Pentagon to Cancel Weapon System (bye bye crusader)

(AP) ^ | ROBERT BURNS

[StriperSniper]

"And it isn't a matter of ready, shoot, aim. It's ready, aim, fire -- and we're still in the aiming business."

Rummy sure has a way with words.

[StockAyatollah]

I know UDLP is doing some work on the Crusader up in Minnesota. Back when there was a job market, I used to get lots of calls from recruiters looking for SW Engrs for that project. They were working a lot of OT and rates were very good, $65/hr. I guess that DoD gravy train will be kaput soon.

[Tony Niar Brain]

I recognize that artillery will still be necessary for any serious army for the forseeable future, but I really don't know anything about how worthwhile the Crusader is. Little help?

[pabianice]

Anyone actually seen this thing? It's as big as a small house, just barely fits into a C-5A, and the Army still maintains that it's an asset in a world of high-mobility, fast-moving warfare.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/

[Tai_Chung]

Two Crusader vehicles can be transported on a single C-5 or C-17 aircraft according to the website.

[kezekiel]

I was impressed by its rate of fire, but I trust Rummy has his reasons for killing it. Now that MLRS, that's impressive...

[CatoRenasci]

As an old artilleryman, I have mixed feelings. The sad fact is that our current Paladin system, while an improvement on earlier versions of the M109 (which led the world when introduced in the late 1950's), is not as good and does not shoot as far or as accurately as the competition: French, British and South African equiipments. The footprint is larger because of the dedicated armored ammunition vehicle, similar to the MLRS, not to the system itself being a whole lot larger. With the earlier M109 variants, including Paladin, ammunition is not on a dedicated armored vehicle, rather it's ususally in an unarmored 2-1/2 or 5 ton truck.

I am also skeptical of the ability of our towed M198 to do the job as an alternate.

[Leisler]

I think the day of Napolionic counter batterfire is over. I can't imagine any massed enemy coming near any sizible american unit anymore, unless it is war with China or North Korea.

[griffin]

Funny. I was just contacted by a recruiter looking for mechanical engineers for this project. She did not appear to know about any of this cancellation speak. She was going to check with United Defense on it and get back to me. Interesting. I spoze it is business as usual unless congress pulls the plug.

[balrog666]

The sad fact is that our current Paladin system, while an improvement on earlier versions of the M109 (which led the world when introduced in the late 1950's), is not as good and does not shoot as far or as accurately as the competition: French, British and South African equiipments.

Then why don't we quit re-inventing the wheel and buy one of their superior finished designs?

[jackbill]

Funny. I was just contacted by a recruiter looking for mechanical engineers for this project. She did not appear to know about any of this cancellation speak. She was going to check with United Defense on it and get back to me. Interesting. I spoze it is business as usual unless congress pulls the plug.

As one who was in the defense business for 35 years, I can say that a company will hire up to the minute a program is cancelled. It helps raise the "cancellation costs". You've heard of them, haven't you?

[CatoRenasci]

If by Napoleonic counterbattery fire you're referring to massed guns parked hub to hub, I agree. On the other hand, our need for all weather (i.e. air won't work), accurate, responsive fire support has not changed and is unlikely to change. The longer range of tube artillery today makes it possible to disperse artillery far better and higher rates of fire make it possible to use fewer guns to put the same weight of metal on target at any given time or place. The short 'legs' of our existing M109A4/5 based 155mm gun/howitzer means more guns have to be available for the same support, with more ammunition having to move further forward in (unarmored) transport. More supply troops as well, then.

There aren't any good alternatives to medium artillery like the 155mm. We still use 105mm for airborne formations, but those guns are old, throw little metal and have a short range. You can't even use them as direct fire weapons to stop a tank. The other alternative is the 8" howitzer. this weapon, based on a tube design dating to the 1930's, is the most accurate weapon in the inventory (can you say watch the Artillery School Brigade demonstration batteries put an 8", 200lb, round through a 3' by 4' window in the blockhouse on Signal Mtn.? Sure you can. I've seen it done!) BUT, the 8" has only a 10 mile range (better with RAP, but less accurate), is on a nonarmored track mount and requires a lot more logistics tail than 155mm. That's all there is now. No more 8" guns, no more 155mm guns, no more 175mm guns (30 mile range, but the range probable error was enormous), no more 240mm guns or howitzers, no more 280mm "Atomic Annie". (gotta see that puppy at Ft. Sill!)

[Poohbah]

The Army has, in its finite wisdom:

• Adopted the black beret for all soldiers, and robbed the Rangers of their heritage;
• Killed the M8 Buford--basically a finished product--and bought the LAV-III for largely the same mission; and
• Talked a nice game about making the Army more strategically mobile, agile, and oriented to maneuver warfare, but kept pouring money into the decidedly unmobile, unagile, attrition-oriented Crusader.

The Army, as an institution, is broken.

[CatoRenasci]

I know we have done serious evaluation work considering just that. I've been out of the loop too long to know why we didn't use them. 20 years ago we looked a a French system where the fire control computers were incompatible and not reasonably fixable. Also there were ammunition issues and a lack of willingness on the part of the French to produce at the rates we needed or allow us to license.

[griffin]

"Cancellation costs" would of course cover my re-relocation costs as well as provide a nice severance package after 3 days on th job I assume!? (/sarcasm).

Seller of technical services beware I guess. Thanks for the info...will be passing on this op unless I hear VERy positive things from congress. Maybe just pass altogether.

[gwjack]

Interesting interview I heard with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) this morning. He says he has the votes to prevent cancellation of the program.

Gwjack

[caltrop]

I don't like to criticize Rumsfeld's decision and I don't know all the details but we do need to upgrade our traditional artillery. Nothing else can do the job in low or no visiblility conditions.

On a separate point, I'm not thrilled with all the light thinking that the Army got behind to intervene in places we shouldn't be going anyway. I've got an airborne background (US & Vietnam) so I'm a big fan of light forces but when the Army's committed it means the country's committed. It shouldn't be possible to commit the country instantly and the time it takes to move heavy forces is comforting to non-interventionists like me. The light forces have their place but heavy forces, capable of going toe-to-toe with any mix of forces the enemy can muster are almost always the decisive factor. Heavy forces that are really renamed light forces just aren't the same.

[jackbill]

"Cancellation costs" would of course cover my re-relocation costs as well as provide a nice severance package after 3 days on th job I assume!? (/sarcasm).

You, as the employee, would get nothing except perhaps some "out-placement counseling" - for which the company would grossly overcharge the government. And the government would pay it, without question.

[Dog Gone]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon on Wednesday announced the death of the Crusader artillery system, an $11 billion weapon project highly prized by the Army but derided by critics as a Cold War relic.

``After a good deal of consideration, I've decided to terminate the Crusader program,'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference.

It marked the first cancellation of a major weapons program by Rumsfeld, although some others, including the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey hybrid helicopter-airplane, are said to be in jeopardy.

Some in Congress have vowed to fight for Crusader. Lawmakers could block the administration from removing Crusader funds from the defense budget, but it's not clear that will happen.

Rumsfeld had made clear last week that he intended to cancel Crusader and he asked the Army to suggest other ways the project's money could be spent on more advanced weapons technologies.

The Crusader is a 40-ton, self-propelled, rapid-fire cannon that was to have entered service by 2008. The Army argued that it was badly needed to replace the existing Paladin artillery system, which is more than 40 years old and is inferior to heavy artillery used by China, North Korea and others.

The debate over Crusader is emblematic of tensions between the military and their civilian overseers on the difficult question of how, and in what form, the nation's armed forces should adapt to meet post-Cold War challenges. The military is wary of giving up too much in near-term modernization for the sake of investing in technologies that may not become available for a decade or more.

``This is a good choice,'' Rumsfeld said. ``We will see it through to the end.''

Wednesday's announcement brought to a climax an unusually public battle between the Army and Rumsfeld's office, which earlier this week appeared to put Army Secretary Thomas White in jeopardy of being fired.

Some in Congress whose states stand to benefit from Crusader funds have vowed to fight Rumsfeld's decision to cancel, but many private analysts believe Rumsfeld stands a good chance of prevailing.

The Army has spent about $2 billion so far on Crusader; the $9 billion in unspent funds will be used for other weapons projects.

Rumsfeld said he was confident he would prevail on Capitol Hill.

``I've never seen a decision made that receives unanimous approval or unanimous opposition,'' he said. ``In this case I think it's very clear we will be successful with regard to the decision. I can understand the concern.''