You make good points regarding tube artillery. Add to that new laser weapons that are designed to kill rockets in flight (such a system is being jointly developed by USA and Israel and is being deployed to Israel for field testing on the Lebanese border--it has already shot down Katyushas in tests), and the guns will still be necessary. We still need the rockets, though, since they can do the area denial and interdiction missions more economically than guns. The cost to build and maintain the number of guns required to put out the same volume of fire as a rocket system is prohibitive. On the other hand, equipping every rocket warhead with a guidance system for precision targeting would be prohibitive as well. With correct data, a good gun crew can just about drop a dumb round in the enemy's lap. The Crusader concept is great, but I have been reading questions about the system being tested, mainly on cost and complexity. David Hackworth () is one of the most vocal opponents. Does anyone have more information?

WELL OF COURSE THERE GOOD POINTS, IT'S ME PETE,(JUST A BIT OF FUN)...IN 1993 I GAVE A SPEACH AT THE THEN NEW NIC BUILDING IN VIRGINIA,ON WHAT I CAN'T REMEBER, BUT SOME ONE THEIR KNEW HACKWORTH, AND WAS IN EFFECT ONE OF HIS BRAINWASHED FOLLOWERS,HE WENT ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THE C-17 WOULD BE THE RUIN OF US ALL AND SUCH(REMEBER HACKWORTHLESS WAS NOT THERE)(LOOK HE WAS/IS ONE OF THE BRAVEST MEN IN US HISTORY, BUT EVER SINCE HE STARTING GETTING A MILLION DOLLARS FROM NEWSWEEK AND OTHERS,WELL NOT EVEY PROLBEM CAN BE SOLVE WITH A 30-06 WINCHESTER RIFLE AND K-BAR,IF YOU FOLLOW MY MEANING) MR HACKWORTH HAS WRITEN A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE C-17( TO PICK JUST ONE ITEM, BUT THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF MANY OTHER ITEMS HE WRITES ABOUT(NOW HE'S ON THE V-22 CASE)LOOK IT'S GOOD PRESS&PAY DAY TO PICK ON THESE THINGS, DON'T BLAME HIM MAY DO THE SAME MYSELF SOME DAY).......BUT WHERE HE GOES WRONG, AS IN C-17, IS NOT IN SAYING THE C-17 PROGRAM SHOULD BE RUN TIGHTER/OR BOUGHT IN LARGER NUMBERS TO DRIVE DOWN COST, BUT AS TO WETHER IT WAS NEEDED AT ALL.(IT WAS AND IS AND HAS PROVE TO BE A GREAT AIRCRAFT,THAT AND THE C-141'S WERE SIMPLY WORE-OUT AND NEEDED REPLACEMENTS)...SO PETE HE'LL SAY THE SAME ABOUT CURSADER(DAMM SON WHERE'S THE K-BAR RACK).BUT HE'LL BE WRONG ON THIS ONE TOO!!(COST IS A PROLBEM, BUT NOT WHAT THE SYSYTEM IS GOING TO DO IN THE LONG RUN)...........HAPPY DAYS ALLAN

You're right; Hackworth has to be taken with a grain of salt. I've heard some very positive (say, glowing) reports about Crusader, along with his criticisms, so I'm interested in the whole story. If it lives up to its potential, awesome! It sure won't have to be as mobile as previous systems. My reservation is with becoming too dependent on gadgets. If they work, use them, but be ready to make do if they fail. That means compute fires by hand, work the guns manually, have a compass in case the GPS goes down, and so on down the line to a K-Bar or sharpened e-tool. For light forces, how is the 120mm mortar supposed to be employed?

Yes i believe it will take over it has the firepower to be king of the batlefield

"That means compute fires by hand, work the guns manually, have a compass in case the GPS goes down, and so on down the line to a K-Bar or sharpened e-tool." I am a Bn Fire Direction Officer for an M109A5 Bn. We have IFSAS and GLPS, but require that everybody run missions manually in tandem to on BCS, and check GLPS and PADS with magnetic just to be sure. While we don't force our men to hand-crank the guns instead of using hydraulics, the poor maintenance posture of the guns that we use when we visit a training area often forces us to do just that!

Redleg, that sounds like my unit.We make due with what we have and adjust as things breakdown.

Maybe a small fraction (5-10%) of the 40 Billion saved by cancelling Crusader should be spent on spares/maintenance for existing weapon systems. Sounds like you need it, or is procurement of spares not sexy/financially attractive enough to sell to Congress.

Bravo, Redleg! "Can do" is what wins wars. You shouldn't "have to" do it manually, but it's a great confidence builder to know you can (not to mention life-saver). I sincerely hope some of the funds just passed by Congress will get to you for maintenence, and not for smart bombs.

To Redleg and FSNCO: Is the 155 the only heavy tube artillery in the US inventory? How much life is left in the Paladins? Lastly, as the users, what do you want in a new gun system?

Yes, the 155mm is the only heavy tube artillery left.The Paladin is still a very good system but lacking in range as compared to more modern weapon systems.The chassis are rebuilds from the ground up but cannot keep up with the M1/M2 heavy forces. With the range issue this is a critical weakness. As for what I would like to see in a new system. Range and rate of fire improvements and improved automotive peformance. The current electronics for fire control and communications are good and allow the US artillery to mass fires quickly and efficiently.Precision is a great thing but sometimes you need volume of fire to accomplish the mission. Speaking as a fire support soldier I want to see our forces capable of all weather 24/7 fire support. I have worked CAS and Gunships and they are great force multipliers, but nothing has the ability for quick responsive fires like tube artillery.