By Scott R. Gourley

One early tactical trend of the 21st century was the U.S. Army’s adoption and subsequent embrace of the concept of remote (or remotely operated) weapon stations (RWS). Supporting various weapon options, the RWS concept enables soldiers to engage the enemy with greater lethality while remaining within the vehicle, under armor protection.

Two early examples of the Army’s adoption of RWS tactical capabilities included the M151-series Protector RWS and M101-series common remotely operated weapon station (CROWS).

The M151-series Protector RWS, manufactured by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, was initially fielded to satisfy the requirements for the Army’s Stryker family of vehicles by providing a multifunctional system that could employ a suite of weapons like the M2 .50-caliber machine gun and MK19 40 mm grenade launcher.

The initial Stryker requirements did not mandate RWS capabilities sought by other users, however. For example, the initial Stryker requirements did not include weapon stabilization for shoot-on-the-move capabilities, which some other users felt to be critical.

As a result, at the same time that the Army began fielding its M151-series RWS on its Strykers, the Military Police community developed a user requirement for a stabilized RWS (together with some other new specifications) for use on their M1114 armored security vehicles.

The resulting M101-series CROWS, which was developed by Recon Optical, saw initial combat deployment of a small number of systems in December 2003. Subsequent urgent operational need statements led to the rapid fielding of several hundred of the M101-series systems under sole-source contracts to the developer.

During roughly the same period, however, two block modification packages were also developed for the M151 series that brought Protector performance into line with the expanded user requirements.

In an effort to eliminate this apparent dual-track approach, Army planners observed that CROWS was not to be viewed as a “system,” but rather a “capability” required by the warfighters. That approach allowed program activity to shift toward competing for a single contractor to provide that CROWS capability across Army platforms.

“The CROWS requirement was competed in 2006–07,” explains Knut Saeter, vice president, Business Development, for Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. “It was a continuation of some urgent materiel release contracts that had been issued previously. But rather than continuing to go sole source with those, the government decided to compete the full requirement. So every company on the planet had a chance to participate and compete for it.”

“We provided a proposal and a bid sample,” he continued. “The Army tested all of the bid samples from the participating companies in combination with the documentation that had been forwarded. After extensive testing of the bid samples, the CROWS contract was awarded to Kongsberg [in] August 2007.” He observed that a follow-on protest to the Government Accountability Office by one of the other bidders was subsequently denied.

“If you look at CROWS, it is based on the M151 Protector for Stryker,” Saeter said. “There are only minor changes, with most of those only on software to increase functionality, like auto tracking and also automatic lead-angle correction. Those are two of the major new features in CROWS.”

“The intention of CROWS is to satisfy all requirements for remote operations of weapons on vehicles in the U.S. inventory,” Saeter added. Noting that CROWS is “one variant of the Protector family of weapon stations,” he observed that “on the Stryker, we now have more than 1,500 systems. They have been serving with Stryker since 2002 and have gone through two block upgrades, with the latest of those upgrades still ongoing.”

“We know that all of them will eventually be upgraded to the Block II configuration,” he added, “with major enhancements being in the fields of sensors and full stabilization. In fact, a substantial portion have already been upgraded to Block II.”

In terms of improvements to the sensor suite, Saeter explained that the upgrade packages include the introduction of a color day camera. “That’s based on the feedback from the operations in Iraq,” he explained. “On the older black-and-white camera, you might not see the difference between green or red. And that may be how [soldiers] need to identify friendly or unfriendly trucks. But the new camera gives them the ability to identify things with colors.”

“On the thermal side, we have introduced a dual field-of-view, much longer range uncooled thermal camera with an e-zoom, which enables the gunner to switch between the day camera and the thermal camera with the same field-of-view,” Saeter said.

The block upgrades also include the introduction of a laser range finder. “That’s another important piece because that addition improves our first-round-on-target significantly, because we then have the right data for our ballistic computer,” Saeter explained.

While the military designator for the new CROWS remains to be identified as of this writing, it is expected to be the M101A1.