Pathfinder

Your tax dollars at work.

The Crusader Artillery progam has been cancelled.

"The Defense Department had already spent about $2 billion on the Crusader, which had been scheduled to enter the U.S. arsenal in 2008."

Don't be surprised if some members of Congress don't try to revive the program. It is not unusual for Congress to force the Defense Department to spend money on weapons that they do not want.

FATPad

In the lengthy history of US misspending $2B spent on nothing could almost be considered a success.

Pathfinder

True. In a sense it is a success (assuming Congress does not vote to reivive the program). The Crusader is far to big and heavy to be of use to todays mobile forces. It was more suited for major land wars, which we hopefully will not have to engage in, in the near future. Thus it is good that the other 9 billion wasn't invested in an Artillery weapon that todays mobile forces cannot use.

nocostporn

how do you know it was cancelled?... maybe thats to throw "them" off

__________________
CashTheChecks.com -coming soon-
"Exclusive sites for Exclusive Webmasters"
ICQ-119966868,add me first don't message

.:Frog:.

Just admit a fuckup when it happens and not make an excuse.

Pathfinder

Who is them?

Pornwolf

You said a lot in those 3 words!

drumsicle

The Jerky Boys

.:Frog:.

Maybe The Crusader could be crunched down a bit and the amry produces a similar, but smaller version of The Crusader. It does look very cool but too big.

Pathfinder

Well they have already done the crunching, could they do more, maybe, but the ultimate product would still be to big to be practical, for our trimmed down mobile forces.

bhutocracy

from teamcrusader

Crusader Myths and Facts


MYTH: The Pentagon's decision to eliminate funding for Crusader is part of a well-considered joint indirect fires strategic analysis.

FACT: The Pentagon has not studied the alternatives to Crusader. First, the Army was told no decision would be made until the fall, following a study to be completed in September. Then a 30-day study was ordered on May 2, but on May 8 the Pentagon hastily decided to eliminate Crusader, before any study was completed. Asked about a study dealing with Crusader and a variety of potential options, Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16: "We were putting together a study that was designed to answer the question by September."

MYTH: Crusader is too heavy.

FACT: Crusader's weight has been reduced to less than 40 tons, which is similar to a commercial transport truck. Small numbers of Crusaders can travel to any conflict on a C-17, the way most early forces and equipment travels. Forward basing Crusader will also facilitate Crusader's rapid global response. Larger numbers of Crusaders will also be transported by fast sealift ships.

MYTH: Crusader was designed to fight Cold War type warfare, not the kind of wars we will see in the future.

FACT: Crusader is a smart gun that was conceived in 1994, after the Cold War and after Desert Storm, and redefined in 1999 to meet battlefield needs of the 21st century.

MYTH: U.S. soldiers will be better off with the protection of air power.

FACT: U.S. warfighters demand a balance of weaponry - platforms and munitions -- which includes cannons. Air power is not instantaneously responsive, nor available 24 hours a day. Crusader will be. Aircraft are constrained by the weather while Crusader is not. Air power is also extremely expensive while Crusader can accurately engage a far greater number of targets for substantially lower costs. Finally, Crusader is a sure thing-and anything else is a gamble.

As Gen. Shinseki noted, air munitions cannot be used in close proximity to friendly troops. In the first few days of Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the United States suffered 28 of 36 casualties due to indirect fire from enemy mortars, he said on May 16. Had it been available, the United States "would have used" cannon artillery with long reach to eliminate the enemy mortars, he said.

MYTH: Canceling Crusader will enable the Defense Department to spend money on other weapons systems.

FACT: DoD says it has no idea what the costs to terminate the Crusader will be. Army Assistant Secretary Bolton said that his 25-years of experience shows that you are fortunate to break even in a termination. There is a good chance that the termination costs will exceed the funds allocated to continue the program through to the Milestone B review in April 2003. Letting the program continue through the current phase is a win-win situation for DoD and the American taxpayer.

MYTH: The Crusader cannot get to the battlefield quickly.

FACT: The firepower of the Crusader allows commanders to use fewer systems than other cannons and rockets. This, coupled with the fact that two Crusaders can be flown by C-17 anywhere in the world within hours, makes the Crusader highly mobile, lethal and flexible.

MYTH: The Paladin was produced after the Gulf War and can handle modern munitions.

FACT: The Paladin is the 6th improvement of the M109 howitzer that was first produced in 1962. Although it has been continually upgraded, it does not approach the capabilities of the Crusader. It must be modified so it can fire the Excalibur and then only to a fraction of Crusader's range

MYTH: The Crusader can be replaced by other weapons and munitions such as the Excalibur.

FACT: There have been no studies of alternatives to determine how the Crusader missions will be satisfied. Many of the weapons proposed as replacements for the Crusader are not yet in production-they are either beginning or still in development. The Excalibur is a smart munition that requires an artillery system like Crusader to fire it. Expensive modifications must be made to every existing howitzer to enable it to fire Excalibur and then only a fraction of its capabilities will be realized. The bottom line is that without adequate study, any substitutions for Crusader will be a gamble.

Pathfinder

General Tommy Franks (the commander of the Afganistan conflict) disarees with General Shinseki's assesment.

General Tommy Franks has come under some critisism (by arm chair Generals and by some members of the Armed Forces Committee) for making a decision not to transport any artillery to Afganistan during the early operations. He made the decision to use heavy mortars because of the available airlift and the size of even small artillery as well as the terrain they would be operating in. He denies that artillery would have been useful in any of the operations that were conducted and stated that the heavy mortars were adequate for the job at hand.

He also is in favor of the cancellation of the Crusader for a number of reasons, with the primary reason being its size. We only have a certain airlift and sea lift capability and in todays slimmed down mobile forces, it is his considered opinon that the Crusader does not have a role to play and there are better alternatives.

It is natural that their is controversy over the decision, but battlefield commanders are in a better position to know what is needed on the battlefield than some arm chair General or some Congressman that probably has not ever spent a day in the military.