Posted on 05/03/2002 8:41:14 AM PDT by mhking
Artillery will never be obsolete as long as your adversary has it. At the very least, it's necessary to have it in a counter-battery role to keep the enemies artillery off your back. The Chinese have a passel of gun tubes.
As previous posts suggest, this is a fine piece of equipment for Gallipoli, Monte Cassini, the Kasserine Pass, the Bulge, but not the 21st Century. We combine the services so there is no more of the Army this, Air Force that, the Navy whatever and the Marines oops.
We equip our forces to get the most bang for the buck. Me,. I believe that recce and force application at the squad level will be the way of the future. Read Heinleins, "Starship Troopers". Heinlein was a Naval Academy grad.
I trust Rummy's judgement, but I'll be sad if this program gets killed. It is so cool.
You can bring the bomber to within any point on the planet, and once you have air superiority the bomber is invulnerable. With that bomber in the air you have effectively enables a special forces platoon combat air controller to take a potentially limitless supply of 250# to 1000# bombs into combat with him.
This mobile howitzer would be great for defending the Fulda Gap. It would suck in Afganistan or island hopping after Moro cutthroats in the Philipines. Rummy is right. Not needed.
Think 'daisy cutter'Not even close. 15,000# bombs can be delivered by air. Think of the supply and force-protection issues involved in getting this much artillery to an Afganistan battle. Ooops, the towelheads are on the next mountain range. 15 minutes by helicopter for the grunts, but the guns don't arrive for another two hours - not good!
So, start exporting golf courses to countries on the hit list. Let ESPN build the bridges. Side benefit is
that there will be more places for Clinton and OJ to hang around outside of the country.
I remember a brilliant Canadian physicist that liked designed big guns and artillery shells (or satellite containers).
He some how managed to get himself blackballed by both the DoD and NASA, so he went to work
for Saddam. Bad move, since the Mossad allegedly took him out in Brussels.
(This was the basis of rumors of Iraq's super gun.)
His artillery shells had something like a 6 mile increase in range with existing guns. DoD wasn't interested. I think the name of
his company was Space Industries, or Space Research. He got shut down for selling to Rhodesia in the mid-70s.
High tech battlewear which incorporates medical sensors, surroundings sensors, (night vision, FLIR motion detection etc) along with the weapons and ability to call in air strikes for those daisy cutter and fuel air bombs will allow a squad to engage an enemy.
In the first several years of SNL there was an ongoing skit about how history would be changed if...one skit was "If the defenders of the Alamo had had a B-52". This was a joke 25 years ago but today's battlefield may be one in which high tech and precision are more important than mass fire, massed troops and massive effort. Precision application of force.
Huh?
From the article:
The article is a puff piece from the contractor. The one proto-type actually built weighs in at about 70 tons, combat ready (an empty vehicle isn't al that useful). The contractor claims, in theory, that the weight could be reduced if only it were awarded a couple zillion more Dollars in R&D.
House Authorizers Vote To Bar Crusader Program's Termination
Source: InsideDefense.com
Published: May 1, 2002; Author: Erin Q. Winograd
The House Armed Services Committee voted late tonight to bar termination of the Crusader advanced field artillery system before the completion of the program's next major review in April 2003.The amendment, offered by Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) during the committee's mark-up of the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill, is a direct response to reported Defense Department plans to kill the howitzer program. Sources said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz informed Army Secretary Thomas White yesterday (April 30) that the department intended to cancel Crusader.
Rather than accepting the administration's choice to kill Crusader, the Republican-controlled Armed Service Committee opted to strike back. The amendment to the House version of the fiscal year 2003 authorization bill "directs that there be no change to the Crusader development schedule, funding or procurement requirements, to include termination, until the completion of the Army's Milestone B Analysis of Alternatives." The bill further instructs that the Army secretary present a report on the completed analysis to all congressional defense committees by March 1, 2003. The language states that Congress will respond to the report within 30 days so that the scheduled milestone B review can be completed the following month.
The committee adds that Crusader is necessary to address the range and mobility shortfalls demonstrated during the Gulf War, and lauds the program for being "on schedule and budget." The bill expresses concern that "the transformational warfighting potential of Crusader has not been fully recognized by the Department of Defense and cannot be properly assessed until the Army completes its comprehensive" analysis of alternatives.
Crusader has been criticized repeatedly over the past two and a half years as inappropriate for the 21st century and out of step with the Army's "transformation" to a lighter, more deployable and more versatile force. The howitzer at one time tipped the scales at 55 tons, as did its resupply vehicle. However, in December 1999, the Army requested that developer United Defense LP -- now called United Defense Industries -- redesign the system to reduce its bulk. The result was a howitzer and a tracked resupply vehicle each weighing approximately 40 tons plus a new wheeled resupply vehicle weighing even less.
The Army also decided to limit its Crusader purchase, trimming planned procurement of 1,138 howitzers and resupply vehicles by 50 percent.
Crusader supporters, such as White, argue that U.S. artillery capability lags far behind many other countries, including North Korea and Iraq, members of Bush's so-called "axis of evil." Proponents also dispute the notion that Crusader is not transformational, asserting it will be complementary to the service's Objective Force as well as an integral part of the Counterattack Corps over the next 30 years.
During the Republican presidential primaries, then-candidate George W. Bush singled out Crusader as a system he would target for cancellation. However, several members of Congress, including fellow Republicans such as Watts and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), strongly back the program. Sources say Watts and Inhofe were perturbed by the rumors of Crusader's imminent demise. Watts reportedly raised the issue of the howitzer's fate at a morning meeting with the president. Sources say Watts left concerned that Bush is basing his assessment of the program on old information dating back to the system's original design, which is not representative of the internal changes the platform has undergone, they argue.
A press release issued by Watts' office prior to the vote on his amendment noted that, "Those of us who support Crusader and recognize the important role it plays in America's national security believe its critics are using outdated data while making decisions on its future. We hope the decision the administration makes on the Crusader is based on current data. Outdated anecdotes about the size and capability of Crusader have been long since disproved."
While some defense insiders say a few key members of Congress were informed by Wolfowitz that Crusader would be terminated, it appears the majority of legislators were not consulted. One Capitol Hill source said members were outraged that they had not been personally notified.
"One of our grievances was that Wolfowitz assured [certain] members . . . as recently as five days ago 'the program is OK,'" the source said. Wolfowitz even hinted that a new study of precision fires and smart munitions may call for more Crusaders. "That flew in the face of reality yesterday when we got the same news you did," the source stated.
Sources said the Oklahoma congressional delegation requested a meeting with Wolfowitz this afternoon to discuss Crusader. The deputy secretary agreed, then canceled the meeting at the last minute, they stated.
Oklahoma has a stake in Crusader's future. UDI has promised to do a certain portion of the howitzer's construction in Elgin, OK, near Ft. Sill, which is the home of Army field artillery. A congressional source was quick to point out, however, that the program has not yet directly generated any jobs in Oklahoma.
Following passage of his amendment, Watts issued another statement trumpeting the howitzer. "Contrary to various rumors and scenarios, the Crusader program clearly retains the full confidence of the House Armed Services Committee," he stated. "This 'leap-ahead' artillery piece will save soldier's lives in battles in the 21st Century. There can be no question of Congress' commitment to the program."
Crusader likely will find similar support in the Senate. Inhofe, a member of that body's Armed Services Committee, strongly backed the program in a May 1 press release. According to the statement, "Any decision to cancel Crusader now would go completely against the testimony Congress has consistently received on this issue. Without exception, every uniformed officer and enlisted person that testified before Congress on this issue agreed that Crusader was the crown jewel of our Army modernization program." Killing Crusader "would also undermine the integrity of the proper procurement process in which studies to evaluate various alternative technologies are already underway and are not scheduled to be completed before next year," he adds.
Inhofe notes that "several other countries have superior artillery systems in their inventories in terms of rapid fire and range. It makes no sense for us not to proceed with this important modernization. It is un-American to send our troops into battle with inferior equipment."
"The fight for Crusader will continue in Congress," he declares. "It has strong support among both Republicans and Democrats. I plan to work through the authorization and appropriations process to ensure that it remains fully funded."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.