What's scary is that the replacement being talked up is air-launched PGMs. The crunchies need tube artillery. My biggest reservation about Crusader is that it cannot be fired manually. M109/Paladin is just about at its developmental peak, so what's next? If they can lighten Crusader, and incorporate a manual firing ability, it can still be an excellent complement to MLRS.

Ah hell, can't we just fight NIH syndrom and buy the Pzh2000 and CEASAR systems?

If they give ore bang for the buck, do it! It would be nice, though, if OUR (USA) boffins would quit trying to make everything into a video game, and concentrate on designing good, workable hardware.

Sorry Nakito you're dealing with an army that wasted billions on the Sgt York when the Gepard was available. Persisted in fielding the Dragon(1000m) when the Milan(2000m) was proven and used 81mm mortars with 1500m range disadvantage compared to UK French models. There are some notable exceptions but the US weapon procurement decision cycle is are more about US jobs than getting the best fighting weapons fot its armed forces. The US is not alone I might add, the military-industrial complex is firmly imbedded in many countries, Eisenhower's prediction came true alas.......................Swede

I have a friend from collage who work's in naval intel,(not as fun as it sound's,he always say's)....but the money whore's that the navy is an the long,very long lead times they need for their ships has, in their defence, taught them a thing or two about funding......."Always follow the money"...So that's what we've done here as well, and the DUST(well put) settles,congress has provided funding of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX million dollars(or about what sweden spends on nudie flims)( where the hell did that come from,and what's it mean??)..about enought to buy ten of them. However once the "monies" go out, congress doesn't like to see it again till you buy something with it.....Now as far as all that euro crap,there are a few neat toys they do o.k. on,But not (maybe a few)major weapon system's (EH-101 is the best of it's kind anywhere in the world and the U.S. has a good shot at buying it)that are on the cutting edge....and the 40 ton version is the light one, they worked their behinds off to get it down to that(and there is no REAL reason to go lighter,unless we do think that THE only effective weapons system's are the one's that can fit in the back of a C-130)....the real answer to saving,and yes that would be the right thing to do, is to get the navy/marines to put it on some sort of fire-support ship. All the advantages of the 155mm round, low crew count( the NEW navy you know)greater range and all the rest....with the navy talking about cuting F-18 e/f and JSF, the MARINES are again wondering who's going to give them CAS/fire-support. A ship like a fire-supportship (and this has been talked about for years)with a mix of rocket's missile's and big gun's(maybe two or three on a ship) would help the army spread the wealth around a bit.Don't underestimate (and you guy's already said this)United Defence Corp, I think there's a part built in almost each state(common pratice)and that aside they can and should make a strong case, you simply cannot keep a REDUCE amount of navy aircraft on station as well as a ground system. So in effect there is NO weapon like it in the world, and the one's we have now are old and used up..can anyone say KC-135 vs KC-767,and here's the real kicker, the ARMY WILL trade TANK's to keep this system.....besides why would the U.S buy euro weapon when the euro's don't even buy them......think good thoughts and pray this goes though.......happy days Allan

If your going to have Aqua-Crusader lite I'd spend a bit more money on mine detection and disposal than you do at present. Oh yes an when it closed to firing range an Aegis would have to be spared, and an ASW platform and probably a 688/Seawolf just to make sure. Remember one bad hit on a ship and your casualty figures would equal an entire battalion of Crusader guns wiped out, never mind the cost of replacement repair. Finally all eggs in one basket ideas are just asking to be targeted, there are only a finite number of Aegis/Burke platforms around.

I'm not sure i understand whatyou mean???...all those ships are ALREADY part of a navel task force,FIRE-SUPPORT is being done by ship's not meant to be withinrange of coastalbatteries.....(ofcourse the navy wants the tridents sub's being re-fitted to do fire-support, and they will just to add (and keep funding)thelistof mission's it can do).......but putting some CRUSADER turret's on some well armor tanker type ship's along with MRLS ATMS and whatever else theyneed is not outof reach for the navy to do (and there is a need, THAT's why the navy is working on improving the 127mm, (their current maingun)to shoot all type of NEW super rounds). So adding the CRUSADER 155mm turret to the navy, even if they only bought say"thirty turrent system's" enough for two per ship of a ten to fifteen ship classs,it would bring the army(death before being a seadog) a very strong political ally...and show congress some of this new age touchie feely crap of all getting along..(and if the navy so much as hinted at the idea,the marine's would be all over it in a heart beat,mainly because it cover's one of their main weaknees,FIRE-SUPPORT and some else would be paying for it(the cheap bastard's).so i placed a call to the tombstone maker and threated his whole family ,was that wrong, should i go back to my "senitivty training classes".....besides what if we have to bail out the european's yet again,and we will,i for one would like CRUSADER by my side......................now someone give me a hand with all these soap boxes....Happy Days Allan

Aren't many major European systems worth buying. You just picked one, and in context of an unsuccessful American program. On balance, we make better weapons at lower cost, which may be less an advertisement of American procurement than an indictment of European projects. Want to talk about the Eurofighter? Or all those Euro-Warship projects, most of which never got built?

United Defence is working on a 155mm Advanced Gun System for the Navy. According to an ad in LEATHERNECK Magazine, this system is intended for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer. UD claims (in the ad), 100 nautical mile (115 land miles) range, 720 rounds per hour, and the capability of having 70-80 rounds in the air, at the same time. It sounds like a navalized Crusader. Given the greater volume and weight capacity of a ship, it should work even better at sea. Also, it's good marketing on United Defense's part.

thanks pete i knew it was out there.Allan