UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military


Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR)
Special Operations Forces Combat Rifle (SCR)
SOPMOD Enhanced Carbine (EC)

Critical Design Reviews

The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) announced on 20 April 2005 that it conducted the second critical design review for the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) with FN Herstal since the contract award on 5 November 2004. The critical design review was spearheaded by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) in Crane, Indiana, and supported by USSOCOM Operators.

The purpose of the 3-day meeting was fivefold:

  1. To review and discuss major operational application issues to the prototype weapon, some of which were originally discussed during the first Critical Design Review in December of 2004;
  2. To continue improvements to the operator-designed weapons;
  3. To accelerate the concurrent development of the SCAR Light (SCAR-L), a 5.56 mm version, and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM);
  4. To test the weapons on the range and to gather input of ergonomic adjustments; and
  5. To make other improvements with the developers and Operators in an iterative process.

As in the first Critical Design Review, upon conclusion of the meetings, FN Herstal provided changes to the existing prototypes and mockups based on discussions illustrating the spiral development process: 2 SCAR-L (SCAR-L Close Quarter Combat and standard barrel, EGLM on the SCAR-L) and a SCAR-Heavy (SCAR-H CQC barrel). These changes did not affect the majority of internal working mechanisms of the FN design. They were critical to the optimization of the external design features for maximum effectiveness and efficiency of operational applications by the Operators.

This second Critical Design Review was another stepping stone in the development of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR). The program continued to emphasize the importance of Operator involvement, not just in initial stages, but throughout the lifetime of the program. With this meeting, the program was able to have Operators and developers once again make recommendations through an iterative process. This was to improve the Operator-designed weapon to perform optimally.

Throughout the meetings, the developer worked side-by-side with the Operators for an iterative design process. The team was able to make immediate changes and improvements to prototypes and designs. Operators tested the weapons on the range to gauge the initial capabilities of what they had previously outlined in the requirements.

Specifically, the Operator driven modifications to the weapons were:

  1. Review of changes and mockups/prototypes outlined in 1st Critical Design Review
  2. Safety lever changes
  3. Magazine release protectors
  4. Trigger reset
  5. Pistol grip design
  6. Bolt release protectors
  7. Charging handle designs
  8. Sling attachment points
  9. Color change to neutral from black
  10. New business in 2nd Critical Design Review
  11. New pistol grip that improved ergonomic fitting to operators
  12. Front sight post with folding and locking options
  13. Gas regulator settings
  14. Barrel mounting screws
  15. Stock adjustment controls
  16. Rear sight adjustments
  17. Butt plate modular feature
  18. SCAR-H testing data
  19. Suppressor integration
  20. EGLM ergonomic decisions
  21. EGLM Fire Control System (FCS) decisions



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list