebody has got a solution that is better protection beyond

ESAPI, they have the opportunity to bring that in.

And so, I heard what the committee said today and I have heard

the discussion about side by side. But let me say this about sideby-side. Side-by-side doesn’t have to be at the same time. Side-byside, to me, is testing to the same standard, which we have done

with the six producers of the plates today. And we used that same

standard to test the Pinnacle product not just in May, 2006, but

on five previous—four previous occasions before that.

Dr. SNYDER. Will your current six vendors, will they have to reapply for this RFP?

General THOMPSON. Anybody that wants to continue to produce

for us has got to respond to this RFP.

Dr. SNYDER. Okay.

General THOMPSON. So I think the way ahead here very clearly

is not an individual side-by-side between IBA and Pinnacle.

I heard what Mr. Neal said about responding to our RFPs. I

checked with the program office here. He has not responded to our

RFPs for body armor level IV. But we have the RFP on the street;

60 days from 25 May, which is the end of July, anybody that has

got a product that can be put forward to be considered, to include

Pinnacle—if Pinnacle puts forward their product to this RFP, we

will test it along with every other competitor that comes forward

out there.

And I think that is a fair and reasonable way ahead, because

then they will get the time to respond to the RFP. But if they don’t

respond to the RFP, as an acquisition professional, I think it would

be unfair to the other competitors to test them individually.

So I think the way ahead here is, 60 days from now, whoever responds to that RFP—and I hope Pinnacle does respond—we will

test to that standard. We will test by the Army Test and Evaluation Command. We will pick an objective site; and I will tell you

right now we won’t pick H.P. White for this one.

In the audience today, and I talked to him yesterday, and I just

talked to him a few minutes ago, is the current head of live fire

testing for DOD, Mr. Rick Sayers, and we will have DOT&E, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the organization that Mr.

Coyle used to head, oversee the ATEC testing of whoever responds

to that RFP by the end of July.

And I think that is a reasonable way ahead here for the committee, for the Army, and for Pinnacle, should they choose to respond

to the RFP.

Dr. SNYDER. One more question and then we will go to Mr.

Jones.

72

In the discussion just before we broke, we were talking about the

do-over, where they had the, I think it was—as Mr. Neal described

it, I think it was an adhesive tape problem, that they dealt with

with their producer and changed their process, and he believes he

has got it corrected.

Now that was in the May 2006 testing; is that correct? My question is, are you aware, did the Dragon Skin—did Mr. Neal’s company do any kind of notification to those people who bought the

Dragon Skin prior to the discovery of that adhesive tape problem?

Do we have people in Iraq and Afghanistan today wearing that

body armor that was purchased prior to that date that may not be

aware that they have got an adhesive tape that has come apart

and some of their disks have fallen down?

General BROWN. Sir, if I can rephrase your question, I believe it

is, has there been a retrofit or a look back at systems that may already be in service to make sure those people are not as risk?

Dr. SNYDER. That is exactly what I meant to say, General.

General BROWN. The CENTCOM AOR Safety of Use Message applies to all personnel in CENTCOM that says Interceptor Body

Armor is the armor. So if they are CENTCOM personnel and they

are wearing Dragon Skin, they are doing so without the graces,

good graces of CENTCOM.

To my knowledge, there has been no retrofit or relook actions on

systems.

Dr. SNYDER. Or a recall?

General Thompson, that may be something that you all would

want to look into if you have significant numbers of your personnel

that are wearing something that, in your testing, you discovered

had a manufacturing flaw that the manufacturer has since corrected.

But I will leave that—if you would, get back to us on that and

let us know.

General THOMPSON. There was some sets out there that were

bought by protective services details, for example. Since we issued

the Safety of Use Message, all of those have been recalled and

turned in, and to our knowledge, nobody is wearing the Dragon

Skin in theater today.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Jones, could we let Mr. Taylor do a unanimous

consent, and then I will get back to you?

Mr. JONES. Is that my friend from Mississippi? I will yield.

Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to ask unanimous

consent that the Seapower Subcommittee be allowed to meet and

have a hearing on waterside protection of our naval vessels while

this committee meets.

Dr. SNYDER. Without objection.

Mr. Jones. Excuse me, Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

General Thompson, I was watching the tests on the film that you

showed the committee, and I don’t know Mr. Neal. I am sure he

is a fine gentleman, just like everybody on the panel today, but I

am amazed—I was amazed to see the size of the hole from the firVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
73

ing from the test, and I was wondering if anyone was around him

when you were, you know, showing him just how severe the hole

of the shot was.

Was there any comments from him? Were you present, or any of

your assistants present; or does anybody remember any comment

that he might have made?

General BROWN. Sir, my test director, Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Karl Masters is present, and he was the test director, and

was present at the test site. I will let him answer that.

Mr. JONES. If it is permissible, Mr. Chairman. To me, I would—

as a man wanting to sell this to the military to protect their lives,

I would be so—excuse the expression—but shell-shocked, I would

probably say some things that I would be—was anything said?

General BROWN. Mr. Chairman, with permission, would you like

to hear from Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Masters?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Colonel MASTERS. Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN. Would you identify yourself, please.

Colonel MASTERS. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Karl Masters,

Retired, United States Army.

I currently—as the lead engineer for PEO Soldier Equipment on

all body armor, I ran and supervised the test at H.P. White in May

of 2006, and was present on the range with Mr. Murray Neal. And

as a matter of fact, I escorted Mr. Neal to the various locations

within the range and had some discussions with him.

Dr. SNYDER. Pull that mike in a little closer, if you would.

Colonel MASTERS. Sir, to answer your direct questions in terms

of what Mr. Neal’s observations were, basically we had very professional exchanges about the happenings with regard to particular

shots in terms of complete penetrations or partial penetrations. But

there was no outward expression of emotion by anyone on the

range that day. It was just observation of the test results as they

transpired, sir.

Mr. JONES. Well, I know that you, on both sides, are professionals, and I wouldn’t expect the same reaction that—maybe if I

was there and I had made the body armor, I would certainly be—

but then I am not being critical.

Mr. Chairman, you picked up on something that I was going to

do myself. I wonder and am concerned that if so much of what is

happening in the theater today is on the Internet, one way or the

other—people can e-mail their families in a matter of seconds, and

there can be a product advertised, and so those troops in the theater can see it. And maybe, you know, your point was, I think, and

what my point would have been is, are the troops so—do you feel

that many of the troops feel that the Dragon Skin is the right vest

to have? Or is it—is there any concern on your part that their families are wanting to buy the $5,000 vest because they believe it is

better than the vest that has been issued by the military?

This is somewhat along the lines of what the chairman asked.

General BROWN. Sir, you are asking about my feelings. And what

I have is some experience with soldiers recently back from theater.

There are about 230,000 soldiers deployed around the world in

120 different countries today, and with that number of people deployed, you are going to have a few that probably feel differently

74

than others. But my general reception from soldiers is that they

are very happy with the Interceptor Body Armor. Many

testimonials about lives saved, and as a matter of fact, we have

given the committee those testimonials. And that is why we

brought Specialist Miller from the 101st Screaming Eagles here

today.

With the chairman’s permission, if you would like to ask him, I

think it would probably be a better—you would get a better, more

accurate response than from myself.

Dr. SNYDER. It is your time, Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if they are here, they

should certainly speak. And maybe one.

My question is, do you think that there is an agreement with

those whom you serve with? The majority say that we accept this

as the best protection out, and they are not questioning whether

it should be the Dragon Skin.

One individual, just say it or speak would be fine, and then I will

close.

Major COLEMAN. Sir, I will step up with the soldiers that I

brought here. I think our body armor——

Dr. SNYDER. Let’s have you use the microphone, please. Identify

yourself, and please use the mike.

Major COLEMAN. Sir, I am Sergeant Major Tom Coleman. I am

the PEO Sergeant Major, been there 5 months right now. I came

out of theater with the 101st with the specialist.

The body armor that we have right now is the right body armor.

The feeling in the force is that it is doing what it is supposed to

be doing. Everyone will tell you that they want it lighter; that is

a fact. And they want something that always fits better, is lighter,

they can move faster with.

So there is no discontent that I see out there right now. There

is a lot of concern, I am getting it from my peers in the field that

are questioning me on the body armor just because of the news

media. And as a sergeant major, that is my number one concern,

the soldiers and soldiers’ families, and the perception of our current

equipment.

But we believe it is good.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I know my timehas expired. If I could

make just one quick statement, I would hope from this hearing

today—and I have been here most of the time, not all, as other

members have. To me, the sadness of all this, first of all, is the

troops have to have the best. But when shows—and I am not going

to criticize any TV network. If they think they are doing the right

thing, and they have done all the checks and balances that they

should have done before they go to air, then that is fine; I will accept that.

But when I think about the parents who have these kids and

loved ones in the theater, and they are seeing a show that says,

well, this isn’t the best body armor, this is, to me—I am not—I

don’t what the law is; I am not a lawyer, and I don’t apologize for

that, but I will tell you one thing.

When you are talking about selling a product to the military, and

that product is not what it is advertised to be to save a life, then

75

to me, as far as I am concerned, that borders on violating some

type of law.

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Dr. SNYDER. Mrs. Bordallo.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

you for calling this hearing today. I feel it is very important, and

I thank all of the witnesses for testifying today.

The recent NBC report on body armor was very troubling to

many of us, and we owe it to the men and women in uniform to

get this right. However, today I have a little different question to

ask. I hope it hasn’t been asked already, but I want to address a

larger question about funding for the research and development,

testing and evaluation that count, specifically funding for research

for new technologies.

In the fiscal year 2008 budget, the Department of Defense in- vested $11 billion in science and technology funding. This represents a 20 percent decrease over the previous fiscal year. In particular, the Army research budget dropped 39 percent and the

Navy and Marine research budget dropped 18 percent. On the

other hand, overall development accounts increased by $765 million, suggesting that we are spending a considerable amount more

on development rather than research.

General Thompson, my question is to you. I am concerned that

we spend a lot of money on development of products, but we do not

spend enough on research of new technologies that will directly

benefit our service members. So I am wondering if this situation

is present in the case about body armor.

General THOMPSON. Ma’am, I think there is the right balance between the money that we spend on research and the money that

we spend on development, because it is the early research that

leads to the products that we develop, test, and then put into production.

Looking at a snapshot in one fiscal year, it is the trend over time

that I would be more concerned about if there was a negative trend

there.

I am confident, and I think General Brown would say the same

thing, that we have the resources we need to do the research, to

do the testing, and to find the best products out there for body

armor.

Ms. BORDALLO. Let me just follow up on that.

In your testimony, I think that you insinuated that additional

funding is necessary for research and development. Did you not say

that in your testimony, General?

General THOMPSON. Ma’am, I did not say that today in my written testimony.

Ms. BORDALLO. No one mentioned that there needed to be more

money? So you feel that the funding is balanced; is that your answer?

General THOMPSON. Yes, ma’am, I do. And if I go back to one of

the statements that I did make, that force protection——

Dr. SNYDER. We have got to have you pull that microphone closer.

General THOMPSON. One of the things I did say is that force protection for our servicemen and women is our number one priority.

76

And if it is a question of priorities, if we need to put more money

into force protection, specifically body armor, we would reprioritize

from other places to put money against that because it is the number one priority.

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I just, again—maybe I misunderstood

when I read your testimony, but I did think that the development

was up to par, but it is the new technology and the research where

the money was short.

But perhaps—does anybody else want to answer that on the

panel.

General BROWN. Ma’am? General Brown.

One of my responsibilities is also I am the commanding general

of Natick Soldier System Center, which is 2,000 great Americans

up in Massachusetts doing research and development on soldier

items, everything from food to kitchens to uniforms, boots, body

armor, helmets. We have $1 billion of research going on per year

up at Natick Soldier System Center, and that research transitions

over into my other organization, Program Executive Office Soldier,

where we have about $4.4 billion a year to buy 400 separate programs of record.

As General Thompson mentioned, as a matter of priorities, the

Hill has been very generous with us on force protection. I have all

the force protection R&D that I need at this time. Of course, I

would always like more money, but not necessarily for force protection.

You have got to be able to have a plan and a program to spend

it, and we are spending quite a bit on force protection, in the billions, across the Army. So I think we are quite well funded in that

particular priority.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. I share your concern about the decrease in research

dollars.

Mr. LoBiondo for 5 minutes.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Brown, a couple of minutes ago did you offer for Specialist Miller—I hope I got the rank correct—to say something, and

Sergeant Major, not to take anything away from you, but I would

like to hear from Specialist Miller, Mr. Chairman, if that is okay.

Dr. SNYDER. If you could use the microphone, please. Show these

generals how to use the microphone.

Specialist MILLER. Sir, I can only speak for myself, and I think

I can take the liberty of speaking for the guys that I directly work

with; and that is that we trust our gear, sir.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. Thank you for your service.

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Davis, do you have any further questions?

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

I am sorry I missed some of the earlier discussion.

I think I heard everyone testify formally, but I wanted to go back

very quickly to this side-by-side issue.

And has it been determined that, in fact, we are going to do that

kind of—that you are going to do that kind of a test; is that correct? And when and what problems do you see with that?

77

General THOMPSON. Ma’am, I don’t think you were in the room

when I was asked that question. And my response was, there is a

request for a proposal on the street today for any and all offers to

bring in their products, to continue the ESAPI production or to

produce something that has got greater capability than the ESAPI

plates that we have today. Sixty days from May 25th, which is at

the end of July, anybody that comes in with a product, we will

evaluate that product, we will evaluate it by the Army Test and

Evaluation Command.

We will have the director of Operational Test and Evaluation for

OSD oversee that test. We will not conduct it at H.P. White because that was the concern raised earlier today.

But if Pinnacle wants to be evaluated, they have to respond to

the RFP that is out there on the street today because if they don’t,

it is unfair to the other commercial competitors out there, that why

would we test Pinnacle when they don’t respond to the RFP.

So that would be my position. I think the Competition in Contracting Act and all of the acquisition acts we have got——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I understand that. There was a concern over the criteria or some of the elements that had to be assessed, and is that going to prohibit any companies who have something that is protective and yet perhaps doesn’t adhere to this criteria that you set forth?

General BROWN. I believe that Pinnacle body armor was concerned that their particular technical solution, which are flexible

disks, would not qualify under the current solicitation. They can

produce a qualifying proposal under the current solicitation.

In the final analysis, what we are worried about is, does the solution stop the threat round? And if it stops the threat round, then

next, is it suitable and effective? You know, can the soldier wear

it and move, shoot, communicate, carry his other gear.

So we are not sold on any particular one technical solution. We

want all commerce.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And was that a problem in the past

that the technical solution was restricted in some way?

General BROWN. Clearly, in Mr. Neal’s mind, it was, but in ours,

it wasn’t.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. That is helpful.

Is this the same body armor that the Iraqi troops are using?

General BROWN. No, ma’am. The only troops that have the Interceptor Body Armor are U.S. Army, U.S. Marines and other Department of Defense personnel.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. How would you describe their body

armor.

General BROWN. I would say it is effective to a certain level. It

is not as effective as Interceptor Body Armor.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. If I could follow up because the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is looking at the Iraqi

army, is that body armor that we had used before; or where is that

made and what do you know about that.

General BROWN. Ma’am, I am rapidly outside of my lane. The

equipping of the new Iraqi army belongs to another general, and

I believe his name is Brigadier General Clinton Anderson. I could

be wrong about that.

78

General THOMPSON. Ma’am, I think we would take that one for

the record and get back to you.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 223.]

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And if in fact you were to find that

one or several body armors met the standard and was equally efficacious, I don’t know where you draw that line.

Once something meets the standard and then goes beyond that,

what is the procedure for basically choosing something different

and have we done that before? Is that something commonly done?

General THOMPSON. Yes, ma’am. Once you have one—if you have

two or more that meet the standard, that is when we would do a

true side-by-side against the standard and against the operational

requirement, and we would pick the best one to go forward. And

so—but you have got to meet the initial standard, and then we

would do a true side-by-side.

General BROWN. There is the initial hurdle you have got to get

over: Do you stop the threat round? And if you have multiple players or multiple solutions that stop the threat round, then you go

out and put them side by side and go after the best solution, which

is the best combination of area covered, flexibility, weight, ballistic

protection.

General THOMPSON. General Brown makes a good point. It is not

just the best ballistic protection. It is the total requirement. It is

the modularity, it is the weights, it is to be able to wear that piece

of equipment with all of the other gear that a soldier or service

member has to carry. So it is not just ballistic protection——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I would actually include in motion,

too, because I think that is an issue.

But I appreciate that, and I wanted to be certain that in fact, if

we found that to be the case, that you move forward in a fashion

to try and evaluate that so that we could have the best.

General THOMPSON. And one of the reminders that I was just

given is, we make multiple awards to people. We don’t have just

one supplier; we have six current suppliers that have met the

standard. And obviously the reason we do that is because you get

the benefit of the competition when you have more than one supplier for a particular product.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Ms. Davis.

Gentlemen, I wanted you to know that I learned some years ago

when Mrs. Bordallo says something that is correct, that you better

be careful to question her.

I want to read, General Thompson, from your written statement,

quote, ‘‘We have all of the funding support we need to make sure

that every soldier has the protection he or she needs. However, the

Army is continually evaluating new technology, and additional

funding for research and development would expedite that work,’’

and that was from your statement.

So I think a number of us have concerns that maybe you all want

to do more research than you can and the budget has not been so

good.

Just one final comment with regard to this May 25th versus July

25th date.

79

Neither the chairman nor Ranking Member Hunter was here to

hear your discussion as a way to resolve this testing. I know Mr.

Neal did say he thought the middle of July was the soonest he

could have the vests to test. That may work out well, but the chairman and ranking member may have some thoughts about this

plan, too.

We appreciate you all being here. I think a lot of questions were

answered. I am sure in the minds of a lot of people there were

some questions that still need to be answered, and we appreciate

your patience and being with us here today.

General THOMPSON. Before you wrap up, and I know you are

dying to do that, but can I make two more points that I think are

very important, and they need to be said for the record.

There was a question raised about the R&D going on amidst the

shot raised by Mr. Neal. And the reference shots that were part of

the testing were part of the first article test protocol. So there was

no research and development activity going on when we tested Pinnacle’s product in May of 2006.

And the other point I would make, we showed you the picture

of one of the full penetrations where we looked at the x-ray, and

Mr. Neal said that he didn’t think that was a full penetration. If

I showed you the other x-ray pictures where he made that same

claim, you would also see full penetrations into the ballistic clay all

the way through into the Pinnacle product. So it wasn’t just that

one; it was all of the x-ray pictures where there was something

showing on the screen. It wasn’t sitting on top of the plate. It was

through the plate, and it was the residue that was left, but not the

bullet itself.

I know we took the question for the record, but I would like General Brown to cover one more thing and that is the square foot coverage.

General BROWN. Yes, sir. Thank you.

The question is, how do you get to the large differential in

weight, the 47.5 pounds versus the 28 pounds? Well, it is one of

these situations where you can’t have it both ways. On the one

hand, Pinnacle Dragon Skin claims that they have 3.6 feet—square

feet area rifle coverage for the SOV–3000. That very thing—as

compared to the IBA, which has 2.6 square feet of rifle coverage,

it is that very difference in rifle coverage weight that drives that

weight up.

So, on the one hand, he would claim that we got 3.6 square feet

of rifle coverage, but on the other hand, you would say we are only

27 pounds. Well, they are either/or; you can’t have both. You either

have to drive down your area of rifle coverage to get to 27 pounds

or drive up your weight to get to 3.6 square feet. So it is a law of

physics.

Dr. SNYDER. This has been a large panel. Some of you may have

had some comments you wanted to make. You may submit those

answers as statements for the record. Members may also have

questions for the record that we hope you will respond to in a timely fashion so that may best utilize the information.

We appreciate you all being here. The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 6, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 6, 2007

(85)

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 6, 2007

(173)

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

JUNE 6, 2007

(201)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SKELTON

The CHAIRMAN. The Army indicates you personally observed each test conducted

on Dragon Skin in May of 2006. Do you agree with this statement?

i. In your opinion, did the Army’s tests from May of 2006 violate testing

protocol? In what way and did you raise your issues during the tests? If

not, why not?

Mr. NEAL. Yes. Yes the testing conducted by the Army did violate testing protocol.

On the first day I did start out in disagreement when both Karl Masters the Test

Director and James Zheng from Natick, who was conducting the tests could not even

define a ‘‘Hard Edge’’ to the flexible system, and could not understand the overlap

configurations or how to define the areal densities of the flexible armor system.

On the second day I did complain about James Zheng taking R&D shots and deviating from the test protocol and procedures, especially by shooting into an area that

did not have rifle defeating discs in place and then shooting discs by themselves.

That was the time when James and Karl began a heated argument on the testing

procedures and the Karl threw down his clipboard and told James Zheng that he

would be responsible for the testing that he was conducting and walked out of the

range. I also complained about not being able to view all of the events such as the

post x-rays, etc.

The CHAIRMAN. When and how did Pinnacle receive notice of compliance with NIJ

Level 3 performance for SOV2000.1/MIL3AF01?

Mr. NEAL. That was received via Email on December 20, 2006 three months after

passing the ballistic testing on September 19, 2006. The first test to validate the

protocol and procedures, shot requirements and obliquity shots for the NIJ to adopt

a flexible armor system protocol did not even take place until August 3, 2006. Please

see documents #3, 4, & 5. [The information referred to is retained in the committee

files and can be viewed upon request.]

The CHAIRMAN. When did Pinnacle Armor first contact NIJ about submitting any

Dragon Skin product for Level III or Level IV compliance testing?

Mr. NEAL. I started this process for a flexible rifle certification with NIJ back in

February of 2002.

The CHAIRMAN. NIJ revised its Level III and Level IV testing protocols to test for

the unique failure modes that are possible with flexible armor systems such as

Dragon Skin, which are composed of overlapping ceramic disks. Do you think that

these revisions were reasonable?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, as it will fit multiple designs for various overlap conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. Has any Dragon Skin product been tested for compliance with the

NIJ level 4 performance? Did any pass?

Mr. NEAL. No, not yet. We are preparing for the side-by-side FAT test first and

foremost, as you had requested during the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any improvements to the Dragon Skin SOV level

3000 vest since the Army’s tests from May of 2006? If so, what were they and did

you notify the Army of these improvements?

Mr. NEAL. We improved the QC process for us as well as the adhesive laminator

on the application process of the adhesives to the aramid textiles to preclude a gap

in the adhesive. As I testified they now produce a 1′′/25mm overlap at the joint rather than a butt joint. Additionally, they mark the joint locations on each side of the

roll for easy visual inspection as the material is rolled off of the main roll. Yes, the

Army was notified of the changes that were decided on by the laminating company

and myself before the end of the test. I told Karl Masters the Test Director, personally.

The CHAIRMAN. If another round of comprehensive first article tests were mandated how quickly could you provide the necessary 30 test articles?

Mr. NEAL. We are currently manufacturing the vests and they will be ready by

the first week of August 2007.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Pinnacle chosen to compete in any of the Army’s recent competitions or solicitations for body armor? If not, why?

202

Mr. NEAL. Yes. You will also see in the documents package provided at the hearing six from the last year that we attempted to compete in, despite the allegations

of the Army.

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed

upon request.]

The CHAIRMAN. Please detail for the committee your concerns of the Army’s May

06 tests? For example do you believe they calculated the comparison of areal density

accurately?

Mr. NEAL. No. The Army did not calculate it correctly at all. I tried to explain

this during the hearing but it seemed as if no one tried to understand the differences. In fact, he weight vs.ballistic performance are so light that the Army classified it ‘‘SECRET’’ due to its mass efficiency as per the Security Classification

Guide at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

The document package from the hearing also has the data to refute it. The XL

vest that the Army showed you had 5.6 square feet of rifle defeating coverage. The

Interceptor that they showed had 2.8 square feet of rifle defeating coverage. That

is not an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’ comparison. The Dragon Skin® vest had twice the

amount of rifle defeating coverage. If you double the weight of the Army’s 28 pound

vest you will then see the real difference. By the way, the actual weights of every

vest as weighed and written down by the Army is also in the documents package.

You can validate the weights by the serial number on the vest. It weighs less than

what the scale showed, and that is their document.

The additional concerns were the R&D shoots taken during the FAT test. This

was to be a First Article test and the protocols and procedures should not have been

deviated from. They could have conducted their R&D subsequent to the testing, to

help them understand the system.

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed

upon request.]

The CHAIRMAN. Why does it appear that there are varying results of Dragon Skin

(Flexible Body Armor) when tested at different facilities?

Mr. NEAL. That is a concern not only of our company but others as well. The only

place and testing control where the Dragon Skin® seems to fail is where the FAT

test was conducted, and under the Army’s testing control. We have tested it for numerous federal, state and local agencies with them doing the testing without failures. For the record, I do have a 620+ page classified ‘‘SECRET’’ report that validates

the data on the level 4 and 5 Dragon Skin® body armor system, if you have someone with the clearance capability to receive it. It proves what I attempted to explain

about the holes in the clay and the x-rays discrepancies that the Army told to Mr.

Duncan Hunter and specifically defines the flexible armor and it attributes, especially its capabilities to defeat IED threats, substantially higher than the current

armor systems issued today. All of the testing was conducted at the U.S. Army Test

Laboratory and ATC in Aberdeen Maryland.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you personally observe the NBC News ballistic tests conducted in Germany? How did the tests in Germany compare to the tests that you

observed at HP White test facility? What test protocol was followed for the tests conducted in Germany?

Mr. NEAL. Yes, I personally attended and hand carried the body armor to be tested. The tests were extremely strict and a substantial amount of precedence was set

to insure that no deviations or deviation from the protocol would happen, as they

were video recorded the entire time by multiple camera personnel.

The projectiles shot and their velocities were from the ESAPI specification except

the level 5 rounds that are not covered by that specification, which are much more

difficult to stop. The total number of shots was set to the NIJ requirement of 6

rounds. The first three shots were to the ESAPI spacing requirements.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the model of Dragon Skin vest used by NBC News the same

model used by the Army in May of 2006? Describe any differences such as weight,

area of rifle-defeating armor coverage, level of protection, and configuration.

Mr. NEAL. Yes. The only difference was that I supplied a 10′′x12′′ dimensioned

panel to be the same size as the 10′′x12′′ ESAPI green colored plates that were provided by Mr. Magee.

The CHAIRMAN. Please describe your involvement and timeline with the NBC testing of Dragon skin. Did NBC contact you?

Mr. NEAL. My involvement with NBC was for them to interview me regarding the

Dragon Skin® body armor, how well it defeats the threats and to provide a vest to

do a side-by-side limited test. Yes, they contacted me.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you think NBC chose to use a German test facility instead of one of the two NIJ certified laboratories here in the United States?

203

Mr. NEAL. I do not know that information. You would have to ask NBC that.

The CHAIRMAN. The Army indicates an SOV 3000 vest size XL weighs 47.5 lbs.

Do you agree with this statement?

Mr. NEAL. No absolutely not. I tried to explain this during the hearing but it

seemed as if no one tried to understand the differences. The weight vs. ballistic performance are so light that the Army classified it ‘‘SECRET’’ due to its mass efficiency as per the Security Classification Guide.

The document package from the hearing also has the data to refute it. The XL

vest that the Army showed you had 5.6 square feet of rifle coverage. The Interceptor

that they showed had 2.8 square feet of coverage. That is not an ‘‘apples-to-apples’’

comparison. The Dragon Skin® vest had twice the amount of rifle defeating coverage. If you double the weight of the Army’s 28 pound vest you will then see the

real difference. By the way, the actual weights of every vest as weighed and written

down by the Army is also in the documents package. You can validate the weights

by the serial number on the vest. It weighs less than what the scale showed, and

that is their document.

That is only part of the issue. The Dragon Skin® body armor system can vary

in weights depending upon the amount of rifle defeating coverage a user wants.

That is the great element, in that this is the first body armor system available for

the military that can truly be tailored for mission specific requirements and fit both

male and females to the 97 percentile, these capabilities cannot be done with current plated body armor technologies.

The CHAIRMAN. The Army also indicates an SOV 3000 vest size XL is comparable

to an IBA ESAPI size large. Do you agree with this comparison?

Mr. NEAL. No, I do not. Again, you have no way of knowing what coverage option

of the Dragon Skin® body armor that could be compared. Just as there are various

sizes of vests the Dragon Skins® flexible body armor provides numerous high powered rifle defeating coverage options for each size of vest.

The CHAIRMAN. The Air Force stated it is pursuing debarment action against your

company. Have you been notified of this action? Do you plan to appeal if the Air

Force debarment action is approved?

Mr. NEAL. We have been officially notified as of July 5, 2007. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many Department of Defense (DOD) body armor contracts

has your company been awarded since 2001? How many Dragon Skin vests were

sold to DOD organizations and/or other government agencies (not individuals in

DOD) under those contracts? Are you presently under contract with DOD for body

armor? Would you require relief from those contracts in order to provide the necessary 30 test articles for another round of performance tests?

Mr. NEAL. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. If the Army were to conduct another round of first article tests

how would you prefer to see those tests carried out?

Mr. NEAL. I would like to see an independent third party test as you have requested (side-by-side) for the First Article Test (FAT) with OSD and DOT&E oversight. This could be conducted at ATC as they have those oversight personnel currently in place and the equipment to conduct the testing. I would like to attend as

an observer only. This should be conducted without any direct control of the Army

and only by the ATC personnel. When the testing is completed you will see that

the Dragon Skin® body armor system is truly ready for use within the military, and

provides substantial trauma reduction in addition to the other 9 attributes of the

system. Please see Document #6.

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed

upon request.]

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel the body armor your service is procuring to meet your

operational requirements is the best available? Why? How did you reach that decision?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. Yes, the body armor provided to Soldiers

today meets operational requirements and is proven both in rigorous testing and in

combat to be the best body armor in the world. Since the inception of the U.S.

Army’s Body Armor program, the commercial marketplace has been afforded the opportunity, through full and open competition, to demonstrate their body armor products to the U.S. Army. Extensive testing of all body armor products provided to the

Army has shown there is nothing more effective on the market today than the

Army’s Interceptor Body Armor.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today? What assurances can you give that they are open, fair, and

effective?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. All body armor testing is conducted at

an independent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified ballistic laboratory to

204

ensure there is no perception of bias in evaluation. NIJ laboratories follow stringent

ballistic test guidelines that are recognized throughout the body armor industry and

the government as fair and effective. Additionally on April 26, 2007 the Government

Accountability Office published their report titled, ‘‘Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps’s Individual Body Armor System Issues,’’ which stated that ‘‘The Army

and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding

to assure that body armor meets requirements. Both services conduct quality and

ballistic testing prior to fielding and lots are rejected if the standards are not met.

They both also conduct formal testing on every lot of body armor (vests and protective inserts) prior to acceptance and issuance to troops.’’

The CHAIRMAN. What is your service’s current safety of use policy with regard to

operationally deployed forces using non-mil-spec, privately procured body armor?

When did you make this decision? a. Please explain the rationale behind this decision?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. The U.S. Army has a current Safety of

Use Message (SOUM) dated March 17, 2006 specifying that Soldiers are only authorized to wear Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). The rationale for the SOUM is

based on a series of tests conducted on commercial body armor that failed to meet

U.S. Army ballistic and weight requirements. Therefore, the decision to publish the

SOUM was to inform Soldiers that commercial body armor products, not certified

by the U.S. Army, are unsafe and could cause death or serious injury.

The CHAIRMAN. What are your body armor requirements? When do you expect to

meet these requirements?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. Current requirements are for 966,000

sets of IBA. The Army expects to meet the requirement for Enhanced/Small Arms

Protective Inserts by September 2008.

The CHAIRMAN. Please list all the qualified vendors that supply your service with

body armor, by body armor component, to your branch of service.

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. U.S. Army Body Armor Suppliers:

Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) & Deltoid Axillary Protector (DAP)

Point Blank Body Armor (Deerfield Beach, FL)

Specialty Defense Systems (Dunmore, PA)

Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (ESAPI)

Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

BAE (Formally CERCOM - Vista, CA)

Simula (Phoenix, AZ)

Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

Protective Materials (Miami Lakes, FL)

Armacell - (Camarillo, CA)

Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts

Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

The CHAIRMAN. How critical is the weight requirement for the overall body armor

system?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. The entire IBA ensemble weighs 31

pounds for size medium. The weight requirement is absolutely critical to the overall

body armor requirement. The current weight of a Core Soldier today is approximately 75 pounds. Doctrinally, a Core Soldier weight should be less then 60 pounds.

The Soldier’s load, both weight and cube, must not degrade the mobility of the dismounted Soldier and the momentum of small unit operations in close combat in

close, complex terrain. The dismounted Soldier will maneuver through upper floor

windows, underground sewers, holes in walls, over walls, and over rubble in all environments. He will have to roll left and right and then sprint three to five seconds

through varied terrain to the next covered and concealed position while under hostile enemy fire. The Soldier and small unit need the mobility to pursue and defeat

a fleeting enemy in complex terrain. Reducing the collective weight of items carried

by the Soldier improves his mobility and survivability in difficult terrain. Any increase in weight will reduce the Soldier’s mobility, survivability, and may negatively

impact mission accomplishment (e.g. capture of a fleeing high value target). Secondary effects of increased weight are a reduction in Soldier endurance, increased susceptibility to heat injury, and potential hindrance of buddy evacuation of wounded

Soldiers. As a result, the Army is continuously working to reduce the weight carried

by the Soldiers.

The CHAIRMAN. Please explain the Army’s history with the Pinnacle Dragon Skin

body armor system.

205

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. Below is a summary of the Army’s history with Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor:

Developmental Efforts:

Test Date Agency/Test Site R&D

- Jan 2001- ARL - Aberdeen Test Center Flexible Armor

Jan 2003 (Phase 1) Evaluation (Small

Business Initiative

July 2003- ARL - Aberdeen Test Center Research) Contract

July 2006 (Phase 2) with the Army

The information below shows testing at H.P. White an independent NIJ certified

test facility and at the Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Test Center:

Result

- May 2004 Army/HP White Failed

- Sep 2005 Marine Corps/HP White Failed

- Dec 2005 Army/Aberdeen Test Center Inconclusive

- Jan 2006 Army/HP White Failed

- Feb 2006 Air Force/Aberdeen Test Center Failed

The U.S. Army issued a Safety of Use Message (SOUM) dated March 17, 2006

specifying that Soldiers are only authorized to wear Interceptor Body Armor (IBA).

The decision to publish the SOUM was to inform Soldiers that commercial body

armor products, not certified by the U.S. Army, are unsafe and could cause death

or serious injury.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to conduct another first article test on the Pinnacle

Dragon Skin system? What if Dragon Skin passes ballistic testing? Would you allow

Soldiers to wear Dragon Skin? If no, why?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. The U.S. Army has a current body

armor solicitation, number W91CRB07R0041, posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) May 27, 2007 with a closing date of July 27, 2007. If Pinnacle

Armor submits a proposal and the requisite number of Preliminary Design Models

(PDMs), the U.S. Army will conduct first article test protocols of Dragon Skin during

source selection. If Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin is selected for contract award, a

first article test will be conducted. While ballistic testing is important, any body

armor system must meet all Army requirements, to include weight, area coverage,

modularity, etc. The decision to allow Soldiers to wear Dragon Skin is not based on

ballistics alone. The weight requirement is absolutely critical to the overall body

armor requirement. The Soldier’s load, both weight and cube, must not degrade the

mobility of the dismounted Soldier and the momentum of small unit operations in

close combat in close, complex terrain. Any increase in weight will reduce the Soldier’s mobility and endurance while simultaneously increasing their risk of becoming a heat casualty. Additionally, the modularity of today’s IBA affords the Commander on the ground the ability to determine configuration based on mission requirements.

The CHAIRMAN. Has NBC News provided the Army with their official test results?

Did the Army confirm that the IBA system used in the NBC News test was a product representative of current body armor?

General THOMPSON. Lisa Myers (NBC correspondent) told Brigadier General

Brown she would provide the government with NBC’s test results during her May

8, 2007 interview. To date, NBC has not provided the test results. The U.S. Army

has not been able to determine how ballistic plates ended up in Germany or been

able to confirm that the plates used in the NBC news report were representative

of the current Interceptor Body Armor.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any request made by NBC to any individual in

the DOD for a qualified IBA test article?

General THOMPSON. The U.S. Army is not aware of any such request.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you use the same test standards and protocols for all body

armor vendors?

General THOMPSON. Yes, by performance specification.

The CHAIRMAN. How often have you had full and open competitions or solicitations for body armor? How many vendors usually participate in these competitions?

How many vendors are currently used to produce the E–SAPI plates?

General THOMPSON. The U.S. Army publicly announces body armor solicitations

to meet U.S. Army requirements. Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the

206

U.S. Army has publicly announced three body armor solicitations. The U.S. Army

has six contractors currently under contract to produce ESAPI plates.

The CHAIRMAN. During the May 2006 tests did you deviate from first article test

protocol procedures? If so why did you deviate?

General THOMPSON. The Army did not deviate from any first article test protocol

procedure during the May 2006 testing of the Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin SOV

3000.

The CHAIRMAN. Explain how you arrived at the calculation of areal density of the

two systems tested at H.P. White Laboratories in May 2006 to show that Dragon

Skin is 50% heavier than IBA (12.53 pounds per square foot for Dragon Skin versus

8.05 pounds per square foot for IBA)?

General THOMPSON. There are three subcomponents of the Dragon Skin SOV 3000

armor that the Army tested in May 2006 at HP White. These subcomponents are

shown below:

The Army performed the areal density calculation by weighing and measuring the

area of each of the three layers of the Dragon Skin. The weight of each layer was

divided by its area to determine the areal density of each layer in pounds per square

foot (PSF). The three areal densities were added together with the areal density of

the spall cover to determine the areal density of the front and rear armor panels.

An example calculation for the Dragon Skin SOV 3000 in size large is shown below:

ESAPI areal density is calculated by dividing the weight of each size of ESAPI

by the area of the respective size plate. The areal density of the ESAPI plate alone

works out to 7.0 pounds per square foot. The areal density of the soft armor of the

Outer Tactical Vest is nominally 1.05 pounds per square foot. Therefore, the total

areal density of the complete Interceptor Body Armor package (hard and soft armor)

207

equates to 8.05 pounds per square foot and can be compared to the complete Dragon

Skin armor areal density.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand you just awarded a new contract for an improved

outer tactical vest. Was this contract awarded under full and open competition? How

many vendors competed? Did you consider Dragon Skin or any other system that

was not of a rigid plate standard design?

General THOMPSON. No, the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) contract was

awarded on a sole source basis to meet urgent and compelling requirements of the

theater commander. The contract was awarded to two vendors. The IOTV has three

primary improvements: a quick release, less weight and more area coverage. Dragon

Skin could not fulfill the role of the IOTV, because the IOTV is a body armor carrier

only. Dragon Skin is an integrated carrier/plate system that is not modular. Dragon

Skin significantly weighs more than IBA. If the U.S. Army determines that there

is an additional requirement for IOTV, beyond the theater need, a full and open

competition will occur.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you encourage the development of next generation body

armor by the industrial and R&D communities and what is the Army’s process for

evaluating these potential advances?

General THOMPSON. As with all systems, to include the next generation body

armor, the U.S. Army continually collaborates with the industrial base for technology to meet U.S. Army requirements. In the area of body armor, the U.S. Army

encourages industry with the opportunities to show and demonstrate their products.

For example, the U.S. Army sponsors open industry days and holds Soldier Protection Demonstrations to allow industrial base vendors to demonstrate their body

armor products. The U.S. Army also has a program called the Soldier Enhancement

Program (SEP) on the PEO Soldier public web site for any vendor to post ideas for

subsequent evaluation by U.S. Army subject matter experts. Additionally, the U.S.

Army has research and development funds programmed in the Program Objective

Memorandum (POM) to fund future developments of the next generation body

armor. The CHAIRMAN. Isn’t ESAPI export controlled? How did ESAPI plates end up in

a German test lab?

General THOMPSON. Yes, ESAPI is export controlled. To our knowledge, armor

plates supplied to NBC for their tests in Germany were not provided by one of the

current or past ballistic plate suppliers to the U.S. Army or by the U.S. Army.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that the Army has been interested in flexible

armor systems for several years and has supported the development of Pinnacle

Armor Dragon Skin technology through the Small Business Innovation Research

program with the Army Research Laboratory. Please summarize this program.

General THOMPSON. USA Armoring (since renamed to Pinnacle Armor) was awarded a $120,000 Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract

with a period of performance from January 10, 2001 to January 12, 2003. The overall objective of the Phase I effort was to develop a flexible, lighter, thinner body

armor capable of defeating multiple and repeated high power rifle threats. Upon

successful completion of the Phase I effort, USA Armoring was awarded a

$717,479.55 Phase II contract with a period of performance from July 7, 2003 to

July 6, 2006. The overall objective of the Phase II effort was to develop flexible body

armor that was capable of providing National Institute of Justice Level IV protection.

The CHAIRMAN. On page 8 of the recent XSAPI/ESAPI product description, section

3.9.1 Area of Coverage indicates that ‘‘. . . any cuts with open gap and/or slits on

any materials used in XSAPI are not allowed.’’ Does this statement preclude vendors who may submit flexible armor designs or mosaic tile designs from competing

in this solicitation?

General THOMPSON. No. This restriction applies only to a specific type of technology used with hard ceramic inserts. Gaps or slits in the ceramic tile are not allowed under the referenced paragraph. Flexible designs will be submitted under the

Flexible Small Arms Protective Vest purchase description, not under the XSAPI/

ESAPI purchase description, so the statement contained in paragraph 3.9.1 does not

apply to flexible armor designs. Rigid mosaic tile designs may be submitted under

the ESAPI or XSAPI portion of the solicitation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel the body armor your service is procuring to meet your

operational requirements is the best available? Why? How did you reach that decision?

Colonel SMITH. The body armor the United States Navy is procuring to meet its

operational requirements is the very best available. For our Naval Expeditionary

Combat ground forces attached to Marine Forces in theater, the Navy procures the

same body armor protection used by the Marine Corps. The Navy is procuring the

208

newer Modular tactical vests with all of the required ballistic protection as determined by the combatant commander. Our maritime forces in theater (such as Naval

Coastal Warfare and Riverine) use ballistic vests that are designed for use in a maritime environment. All of the body armor procured has undergone stringent and rigorous testing to provide the maximum protection for our sailors in harm’s way. The

Navy will continue to leverage the Army and Marine Corps research and development initiatives to ensure that it has the best equipment available.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today? What assurances can you give that they are open, fair, and

effective?

Colonel SMITH. The Department of the Navy’s body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today are fair and reasonable representatives of what may occur on

the battlefield and provide an excellent insight of the capabilities of each vest. The

services identify their requirements and solicit proposals for any and all qualified

vendors to produce a ballistic vest that would meet their requirements. The Department of Justice, with representatives from the government, DoD, and industry, conduct the testing of all submitted vests and records all of the results. The very best

equipment, which meets our requirements, is selected and fielded. After fielding and

deployment, the Department of the Navy conducts additional testing of those ballistic vests exposed in theater to measure any potential degradation of performance.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your service’s current safety of use policy with regard to

operationally deployed forces using non-mil-spec, privately procured body armor?

When did you make this decision? a. Please explain the rationale behind this decision?

Colonel SMITH. The following excerpt is taken from NAVADMIN 149/07, Navy

Policy on the Wear and Purchase of Body Armor and Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE), released June 08, 2007:

‘‘INDIVIDUAL SAILORS SHALL NOT USE COMMERCIAL PPE IN LIEU OF

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TESTED, APPROVED AND ISSUED PPE. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE MEMBERS OF THEIR COMMANDS TO USE

COMMERCIALLY PURCHASED PPE ITEMS IN ADDITION TO THOSE ISSUED

BY THE GOVERNMENT, AS LONG AS ADDITIONS DO NOT REPLACE OR

INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTIONALITY OF APPROVED PPE.’’

This NAVADMIN reiterated existing Navy policy that has been in place for several years. There has been no alteration or change to the policy following the NBC

News story on Pinnacle Armor’s ‘‘Dragon Skin.’’ However, the controversial story did

create the circumstances where we felt it was necessary to restate existing policy

to protect our sailors from substandard equipment.

The CHAIRMAN. What are your body armor requirements? When do you expect to

meet these requirements?

Colonel SMITH. Operationally, Navy personnel in harm’s way are completely outfitted with the appropriate body armor authorized for their mission as dictated by

theater COCOM guidance.

The Navy acquires body armor for three main mission requirements: Navy expeditionary forces, individual augmentees assigned to joint forces, and shipboard antiterrorism.

Navy expeditionary forces comprise of Naval Construction, airlift support, cargo

handling, maritime security, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Riverine, and medical/

Marine Corps support forces. Navy expeditionary forces that operate over land, such

as the Seabees and EOD forces, require enhanced ballistic and fragmentation protection for the torso and extremities. The Naval Construction Force’s requirements

are being met with the procurement and fielding of the Modular Tactical Vest

throughout the end of July 2007. Naval expeditionary forces that operate on the

water, such as Naval Coastal Warfare (NCW) and the Riverine forces, require a

lightweight, Tactical Maritime Body Armor System that includes a single pull release mechanism allowing for the vest to fall away and the employment of float

packs to maintain positive buoyancy.

Individual Augmentees who operate exclusively on land with joint forces will continue to use the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) with level IV ballistic protection, as provided by the Army.

Shipboard Anti-Terrorism personnel require a concealable body armor that provides extended level III ballistic coverage of the front, sides, and back of the torso.

The vest must also be neutrally buoyant for enhanced safety during water operations.

The FY07 Supplemental request included $33M for individual protection equipment. This includes not only body armor, but also helmets, ballistic eyewear, protective clothing, etc. The body armor portion was $15M to include initial outfitting for

209

Riverine forces with the Tactical Maritime Body Armor System, and outfitting

Naval Construction Forces scheduled to deploy in September with Modular Tactical

Vests.

The Navy has requested additional body armor with the FY08 budget request to

continue supporting body armor upgrades and refurbishment. The body armor requirement for FY08 is still under review and will evolve as a result of operational

tempo.

The CHAIRMAN. Please list all the qualified vendors that supply your service with

body armor, by body armor component, to your branch of service.

Colonel SMITH. See below:

OTV

Specialty Defense (Dunmore, PA)

MTV

PPI (Sunrise, FL)

E-SAPI

Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

ArmorHoldings (Phoenix, AZ)

Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

Side SAPI

Integrator - Source One (Wellington, FL)

Carrier - MED-ENG (Ontario, Canada)

Carrier - PPI (Sunrise, FL)

Carrier - Specialty Defense (Dunmore, PA)

Plate - Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

Plate - Diamondback Tactical (Glendale, AZ)

Plate - Armor Holdings (Phoenix, AZ)

Plate - Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

Plate - ArmorHoldings (Phoenix, AZ)

QuadGard

FS Technology (Alexandria, VA)

CoverCraft (Pauls Valley, OK and Wichita Falls, TX)

LWH

Gentex Corp (Simpson, PA)

Goggles and Spectacles

ESS Inc. (Sun Valley, ID)

Combat Ear Plug

Aearo Company (Indianapolis, IN)

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel the body armor your service is procuring to meet your

operational requirements is the best available? Why? How did you reach that decision?

Colonel SMITH. I am confident that our current body armor is the best available

to meet our mission requirements in defeating small arms rifle fire threats at an

acceptable weight. Maintaining flexibility and agility is key to battlefield success.

There have been countless examples of our body armor saving lives. To date, we

have not had any deaths due to a complete penetration of the Enhanced Small Arms

Protective Insert by a threat round it is designed to defeat.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today? What assurances can you give that they are open, fair, and

effective?

Colonel SMITH. Our body armor test protocols are constantly evaluated to ensure

that they thoroughly and properly test the plates in all potential operational environments. The test protocols are made available to all manufacturers and most of

the manufacturers have a representative witnessing ballistic testing at the approved

test laboratories.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your service’s current safety of use policy with regard to

operationally deployed forces using non-mil-spec, privately procured body armor?

When did you make this decision? a. Please explain the rationale behind this decision?

Colonel SMITH. MARADMIN 262/07, which the Marine Corps published in Apr 07,

articulates the Marine Corps’ policy on the wear and purchase of body armor and

personal protective equipment (PPE). Purchasing additional PPE is not recommended because (1) the Marine Corps is providing, at no cost to them, the best

210

PPE available and (2) current policy prohibits utilizing commercially purchased PPE

in place of government tested, approved and issued PPE. While commanders may

authorize their Marines to wear commercially purchased PPE items in addition to

their issued PPE, it cannot be done if it interferes with functionality. The PPE that

the Marine Corps issues has met government test standards. In many cases these

standards exceed civilian test standards (as is the case for body armor). PPE that

Marines can purchase commercially is not required to meet government test standards and therefore does not necessarily provide the same level of protection to the

Marine.

The CHAIRMAN. What are your body armor requirements? When do you expect to

meet these requirements?

Colonel SMITH. Our requirement is to provide deploying Marines with the best

body armor available to protect from ballistic projectiles, blast, and fire, while balancing the need to keep the equipment light enough to permit Marines to carry out

their missions under physical and environmentally demanding conditions. In that

regard, we have fielded the Lightweight Helmet (fragmentation and 9mm ballistic

protection, 3.45 lbs), and the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) with Enhanced Small Arms

Protective Inserts (E–SAPI; 7.62 ballistic protection, 5.5 lbs each) and Side Small

Arms Protective Inserts (Side SAPI; 7.62 ballistic protection, 2.5 lbs each) to all Marines who deploy outside the continental United States. We have built up stockpiles

to ensure that Marines are equipped during predeployment training in the same

manner that they will be when they deploy. We are currently fielding the Modular

Tactical Vest (MTV) to replace the OTV. The MTV uses the E–SAPI and Side SAPI

plates but provides improved mobility and better comfort. This fielding will continue

into the first quarter of FY08, but this will not represent the completion of our efforts. While considering the ever changing tactical environment, we are constantly

conducting aggressive research and development to increase protection, increase climate consideration, and decrease equipment weight.

The CHAIRMAN. Please list all the qualified vendors that supply your service with

body armor, by body armor component, to your branch of service.

Colonel SMITH.

OTV

Specialty Defense (Dunmore, PA)

MTV

PPI (Sunrise, FL)

E-SAPI

Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

ArmorHoldings (Phoenix, AZ)

Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

Side SAPI

Integrator - Source One (Wellington, FL)

Carrier - MED-ENG (Ontario, Canada)

Carrier - PPI (Sunrise, FL)

Carrier - Specialty Defense (Dunmore, PA)

Plate - Ceradyne (Costa Mesa, CA)

Plate - Diamondback Tactical (Glendale, AZ)

Plate - Armor Holdings (Phoenix, AZ)

Plate - Armor Works (Tempe, AZ)

Plate - ArmorHoldings (Phoenix, AZ)

QuadGard

FS Technology (Alexandria, VA)

CoverCraft (Pauls Valley, OK and Wichita Falls, TX)

LWH

Gentex Corp (Simpson, PA)

Goggles and Spectacles

ESS Inc. (Sun Valley, ID)

Combat Ear Plug

Aearo Company (Indianapolis, IN)

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel the body armor your service is procuring to meet your

operational requirements is the best available? Why? How did you reach that decision?

211

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The Interceptor Vest, with the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI), is the AF standard body armor and meets AF operational requirements. We rely on the Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier for defining the specifications and testing of the ESAPI plates. We purchase our Interceptor

Vests and ESAPI plates from the Defense Logistics Agency as the DoD standard

issue item. This standard does not apply to AF Battlefield Airmen units (Tactical

Air Control Party TAC P), Combat Controllers (CCT), Para Rescue (PJ), Combat

Weather (CW), Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Security Forces (SF). They

are exempt from wearing the Interceptor Vest due to specific mission requirements,

however their vests use the ESAPI plates for body armor.

AF Special Operations Forces Support Activity (SOFSA) researched the available

options for their unique mission and selected the Special Operations Forces Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) as their choice of tactical vest that also uses

the ESAPI plate for armor protection.

The Interceptor Vest consists of two components; the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV)

and the ESAPI plates. The OTV is made of a Kevlar weave, which protects the individual against 9mm rounds and is compatible with mission specific attachments,

such as the Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment (MOLLE) and All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE) systems. In addition,

there are two ESAPI plates, which are made of boron carbide ceramic and provide

protection for vital organs. The plates weigh 10.9 pounds each and protect against

multiple hits of 7.62 armor piercing rounds. In February 2004, after researching

U.S. Army-tested body armor, the AF Security Forces Center accepted the Interceptor as their standard and suitable replacement for the dated Personal Armor Systems, Ground Troops (PASGT) flak vest.

EOD has identified a need for enhancements to the existing Interceptor, for Battlefield Airmen, to meet the demands of the numerous joint-sourced taskings. Their

research has found that the Army Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier is currently fielding new body armor to US Army forces called the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV). The IOTV is 3 pounds lighter than the AF standard body armor,

offers an overhead opening; an internal waistband, providing a snug fit moving

much of the weight from the shoulders to your waist; a single stage quick release

for immediate doffing; a higher cut in the under arms to reduce the need for the

Deltoid Auxiliary Protective System (DAPS); and can accommodate longer sizes.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today? What assurances can you give that they are open, fair, and

effective?

Mr. THOMAS. The procedures currently utilized for testing and evaluating individual body armor are both thorough and effective in providing the best technology to

the warfighter. It is important to note that military requirements are more robust

than those to which commercial law enforcement body armor is designed and certified. A description of the performance required by the military to be considered

successful is included in the Purchase Description (PD) for each article to include

the Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI), Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert

(ESAPI), and Outer Tactical Vest (OTV). The PD fully describes the performance

test requirements and threats each sample will be tested against. In addition, the

PD describes the tests that need to be completed for both First Article Testing (FAT)

and Lot Acceptance Testing (LAT).

The shot pattern for multiple shot testing is stated within the PD. There are

many limiting factors to what is considered a ‘‘fair’’ shot for testing purposes, including distance between shots and distance from the edge. All testing to include environmental, durability, etc. is conducted with samples from the same production lot

from each competitor. Testing occurs at independent test labs outside of the U.S.

Army Test Center—these labs are available for testing by any competitor. Test results are given to both the company and to the Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier—the Army’s body armor acquisition authority.

A competitor cannot receive a contract for production until their samples pass the

battery of tests included in FAT. After a contract has been awarded, each lot produced is subjected to LAT. A number of production samples are taken at random

to be tested according to the LAT stated in each PD. If any test is failed, the lot

is rejected by the Army. This ensures that failed lots do not make it into the field.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your service’s current safety of use policy with regard to

operationally deployed forces using non-mil-spec, privately procured body armor?

When did you make this decision? a. Please explain the rationale behind this decision?

Mr. THOMAS. The Air Force does not currently handle testing and qualification of

armor vests. Testing and qualification is done by the Program Manager for Soldier

Equipment in the Headquarters, Department of the Army.

212

In general, the Combatant Commander for the deployed Area of Responsibility

has set policy for ‘‘approved’’ armor. The policy prohibits the use of non-DoD armor.

The Air Force purchases armor for the deploying personnel through the Defense

Logistics Agency using National Stock Number for the US Army Interceptor Body

Armor. The Army’s Program Executive Office, Soldier Equipment approves suppliers

and updates/upgrades the armor.

As with all things, there may be exceptions, but the USAF policy is to allow use

of only the armor approved by the Combatant Command for the deployed Area of

Responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. What are your body armor requirements? When do you expect to

meet these requirements?

Mr. THOMAS. The AF requested $400M to purchase 177K sets of standard body

armor to meet requirements. The AF Individual Body Armor (IBA) Fielding Plan is

based on the maximum surge potential for contingencies (4 AEFs pairs). To date,

the AF has received 163K IBA sets valued at $372M. After the FY07 spending is

complete, the AF will still require 13K sets to complete the AF fielding plan (177K

sets). The AF will request $28M for the remaining 13K sets in the FY09 Supplemental funding. When the Service Member’s Safety Act of 2006 was created, it defined ‘‘complete sets’’ as including side armor plates, therefore the AF had to request

$122M in FY08 GWOT funding to ensure compliance. Another requirement of $53M

is still needed to replace the Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) pattern outer tactical vests with the Airman Combat Uniform (ACU) pattern. Assuming approval of

FY09 Supplemental funding, the AF expects to meet its requirements upon completion of FY09 spending.

AF Special Operations Command (AFSOC) utilizes the Special Operations Forces

Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR). Although AFSOC has not identified

additional requirements for AFSOC Battlefield Airmen, shortages encountered for

AEF taskings are supported through the Expeditionary Theater Distribution Centers (ETDCs). There are requirements for 4,042 Small Arms Protective Inserts

(SAPI) plates for 2,021 vests for support personnel. These AFSOC AEF support personnel requirements remain unfunded.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) requirements are outlined in the Civil Engineering Equipment and Supply Listing for a total of 1,361 sets. Currently there are

no additional fielding requirements at this time; however, EOD forces have expressed a desire to blend in better with the supported maneuver elements utilizing

the Army Combat Uniform or ABU tactical patterned gear.

The CHAIRMAN. Please list all the qualified vendors that supply your service with

body armor, by body armor component, to your branch of service.

Mr. THOMAS. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) defines ‘‘qualified suppliers/vendors’’ as contractors from whom DLA has received acceptable shipments and who

remain actively in business. There are two qualified suppliers for the Outer Tactical

Vest: Specialty Defense System and Point Blank Body Armor; two qualified suppliers for the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI): Ceradyne and Simula;

and three qualified suppliers for the Heavy ESAPI: Ceradyne, Simula and

Armorworks.

Because Battlefield Airmen are supplied body armor to meet their unique missions, the following has been submitted: AF Special Operations Command identifies

Special Operations Forces Support Activity from Natick Soldier Center, Natick, MA

as the preferred vendor for the Special Operations Forces Equipment Advanced Requirements. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technicians identify Paraclete RMV

019 for their Deltoid Auxiliary Protective System (DAPS) and Point Blank Interceptor for Outer Tactical Vests (OTV) with DAPS.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Pinnacle Dragon Skin fail ballistic tests commissioned by the

Air Force Office of Special Investigations in February 2006? Please provide details

regarding this situation.

Mr. THOMAS. According to the contract specifications, the Pinnacle Armor SOV

2000 Level III ‘‘Plus’’ Dragon Skin vests did not fail the single Level III threat tested by AFOSI on 16 Feb 06, however, they did fail to protect against the threats Pinnacle promised they would defeat. It’s important to note the 16 Feb 06 test was not

a standardized and certified NIJ Level III test. The 16 Feb 06 tests were performed

to reveal the capabilities of Dragon Skin Level III ‘‘Plus’’ vests discussed verbally

and by email correspondence between Pinnacle Armor and HQ AFOSI personnel. It

failed to protect against those threats.

Based upon the promises made by Pinnacle in the e-mail attached below, AFOSI

requested the Aberdeen Test Center fire the following Level IV rounds into the vests

on 16 Feb 06 to confirm Pinnacle’s claims.

213

1.) 7.62 x 54mm 147 GR, (LPS - light-ball ammo w/mild steel core) - PENETRATION despite Pinnacle Armor verbal and email correspondence assurances it would

stop this threat.

2.) 7.62 x 39mm 120 GR, (BZ - armor piercing incendiary (API)) - PENETRATION

despite Pinnacle Armor verbal and email correspondence assurances it would stop

this threat.

3.) 7.62 x 39 mm 122 GR, (PS - steel case mild steel core) - PASSED as advertised

on Pinnacle Armor website.

Two additional Level IV threats that Pinnacle representatives stated the SOV

2000 Level III ‘‘Plus’’ Dragon Skin Armor could stop were not tested. These threats

were the SS–109 Green Tip 5.56mm (M–855) and 7.62x51mm M–80 ball.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the current position of the Air Force with respect to procuring Pinnacle Dragon Skin?

Mr. THOMAS. We can only answer for our organization and not the entire Air

Force. Due to the test failure during an official NIJ Level III test on 13 Jun 06,

AFOSI currently does not plan to procure Pinnacle Dragon Skin Body Armor. In addition, the Air Force issued a debarment notice to Pinnacle Armor on 21 Jun 07.

This would preclude any government agency from procuring products from Pinnacle

Armor absent a specific exception.

The CHAIRMAN. Your testimony indicates the Air Force is in the process of pursuing official debarment action against Pinnacle Armor, Inc. Where in the process is

the Air Force?

Mr. THOMAS. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. and two of its officers, Neal Murray and Paul

Chopra are listed on the General Services Administration (GSA) Excluded Parties

List System (EPLS). The content of the GSA EPLS listing is shown below. EPLS

shows all government contractors who are debarred from contracting with the federal government, or, as in this case, proposed for debarment. SAF/GCR is the debarment official who made the decision to propose debarment in this case.

EPLS Record

as of 17-Jul-2007

Name Pinnacle Armor, Inc.

Classification Firm

Exclusion Type Reciprocal

Description none

Address(es) --

Address 5425 E. Home Ste 104, Fresno, CA, 92727

DUNS 105869213

CT Action(s) --

Action Date 21-Jun-2007

Termination Date Indef.

CT Code A1

Agency AF

Action Status Modified (02–Jul–2007)

Cross Reference(s) --

Name Action Date Term Date CT Code

1. Neal Murray 20–Jun–2007 Indef. A1

2. Paul Chopra Indef A1

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Air Force sent formal notification of debarment action to

Pinnacle Armor, Inc?

Mr. THOMAS. Pinnacle Armor, Incorporated, was proposed for debarment by the

Air Force on June 21, 2007. Pinnacle has not as yet provided us with any submission or argument in opposition to the proposed debarment, and has not requested

a hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations System

(DFARS) specify a timeline for the Service to make a decision on whether or not

to proceed with proposed debarment? How long could it take before the AF decides

on the issue?

214

Mr. THOMAS. Pinnacle Armor, Incorporated, was proposed for debarment by the

Air Force on June 21, 2007. Pinnacle has not as yet provided us with any submission or argument in opposition to the proposed debarment, and has not requested

a hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel the body armor your service is procuring to meet your

operational requirements is the best available? Why? How did you reach that decision?

Colonel NOONAN. Yes, the Body Armor we procure for Special Operations Forces

(SOF) is the best armor to meet our SOF-peculiar requirements. The SOF Personnel

Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) Body Armor/Load Carriage System

(BALCS) offers the best optimization for our SOF operators for ballistic protection,

modularity, tailorability for mission, range of motion, weight, and bulk.

We have been fielding SPEAR BALCS since 1999, with significant upgrades in

2001 (ballistic plates), 2003 (vest modularity, weight, bulk), and 2006 (Modular Supplemental Armor Protection). We receive continuous feedback from our operators on

the performance of the BALCS systems through quarterly SPEAR Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) involving our Service Component Representatives, the U.S. Special Operations Command headquarters staff, and the Program Manager. We have

had numerous occasions to re-test and improve the BALCS systems, based on deficiencies noted in combat since 2001 and have taken many opportunities to do so in

support of SOF operators.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your opinion of the body armor test and evaluation procedures utilized today? What assurances can you give that they are open, fair, and

effective?

Colonel NOONAN. The Special Operations Forces (SOF) test and evaluation procedures used today are better than they have ever been, especially with the developmental work and improved methodologies developed over the past ten years. The

ability to discriminate between performing and non-performing materials and end

items against current and emerging ballistic requirements is excellent.

The ballistic methodologies do not discriminate by type of armor technology, size,

shape, or system bulk; they objectively determine the ability of the specific system

being tested to stop a specific type of threat projectile in all environmental conditions required by SOF. The current standards replicate the worst case scenario seen

on the battlefield by our Service men and women.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your service’s current safety of use policy with regard to

operationally deployed forces using non-mil-spec, privately procured body armor?

When did you make this decision? a. Please explain the rationale behind this decision?

Colonel NOONAN. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) does not

authorize individuals to purchase body armor of any type, military specifications or

otherwise. In accordance with a December 2004 memorandum, it is USSOCOM command policy that the SOF Personnel Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR)

Body Armor/Load Carriage System (BALCS) components are the only USSOCOM

approved body armor components for SOF Personnel. In June 2007, that message

was amended to allow the use of Service provided armor for training.

The CHAIRMAN. What are your body armor requirements? When do you expect to

meet these requirements?

Colonel NOONAN. The required basis of issue for the standard SOF Personnel

Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR) Body Armor is 32,507. Sufficient funding is in place to meet this requirement by the end of Fiscal Year 2008.

The CHAIRMAN. Please list all the qualified vendors that supply your service with

body armor, by body armor component, to your branch of service.

Colonel NOONAN. Tactical Plates (side, front, Modular Supplemental Armor Protection) are produced by Ceredyne in Costa Mesa, California. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is in the process of conducting a full and open competition for completion of fielding and sustainment of the plates. Contract award is

anticipated for the second quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.

Soft Armor Inserts (front and back) and the Low Visibility Body Armor Vest are

produced by Armor Holdings (Safariland) in Jacksonville, Florida and Ontario, California. They currently hold a five year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract.

The Releasable Body Armor Vest is produced by Eagle Industries in Fenton, Missouri. A full and open solicitation will be released in July 2007 for completion of

the fielding and sustainment of the vest. Contract award is anticipated for the first

Quarter of FY 2008.

Special Operations Forces Personnel Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR)

Body Armor Load Carriage System are produced by the National Institute of the

Severely Handicapped (NISH) (The Resource Center). This system’s components

215

1GAO, Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps’ Individual Body Armor Systems Issues,

GAO–07–662R (Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2007)

(harnesses, pockets, and pouches) are primarily made by Eagle Industries and packaged by NISH. A full and open solicitation will be released in July 2007. Contract

award is anticipated for the first Quarter of FY 2008.

The CHAIRMAN. From your team’s perspective is the current body armor issued

today effective in addressing current threats in Iraq and Afghanistan? On what evidence do you make that conclusion?

The GAO. In our April 2007 review1, we reported that the Army and Marine

Corps have taken several actions to meet theater inventory and ballistic requirements. Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater ballistic

requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in theater. Our audit

work primarily focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor systems for U.S.

service members deployed within the U.S Central Command (CENTCOM) area of

operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military forces and all DOD civilians in the area of operations receive the body armor

system. Currently, service members receive all service-specific standard components

of the body armor system prior to deploying.

Our conclusions are based on our audit work conducted between November 2006

and March 2007. To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting

the theater ballistic and inventory requirements for body armor, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from key DOD, Army, and Marine Corps organizations, such as the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Defense Logistics Agency; and CENTCOM, which are responsible for managing theater ballistic and inventory requirements. We visited the

Army and Marine Corps body armor program offices to obtain and analyze overall

development and management of their systems. We analyzed the ballistic requirements and compared these requirements to the body armor systems provided to personnel. The DOD operations officials and the Army and Marine Corps body armor

program officials provided us with information about both theater requirements and

body armor systems available worldwide for the Army and the Marine Corps. We

analyzed this information to determine if the amount of body armor available would

meet the amounts needed in theater. Their information included the quantities of

the outer tactical vests and its subparts provided to military personnel. We also visited the following sites—Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; the Naval

Station and the Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Marine Corps Base

in Quantico, Virginia. At Fort Stewart and Fort Lewis, we interviewed Army officials to determine if body armor was being distributed to service members. To determine the inventory/distribution practices for those preparing to deploy, we reviewed

documentation and interviewed officials at these sites in addition to CENTCOM officials. We analyzed the distribution practices to assure that personnel were receiving

body armor systems that met ballistic theater requirements and that these systems

were available for those preparing to deploy. We also met with DOD Inspector General staff who have worked on body armor issues, and obtained and reviewed reports they have issued. We selected and analyzed Army classified readiness reports

from December 2006 to February 2007 and two months of Marine Corps reports

from December 2006 to January 2007 for deploying and deployed combat units. Our

analysis was to determine whether commanders were reporting problems with body

armor, such as shortages, or whether the Army identified it as a critical item affecting readiness.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent does the Department of Defense’s bureaucracy foster an environment in the research and development community that values development over research? Is there a way to re-structure the Department of Defense’s

research and development community so that more emphasis is placed on research?

The GAO. The scope of our completed work on body armor, issued last April, did

not address these issues, and, thus, we are not in a position to answer this question

at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests? To

your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or contaminate the first

article test?

The GAO. As with the previous question, the scope of our completed work on body

armor, did not address these issues, and, thus, we are not in a position to answer

this question at this time.

216

The CHAIRMAN. Please describe how you classify body armor protection levels?

When was your criteria established? Are you in the process of updating these criteria? If so, will it include environmental considerations?

Dr. MORGAN. The threat levels as identified in the National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) Standard were originally established following a reiew of the statistics concerning weapons confiscated nationwide during the period from 1964 to 1974. The

criteria are periodically updated to account for changes in threats faced by law enforcement officers as identified in the ongoing review of ammunition threats conducted by the Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Law Enforcement Officers Killed and

Assaulted (LEOKA) data, and input from the law enforcement community concerning emerging threats. Specific information on the six threat levels is detailed in the

standard itself, which can be accessed at http://www.nlectc.org/pdffiles/

0101.04RevA.pdf.

NIJ is currently in the process of revising these criteria. This next revision to the

NIJ Standard will include modifications to the existing threat levels and will also

include peerformance requirements for armor that has been subjected to environmental conditioning.

The CHAIRMAN. How many different U.S. standards exist that govern the performance and effectiveness of body armor products?

Dr. MORGAN. Most law enforcement agencies in the United States require that the

armor they purchase meet the current NIJ standard (NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet Resistant Body Armor), which is the only U.S. standard widely recognized and used for commercial body armor. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program (BVP), through the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance, provides funding of up to 50 percent of each vest purchased or replaced by

certain law enforcement applicants, but only vests that comply with the NIJ Standard may be purchased with BVP Program funds. However, there is no federal law

requiring body armor to meet the NIJ standard.

There are other body armor standards or specifications in use: The FBI has a

body armor test protocol that requires body armor to meet the NIJ standard, but

also includes several additional requirements to meet the special needs of the FBI.

Other federal agencies may specify the NIJ standard and then tailor additional requirements to their needs. The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on its own test

methods and specifications to accept or reject body armor models. Additionally, some

other ballistic resistance standards exist in the U.S., but they tend to be focused

on other types of equipment, not body armor. For example, ASTM International.

ASTM F–1233, Test Method for Security Glazing Materials and Systems; and Underwriters Laboratories UL 752—Standard for Bullet-Resisting Equipment.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the process by which a supplier obtains NIJ certification

for a body armor product?

Dr. MORGAN. Currently, the testing of models of body armor to determine compliance with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor

(which modify and supplement NIJ Standard 0101.04—Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor) is conducted at the manufacturer’s expense. Manufacturers negotiate test contracts directly with NIJ-approved test laboratories. Once a test contract

has been established between the manufacturer and the laboratory, the manufacturer submits the required number of samples (six for threat levels I, IIA, II, and

IIIA, four for Level III and nine for Level IV) and the manufacturer’s declarations

required by the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor to

the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)-National, where the samples are logged in and visually inspected for compliance with

the labeling and workmanship requirements. If NLECTC-National staff determine

the samples comply with these requirements and all of the necessary manufacturer’s declarations have been properly executed and submitted, the test samples are

forwarded to the designated laboratory, where they are tested in accordance with

the requirements of the standard.

Upon completion of testing, laboratory staff conducts a post-test examination of

the samples, detailing their findings and the test results using an NIJ-approved test

report format. The test report and the tested samples are then returned to

NLECTC-National, where NLECTC-National staff review the test report and tested

samples to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the test report and adherence

to the procedures of the NIJ Standard (e.g., proper shot placement on panels, verification of armor construction details, etc.). NLECTC-National then prepares the

documentation demonstrating successful completion of the compliance testing process (i.e., executed manufacturer’s declarations, test report and any related notes

from NLECTC-National’s review), and forwards this information to NIJ for review.

217

1The current process is described here. As part of NIJ’s ongoing review of the body armor

compliance testing program, NIJ plans to require accreditation under the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program as a prerequisite for consideration as an NIJ-qualified testing

laboratory.

NIJ makes the final determination to issue a letter of compliance to the manufacturer for the model. If NIJ authorizes the issuance of a compliance letter, they direct

NLECTC-National staff to prepare the letter and to update the online listing of all

body armor models that have been tested by NIJ and found to comply with the NIJ

2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor on the NLECTC-National website, JUSTNET (http://www.justnet.org). The compliance letter is issued

to the manufacturer, and the listing of all body armor models that have been tested

by NIJ and found to comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet Resistant Body Armor is updated. NLECTC-National maintains at least one complete

sample of the item in their secure archives for future reference, and returns any

remaining samples to the manufacturer.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the process by which an independent ballistics test laboratory obtains NIJ certification?

Dr. MORGAN. An independent ballistics test laboratory interested in obtaining

NIJ-approved laboratory status to perform official compliance testing in accordance

with NIJ Standards must apply in writing to NIJ1. The applicant laboratory must

complete an application form, detailing the laboratory’s technical and personnel

qualifications, and demonstrating that they have adequate facilities, qualified technical personnel, and the necessary equipment to perform the tests required by the

standard.

The completed application is evaluated by a team consisting of representatives of

NIJ, NLECTC-National, NIST/OLES, and NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Upon completion of this review, the laboratory’s

facilities will undergo an onsite inspection by a team consisting of representatives

from NIJ, NLECTC-National, NIST/OLES, and NVLAP. NLECTC-National will

schedule a mutually agreeable date for the onsite inspection. At the onsite inspection, the laboratory is expected to introduce to the inspection team all of the key

operating personnel, allow for physical inspection of the facilities where the compliance testing will be performed, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the

test protocol. The laboratory must be fully prepared to demonstrate the capability

to conduct a test in accordance with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for BulletResistant Body Armor.

Upon completion of the demonstration testing, the laboratory prepares a test report documenting the results in a format specified by NLECTC-National. The test

report and armor samples are then submitted to NLECTC-National. Upon satisfactory completion of a review of the information and test samples submitted by the

laboratory, NIJ will issue notice of approved status to the NIJ-qualified body armor

compliance testing laboratory. NIJ-approved status is subject to specific terms and

conditions, including announced or unannounced inspections and biannual renewal.

After the laboratory completes this process successfully, NLECTC-National will

accept test reports from the laboratory for the purpose of issuing letters of compliance to the manufacturer of an armor model tested by the NIJ-approved laboratory.

The test results from the NIJ-approved laboratory will also be used to update the

listing of all body armor models that have been tested by NIJ and found to comply

with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Army submitted the IBA system for NIJ certification?

Dr. MORGAN. The Department of the Army has not submitted the IBA system to

NIJ for compliance testing. NIJs voluntary compliance testing program, operated by

NLECTC-National, accepts samples of armor for official compliance testing to NIJ

Standards from armor manufacturers. In general, the Department of Defense relies

on its own test methods and specifications to accept or reject body armor models.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Pinnacle received an NIJ level III certification? An NIJ level

IV certification? In your view how would you rate the IBA body armor system relative to the NIJ levels?

Dr. MORGAN. One model of Pinnacle Armor (SOV2000.1/MIL3AF01) was on the

list of body armor models that comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for

Bullet-Resistant Body Armor at Threat Level III. As a result of information presented at the House Armed Services Committee hearing, NIJ was made aware that

this model of armor may not perform as expected over its declared warranty period

of six years. As a condition of meeting the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor, the manufacturer declared that it had data to support its

certification that the body armor would maintain its ballistic resistance over the declared warranty period. Pinnacle Armor also agreed to provide the information supVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:19 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 037812 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-58\157000.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
218

porting the certification to NIJ if requested. NIJ elected to exercise its option to request the information. After receiving and reviewing several data package submissions from Pinnacle Armor, NIJ determined that the information did not satisfactorily address its concerns and the model SOV2000.1/MIL3AF01 was removed from

the list of compliant armor models.

Also as of July 25, 2007, Pinnacle Armor, Inc. does not have any models at Threat

Level IV that comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant

Body Armor.

There are no models currently compliant with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements

for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor that bear the model designation ‘‘Interceptor,’’ so

we cannot comment on whether those armors would correspond to a particular

threat level. That would only be possible after complete testing against the threats

specified in the standard.

The CHAIRMAN. How many body armor products have been certified at NIJ Level

III? At NIJ level IV?

Dr. MORGAN. As of July 25, 2007, there are 49 models of ballistic-resistant armor

that comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body

Armor at Threat Level III.

Also as of July 25, 2007, there are 61 models of ballistic-resistant armor that comply with the NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor at

Threat Level IV.

The CHAIRMAN. You indicate in your written statement you purchased the soft

armor and hard armor Interceptor Body Armor system (both hard and soft components) for use in the NBC News limited side-by-side tests from Protective Products

Intl., a subsidiary of the Ceramic Protection Company (CPC). To your knowledge is

PPI a qualified source and supplier of the Interceptor Body Armor system (both

hard and soft armor components) to any of the military services?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. How were you able to by-pass ITAR restrictions for the ESAPI

hard armor components of the IBA system?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Was the soft armor component used in the NBC News limited

tests the modular tactical vest now used by the Marine Corps?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion what was wrong with the first article tests conducted by the Army in May 2006? What do you believe would account for the differences between the two tests even at ambient temperatures?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion were the tests conducted by NBC News in Germany a fair, objective, and comparable test with respect to evaluating the ballistic

capability of body armor? On what basis do you make this evaluation? What protocol was followed to conduct these tests?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the overall weight of the system and environmental

testing need to be taken into account for operational and tactical suitability?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. What previous experiences have you had with observing body

armor test and evaluation protocols and procedures? Are you familiar with both NIJ

and IBA specifications and test procedures?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of why NBC did not acquire Army IBA test articles

from the Army? If NBC did in fact inquire to the Army and the Army declined, who

in the Army declined to provide those vests?

Colonel MAGEE. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. What percent of your business is funded by the Army, the Department of Defense, and US government agencies respectively?

Mr. DUNN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Please provide any information you can regarding the Protective

Products Intl (PPI) ESAPI armor plate first article testing.

Mr. DUNN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

219

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion please talk about the differences between the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and Department of Defense body armor test standards. How would you compare the DOD IBA system to an NIJ Level 4 vest?

Mr. DUNN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Did NBC News try to contact your Laboratory in order to run limited side by side ballistic tests on Interceptor Body Armor and Pinnacle Armor, Inc

‘‘Dragon Skin’’ body armor?

Mr. DUNN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

The CHAIRMAN. Did the Army or any other DOD official ever threaten any one

in your organization regarding the NBC News limited ballistic tests?

Mr. DUNN. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. The question is, how much armor-piercing round coverage is there

in IBA versus Pinnacle?

General BROWN. Based on testing at an independent National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) certified ballistic laboratory, Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin will not protect Soldiers against the armor-piercing (AP) round threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. The

table below shows the area coverage of Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) versus SOV

3000 Dragon Skin.

QUESTIONS SUBMTTED BY MR. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. You recently testified that Pinnacle Armor redressed a manufacturing anomaly with respect to the production of the Dragon Skin® SOV–3000TM

armor system, after it was revealed by a failure induced during U.S. Army testing

of the system in May 2006. You described altering your manufacturing process to

create overlapping seams of adhesive material upon which the armored disks are

attached, in lieu of a process that abutted separate adhesive components together.

Did Pinnacle Armor make other changes or modifications to the Dragon Skin®

SOV–3000TM design since May 2006 that may have improved performance of the

system as tested by NBC? If so, please describe each change or modification and

the improvement that it was intended to effect.

Mr. NEAL. No. The system has not changed and does not need to.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Dr. SNYDER. When did you determine what flaw in the production cycle of your

Dragon Skin armor was responsible for this testing failure?

Mr. NEAL. It was determined upon inspection during the high heat cycle.

Dr. SNYDER. When was this production flaw corrected?

Mr. NEAL. It was corrected within a week of validation by this event, and confirmation with the laminator of the actual processing of the adhesive application

process.

Dr. SNYDER. Have you notified all agencies and individuals of this flaw in the

product who purchased Dragon Skin body armor produced prior to your correction

of the production cycle?

Mr. NEAL. There were none at that time as it was a new roll of adhesive coated

material that was used for this testing, and all other subsequent rolls that were on

hand were inspected and did not have the same issue at the joints. There was only

one customer that we had our first small roll of level 4 adhesive that we notified

220

as a matter of course, but the roll was only a quarter roll and was not long enough

for a typical joint location.

Dr. SNYDER. Have you conducted a recall of Dragon Skin body armor units produced prior to your correction of the production cycle?

Mr. NEAL. No. The vest in possible question were inspected by the end-user and

found not to have any issues with them. However, they have been instructed to send

those few back if they should incur any changes.

QUESTIONS SUBMTTED BY MS. BORDALLO

Ms. BORDALLO. I am concerned that we spend a lot of money on development of

products but we do not spend enough on research of new technologies that will directly benefit our servicemembers. I am wondering if this situation is present in the

case about body armor? Specifically, how much Science & Technology money in

RDT&E lines 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 have gone into the research of improved body armor

systems since 2001?

General THOMPSON. The Army is firmly committed to providing the best body

armor available to our Soldiers and takes great care to balance the S&T investment

with current and future needs. Since 2001, the Army has invested $109.9M in body

armor related research. The $109.9M is split between 6.1 ($61.8M), 6.2 ($45.3M)

and 6.3 ($2.8M) and contains funding in the Army’s core program and funding

added by Congress as special interest items. Investments span efforts in materials

research, armor designs and modeling of both material and system performance.

Ms. BORDALLO. Additionally, in your testimony you state that additional funding

is necessary for research and development. As a matter of fact, on page 8 of your

testimony you say, ‘‘However, the Army is continually evaluating new technology,

and additional funding for research and development would expedite that work.’’ I

am concerned that we indeed are short changing necessary research for helpful

products. Can you elaborate on what risk was taken in this portion of the FY08

budget and what would be covered with additional funds?

General THOMPSON. The U.S. Army’s FY08 budget request for R&D funding is

sufficient for research and development of body armor systems.

Ms. BORDALLO. To what extent does the Department of Defense’s bureaucracy foster an environment in the research and development community that values development over research? Is there a way to re-structure the Department of Defense’s

research and development community so that more emphasis is placed on research?

General THOMPSON. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing.]

QUESTIONS SUBMTTED BY MR. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. If you were present for the testing of Dragon Skin, why did you not

raise concerns at the time of the test if you believed they were being performed unfairly?

Mr. NEAL. The Army was very adamant that I was there at their discretion and

I was not to be involved in any manner with how the testing was to be completed.

Therefore, in trying to not ‘‘rock-the-boat’’ I attempted to adhere strictly to their requests, but took notes and kept a mental track of the events during the testing.

On the first day I did start out in disagreement when both Karl Masters the Test

Director and James Zheng from Natick, who was conducting the tests could not even

define a ‘‘Hard Edge’’ to the flexible system, and could not understand the overlap

configurations or how to define the areal densities of the flexible armor system.

On the second day I did complain about James Zheng taking R&D shots and deviating from the test protocol and procedures, especially by shooting into an area that

did not have rifle defeating discs in place. That was the time when James and Karl

began a heated argument on the testing procedures and the Karl threw down his

clipboard and told James Zheng that he would be responsible for the testing that

he was conducting and walked out of the range. I also complained about not being

able to view all of the events such as the post x-rays, etc.

I also did not agree with the termination of the testing as we had not failed anything according to protocol and procedures up to that point. A third party independent FAT test will show you that the Dragon Skin® system is as we have always

stated, ready for military use and has been for over 10 years.

Mr. FORBES. Army officials have noted that the Dragon Skin failed at extreme

temperatures, and they have also indicated that the weight of the Dragon Skin

might be as much as 40-70% heavier than other armor, such as IBA. Since you were

221

at the test, do you agree that Dragon Skin will fail catastrophically at extreme temperatures? Do you agree that a comparable IBA vest weighs less?

Mr. NEAL. No, I don’t agree and attached you will see ballistic data that refutes

the allegation that the armor fails in extreme temperatures as well as in the document package that was provided at the House Armed Services Hearing. Additionally

you will note that the shots were placed directly in the center of the discs, and not

at an overlap joint, as the Army has alleged that the center is the weakest point

of the system. Please see Documents #1 & 2.

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed

upon request.]

I also do not agree with the weight allegations either. I tried to explain this during the hearing but it seemed as if no one tried to understand the differences. The

weight vs. ballistic performance are so light that the Army classified it ‘‘SECRET’’

due to its mass efficiency as per the Security Classification Guide.

The document package from the hearing also has the data to refute it. The XL

vest that the Army showed you had 5.6 square feet of rifle coverage. The Interceptor

that they showed had 2.8 square feet of coverage. That is not an ‘‘apples-to-appIes’’

comparison. The Dragon Skin® vest had twice the amount of rifle defeating coverage. If you double the weight of the Army’s 28 pound vest you will then see the

real difference. By the way, the actual weights of every vest as weighed and written

down by the Army is also in the documents package. You can validate the weights

by the serial number on the vest. It weighs less than what the scale showed, and

that is their document.

Mr. FORBES. Has any Pinnacle Armor product received a Level 4 NIJ certification?

Mr. NEAL. NO. Not yet. We are preparing for the side-by-side FAT test first and

foremost as we have not been receiving any requests from the law enforcement community for a level 4 variant yet.

Mr. FORBES. In light of any new information between the May 2006 test and

today, do you believe another test of Dragon Skin is warranted?

General THOMPSON. No, Pinnacle Armor has not presented any new information

regarding product improvements to the Dragon Skin tested by H. P. White, an independent NIJ certified laboratory, in May 2006. They have the opportunity to submit

a proposal in the U.S. Army’s current body armor solicitation number

W91CRB07R0041, posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) on May

27, 2007 with a closing date of July 27, 2007.

Mr. FORBES. Has Pinnacle Armor attempted to win any recent contracts to supply

body armor to the Army?

General THOMPSON. No, Pinnacle Armor has never submitted a proposal for U.S.

Army body armor solicitations.

Mr. FORBES. Do you believe it would be responsible to deploy body armor which

was tested exclusively at room temperature? Why or why not?

General THOMPSON. It would not be responsible to deploy body armor tested exclusively at room temperatures. Body armor must be operational effective in all environmental conditions.

Mr. FORBES. Can you explain for the Committee how much —weight— is given

to other factors aside from the protective qualities of a body armor vest, such as

modularity and weight?

General THOMPSON. The U.S. Army evaluates the complete body armor system

and applies equal significance to consideration of weight and other human factors.

The weight requirement is absolutely critical to the overall body armor requirement.

The Soldier’s load, both weight and cube, must not degrade the mobility of the dismounted Soldier and the momentum of small unit operations in close combat in

close, complex terrain. Any increase in weight will reduce the Soldier’s mobility and

endurance while simultaneously increasing their risk of becoming a heat casualty.

Mr. FORBES. Has Dragon Skin been certified as a Level 4 NIJ certification?

Dr. MORGAN. As of July 25, 2007, Pinnacle Armor, Inc., the sole manufacturer of

Dragon Skin, does not have any models at Threat Level IV that comply with the

NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements for Bullet-Resistant Body Armor.

Mr. FORBES. Do you believe the Army standard that requires an armor capable

of withstanding more than one shot closer to the edge of the body armor represents

a lower, equal, or higher standard as the Level 4 NIJ certification?

Dr. MORGAN. In many cases, it can be difficult to compare standards because of

differences between them. In this particular case, the comparison is easier. Generally, a requirement for either more shots on an armor panel/plate or for shots to

be placed closer to the edge, or to each other, represents a greater challenge to the

armor system. This is due to certain material limitations and the potential for damage from one shot to affect the outcome of any subsequent shots.

222

For the level IV threat, the NU standard requires only one shot on an armor

plate, and that shot must be located at least three inches from the nearest edge.

One must also consider that the NIJ standard specifies only one type of ballistic

threat for level IV protection, and only two shots with this threat are required for

the basic ballistic resistance test.

The Department of Defense (DOD) Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts testing requires that the armor sample must resist a complete penetration from the

same threat type (i.e., same projectile moving at essentially the same speed) impacting approximately one inch from the edge, as well as a second shot located elsewhere on the same armor plate. The DOD specification identifies other ballistic

threat rounds that must also be used to assess the performance capabilities of the

armor system.

In addition to projectile penetration assessments, another requirement that must

be met during these tests is that the backface signature (BFS, or the maximum

depth of the impression left in the clay behind the armor due to the ballistic impact)

cannot exceed certain limits. There are minor differences between the clay verification methods and the BFS requirements used by the NU standard and the DOD

specification, although the two are essentially equivalent (NIJ allows a BFS up to

44 millimeters, while DOD allows up to 43 millimeters).

Considering these points, one can conclude that the DOD requirements are more

stringent than the NIJ level IV performance requirement.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. The U.S. Army publicly announces body

armor solicitations to meet U.S. Army requirements. Since the start of Operation

Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. Army has publicly announced three body armor solicitations. All vendors are provided the opportunity to submit a bid for their flexible

body armor system; however none were received by the U.S. Army. In the recent

U.S. Army body armor solicitation, a flexible body armor contract line item (CLIN)

was added to the Request for Proposal (RFP) to further clarify U.S. Army requirements.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

General THOMPSON and General BROWN. No. Research and Development tests are

conducted on First Article test items. The U.S. Army assesses some first article Preliminary Design (PDMs), as specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP), against certain threats or conditions for government information only, but these tests are not

scored. The government reference tests do not distort or contaminate the first article

test in any way.

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

Mr. SMITH. Previous Request for Proposals for Enhanced Small Arms Protective

Insert did not intentionally exclude flexible armor solutions. The procurement actions were intended to provide hard ceramic plates that could be inserted into existing Outer Tactical Vests and could defeat specified small arms fire threats. However, we continued to evaluate flexible armor solutions and determined that the

technology was not yet mature and capable of defeating the required threat at an

acceptable weight. Therefore, no flexible armor solution that supported a modular

body armor concept was available.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

Mr. SMITH. No, to my knowledge, the government-sponsored Research and Development tests did not distort or contaminate the first article test.

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

Mr. SMITH. Previous Request for Proposals for Enhanced Small Arms Protective

Insert did not intentionally exclude flexible armor solutions. The procurement actions were intended to provide hard ceramic plates that could be inserted into existing Outer Tactical Vests and could defeat specified small arms fire threats. However, we continued to evaluate flexible armor solutions and determined that the

technology was not yet capable of defeating the required threat at an acceptable

223

weight and there was no flexible armor solution that supported a modular body

armor concept.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

General THOMAS. The Request for Proposals was not narrowed to exclude flexible

vests. Market research was conducted to determine sources available in the Individual Body Armor (IBA) sector to meet the requirements of deployed Air Force Office

of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Special Agents performing Counterintelligence

and Force Protection operations in a combat environment. The contract required

IBA providing unprecedented levels of protection, range of motion, emergency release and comfort to our agents conducting operations in hostile environments. A

United States Army sponsored event featured 16 different IBA manufacturers providing one hour presentations detailing the benefits/specifications of their individual

IBA units. A Pinnacle representative provided a presentation at this event.

Of the 16 vendors, 5 were considered by AFOSI for further evaluation. They included: Armor Holdings, Diamondback Tactical Defense, Point Blank Body Armor,

and First Choice. None of them offered products that compared (in our opinion) to

the selected IBA in level of protection provided, range of motion, quick release, or

total system weight. Research disclosed Air Force Special Operations Special Tactics

Squadrons (STS) were also using the selected IBA. Also, deployed AFOSI leadership

requested HQ AFOSI review this body armor for their personnel after data gathering within the Iraqi theater of operation. A three day examination period sponsored

by HQ AFOSI for recently redeployed AFOSI personnel and Antiterrorism Specialty

Team/Contingency Response Group members provided universal positive feedback

on the selected IBA’s comfort, mobility, and protection as compared to other vendors’

IBA.

In addition to the above process, US Central Command reporting instructions dictated personnel deploying to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Horn of Africa be

issued IBA with a minimum of Level III +/IV protection for most personnel and Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (ESAPI) for career fields operating in higher

threat environments. The Commander, AFOSI, specified the added protection of

ESAPI plates for deployed AFOSI special agents.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

General THOMAS. No prior tests distorted or contaminated the 13 Jun 06 standardized testing. Additionally, no first article testing occurred. AFOSI took delivery

of entire order of 581 units and one of those units was used for the 13 Jun 06 testing. Testing was performed using National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Level III testing standards at an accredited independent laboratory.

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

Colonel NOONAN. Request for Proposals (RFP) from the U.S. Special Operations

Command (USSOCOM) are not strictly narrowed for the purpose of disqualifying

flexible vests, nor are they narrowed to exclude current or emerging technologies.

Our RFPs are tailored to solicit items which meet the standards outlined in the

Body Armor/Load Carriage System (BALCS) requirements document, all of which

require interoperability with each other. The RFP for our Releasable Body Armor

Vest (armor carriers) is separate from the one for our ballistic protection (plates and

soft armor) because the industry that supplies these types of end-items is substantially different from each other (especially with regard to the plate technology).

The BALCS requirement addresses the necessary modularity for Special Operations Forces (SOF) operators to up-armor to rifle protection when required, as well

as down-armor when the threat is reduced, or the environmental or mission situation dictates the need. This integration enables operators on the ground to tailor

their system to meet specific operational requirements. All designs that meet the

stated requirements will be evaluated.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

Colonel NOONAN. Pinnacle Armor has not participated in any competitions for

armor conducted by or for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). As

a result, USSOCOM has not conducted a first article test on Dragon Skin Armor.

224

Mr. CONAWAY. The Government solicits proposals from potential offerors through

issuance of a solicitation. Can you please explain why the Request for Proposal in

dealing with body armour was strictly narrowed as to disqualify flexible vests?

Dr. MORGAN. This question does not pertain to the Department of Justice. The

Department does not solicit proposals for the procurement of body armor. The body

armor standard and compliance testing program of the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice does not specify armor design, but leaves that up to the

body armor manufacturer. The purpose of the standard and compliance testing program is to evaluate the armor’s performance, regardless of the manufacturer’s design.

Mr. CONAWAY. To your knowledge did Research and Development tests distort or

contaminate the first article test?

Dr. MORGAN. This question does not pertain to the Department of Justice. That

testing was not performed by us or through our program.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Has the Department of Defense conducted any research into additional body armor components specifically aimed at upper limb (arm and leg above

the joint) protection? a. If so, what are the results of such research? b. Has there

been any research into whether amputees enjoy greater mobility/dexterity if upper

limbs are preserved and prosthetic devices are used only for the lower limbs.

General THOMPSON. The Department of Defense has conducted research into additional body armor components specifically aimed at upper limb (arm and leg above

the joint) protection. a. Speaking specifically for the Army, the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) has worked to augment

the Interceptor Body Armor (TBA) currently used by Warfighters, with add-on

armor components within the Future Force Warrior Advanced Technology Demonstration. These up-armor options include ballistic inserts for chassis, groin, collar,

leg, and shoulder panels. Results of the efforts and assessments to date have been

promising and testing will continue. b. The Army has not conducted any research

for the specific purpose of determining whether preservation of amputees’ upper

limbs results in great mobility or dexterity.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Has the Department of Defense conducted any research into additional body armor components specifically aimed at upper limb (arm and leg above

the joint) protection? a. If so, what are the results of such research? b. Has there

been any research into whether amputees enjoy greater mobility/dexterity if upper

limbs are preserved and prosthetic devices are used only for the lower limbs.

Colonel SMITH. The Marine Corps has conducted research on additional body

armor components aimed at upper limb protection for the arms and legs.

A. The Marine Corps has fielded the QuadGuard (QG) system. The QuadGuard

system was designed to provide ballistic protection for arms and legs in response

to blast weapon threats and combat casualty trends in OIF. It is specifically intended to protect a Marine’s arms and legs from IED fragmentation threats when

serving as gunners on convoy duty and to integrate with other personal ballistic protection equipment, to include the Outer Tactical Vest (OTV), Enhanced Small Arms

Protective Insert (ESAPI) and the Lightweight Helmet (LWH).

B. The Marine Corps has not conducted any research for the specific purpose of

determining whether preservation of amputees? upper limbs results in great mobility or dexterity.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. I would first like to thank the Committee and Chairman Skelton for

allowing me to participate in today’s hearing on this important topic. This issue was

first brought to my attention by one of my constituents, Mr. John Grant, whose son

serves in the Arkansas National Guard and has already served one tour of duty in

Iraq and expects to be deployed again soon. Mr. Grant’s son is part of the Arkansas

Army National Guard’s 39th Infantry Brigade, which was recently informed that

they could be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year and my only concern in this

hearings is to ensure that the U.S. Army is providing those young men and women

with the most technologically advanced and effective body armor available. Question

for Brigadier General Mark Brown: General Brown, while you contend that the

Army currently provides our troops with the absolute best body armor available, it

is clear that some disagree with you, including some parents of those serving and

some troops themselves. However, the Army’s Safety of Use Message prevents these

troops from wearing any other body armor than what is provided to them by the

225

U.S. Army. As you know, in 2005, due to reports of equipment shortages, some

troops and their families purchased personal equipment at their own expense. As

a result, Congress enacted legislation that that would reimburse members of the

Armed Forces who had to purchase certain personal items, including body armor.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005, Congress adopted Sections

304 and 351, which allowed reimbursement to members of the Armed Forces who

purchased protective body armor and directed the Secretary of Defense to establish

equipment reimbursement policy for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who, due

to equipment shortages, had to purchase their own personal protective gear. However, months later, the Army issued a ‘‘Safety of Use Message,’’ in which they instructed all commanders to ensure that only IBA is used by soldiers and that all

other body armor should be immediately replaced with IBA. The directive specifically states, ‘‘In its current state of development, Dragon Skin’s capabilities do not

meet Army requirements . . . Dragon Skin has not been certified by the Army for

protection against several small arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today.’’ As a result, the Army’s safety of use message is essentially denying our troops the option to protect themselves with body armor, which some believe, is more effective than the standard issued IBA. therefore, my questions to you

is this: Will the Army lift or rescind the safety of use message to allow those troops

who believe that other body armor, such as dragon skin, is superior, to be able to

use it to protect themselves.

General BROWN. The U.S. Army has a current Safety of Use Message (SOUM)

dated March 17, 2006 specifying that Soldiers are only authorized to wear Interceptor Body Armor (IBA). The decision to publish the SOUM was to inform Soldiers

that commercial body armor products, not certified by the U.S. Army, are unsafe

and could cause death or serious injury.

Mr. ROSS. Would you agree to conduct an independent, unbiased test of the two

body armors, which is what many of us in Congress have been asking for all along?

And if Dragon Skin performed just as well or better than the current body armor,

would the Army allow our troops to use it?

General BROWN. The U.S. Army tests against requirements and will not do a comparative test of the two body armor systems. The U.S. Army has agreed for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation

Command to provide oversight in testing Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin, if Pinnacle

Armor submits proposal in the U.S. Army’s current body armor solicitation number

W91CRB07R0041, posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) on May

27, 2007 with a closing date of July 27, 2007 and the requisite number of Preliminary Design Models for testing. If Dragon Skin meets U.S. Army body armor requirements, the U.S. Army will evaluate their proposal against the requirements of

the solicitation.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. If I could follow up because the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is looking at the Iraqi army, is that body armor that we had

used before; or where is that made and what do you know about that?

General THOMPSON. [The information referred to was not available at the time of

printing].

Æ