Rumsfeld kills "Crusader"

[Tingkai]

An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party.

The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator.

This is from CNN:
But the Crusader has another constituency, perhaps more powerful than its Pentagon backers: United Defense, the company building the system, is owned by the Carlyle Group, a privately held corporation run by a host of former Reagan and Bush Administration officials. They include Reagan's Pentagon chief, Frank Carlucci, and James Baker, George Bush's Secretary of State and the man who helped George W. win his election struggle in Florida. United Defense has decided to assemble the gun in a factory expressly built for the program near the artillery school at Fort Sill, Okla. The fort is represented in Congress by g.o.p. Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative J.C. Watts, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House's fourth-ranking Republican. Both have exhorted the Army to buy the Crusader.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by mindseye
(a) Mobile artillery still has a role, but it's been much diminished by the (astonishing) increase in accuracy of air-delivered guided munitions, which can also be delivered for a fraction of the cost

This isn't exactly true. Factor in the reduced ordnance payload per sortie of a single aircraft, the much higher maintainance cost of the aircraft itself as a delivery platform, the risk to that platform - hence to the payload delivery itself, and I think you'll find it nowhere near as cost-effective and reliable as you might think.
This doesn't even account for the aforementioned bad-weather problems preventing said aircraft from even taking off.

[David Floyd]

**** precise artillery man. Have any one of you guys watch cluster munitions go off??? All you need is a few of those, nothing will survive. They chew through tanks, Bunkers, and turn foam dummies into gew.

And on the 9th Day after we got rid of all-weather strike aircraft, God created rain

[MOBIUS]

I think anyone supporting these behemoths is living in the past, with the advent of computer technology etc developing these would be the Jurassic Park equivalent of cloning a dinosaur...

How often has this type of gear been required or been practical in the last, say 30 years? Personally I don't see there being another large open style of war where the US has to fight technologically equal foes.

How useful would Crusader be against the Taliban or Al'Qaeda? Answer: F*cking useless!

That 11 billion would be far better utilised improving intelligence gathering (i.e. stopping the need to go to full scale war in the 1st place!), buying more and improving the Predator style drones etc and, basically maintaining the technological edge in general. Avoiding friendly fire casualties would be a good start as well!

Why you guys are so into overkill beats me, it's like the nuclear arms race - you weren't content with just having the capability to destroy the World, you had to be able to do it at least a 100 times over...

As for carriers, don't you guys have more than the rest of the World by a factor of at least two??? Do you need all those carriers - I don't think so!

Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants...

[Imran Siddiqui]

An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party.

The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator.

Well, of course. Usually you have this adminstration (which has more people knowledgable about military affairs than other administrations) realizing what is and is not needed (even if it is politically good), but Congressmen will always fight to keep their pork spending.

This is one of the things I like about Rumsfeld. He doesn't care the plant is in a Republican's district. He doesn't think we need it, so it doesn't matter.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why the hell should we fight North Korea, or Iraq for that matter?

Iraq: Because they sponsor terrorism, and they aren't at all friendly. Also, Saddam seems to be going after WMD, and it would be better to get rid of him before he gets them rather than after.

North Korea: Because they want to invade South Korea. South Korea is an American ally which the U.S. would be obligated by treaty to defend. It is also a useful economic partner for America. Finally, North Korea's claim to legitemacy is pretty shaky.

[Roland]

If Rumsie gets his way, I need to change my sig.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We can't have that! Write those letters to your Congressman to 'Protect the Pork' .

[Thue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
An interesting thing to consider is that the Republicans are killing a weapons program that benefits members of their own party.

The company building the Crusader has strong links to the Republican party. The factory where it would be built is in an area represented by a Republican senator.

This is from CNN:
But the Crusader has another constituency, perhaps more powerful than its Pentagon backers: United Defense, the company building the system, is owned by the Carlyle Group, a privately held corporation run by a host of former Reagan and Bush Administration officials. They include Reagan's Pentagon chief, Frank Carlucci, and James Baker, George Bush's Secretary of State and the man who helped George W. win his election struggle in Florida. United Defense has decided to assemble the gun in a factory expressly built for the program near the artillery school at Fort Sill, Okla. The fort is represented in Congress by g.o.p. Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative J.C. Watts, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House's fourth-ranking Republican. Both have exhorted the Army to buy the Crusader.

Wow - a politician who isn't completely corrupt. The US citizens are speachless.

If this had been in Denmark just those people's links to the industri who would benefit from their decisions would have made them unelectable.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

As for carriers, don't you guys have more than the rest of the World by a factor of at least two??? Do you need all those carriers - I don't think so!

Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants...

They are cool as hell, though. I've observed night carrier ops. It is just like Top Gun (afterburner fires, etc.), except you feel the shaking when planes crash into the deck. Oh...and a catapult launch is a friggen rush!!!


So maybe you just don't like us having all this cool stuff. (Makes you feel like the little kid, whose parents won' let him have an air rifle...)

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GP
They are cool as hell, though. I've observed night carrier ops. It is just like Top Gun (afterburner fires, etc.), except you feel the shaking when planes crash into the deck. Oh...and a catapult launch is a friggen rush!!!

So maybe you just don't like us having all this cool stuff. (Makes you feel like the little kid, whose parents won' let him have an air rifle...)

Hey don't get me wrong, I ain't got a problem about all your cool stuff - I thought the USS Missouri was Waaay Cool!

It's just having so many - it's totally unnecessary... Worse than that, it channels money away from other more deserving parts of the US defence network...

Besides, we don't need to waste our money when you guys are only too happy to oblige...

[David Floyd]

Iraq: Because they sponsor terrorism, and they aren't at all friendly. Also, Saddam seems to be going after WMD, and it would be better to get rid of him before he gets them rather than after.

North Korea: Because they want to invade South Korea. South Korea is an American ally which the U.S. would be obligated by treaty to defend. It is also a useful economic partner for America. Finally, North Korea's claim to legitemacy is pretty shaky.

So? BFD!

[faded glory]

"Besides, we don't need to waste our money when you guys are only too happy to oblige..."

Thats why you are insignificant in international affiars. Until you grow some balls and get some projection forces to help us, we will continue to do things are way.

[Simon Darkshade]

"How often has this type of gear been required or been practical in the last, say 30 years? Personally I don't see there being another large open style of war where the US has to fight technologically equal foes.

How useful would Crusader be against the Taliban or Al'Qaeda? Answer: F*cking useless!

That 11 billion would be far better utilised improving intelligence gathering (i.e. stopping the need to go to full scale war in the 1st place!), buying more and improving the Predator style drones etc and, basically maintaining the technological edge in general. Avoiding friendly fire casualties would be a good start as well! "

"Concentrate on what's needed and forget about wasting money on white elephants..."

As I said previously in this thread, times and needs may change beyond expectation, and conflicts may arise that are not currently there. It is better to retain an all round, well rounded capability, (even with a lot in reserve, as there currently is) until the chance of any conflict is absent, which does not look soon.

Predators, and high tech equipment are all the rage at the moment, yet there still has to be the other end of the scale.
Conflicts will not happen how it best suits our equipment and mindsets; potential aggressors will not politely wait whilst their target gets the appropriate gear ready, and nor will they always fight the way that we want them to. Thus, having the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps capable of reacting to a variety of threats, and levels of conflict is to the advantage of the United States.
Not all coming conflicts will be like Afghanistan, just like not all wars after WW2 were push button thermonuclear affairs.

And MOBIUS, thank you very much for posting that cool pic of the Mighty Mo!!

[faded glory]

Im against crusader. Let me say this tho

Simon you cant very far i see in front of your nose...You think we will always fighting enemys like the taliban!?? . War changes.There is no dotrine's etched in stone. Today Taliban (or whats left of them) are the enemys. Tommorrow, could be a new threat. I hate when people say "This is the way wars will be fought in the 21st century, so get rid of this. this and this." Anyone can make this kind of conclusion is beyond me. Convential war is still the future. Not towel-heads scared ****less in caves. Thats now. We must be prepared for everything.