Soldiers in Iraq head out to a live-fire exercise to use of the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station.
Posted on 07/16/2005 12:24:11 PM PDT by TADSLOS
ABERDEEN, Md. (Army News Service July 15, 2005) – More than 24 Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations have been installed on vehicles in Iraq and an additional five will be fielded in the next few weeks.
The CROWS allow Soldiers in Iraq to engage the enemy from a light tactical vehicle without exposing the gunner at a distance.
“We’ll have a total of 245 systems in the hands of Soldiers by early spring,” said Lt. Col. Kevin. P. Stoddard, Product Manager for Crew Served Weapons at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. Stoddard explained that an urgent material requirement provides a way to develop a product like CROWS because it’s based on an operational wartime need.
“We’ve already reached Milestone C which allows us to now produce a greater quantity of systems for the entire Army” he said.
Hazards facing troops in Iraq impelled the Army to conduct rapid testing and evaluation program to provide them with better armor protection. In developing CROWS, the efforts of a Soldier assigned to the Aberdeen Test Center made a critical difference.
Sgt. John Lowe provided Soldier input as the system developed, took part in a rapid-reaction operational test and deployed to Iraq recently to train Soldiers in its use.
Weapon systems in the Army’s arsenal must undergo several phases of rigorous testing and evaluation by engineers and technicians before they are capable of meeting the Army’s evolving mission requirements. The war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq has changed that paradigm, forcing the acceleration of test schedules and other measures, including the issuance of urgent material releases so that systems needed by American troops get into their hands in the quickest time possible.
U.S. Military Police in Iraq received CROWS to conduct an operational assessment in December 2003, and in April 2004 the system entered its development and demonstration phase, one of the phases in the acquisition cycle that “is all about reliability,” Stoddard said.
“That’s when ATC and its test facilities played a significant role and Sgt. Lowe was committed to making CROWS an effective and reliable system,” he added.
While civilian professionals do much of the testing and evaluation of military systems, input from Soldiers is an essential part of the acquisition process because they can spot and help the Army correct problems from the Soldier’s perspective.
“Lowe provided a great deal of valuable Soldier insight, making it possible to equip various units in Iraq with a system that works as it should,” Stoddard said. His experience with the system at ATC also made him the logical choice to provide training to Soldiers in Iraq, Stoddard added.
“He was the best person to send over there,” he said.
CROWS, a system manufactured by Recon/Optical, Inc., of Barrington, Ill., a leading manufacturer of tactical reconnaissance cameras, is designed to be mounted to a number of vehicles, including the M1114 up-armored Humvee for armored scouts and military police. Four crew-served weapons have been integrated into and demonstrated on CROWS – the M2 heavy barrel, .50 caliber machine gun; the MK19 grenade machine gun; the M240B, 7.62-millimeter machine gun; and the M249, 5.56-millimeter squad automatic weapon.
The CROWS sensor suite includes a daytime video camera, a second-generation forward-looking infrared sight and a laser range finder for day and night missions. The system also features a ballistic computer and stabilization system so it can operate effectively when a vehicle is driving over rough terrain.
With the aid of its streaming video and the laser range finder, a gunner can continuously pan 360 degrees while on the move in an urban environment, zoom in on a target and select a point of impact. The ballistic computer is designed to adjust the weapon’s point of aim accordingly. With a stationary platform, the system is designed to be capable of identifying, targeting and destroying enemy elements to the maximum effect of the weapons with extreme accuracy and very little collateral damage.
Stoddard explained the most technologically sophisticated systems can have idiosyncrasies, and it is the job of Soldiers such as Lowe and others classified as “Soldier operator, maintainer, tester and evaluator” (SOMTE) to find them. In addition to Lowe, he credits Chris Merrill, ATC’s test director for CROWS, and the other SOMTE troops with helping to fine tune CROWS to make it a more effective weapon system.
While the CROWS program was progressing through the acquisition cycle, the war in Iraq prompted an “urgent operational needs statement,” which was sent to the Pentagon, Stoddard said, adding that the Pentagon response was to suggest that CROWS be fielded to Soldiers in Iraq under an “urgent material release.” CROWS was then classified as an operational test item, and it underwent testing by Soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C. Lowe was sent to Fort Bragg to take part in that phase of testing.
“When I assumed responsibility for the program, I had a schedule that was looking out at the July (2005) timeframe,” Stoddard said. “We were going to finish up then and go into operational test at that time, but because of the urgency of the system and the fact that we wanted to get it right. Chris’ guys were working weekends. Starting in the September timeframe, Sgt. Lowe and those guys were out (on the range) every day. In terms of taking the system out and running it through all of its wickets – environmental chambers, electromagnetic interference chambers, automotive testing – all this was done by Chris’ team , Sgt. Lowe and the SOMTE Soldiers.”
Lowe arrived at Fort Bragg at the beginning of January 2005, and the operational test took place later that month. He also helped with CROWS training while there.
“We had validated operations manuals and training manuals,” Stoddard explained. “Sgt. Lowe helped with that. The reason it was so good to do that was that we were really moving fast on this program. We pulled out all the stops.”
While various manufacturers produce remotely operated weapon systems, there is a difference among the systems and effectiveness in meeting the Army’s current needs, Stoddard said. The test team helped to identify materiel solutions to meet the Army’s needs.
“There are good systems out there – they have a lot of great components – but some don’t meet the full spectrum of requirements as defined by the Army,” Stoddard said.
He stressed with help from the SOMTE Soldiers and Sgt. Lowe, we were able to learn the quirks of the system and identify any problems with the software. He said it’s not like taking a mechanical gun and shooting it - a lot of software is involved.
“If you’re going to do it fast, and the contractor is going to come up with a prototype developmental system, you’ve got to have somebody on it every day – somebody who knows that it should do this or has this problem. So Sgt. Lowe kept talking to the software guy from Recon/Optical. It was a big help when we were moving fast and going right into training Soldiers for the operational test. Sgt. Lowe’s actions are not just about Iraq.”
Lowe received stateside training for his deployment to Iraq and then deployed there in early 2005 to link up with an equipping team that Stoddard’s organization has in place. The Multinational Corps Iraq oversees a force-modernization group that coordinates fielding of systems there. They worked closely with Stoddard’s team to develop a plan that identified several U.S. units under varying commands that need CROWS to conduct their operations.
Soldiers in identified units come to the fielding site with their vehicles so that installation kits and then CROWS can be placed on them. The work takes three days, Stoddard explained, and during that time the Soldiers receive classroom training with Lowe’s help. They also get about a week of hands-on training on a basic-skills trainer, where they go through all the system controls and get mission scenarios using the actual system software. After that they get additional training by getting the feel of the system while the Humvees drive around. CROWS night-time capabilities and the extended range of the sensors mean changes in doctrinal tactics, for which Soldiers need to train, Stoddard said.
As a reservist, Lowe requested to extend his tour of duty in Iraq to work any remaining kinks out of the CROWS.
“He didn’t have to go to Iraq, and he didn’t have to go to my operational test,” Stoddard said. “We are fortunate to have that type of dedication. I think he took ownership of CROWS as a Soldier. He always wanted everything to be right. When we did demos he was out there early, making sure the rehearsals were done, that everything performed correctly. He took a lot of ownership and pride in this product.”
Ping to article, new weapons station.
Wish we'd had some in my old artillery unit, but we wern't authorised .50's at all.
:(
Oh well, hope it works well.
Guy who managed it took personal pride in the project.
Pinged to: Field Artillery/Mortar List, Stryker list, and Treadhead list.
Guess I should have edited the caption at the source link, before posting it.
This rocks!
Better than yer coffee........!
We had 2 50s, 1 60, 1 79, our M-14s and anything else we could “acquire”. Sure wish we could have acquired one of these systems!
LOL, my coffee is banned under the Geneva convention.
;-)
Anytime we 'acquired' stuff, we were forced by our Cap to give it back, regardless of whether or not we'd acquired it to replace something he'd lent to another unit that never returned the items..
BTW the V loved it.
Never got to play with one myself.
Got told that the answer was "not only no but H--L NO."
Was the same answer I got when I looked into getting our hands on some MP5's and some Steyr AUG's.
Damn I am getting old.
Isn't this similar to what they have on the Stryker ? A 50 cal controlled from inside ?
As a reservist, Lowe requested to extend his tour of duty in Iraq to work any remaining kinks out of the CROWS.
“He didn’t have to go to Iraq, and he didn’t have to go to my operational test,” Stoddard said. “We are fortunate to have that type of dedication. I think he took ownership of CROWS as a Soldier. He always wanted everything to be right. When we did demos he was out there early, making sure the rehearsals were done, that everything performed correctly. He took a lot of ownership and pride in this product.”
HERO !
I'm told that miniguns still exist, but only authorised for special purpose use.
*???*
The Steyr was already illegal when I signed up, so we didn't get to play with those, which was insane but made sense to someone somewhere.
And the MP5 was only authorised for everyone but us it seemed.
We ALMOST didn't get the M-249 SAWs we WERE authorised.
Someone said "You have the M-60, whaddya need the other MG's for?"
Catch was, most of our 60's didn't work due to broken or missing parts, and when we requested replacement parts we were told 'no dice'.
We had 8 M-60's, and only three worked.
Never got to check out the M-240 either.
My unit wasn't authorised those.
That reminds me of our Mk19s going to the French in Chad :(
OUCH.
My old unit was a light towed artillery unit, and every time I suggested some weapon that would improve our perimeter defense, I got shot down spectacularly.
One suggestion was a Mk-19A3.
*wistful sigh*
Would have loved to have had a mere four Mk19's, six M-249's, and all 8 of our M-60's up and working.
THAT would be quite a show to see lighting off.
Man.. Mk19's to the French.. UNGH!
(The CROWS weapon station.. would have loved one of those on our M1097's..)
Liobyans, huh?
Hmm, how badly did they wack the Libyans?
(This I gotta hear)
Our skipper ( a WO1) was good at locating stuff for us to acquire. He was the one who decided we needed at least one more M-60 and several spare barrels. He located a supply point for 500 round belts for the 50s and 1000 round belts for the 60s. He also decided we should start every mission with a case of LAAWs.
Now, if he could have figured out how to keep the sandbags from melting flat before we hit the objectives we would have been doing OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.