What do you guys think about this Crusader artillery system that Rumsfeld is trying to cancel?

Here is a link which describes the program:  [url]http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/[/url]

They have been saying for a long time, like since the 1930s, that precision munitions and airpower will make conventional forces obsolete, but that day never seems to get here.  If I was in the infantry or driving a tank, I sure as hell would want this system.

Rumsfeld can cancel programs all he wants, but that will not necessarily stop Congress from building it.

I don't have & I can't find the link, but several Congressman from Oklahoma, where the gun is going to built, has keep the money for the gun in the new budget passed by the house. It has to go to the Senate still, so we shall see what happens next.

Yeah, airpower is going to solve ALL the problems in the future.  They might try interviewing the Israelis.  They learned the lesson about lack of tube artillery in 1973.



[url]http://www.teamcrusader.com/system/system.html[/url]



I could go on and on.  If I hear the words "Cold War" and "Too Heavy" again though...

Bush and Rumsfield are wrong about this one.

[img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/sadness.gif[/img]

They need to build this thing.  For one thing, it is a lot cheaper than air power.  Another thing--it is very efficient at using manpower.  Three guys replace a much larger crew.  It will be great in the desert, taking on Iraqis, Iranians, and Saudis.

GunLvr

Yeah, it would be useless in Afghanistan, but it would be perfect in a standup fight like one we will likely fight in a decade or so.

And yes, the current system dates from the post Korean war.

There is a need for a real army with real weapons.  Not all situations call for light special forces.

If you build it they will come!

I'm no military expert, but it seems to me that the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense & his staff are often out of touch with the actual fighting forces and what they need.

There was word that Rumsfeld was after some guys ass for going to the hill to save the system.

According to the web site linked earlier, two Crusader vehicles can be transported on a single C-5 or C-17 aircraft.
[center][img]www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/images/crusader10.jpg[/img][/center]

USPC40

----------------------------
[url=www.nra.org][b][blue]NRA Life Member[/blue][/b][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][blue]GOA Life Member[/blue][/b][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][b][blue]SAF Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][b][blue]SAS Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]

Are they Post-ban legal?

Artillery is a real war weapon, if the prediction of many is we will never fight a real war, than the weapon is of no use.  The relative accuracy of the air drop in Afghanistan is commendable, but most fail to mention that it took almost ever JDAM in the US arsenal to accomplish that. And when you look at the relatively small amounts of targets that were attack in relation to what would occur in a general war, you quickly understand, why in a real war we will quickly transition from PGM, back to dumb bombs. It would be foolish to draw the conclusion that success against a foe like the Taliban would extrapolate into success against anyone who know what they were doing. All the enemy needs to do, is not have air superiority, but air denial, ala 1973 and the reliance on aerial fires will collapse.
There was a CALL article that has been going around the military specifically mentions the over reliance on air. Even with the high aircraft to maneuver force ration, BN task forces were getting more air than you would anticipate a committed division to receive. Air was not instanously available, the surplus air didn't change the 2 day ATO cycle, and immediate CAS still took over 30 minutes in many cases to check onto station. In the one battle in operation Anaconda in which most the 10th Mountain causalities occurred, the aerial prep that was scheduled was cancelled because of the CAS wanting them to wait 5-10 minutes because of the CAS craft being behind the time line.

So crusader may not be the answer, but both the army and Marines need new artillery, almost everyone in the world has better artillery than we do.

You got that right! Doesn't Iraq use the South African-designed G5 towed howitzer, which outranges our M109A6 w/RAP by about 10K? This, along with the G6 SP (wheeled) gun, is often described as the best artillery piece in existence. We do have MLRS which is more than a counter for it (rangewise), but if we use MLRS for missions that cannon should be performing, then what do we use for the counterbattery, SEAD, and other tailored-for-MLRS missions that come down the line? Paladin's a great system, but like someone mentioned earlier the M109 series is over 40 years old and the gun just can't be cost-effectively upgraded any more.

My biggest fear with Crusader is that it'll take 5-10 years for it to get into production and another 5-10 years to replace the M109A6s out there - and by that time it'll already be obsolete. If they can do it on a timeline similar to the one MLRS had - less than 10 years from design concept to widespread service - then I think it'll work just fine.

[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/g5.htm[/url]


[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm[/url]

I think that we need it. Air power is nice, and we have air superiority, but I think that AA systems aren't too far off from another revolution, especially when there are new breakthroughs in directed-energy weapons. When there is a good line of sight "instant kill" systems avaiable in the next couple of decades, out air superiority will evaporate overnight and the AIr Force and Naval Aviation will not want to risk their $50-100 million dollar systems, and the only alternative will be the good old relatively "cheap" artillery rounds.

All this focus on building a rapidly deployable light force ignores the fact that our heavy forces are unbeatable and that we need to maintain that edge.

 Massed artillery can be far more deadly than airstrikes in some scenario's.  The US is seen world over as being a little week in the artillery department.  Russia and China have larger artillery with longer range.  I don't know about the crusader its the same diameter as the  current self-propelled howitzer in US inventory.  By all reason compared with the Iraqi artillery which in some instances outdistances the US by at least 10 miles, the crusader should have probably been a larger artillery piece.  In all I just hope that this current line of thought about the US not needing Heavy Corp dies before we have to fight the Chinese.

Ben

I believe it is 155mm. Which is also the size of the M109 gun. And for that matter that pesky Iraqi artillery, that was developed in South Africa. The weapons designer developed the artillery equivalent of +P rounds for artillery, tube life was shorter however.

I was opposed to Crusader, before I read the link. If it is truly a 41 ton system and not a 70 ton system that seems ok. Whatever the US Army decides they want they should make sure that it can be deployed, and quickly. I'd also want to make sure that in case of computer failures that thing can be reloaded without the computerized support vehicle.

I'm also not sure the Army needs 800 of those. They should maybe consider lighter towed artillery for support in "unconventional" conflicts.

Sure!.....No bayo lug...no detachable mag...no flash supression...Cali may try to ban them because they are are not smaller than .50 cal.

A brief history of 155 artillery for those non-artillerymen.  The current US systems, both M109A6 and M198, have a 39 caliber tube (tube length is equal to 39 x bore diameter).  The 39 Caliber tube was an outgrowth of the US not having the range to deal with Soviet built 130mm guns in Vietnam.  Slightly after the NATO standardization on the 39 caliber tube.  The GH-45, GH-N-45 and later the G-5 (S. African built version since the could not import the European built versions because of the embargo)  were weapons designed by Dr Gerald Bull, out of S. African experience with the same 130mm guns.  Those weapons were designed with a 45 caliber tube and an enlarge chamber area allowing larger charges to be fired.  After the Gulf, most nations were looking for a little more range than the 39 KM they could get with the 45 Cal tube and the 30 Km with the 39 Cal tube, so they so now we have 52 caliber tubes.  Most new 155 (PzH200, AS-90-52, etc) are now going to the 52 cal tubes,that gives in the mid to high 40s in range.  The US decided to forgo, going to either the 45 or 52 cal tubes because we figured that that was the standard for the world, and the next howitzer would probably be the last howitzer to be adopted so we would go to a technology beyond.  The first was a 55 caliber tube, second a liquid cooled tube to allow very high sustained rates and third liquid propellant.  Unfortunately, the liquid propellant was cancelled because it was too environmentally unsound at this time.

What other colors do they come in? Do they have cruise control and power steering? [:D]

The reason they call it a "70-ton system" is that it is composed of TWO vehicles- the sexy gun carrier shown above and the less frequently displayed ammunition resupply vehicle, which it would never be in the field without. This is also the case with the current Paladin system...

You can [b]never[/b] have too much artillery - although the army seems to be moving in the other direction. 800 guns is only 33 battalions, after all. When you figure that each of the 5 or 6 heavy divisions has 2 or 3 cannon battalions, then add in 3 cannon battalions for each corps arty (6 or 7 battalions on Ft Sill in III corps arty), 800 guns really isn't that big of an increase over what we have now. MLRS took over the corps arty GS role from the 8" SP guns, but DS is still handled mainly by 155mm guns. Since the corps commander has personal and complete control over MLRS assets, we need more 155mm to fill the potential gap. I don't think that 4 Crusader battalions per corps arty (III corps, V corps, XVIII ABN corps) and 4 per heavy division artillery (1st armored, 1st infantry, 2nd infantry, 3rd infantry, & 1st cav) would be asking too much, with maybe 2 or 3 extra battalions going to 2d inf div.

[b]When[/b] not if we fight the Chinese, artillery will most likely be our biggest force multiplier to offset their vastly greater numbers. It's a true all-weather weapon, unlike air power, and as long as you keep them supplied with ammo (via each battalion's service battery and DISCOM/COSCOM) they can fire at sustained rate pretty much nonstop. Plus, they can have steel on target within a minute or 2 of receiving the call for fire. It's just not "sexy" like air power is, and is often ignored when time for funding comes up.

 I agree I think it is cool myself, and I wouldn't even be against it being larger.  Hmm as far as china goes, go read Puplished Chinese papers. They are modernizing across the board with the sole intent of re-annexing TAIWAN. Period that is what they are going to do, they said as much themselves.  They have stated it for fact.  We will end up clashiing with the chinese in some fashion.  As far as some Tom Clancy scenario, I don't know.  I would forsee a Missile attack into TAIWAN followed by a Naval landing. If they wen't anywhere else I don't know where. Perhaps reinvade South Korea. Who knows. What I do know is that we will end up fighting the Chinese at some point.  What I also know is that they Have an Army at least 250,000,000 strong.  They might be ancient, but they have more men then we have bullets.

Ben

I LIVE IN OKLAHOMA! and I really do not see anything that Crudader does, that MLRS could not do, with updated missle packages.

I'm afraid that Crusader is a dinosuar, that would look good on the fields of Ft. Sill, but never be deployed overseas.

The first thing that a crusader (or any howitzer) does is allow engagement of targets under the minimum range of rocket systems, because of only having 1 velocity at shorter ranges the bomblet pattern for M26/A2 is very elongated at the min ranges and not very wide, also the shallow angle of fall of the bomlets reduce the percent that actually function.  The second is provide low cost fires, a complete HE round is only about 300 dollars, as opposed to a M26 rocket which is in the several thousand dollar range and the MSTAR which is around 60-70 thousand a round.  MLRS only has ICM available for it, which is great for exposed target, but entrenched targets are pretty safe from it.  The large throw weight combined with a DPICM payload means it cannot be used close to friends, Tube artillery also give sustainability, once a Rocket shoot, its off to reload, which can mean 30 more minutes between volleys, tube artillery can just keep shooting.  Tube artillery also is alot more accurate, the inaccuracy of MLRS combined with the type of payload makes the danger close for it 2 KMs, so once the enemy gets within the range of your direct fire systems, your fires would go away with MLRS.    

I have to say that I just like the idea of something called "the Crusader" blowing up Saudis, Iraqis and any other brand of jihad MF'ers.

Can I get one in white with a big red cross on the turret?
[img]www.bingshop.com/media/803-AM_RichardLionheart.jpg[/img]

NH2112, what about 82nd, 101st, and 10th divisions?? What is there arty composed of? I'm not saying we don't need 800 tubes, I'm just wondering if they all need to be Crusaders.

Simple is easier to deploy, maintain, and suport. I would rather make sure our "fast and light" forces have proper deployable artillery even if it is a more basic weapon, than not having artillery readily available because it needs to be deployed by ship or fancy overtasked transport planes.

The Divarty for each of the Light divisions consists of 3 18 gun M119 (105mm) Battalions, and an additionally artillery Battery of M198s, the M198 for both 10th Mountains and 25th ID are organic, while for 101st and 82nd technically belong to the 18th Airborne Corps, Corps Artillery. There also is the 2 ACR, which has 1 Battery of M198 per Squadron in the Regiment and 3ACR which has 1 Battery of M109A6 per Squadron.  After the Gulf both the army and the Marines moved a large part of their artillery to the reserve/NG component, to save money.

[url]http://www.teamcrusader.com/explore/explore.html[/url]

If you need a real good reason for the need of the Crusader, go to the link above and watch the "Paladin/Crusader Comparison Video".  Quicktime required.

If there is a better comparison between 1960's technology and 21st Century capability I don't know what it is.

Paladin- 15 rounds 8:58  Crusader- 15 rounds 1:21

Watch the vid!

I'm not sure of the nomenclature, but they use a British-designed towed 105mm gun.

[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/105-lg.htm[/url]

When I was stationed at Ft Bragg (87-89) they used the M102 howitzer, with Gamma Goats as prime movers (later replaced by humvees.) Now they tow these around with humvees.

SP artillery is really the best way to go - you don't have mobility issues with tracks like you do with 5-ton trucks towing M198 155mm howitzers, and powered traverse and elevation mean you can get more shots off in the same time. XVIII ABN corps arty uses towed M198s, and while you can airdrop both the gun and its prime mover it's a pretty common occurrence for the truck to tip over when it hits the ground. The gun can be lifted by Chinooks for raid missions, but that's an awful lot of work to do when you could just have a Paladin, Crusader, or MLRS platoon hook up with an infantry or cav platoon, zip 10K past the lines, shoot, and zip back (we trained extensively for this in Germany.) Finally, SP artillery (Paladin, MLRS, Crusader) can keep up with tanks and mech infantry going cross-country, which is something that towed artillery can't do.

So yes, towed light guns are necessary for the light units' organic artillery, and heavier towed guns are necessary because they can be moved to trouble spots as quickly as the light units can but they're not moved as easily once on the ground. Outside of airborne/airmobile units, though, I don't see a need for towed guns.

HIMARS is an interesting system that seems tailor-made for light units. I've heard the new 5-ton trucks are pretty maintenance-intensive, though.

[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/himars.htm[/url]

That would be the M119

I watched it, and while the Crusader has an advantage, was the comparison on equal footings?

The Paladin team seemed to be checking the bore for each shot, and I don't recall the Crusader guys doing that .  I may be wrong.

It definitely seemed to me that the Crusader was shooting at a very high elevation angle.  Is the rate of fire changed when you are shooting maximum range?

We have MLRS.  Why do we need Crusader?

357Mag Asked:



STRLN WROTE:


In short.  You have a socket set with 3 different ratchets, its all about having the right tools for the right job.  Some bolts are standard, some are metric, etc, etc, etc.

One of the safety check with 155mm guns, is the need to check "bore clear."  Because with low power charges you can get stickers.  And you don't want to shoot another 100lbs of steel and explosive through the tube until it is out of there.  Crusader does away with this the crew never touches the ammunition, that is fully automated, combined with the liquid cooled tube, means it can keep that rate of fire until it runs out of ammo.

I was a tanker on M1A1s in the Gulf.  Loved the heavy armor and firepower.  It was nice of Saddam to give us 6 months to move all of the heavy stuff into place.  I somehow doubt the next guy will be quite as stupid.  The problem with M1A1s, Crusaders, and the rest of these systems is they are too heavy, too maintenance intensive, and require too muchof a logistics tail.  The weapon is no good if you can't get it where it is needed and keep it running.

IMHO the Army needs to go the other way - lightweight towed pieces and focus on improving communication, target detection, and the logistics of getting stuff in theater quickly and keeping it running once its there.  That means getting rid of most of the tracked vehicles.

When we crossed the border into Iraq my proudest achievement as the company XO was that all 14 of our company's tanks were running.  Within 24 hours 5 had broken down.  We had almost no spare parts before the war ended and we were on the verge of running out of gas the whole time.  Think about it - a perfect situation and we were constantly on the edge of being combat ineffective.

Look on the web and find the weights of these combat systems, the weights of different division types, and then look at the lift capability of the USAF transport fleet.  There is very limited capability to move this stuff and then keep it resupplied.  A simple, lightweight op like Afghanistan probably stretched the AF transport capability to the breaking point.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

For a good discussion of these issues look at the Frontline web site for the program "The Future of War."  Focus on the comments of Ralph Peters, probably the best geopolitical/military strategist we have (highly recommend his book "Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph?"  Written several years ago, it describes the world situation we find ourselves in pretty exactly).  Disclaimer: I am not normally a PBS fan for obvious reasons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/future/

Checking for a clear bore makes lots of sense.
I'll just have to trust that they actually dealt with that somehow with Crusader.