I just read that the US SP artillery crusader project… Rumsfled said that its to reshape the army but somthing i dont understand is how is that going to help the army? The M-109s they operate are old and outdated and need seriously replaced, and SP artillery is still an important part of the battlefield. What do they plan to replace them with? MLRS are way to expensive and not suitable for certain roles.
Somehow i dont seem to understand the logic behind this move, can someone care to explain to me what i am missing or what am i thinking wrong???
By: tomel - 11th May 2002 at 03:55
RE: Crusader Cancelled??
Crusader is nice but a bit too expensive and heavy for real world deployment.Ceaser systems is a way to go,cheap,easy to use and maintain,light etc….Image taken from the Malaysian armed forces website.
Attachments:
By: djcross - 10th May 2002 at 19:34
RE: Crusader Cancelled??
The Fort Sill mafia has not yet acknowledged that they are behind the times. The Army needs to go the way of smart artillery to integrate into the Land Warrior initiative. Net centric warfare integrates the individual soldier (and support such as artillery) into a superior fighting machine. Politics of the Ft Sill mafia believes the number of bar stools in the O Club is more important than winning future conflicts. Such backward thinking is indicative of leaders without foresight or courage. The bright ones probably left the service during the Clinton years and only the dregs remain.
By: ichi - 10th May 2002 at 16:25
RE: Crusader Cancelled??
>Crusader won’t be a big loss.
>
>elp
>usa
Could you please tell me why? I know that the army brass are lobbying their ass off against the decesion and i would also do the same as i think artillery is a big part of any offensive.(Gulf war for example)
I am sure i am missing somthing but i dont see what it is.
By: Arabella-Cox - 10th May 2002 at 05:17
RE: Crusader Cancelled??
Crusader won’t be a big loss.
elp
usa
By: djcross - 9th May 2002 at 22:27
RE: Crusader Cancelled??
Crusader is logistically cumbersome. It is composed of two 40 ton vehicles and an large support tail. If Nato was still poised waiting for the Soviet hordes to sweep through the Fulda Gap, it might make sense (pre-positioned asset). Where the Army has to quickly deploy (like Afghanistan) it does not make sense. There is not enough airlift available to get Crusader or M109s to a hot spot quickly. Sealift is often too slow (months). That leaves the Army to rely on USAF/USN CAS or towed artillery like the M777. Expect to see HIMARS or similar truck-mounted smart artillery rockets bought for the rapid deployment role.
Sign In
May 9, 2002 at 6:00 pm