09-05-2002 21:09									#1
	Rumsfeld kills "Crusader" Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2-2002May8.html


For those too lazy to read the link...

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has opt to kill the "Crusader" self-propelled Howitzer. The argument against it being (1) too heavy and (2) bombs now work just as well as artillary.


Of course, that's pure crap. This means the Army(and, to lesser degree, the marines.), is grabbed by the balls, artillarywise. As it now stands, the frickin' French are now far ahead of us, artillary techwise. ( The Current US Self-propelled Howitzer, the Paladin, is a 1979 upgrade to a 1959 design).

In addition, with the decommisioning of the entire A-6 fleet in 1997, the United States has no all-weather attack craft. This means next time it rains and boys on the ground need upport, they are screwed.

But hey! That's okay, all in the name of "transforming" the military, right?

Of course, Rumsfeld has also put the V-22 Osprey on the chopping block. Granted, that would dramatically improve the USMC, but obviously not transform it in the way he wanted.


Aiya, I'm mad. Damn post-finals brain clog.

	09-05-2002 21:13									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

Why is the arguement that the gun is too heavy crap?

	09-05-2002 21:16									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Secretary White nearly lost his job over it too. But it looks like Rumsfeld was able to put him back in his place. It's a shame that he couldn't get it changed.

	09-05-2002 21:18									#4
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Secretary White nearly lost his job over it too. But it looks like Rumsfeld was able to put him back in his place.

That and the fact it looks like he wasn't the one to send out that letter.

	09-05-2002 21:27									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why is the arguement that the gun is too heavy crap?

Okay, bad wording.


The assumption that the Crusader is "too heavy" comes from Rumsfeld's desire to transform the Army into a "Lightweight expeditionary Force".


Of course, the United States already has such a force. The Marines.

Rumsfeld's entire Defense program, from the get-go, is going to lead us towards disaster. While he should have been ordering the creation of more transport ships to help move the army around, prior to 9/11 he wanted to chop up the navy. (get rid of a Carrier group, as a matter of fact).

A further indication that Rumsfeld lives in some bizarre, otherworldly place, is that dispite his repeated desire to "transform" the military, he's trying to kill several programs that *would* transform it. The V-22 for the USMC (which is also going to be used as a airframe replacement for about a gajillion navy cargo/AWAC/ASW planes). The Comanche for the Army. The Crusader, which would replace a 40 year old howitzer design.

40 years old. I bet there are very few Paladin operators who were born before it went into service, much less remember using other systems.

Rumsfeld's whole assumption is that we are never, ever, going to fight a campaign that would require fast moving artillary support. And oh by the way, as we've seen in the past week, we're apperently going to invade Iraq sometime next year. As the Iraqis still have 2,200 tanks, and much, much more heavy equipment, I think it's safe to say there's going to be a ground campaign.

	09-05-2002 21:29									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Um... Lonestar... about the V-22... many, many, many military people on this site have clamored to end testing on the Osprey, including MtG, GP (I believe), etc. They would probably applaud Rumsfeld for it.

	09-05-2002 21:40									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... Lonestar... about the V-22... many, many, many military people on this site have clamored to end testing on the Osprey, including MtG, GP (I believe), etc. They would probably applaud Rumsfeld for it.

Then I would have to say...they're wrong. The V-22 has had less problems then the Harrier did when it came out. (70 in one year compared to less than a dozen spread out over 15 years)


I'm not just a "armchair general" either, believe it or not. (I've spent the past two years doing NROTC at Texas A&M) I know I'm not as experienced as the military folks on board, I have to point out none of them are marines, and none of them are in aviation.

Unlike the Army, which besides a few light Infantry units, is NOT a expeditionary force, the USMC is and does need the V-22. Or at least a helicopter with it's equilivant abilities. (and no animal exists)

	09-05-2002 21:43									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar I'm not just a "armchair general" either, believe it or not. (I've spent the past two years doing NROTC at Texas A&M) I know I'm not as experienced as the military folks on board, ..., and none of them are in aviation.

Wasn't Slowwhand in the Air Force?

	09-05-2002 21:43									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

It does not seem to be a particularly wise thing to do, given the unpredictable nature of future conflicts and security challenges.
After WWII, the next war was supposed to be a push button affair; instead, it was reminiscent of WWI in Korea. Then Vietnam came and went, and the first Gulf War was not an easily predicted matter.
Ditto the terrorist assaults and the subsequent war.
What seems clearly outdated/outmoded/useless in a future conflict at the moment may not be so in 5 years time.
Whilst potential foes still have a heavy force capability, IMO it is best for the US to retain the technological edge and advantage in that area, if ye know what I mean.

Right on, Lonestar, particularly about the retirement of the A-6s, a gap that will only be partly filled by the Super Hornet. Since 1988, the number of offensive frontline squadrons per carrier has dropped from 5 to 4, and the F/A18 C-D can deploy 25% of the ordnance, with the next model up doubling that. And the naval gunfire support is lacking.
Relying upon air power in lieu of all weather artillery is hedging your bets in a manner that could go nasty.

Basically, it is better to be safe than sorry, although 11 bill is a hefty price tag. But what price would ye put on a future victory in a hitherto unforseen conflict?

	09-05-2002 21:54									#10
	MLRS Got spare money?

Rumsfeld is relying upon those rather than true self propelled arty.

	10-05-2002 00:35									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Agree that it was sad to see the A6 retired. In addition to all weather they had bigger payload and longer legs than the F-18. Also had a 2 mand crew and were more specialized in training (by not being mulitimission) for bombing.

Corps doesn't want the MV-22. They's rather have some helos.

Don't know much about the artillery piece.

The Harrier is kind of an abortion. It's not that great...

	10-05-2002 01:49									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

Think of it this way...

What possible major ground campaign could the US possibly fight against a country with a military good enough that this howizer would make a difference?

By the time there is such a country that would possibly fight the US, they will have seen it coming, and could ressurect the project or something.

	10-05-2002 02:10									#13
	Suffering from ads?

The JDAM can put an awful lot of poundage in a 5m box, so long as you keep air superiority. And amazingly cheaply too. Development on this howitzer would cost 650,000 JDAM packages, even assuming the Air Force couldn't get a volume discount.

I think this has changed a lot of thinking in Washington over the last year or so. That and several successful demonstrations of over-the-horizon warfare.

	10-05-2002 02:16									#14
	Got spare money?

I support this, for no other reason than it might make us less likely to commit ground troops to a war.

Om the other hand, I *DO* support modernization of the military, as long as it goes hand-in-hand with massive military cutbacks. Rumsfeld's plan to cut a carrier would certainly be a good start.

	10-05-2002 02:18									#15
	Put an end to popups!

Btw, what's the range on the Crusader?

	10-05-2002 03:22									#16
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I support this, for no other reason than it might make us less likely to commit ground troops to a war. Om the other hand, I *DO* support modernization of the military, as long as it goes hand-in-hand with massive military cutbacks. Rumsfeld's plan to cut a carrier would certainly be a good start.

Aaaagh!!!

Carriers are the premier means of sea control and of expeditionary warfare (especialy time-sensitive) in remote hot spots. They abviate the need for basing rights, too. Which you should appreciate.

Besides, you don't really like our country anyway. Why don't you go float around on the libertarian ship?

	10-05-2002 05:29									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS Btw, what's the range on the Crusader?

45 km, IIRC.

David, you do know that without Carriers, we probaly could not have prosecuted the conflict in Afghanistan, right? I mean, we were stretching ourselves with just two CBGs and one "Half" group.

	10-05-2002 07:05									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think it was a big mistake also.

	10-05-2002 09:07									#19
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Carriers are the premier means of sea control and of expeditionary warfare (especialy time-sensitive) in remote hot spots. They abviate the need for basing rights, too. Which you should appreciate.

You should know that I don't want us to have expeditionary capabilities, GP

quote: David, you do know that without Carriers, we probaly could not have prosecuted the conflict in Afghanistan, right? I mean, we were stretching ourselves with just two CBGs and one "Half" group.

Then again, without a bloated military and the do what we want foreign policy that comes with it, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened

	10-05-2002 09:15									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

DF,

Well, let's live in the world we're in. We gtot attacked. And we're fighting back. This is even acceptable to hard core libertarians.

FYI: I said the expeditionary thing to grate on you. but even if you are more isolationist, you should see the benefit for naval assets since they don't need basing...and can be used to protect trade.

	10-05-2002 09:19									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Well, let's live in the world we're in. We gtot attacked. And we're fighting back. This is even acceptable to hard core libertarians.

I agree. My point is that without US imperialism we probably wouldn't have been attacked.

quote: FYI: I said the expeditionary thing to grate on you. but even if you are more isolationist, you should see the benefit for naval assets since they don't need basing...and can be used to protect trade.

I agree - I'm in favor of moderate naval cutbacks, but retaining a strong carrier force, just not as strong as the current USN. Really, my biggest cuts would be Marines, Army, and offensive air power, in that order.

	10-05-2002 09:24									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Does the US need a number of carrier battle groups to support two simultaneous regional conflict? This seems like a highly unlikely scenario.

	10-05-2002 09:25									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Should the US ever fight two wars at once is a better question, IMO.

	10-05-2002 09:39									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Does the US need a number of carrier battle groups to support two simultaneous regional conflict? This seems like a highly unlikely scenario.

WE actually don't have enough to meet the deamand of this contingency. (15 carriers). We have enough for ~1.5 regional confilcts now. Which seems reasonable to me. (Defense is an insurance policy. You don't want to be too light on insureance.) Current carrier levels are driven more by precense requirements for peacetime than by wartime requirements. We have one in the Med. One in the IO. One in the Lant and one in the Pac. Rest are training, shore time (sailors need some.), carrier overhaul, etc.

Many people don't realize that carriers can't conduct 24 flight ops. (There is only 1 deck crew.)

	10-05-2002 09:43									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I've heard the rule of thumb is three carriers per deployment - 1 in theater, 1 working up to relieve it, and 1 in overhaul.

	10-05-2002 09:46									#26
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I agree. My point is that without US imperialism we probably wouldn't have been attacked.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they would attack us as the symbol of the decadent West. Regardless, you don't justify them, do you?

	10-05-2002 09:53									#27
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I've heard the rule of thumb is three carriers per deployment - 1 in theater, 1 working up to relieve it, and 1 in overhaul.

yeah.

Also understanding the inability to do 24 hour ops explains a lot.

	10-05-2002 09:56									#28
	Remove this text

quote: Also understanding the inability to do 24 hour ops explains a lot.

What do you mean?

And yeah, I'm decently knowledgeable about US military stuff

	10-05-2002 10:38									#29
	Suffering from ads?

The carrier is incapable of doing continuous flight ops because for the deck crew it is basically battle stations situation (they are all up and working). To get continous ops, you need to have a second carrier.

	10-05-2002 14:42									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Rumsfeld was caught flat-footed by 9/11, in the midst of his plans to more selectively upgrade U.S. defense capabilities rather than buying the current versions of each weapons system. I support the idea here, of skipping a generation with weapons systems that are capable of carrying on for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for everyone we were thrown into a widespread war which will continue to strain our capabilities for the foreseeable future.

The Crusader seems like a good weapon btw. It fire 10 rounds per minute, and each gun can fire up to 8 rounds which can be timed to arrive simultaneously on the target. This gives each gun the capability to fire a single barrage by itself (though sustained fire will still be a good deal less than a current battery), and a battery the capability of firing a time on target with the firepower equivalent of almost an entire division's artillery component. This means that either we could significantly upgrade our firepower, or conversely drop the number of tubes allotted to each battery. I am a firm believer in delivering ordinance by guns, as it is both the cheapest and fastest means of doing so in most cases. There are however many cases where artillery is either not capable or not the preferred method of bombardment. Artillery requires either a presence on the ground, or access to the target by sea for one of the few weapons capable of bombardment. These factors for instance limit the effectiveness of artillery in the present campaign in Afghanistan, where our forces are vulnerable to attack from infiltrators and the front lines are very far from base areas, with most operations being airmobile. Moving artillery around and protecting it in this environment would be difficult and probably not cost-effective.

All that being said, it's not as if we are going to scrap our current artillery pieces, so we don't have to worry that we won't have artillery if we need it. Our current systems are still very good.

I do agree with Rumsfeld about the aircraft carriers. They really only have one thing going for them, though it is an important factor, which is that they obviate the need for local bases in many situations. Unfortunately their firepower is really limited, they require a host of vessels to protect and supply them, and they are very expensive. We need to build a new ship which can take over the carrier's role in bombardment. A few big guns built on a ship designed for the purpose could reach very far inland. With control surfaces (fins) the shells could even steer themselves toward the target to assure accuracy at great distances. Ships like these could either supplant carriers in some situations, or greatly enhance the carrier's own anemic firepower. I'm not saying that we have to scuttle our carrier fleet, but the whole arm needs looking into. In cases where we need only to strike, a bombardment ship could do the job at a fraction of the cost.

As for the Osprey, it is having troubles, and the marines desperately need new aircraft now. I would be tempted to buy a few new helicopters in order to retain the marine's capabilities for the near future. Gambling on one airframe which is still having trouble seems like a bad idea during wartime.

My final point is that introducing new weapon systems creates a strain on your forces. Some of your best officers and enlisted men are shunted into the final stages of the development program in order to give the new weapons a shakedown and to develop a training program for those who will use the new weapons. Crews have to be removed from current sytems in order to undergo training on the new one, while formations have to make logistical and basing adjustments in order to provide a home, ammunition, parts etc. for the new systems. This is especially difficult during wartime, especially a limited war where there aren't millions of new people in uniform to help pick up the slack. Once the new weapons are staffed with new crews they have to be integrated into their formations in an operational sense, which can be simple at first (just a quick course), but requires some time in order for the new capabilites and limitations to sink into the minds of the staff. So there is a cost to these weapons in valuable military labor which is not fitted into the calculations of how much the system will cost the taxpayers. This cost should be particularly mentioned whenever someone points out the advantages to having more than one weapon design in production, ie flexibility.