Rumsfeld kills "Crusader"

[David Floyd]

fg, we will only be fighting large conventional wars if he stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

My solution, barring isolationism, is to deny the military the tools it needs to win, thus discouraging war. Our nuclear shield is lenty for real threats.

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by 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.

Wait a minute "Simon, you can't very far I see in front of your nose...You think we will always fighting enemys like the taliban!?? War changes."

That's what I was arguing in my two little snippets in this thread. I sense some degree of sarcasm (hard to notice though at 0413 in the morning; that's my excuse ), but it does seem we are in agreement, there, sirrah.

Almost got me there.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Seems to me you got these choices:

A) Spend money on the Challenger, but not on Star Wars (AMD);
B) Spend money on Star Wars, but not on the Challenger;
C) Raise taxes and spend money on both; and
D) Don't spend money on either and cut taxes.

So which are you going to pick?

Actually the correct answer is F) Get Crusader AND get Star Wars AND cut taxes AND run deficts for the next decade at least. The general attitude seems to be "We've gone back into a deficit so we might as well spend as much as we want." See the new farm bill for details.

[Lonestar]

Hmmm...saw in the paper today that we may end up buying some German guns if we can't build the Crusader.

[faded glory]

Anyway it wouldnt matter. The M256 gun on the abrams is made in Stuttgart germany.

[David Floyd]

Lonestar - German guns are pretty decent actually.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Lonestar - German guns are pretty decent actually.

Most European artillary is superior to American artillary...and that is the *only* time St. Marcus will hear me say so.


Supposebly, it would have to be the German PzH 9k(?), because the French Ceaser is too slow, and the Britsh S-P gun is way the hell to heavy.

[David Floyd]

Besides we don't want to be seen using French equipment

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Besides we don't want to be seen using French equipment

Yeah, all the other Anglos would never let us live it down.

[David Floyd]

The surrender chip embedded in all French equipment would probably cause it to self propel itself over to the enemy

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Angle is fine. I understand that part, but if the projectile always comes out with the same speed then there are at most two angular solutions to firing problem (ignoring changing conditions).

Since most artillery rounds come in cartridges (powder pre-loaded) (AFAIK), then how does gun alter muzzle velocity?

Pre-loaded shells are not used in heavy artillery, rather the guns are charged with as many modular "bags" of powder as the firing solution calls for. Thus this weapon could fire larger charges higher into the air, reload and fire lighter and lighter charges which spend correspondingly less time aloft until it has created an 8 shell barrage.

Btw, this whole science is fairly involved. Small balloons are regularly sent aloft in order to find the barometric pressure, wind direction and speed etc. for a number of different altitudes. The tempurature of the bags of propellant is measured (warmer equals higher performance), and each gun's muzzle velocity with a known charge is also measured regularly, because as the barrel wears down it loses some of it's ability to maintain pressure. All of these data are then fed into a computer and each gun is given it's individual solution to a particular fire mission.

Tingkai,

There are two possible reasons why allowing a single gun the ability to create a simultaneous 8 shell barrage might be useful.

1) You can spread these 8 shells a little bit apart so that they blanket the target area while not allowing any warning of the barrage. This will catch the target unaware and inflict maximum casualties. This allows one gun to function like an entire battery, though it could not handle as many targets in quick succession as a current battery could.

2) You could aim at a hard target like a bunker with multiple shells, and have them land in quick succession in order to blast away the protective concrete / earth etc. The bunker could be destroyed quickly, without allowing the inhabitants time to escape in between rounds.

[Samuel Johnson]

Someone said that Rumsfeld is trying to convert the Army into a light force. That is not true - he is making the heavier forces lighter and the lighter forces more armored. The Crusader is too hard to transport by air and a new system will take its place. I would not doubt that United Defense doesn't make eventually. By the way, United Defense is owned by the great, evil Carylyle Group, see how far their influence went in the Pentagon, eh?

Anyway, General Shinseki (Chief of Staff for the Army) is the dog that didn't bark. He is retiring soon and I believe he would have spoken out against Rumsfeld if he disagreed with the decision. Has the current Secretary of the Army ever served in the Army? I forgot. Anyway, if Shinseki comes out and says cancelling the Crusader is a dumb idea, then I might rethink how I am looking at this.

[Sikander]

To those who think that airpower, cruise missles etc. are a better bargain for the money, think again. These weapons have one huge advantage over conventional artillery, namely range. Every other advantage lies with the artillery. Let's figure out why this is.

Artillery is fired using bags of ballistic propellant, which is cheap. Rockets (like the MRLS) and missles (exception, cruise missle) use more expensive solid rocket propellant, and they use a lot more of it to send their payload to the target. Cruise missles IIRC use small jet engines, which give them greater range at a cost of speed and money. These jet engines are destroyed after one use, which is why these missles cost .5-2 million dollars apeice. These weapons also tend to be modular, ie they are mass produced with a set amount of payload and a set amount of propellant. Thus they cannot be used to strike targets closer to them than their maximum range with larger warheads or conversely less propellant. The cost per KG of warhead for these weapons is thus much greater than that for an artillery shell, especially considering the fact that some rocket / missle delivery systems have built in avionics (cruise missle), control surfaces and targeting systems which will be destroyed during the mission. Artillery usually has none of this (exception: certain shells are designed to look for laser designators painting targets). It simply fires it's shells at great speed along a parabella (sp?) to the target. The ratio of propellant to warhead is lowest of almost any weapon system except the land mine.

So artillery fire is cheaper and much faster to it's target than either missles or rockets. It's sole limitation is a big one however, namely it's range is limited. In effect this means that ground forces have to be deployed within striking distance of the enemy for artillery to be used effectively, and this in turn tends to limit artillery to a more or less front line weapon, which can strike the enemy's front lines, combat support elements and his lines of communication. I don't think that this is an obsolete function any more than I think ground combat itself is obsolete. Artillery is part and parcel of land warfare, and only forces using a raiding strategy (as we are in Afghanistan) can make do without it. It is critical for any persisting strategy, such as one the new government of Afghanistan might pursue in order to bring that country under effective and singular rule once more.

[DanS]

"The cost per KG of warhead for these weapons is thus much greater than that for an artillery shell, especially considering the fact that some rocket / missle delivery systems have built in avionics (cruise missle), control surfaces and targeting systems which will be destroyed during the mission."

A year or two ago all this was true. But, as stated above, the JDAM package fitted on "dumb" bombs has changed the equation. $17K/package puts up to 2K lbs in a 5 meter box. Dropped into Afghanistan by a bomber stationed in Kansas or wherever.

Edit: I don't dispute that munitions from the air are more expensive, of course. Just that a reduction in cost by two orders of magnitude in the last couple of years sure makes you rethink the relative merits.

[faded glory]

Who built the crusader? General Dynamics? Or do they only make ammo. Just curouis.