The fucking Crusader artillery system.
Apparently this weapon is designed to be hauled by a large team of horses to man the Maginot Line.
No doubt it’s a fine cannon, albeit a tad large, but we’re not going to fight World War I ever again.
Donald Rumsfeld thought he had killed this obsolete weapon system several months ago. He forgot to use a silver bullet, and it rose from the grave.
The Crusader will outlive us all. :eek:
But… but… but… big guns are so gosh-darn CUTE!!!
I just saw that on the news, also. I had a sudden urge for bacon.
Don’t you know …
Size DOES matter!
[sub]overcompensation?[/sub]
But if the military doesn’t make them, then I can’t get a civilian version, and then how am I gonna take care of my squirrel problem? 
The Crusader seems to be the ultimate expression of a saying I once heard: There are certain problems that can only be resolved through the direct and judicious application of high explosives.
These things might be useful in theatres where weather patterns reduce the ability to fly multiple sorties (i.e. park a bunch of them in Kuwait and bomb the hell out of Iraq in the unlikely event that multiple sandstorms make F-16 flights untenable), but I can’t find any specifics on range.
Range is 5 - 40 kilometers, and response times are superior. In fact, it’s an all-around superior main force gun system, if your fighting a main force battle. The trouble is that you can’t buy too many, 'cause they’re expensive, and you can’t haul as many to a remote battlefield in the same number of missions, 'cause they’re heavy.
Other than that, it’s in every way an artilleryman’s dream gun. Just too big and expensive for our future needs, that’s all.
(BTW: Artillery still beats the hell out of airpower for killing enemy troops near the FEBA)
The military never met a weapon it didn’t love. Remember that Rumsfeld is a civilian
Bryan Ekers…it’s range is 40 Km.
You guys are missing the point.
Bombs/arty are for taking out enemy positions.
Guided bombs are expensive.
Artillery shells are cheaper.
The Crusader, while expensive to develop, should end up having a lower cost/round than guided munitions.
Also, Artillery with America’s technological advantage is less vulnerable than planes.
(100’s of millions of dollars in planes can be destroyed by 10’s of thoundands of dollars in SAMs)
Artillery requires counter-battery, air strikes or infantry to take.
We can stop air strikes. Crusader’s range is too far for counter-battery and we have some of the best trained and equipped infantry in the world.
SOME of the reasoning behind Crusader is sound.
Hell, just imagine being able to drop explosive rounds the size of 67 Delta’s on enemy positions for days on end
Christ thats a big ass gun.
Everybody’s missing the point. The Carlyle Group owns the company making the Crusader. They had an IPO last year, and made a bundle. Various group insiders are still selling shares while the market is high. GWB and Rummy can keep this going with a nudge nudge wink wink for quite a while, Frank, Poppy, and Mr. Baker can rake it in, and when Carlyle’s stake is all gone, then it will really die. Bad for UDI’s investors, but then they matter about as much as Enron’s. JDM
Remind me never to go to see a movie in your town.
Cite, please? If not, then :rolleyes:.
Aww Hell, :rolleyes: anyway.
The argument of ‘Brilliant Weapons’ (Crusader, for example) vs. ‘Brilliant Munitions’ (JSOW, MLRS, etc) is still raging in military circles.
The crux of the argument: Does it make more sense to put the technology on the weapons platform (Crusader) or to put technology into the munitions (MLRS).
It may come down to ‘useability’. A ‘brilliant missle’ launched from a fairly light-weight platform (like the new 1/2 MLRS systems), can be used anywhere, even if it is not optimal.
The Crusader can only be used where its 50+ ton bulk can be carried to, which would have made it near worthless in Afghanistan.
I was in the Croatian army for just over 2 years. (Brigade comms, it pays to be bilingual and have a good knowledge of computers!) In that specific theatre, refighting the war, Crusader would have been devestating.
But the US Army has to worry about more then one type of conflict in one type of terrain, so as good as the Crusader is, I don’t think it has a place in the US Army.
On a side note, I heard the Israelis were interested in it. It would work perferctly into their Orbat, which never quite had enough tube arty.
Remind me never to go to see a movie in your town.
lol
Um… No.
You’ve missed the point.
The point is not whether or not we need a new gun system.
The point is not whether or not we need artillery.
The point is whether or not we need this gun system.
It’s a superior gun system, no doubt, but not for our current needs. It’s too heavy, it’s too expensive. What’s necessary is a somewhat less capable system that can be purchased in quantity, and can be transported rapidly and in quantity in a timely fashion.
Lots of less-capable artillery when you need it is far better that really capable artillery, too little, too late. That’s the point.
If we were still likely to be facing a major set-piece battle, where the enemy is known, his location is known, and assets can be stock-piled in advance, I say that the Crusader was perfect. The problem is, today (and for the forseable future), we’ll be running our forces from one hot-spot to another, today’s ally is tomorrow’s enemy, and vice versa. In that environment, you need guns that can be brought to the fight quickly in a fewer air transport runs.
Or to paraphrase Gen. Nathaniel Green: We have to get there the fastest with the mostest.
Let’s sell it to someone who can shoot it back at us in, oh, five or ten years?
http://www.redherring.com/vc/2002/0111/947.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/gray.php
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.11F.Arms.Carlyle.htm
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=53
etc., etc., etc. from google. I will admit that my belief- that the White House & Rummy vs. Pentagon & congress fight is simply aimed at manipulating the market- is purely speculation. It seems to be a pretty simple way to make some bucks, though- and it covers GWB’s butt too. JDM
We need the gun!!! Godzilla can attack at any time!!! It’s not like we have a Super-X plane sitting around anywhere.