thedrifter
04-24-06, 03:22 PM
The Insanity and Corruption Continue While America's Grunts Bleed & Die
By Roger Charles
One of the advantages of sitting where I do is that I get to talk with some damn smart people, folks who look at the same information I've poured over, and see something I've just completely missed.
It happened again last week, when I was interviewed by Brad Messer, host of a great radio program on KTSA in San Antonio. Himself an Army vet, Brad asked the question that the Perfumed Princes and their Designated/Trained Liars have to date succeeded in avoiding having to answer:
-- Why would America's Grunts, who have seen on the bloody battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, the only test that matters in the case of personal body armor, want to spend thousands of dollars of their own or their families' money on purchasing Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin when DOD is giving away for free, the "best body armor in the world," Interceptor Body Armor (IBA)?
Ummm?? I hate to admit it, but this obvious question had been oblivious to me, until Brad Messer posed it on the air.
So for Marine Major General William Catto, and Army Major General Jeffrey Sorenson, let's pose this question and see if they have the honor and cajones to answer:
-- If IBA is, as you have stated, the "best body armor in the world," why would our troops, who have worn it, fought in it, and seen friends die in it, want something different?
You and your Perfumed Prince buddies can assume all the poses of righteous indignation that you wish. You can feign outrage that your integrity and competence have been questioned. But, until you can answer this simple question, the proverbial monkey is on your back -- if IBA is as good as you claim it is, why would our troops and their families spend serious money to purchase something else?
Thanks to Nat Helm's superlative series of articles in Defense Watch, we know the answer -- because IBA works to a degree, but IBA does not work as well as advertised!!
It's just that simple.
And all the bleating and braying and blathering of Perfumed Princes in front of the Washington press corps cannot and will not change this simple, fundamental truth.
In the only tests that truly matter -- the ones that take place daily in the back alleys of Ramadi and along the dusty goat paths of Helmand province -- IBA has been tested, and has been found wanting. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates have, on occasion, performed "up to spec [specification]." They have stopped hostile rifle fire, sometimes more than one round. But, there have been too many cases where the first round shatters the SAPI plate, and makes the next round a fatal one.
That is, even if the rounds hit the SAPI plates to begin with. (The limited coverage of the basic IBA compared to the basic Dragon Skin is in and of itself enough to make any thinking grunt prefer the latter.)
Our troops have observed this "failure to meet specs," and they have decided to purchase something better.
It's important to note that this issue was not generated by SFTT editor Nat Helms. It was generated by emails from America's Grunts who were outraged at seeing their buddies', or their own, SAPI plates not provide the promised levels of protection.
One long-time member of the armor protection "industrial base" put it in these stark terms: "Why are they [Army and Marine Corps] using our troops as guinea pigs to test the quality of IBA?"
His point is that if honest testing of IBA taken place in the R&D process here in the States, and had the results of this testing been honestly reported, IBA would have been identified as seriously flawed. Something better would have been developed and issued to our stout-hearted lads and lasses on the bloody end of America's spear.
It's a basic fact of life that the first and essential step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is a problem. While the Catto's and Sorenson's continue to claim out of one side of their mouths that there is no problem, IBA is the best in the world, both the Marine Corps and Army have within the past couple of months announced major new programs develop new personal body armor.
(Just today, there's a headline that the Marine Corps says it's five years from fielding a new, lighter body armor. If a supine Congress allows this insanity to stand, our republic is in much more serious trouble than even I had imagined.)
An interesting anomaly -- Catto and Sorenson have announced a fix, without acknowledging that there is a problem! Usually the first action precedes the second, but not in the culture of the E-ring when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.
According to our industry source (confirmed by several other knowledgeable players in this big-money game), the manufacturing process for the large SAPI plates has inherent quality problems for which there is no solution in sight. You just cannot make the SAPI plates in today's manufacturing process without having a significant number of the plates suffer from the microscopic fractures that render them incapable of performing up to spec.
Everyone inside the system is aware of this basic problem, and they are more than willing to let America's Grunts roll the dice in the big crap shoot of combat -- some SAPI plates will work, some of the time, and some will not, all of the time. When it's lives on the line, America's Grunts should expect, and our citizens should demand, that all the SAPI plates work as advertised, all the time.
What is truly unconscionable is the mendacity of those who know the truth, and continue to make false claims that our troops are wearing the "best body armor in the world."
Recently, Defense Watch was exposed what appears to be an orchestrated effort to get the body armor issue off the front page [04.11.2006 - "HASC Staffers' Mission -- Damn the Lies, Kill Dragon Skin at All Costs"
and 04.11.2006 - "Army Acquisition General's Mission -- Damn the Lies, Kill Dragon Skin at All Costs"].
Yet the Perfumed Princes and their running dog lackeys have only succeeded in stirring the pot and eliciting more media attention. For example, the Associated Press yesterday (April 17) ran an article ("Body Armor Tests Delayed") correcting some of the egregious errors in their report of March 31 ("Armor banned by Army banned by Air Force).
But, here again, the latest report suffers from several major factual mistakes, as identified by Murray Neal, CEO of Pinnacle Armor. Given the high stakes -- truly life or death for America's Grunts -- in this issue, Defense Watch presents the following summary of corrective information as transmitted to the Washington AP bureau.
1. Re the "testing requirements" for the Army to test Dragon Skin: there was an agreement reached between Neal and Brigadier General James R. Moran of PEO-Soldier, in the Washington office of Texas Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson to "test specifically to the ESAPI [Enhanced SAPI] ballistic requirements in a transparent and non-biased test" at a test facility selected by Pinnacle Armor. (The current unresolved, major issue involves the Army's failure to accept Neal's demand that the protective vests he provide for testing be safeguarded against tampering. Given Pinnacle Armor's history of corrupted testing by some elements of the Army acquisition system, this is not only a reasonable request, it is a "deal breaker," IMHO.)
2. Re the Army claim that there is a "contract for 30 vests" for Pinnacle Armor for testing, and according to Army designated liar Maj. Desiree Wineland, "The Army does not intend to make any changes to the contract that was signed." Neal flatly denies that there was a signed contract for the 30 vests, and the Media Operations Division of Army PAO has not responded to Defense Watch's requests for a copy of this contract. (A signed contract either exists, or it does not. If it exists, an authentic copy would prove the point. In the absence of the Army providing a signed copy, I'll assume that Murray Neal is being forthright when he says there is no signed contract, and the Army PAO shop, well, it's being the Army PAO shop.)
In addition to the troops' reports of dissatisfaction with IBA, there are two other striking aspects to field reports on the issue of protective body armor .
-- There has been a dearth of reports from Soldiers or Marines, or Navy corpsmen, stating that they are satisfied with their IBA.
The only "success" report with which I am personally familiar was an indirect one and came from Defense Watch contributor Mike Gifford, who served a year as a Reserve MP captain in Iraq. Mike has written in a superb, yet-to-be-published book, "On Behalf of a Grateful Nation." He writes that on May 26, 2003, an Army major, "had been shot several times. A few rounds penetrated his side killing him instantly. Two rounds had struck his chest, but the bullets didn't puncture the small arms protective insert, or SAPI, plate inside his vest. For some reason, the fact that the vest stopped the rounds was a big surprise."
Gifford's report is the epitome of "good news/bad news." The good news is that the front SAPI plate stopped two rounds. The bad news, is that the IBA SAPI plates provided only limited front and back protection. Unlike Dragon Skin which provided 140% more coverage, including side protection!
[See Nat Helm's story on the lack of side protection that provoked national attention, 01.11.2006 - Interceptor OTV Body Armor Cost Lives, An Internal USMC Reports Shows.]
Admittedly, without knowing the precise locations of these fatal impacts, there is no guarantee that Dragon Skin would have defeated them. But, survival on the battlefield is often decided by "the odds," and in this case, the odds would have favored the additional 140% coverage.
-- There have been a number of reports to this writer from civilian contractors who are, or have been, in Iraq/Afghanistan, and not a single one has reported that they wear IBA. Whether they have had to provide their own body armor, or whether it was provided by their employer, not one contractor has specified that IBA is worn by them or their civilian contractor peers.
Pinnacle Armor, has, on the other hand, several testimonials from civilian contractors who have taken multiple hits from hostile rifle fire, and been protected -- as advertised -- by Dragon Skin.
As of today, America's Grunts remain unnecessarily at risk due to a dysfunctional, uncaring and corrupt acquisition system that refuses to honestly test and procure the best-available body armor, whether Dragon Skin or some other product.
This continuing and sad saga has had one unintended consequence. Yesterday Defense Watch was contacted by a contractor who has read the stories on Dragon Skin and IBA, and wanted to report that the same institutional corruption and madness that we've exposed on the issue of body armor is being replicated on another life-or-death issue. This time the issue is Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's).
For those readers who might have been hoping for some good news, some example of "the system" working right to protect the lives and limbs of our front-line troops, you won't want to read next week's story on how and why the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat-Task Force (JIEDD-TF) has spent an admitted $1 Billion with so little to show for its time, effort and money. (My industry source says the total expenditure is closer to $3 Billion.)
It will also address an issue that was just beginning to bubble a year ago, right before Hack died. What are our fighting forces in Iraq doing to "own the night?"
It turns out that the enemy's success with IED's is also partly attributable to failures of commanders at the highest level of the US military in Iraq; commanders who have largely conceded control of the night to our enemy, at least in terms of ground combat operations.
SFTT President Roger Charles is an Annapolis graduate, a retired USMC Lt. Col. who commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, is the winner of the prestigious Peabody Award for news coverage, and was a protégée's of the late Col. David H. Hackworth. Rog can be contacted at sfttpres@aol.com. Please send comments to DWFeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie
By Roger Charles
One of the advantages of sitting where I do is that I get to talk with some damn smart people, folks who look at the same information I've poured over, and see something I've just completely missed.
It happened again last week, when I was interviewed by Brad Messer, host of a great radio program on KTSA in San Antonio. Himself an Army vet, Brad asked the question that the Perfumed Princes and their Designated/Trained Liars have to date succeeded in avoiding having to answer:
-- Why would America's Grunts, who have seen on the bloody battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, the only test that matters in the case of personal body armor, want to spend thousands of dollars of their own or their families' money on purchasing Pinnacle Armor's Dragon Skin when DOD is giving away for free, the "best body armor in the world," Interceptor Body Armor (IBA)?
Ummm?? I hate to admit it, but this obvious question had been oblivious to me, until Brad Messer posed it on the air.
So for Marine Major General William Catto, and Army Major General Jeffrey Sorenson, let's pose this question and see if they have the honor and cajones to answer:
-- If IBA is, as you have stated, the "best body armor in the world," why would our troops, who have worn it, fought in it, and seen friends die in it, want something different?
You and your Perfumed Prince buddies can assume all the poses of righteous indignation that you wish. You can feign outrage that your integrity and competence have been questioned. But, until you can answer this simple question, the proverbial monkey is on your back -- if IBA is as good as you claim it is, why would our troops and their families spend serious money to purchase something else?
Thanks to Nat Helm's superlative series of articles in Defense Watch, we know the answer -- because IBA works to a degree, but IBA does not work as well as advertised!!
It's just that simple.
And all the bleating and braying and blathering of Perfumed Princes in front of the Washington press corps cannot and will not change this simple, fundamental truth.
In the only tests that truly matter -- the ones that take place daily in the back alleys of Ramadi and along the dusty goat paths of Helmand province -- IBA has been tested, and has been found wanting. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates have, on occasion, performed "up to spec [specification]." They have stopped hostile rifle fire, sometimes more than one round. But, there have been too many cases where the first round shatters the SAPI plate, and makes the next round a fatal one.
That is, even if the rounds hit the SAPI plates to begin with. (The limited coverage of the basic IBA compared to the basic Dragon Skin is in and of itself enough to make any thinking grunt prefer the latter.)
Our troops have observed this "failure to meet specs," and they have decided to purchase something better.
It's important to note that this issue was not generated by SFTT editor Nat Helms. It was generated by emails from America's Grunts who were outraged at seeing their buddies', or their own, SAPI plates not provide the promised levels of protection.
One long-time member of the armor protection "industrial base" put it in these stark terms: "Why are they [Army and Marine Corps] using our troops as guinea pigs to test the quality of IBA?"
His point is that if honest testing of IBA taken place in the R&D process here in the States, and had the results of this testing been honestly reported, IBA would have been identified as seriously flawed. Something better would have been developed and issued to our stout-hearted lads and lasses on the bloody end of America's spear.
It's a basic fact of life that the first and essential step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is a problem. While the Catto's and Sorenson's continue to claim out of one side of their mouths that there is no problem, IBA is the best in the world, both the Marine Corps and Army have within the past couple of months announced major new programs develop new personal body armor.
(Just today, there's a headline that the Marine Corps says it's five years from fielding a new, lighter body armor. If a supine Congress allows this insanity to stand, our republic is in much more serious trouble than even I had imagined.)
An interesting anomaly -- Catto and Sorenson have announced a fix, without acknowledging that there is a problem! Usually the first action precedes the second, but not in the culture of the E-ring when hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.
According to our industry source (confirmed by several other knowledgeable players in this big-money game), the manufacturing process for the large SAPI plates has inherent quality problems for which there is no solution in sight. You just cannot make the SAPI plates in today's manufacturing process without having a significant number of the plates suffer from the microscopic fractures that render them incapable of performing up to spec.
Everyone inside the system is aware of this basic problem, and they are more than willing to let America's Grunts roll the dice in the big crap shoot of combat -- some SAPI plates will work, some of the time, and some will not, all of the time. When it's lives on the line, America's Grunts should expect, and our citizens should demand, that all the SAPI plates work as advertised, all the time.
What is truly unconscionable is the mendacity of those who know the truth, and continue to make false claims that our troops are wearing the "best body armor in the world."
Recently, Defense Watch was exposed what appears to be an orchestrated effort to get the body armor issue off the front page [04.11.2006 - "HASC Staffers' Mission -- Damn the Lies, Kill Dragon Skin at All Costs"
and 04.11.2006 - "Army Acquisition General's Mission -- Damn the Lies, Kill Dragon Skin at All Costs"].
Yet the Perfumed Princes and their running dog lackeys have only succeeded in stirring the pot and eliciting more media attention. For example, the Associated Press yesterday (April 17) ran an article ("Body Armor Tests Delayed") correcting some of the egregious errors in their report of March 31 ("Armor banned by Army banned by Air Force).
But, here again, the latest report suffers from several major factual mistakes, as identified by Murray Neal, CEO of Pinnacle Armor. Given the high stakes -- truly life or death for America's Grunts -- in this issue, Defense Watch presents the following summary of corrective information as transmitted to the Washington AP bureau.
1. Re the "testing requirements" for the Army to test Dragon Skin: there was an agreement reached between Neal and Brigadier General James R. Moran of PEO-Soldier, in the Washington office of Texas Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson to "test specifically to the ESAPI [Enhanced SAPI] ballistic requirements in a transparent and non-biased test" at a test facility selected by Pinnacle Armor. (The current unresolved, major issue involves the Army's failure to accept Neal's demand that the protective vests he provide for testing be safeguarded against tampering. Given Pinnacle Armor's history of corrupted testing by some elements of the Army acquisition system, this is not only a reasonable request, it is a "deal breaker," IMHO.)
2. Re the Army claim that there is a "contract for 30 vests" for Pinnacle Armor for testing, and according to Army designated liar Maj. Desiree Wineland, "The Army does not intend to make any changes to the contract that was signed." Neal flatly denies that there was a signed contract for the 30 vests, and the Media Operations Division of Army PAO has not responded to Defense Watch's requests for a copy of this contract. (A signed contract either exists, or it does not. If it exists, an authentic copy would prove the point. In the absence of the Army providing a signed copy, I'll assume that Murray Neal is being forthright when he says there is no signed contract, and the Army PAO shop, well, it's being the Army PAO shop.)
In addition to the troops' reports of dissatisfaction with IBA, there are two other striking aspects to field reports on the issue of protective body armor .
-- There has been a dearth of reports from Soldiers or Marines, or Navy corpsmen, stating that they are satisfied with their IBA.
The only "success" report with which I am personally familiar was an indirect one and came from Defense Watch contributor Mike Gifford, who served a year as a Reserve MP captain in Iraq. Mike has written in a superb, yet-to-be-published book, "On Behalf of a Grateful Nation." He writes that on May 26, 2003, an Army major, "had been shot several times. A few rounds penetrated his side killing him instantly. Two rounds had struck his chest, but the bullets didn't puncture the small arms protective insert, or SAPI, plate inside his vest. For some reason, the fact that the vest stopped the rounds was a big surprise."
Gifford's report is the epitome of "good news/bad news." The good news is that the front SAPI plate stopped two rounds. The bad news, is that the IBA SAPI plates provided only limited front and back protection. Unlike Dragon Skin which provided 140% more coverage, including side protection!
[See Nat Helm's story on the lack of side protection that provoked national attention, 01.11.2006 - Interceptor OTV Body Armor Cost Lives, An Internal USMC Reports Shows.]
Admittedly, without knowing the precise locations of these fatal impacts, there is no guarantee that Dragon Skin would have defeated them. But, survival on the battlefield is often decided by "the odds," and in this case, the odds would have favored the additional 140% coverage.
-- There have been a number of reports to this writer from civilian contractors who are, or have been, in Iraq/Afghanistan, and not a single one has reported that they wear IBA. Whether they have had to provide their own body armor, or whether it was provided by their employer, not one contractor has specified that IBA is worn by them or their civilian contractor peers.
Pinnacle Armor, has, on the other hand, several testimonials from civilian contractors who have taken multiple hits from hostile rifle fire, and been protected -- as advertised -- by Dragon Skin.
As of today, America's Grunts remain unnecessarily at risk due to a dysfunctional, uncaring and corrupt acquisition system that refuses to honestly test and procure the best-available body armor, whether Dragon Skin or some other product.
This continuing and sad saga has had one unintended consequence. Yesterday Defense Watch was contacted by a contractor who has read the stories on Dragon Skin and IBA, and wanted to report that the same institutional corruption and madness that we've exposed on the issue of body armor is being replicated on another life-or-death issue. This time the issue is Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's).
For those readers who might have been hoping for some good news, some example of "the system" working right to protect the lives and limbs of our front-line troops, you won't want to read next week's story on how and why the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat-Task Force (JIEDD-TF) has spent an admitted $1 Billion with so little to show for its time, effort and money. (My industry source says the total expenditure is closer to $3 Billion.)
It will also address an issue that was just beginning to bubble a year ago, right before Hack died. What are our fighting forces in Iraq doing to "own the night?"
It turns out that the enemy's success with IED's is also partly attributable to failures of commanders at the highest level of the US military in Iraq; commanders who have largely conceded control of the night to our enemy, at least in terms of ground combat operations.
SFTT President Roger Charles is an Annapolis graduate, a retired USMC Lt. Col. who commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, is the winner of the prestigious Peabody Award for news coverage, and was a protégée's of the late Col. David H. Hackworth. Rog can be contacted at sfttpres@aol.com. Please send comments to DWFeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie