Rumsfeld kills "Crusader"

[Lonestar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53762-2002May8.html

For those too lazy to read the link...

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has opt to kill the "Crusader" self-propelled Howitzer. The argument against it being (1) too heavy and (2) bombs now work just as well as artillary.


Of course, that's pure crap. This means the Army(and, to lesser degree, the marines.), is grabbed by the balls, artillarywise. As it now stands, the frickin' French are now far ahead of us, artillary techwise. ( The Current US Self-propelled Howitzer, the Paladin, is a 1979 upgrade to a 1959 design).

In addition, with the decommisioning of the entire A-6 fleet in 1997, the United States has no all-weather attack craft. This means next time it rains and boys on the ground need upport, they are screwed.

But hey! That's okay, all in the name of "transforming" the military, right?

Of course, Rumsfeld has also put the V-22 Osprey on the chopping block. Granted, that would dramatically improve the USMC, but obviously not transform it in the way he wanted.


Aiya, I'm mad. Damn post-finals brain clog.

[DinoDoc]

Why is the arguement that the gun is too heavy crap?

[Sprayber]

Secretary White nearly lost his job over it too. But it looks like Rumsfeld was able to put him back in his place. It's a shame that he couldn't get it changed.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Secretary White nearly lost his job over it too. But it looks like Rumsfeld was able to put him back in his place.

That and the fact it looks like he wasn't the one to send out that letter.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why is the arguement that the gun is too heavy crap?

Okay, bad wording.


The assumption that the Crusader is "too heavy" comes from Rumsfeld's desire to transform the Army into a "Lightweight expeditionary Force".


Of course, the United States already has such a force. The Marines.

Rumsfeld's entire Defense program, from the get-go, is going to lead us towards disaster. While he should have been ordering the creation of more transport ships to help move the army around, prior to 9/11 he wanted to chop up the navy. (get rid of a Carrier group, as a matter of fact).

A further indication that Rumsfeld lives in some bizarre, otherworldly place, is that dispite his repeated desire to "transform" the military, he's trying to kill several programs that *would* transform it. The V-22 for the USMC (which is also going to be used as a airframe replacement for about a gajillion navy cargo/AWAC/ASW planes). The Comanche for the Army. The Crusader, which would replace a 40 year old howitzer design.

40 years old. I bet there are very few Paladin operators who were born before it went into service, much less remember using other systems.

Rumsfeld's whole assumption is that we are never, ever, going to fight a campaign that would require fast moving artillary support. And oh by the way, as we've seen in the past week, we're apperently going to invade Iraq sometime next year. As the Iraqis still have 2,200 tanks, and much, much more heavy equipment, I think it's safe to say there's going to be a ground campaign.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Lonestar... about the V-22... many, many, many military people on this site have clamored to end testing on the Osprey, including MtG, GP (I believe), etc. They would probably applaud Rumsfeld for it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... Lonestar... about the V-22... many, many, many military people on this site have clamored to end testing on the Osprey, including MtG, GP (I believe), etc. They would probably applaud Rumsfeld for it.

Then I would have to say...they're wrong. The V-22 has had less problems then the Harrier did when it came out. (70 in one year compared to less than a dozen spread out over 15 years)


I'm not just a "armchair general" either, believe it or not. (I've spent the past two years doing NROTC at Texas A&M) I know I'm not as experienced as the military folks on board, I have to point out none of them are marines, and none of them are in aviation.

Unlike the Army, which besides a few light Infantry units, is NOT a expeditionary force, the USMC is and does need the V-22. Or at least a helicopter with it's equilivant abilities. (and no animal exists)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I'm not just a "armchair general" either, believe it or not. (I've spent the past two years doing NROTC at Texas A&M) I know I'm not as experienced as the military folks on board, ..., and none of them are in aviation.

Wasn't Slowwhand in the Air Force?

[Simon Darkshade]

It does not seem to be a particularly wise thing to do, given the unpredictable nature of future conflicts and security challenges.
After WWII, the next war was supposed to be a push button affair; instead, it was reminiscent of WWI in Korea. Then Vietnam came and went, and the first Gulf War was not an easily predicted matter.
Ditto the terrorist assaults and the subsequent war.
What seems clearly outdated/outmoded/useless in a future conflict at the moment may not be so in 5 years time.
Whilst potential foes still have a heavy force capability, IMO it is best for the US to retain the technological edge and advantage in that area, if ye know what I mean.

Right on, Lonestar, particularly about the retirement of the A-6s, a gap that will only be partly filled by the Super Hornet. Since 1988, the number of offensive frontline squadrons per carrier has dropped from 5 to 4, and the F/A18 C-D can deploy 25% of the ordnance, with the next model up doubling that. And the naval gunfire support is lacking.
Relying upon air power in lieu of all weather artillery is hedging your bets in a manner that could go nasty.

Basically, it is better to be safe than sorry, although 11 bill is a hefty price tag. But what price would ye put on a future victory in a hitherto unforseen conflict?

[pchang]

MLRS

Rumsfeld is relying upon those rather than true self propelled arty.

[TCO]

Agree that it was sad to see the A6 retired. In addition to all weather they had bigger payload and longer legs than the F-18. Also had a 2 mand crew and were more specialized in training (by not being mulitimission) for bombing.

Corps doesn't want the MV-22. They's rather have some helos.

Don't know much about the artillery piece.

The Harrier is kind of an abortion. It's not that great...

[Goingonit]

Think of it this way...

What possible major ground campaign could the US possibly fight against a country with a military good enough that this howizer would make a difference?

By the time there is such a country that would possibly fight the US, they will have seen it coming, and could ressurect the project or something.

[DanS]

The JDAM can put an awful lot of poundage in a 5m box, so long as you keep air superiority. And amazingly cheaply too. Development on this howitzer would cost 650,000 JDAM packages, even assuming the Air Force couldn't get a volume discount.

I think this has changed a lot of thinking in Washington over the last year or so. That and several successful demonstrations of over-the-horizon warfare.

[David Floyd]

I support this, for no other reason than it might make us less likely to commit ground troops to a war.

Om the other hand, I *DO* support modernization of the military, as long as it goes hand-in-hand with massive military cutbacks. Rumsfeld's plan to cut a carrier would certainly be a good start.

[DanS]

Btw, what's the range on the Crusader?