Wait a sec... We don't get the Crusader because of that Metal Storm POS?

George Hill · May 14, 2002, 02:15 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4-15769826.htm

You got to be kidding.

MuzzleBlast · May 14, 2002, 02:52 PM

So is this metalstorm thing some type of rail gun?

Meowhead · May 14, 2002, 02:58 PM

MetalStorm homepage

It's a weapons system wherein multiple projectiles are loaded into a barrel and touched off in sequence. No moving parts, incredible rate of fire.

LawDog · May 14, 2002, 03:31 PM

Are you still required to Fed-Ex the gun back to the company for reloading, or can the spear-carriers actually reload in the field now?

Have they solved the battery problem yet, or are they still including a hand-cranked generator option for the pistols and rifles?

(Doh! Dead battery! Don't go anywhere, Mr. Rapist, let me charge the battery, hang on, a couple of more seconds and I'll give you what for...)

LawDog

George Hill · May 14, 2002, 03:48 PM

Sad thing is that our arty battlions could have really used the Crusader. We need a new moble platform as the M109s are getting Ancient. Can you say Trebuchet?

Poodleshooter · May 14, 2002, 03:52 PM

Incredible rate of fire= fast time for delivery on target of the whole barrage. It would be tube arty that functions like any rocket system from the Nebelwerfer and Katyusha to todays MLRS system. If it reloaded and fired faster than the MLRS, weighed less, or had lighter ammo or some other redeeming quality, it might be interesting.

scottb81 · May 14, 2002, 04:58 PM

A quick introduction since I am new here. I recently retired from the Army where I last worked in Infantry Combat Developments at Ft. Benning. I have worked current force modernizations issues and am familiar with the issues surrounding the Crusader.

The Army does not need the Crusader. While it is a great system, it was designed to fight a threat that is no longer probable. It would be a great asset if we had to fight large-scale battles in Europe. However, it does not fit in current and projected threat assessments or with the Army's new war fighting strategy. The Army's strategy calls for air deployable units that can quickly, within days, move to and fight in any part of the world. The Crusader is too heavy and is not easily deployable by air. The Army is developing lightweight, advanced 155mm artillery systems that can easily deploy with and support the Infantry. I do not believe that the Metal Storm had anything to do with the decision to cancel the Crusader.

Brad

STLRN · May 14, 2002, 05:22 PM

Scott
I had a similar job, but as a Marine working at Fort Swill. Unfortunately if you study history the maneuver arm (and others) has made similar decisions about the obsolesce of one thing or another many times. But after the arm forces run into someone who doesn't want to fight the way they want them to, they find out that the decision was not to wise and the butchers bill is paid by those fair removed from the rash judgment.

scottb81 · May 14, 2002, 05:33 PM

The Infantry doesn't think that the Artillery is obsolete. We just think that the Crusader is too heavy and way too expensive. Artillery will remain an organic part of the maneuver units and the Army will continue to modernize Artillery with the goal of getting lighterweight systems that can deploy with the units and be with them when they arrive at the battle.
You are right though about stupid decisions made in the past.

[email protected] · May 14, 2002, 05:33 PM

Having watched the Paladin system in action, I can't see the need for the Crusader either. The Paladin is amazing to witness, especially with the software upgrades.

Crusader should have died a long time ago. What I want to know is, When are we going to get a replacement tank system for our airborne troops?

Kevin

George Hill · May 14, 2002, 05:48 PM

Got any links to the Paladin arty system? What's that?

STLRN · May 14, 2002, 05:54 PM

The problem is that the maneuver forces that Crusader is meant to support weigh 20-25 tons more, and are already deployed. Yet even with ICBT, they still plan on maintaining some of the legacy forces, so the forces they support are heavier, already here and are planning on being here for a long time. If they eventually replace heavy armor with the FCS, than at that point the weight argument is very valid, but until that date it is a red herring, to say a vehicle lighter than what it will support is too heavy.

Crusader, makes Paladin look like a jet compared to a bi-plane. Just like the 8 or so systems being adopted by allot of foreign nations. Some by friendly, but who knows who we will fight one day, but some being adopted by some not so friendly types out there. Lets face we are stuck in 52 caliber tube world, when the US still has 39 caliber weapons.

Something to think about that non-artillerymen out there really don't get that in order to get your max range more than 10-12 times a day you need SPs with blast overpressure protection, firing high zones with either open top SPs or towed weapons wears the crews out, and after about a dozen rounds in a day they are close to useless.

STLRN · May 14, 2002, 06:09 PM

Paladin is the M109A6. It is built on the M109 chassis that many talk about being 40 years old. It has the a 39 caliber tube (M284) and reinforced breach that allows the firing of charge M203(A1), combine this with RAP or BB-ICM the system can shoot to 30,100 or 28,300m respectively. It was fielded with what is know as MAPS (Modified Azimuth Positioning System) to allow the howitzer to self locate (doesn't require survey to locate and give direction) and the FCS (Fire Control System) that allows digital communications (mostly movement orders and fire orders) and computation of firing data. The system was in the works during the Gulf and deployed after the war.

[email protected] · May 14, 2002, 08:52 PM

Speaking as a former grunt - I was just extremely happy to have arty raining fire 2 minutes after being called in while that arty unit was on the move. Nothing quite like fire and manuver, shoot and scoot, DIVARTY style.

Jeff White · May 14, 2002, 10:23 PM

I can't believe they left all the tubes at Ft Campbell when 3d Bde of the 101st deployed to Afghanistan. So far they've gotten by with it. I just hope we don't pay a price in blood to learn that we can't provide timely and effective fire support by air.

In a 28 year Army career I've been on both sides of the maneuver/fire support dividing line. 21 years Infantry, 7 years Artillery (M198 155mm T). USAFAGOS JFCC graduate....

STLRN is 100% correct. Towed artillery is too slow to put into action and too slow to move. The M198 units in the Army and Marine Corps would be toast in an environment with a big counter battery threat. We aren't the only people in the world who can build a radar. Almost everyone ranges our 39 caliber tubes. M198 units have to keep track of the Full Charge rounds they fire, not just for tube wear, but because the concussion is dangerous to the crew. I doubt the new 155 LW howitzer will be any better in this aspect. I think the plan is to convert a lot of M198 units to HIMARS when it is fielded. But you're still going to have the weight and cube of the rockets to deal with when deploying a light force.

I have been skeptical of Crusader's ability to perform as advertised without being a maintenance nightmare.

Personally, I think the answer to our mobility problems is to build enough planes and ships to move our forces. I don't know that we need the C17. Last time I went to NTC, I flew into Las Vegas, and there were all kinds of wide-body commmercial airliners in mothballs there. How much would it cost to buy them up, convert them to cargo use and make them our reserve air transport fleet? Let the Rangers or 82d or a MEU seize a commercial airfield by force then we won't need so much grass strip capability.

There needs to be a balance between combat forces and transport forces. And the Air Force has refused to ask for enough airlift to support the other services.

Jeff

May 14, 2002, 02:15 PM	#1
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	Wait a sec... We don't get the Crusader because of that Metal Storm POS? http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...4-15769826.htm You got to be kidding. __________________ MAD OGRE

May 14, 2002, 02:52 PM	#2
MuzzleBlast Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2001 Location: Arkansas. Much better place since Bill and Hillary went home. Posts: 1,041	So is this metalstorm thing some type of rail gun? __________________ Molwn labe!

May 14, 2002, 03:31 PM	#4
LawDog Staff Emeritus Join Date: September 15, 1999 Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket? Posts: 4,194	Are you still required to Fed-Ex the gun back to the company for reloading, or can the spear-carriers actually reload in the field now? Have they solved the battery problem yet, or are they still including a hand-cranked generator option for the pistols and rifles? (Doh! Dead battery! Don't go anywhere, Mr. Rapist, let me charge the battery, hang on, a couple of more seconds and I'll give you what for...) LawDog __________________ "The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files

May 14, 2002, 03:48 PM	#5
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	Sad thing is that our arty battlions could have really used the Crusader. We need a new moble platform as the M109s are getting Ancient. Can you say Trebuchet? __________________ MAD OGRE

May 14, 2002, 05:22 PM	#8
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Scott I had a similar job, but as a Marine working at Fort Swill. Unfortunately if you study history the maneuver arm (and others) has made similar decisions about the obsolesce of one thing or another many times. But after the arm forces run into someone who doesn't want to fight the way they want them to, they find out that the decision was not to wise and the butchers bill is paid by those fair removed from the rash judgment. __________________ God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

May 14, 2002, 02:58 PM	#3
Meowhead Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2002 Posts: 271	MetalStorm homepage It's a weapons system wherein multiple projectiles are loaded into a barrel and touched off in sequence. No moving parts, incredible rate of fire.

May 14, 2002, 03:52 PM	#6
Poodleshooter Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2000 Location: Floating down the James River in VA Posts: 2,599	Incredible rate of fire= fast time for delivery on target of the whole barrage. It would be tube arty that functions like any rocket system from the Nebelwerfer and Katyusha to todays MLRS system. If it reloaded and fired faster than the MLRS, weighed less, or had lighter ammo or some other redeeming quality, it might be interesting.

May 14, 2002, 04:58 PM	#7
scottb81 Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2002 Location: Columbus, GA Posts: 6	A quick introduction since I am new here. I recently retired from the Army where I last worked in Infantry Combat Developments at Ft. Benning. I have worked current force modernizations issues and am familiar with the issues surrounding the Crusader. The Army does not need the Crusader. While it is a great system, it was designed to fight a threat that is no longer probable. It would be a great asset if we had to fight large-scale battles in Europe. However, it does not fit in current and projected threat assessments or with the Army's new war fighting strategy. The Army's strategy calls for air deployable units that can quickly, within days, move to and fight in any part of the world. The Crusader is too heavy and is not easily deployable by air. The Army is developing lightweight, advanced 155mm artillery systems that can easily deploy with and support the Infantry. I do not believe that the Metal Storm had anything to do with the decision to cancel the Crusader. Brad

May 14, 2002, 05:33 PM	#9
scottb81 Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2002 Location: Columbus, GA Posts: 6	The Infantry doesn't think that the Artillery is obsolete. We just think that the Crusader is too heavy and way too expensive. Artillery will remain an organic part of the maneuver units and the Army will continue to modernize Artillery with the goal of getting lighterweight systems that can deploy with the units and be with them when they arrive at the battle. You are right though about stupid decisions made in the past.

May 14, 2002, 05:33 PM	#10
[email protected] Wise Guy Join Date: October 10, 1998 Posts: 665	Having watched the Paladin system in action, I can't see the need for the Crusader either. The Paladin is amazing to witness, especially with the software upgrades. Crusader should have died a long time ago. What I want to know is, When are we going to get a replacement tank system for our airborne troops? Kevin __________________ Kevin Jon Schlossberg Owner, BladeForums.com www.bladeforums.com

May 14, 2002, 05:48 PM	#11
George Hill Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 14, 1998 Location: North Carolina Posts: 11,546	Got any links to the Paladin arty system? What's that? __________________ MAD OGRE

May 14, 2002, 05:54 PM	#12
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	The problem is that the maneuver forces that Crusader is meant to support weigh 20-25 tons more, and are already deployed. Yet even with ICBT, they still plan on maintaining some of the legacy forces, so the forces they support are heavier, already here and are planning on being here for a long time. If they eventually replace heavy armor with the FCS, than at that point the weight argument is very valid, but until that date it is a red herring, to say a vehicle lighter than what it will support is too heavy. Crusader, makes Paladin look like a jet compared to a bi-plane. Just like the 8 or so systems being adopted by allot of foreign nations. Some by friendly, but who knows who we will fight one day, but some being adopted by some not so friendly types out there. Lets face we are stuck in 52 caliber tube world, when the US still has 39 caliber weapons. Something to think about that non-artillerymen out there really don't get that in order to get your max range more than 10-12 times a day you need SPs with blast overpressure protection, firing high zones with either open top SPs or towed weapons wears the crews out, and after about a dozen rounds in a day they are close to useless. __________________ God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

May 14, 2002, 06:09 PM	#13
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Paladin is the M109A6. It is built on the M109 chassis that many talk about being 40 years old. It has the a 39 caliber tube (M284) and reinforced breach that allows the firing of charge M203(A1), combine this with RAP or BB-ICM the system can shoot to 30,100 or 28,300m respectively. It was fielded with what is know as MAPS (Modified Azimuth Positioning System) to allow the howitzer to self locate (doesn't require survey to locate and give direction) and the FCS (Fire Control System) that allows digital communications (mostly movement orders and fire orders) and computation of firing data. The system was in the works during the Gulf and deployed after the war. __________________ God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

May 14, 2002, 08:52 PM	#14
[email protected] Wise Guy Join Date: October 10, 1998 Posts: 665	Speaking as a former grunt - I was just extremely happy to have arty raining fire 2 minutes after being called in while that arty unit was on the move. Nothing quite like fire and manuver, shoot and scoot, DIVARTY style. __________________ Kevin Jon Schlossberg Owner, BladeForums.com www.bladeforums.com

May 14, 2002, 10:23 PM	#15
Jeff White Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1998 Location: Kinmundy, IL, USA Posts: 1,397	I can't believe they left all the tubes at Ft Campbell when 3d Bde of the 101st deployed to Afghanistan. So far they've gotten by with it. I just hope we don't pay a price in blood to learn that we can't provide timely and effective fire support by air. In a 28 year Army career I've been on both sides of the maneuver/fire support dividing line. 21 years Infantry, 7 years Artillery (M198 155mm T). USAFAGOS JFCC graduate.... STLRN is 100% correct. Towed artillery is too slow to put into action and too slow to move. The M198 units in the Army and Marine Corps would be toast in an environment with a big counter battery threat. We aren't the only people in the world who can build a radar. Almost everyone ranges our 39 caliber tubes. M198 units have to keep track of the Full Charge rounds they fire, not just for tube wear, but because the concussion is dangerous to the crew. I doubt the new 155 LW howitzer will be any better in this aspect. I think the plan is to convert a lot of M198 units to HIMARS when it is fielded. But you're still going to have the weight and cube of the rockets to deal with when deploying a light force. I have been skeptical of Crusader's ability to perform as advertised without being a maintenance nightmare. Personally, I think the answer to our mobility problems is to build enough planes and ships to move our forces. I don't know that we need the C17. Last time I went to NTC, I flew into Las Vegas, and there were all kinds of wide-body commmercial airliners in mothballs there. How much would it cost to buy them up, convert them to cargo use and make them our reserve air transport fleet? Let the Rangers or 82d or a MEU seize a commercial airfield by force then we won't need so much grass strip capability. There needs to be a balance between combat forces and transport forces. And the Air Force has refused to ask for enough airlift to support the other services. Jeff