Speaking of tanks...

anyone else see that clip where some Army guy/Marine/whatever hijacks a tank from his base and starts on a rampage over the city? I <b>think</b> it was LA but I could be wrong. Anyway, he's plowing over cars, etc. Police chase him for what seems like forever. Finally he gets stuck on a median strip. Police hop up on the tank, somehow get the top open (or the guy inside opens it), and a police guy takes no chances - puts a round right in the guy's head. Pretty fucked up stuff.

Crusader is (now) dead
 

The LA Times reported today that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld finally ordered the end of the Crusader project.

Cool picture though.

Re: Crusader is (now) dead
 

And that would seem to be that.

I guess Donny figured he could live without it. The money will probably go to The NIghtwatch...I mean "Homeland Defense".

It's nice to finally have a SecDef who gives good talking-head. The man makes an art of press conference.

http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/...-rejoicing.jpg

In the frozen land of Nador, they were forced to eat Sir Donald's budget. And there was much rejoicing.

Apparently, this is your last shot :rolleyes: to see the Crusader in action, it is now relegated to the junkheap of history...

i'm not quite dead yet....
 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.html

seems like there be some life left in those ol legs.....

Just in case anybody thought dropping Crusaider was backing away from gee-whiz tech...

Rapid-fire Metal Storm technology usurps Crusader
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020514-15769826.htm

Strnageness
 

While the initial concept for the Crusader (vs. Warsaw Pact armor) is no longer a viable threat, artillery, specifically mobile artillery, is still a needed element of any battlefield. Whiel US troops were fighting pockets of taliban resistance in the mountains recently, artillery bombardment would have been advantageous. But the current model (60's vintage) was too heavy and bulky to move into the field. While thousands of these vehicles is certainly rediculous, a few hundred might be valuble in the end.

Pity they too are too heavy to be carried by chopper therefore being of no use...

How many "useless" Abrams tanks can you put in a helicopter? I guess Time Magazine didn't go into that. :-)

They would have been transportable by airplane (after the redesign making the armor removable), and move over the ground fairly rapidly. They could have been flown into, say, Bagram and been in position within a day or two.

But now I'm waiting for the Aussie informercials for Metalstorm, though. :-)

Metalstorm? Was a bad 3D movie, subtitled something like "The Revenge of Jared Syn"

Ground speed...
 

One aspect of the crusader was that it had a decent land speed (at least that was the concept) that allowed it to deply easier. But more importantly, it was built to fit easily into the C-17 aircraft, which can carry a few of them a couple of thousand miles.

Re: Ground speed...
 

Crown jewels in the military are C5 and C17 because there are just so few of them (because they are not glorious weapons like much less useful aircraft carriers). A C17 is too valuable and too rare to be permitted within a hundred miles of the battlefield - too few and too necessary to risk. Crusader and many tankers to fuel it and other transport to provide the ammo takes days to get to the battlefield. OK for a battle in the Fulma Gap war where you knew when and where the battle would be fought. But today's Army must deploy hundreds of miles and start fighting in a day. Crusader will never be able to do that.

Just like in VietNam, 105 and 155 artillery was in position in hours and fighting because even helicopters can deploy them. When a day is too long, Puff the Magic Dragon is there in hours, or a Pedator, or an A-10, or Cobras, or even the less capable F-14, F-15, F-16, or F-18. Less capable because they have so little time over target. But everyone does better than a Crusader that also requires long, overland supply lines - just another concept that the new military cannot depend on. Future equipment must fight deep behind enemy territory with airborne supply.

By the time a Crusader got into battle, B-52 - no even the B-1 and B-2s that must fly from the US to Afganistan (because most airports cannot supply necessary ground support) can be on scene and reek greater devistation, before any Crusader could get there. Nice weapon only if it is there before it is needed as in WWII, Korea, and even the last of the big army battles - the Gulf War.

The Crusader is a great weapon because it costs so much and fires shells fast. Problem is that it can't get there in time to fire those shells. Employing people to produce inefficient weaspons systems only increases inflation and weakens the military.

Too many weapons already can only be carried by C5 or C17 aircraft. Yet the Congress should take all that wasted money from Crusader and build more C5, C17, and more mid-air refueling tankers - things the military desparately needs more of even without Crusader. Airborne artillery that can stay on station and move quickly - now that is the artillery for today's military. Crusader is obsolete technology - also because it needs C17s to deploy and therefore can never be deployed close enough.