XM2001 Crusader 155mm SPH (Self Propelled Howitzer)

[jsport]

Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?

Amen brother especially since an ability to change breech volume could make it a longer range gun given the advanced in material science and energitics.

 

[jsport]

Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?

would argue that the M109A6/A7 has a place in that most contingencies don't need something as powerful as Crusader. A returned CoCrusader, although having to fit in C-17, should be a dual 203/210mm hypervelocity/ramjet SPH to fullfill the Long range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19847/the-army-now-wants-hypersonic-cannons-loitering-missiles-and-a-massive-supergun

PS: Further work on increasing Paladin's capability is fine but the idea they still don't have an autoloader seems display a disfunctional program.

 

[jsport]

Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?

would argue that the M109A6/A7 has a place in that most contingencies don't need something as powerful as Crusader. A returned CoCrusader, although having to fit in C-17, should be a dual 203/210mm hypervelocity/ramjet SPH to fullfill the Long range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19847/the-army-now-wants-hypersonic-cannons-loitering-missiles-and-a-massive-supergun

The Army needs a 1000mile rg gun, a 203/210mmCoCrusader (which fits in C-17) and a 100mile range, autoloader equipped M109 Paladin.

 

[sferrin]

Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?

would argue that the M109A6/A7 has a place in that most contingencies don't need something as powerful as Crusader. A returned CoCrusader, although having to fit in C-17, should be a dual 203/210mm hypervelocity/ramjet SPH to fullfill the Long range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19847/the-army-now-wants-hypersonic-cannons-loitering-missiles-and-a-massive-supergun

The Army needs a 1000mile rg gun, a 203/210mmCoCrusader (which fits in C-17) and a 100mile range, autoloader equipped M109 Paladin.

What is that double-barrel "CoCrusader"? Russia had a double barrel prototype they were working with but it looks like the version in service reverted to a single barrel. What is the advantage of a double barrel on a SP gun? I'd think the extra weight, space, complexity, and reduced ammo loadout would make it a non-starter. ???

As for a 1000-mile gun. . .

 

[jsport]

Considering the US Army's historical preference of holding an enemy at range and devastating them with artillery I'm rather surprised there have never been any serious calls to revive the Crusader in some updated form. Even now it would seem to be as good a starting point as any. Are we really better off rebuilding the M109A6/A7 piece by piece until it is a new vehicle?

would argue that the M109A6/A7 has a place in that most contingencies don't need something as powerful as Crusader. A returned CoCrusader, although having to fit in C-17, should be a dual 203/210mm hypervelocity/ramjet SPH to fullfill the Long range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19847/the-army-now-wants-hypersonic-cannons-loitering-missiles-and-a-massive-supergun

The Army needs a 1000mile rg gun, a 203/210mmCoCrusader (which fits in C-17) and a 100mile range, autoloader equipped M109 Paladin.

What is that double-barrel "CoCrusader"? Russia had a double barrel prototype they were working with but it looks like the version in service reverted to a single barrel. What is the advantage of a double barrel on a SP gun? I'd think the extra weight, space, complexity, and reduced ammo loadout would make it a non-starter. ???

As for a 1000-mile gun. . .

That is the fourth time you have posted that pic. Tacky and uncalled for especially since there is a real US Army task force studying 1000 mile gun..

 

[sferrin]

That is the fourth time you have posted that pic. Tacky and uncalled for especially since there is a real US Army task force studying 1000 mile gun..

Didn't know I had a fan club monitoring my posts. As for "tacky and uncalled for" I'll bet you're a blast at parties. It's called a J-O-K-E. :

Ultimately, when they get railguns / coilguns figured out, I wouldn't be surprised if they had fixed installations in the States that could toss a projectile anywhere in the world. Would also be a good argument for nuclear powered battle cruisers.

 

[Foo Fighter]

[/quote]

What is that double-barrel "CoCrusader"? Russia had a double barrel prototype they were working with but it looks like the version in service reverted to a single barrel. What is the advantage of a double barrel on a SP gun? I'd think the extra weight, space, complexity, and reduced ammo loadout would make it a non-starter. ???

As for a 1000-mile gun. . .
[/quote]

I mentioned the overkill somewhere else and was shot down, apparently the idea is to get two shells close together. IMHO, overlap possibly but smart munitions and a single barrel make more sense. Of course there will always be those who believe some is good but more is better.

 

[jsport]

yes we understand the twin barrel was cancelled in 2010 but yet and operational concept slide w/ the twin barrel can be found in an operational concept slide. Gaining the firepower first initiative is everything. Maybe not something to be publicized.

 

[cador]

I was wondering if anybody has a three view drawing of the last version of Crusader (light) ?

 

[skylancer-3441]

This pic gives an idea on how they wanted to change "heavy" version in order to make it lighter

and some renders

 

[cador]

This pic gives an idea on how they wanted to change "heavy" version in order to make it lighter

thank you so much B)

 

[cador]

I would like to make the self propelled howitzer CRUSADER XM-2001 (and XM-2002) at 1/43 in the light version as
Is BAE (ex UNITED DEFENSE) provide the CAD?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Is that a limited traverse turret or a fixed casement?

 

[stealthflanker]

Limited.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thanks, looks a bit odd to me but then I am old.

 

[jsport]

extrapolating, according to Rand, Crusader w/ SADARM and now potentially "Excalibre" would be the best means of countering the greatest threat to Seoul ie 240mm MRLs and thus the South Korean government itself. Likewise, Crusader like 'rates of fire' would be the best means to implement Project Convergence's network centric rapid targeting capability as no other system would be able to match the engagements numbers w./ Project Convergence targets generated.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR930/MR-930.ch3.pdf

... Figure 4 also shows the range and responsiveness of different weapon system options for fire support in general. It depicts the characteristics of a wide range of other systems, including cannons, rockets, missiles, fixed-wing, and rotary-wing aircraft. Many of these systems are able to carry substantial payloads and deliver them with high accuracy, but only cannons have the ability to engage fleeting targets successfully in the direct support mission of maneuver forces. Part of this capability is because cannons can be sited close to the FLOT, part is because they can be laid and aimed quickly and accurately, and part is due to their very fast projectile speed (Mach 2–3) resulting in very short flyout times.

One such example of a new opportunity might be to consider using Crusader to attack multiple rocket launchers (MRLs). Although the current response might normally involve using MLRS to counter enemy MRLs,2 the Crusader has a number of favorable characteristics that enable it to counter this type of threat. These characteristics include fast response, high volume of fire, high levels of accuracy, and the option to be forward positioned (unlike MLRS, Crusader has reasonable levels of self-protection, including armor and the M2 .50- caliber machine gun). This ability to position forward makes the system more responsive, which can also result in greater volume over fleeting targets and better overall accuracy....

As an example, we examined Crusader as a possible response to a current-day threat situation posed by 240mm MRLs in North Korea. This weapon poses a significant threat, in that a very large number of 240mm MRLs are poised north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and are targeted toward South Korean urban areas and military targets. These launchers can fire a first strike of many thousands of missiles and return in a few minutes to protected caves or to alternate firing positions. We felt that this scenario, used to examine options in the Rapid/Precision Counter MRL advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), would be useful for illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of systems such as Crusader for engaging fleeting, agile targets. It assumes the fire support systems are in place and forward positioned near the DMZ.

The Northeast Asia (NEA) scenario specifies that MRLs move out from underground facilities (UGFs), fire from preplanned firing positions, and return to the UGFs. Examination of the available data on the UGF sites suggests that a number of possible “exit and return” methods for the MRLs may be possible. In this case, the launchers move directly from the firing points to the UGFs. This procedure makes it difficult to target the launchers, because once they fire it only takes 75 seconds to return to their UGFs.

The timelines for Red movement and Blue response, shown in Figure 5, are very challenging. The upper set of Red movement lines shows that the MRLs can fire their complete set of rockets in 44 seconds. Data from the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration Project Office indicates that the crew then needs two minutes to lower the launcher, raise the stabilizing pads, and quickly return to the UGF. This scenario is depicted on the chart as “JPSD case” and shows a total exposure time of 164 seconds. However, it is possible that the MRLs could displace faster than the JSPD case or that they might take longer. Accordingly, we diagram and simulate two cases that bound the JSPD scenario. On the upper line, they are stationary at or near the launch pads some 200 seconds after firing. On the lower line they have moved back after only 30 seconds, and are near the UGF for the same period.

The lower portion of timelines shows Blue responses for Crusader and Paladin. Sixty seconds are assumed for Firefinder backtracking and communication to the howitzer platoon (three howitzers). The cannons are already targeted toward specific sites, so that firing and flyout takes about 48 seconds. The first round for either Paladin or Crusader lands at about 108 seconds, but Paladin is able to fire only 9 rounds (at surge rate) compared with 24 rounds by Crusader before the MRLs take cover. The relative effectiveness of the two cannon systems depended on which munitions were fired and whether they caught the targets on the launch pads or on the move. The lower curve, shown on Figure 6, represents the effectiveness of high explosive (HE) rounds, the top edge delineating efficiency against on-the-pad targets, with decreasing efficiency against scooting targets shown by the lower edge. This is not the recommended munition against this type of target and did poorly compared with DPICM and SADARM (which has a relatively small footprint). In all cases, the greater number of rounds fired by Crusader (24 × 3 cannons) resulted in significantly more hits than Paladin could achieve. ...

As a next step, we examined the effect of adding GPS guidance to the rounds in the same situations.4 Here, HE with GPS was extremely efficient when the launchers were caught on the pads; however, it completely missed in the case where the MRLs are moving rapidly back to the UGF (Figure 7). DPICM exhibited much the same behavior, while SADARM, with its somewhat larger footprint, was able to perform relatively well in either stationary or scoot conditions. Again, Crusader’s higher rate of fire increased effectiveness of the mission, but to a lesser extent than with unguided rounds. So although GPS guidance provides a solution in some cases, it may represent only a partial solution in difficult circumstances."

 

[jsport]

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR930/MR-930.ch4.pdf

Again, Rand appears to argue that a new gen SPH is more important than direct fire systems like 'Decisive Lethality (M1 replacement )" and Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) in the future. Rand also refers to the Defense Science Board Task Force on Tactics and Technologies for 21st Century Military Superiority
which is still the authoritative source.

"CLOSE-IN FIRE SUPPORT MAY BE CHANGING IN THE FAR FUTURE
Although our analysis suggests that Crusader represents a dramatic improvement within current cannon capabilities, we also note that the role for cannons in general may be changing. Specifically, one of the unique niches for cannon fire in the current environment is providing direct support to maneuver operations. However, a number of new initiatives, if successful, can reduce the need for such fire support. Many of these initiatives envision aggressive use of emerging long-range precision-guided weapons, where these weapons have the potential to reduce greatly the intensity of the close fight, thereby decreasing the need for associated close-in fire support. For example, last year’s Defense Science Board Task Force on Tactics and Technologies for 21st Century Military Superiority examined, among other things, how remote systems could support a small, dispersed (very lightweight) force in the future. Weapons such as air-delivered standoff weapons and long-range missiles, both equipped with smart and brilliant submunitions, were considered key systems to provide fire support in the future. Similarly, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Small Unit Operations and the AAN initiative, which both represent dramatically new visions of how ground warfare might change, involve the aggressive application of comparatively small and very lightweight units that use a number of highly advanced indirect fire support options (e.g., the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) equipped with brilliant anti-tank (BAT) submunitions launched from the Navy’s Arsenal Ship). Much of the emphasis in these future concepts is on conducting a greater portion of the battle from afar using these future long-range, high-tech weapons. Although there is an ongoing debate on how successful such a long-range fire support operation will be, especially in light of potential countermeasures, there tends to be a strong belief that these concepts coupled with the associated technologies can provide a more capable long-range fire support battle for the future.2 In general, this kind of thinking implies a reduced or deemphasized close battle for the future and, thus, less overall need for direct, close-in fire support. ______________ 2This is not to imply that there will not be a close fight, but the close fight as it is understood may be a smaller portion of the overall battle"

 

[Grey Havoc]

If the time comes the US has to face Russia or China conventionally there won't be time to say, "whoa, time out, we need to build some better SPGs."

And so it is now proving.

 

[stealthflanker]

This by far my favorite SPG's.

Critics may complain it carry less ammo than Paladin Thus less endurance But... this thing is a true Scout and shoot monster. It's fire rate means it can deliver so much firepower in short time.. so whatever in the business end may not necessarily able to recover let alone counter attacking.

 

[RyanC]

Problem is, it's been out of "production" so long that even the youngest engineers on the program have long ago moved to other things, forgotten things, or just retired.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Problem is, it's been out of "production" so long that even the youngest engineers on the program have long ago moved to other things, forgotten things, or just retired.

Good thing James Rutkowski, who famously developed the majority of US guns today, is working as a engineer at Picatinny and Benet labs!

The collective knowledge of engineers is wildly overrated on this forum, though. Small wonder.

Engineers write things down and anyone can do math. Nothing an engineer does is hard to replace in America, land of STEM glut. The only thing more common might be a art major or a lawyer. And the guys who work in arsenals do it for like 70 years unless they die in a car wreck, with the equivalent of like six PhDs at the end, so Rutkowski still has a few years in him probably. So guys who are actually valuable to a program don't "retire".

Anyone thinking about the dachas in 50 years isn't putting in their 110% effort, which is why they tend to leave programs after a couple years and have very few things to their name. The valuable guys go senile while trying to make blockchains work in their 90's or something. So you assign people, i.e. young engineers, to extract knowledge from their brains and write it down in binders. Duh.

Pretty much everything of serious value from Crusader and its deformed spawn NLOS-C is being used in XM1299. Which is to say the supercharge, MACS, NLOS-C's RAP round, and laser ignition system. The cannon itself is superior to the XM297, but the XM297 is an Americanized AS90 or Pzh 2000, so pretty weedy by modern standards.

XM282 was the bigger, badder brother. The main difference being that XM297 has a shorter barrel and a different breechblock, and accommodates water cooling. I believe they have the same 28 liter volume breech. XM297 might be have a smaller volume (25) though since it was only intended to go ~40 kms.

Active cooling isn't necessary with PGMs.

Neither is the little shell tracking radar, although I'm not sure the Crusader radar would work for a 70 km's range piece anyway lol.

The CEP would be gigantic either way. A lot of the stupider things on Crusader were focused on firing large quantities of ICM cargo shells like it's 1991 because the Artillery Branch didn't realize that Excalibur and PGK were coming in about 20 years and would soon obsolete mass fires entirely. It's kind of like how F-15E has a lot of low level navigation-attack equipment that is no longer used due to JDAM: useless junk these days.

e: I was wrong, the XM282 has a sliding wedge breech now (like the M256 120mm). The original '80's one was a interrupted screw with a percussion cap (like M109's gun) and the current has a metal stub case obturator with a powder pad. Probably a development thing since most of the time will be spent running factories up rather than making the design (like all things) and the supercharge is high energy. A non-obturating sliding wedge is what M256 already uses, and an obturated wedge design (like AS90 or XM297) would take too much time to develop to fit to the breech of M282.

Crusader was also a low energy baby howitzer compared to XM1299 in all honesty. A slightly faster shooting Pzh 2000 built to spit ICMs.

XM1299 is built to clap the cheeks of stuff like G7 and Coalition-SV with sniper rifle accuracy and orbital targeting.

Imperial Guard versus Tau to put it in board game terms.

 

[jsport]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA305127.pdf

Understanding the task may be a Manhattan Project like undertaking, and other budget priorities will need to take a back seat, the Army should realize Regenerative Liquid Propellant Guns (RLPG) must be looked into again.
If SLRC or genuine future SPH are to be realized by the 2030s and prevail in the 2050s
previous RLPG issues need to be resolved w/ modern material science and hopefully some surviving RLPG development specialists assistance.

ii. Gun Demonstrations Subcaliber tests were ended in November 1989 when a burst of 10 rounds fired at a rate of 6 rounds per minute was demonstrated in a 30mm laboratory fixture. More than 3,000 rounds were fired from six 30mm fixtures over a five-year period. Testing supported basic concept and Interior Ballistics (JJB) model development, seal design, prove out of an LP igniter, and parametric analysis of the injection orifice and damper. Scaling of ballistic parameters was verified in 125 firings with a 105mm fixture when these tests ended in March 1988. The 155mm LP Gun #1 was first fired in July 1988 and was the world's largest caliber LP gun to be developed and fired. The gun was a single shot laboratory which required a change in hardware configuration in order to effect a change in zone. Before completing tests in September1990,295 rounds were fired, demonstrating full caliber ballistic control, excellent velocity, and uniformity at zones 2, 5,7 and 8. For example, at zone 8, a velocity of 694 m/s was demonstrated. Also, a velocity uniformity of 0.24 % SD was demonstrated in 10 consecutive shots. The same pistons, valves, and seals developed through parametric firings of the gun were later incorporated into the design of LP Gun #2. More importantly, empirical verification of the IB model was obtained. This proved scaling and allowed use of the model for design and prediction. The IB model matches empirical pressures to within 10% and empirical velocities to within 1%.

The 155mm LP Gun #2 was first fired in July 1990 and has been fired 444 times. The LP Gun #2 is a fully automated gun, designed to allow operator selection of any zone from 1 to 14.2 liters. Incorporating an LP-based ignition train, the gun is capable of sequencing through 3 rounds at 6 rounds per minute. Muzzle velocities from 390 to 940 m/s (2102.72 mph) have been demonstrated, as well as a fill rate of 10 liters per second and a fill accuracy of better than 0.1 weight %. Weighing in at 8,200 pounds, the LP Gun #2 assembly weighs significantly less that the 15,300- pound LP Gun #1, despite the fact that LP Gun #1 has 37 inches of less barrel length. Under a project partially funded by GE Independent Research and Development (IR&D), the LP Gun #2 was originally scheduled for integration into a retrofitted Ml09 vehicle. This project, however, came to a stop due to delays caused by three equipment failures. Two of these failures, an igniter body and a static ring seal, were attributable to material fatigue. The third failure, an incident involving 3 liters of LP in the metering device of the fill system, resulted in the loss of the fill system and much of the electronic control equipment. The incident occurred during a post firing compliance check (3 minutes after shot #99) and involved compression initiation of a 40% air, 60% LP mixture in the metering device. Air inadvertently entered the metering device by back flow through a line isolation valve. These failures resulted in an unrecoverable four-month slip in the test and evaluation program, and a stop work on the integration project. The gun resumed firing on 27 July 1991 and completed a 10-round group for velocity uniformity at minimum charge (i.e., 1.5 liters). A 0.53 % SD in muzzle velocity was achieved at an average velocity of 374 m/s.

The next incident occurred on 3 May 1994 during the firing of the Martin Marietta Defense System (MMDS) ATD-1 at the Malta Test Station, Malta, NY. ATD-1 Test Shot 30 was intended to be the first shot in a series to demonstrate a two-round burst firing at Zone 5 (6.7 Liters nominal, actual 6.84) with an optional third round. There was an unusually loud noise at the time of the gun firing, loss of connection to test cell electronics, yellow-brown smoke, and a second loud noise 10-15 minutes later. There were no injuries to personnel; but there was extensive damage to the breech assembly and the propellant handling system. The most likely causes for the failures were inadequate ignition/puddle injection and timing, injection orifice geometry, and fill valves. This incident should not be confused with an unrelated liquid storage tank incident (explosion) which occurred during an engineering design test at elevated temperature of an Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD) storage tank at the Malta Test Facility on the following day.

The RLPG #2 shot 417 incident occurred in August 1994 resulting in extensive damages, but no injuries. The majority of the root cause analysis effort was conducted from 10 August 1994 to 2 September 1994 (a test readiness review which determined the probable cause of findings and risk mitigation techniques proved sufficient to continue RLPG #2 Milestone I testing). The probable cause was either that sensitized LP captive from previous shots ignited in the LP reservoir when contacted by neat LP or that a hot spot, due to seal failure, was created in the LP reservoir due to heating or galling chip formation during fill.

Technology Issues There are pressure oscillations at high frequency (50 KHz) and low energy instabilities in the combustion regions of the RLPG. The major concern associated with pressure oscillations is the transmission of a coherent impulse through the base of the projectile and an adverse impact on the reliability of sensitive projectile and fuze components. There is no data to support concerns in the areas of wear and decoppering which may reduce the severity of barrel wear. The propellant is moderately toxic with a systemic effect of classic nitrate poisoning, which results in a rise in methemoglobin levels and a reduction in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. These effects are generally reversible with or without an antidote. An LP exposure is not insidious although skin irritation will accompany an exposure. The resupply vehicle holds many advantages for the storage and shipment of LP. Contamination avoidance'and enhanced survivability are just two. However, the final package has not been designed and the impacts of this package on an insensitive munitions assessment and hazard classification are unknown. These impacts can, in the final analysis, strongly influence the logistics and cost of LP. Based on small scale tests, including assessment of impact on indigenous plant and animal life, there is no known environmental hazard associated with LP. However, the effect of large scale spills is unknown. LP will not persist in most soil and water conditions due to its pH sensitivity, and in a variety of tests, has proven not to be a carcinogen. However, the same concerns with conventional ammonium nitrate fertilizers and their impact on potable water supplies also hold true for LP.

 

[isayyo2]

@jsport

Unfortunately the Rand links in post 45 & 46 are dead ends. But here is the whole report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR930.pdf

 

[Ironmiked]

Son of Crusader?​

​

M1299 howitzer - The Extended Range Cannon Artillery program was designed to produce a self-propelled howitzer system with an improved range and rate of fire compared to the existing M109A7 howitzer, in response to developments of Russian and Chinese artillery systems, which had become capable of outranging American systems.​

During tests conducted in 2018, the M777 howitzer was able to double its range through the use of higher energy propellant and rocket-assisted projectiles; hitting targets over 37 mi (60 km) away. Using the same principles, the Extended Range Cannon Artillery was developed. BAE Systems was given a $45 million contract in 2019 to incorporate the ERCA's cannon into a M109 chassis, which was unveiled at that year's Association for the United States Army.

Increased range and accuracy is accomplished by having a longer barrel, at 58 calibers long, and by using the XM1113 rocket-assisted artillery shell. In 2020, the ERCA successfully hit a target 43 mi (69 km) away, which is over twice the range typically achieved by an M777 using the same round.

According to the United States Army, the howitzer was to be completed in 2021 and undergo operational assessment in 2023.[9] It is expected to be fitted with an autoloader in 2025, which could increase its rate of fire from 3 to 10 rounds per minute

​

The M1299 is armed with a new 155 mm L/58 calibre long (a 9.1 m gun tube) XM907 gun designed by Benét Laboratories that will fire the XM1113 rocket-assisted round. This will give a range of over 70 km – much greater than the 38 km (24 mi) of the M109A7 Paladin. When fitted an autoloader will allow rates of fire of up to 10 rounds per minute. Originally the autoloader was planned to carry 31 rounds and be in service by 2024, but as designed it was too large for the vehicle, so it was reduced to a 23-round capacity for better weight, center of gravity, and "onboard kills". ​

 

[Colonial-Marine]

What was the gun on the Crusader for comparison? 52 caliber length? Maneuvering that 58 caliber one safely in transit must be a pain.

Do they have GPS guided versions of DPICM ammo for these or just unitary HE (Excalibur)?

 

[TomS]

Do they have GPS guided versions of DPICM ammo for these or just unitary HE (Excalibur)?

The US has entirely retired DPICM because none of it meets the <1% dud rate requirement. They looked at the M999 from Israel a few years ago as part of the same C-DAEM program that bought BONUS, but it didn't go anywhere.

Right now there is Excalibur, couple of variations of conventional HE with Precision Guidance Kit, and the BONUS sensor-fuzed munitions (and maybe some things I'm forgetting). ERCA will also have the new HE-RAP and HE-Base Bleed shells. I'd expect that Long-Range PGK will become pretty close to standard but I haven't seen it confirmed for the RAP and BB rounds. No mention of ICM at all these days.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'll admit I find that a bit of a worrisome development, perhaps because I spent my youth also reading about the utility of DPICM and particularly MLRS blanketing a whole area with it. Accurate GPS guided HE shells are great and all but I can imagine a lot of scenarios where the fix on target isn't *that* good.

 

[TomS]

I'll admit I find that a bit of a worrisome development, perhaps because I spent my youth also reading about the utility of DPICM and particularly MLRS blanketing a whole area with it. Accurate GPS guided HE shells are great and all but I can imagine a lot of scenarios where the fix on target isn't *that* good.

Hmm, I may actually be mistaken on this. Looks liek the policy to eliminate DPICM was suspended in 2019--not sure if it's been reinstated. And I'm not sure if 155mm DPICM is still around anyway.

Here's What You Need to Know About the US Military's New Cluster Munition Policy

It's been hard to find a middle ground between legitimate military requirements and real humanitarian concerns.

www.thedrive.com

 

[isayyo2]

What was the gun on the Crusader for comparison? 52 caliber length? Maneuvering that 58 caliber one safely in transit must be a pain.

Do they have GPS guided versions of DPICM ammo for these or just unitary HE (Excalibur)?

56 Caliber barrel that was surrounded by a liquid cooled sleeve.

Don't forget SADARM when talking about a DPICM replacement; two submunitions in a 155mm shell, or six in the XM29 Rocket.

XM898 SADARM (Sense and Destroy Armor)

 

[TomS]

What was the gun on the Crusader for comparison? 52 caliber length? Maneuvering that 58 caliber one safely in transit must be a pain.

Do they have GPS guided versions of DPICM ammo for these or just unitary HE (Excalibur)?

56 Caliber barrel that was surrounded by a liquid cooled sleep.

Don't forget SADARM when talking about a DPICM replacement; two submunitions in a 155mm shell, or six in the XM29 Rocket.

XM898 SADARM (Sense and Destroy Armor)

I'm pretty sure SADARM is gone. They only built a few hundred 155mm rounds and 121 of those got used in Iraq in 2003. It never went into full rate production for tube artillery and was never procured in usable quantity in MLRS. In Iraq, it scored 48 vehicle kills for 121 rounds fired (with two submunitions per round), which seems pretty poor to me, especially given the permissive conditions.

BONUS has basically replaced SADARM doing the same thing.

 

[scrubhead]

Went on USAHEC, again, and found some more old presentations. RIP Crusader, too good for this Rumsfeld ridden world.

Crusader Program Overview

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/285371/20183164MN001060.pdf

[PRESENTATION] CRUSADER

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/440309/20181882MNBT1036346679F340492I005.pdf

PRESENTATION REGARDING CRUSADER

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/291340/20183164MN001894.pdf

[INFORMATION PAPER REGARDING CRUSADER]

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/440312/20181882MNBT1036346679F340492I008.pdf

[BRIEFING SLIDES] CRUSADER THE ARMY XXI FIREPOWER REVOLUTION

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/285365/20183164MN001054.pdf

Also:

The cancellation of Crusader : a study in the dynamics of decision-making / by James L. Davis.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA414123.pdf

[REPORT] 1999 ARMY MODERNIZATION PLAN

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/285386/20183164MN001075.pdf

Spoiler

Edit, found some more. Some have the same slides as some above, though much clearer and in colour, will remove some old screenshots and replace with the better ones and add more.

[PRESENTATION REGARDING WHY CRUSADER]

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/285284/20183164MN003750.pdf

[REPORT] WHY DO WE NEED CRUSADER NOW THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A SOVIET THREAT WITH ATTACHMENTS

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1518708/20210001MNBT1036355640F0000000372474I006.pdf

[READ AHEAD REGARDING CRUSADER OVERARCHING INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAM REVIEW WITH ATTACHMENTS]

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/259232/20183164MN002064.pdf

20183164MN003749.pdf [PRESENTATION REGARDING CRUSADER: DECISIVE FIREPOWER FOR THE ARMY'S VISION]

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/285283/20183164MN003749.pdf

 

[isayyo2]

Went on USAHEC, again, and found some more old presentations. RIP Crusader, too good for this Rumsfeld ridden world.

Thanks for sharing! The pre 9/11 and Army After Next (AAN) era had some great programs unfortunately eaten by FCS and GWOT. First time seeing an A1 and A2 growth variants described in great detail. Active Protection and an ETC mount on Crusader would have been wild!

 

[Forest Green]

Hmm, I may actually be mistaken on this. Looks liek the policy to eliminate DPICM was suspended in 2019--not sure if it's been reinstated. And I'm not sure if 155mm DPICM is still around anyway.

Here's What You Need to Know About the US Military's New Cluster Munition Policy

It's been hard to find a middle ground between legitimate military requirements and real humanitarian concerns.

www.thedrive.com

It would appear that it is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1676887815785705472

View: https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1676887815785705472?s=20

 

[TomS]

Hmm, I may actually be mistaken on this. Looks liek the policy to eliminate DPICM was suspended in 2019--not sure if it's been reinstated. And I'm not sure if 155mm DPICM is still around anyway.

It would appear that it is.

There isn't a lot of clarity here. It's been reported back in March that Ukraine has asked for (at least) two different types of cluster munitions from the US -- 155mm DPICM rounds and Mk 20 Rockeyes, which they intend to disassemble and use the submunitions as drone mini-munitions.

Exclusive: Ukraine seeks US cluster bombs to adapt for drone use - lawmakers

Ukraine has broadened a request for controversial cluster bombs from the United States to include a weapon that it wants to cannibalize to drop the anti-armor bomblets it contains on Russian forces from drones, according to two U.S. lawmakers.

www.reuters.com

It's not clear which of these the US might be approving. And even if we do send 155mm DPICM, it might just be in lieu of disposal (like so much of what we've sent.)

 

[Forest Green]

It would be useful for trench clearance though, as well as clearing forests and treelines, or convoy attack, or taking out short-range air defences....

 

[TomS]

It would be useful for trench clearance though, as well as clearing forests and treelines, or convoy attack, or taking out short-range air defences....

Useful, sure. Also dangerous to friendly troops and civilians. It's not a simple decision.

It does seem to be 155mm DPICM that is on the table, but as I thought, it's war reserve ammo that we can't even use ourselves except in extremis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/06/biden-cluster-bombs-ukraine/

 

[jsport]

Brimstone Guided Missile - Think Defence

Brimstone is a potent and precision-guided anti-armour missile that arms RAF Typhoons and Protectors

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

The parachute deploys and the projectile spun in a so-called ‘nutation mode’ that allows the sensor to seek out targets on its descent, before firing the EFP at the top of any vehicles in the zone of view.

Need to bring back the Damocles concept

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA322530.pdf

pg7
HIMARS/SADARM: Multipurpose launcher with a 6-MLRS(multiple-launch rocket system) rocket pod; each rocket contains six sense-and-destroy armor, a multimode sensor, and shoot-to-kill smart munitions

HIMARS/Damocles: Multipurpose launcher with 6-MLRS rocket pod; each rocket contains three advanced concept, large footprint hit-to-kill smart munitions with target recognition capability

 

[Forest Green]

Useful, sure. Also dangerous to friendly troops and civilians. It's not a simple decision.

It does seem to be 155mm DPICM that is on the table, but as I thought, it's war reserve ammo that we can't even use ourselves except in extremis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/06/biden-cluster-bombs-ukraine/

Russia has already saturated the area with mines anyway, so the additional risk posed is now negligible. I believe that's why the decision was taken.

Smart weapons are nice but more expensive.

 

[TeourdBeourglaer]

Hmm, I may actually be mistaken on this. Looks liek the policy to eliminate DPICM was suspended in 2019--not sure if it's been reinstated. And I'm not sure if 155mm DPICM is still around anyway.

Here's What You Need to Know About the US Military's New Cluster Munition Policy

It's been hard to find a middle ground between legitimate military requirements and real humanitarian concerns.

www.thedrive.com

It's still in stock...
M864 DPICM still around...

 

[Forest Green]

It's still in stock...
M864 DPICM still around...

The First Photo of American M864 Cluster Projectiles in the Armed Forces of Ukraine Has Appeared | Defense Express

The time from the announcement of the cluster munitions transfer ofrom the USA to Ukraine to the moment their first photo appeared in the Armed Forces of Ukraine was only 17 days

en.defence-ua.com