New Humvee weapons system keeps gunner covered inside

Stars and Stripes European edition ^ | February 8, 2004 | Lisa Burgess

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ARLINGTON, Va. — One of the most dangerous jobs in Iraq is acting as a gunner during convoy movements. Even up-armored Humvees, which provide added protection for most of the crew, leave the gunner exposed.

But for the gunners assigned to four special up-armored Humvees in Iraq, convoy movements are a different experience: instead of spending the drive hunched in the turret, scanning their sectors and hoping for the best, these soldiers are comfortably seated the back of the vehicle, eyes glued to a computer screen and right hand on a PlayStation-like joystick.

If the gunner, or someone else in the convoy, identifies a threat, the press of a button instantly slews the gun mounted atop the Humvee in the right direction. Then the flip of a switch puts steel on target.

Throughout the ordeal, the gunner is safe inside the armored shell of the vehicle.

The system these gunners are testing is called CROWS, for the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station.

Designed to be mounted aboard a variety of vehicles, from armored Humvees to the new Stryker, CROWS supports the MK19 grenade machine gun, 50-caliber M2 machine gun, M249 semi-automatic weapon, and the M240B machine gun.

A fire-control computer and stabilizers allow soldiers to shoot with great accuracy, even while the vehicle is moving, according to Maj. Adam Tasca, assistant product manager for crew-served weapons at PM Soldier, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

Gunners “can fire a single grenade and put it right in the chest of an adversary at 1,000 meters,” Tasca said in an interview Friday at the Pentagon, where CROWS was on display.

Moreover, the system’s sensors, which include a laser rangefinder, heavy thermal weapon sight, daytime video camera, and an image intensifier, help the gunner see targets at night and in bad weather, Tasca said.

CROWS isn’t scheduled to be fielded until 2006, but last fall, senior Army leaders realized how well suited the system might be to help protect soldiers against threats in Iraq, Pete Errante, deputy program manager for crew-served weapons at PM Soldier at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., said Friday.

Four systems were promptly sent to Iraq for “operational testing,” Errante said. For security reasons, he declined to identify the unit using the CROWS, or its location.

Tasca, who recently spent six weeks in Iraq evaluating the system and soldiers’ reactions to it, said that so far the systems have been performing “superbly.”

“The reliability is 100 percent and [soldiers] love it,” said Tasca. “They want more of them.”

If commanders in Iraq decide to issue an “urgent needs” request that would subsequently be supported by Army leadership, CROWS manufacturer Recon/Optical, of Barrington, Ill., is ready to begin manufacturing the system immediately, Errante said.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

IRAQ: Turning the Tables on Terrorist Toys

February 9, 2004: The war between hostile Iraqis and American troops goes on in ways that are little reported. For example, every attack on American troops is carefully studied and US tactics and procedures modified if it appears that there was a change that could have prevented the attack. For example, when American troops discovered that Iraqis were using radio controlled cars to detonate road side bombs, the lead vehicle in convoys carried a controller for such toys that was continuously broadcasting (all of the these radio controlled toys use the same frequency.) This would detonate any bombs (using this method) when the lead vehicle was still about a hundred meters away. At the same time, specially built electronic gear is being built that will enable the lead vehicle in a convoy to continually transmit all the known frequencies used to detonate bombs remotely.

[archy]

M249 Light Machine Gun is 5.56mm

That's about to change. Mark 48 Mod 0 SAW.

[SJSAMPLE]

Exactly, but none in the US Army. At least, not what they're willing to consider. The HMMWV is a half-step, and the Stryker might be a bit much for the wheeled vehicle role the HMMWV is being forced into. An armored car that was DESIGNED for the task is the preferred alternative. Adding more weight (armor) and firepower isn't going to make the HMMWV any more capable of a platform.

[SJSAMPLE]

The SAW was adopted as a companion weapon to the 5.56mm in squad service (complete with ammo interchangeability). I doubt it's going to be replaced by a 7.62mm version in line infantry units. But the Navy likes it because their mainstay 7.62mm in SOF service is the deplorable M60. Even though the NSWC has modded up the M60 for SEAL use, it's nowhere near as reliable as the SAW platform.

[Billthedrill]

Re 20 - yeah, it's nice, but can you imagine how you'd feel when you put that first scratch in the paint?

[Lurker]

I don't understand. If they need armored vehicles, why don't they get them?

Why not just send tanks?

Am I missing something here?

L

[archy]

I have often fantasized about a weapon system like this after being cut off in traffic, but I would need a disintegrator phaser instead of a Ma Deuce so I wouldn't have to drive through the burning junk pile.

Not necessarily. But it's nice to see that somebody has a Remote Weapon System that works. Still, that nice little SUV should get you through traffic just fine.

-archy-/-

[archy]

don't understand. If they need armored vehicles, why don't they get them? Why not just send tanks? Am I missing something here?

We already have tanks. You can't get as much for kickbacks for systems we already have, and retiring general officers have to have nice *consulting* jobs with the builders when they retire.

If a few grunts have to die in unarmored vehicles in the meantime, tough. There are officers who have to think about how they might have to live on just their military retirement checks if they don't make the sale for new toys. So they will.

[MPJackal]

"
The HMMWV was designed, from the beginning, as a UTILITY vehicle. It was created to replace the Jeep, not the armored combat vehicle".

While giving HMMWV passengers additional protection is a good idea, giving them a false sense of security about the nature and limitations of their vehicle IS NOT.


Actually, you are incorrect. The new Up Armored (UA) HMMWV's have performed very well. As of December there were zero fatalities resulting from enemy fire on UA HMMWV. In one instance a UA took a direct hit from an RPG with only minor damage.
The greatest risk with UA's was the exposed gunner. This system eliminates this risk while giving much greater accuracy even on the move.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Many of them came out of armored vehicles to be constabulary troopers. The M1114 Up-armored HMMWV is the standard constabulary/peacekeeper/MP ride, so that's what everybody wants, whether that's what they really need or not.

They have put so many miles on the Bradleys they can't supply replacement tracks.

Lots of M113's available for patrolling.

[MPJackal]

"If a few grunts have to die in unarmored vehicles in the meantime, tough. There are officers who have to think about how they might have to live on just their military retirement checks if they don't make the sale for new toys. So they will".

You are out of line. The military does as much as possible to limit the casualties to zero. Unfortunately, that is impossible. To say that the leadership does not care about their soldiers is an insult to me and every other soldier that serves. How much time do you have in uniform to make this asinine statement. If you tell me even one day, I call Bull Sh*t.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Play the video on the link at Post 2

[Ronzo]

An up-armored hummer is good, but this is better:

"The tank [Israeli Merkava Mk IV] is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions."

In production, and available for immediate delivery...

Shoot, who needs an APC??? And yes, that is a 120mm smooth-bore canon...perfect for those new-fangled over-sized shotgun shells...

[Darksheare]

Weird.
But cool.

But I want a few of those new odd 249's.

[thinktwice]

Abrams tanks are not the weapon I'd choose to chase people in urban environments

[SAMWolf]

Neither would I, but I wouldn't use a HumVee either.

[null and void]

Gunners “can fire a single grenade and put it right in the chest of an adversary at 1,000 meters,”

Works for me...

[Lion Den Dan]

To say that the leadership does not care about their soldiers is an insult to me and every other soldier that serves++++++++++++++

I guess you are insulted then. One can not make a blanket statement from the above, there are those commanders who have made the Faustian trade. And, before you go off about time in uniform, I have plenty and plenty more time as a DA Civilian observing and in cases being cajoled to let things take their course so some gutless lowlife with an eagle or star can bolster his retirement.

[archy]

You are out of line. The military does as much as possible to limit the casualties to zero. Unfortunately, that is impossible. To say that the leadership does not care about their soldiers is an insult to me and every other soldier that serves. How much time do you have in uniform to make this asinine statement. If you tell me even one day, I call Bull Sh*t.

First tour 1966-1970. Got out an E-5
DA Civilian in Army Ordnance, 1978-79.
Transferred to Navy JSSAP program, 1979-80 [M9 pistol, M40A1/M86 rifle, M500/590 shotgun programs, Fleet Logistics Support Systems, among others]
consultant, US Deputy Chief of Mission, Sofia and Sarajevo,1991
Direct commission 1LT, Reserves 1992. CPT, 1994. MAJ 1998.

I would happily agree with you that most of the serving officers I've worked with and for, US Army and other services, are as dedicated to their mission and personnel as you suggest-about 80% worth. There's about 10 % that are ticket-punchers, who'll put their own personal advancement above all else, but the word gets out on them pretty fast, though some are very good at getting their tasks accomplished, at a cost to their personnel, accordingly, they advance, but are not missed once they're gone. And about 5% are just about as I described. Unfortunately, many of them are very senior officers, in positions where their decisions, often self-serving, can do considerable harm, to include fatalities to those who have to live with their decisions.

With new focus on the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors, another case deserves further scrutiny: The January 2000 hiring of former Army Lt. General David K. Heebner by General Dynamics Corp., and the subsequent award 11 months later of a $4 billion contract to General Dynamics to build the Army's Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle. POGO has learned that the Pentagon's top independent tester warned the Secretary of Defense that the vehicle should not be deployed in Iraq because it is vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades.

As one of Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's top assistants, Heebner played a significant role in drumming up procurement funding and support for Shinseki's plan to transform the Army, which included the Stryker. In October 1999, only three months before Heebner retired, Shinseki's "Army Vision" statement called for an interim armored brigade: "We are prepared to move to an all-wheel formation as soon as technology permits." General Dynamics' primary competitor and an unsuccessful bidder for the Stryker contract, United Defense, primarily manufactures tracked armored vehicles.

Heebner was present for the April 2002 rollout in Alabama of the first Stryker. At that ceremony, Heebner was among those thanked by Shinseki in a speech. A transcript of the speech, originally on the Army's website, has since been removed.

Heebner's hiring by General Dynamics was formally announced by the company on November 20, 1999, more than a month prior to Heebner's official retirement date of December 31, 1999. The Stryker contract was awarded in November of 2000. It is not clear precisely when Heebner began employment negotiations with General Dynamics or if he recused himself from any dealings on the Stryker contract while dicussing employment with the defense contractor. Federal conflict of interest laws and regulations prohibit government employees from participating "personally and substantially in a particular matter in which an organization they are negotiating with, or have an arrangement with for future employment, has a financial interest." (18 U.S.C. § 208)

The Heebner controversy was first disclosed on the website www.militarycorruption.com in a story written by Lonnie T. Shoultz, a Vietnam combat veteran and former Army paratrooper and Green Beret.

Heebner is currently Senior Vice President of Planning and Development for General Dynamics. Since going to work for General Dynamics, the retired Assistant Vice Chief of Staff for the Army has been promoted and has acquired General Dynamics stock currently valued at more than $1.2 million, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Heebner was "awarded" 4,000 shares of General Dynamics stock valued at $169,000 on March 1, 2000, only two months after going to work for the company. He reported five insider and restricted shareholder transactions acquisitions between January 2002 and March 2003, bringing his total stake in General Dynamics to 13,643 shares of company stock. General Dynamics stock closed at $89.39 per share on Monday, January 5, 2004. [Note: archymath=$1,219,547.77]

Meanwhile, General Dynamics' contract with its partner, General Motors, to build 2,131 Strykers for the Army has weathered a storm of quiet controversy. In recent weeks, Strykers have been deployed to Iraq's hazardous Sunni Triangle - despite a warning by the Pentagon's chief tester that the eight-wheeled armored vehicle is vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices, both of which are commonly being used against U.S. forces. Indeed, the Stryker has already failed to protect soldiers from one of these weapons. On December 13, a Stryker passed over an improvised explosive device planted in a road in Iraq. The device detonated, injuring a soldier who barely managed to escape as fire engulfed the engine compartment.

POGO has confirmed that the warning came from Tom Christie, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, who sent a classified letter to the Secretary of Defense warning that the nearly $3 million a copy Stryker was not ready for deployment in Iraq. The Army, however, disagreed and went ahead with the deployment of the first of six planned Stryker brigades. The Army said the 300 armored vehicles and 3,500 soldiers and other personnel in the unit were badly needed in Iraq, according to a source.

Ideally, the Stryker brigades would be deployed by C-130 aircraft anywhere in the world within 96 hours. However, several studies have questioned whether the Stryker can be deployed via C-130 aircraft, much less within 96 hours, and critics, including the General Accounting Office (see December 2003 GAO report: Military Transformation: The Army and OSD Met Legislative Requirements for First Stryker Brigade Design Evaluation, but Issues Remain for Future Brigades. GAO-04-188, December 12 Highlights ) point to design, maintenance, and training problems. Some of those problems and the increasing cost of testing and building the Strykers caused the Pentagon last year to consider delaying a decision to fund the fifth and sixth Stryker brigades. However, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was ultimately overruled by Congress.

"Based on the circumstances surrounding General Heebner's hiring and compensation, and internal Pentagon warnings about the armored vehicle's vulnerability, further investigation of the Stryker program is required," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry.

# # #

Project on Government Oversight

[humblegunner]

New Humvee weapons system keeps gunner covered inside

And gunner is damn glad of it, lemme tell you....